Warning: Fuzzy Concept in Regulation- “Ecological Integrity”- IV- After the “AND”

Fortunately for everyone this will be my last post on the concept of “Ecological Integrity”as described in the NFMA Rule. Perhaps unfortunately, not my last post on the planning directives. Other guest posts on the directives are welcome. Wading through the directives was a lonely business, and thanks much to the others on this blog …

Continue reading ‘Warning: Fuzzy Concept in Regulation- “Ecological Integrity”- IV- After the “AND”’ »

Planning Rule Directives Comments- New 15 Day Comment Period

I picked this up from the Teton Valley news here. If you thought the 400 pages or more of directives were too daunting to review (and who didn’t, really?), you can now get pointed in a direction to check out certain parts, by the other comments in the reading room here… I tried to check …

Continue reading ‘Planning Rule Directives Comments- New 15 Day Comment Period’ »

Warning: Fuzzy Concept in Regulation- “Ecological Integrity”- III- Deja Vu From 2000

Thinking about the ecological integrity and NRV reminded me of my comments on the 2000 (yes!) planning rule. (Aren’t computer searches grand!) Caveat: at this time of my career, I had not worked in planning or NEPA. Also I was working at OSTP at the White House when the 2000 rule was clearing, and OMB …

Continue reading ‘Warning: Fuzzy Concept in Regulation- “Ecological Integrity”- III- Deja Vu From 2000’ »

Warning: Fuzzy Concept in Regulation- “Ecological Integrity”- II

So what is this “ecosystem integrity” that we are now requiring in the 2012 Planning Rule? Just looking at it, we see the word “ecosystem” with a value word “integrity”. Could this be an expression of what Bob Lackey calls “normative science”? Sure enough, several papers have been written critiquing the concept. You can do …

Continue reading ‘Warning: Fuzzy Concept in Regulation- “Ecological Integrity”- II’ »

Warning: Fuzzy Concept in Regulation- “Ecological Integrity”- I

It’s interesting that in procrastinating on working on reviewing the Planning Directives, I found and posted MUSYA. Let me quote it again here: ‘‘Multiple use’’ means: The management of all the various renewable surface resources of the national forests so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the needs of the …

Continue reading ‘Warning: Fuzzy Concept in Regulation- “Ecological Integrity”- I’ »

How ‘Bout Those Planning Directives? Comments Due April 29

One thing that I’ve noticed since I retired is that when I got paid (even though I did most reading in the evenings and did not mark “Free Time” on my timesheet.. True Confessions!) to do certain things, I didn’t mind donating my time to write about them on a blog. I have to admit …

Continue reading ‘How ‘Bout Those Planning Directives? Comments Due April 29’ »

When a Preservationist Joins a Collaborative Group

Without making any value judgements here, I find this collection of meeting summaries to be fascinating. Chad Hanson is a full member of the Dinkey Collaborative Group, working to create a better future for the Sierra National Forest. It will be very interesting to see how this process will evolve, with Hanson’s input solidly in …

Continue reading ‘When a Preservationist Joins a Collaborative Group’ »

Collaboration and NEPA and the Power to Decide: Who Still Has the Reins?

I spent the last week or so in D.C. (see photo above), struggling with various “free” wi-fi’s that didn’t work. I had a carefully crafted post on collaboration and NEPA that I lost when, as I was typing away, the connection drifted away. Even while I was writing this post, WordPress logged me out. Anyway, …

Continue reading ‘Collaboration and NEPA and the Power to Decide: Who Still Has the Reins?’ »