Plan for Plans; Rule for Rules

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 …

Continue reading ‘Plan for Plans; Rule for Rules’ »

National Parks, I Mean Forests

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, …

Continue reading ‘National Parks, I Mean Forests’ »

Op-Ed on Planning Rule: Scientists in the Fishbowl

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 …

Continue reading ‘Op-Ed on Planning Rule: Scientists in the Fishbowl’ »

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

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 …

Continue reading ‘Wilderness Society on Planning Rule- Science in the Front Seat?’ »

Mark Squillace in New West on Proposed Planning Rule

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, …

Continue reading ‘Mark Squillace in New West on Proposed Planning Rule’ »

Fixing the Rule: An Adaptive Governance Roadmap

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 …

Continue reading ‘Fixing the Rule: An Adaptive Governance Roadmap’ »

Desired Future: Whose Desire? What Future? Why?

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 …

Continue reading ‘Desired Future: Whose Desire? What Future? Why?’ »

Standards in Planning

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 …

Continue reading ‘Standards in Planning’ »

NY Times Editors Need New Nemesis

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 …

Continue reading ‘NY Times Editors Need New Nemesis’ »