Proposed Rule

Plan for Plans; Rule for Rules

by

Controlled burns are just one of many issues addressed in a proposed rule change in the National Forest Service. (photo Chattahoochee-Oconoee National Forest)
I really liked the “plain Englishness” of this story by Orlando Montoya of Georgia Public Broadcasting.

Forest Land Plans Could Change
By Orlando Montoya

ATLANTA, Ga. —
Controlled burns are just one of many issues addressed in a proposed rule change in the National Forest Service. (photo Chattahoochee-Oconoee National Forest)
National Forest Service officials are considering changing how they manage public land.

The details go by a long name — the Forest System Land Management Planning Rule.

It’s long and complex.

But, it basically tells officials how to plan everything in the national forests — from controlled burns and use of roads and trails — to how to manage wildlife and what factors go into declaring areas off-limits to human activities.

Call it a plan for plans. Or a rule for rules.

And for the first time, the proposal takes into account how forest officials should plan for the effects of climate change.

It’s the first major overhaul of the Forest System Land Management Planning Rule in almost 30 years.

Sarah Francisco of Southern Environmental Law Center says, with more than 800,000 acres in 25 Georgia counties under the rule’s juridiction, it’s critical to get right.

“Each national forest has to have a forest management plan,” Francisco says. “This is the rule that tells the agency what the plans need to consider.”

Fransisco says, her organization applauds most of the proposal, but also has some concerns about it, including a lack of “concrete steps” and “clear standards” that will ensure healthy forests.

But National Forest Service planner Paul Arndt in the Atlanta Regional Office says, specificity isn’t exactly the rule’s aim and actually would tie local hands.

“This is a national rule, so it’s hard to get too specific on things,” Arndt says. “There’s a lot of discretion give to the forest supervisor to look at what is the current situation and what are those local needs and adjust accordingly.”

You can find more details and offer your comments on the proposal by going to this National Forest Service website.

Officials are taking public comments through May 16th.

National Parks, I Mean Forests

by

From TreeHugger.com.  I know the Sierra Club clearly knows the difference, but note that the “Read more” links at the end of the piece all reference national parks. I wonder how many Americans are actually well-informed enough to comment critically on the draft planning rule?

An Opportunity to Protect Our National Forests

by Sarah Hodgdon, Sierra Club on 04.29.11

ozark national forest.jpg The Ozark-St. Francis National Forest in Arkansas. Photo credit: Rhea S. Rylee, U.S. Forest Service.

Don Parks has been involved in protecting national forests since the 1970s. For him, they’re a place to take a nice hike to enjoy nature and relax. His favorite national forest is the Okanogan–Wenatchee because of its variety of forest-types.

Beyond relaxation and exercise, national forests provide a valuable lifeline for all Americans. “National Forest Service lands produce large quantities of domestic water, clean our air, and contain very important wildlife habitat,” said Parks, a lead volunteer for the Sierra Club in Seattle, Washington.

To protect our forests in a rapidly changing world we need to change how we think about forest use and conservation. Forest management policies put in place more than 20 years ago are no longer effective. My favorite national forest is the Pisgah in North Carolina—I can’t imagine not having it around.

Parks has joined many other forest activists in making sure the latest round of national forest management planning is done correctly. Right now the U.S. Forest Service has stepped forward with a landmark opportunity to prepare our national forests for climate change by proposing new protections to manage the water, wildlife, and other natural treasures American families enjoy and depend on.

Parks and many others spoke out for commonsense protections at one of the National Forest Service’s public hearing in Seattle last month. “We want to see the Forest Service manage for climate disruption,” explained Parks.

“We want them to be lighter in their touch – so we’re looking at the importance of wilderness designations and the retention of unroaded lands. These values help build resiliency in the climate changing world.”

Beyond the resiliency for animals and plants, the wildlife, clean water and scenery provided by our forests are crucial to supporting the nation’s $700 billion outdoor recreation economy and the people it employs.

Parks and the Sierra Club know that through working with the public, the forest service can develop a forest policy that safeguards the health, jobs and outdoor heritage of the American people.

Graham Taylor, a Sierra Club Conservation Organizer in the Northwest, said every American should care about how our national forests are managed. “Many Americans live by national forests, or recreate in them – that’s all impacted by how (the Forest Service) manages,” said Taylor.

“The management of our lands in any one aspect can affect all other aspects. Even the littlest decision we can make can have a huge impact.”

Parks sees that, which is why he’s been so active for national forests for several decades. “What happens on public land is a personal matter to me. I have seen to many poor decisions made on our public lands, development such a road building, timber sales, and off-road vehicle abuse. I want the Forest Service to act as true stewards and retain the natural values that make these lands special.”

You can help make sure the Forest Service creates a smart management plan. Take action today to tell the agency that helping natural and human communities adapt to the impacts of climate change should be the Forest Service’s top priority, with forest managers being given clear tasks, standards and guidelines to meet this tremendous challenge.

Read more about national parks:
25 US National Parks Under ‘Grave Threat’ From Climate Change
No Child Left Inside: Economist on National Parks
Are You a National Parks Wiz? (Quiz)

Op-Ed on Planning Rule: Scientists in the Fishbowl

by

This op-ed, in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, reminds me of suggestion I would like to make to all science students (or natural resources, or environment)- and to designers of curricula. I was blessed to have had an excellent course in history of science at UCLA before I started my science degree programs. At the time (70’s) there was also a body of literature on peer review and other aspects of the sociology of science related to the question of why women were not as successful in their careers. If you looked at these papers, the sociological aspects of the scientific enterprise were pretty much “in your face” (as well as living through the experience). My point is that the history of science course made me aware of the social context within the science biz before I was exposed to the biz itself. I think formal coursework in the history of science, and science-policy studies, both should be required to anyone who becomes a scientist. It continues to amaze me that some folks think deference should be given to some fields, say, conservation biology, but others (like science policy studies) not so much. I call this a “selective disciplinary filter .”

What brought this to mind was this quote:
“This would ensure that all of the most recent and important research is considered, as well as to provide some measure of critique if management seems intent on ignoring the science in favor of some special interest.” (my italics).

I think first year requirements for courses in science policy studies and history of science for any policy-relevant science master’s would really help students understand the real world that they will be exposed to on graduation, as well as the complex interplay of scientists, representative government and society. Otherwise, the fish can’t sense that they are swimming in a fishbowl.

Sam Rabin

The more than 850,000 acres of national forest across our state — and the millions of Georgians who depend on these lands — will benefit greatly from recent revisions to the Forest System Land Management Planning Rule, under the direction of the U.S. Forest Service.

The planning rule, up for public comment through May 16, is the guiding document that supervisors of individual national forests use to develop strategies to manage their land for wildlife, timber, recreation and other uses. Until a new rule is put in place, the Forest Service is essentially stuck using a version first published in 1982.

With every week that passes without the implementation of a new rule, the Forest Service becomes more out of touch with developments in the realm of conservation science.

Jewels such as Georgia’s Chattahoochee and Oconee National Forests are threatened with obsolescence and decline if planning for their management does not take new knowledge into account. These forests are beloved by many Atlanta residents as a way to escape and reconnect with nature.

The Chattahoochee River — which fills the Lake Lanier reservoir, providing us with most of our water — has its headwaters in the Chattahoochee National Forest. If the forest is degraded, we can expect the quality and quantity of water in the reservoir to decline. Our city’s struggles with water supply during the most recent drought vividly illustrated that no such reduction can be tolerated.

Atlantans must consider it imperative, then, that the planning process for the national forest system incorporate the most up-to-date scientific thinking so that this valuable ecosystem service may be preserved or even enhanced.

One theme that has gained traction since 1982 is the idea of sustainability — making sure that pursuing our livelihoods does not impinge upon the ability of future generations to pursue theirs.

Another is the idea that climate change and other large-scale stressors could bring major changes to our managed lands, in areas including ecosystem health and timber productivity.

Finally, it has been broadly accepted that, even in the absence of resource extraction, the preservation of healthy, functional ecosystems provides our society with a number of services at scales ranging from the surrounding landscape — such as the dependence of Atlanta’s water supply on the Chattahoochee National Forest — to the entire globe. The proposed rule addresses such concepts and processes, which makes it a vast improvement over the 1982 rule.

All that said, there is room for further improvements. First, no protected area should sit isolated in a sea of habitat that has been degraded or destroyed. It is critical for ecosystem and species health that high-quality, well-connected habitat be distributed throughout the surrounding landscape; the new rule should do more to encourage managers to work with other agencies and private landowners in this regard.

Second, the rule should require more consultation of managers with independent scientists. This would ensure that all of the most recent and important research is considered, as well as to provide some measure of critique if management seems intent on ignoring the science in favor of some special interest.

Finally, the Rule should provide more guidance about resolving conflicts between preservation of species diversity and other uses of the forest.

These improvements will help preserve the health of our national forests for many generations of Americans — and Atlantans — to come.

Sam Rabin is a native Atlantan obtaining a graduate degree in ecology and evolutionary biology at Princeton University in New Jersey.

Wilderness Society on Planning Rule- Science in the Front Seat?

by

What I found most interesting about this pieces by Cecilia Clavet of The Wilderness Society, given the lecture by Toddi Steelman here, is asking “who is saying that science should determine policy?” and “in what context do they say it?”.

Here we have an example of the perceived need for science to “take a front seat” in the planning rule, in the context of public comment on the rule. So we are perhaps expecting that those of us not familiar with the issues would simply write a letter calling for 1) more rules about collaboration, and 2) science taking a “front seat.”

I’m beginning to think that their are two problems:a) the discussion isn’t really as nuanced as it could be about what is a “foundation” compared to “scientists should determine what happens”- a mildly (at least) undemocratic idea. And perhaps some policy folks, lawyers and editors have never been exposed to the true messiness of scientists, scientific agendas, and political agendas all duking it out in some controversy. Or they have seem it (in the climate world, it’s hard to avoid) and chosen to look away.

Time to speak up on rules governing how our forests are managed
Photo

By Cecilia Clavet on March 17, 2011 – 2:28pm

The Obama administration and the Forest Service last week hosted what they call a national roundtable. It was an effort to summarize and explain in detail the various components of the draft forest planning rule, which was published last month. When final, this rule will guide the Forest Service on how to manage 193 million acres of America’s national forests. The roundtable, held in Washington D.C., was the beginning of a series of public forums that will take place throughout the country.

The components covered a range from climate change to timber production and from recreation to water resource management. However, much of the day’s emphasis was on the role of collaboration. The draft rule requires collaboration to take place when individual forest plans are developed. This in theory means that the Forest Service will reach out to a wide variety of people interested in contributing to plans for managing forests. These stakeholders include scientists, conservationists, local land owners, foresters and other concerned citizens.

While this sounds like a very inclusive process, a couple of concerns come to mind:

First the planning rule does not provide guidelines to ensure good collaboration, leaving all discretion to the forest manager. The excuse against collaboration guidelines is that no collaborative will be the same across the landscapes. However, I would argue that you can follow some basic rules on collaboration by adopting similar guidelines to the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program, which would ensure some consistency across all the collaborative efforts and ensure all the right stakeholders are invited to the tables. This will in turn provide the appropriate check on the agency as it developed new forest plans.

The second concern is that the emphasis on collaboration that could minimize, and thus weaken, the role of science in decision-making. The administration appears to view collaboration as having equal footing with science. While collaboration is a complementary component of the forest planning process, the agency must require that the best available science is the foundation. A New York Times editorial also raised some questions the Forest Service needs to answer about science and protecting wildlife.

These are the concerns about collaboration, and there are others. In last week’s roundtable, the administration and agency staff spoke a lot about the intent of the rule, stressing the importance of water, wildlife and sustainable recreations and addressing new challenges like climate change. We wholeheartedly agree. The problem we find is that the language of the draft rule doesn’t match the intent. However, the agency is able to make some changes that could have very meaningful impact to sound forest management.

Now that the draft of the forest planning rule is out, it’s up to everyone who cares about our national forests to make our voices heard. We can start by attending the roundtables taking place across the country. More importantly, we can visit the Forest Service’s forest planning rule site and make official comments about what we would like the agency to do as it revises the draft. We should start by calling for more clarity on collaboration and by demanding science take a front seat in the process.

Note that the NY Times editorial mentioned is the same one I critiqued in my blog entry “NY Times Editors Need New Nemesis” which included the quote “The net result is to give too much discretion to individual forest managers and not nearly enough say to scientists. This is dangerous because, over the years, forest managers have been easily influenced by timber companies and local politicians whose main interest is to increase the timber harvest. ”

Scorecard- Scientists /science as drivers..
NY Times 1
Wilderness Society 1

Mark Squillace in New West on Proposed Planning Rule

by

Here’s the link .

Here are a couple of quotes:

Decades of land use litigation have crippled the Forest Service’s planning process, causing the agency to become over-cautious and vague, according to environmental lawyer and scholar Mark Squillace. A proposed national planning rule, for which public comments close on May 16, is too complex, time-consuming, and fraught with unnecessary choices that invite litigation, says Squillace, director of the Natural Resources Law Center at the University of Colorado School of Law in Boulder.

“I really think the forest planning process is broken, and one of the reasons is they spend so much time revising the plan and they don’t really improve it, because it becomes static over time.” he says. “It’s really about monitoring, not assessment. What you want is a monitoring program that’s constantly looking at what’s happening in the forest.”

Squillace, who has worked in the Department of the Interior and was director of litigation for the Environmental Policy Institute in Washington, D.C., says monitoring of many conditions, such as the population status of species, soil moisture, and pathogens, should all feed back into the assessment reports of national forests that are compiled every two years, which in turn would be used to alter the national plan. “If it’s done right, you’ll virtually never have to do another plan at all, because it’s constantly changing.”

Squillace applauds the public input. “I think the process they’ve used has been exemplary. They’ve really tried to involve people in a meaningful way.”

But at the national forum, he asked a Forest Service panel if they had considered options to make the plan development process simpler, such as resource-use plans at the level of the individual forest that would avoid the complicated standards and guidelines built into the national plan. “I think right now the public often loses the forest for the trees because of the detail, the complexity, of the plan,” he said.

On science,

In terms of the role science would play in resource management, Squillace worries that the language of the draft plan requires only that officials “take into account the best scientific information throughout the planning process.” Such weak wording could turn the rule’s scientific standards into a paper tiger, he claims.

He cites a comment made by a member of the public during the national forum that there is no “best science,” only competing views. He disagrees vehemently. There may be a level of uncertainty, as with climate science, he says, but the agency cannot avoid a preponderance of scientific opinion simply by noting that scientists may take different views.

“The Forest Service is increasingly careful about not setting standards that will tie their hands,” he says. “To me, that’s the essence of planning: making choices.”

Even so, Squillace says the Forest Service has trouble making such site-specific analyses, because the resources required for the national planning process detract from resources needed for project-level studies. “I can say with confidence that this kind of thing has happened in many forests.”

One of his answers to the problem is to use more maps, to help visualize resource questions or threats. From the many meetings he has attended over the years, he says his sense is that the public mainly wants to know what uses of national forests will and will not be allowed. Maps that show such uses, or zonings, already are made by the Forest Service, he says. This should be extended to maps that designate the suitability of tracts of land for particular uses. Other maps could display watersheds, wildlife habitats, ecosystems, and ecological conditions. They could be designed as overlays, so the public could see how such resources interplay with the suitability of a given tract of land for various uses.

“Maps provide a really transparent way, I think, to engage the agency in what the public would like to see,” he says. This would help everyone to analyze use options. “We fight it out, if you will, in the decision-making phase.”

I agree with most of his points, especially about the public’s interest in lines on maps.

However, it is interesting that his views of science seem to be different than Toddi’s below. Maybe we are talking past each other, but I have noticed that people in the law profession (this is my current hypothesis) seem to have the idea that decisions can be hardwired to some “science.” Following Toddi’s post, it will be interesting for us to note who makes these claims about science and see if those claimants fall into any kind of pattern. In the past, I’ve noticed this coming from NGO’s with many lawyers on their boards and staffs. Scientists themselves tend to be more cautious. And of course, people who study this kind of thing academically (STS or science policy studies) sound like Toddi’s lecture.

Also, Squillace said:

“They make it impossible to challenge monitoring,” Squillace charges, “because monitoring reports every two years are not decisional documents, so they’re not reviewable.”

I don’t know the utility of legal challenges of monitoring per se… I’m sure something got missed in the interview here. Based on other conversations, I think he means challenging legally decisions made or not made on the basis of that monitoring.. but the NEPA of the decisions themselves could be challenged..??

And finally..

Squillace thinks the agency should look to legal precedents that argue in favor of analysis of individual ecosystems rather than concentrating on the “bird’s eye view.” He points to a 1987 case in Wyoming concerning oil and gas leases on more than 10,000 acres of the Shoshone National Forest. In dismissing a suit brought by the Park County Resource Council that contended the Environmental Impact Statement was inadequate, a court of appeals ruled that a comprehensive EIS is not required at the leasing stage. Nine out of ten leases do not result in exploratory drilling, the court noted, concluding that site-specific environmental assessments should be made before a particular drilling project actually occurs.

This finding was strengthened the following year, when another court of appeals ruled that federal agencies did not violate law in selling oil and gas leases on 1.3 million acres of the Flathead and Gallatin National Forests in Montana without preparing an EIS.

Is he arguing that forest plan EIS’s are not particularly useful? I seem to remember others who thought this…during the 2005 (Mark would probably call it the “Bush” ;)) Rule.

Fixing the Rule: An Adaptive Governance Roadmap

by

If adaptive governance, i.e. adaptive management applied to public lands, might help move beyond ongoing forest wars, how might the Draft NFMA Rule (pdf) be improved toward adaptive governance? This post outlines my ideas for improving the rule. Ultimately, I’d like to see us vet this proposal when more fully developed, against the Forest Service’s Draft Planning Rule, Andy Stahl’s KISS Rule, and any other proposals that may be floating about. But before I put pen to paper, I’d like to get feedback on my ideas. Here is how I propose to “fix” the rule:

Background Notions

  • No matter what NFMA rule is put in play, it needs to be written by lawyers. Court challenges will not cease no matter what rule is in force.

  • I like the idea of adaptive governance, but also believe that adaptive management as applied to public problems is the same thing. I do not have a strong preference for which words, “adaptive governance” or “adaptive management” are used to described the process. I will use “adaptive management” here. There are many pathways that might be taken to adopt an adaptive governance approach to management. It may be that embedding adaptive governance into the NFMA rule is not the best path forward. I’m willing to listen to other possible pathways, and even alternatives to any adaptive governance pathway. But I still believe that the Draft Planning rule fails as adaptive management, and can not provide a useful path forward.

Reframing/Rewriting the NFMA Rule

  • Rewrite the “Purpose and Applicability” (219.1) (and also the “Summary” and “Overview” in the Federal Register run-up to the rule) to include reasons for a move away from narrowly framed forest planning and toward broader public engagement to address forest management’s wicked problems. Include a discussion of decision containers [See, this note] and how the public needs to help natural resource managers frame discussions/resolutions, including scope and scale. Allow wicked problem discussions/resolutions to well-up to appropriately sized containers so that people don’t have to grapple with policy at local scales, where such does not makes sense. Include “all lands” decision-making where and when appropriate, allowing for responsible officials to include but not be limited to Forest Service officials.

  • Define adaptive management, then do a near “global replace” of “planning” with “adaptive management.” A beginning point for a definition of adaptive management might be:

    [Adaptive Management]: linking a broad range of actors at multiple scales to deal with the interrelated dynamics of resources and ecosystems, management systems and social systems, as well as uncertainty, unpredictability, and surprise. Adaptive governance focuses on experimentation and learning, and it brings together research on institutions and organizations for collaboration, collective action, and conflict resolution in relation to natural resource and ecosystem management. The essential role of individuals needs to be recognized in this context (e.g., leadership, trust building, vision, and meaning); their social relations (e.g., actor groups, knowledge systems, social memory) and social networks serve as the web that tie together the adaptive governance system. It has cross-level and cross-scale activities and includes governmental policies that frame creativity.

    From “Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems”, Carl Folke, Thomas Hahn, Per Olsson, and Jon Norberg, Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2005. 30:441-473 (pdf)

  • Keep “forest plan,” but define as suggested by the Clinton era Committee of Scientists: “A loose-leaf notebook that contains all of the policy directions, strategies, and implementation proposals from decisions that have been made at all levels of the planning process. It is the official repository of decisions big and small that have been made and reviewed in the strategic and landscape-level planning processes.”

  • Keep the tie to the FS Strategic Plan, but add more responsibility at the Chief’s office to make sure that adaptive management is real—a cultural change, more than just words—and something that “the Forest Service does”, not something delegated to a single staff group like “planning” or “ecosystem management.” In short, position most responsibility for RPA/NFMA to the Chief and/or Secretary of Agriculture.

  • Replace “three levels of planning” (219.2) with “multiple levels of adaptive management assessment, monitoring, and decision-making.” Make sure that “all lands” assessment, monitoring, and decision-making, done in concert with appropriate collaborators is the logical choice when such makes sense. [See, Why Three Planning Levels?]

  • Keep the idea of “standards and guidelines” (219.7) but make the development and revision of both “situational” at appropriate scope and scale. The idea is that most would be developed at levels other than a “national forest.” Still, forest supervisors would be charged to show how such standards apply to decisions they make. Similarly for assessment and monitoring information, as well as for policy decisions and legal authorities.

  • Add the idea of a “forest niche,” that would be reviewed publicly at, say, five-year intervals. [See, A Forest Service for the 21st Century Who Are We? to better understand niche idea for the Forest Service as a whole.]

  • Abandon the idea of “desired conditions,” instead allow for simple “scenario planning” that would embrace the idea of emergent unfolding future as opposed to managing toward a desired future. Note that this idea interfaces with the idea of “niches” above and does not preclude working toward betterment. It just moves the “betterment” debate into the policy arena and away form the land planning arena. [See: Whose Desire? What Future? Why?]

  • For specific requirements of NFMA law, craft wording to require the WO (and it’s bevy of legal counselors) to find means to comply with said requirements as expeditiously as possible at scale and scope as close to “national” as possible. For example, the requirement for an Allowable Sale Quantity might be set nationally at zero, with provision that all timber volume flowing from the national forests be determined via adaptive management and in the context of, say “ecosystem stewardship contracting,” or equivalent internal process.

Followup

I still intend to work up a complete rewrite of what I’ll call a “Draft NFMA Rule” soon. But I would like your feedback on these ideas now.

I have been chatting with a friend about the “Pre-Decisional Administrative Review Process” (219.50-59). We believe that if collaboration were much improved and allowed for multi-scale adaptive governance, the whole idea of “pre-decisional review” makes no sense, and perchance neither does any “appeal process.”

Finally, I may probably won’t include language relative to the “species diversity” provisions from NFMA. That will no doubt be the most fought-over part of the rule. Still, I maintain that the adaptive management fight is equally important. In my framing, species diversity is one of the items that the WO and its bevy of legal counselors ought to deal with. In all such “dealing” I believe that such policy review/policy revision ought to begin early, even perchance predating the adoption of a NFMA rule. Why the Forest Service runs so much of its policy development through “NFMA forest planning” remains a mystery to me.

Desired Future: Whose Desire? What Future? Why?

by

The idea of a “desired future” is found frequently in Forest Service NFMA and NEPA discussions/writing. I decided to see if I could find out where the idea of “desired future” and “desired future condition” come from. It sort of shows up in the 1979 NFMA Rule, mainly w/r/t wildlife populations, but gains a major toehold on FS thinking in the 1982 rule:

Sec. 219.11 Forest plan content. The forest plan shall contain the following: … (b) Forest multiple-use goals and objectives that include a description of the desired future condition of the forest or grassland and an identification of the quantities of goods and services that are expected to be produced or provided during the RPA planning periods

And it has been a part of FS thinking ever since. I can understand back in 1982 that the Forest Service wanted to remake America’s national forests into something foresters would desire, while zoning out Wilderness, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and other “set-asides”. So the idea of “desired future” made sense, at least to foresters who were running the Forest Service back then, some of whom were desirous to see the allowable timber cut increased from 11 to 33 billion board feet.

But to continue to use the language in the 2011 proposed NFMA rule is a different matter. The focus these days is not on increasing “allowable cut,” but instead on restoring ecosystems resiliency. But there is still a hint of what author David Ehrenfeld called The Arrogance of Humanism, 1981 at work here. At least I think so. That is why I’ve advocated for simple scenario planning instead, in part to avoid what I believe to be a “desired future” trap. For an article length view, see Thomas Stanley’s Ecosystem Management and the Arrogance of Humanism, Conservation Biology, 1995 (pdf)

Let’s leave a couple of inquiry questions: Is the idea of “desired future” even needed in forestland adaptive management? Why does this language persist in NFMA rules.

[Update, 4/6/11: I noticed this AM that the Draft NFMA rule refers to "desired condtions" (219.7 (d)) instead of "desired future," or "desired future condition(s)" but the meaning appears identical, at least to me.]

——–
Related: In Search of Our Desired Forest, John Rupe, NCFP, 2/18/2011

Standards in Planning

by

The question of standards in forest planning has emerged as a central issue in the proposed NFMA regulations.  It seems that a common narrative by the press in covering the story thus far is the amount of discretion afforded in the proposed rule versus its lack of “musts and shalls.”

Here is the definition of standards in the proposed regulations: “A standard is a mandatory constraint on project and activity decisionmaking, established to help achieve or maintain the desired condition or conditions, to avoid or mitigate undesirable effects, or to meet applicable legal requirements.” (76 Fed. Reg. 8517).

I have made my pro-standards case in various places, hitting on the usual theme of accountability, while others like Professor Mark Squillace have thoughtfully criticized their use at the forest plan level.  I hear similar complaints about standards from others participating in the draft regulations as well. 

This is an important debate.  But my sense is that we might not all be that clear about the variety of ways in which standards are used in planning.  Maybe we all have different conceptions based on our interactions with forest planning in various parts of the country.  So before making an argument for standards, allow me to first explain what I mean by the term.

Types of Standards Used in Forest Planning 

Different types of standards are used in forest planning.  They can differ in scale, specificity, and complexity.  Some administrative regions of the USFS, for example, use standards cutting across multiple National Forests (this being very relevant to Melissa’s point about standards and scale–many of us agreeing that some standards might best be applied at larger spatial scales).

National Forest plans have also used forest-wide standards that vary in detail and complexity.  Take, for example, the forest-wide range standard in the 1986 Lolo National Forest Plan:

Conflicts between livestock and big game will be resolved so big game are allocated the forage required to meet their needs.  Domestic livestock will be allowed to utilize any forage surplus not conflicting with the planned expansion of big-game populations.  Reductions in livestock numbers will be avoided if possible, but will be acceptable to meet management goals. (II.9). 

To me, this seems more like a nudge than a clear unequivocal standard, but it still provides some direction. 

Forest-wide standards can also be more complicated, such as the Lolo’s forest-wide “snag standard.” This standard requires sufficient snags and dead material to be provided in order to maintain 80 percent of the population of snag-using species.  More detailed prescriptions are provided in this forest-wide standard, such as specifying the number of big snags needed per acre on different forest types on the Lolo.  (I get the sense that critics of standards are thinking about this sort of example). 

Standards are also used for particular management areas or zones as identified in a forest plan.  These sorts of standards can be very straightforward and basically state what is allowed to happen in a particular area. They specify allowed uses, prohibitions, and constraints.  The Lolo Plan, for example, divides the forest into 28 management areas, each with a different set of standards.  Consider the following examples:

Standards used for a municipal watershed area state that “livestock grazing permits will not be issued” and that “chemical herbicides and pesticides will not be used within the Ashley Creek Watershed.” 

A management area including significant historical, archeological, paleontological, and cultural sites uses a timber standard stating that “timber removal will be limited to that necessary to enhance historic values and provide for public safety” and that “timber removal will be under administrative use rather than commercial sale authority.”

A management area consisting of large roadless blocks of land contains standards that disallow most types of motorized access, the construction of developed recreation facilities, and commercial logging. 

These are straightforward, meaningful standards playing an important role in forest planning.  They are not hyper-complex nor do they require super-human analytical abilities to write and implement them.  Nor is there any evidence, that I’m aware of at least, showing that the writing of such standards is what bogs down the forest planning process. 

Why Standards?

The use of standards in a forest plan should be required under the NFMA regulations for several reasons.  We have discussed a few of these already on the blog, often in the context of what is required by NFMA and the importance of accountability.  I’d like to discuss a few issues that have not received as much attention but are very relevant to the proposed rule:

1.  Standards help differentiate one management (planning/zone) area from another.  The above example from the Lolo demonstrates the important relationship between standards and the designation of management areas/zones.  The former gives meaning to the latter.  Why would the Lolo National Forest designate a management area if that area had no different allowed uses or prohibitions than some other area? Or why would the proposed rule require the identification of priority watersheds for maintenance or restoration if those areas had no meaningful prohibitions?  If the agency is going to draw lines on a map, then those lines should mean something. 

2.  Standards facilitate the effective use of adaptive management—one of the principles of the proposed rule.  Standards help define the purpose and boundaries of adaptive management and planning.  After all, adaptive management is a means to an end, and that end needs to be clearly articulated.  Without standards, adaptive management is too susceptible to political exploitation and the dodging of tough political choices. 

A commonalty found in most adaptive management literature is the need for a structured decision making process and the identification of clear and measurable management objectives.  The Interior Department’s Technical Guide (as discussed at the Science Panel) emphasizes both as crucial to the success of adaptive management:

If the objectives are not clear and measurable, the adaptive framework is undermined…Objectives need to be measurable for two purposes: first, so progress toward their achievement can be assessed; second, so performance that deviates from objectives may trigger a change in management direction.  Explicit articulation of measurable objectives helps to separate adaptive management from trial and error, because the exploration of management options over time is directed and justified by the use of objectives.  U.S. Department of the Interior, Adaptive Management: The U.S. Department of the Interior Technical Guide (2009), at 11. 

Standards can be used to help define these objectives while providing a relevant metric in determining their achievement.  More basic is the fact that adaptive management projects will take place in particular management areas of a National Forest, as identified in a forest plan, and these zones/standards will guide the questions and purpose of any adaptive management project. 

3. Standards can help the USFS, and other federal agencies, meet the goals and mandates of other environmental laws. There are important interconnections between NFMA and other laws like NEPA and the ESA and CWA.  NFMA regulations should thus be considered as part of a larger regulatory framework.  And these environmental laws and regulations should be viewed as goals, not constraints. 

Consider, for example, the role standards play vis-à-vis the ESA.  The proposed planning regulations properly emphasize the agency’s obligation to conserve endangered and threatened species.  The proposed rule “would require the responsible official to explicitly recognize the recovery of T&E species as an important part of land management plans…” (76 Fed. Reg. 8494). 

Standards can play an important role in this regard.  Consider, for example, the unsuccessful delisting of grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone region.  At issue in this case was the Grizzly Bear’s Conservation Strategy, which included the amending of multiple national forest plans.  The Court found the Conservation Strategy short of being an “adequate regulatory mechanism,” as required by the ESA, partly because the forest plan amendments included few meaningful standards and too many discretionary and unenforceable guidelines.  Cases like these demonstrate how meaningful standards can help the USFS meet all of its legal obligations, not just NFMA.(see Greater Yellowstone Coalition v. Servheen, 672 F. Supp. 2d. 1105, (D. Mont. 2009).

NY Times Editors Need New Nemesis

by

Here’s the link and here’s what is says about the planning rule:

The other piece of news is more complicated. Last month, the Agriculture Department proposed long-awaited forest-planning rules. The rules, mandated by 1976 National Forest Management Act, are supposed to guide forest managers as they decide which parts can be logged and which should be fully protected.

The act’s bedrock principle is that the health of the forests and their wildlife is to be valued at least as much as the interests of the timber companies. The Clinton administration’s rules firmly embraced that principle; the industry-friendly Bush rules did not.

The Obama administration’s proposed rules improve on the Bush rules and are full of high-minded promises about maintaining “viable” animal populations. But they are disappointingly vague on the question of how — and how often — the biological diversity of any particular forest is to be measured and what actions are to be taken to ensure its survival.

The net result is to give too much discretion to individual forest managers and not nearly enough say to scientists. This is dangerous because, over the years, forest managers have been easily influenced by timber companies and local politicians whose main interest is to increase the timber harvest.

As secretary of agriculture, Tom Vilsack has been more attentive to the needs of the forest, so far, than any agriculture secretary since the Clinton days. He should make sure these rules are strengthened.

When we had the law students visit earlier this week, they also talked about “industry,” and I asked them who do they mean? The ski industry, the oil and gas industry, the ranching “industry” (not sure anyone uses that expression, but..). Is there anything they are all united on? Do they actually work together to “open up” NFs to all uses? No.

Earth to NY Times editors- timber wars are over! They need to find new evil empire or federation of empires. Timber industry folks just aren’t very scary- see this press release about the Montrose mill.

Of course, my favorite part of this editorial was this quote

“The net result is to give too much discretion to individual forest managers and not nearly enough say to scientists. This is dangerous because, over the years, forest managers have been easily influenced by timber companies and local politicians whose main interest is to increase the timber harvest.”

Now, if we were on this side of the Hudson looking in that direction, we might suggest that the NY State Legislature, or perhaps the Mayor of New York could also be replaced by scientists. Because, after all, their “local” elected officials can be too easily influenced by industries of various kinds, instead of listening to those who know better, perhaps the editors at the Denver Post ;)?