Science and the Planning Rule Redux

See this story in the Sacramento Bee:

Critics say Obama abandons science in forest rules

GRANTS PASS, Ore. — The Obama administration’s proposed new rules for protecting clean water and wildlife on the United States’ nearly 200 million acres of national forests goes against the president’s pledge to let science be the guide, conservation groups and two former Clinton administration officials said Monday.

The administration made a “clear commitment” to make conservation policy based on sound science when it took office, said Jane Danowitz of the Pew Environment Group.

“One of the things we are asking for today is simple: Use science to set clear standards,” Danowitz said. “Make sure water and wildlife are protected for generations to come.”

The comments came in a teleconference from Washington, D.C., marking the end of a 90-day public comment period on new rules governing administration of the National Forest Management Act. The U.S. Forest Service expects to come out with final rules by the end of the year.

Also participating was Jamie Rappaport Clark, a Defenders of Wildlife executive and former U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service director. Clark said forest supervisors being given unprecedented discretion under the new rules need strong standards and guidelines to resist the political pressure they regularly face in making decisions on managing their lands.

Jim Furnish, a former deputy chief of the Forest Service, said the proposed rules tell local forest supervisors to consider science but leave them room to ignore science when making decisions on protecting clean water resources, fish and wildlife habitat, and endangered species.

The proposed rules represent another shift to the right on environmental issues for the Obama administration, which recently stood aside as Congress lifted Endangered Species Act protections for wolves in the Rocky Mountains and took steps to ramp up domestic oil production by extending drilling leases in the Gulf of Mexico and off the coast of Alaska.

The 155 national forests and grasslands managed by the Forest Service cover 193 million acres in 42 states and Puerto Rico. They provide about 40 percent of the nation’s clean water and threatened and endangered species habitat.

Balance between industry and conservation in those areas has been tough to find since the existing rules took effect in 1982. The existing rules were the basis for lawsuits that cut logging by more than 80 percent to protect salmon, the northern spotted owl and other fish and wildlife.

Tony Tooke is overseeing development of the rules as Forest Service director of ecosystem management coordination. He said the agency is trying to write rules that will guide a collaborative process based on science and other information sources. It looks forward to improving the rules after reviewing more than 100,000 public comments received, he added.

“There are other important sources of information as well, used in the planning process,” Tooke said. “For example, local indigenous knowledge, public input, agency policies, the results of the monitoring process and the experience of land managers on the ground.”

On national forest policy, the Obama administration came into office supporting protection of undeveloped areas known as roadless areas and payments to rural counties hurt by the loss of logging revenues.

Earlier this year Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said he wanted to break through the logjam of political conflict over forest management by using science to do what is best for the forests.

More than 400 scientists and a bipartisan group of congressmen wrote letters urging Vilsack to also include more specific protections for clean water and wildlife habitat in the rules.

“This policy is probably one of the most important conservation measures I think this administration will ever undertake,” said U.S. Rep. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M.

I have a couple of thoughts on this article:
1) Does it unnecessarily politicize the debate? People like or don’t like the proposed rule across a wide political spectrum. For example, Jim Furnish seems to be called a “Clinton Administration Official”; yet as far as I know he was a career employee in a career position when he retired. Also, “The proposed rules represent another shift to the right on environmental issues for the Obama administration.” What if this article said they represent a faithful response to public comment, or a “shift to the center.” You know what I think about unnecessarily partisanizing public lands debates: it’s a bad idea.

2) I don’t think any of the cited people are scientists, nor students of science and technology studies. The idea that it is more “scientific” to have a policy with one standard from forests in Puerto Rico to Alaska, from New Hampshire to San Diego doesn’t reflect my experience in science.

3) It’s interesting to think about a thought experiment with the same quotes and considering energy policy (another natural resource policy) instead of the planning rule.

For example “One of the things we are asking for today is simple: Use science to determine which sources of energy we use” or

“Governors can consider science but national policies leave them room to ignore science when making decisions on regulating different energy sources in their state.”

and I don’t know if Vilsack really said this:

Earlier this year Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said he wanted to break through the logjam of political conflict over forest management by using science to do what is best for the forests.

But how is that working for the climate science policy – using science to “break through the logjam” (did he really use that word?) ?

4 Comments

  1. “… the proposed rules tell local forest supervisors to consider science but leave them room to ignore science… ”

    Does anyone REALLY think that a Forest Supervisor would “ignore science”?? As always, there are tradeoffs in any decision, or non-decision. That is why we have NEPA laws. Is fear of corruption in an open and transparent process irrational? Will it be a moot point when the Forest Service’s hands are tied, and their options very few? Without new rules on salvage/fire rehabilitation projects, vast snag patches will dominate, providing new challenges and problems down the road.

  2. I find the focus on “forest supervisors” as primary land and resource management decision-makers disgustingly inaccurate. My intent is not to degrade forest supervisors in any sense, nor to belittle their rightful roles as keepers of the day-to-day decisions at that scale in a multi-scale bureaucracy, but rather to simply state that the focus is misplaced.

    Anyone who has ever been embedded in FS culture knows that forest supervisors are simply not empowered to the extent that comments in this article convey–nor to the extent that Forest Service Planning Rules suggest. Anyone who has ever been embedded in FS culture knows that forest supervisors are neither omnipotent (See, e.g. R.W. Behan. 1966.”The Myth of the Omnipotent Forester”, J.For. 64:398-407.), nor omniscient.

    As I’ve stated before, it is time to drop the mythical “three levels of decision making” in the Forest Service. See, e.g. Why Three Planning Levels?

  3. Sharon, in response to your question, I don’t think that Secretary Vilsack ever said “break through the logjam.”
    However, I think this might be the interview with the AP at the time of the draft planning rule’s release that the article references:
    “Rather than responding to the political pressure of the time, it would be much better to say to the scientists, ‘What is the best way to make this forest the most resilient it can be,’” Vilsack told The Associated Press.
    http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/wireStory?id=12887362&page=1

  4. Thanks, Matt. That is a slightly different context. As far as I know, “making the forest the most resilient it can be” is not the statutory context for NF management. Even the word “best” as in “best” way is what we would call a normative and not empirical knowledge claim. I wouldn’t hold anyone including myself to everything I’ve ever said. But even this quote contains brief glimpses of technocracy IMHO.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>