Time for a Bold Statement?

It’s starting to look like “A New Century of Forest Planning” may ultimately come to refer to the hundred years or so it takes to get a new planning rule implemented. Will the “Hundred Years War” come to signify the length of the timber wars?

Way back in the 1900’s, Chief Dale Robertson was convinced that a bold policy statement was necessary to address the big concern of the day– clearcutting of national forests.  In a policy letter (not the best way to make policy, but a lot quicker than rule-making), Dale established that clearcuttting would no longer be the primary means of regeneration on national forest lands. There were howls of protest from silviculturists and tree-improvement specialists. There were exceptions for species like Jack Pine and Sand Pine.   There certainly was no end to the timber wars, but it was a start down a path towards armistice.

Getting a new planning rule implemented will take more than just agreement about the wording of the rule.  It’s going to require an environment that will insure the intent of that wording can be carried out. Perhaps now is an appropriate time for the current Chief to make some bold statements.

My suggestions are:

1.       Declare that restoration of ecosystem resiliency is not just an important part of the mission; it’s the most important part.

Management actions would be all about producing desired ecological conditions in order to restore and maintain resilient ecosystems and help protect human communities from undesirable things like intense wildfires in the wrong places or downstream impacts from deteriorating road systems.  There would be no need to calculate ASQ or argue about “lands unsuitable for timber production”. (There may still be a need to “zone” for other uses.) “Below-cost” timber sales would no longer be a meaningful calculation.  And, if the South is any indication, a lot more timber would become available for local mills.

2.       Declare that planning at all levels will be a truly open and collaborative process.

All phases of planning would be “open source” with draft documents and supporting information easily accessible on-line.  Raw data from inventories and monitoring as well as interpreted data, maps, and models would be open to all. I can’t think of any other policy change that would do more to improve the level of trust among stakeholders.  A side benefit would be a tremendous savings in responding to FOIA requests.

3.       Declare that the Forest Service will commit to a process of establishing a shared vision for the entire agency.

With the National Forest System, Research, and State and Private Forestry all working towards shared goals, using an “all lands” approach, imagine what might be accomplished at landscape scales?  This is the sort of partnership between managers and scientists that will be needed to truly ensure that “best science” is incorporated into decisions at all levels.

Are these declarations really all that bold?  Not really, The Forest Service has been moving in these directions since before Dale Robertson penned his letter.  A clear commitment to these principles might be what’s needed to finally move the National Forest System into the New Century.

4 thoughts on “Time for a Bold Statement?”

  1. The following is intended as a humorus way to make a point.

    RE:
    1. Declare that restoration of ecosystem resiliency is not just an important part of the mission; it’s the most important part.

    Yes! Buffo!!! Who needs all that NFMA and Multiple Use crud. To heck with Congress defining the mission of the USFS! Its high time the agency did it for itself!!!

    Re:
    2. Declare that planning at all levels is a truly open and collaborative process.

    Declare it and it shall be so. Awesome!! Lets do it!!!

    Re:
    3. Declare that the Forest Service will commit to a process of establishing a shared vision for the entire agency.

    Yes again!! Buffo times ten!!!! To heck with Congress!! Bureaucrats Unite!!

    Respectfully submitted. With tongue firmly planted in cheek.
    Brian Hawthorne

    Reply
    • Brian–

      I don’t think that I am proposing anything inconsistent with NFMA or multiple use or that would be inconsistent with the will of Congress as established by law. Yes, NFMA requires some things such as determination of ASQ, but it would essentially become irrelevant. Obviously all of these will require a whole lot more than just declaring it so. (I should have originally said “planning will be” rather than “is”). It would not be simple, easy, or quick to accomplish.

      I’m glad to see that you will be a strong supporter!

      Reply
      • I read number 1 as a desire to “move” the direction (from Congress) toward a more preservationist mission.

        Us multiple use types object to that sort of thing!

        I believe part of the problem with the existing planning, and the problem with the Draft Planning Rule, is precisely that the agency is trying to hard to “move” away from their multiple use mandate.

        I advise caution. If this is really what you mean to do, then don’t be surprised when the response from local communities is to push a whole lot more of these “place based” bills.

        Ecosystem resiliency (whatever the federal courts will determine that to mean) is all well and good, I suppose. However, (plagiarizing from the Quincy Lawsuit):

        The awkward facts are that: (1) modern forests have structures and compositions radically different from historic natural forests; (2) large human populations now occupy forests and/or depend on them for essential commodities and functions, ranging from timber and water to recreation and safety; and (3) both law and regulation provide for human uses that did not exist in the pre-settlement forests. In order to accommodate these awkward facts, the Forest Service must be pro-active in restoring our forests to structures and compositions that are both natural and sustainable, with full regard for both ecological and human necessities.

        Thanks for listening…
        Brian

        Reply
        • Brian,

          I read number 1 as a desire to “move” the direction (from Congress) toward a more preservationist mission.

          That was most certainly not my intent. I think we can and should be harvesting a lot more on many national forests in order to restore resiliency. It’s not just a matter of resiliency being “all well and good”, it’s absolutely essential if we are going to have multiple uses in the long run. I have posted many times before about the management of the National Forests in Mississippi which is all about restoring healthy ecosystems and as a by-product, results in more timber (I think this is still true) commercially harvested than any other national forest.

          The awkward facts are that: (1) modern forests have structures and compositions radically different from historic natural forests; (2) large human populations now occupy forests and/or depend on them for essential commodities and functions, ranging from timber and water to recreation and safety; and (3) both law and regulation provide for human uses that did not exist in the pre-settlement forests. In order to accommodate these awkward facts, the Forest Service must be pro-active in restoring our forests to structures and compositions that are both natural and sustainable, with full regard for both ecological and human necessities.

          I agree with all of these statements, but I don’t find them “awkward”, just true. I believe that if we don’t recognize that ecological sustainability underlies our ability to have economic and social sustainability, then we can never redeem the Congressionally mandated multiple-use responsibilities of the Orgainc Act, MUSY and NFMA.

          Reply

Leave a Comment