Rethinking Forest Planning – Guest Post from Mark Squillace

Mark Squillace is a law professor and the Director of the Natural Resources Law Center at the University of Colorado Law School. Some of his views on the process-related issues surrounding the current round of forest planning are set out in a post titled Engaging the Public in the Latest Round of Rulemaking on Forest …

Continue reading ‘Rethinking Forest Planning – Guest Post from Mark Squillace’ »

The Hartwell Paper and A New Forest Planning Rule

For those of you who aren’t familiar with this paper, it was a recent effort to figure out if another approach to climate policy could be more successful. Here is quote from Mike Hulme in this essay on the Hartwell paper . To move forward, we believe a startling proposition must be understood and accepted. …

Continue reading ‘The Hartwell Paper and A New Forest Planning Rule’ »

Wanted: New Planning Paradigm

A guest post by Lynn Jungwirth Clearly modern forest plans must have a restoration plan embedded in them. We’ve been struggling here lately with trying to figure out “how much is enough”. Currently “cumulative effect” means that you figure out where the threshold is for negative impact….how many roaded acre equivalents can happen before you …

Continue reading ‘Wanted: New Planning Paradigm’ »

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’ »

Ecosystem Services: The New Multiple-Use Idea

  So what’s the value of a forest? In a previous post, I described the shift away from the Forest Service’s multiple-use mission to a sustainable ecosystem mission.  Many public stakeholders are confused by this shift, including those that rely on forest uses and services.  The same is true for Forest Service employees trained in multiple-use …

Continue reading ‘Ecosystem Services: The New Multiple-Use Idea’ »

The RPA/NFMA/NFMA: Solution to a Nonexistent Problem- R.W Behan

A wise colleague suggested that it might be time again to take a look at this article from the May 1990 Journal of Forestry. Here are some quotes from the paper: Planning has literally become an end in itself, with a large…interest group.. dedicated to its continuation The National Forest Management Act is indeed an …

Continue reading ‘The RPA/NFMA/NFMA: Solution to a Nonexistent Problem- R.W Behan’ »