jfenwood

Is A New Rule Worth It?

by

I went back and looked at the 2009 Notice of Intent today to refresh my memory regarding why implementing a new rule is so important to the Forest Service. From the NOI:

Developing a new rule will allow the Agency to integrate forest restoration, watershed protection, climate resilience, wildlife conservation, the need to support vibrant local economies, and collaboration into how the Agency manages national forests and grasslands, with the goals of protecting our water, climate, and wildlife while enhancing ecosystem services and creating economic opportunity.

I’m wondering, what is it about the existing rule that doesn’t allow the national forests to do this?  While the current language might not be very good at requiring some of these things, it certainly doesn’t prohibit them.  Any national forest is free to write a plan that attempts to do all of these things.

Sure, current requirements for things like designating and monitoring management indicator species (MIS) don’t work as originally envisioned and probably are largely as waste of time and money.  But most forests have figured out apporaches that can survive a legal challenge.

Some forests such as the National Forests in Mississippi are developing plans right now that meet the existing rule requirements while incorporating new approaches such as a framework for ecosystem diversity. The rule doesn’t require it, but it makes sense and has widespread support.

What challenges will a forest developing a plan under the new rule face?  How about legal challenges to the list of items in Martin’s post “We’ll Consider It” ?

Does the forest plan appropriately consider “various stressors or impacts?” How about “the physical (including air quality) and biological integration of the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems within a landscape.” How well does the plan take into account “other forms of knowledge”, and so on down the list?

All of these points will be debated in the courts, just as MIS, viability, and monitoring have been since NFMA was signed into law. We won’t know what they really mean until the judges tell us.

Dave commented on Martin’s post  that:

In talking with two FS planning directors earlier this week, both seemed more intent on fixing “planning” via rule implementation than in fixing the “rule.” This is unfortunate in my estimation.

The “rule” ought to have framed things up for whatever follows re: national forest management. Instead, it appears that the rule development process is now largely viewed by many in the FS as a “throwaway,” so that they can get on with “God’s work” whatever the flavor of that might be this year.

I agree that it is unfortunate. It really is time for a new rule.  From where I sit, I would like to see a rule that goes  further in terms of establishing the kind of adaptive management approach that Dave talks about. I would like to see a rule that speeds up the process and eliminates some of the requirements that most of us agree don’t make sense anymore. I would like to see a rule that requires all of the considerations in Martin’s list and perhaps a few more.

But if I were a beleaguered forest planner, I might prefer to take my chances with the devil I know rather than one I don’t.

You’ve Got To Have Friends

by

Dave Iverson, in responding to Sharon’s post The Ranchers and the Feds Should Be Friends said that:

“. . . the Forest Service has no business courting friendship.

The folks involved with the many “friends of” groups associated with a number of national forests might disagree.

 

A few years ago, I was fortunate to spend a week learning from the late Brian O’Neil, long-time superintendent of the Golden Gate NRA. Brian’s philosophy was never to do a job with government employees if a volunteer would do it instead. According to the NRA’s webpage,” Park staffing is augmented by a high level of volunteerism, generally exceeding 350,000 hours of volunteer service per year.”

The friends group that Brian cultivated, the Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy says its mission is “to preserve the Golden Gate National Parks, enhance the park visitor experience, and build a community dedicated to conserving the parks for the future.” Sounds pretty consistent with the best interests of the park and the people it serves.

Brian’s called his version of fund-raising “friend-raising.”  He never called it fund-raising, even though the Conservancy has contributed over $165 million dollars in support of the park.   He thought of it a long-term process where people first become aware of the NRA, then come to know it, come to care about it, and finally to support it through time, money, and advocacy.

[Interesting digression:  the GGNRA is currently using a negotiated rule-making process with an appointed committee to  to decide how best to manage dog walking in the park.]

 

The national forest in California that best exemplifies the friend-raising philosophy is the San Bernardino.  Their main partner group, The San Bernardino National Forest Association describes its mission as follows: “Since 1992, we’ve worked to complement the mission of the US Forest Service. We develop new resources and partnerships that create new opportunities, particularly through the efforts of volunteers, for conservation, education, and recreation that have added value to the forest’s role as public land.”

In light of all of the many “enemies of the national forests” who see public lands only as a source of profit that they would like a piece of, shouldn’t all national forests be actively trying to make more friends?  Have we already forgotten the Sagebrush Rebellion attempts to privatize national forests?

And what is the deep inner meaning of the title of this post?  Just ask Bete Midler:

“Cause you got to have friends
La la la la la la la la la“