Table Of Content

S Montana* Dept* of 634*92 Natural Resources N7sfLi and Conservation 1996 State forest APPX Land management plan v. 2 MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION STATE FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT APPENDIXES STATE DOCUMENTS COLLECTION 02 .Jill 1996 HELENA, MONTANA 59620 1 MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION STATE FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDIXES TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT MAY 1996 15, Order of Appendixes: Appendix WRK - How the State Forest Land Management Plan Works MNG Appendix - Managing the Plan Appendix LGL Legal Framework Appendix SCP Scoping Appendix SCN - Plausible Output Scenarios Appendix RMS - Resource Management Standards Appendix VEG - Vegetation/Forest Health WLD Appendix - Wildlife Appendix FSH Fisheries Methodology Appendix ECN - Economic Assessment Appendix RSP - Responses to Public Comments on the SFLMP Draft Environmental Impact Statement mM'm -- m. : ::c ;> : ",v'•• ,'*V • ;» ' •• '•-' *, - ; .. "f ' 1/e V • - ' ' : . • : •:. Id 1 : itJ ; • : , e • WRK APPENDIX HOW THE STATE FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN WORKS THE NATURE OF A PROGRAMMATIC PLAN The Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) requires agencies to draft and review plans fortheir administrative programs as well as for site-specific proposals. A programmatic plan is one that establishes a philosophy within which an agency will implement its management programs. Using the MEPA process, we have prepared seven alternative programmatic plans, or administrative philosophies. The final alternative and resulting State Forest Land Management Plan (Plan) will be the strategy that guides management decisions statewide. Because of its philosophic nature, the Plan will not tell our managers what to decide; it will help them know how to weigh various factors in making a decision. It will tell us what to emphasize and where to look first when allocating resources. However, it will not prevent us from considering other options which are also consistent with the primary philosophy. The Plan will define DNRC's forest management policy in terms of what assumptions we make about the future, and what priorities we use when we make decisions. The plan will not allocate any land for specific use. Instead, it will focus our attention on certain types of use, or on a certain stance to take in deciding how to allocate the use. This focus will make certain land-use allocations more likely under some of the alternatives than under others; however, a separate, site-specific MEPA assessment process will decide each actual allocation. THE SCHOOL TRUST MANDATE All ofthe seven draft alternative plans have the goal of managing state lands to secure the greatest long-term income for the school trust. The different approaches represent differing beliefs and assumptions as to the best way to meet the trust mandate. Some people believe we should manage the land intensively for many products. Others think we should emphasize a single use. And some argue that we should minimize current intervention and allow nature to preserve our future options in its own way. Some assume that future values will far outweigh any returns we could realize now, and that current intervention would eliminate valuable future options. Others assume that relative values will remain pretty much the same as in the past, and/or believe that intervention now need not foreclose important future options. We The range of alternatives we have drafted is meant to fairly consider all of these views. have estimated the economic and environmental effects of each alternative. DNRC will decide which one offers our best chance to satisfy the trust mandate while managing state forest lands according to high professional standards and giving fair consideration to concerns of the public. DNRC STATE FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN FEIS HOW THE PLAN RELATES TO SITE-SPECIFIC DECISIONS AND ALLOCATING LAND-USE The plan will become one of four major elements in our overall planning process. The other three are (1) the legislature's laws and budgets; (2) DNRC's Biennial Budget Program Implementation Process (BBPI); and (3) Field Operation's annual work plan. The legislature expresses the wishes of Montana's citizens in the form of laws and budgets, which in turn will shape both DNRC's chosen programmatic plan and each BBPI. The BBPI is an agreement with the legislature on how to allocate finances. It tells us our annual goals and objectives and what budget and staff we have to meet them. Field operations managers will fit three elements together to draft a list of potential projects: the philosophy and goals of the Plan; the biennial plan's goals, budget, and staffing; and their knowledge of potential uses of state lands. They will then use these potential projects to set the MEPA BBPI's annual objectives. Potential projects will be scheduled for review. At this point, DNRC will use the Plan to see what resource management standards the projects will need to meet, and to determine whether any of the projects would be exempt from MEPA review (e.g., categorical exclusions). For projects that require MEPA review, we will present the analysis and decision making process in a MEPA document that shows the ties among the proposed land use allocations, the State Forest Land Management Plan, and the BBPI's goals and objectives. During the year, field operations managers will provide information on what is working and what is not working back to the Trust Land Management Division staff through the BBPI process. This could result in modifying the plan, if the Forest Management Bureau Chief believes the plan is out of date in some way, or asking the legislature to change laws or budgets if the Forest Management Bureau Chief believes DNRC needs such action to properly implement the Plan. IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN DNRC will implement the new State Forest Land Management Plan gradually. Some changes DNRC would take place almost immediately, while others might take two to five years, or more. could begin significant changes in land use by modifying traditional uses, followed by mixing new and old uses, and eventually by discontinuing some traditional uses altogether. For example, we might gradually adjust or phase out existing leases and licenses as renewal dates come up. As DNRC continues to implement the new plan, we would undoubtedly discover features of the plan that were not working well, problems that we had not adequately addressed, and issues that we had not anticipated at the time we developed the Plan. DNRC's plan management strategy (see Appendix MNG) is meant to be flexible enough to accommodate changes as we need them, yet require a sufficiently rigorous process to protect against arbitrary departures from the philosophy of the Plan. Regardless of which alternative is chosen, we will have a programmatic plan that defines DNRC's intentions, resource management standards, and preferred methods for generating revenue for DNRC Montana's schools. By having an underlying, guiding philosophy, all levels of personnel will be able to make forest management decisions consistent with a single plan that supports Department goals and has been through public review. WRK - 2 APPENDIX MNG MANAGING THE PLAN ROUTINE MONITORING Beginning in the year 2000, and every five years thereafter, the Forest Management Bureau Chief would make a written report to the Director of the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation and the Trust Land Management Division Administrator on the current status of Plan implementation and effectiveness, including a recommendation on the need for significant changes to the Plan. WHEN A CHANGE REQUIRED AND WHAT THE PROCEDURE? IS IS The Plan could be reviewed and changed at any time for one or more of the following reasons: 1) new legislation is passed that is not compatible with the chosen alternative; 2) new direction from the State Board of Land Commissioners; or 3) the Forest Management Bureau Chiefjudges that original assumptions supporting the Plan no longer apply. Minor changes or additions could be made as long as they were compatible with the overall Plan. Cumulative minor changes could result in a programmatic review of the entire Plan. Procedure for Making Changes 1) The Forest Management Bureau would be responsible for drafting changes. 2) Draft changes would be sent to all Area Managers for review and comments. 3) The Forest Management Bureau Chief would be responsible for determining the MEPA appropriate level of review. UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD WE BE ABLE TO CHANGE MANAGEMENT DIRECTION WITHOUT CHANGING THE PLAN? The Forest Management Bureau Chief could change management direction without changing the Plan if the proposed change did not violate the fundamental intent as reflected in the Plan and supporting EIS. For example, as our resource specialists became aware of new information through their ongoing review of scientific literature, we might modify our biodiversity strategy without amending the plan as long as, in the judgment of the Bureau Chief, the changes remained consistent with our original intent. HOW WOULD WE MAKE THIS "PROGRAMMATIC PLAN" USABLE IN THE FIELD? Our implementation training process will include opportunities for field managers to test the Plan against various situations they expect to face. We expect that interpretation of the Plan will be an on-going process, especially during the first few years. Interpretation would be through continuing dialogue between field personnel, managers, and the Forest Management Bureau. DNRC STATE FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN FE1S HOW WILL WE IMPLEMENT THE PLAN? Once the Plan has been adopted, the following implementation measures would be taken: DNRC 1) staffwill provide initial and on-going training and orientation. Initial training will give our staff the opportunity to have their questions on interpretation and implementation answered immediately. At that time, we will also explain the process field employees would use to get future Plan implementation questions answered. In addition, the training will include discussion of the authority of different administrative levels in Plan implementation. 2) The Department's Biennial Budget Program Implementation (BBPI) process is used to integrate budgets and program objectives. This process will also be used to ensure that the Plan continues to be usable by the field. The goals and program direction outlined in the BBPI process are updated each biennium, at which time we recommend modifications to the legislature on proposed budgets and staffing. These updates would reflect management direction provided in the Plan. Program objectives and work plans would then be updated to be consistent with the new BBPI . The Forest Management Bureau would meet every year with all the Land Offices to revise program objectives. At that time, they would agree on the objectives that best met the intent of the Plan. They would also discuss the overall ability of the Land Offices to comply with the Plan. Although discussion about Plan implementation should go on throughout the year, this review will guarantee that Plan implementation is reviewed at least annually. 3) We will notify the public, DNRC lessees/licensees, and other state land users when we begin Plan implementation. HOW WILL WE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE PLAN? The following measures would be used to ensure that the Plan is being followed by DNRC staff and field personnel: 1) During our annual review, we would revise Program goals and objectives as necessary to remain in compliance with the Plan. 2) We would monitor individual resources, based on resource management standards specified in the Plan, and take the prescribed corrective actions when problems occurred. We would also ensure that prescribed corrective actions were included in contracts and implemented. MNG-2 3 APPENDIX MNG HOW WOULD DNRC RESPOND TO THE POSSIBLE NEED TO MODIFY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT STANDARDS? 1) When Trust Land Management Division staff or field personnel identified a resource or Department activity that may require the development of a new or modified resource management standard, they would submit a proposal to the Forest Management Bureau. 2) The Forest Management Bureau would assess the need to modify a resource management standard, and prepare a recommendation to the Forest Management Bureau Chief. The recommendation would consider the following questions: a) How widespread is the issue, resource or activity? Is the issue relevant only on a given Land Office or Unit, or does affect several Land Offices or a large it share of the state land base? b) Can the issue or activity be addressed consistently on the majority of state forested lands? c) Does the issue or activity have long-term implications, or is it of limited duration? d) Is the issue most appropriately addressed in a resource management standard? e) To what extent is the resource management standard impacting our ability to make management decisions or to derive income from trust lands? f) Is there sufficient information or accepted procedure to support adding or modifying a resource management standard? g) How would the modification of the resource management standard affect workloads and our ability to manage other resources? 3) Upon approval from the Forest Management Bureau Chief, the Forest Management Bureau would develop the resource management standard, using the most appropriate expertise, recent data and information, and professional representation. MNG- > * . \ v; > : : i V ,^ . ; • Digitized by the Internet Archive 2016 in https://archive.org/details/stateforestland1996mont_0