The Smokey Wire : National Forest News and Views
Community Sourced, Shared and Supported
Maps are planning’s most ubiquitous and useful tool. Maps put place in the center of the planning conversation. It’s no surprise that all of the place-based collaborative processes use maps as their exclusive planning tool. No linear programming optimizing models; no ecological forecasting models; in fact, no complex models at all are used in collaborative, … Read more
In contrast to the Forest Service’s official planning rule blog, the software that supports this blog is actually useful. The WordPress search feature lets readers aggregate onto one screen blog entries that share a common word and turn that search into a URL. For example, here are the K.I.S.S. blog entries (read from bottom to … Read more
The proposed K.I.S.S. rules are based on the premise that the Forest Service is revising forest plans, not promulgating new plans from scratch. This premise implies a rebuttable presumption that the existing plan’s provisions are satisfactory. NFMA supports this approach to plan revision. For example, NFMA requires the Forest Service review timberland suitability decisions “at … Read more
K.I.S.S. in Rule Form, Part 7 Keeping-it-simple-sweet means omitting matters from the NFMA rules that are satisfactorily covered by statute. For example, a section of NFMA (paragraph i) separate from the planning rule sections (paragraphs g and h) requires that permits (e.g., special-use permits) and contracts (e.g., stewardship, sale of timber) “for the use and … Read more
No NFMA provision has transformed (and bedeviled) national forest management more than the law’s mandate to “provide for diversity of plant and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of the specific land area.” 16 U.S.C. § 1604(g)(3)(B). The consensus view of the federal courts (citations upon request) is that NFMA’s diversity language is … Read more
In drafting these K.I.S.S. model rules, I look first at what the original 1979 and subsequent 1982 rules have to say on each subject. I use the 1979 rules because I have a ragged paper copy of that day’s federal register with the rules in it. This heirloom was given to me when I was … Read more
After a day listening to ecologists talk about landscape models, I am further inspired to urge planning rules that keep-it-simple-sweet. There are three kinds of government rules. Most government rules regulate the behavior of private concerns, e.g., point-source pollution and building codes. A few regulate the behavior of other government agencies, e.g., Endangered Species Act … Read more
In an agency beset with feelings of process predicament and analysis paralysis, it would be cruel punishment indeed to suggest NFMA rules that add more analysis and process to the mix. The new rules should also be durable; that is, not chase after every cause de jour (e.g., climate change) or impose inflexible, one-size-fits-all analysis … Read more
Now for some nitty-gritty. Here’s language that fleshes out the first task of plan revision: “(1) Decide the vegetation management and timber harvest program, including the proportion of probable methods of tree removal.” Most of the proposed rule is taken verbatim from the NFMA itself. The biggest change from the status quo is that vegetation … Read more
Our task is to write regulations required by NFMA. Having proposed a framework in previous posts (K.I.S.S. and K.I.S.S. II), it’s time to put rubber to the road. Here’s the introductory framework. What have I missed? 36 CFR 219.1: Purpose and principles. (a) The rules in this subpart set forth the process for revising land … Read more