K.I.S.S. Rule Proposal

Andy’s Keep-It-Simple-Sweet proposed NFMA rules are contained in the following posts together with associated commentary: K.I.S.S. Part I K.I.S.S. Part II K.I.S.S. Rule Language, Purpose and Principles K.I.S.S. Vegetation Management and Timber Harvest K.I.S.S. Assessment of New Information and Changed Circumstances K.I.S.S. Inventories and Interdisciplinary Process K.I.S.S. Public Participation K.I.S.S. Plant and Animal Diversity K.I.S.S. …

Continue reading ‘K.I.S.S. Rule Proposal’ »

K.I.S.S. Maps

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, …

Continue reading ‘K.I.S.S. Maps’ »

K.I.S.S. in Rule Form Conclusion

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 …

Continue reading ‘K.I.S.S. in Rule Form Conclusion’ »

K.I.S.S. in Rule Form, Part 8

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 …

Continue reading ‘K.I.S.S. in Rule Form, Part 8’ »

K.I.S.S. in Rule Form, Part 7

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 …

Continue reading ‘K.I.S.S. in Rule Form, Part 7’ »

K.I.S.S. in Rule Form, Part 6

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 …

Continue reading ‘K.I.S.S. in Rule Form, Part 6’ »

K.I.S.S. in Rule Form, Part 4

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 …

Continue reading ‘K.I.S.S. in Rule Form, Part 4’ »

K.I.S.S. in Rule Form, Part 3

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 …

Continue reading ‘K.I.S.S. in Rule Form, Part 3’ »

K.I.S.S. in Rule Form, Part 2

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 …

Continue reading ‘K.I.S.S. in Rule Form, Part 2’ »