2012 Planning Rule

From Fly Rod and Reel online here.

“America’s 193 million acres of national forest lands are vitally important for fish and wildlife and public hunting and fishing opportunities,” said Joel Webster, director of the TRCP Center for Western Lands. “With America’s population surpassing 310 million, the significance of these lands to our outdoor traditions continues to grow – as do challenges in their management. The adaptive management approach of the new planning rule will help the agency address these challenges.

“Based on input from members of the public, including sportsmen,” Webster continued, “the Forest Service made specific improvements to the final rule, such as a commitment to use the best available science in making management decisions, an increased commitment to watershed conservation, added attention to commonly enjoyed fish and wildlife species and an improved approach to timber management. The next test will lie in implementation of the rule, and we will work with our sportsmen partners in development of the forthcoming planning directives that will guide how the rule is used.”

“National forests form the headwaters of many of our nation’s major river basins, provide habitat for trout and salmon and recreational opportunities for anglers, and provide clean water for communities and irrigators,” said Steve Moyer, vice president for government affairs at Trout Unlimited, a TRCP partner group. “The new forest planning rule outlines an ambitious vision for our forests and watersheds. Trout Unlimited and our partners in the hunting and angling community are committed to working with the Forest Service to ensure the rule’s success – and to upholding a crucial component of our nation’s outdoor legacy.”

SUMMIT COUNTY — With more than half the country’s 155 national forests operating under outdated management plans, the U.S. Forest Service is eager to start implementing a new planning rule that was finalized March 23.

But like several previous attempts to revise the existing 1082 rule, this latest version may face a legal test. Now that the rule is final, the Center for Biological Diversity is evaluating whether to pursue a courtroom challenge, said Taylor McKinnon, public lands campaign director for the organization.

McKinnon said his organization is scrutinizing the rule for compliance with the National Forest Management Act and will also take a close look at the biological opinion accompanying the rule to see if meets federal standards for protecting plants and wildlife.

“This rule reflects the work of a lot of federal lawyers,” McKinnon said, referring to the perception that the rule was designed at least in part with the idea of repelling potential legal challenges.

Hmm. Should federal lawyers not be involved in developing regulations? That sounds like a recipe for illegality.. if you look at CBD’s staff here, you’ll find that there are many lawyers, who conceivably think that courts are a good place to promote agendas. Seems to me that if you choose courts to promote agendays, you should expect to see a great deal of federal lawyers, it’s a natural consequence. Just sayin’

The way the Center for Biological Diversity sees it, the latest version of the rule represents the fourth attempt to weaken wildlife protection.

but at least this time they can’t claim any partisan reasons.. is there a message in that both parties are going in the same direction?

The Forest Service was not able to successfully defend its previous attempts to update the planning rule.

Top agency officials say the rule includes stronger protections for water and wildlife, and touted the rule as providing a path toward long-term forest restoration.

“This new rule provides the framework we need to restore and manage our forests and watersheds while getting work done on the ground and providing jobs,” Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack said. Listen to a previous teleconference on the planning rule here.

According to the Forest Service, the new planning rule includes requirements to keep common native species common; contribute to the recovery of threatened and endangered species; conserve proposed and candidate species, and protect species of conservation concern.

But McKinnon said the new rule only includes mandatory conservation requirements for species of concern, while the old rule included broader standards aimed at maintaining viable populations of all native species.

Wasn’t it all vertebrate species? While this one includes thing from prions to petunias?

And reiterating a concern expressed by conservation advocates throughout the rule-making process, McKinnon said the new rule gives local Forest Service officials too much leeway in deciding whether individual plans offer adequate protection.

“They’ve taken mandatory protections and make them discretionary,” he said.

Altogether, the Forest Service received more than 250,000 comments on the rule during the process. The agency says it strengthens the role of public involvement and dialogue throughout the planning process. It also requires the use of the best available scientific information to inform decisions.

“We are ready to start a new era of planning that takes less time, costs less money, and provides stronger protections for our lands and water”, said U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell. “This new rule will bring 21st century thinking to a process that is sorely needed to protect and preserve our 193 million acres of amazing forests and grasslands.”

Conservationist concerns over loss of species shouldn’t be taken lightly. Leading biologists have been warning for years that the current global wave of species extinctions is a serious threat to the web of life. with each loss affecting greater ecosystems in ways that are as-yet little understood.

I have three counters to this. First, those assertions are based on assumptions and models about how many species are gone (there’s a chapter in Aynsley Kellow’s book on this). Second, some places are resilient to loss of some species (e.g., most notably the American Chestnut). In fact, the idea that “ecosystems will unravel” is based on the idea of an “ecosystem” which is a human construct, and the reification of that concept Ithink leads to a variety of fuzzy thinking (but that will probably be a post after I retire, inasmuch as it would require more time). Third, and most importantly, species that are close to extinction (or not, in some cases, but someone has made the case that they are) are protected by ESA, not NFMA. BLM land does not have NFMA viability clauses and they seem to be doing fine with protecting species based on ESA. At least I don’t think anyone has claimed that BLM land has seen species extinctions due to lack of an viability regulation?

That’s a tough thing for Forest Service planners and bio-crats to grasp as they focus on technicalities and on making sure that their plan is legally foolproof.

This seems a bit pejorative about hard-working federal employees (but it sounds like this is Bob and not Taylor) , and additionally, others (perhaps AFRC?) have gone on record as thinking that this rule opens many other areas to future new, and potentially equally difficult, case law.

In areas other than species conservation, the new rule has garnered favorable reviews, especially in its push for restoration of forests and watersheds. If the agency is successful in healing scarred ecosystems, those efforts could do more to maintain healthy plant and animal communities than legal battles over individual species or projects.

Congratulations to all who participated in this 2.5 or so year effort, Forest Service workers, members of the public, members of stakeholder groups, other agencies!

USDA Publishes Final Rule to Restore the Nation’s Forests Through Science and Collaboration

Here’s the link to the press release and here to the rule itself and miscellaneous related documents.

Secretary Vilsack announces publication of the final land management planning rule

WASHINGTON, March 23, 2012 – Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack today announced the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s final Planning Rule for America’s 193-million acre National Forest System that includes stronger protections for forests, water, and wildlife while supporting the economic vitality of rural communities.

This final rule – which follows USDA’s Feb. 3 publication of the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement – replaces the 1982 rule procedures currently in use, and provides a new framework to be used for all individual management plans for 155 national forests and grasslands across the country. Over half of Forest Service units are currently operating with plans that are more than 15 years old.

“This new rule provides the framework we need to restore and manage our forests and watersheds while getting work done on the ground and providing jobs,” said Vilsack. “The collaboration that drove this rulemaking effort exemplifies the America’s Great Outdoors initiative to foster conservation that is designed by and accomplished in partnership with the American people.”

The USDA and the Forest Service carefully considered over a quarter million comments received on the proposed rule and draft environmental impact statement issued in February to develop today’s final rule, which emphasizes collaboration, sound science and protections for land, water and wildlife.

The final rule strengthens the role of public involvement and dialogue throughout the planning process. It also requires the use of the best available scientific information to inform decisions.

“We are ready to start a new era of planning that takes less time, costs less money, and provides stronger protections for our lands and water”, said U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell. “This new rule will bring 21st century thinking to a process that is sorely needed to protect and preserve our 193 million acres of amazing forests and grasslands.”

Land management plans under the final rule will include:

Mandatory components to restore and maintain forests and grasslands.
Requirements to provide habitat for plant and animal diversity and species conservation. The requirements are intended to keep common native species common, contribute to the recovery of threatened and endangered species, conserve proposed and candidate species, and protect species of conservation concern.
Requirements to maintain or restore watersheds, water resources, water quality including clean drinking water, and the ecological integrity of riparian areas.
Requirements for multiple uses, including outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, wildlife and fish.
Requirements to provide opportunities for sustainable recreation, and to take into account opportunities to connect people with nature.
Opportunities for public involvement and collaboration throughout all stages of the planning process. The final rule provides opportunities for Tribal consultation and coordination with state and local governments and other federal agencies, and includes requirements for outreach to traditionally underrepresented communities.
Requirements for the use of the best available scientific information to inform the planning process and documentation of how science was used in the plan.
A more efficient and adaptive process for land management planning, allowing the Forest Service to respond to changing conditions.

Continuing the strong emphasis that has been placed on public engagement throughout this rule-making effort, USDA is forming a Federal Advisory Committee to advise the Secretary and the Chief on implementation of the final rule. The nomination period closed on February 21, 2012 with committee members to be announced this spring.

The Nez Perce and Clearwater National Forests in Idaho, the Chugach National Forest in Alaska, the Cibola National Forest in New Mexico, El Yunque National Forest in Puerto Rico and California’s Inyo, Sequoia and Sierra National Forests will begin revising their plans using the final rule this spring. These eight national forests were selected because of their urgent need for plan revisions, the importance of the benefits they provide, and the strong collaborative networks already in place.

With an Interior West flavor..

New national forest rule to focus on restoration of damaged ecosystems
Posted: 03/09/2012 01:00:00 AM MST

By Bruce Finley
The Denver Post

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_20134895/new-national-forest-rule-focus-restoration-damaged-ecosystems

Obama administration officials are emphasizing restoration of degraded ecosystems as they roll out a final new rule for managing the nation’s 193 million acres of forests and grasslands.
Thirty years in the making, the rule to be officially issued this month will direct regional foresters to use science and more monitoring to improve conditions, Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell said in an interview Thursday.
“If we don’t restore our forests and grasslands, we’re going to continue to see more loss of the benefits,” Tidwell said. “More loss of the clean water that is produced on healthy forests. More loss of wildlife habitat. More soil erosion.”
The congressionally required rule sets a framework for regional plans that govern all activities on national forests — from tree-cutting to oil-and-gas drilling to hiking on trails.
It replaces a 1982 rule that was meant to protect forests but failed to prevent widespread damage from intensifying wildfires, insect epidemics, climate change and human population growth.
That Reagan-era rule “focused on restricting activities,” Tidwell said.
Now, regional foresters’ focus on wildlife “management indicator species” as a basis for assessing forest health is to be replaced with a focus on broad habitat needs for a diversity of species.
“If there is scientific evidence that a species is at risk of starting to lose population, to the point where we maybe would have to list it as ‘threatened’ or ‘endangered,’ then we would take additional steps” to ensure survival, he said. “It all has to be based on scientific evidence.”
Conservationists commenting on drafts of the rule have said it leaves too much discretion to individual forest managers. The final version, Tidwell said, “strikes a very good balance between providing national consistency … and allowing that local discretion.”
National Wildlife Federation attorney Michael Saul said success likely will depend on Congress making sure forest studies and monitoring can be done.
“If the Forest Service has sufficient staff and resources to implement the final rule as intended, then I think, on balance, it will result in more science-based and better management of watersheds and wildlife habitat,” Saul said.
The forest management planning process itself consumes Forest Service staff. Legal challenges and politics repeatedly have frustrated prior efforts to revise the 1982 plan. Federal courts since 2000 have rejected multiple attempted revisions, including a Bush administration rule in 2009.
Meanwhile, the regional plans governing 68 of 127 forests and grasslands have not been updated as required.
The final rule is expected to spur updating of those plans through a speedier process of assessment, revision and monitoring.
Colorado contains 13.8 million acres of national forest, much of it fragmented by roads. Traditional uses such as timber-harvesting have declined. New uses such as motorized off-road vehicle recreation are on the rise. Forest plans still must balance multiple uses.
Restrictions on activities need not increase, Tidwell said. For example, more trees, not less, may be cut to deal with the ravaging of millions of acres of western forests by bark beetles.
And even with population growth driving more recreationists into the woods seeking solace, “there are lots of things we can do to address the impacts,” he said, especially if forest users are sensitive to the environment and stay on trails. “We can do things to harden trails so that they can handle more use.”

To make sense of economic sustainability we have to delve into sustainability. Then we can see what sense is (or is not) made of ‘economic sustainability’ in the 2012 proposed NFMA rule (pdf).

Sustainability
At root, what we call sustainability (Wikipedia link) is a vision quest—a movement to better align human action with Nature and natural systems evolution. In Wikipedia, sustainability is said to have ecological, social and economic dimensions. All dimensions are interconnected. Sustainability found its way into the 2000 NFMA rule, and has been there since. But the framing has been tweaked at bit since. Let’s take a close look at “economic sustainability” as framed in the newly proposed NFMA rule, in the context of the overall quest for sustainability.

Social and Economic Sustainability

§ 219.8 SUSTAINABILITY. …
(b) Social and economic sustainability. The plan must include plan components, including standards or guidelines, to guide the plan area’s contribution to social and economic sustainability, taking into account:
(1) Social, cultural, and economic conditions relevant to the area influenced by the plan;
(2) Sustainable recreation; including recreation settings, opportunities, and access; and scenic character;
(3) Multiple uses that contribute to local, regional, and national economies in a sustainable manner;
(4) Ecosystem services;
(5) Cultural and historic resources and uses; and
(6) Opportunities to connect people with nature.

Sustainability Defined

§ 219.19 DEFINITIONS. … Sustainability. The capability to meet the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. For purposes of this part, “ecological sustainability” refers to the capability of ecosystems to maintain ecological integrity; “economic sustainability” refers to the capability of society to produce and consume or otherwise benefit from goods and services including contributions to jobs and market and nonmarket benefits; and “social sustainability” refers to the capability of society to support the network of relationships, traditions, culture, and activities that connect people to the land and to one another, and support vibrant communities. {emphasis added}

I don’t quibble with the framing on social sustainability, but the language on economic sustainability seems tortured to me. Worse perchance is the fact that what is called ‘economic sustainability’ is not linked to ‘ecological sustainability’, not even to ‘social sustainability’. How bizarre is this ‘economic sustainability’ frame? As I read the 2012 rule, economic actors can do whatever they want with an umbrella of ‘economic sustainability’ overhead. Is this by intent? By oversight? Or am I off base in my allegation?

I looked to the 2000 NFMA Rule (pdf) to see if they had allowed such discretion. Nope. Not that I agreed with that rule either, but at least that particular mistake was avoided. I went to the 2005 rule (pdf) to see if the economic sustainability language was separate from ecological sustainability. Yep. This is where it began. It was framed as if economic sustainability and ecological sustainability were competitors instead of compliments. The 2008 rule (pdf) is similar to the 2005 rule in this regard. And so is the proposed 2012 rule.

The Wikipedia page on Sustainability, by contrast does not allow for such separation of ecological, social and economics in their rendition of sustainability. In Wikipedia, sustainability is said to have ecological, social and economic ‘dimensions’. All is interconnected.

Perhaps I’m nitpicking. But I believe that something is lost when ‘dimensions’ or aspects of sustainability are framed separately as if they are independent, without interconnections to affirm wholeness. Bridging the gap from philosophy to actionable procedure proves difficult when dealing with something as novel, important, and threatening to the status quo as sustainability. I get that. But the Forest Service has had a few years to mull over this misstep. How was it missed? Or was the separation set up on purpose? Anyone care to clear the air on this?

Personal Addendum (for sustainability nuts)
I began promoting sustainability in the early 1990s (see, Eco-Watch Archives, particularly 1991 , 1994, 1995). In 1994 Zane Cornett and I even proffered a definition for sustainability in the context of what we then called ecosystem management. Our definition, like most others, focuses both on the need for humans to relate better to the environment, and for humans to act in less destructive ways toward the environment. Like most others we tied ALL together, following John Muir: “When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.” Here is our rendition:

Sustainability is a relationship between dynamic cultural, economic, and biophysical systems associated across the landscape such that quality of life for humans continues — both for individuals and cultures. It is a relationship in which the effects of human activities do not threaten the integrity of the self-organizing systems that provide the context for these activities.

To further clarify this definition of sustainability, we need a complementary definition for integrity. The philosophy of ecosystem management integrates biophysical, cultural, and economic systems into the single concept of “ecosystems”.

An ecosystem has integrity if it retains its complexity and capacity for self-organization (arguably its health) and sufficient diversity, within its structures and functions, to maintain the ecosystem’s self-organizing complexity through time.

The definition for integrity is applicable to each of the economic, cultural, and biophysical subsystems, as well as to the integrated ecosystem.

At the end of the 1998, when I penned my First Epistle to the Clinton Era NFMA Committee of Scientists, I anchored the whole of my commentary around sustainability and the contextual, multi-scale/scope nature of public lands management. To approach sustainability, public lands management must interrelate various ecological and social systems at various scale across multiple ownerships. Anything short of this is to miss important linkages needed to inform prudent decision-making in setting policy, in program development, and project design. At least that was how I saw it then. I’m still preaching that gospel today, e.g my Adaptive Governance Roadmap for a NFMA rule rewrite.

Conflicts in Nevada Forests?
Mike Clifford
Nevada News Service
http://www.lahontanvalleynews.com/article/20120206/NEWS/120209922/1087&ParentProfile=1045

LAS VEGAS – Endangered animals, outdoor recreation and mining could peacefully coexist in Nevada’s national forests under new management guidelines proposed by the Obama administration.

The first “forest planning rule” update in 30 years will require use of the best available science and hopefully resolve long-standing conflicts such as those between industry and environmentalists, according to Jeanne Higgins, supervisor of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, the largest in the lower 48 states.

“Specifically mining and grazing, recreational uses, how we provide habitat for wildlife and how we make sure that we’re providing clean water.”

The new planning rule eventually will apply to 155 national forests and grasslands in 42 states and Puerto Rico. The guidelines are expected to be finalized in about a month.

Peter Nelson, director of Defenders of Wildlife’s federal lands program, says the new planning rule will allow forest managers to focus on the recovery of damaged watersheds and endangered plant and animal species, while also providing for multiple uses which include recreation and logging. He’s optimistic the approach will work.

“The concept of restoration-based forestry is very appealing because it is able to provide multiple values at the same time, including the creation of wildlife habitat with traditional or innovative logging practices. So, that’s something that is doable.”

More than 300,000 public comments were received since the draft rule was released last year. Nelson says it’s a reflection of how Americans view the national forests.

“The national forest system, at almost 200 million acres, is really one of America’s most prized assets. And because it offers so much value to so many people on so many levels, that’s why people are interested in getting involved and fighting for these places. It’s a healthy thing.”

The Forest Service says the new guidelines will give individual forest managers more flexibility to respond to changing conditions, and should speed up the process of developing new forest-management plans.

A long time ago I wished for the opportunity to help draft planning rule language. This was important stuff that could influence the management of national forests for years to come. Unfortunately, I got my wish. That particular rule vanished somewhere in the change of administrations. I like to think that it wasn’t all time wasted and that it helped lay the groundwork for future efforts including the current one.

With the release of the FPEIS, the Forest Service seems very close to getting what it has wished for so long. Lately, I have wished for more meaningful discussion on the subject and I seem to have gotten my way here as well. Posters and commenters have been raising a number of interesting questions. Here’s my take on a few.

Didn’t the Forest Service want to replace the old viability standard with something that would be easier to defend in court?

Definitely. NFMA actually doesn’t say anything about viability. Instead, it talks about the “diversity of plant and animal communities.” The 1982 rule established the viability requirement and Management Indicator Species (MIS) as mechanisms for providing adequate diversity. Agency directives further spelled out how the designation of “sensitive species” would help accomplish this. Over time, what all these requirements mean, particularly procedures for monitoring of MIS and Sensitive species has evolved as litigation played out in various courts.

A lot of what evolved doesn’t make very good biological sense and doesn’t do very much to provide for the diversity of plant and animal communities. The ecosystem and fine-filter focused language of the new rule really does make more sense biologically.  The catch is, there’s no case history in the courts yet to help define what it will really take to implement it. A lot of forests have figured out what kind of monitoring for MIS and sensitive species they need to do to be defensible in court.  Some of it may be a waste of time and money but at least it’s a devil they know pretty well. They may not get to know the devil of the new rule until a lot of terminology and language gets better defined by the courts.

Don’t the forests in the East cut more timber than those in the West?

Yup. I haven’t researched the most recent numbers, but a couple of years ago, the Southern Region (R8) harvested more volume than any other Forest Service region.  The national forests in Mississippi and the Ouachita in Arkansas led the pack nationally. Most of this harvest has been thinnings and almost all of it is part of projects designed to restore desired ecological conditions.

Isn’t “restoration” hard to define?

It can be, that’s why the answer to the next question is so important.

Why is collaboration necessary?

The reason that national forests in the South cut so much timber and restore some many acres of wildlife habitat (ultimately “ensuring” viable populations) with so few lawsuits is due to hard work up front to define desired ecological conditions in a collaborative fashion with stakeholders. When projects are viewed as necessary to restore forests to conditions that a large group of people want to see, the need to litigate those projects largely vanishes.

Aren’t there a lot of good reasons for a new rule?

Sure. It’s been a long time since the passage of NFMA. Scientific thought and management approaches have evolved so it makes sense to incorporate this knowledge into a new rule. Is a new rule necessary to write good forest plans and implement projects that provide for the diversity of plant and animal communities? Lots of good examples indicate otherwise.  Will implementing a new rule be easy or straightforward? Certainly not. Will it give us something to talk about? I hope so. Will the Forest Service come to regret getting what it wished for?  Stay tuned.

The long-awaited NFMA “proposed planning rule” is out. It looks pretty much like the Draft rule to me. I have longed to see the Forest Service embrace adaptive management for public lands, or adaptive governance, as I argued here last year in Fixing the Rule: An Adaptive Governance Roadmap. But much like in the Draft, the preferred planning rule (Alternative A, pdf) in the Final Rule workup is a far cry from adaptive management.

Although draped in ecosystems rhetoric, when looked at from the real-world perspective of interrelated natural and social systems the 2012 Rule leaves much to be desired as adaptive management or adaptive governance. Here are four key points: First, the three levels of decision making—national strategic, forest administrative unit, project or activity—belie underlying realities of power and decision-making in the Forest Service. In short it stretches the imagination that important Forest Service decisions regarding ecosystems are to be made at the “forest administrative unit”, except for maybe the Tongass, The National Forests of Texas, and so on.

Second, desired (future) conditions are ineffectually dealt with at the forest or project scale, and often cry-out for contexts that don’t fit well under the category “national strategic.” Admittedly, the Forest Service has left itself an “out” re: broader scale assessments, but it is doubtful that many such efforts will yield substantive results.

Third, “standards” are better structured/set in contexts far from forest-level planning. I’ll be watching, but I can’t right now think of any meaningful standards that ought to be made in the development or revision of a forest plan.

Fourth, Why is the Forest Service hell-bent on replacing the federally accepted “appeals” process with an “objections process”? Does the Forest Service really believe that this is a change for the better?

My beef is not with many ecological/social concepts embedded in the 2012 rule: sustainability, species diversity, ecological integrity, etc. I have championed these for many years. But I have argued for years that they are better structured in an adaptive governance frame, rather than the rigid straitjacket of this rule. Is it time for Congressional oversight hearings on RPA/NFMA? Has this particular law outlived its usefulness? After all, the law was put in place in an era when production planning was still in vogue, before The Decline and Fall of Rational Planning. The law did not envision an era of collaborative stewardship of public lands.

Let’s look at each of the four identified problems in more detail:

Three levels of decision-making
In the old days when forest were viewed in large part through the eyes of production planners, it made sense to empower forest unit managers with setting up goals and objectives for individual national forests (as individual production factories). Projects and activities flowed from this goal setting: timber sales and other output production goals, for example. National or strategic goal and policy setting sat at the top and was informed by lower-level decision-making, although political pressures were arguably the main driving force for production goals like “getting the cut out.” This reasoning made its way into the RPA/NFMA and set the stage for the 1982 NFMA rule that still governs (despite repeated attempts to update it) the administration of the national forest system. But the days of viewing forests as production factories has ended.

Desired Conditions
Absent appropriate context, how is a forest supervisor to declare “desired conditions?” In my view, these appropriately derive from broader-scale assessments and policy considerations. Within such, a forest supervisor might make a periodic call as to forest or sub-forest niche(s). But to expect such without appropriate context-setting is asking the impossible. And it escapes me how this rule will promote effective context-setting.

Standards
Someone will have to show me just where forest level standards make any sense at all. I have argued before that they do not, and that standards are rightfully set and revised situationally as needed, not according to some time-clock for forest plan revision.

Objections Process to replace Appeals Process
I have never understood the need for this. It is at best a minor variation on a theme that could have as easily been made to work under the more-familiar appeals process. At worst, it proves a means to dodge public deliberation responsibility—to deny collaborators an opportunity to seek redress for surprise changes in proposed action as it becomes “federal action.” The only redress then becomes court challenge. It seems to me that in an attempt to streamline the process, the forest service only made things worse.

In Sum
Since the Forest Service has chosen not to take the adaptive management/governance path, why not revisit the RPA/NFMA law with an eye toward collaborative stewardship? I new or revised law might help the agency see how interrelated ecological and social systems require the interrelated efforts—at context-dependent scales—of both forest service line, staff, and research as well as collaborators from other agencies as well as interest groups and others who hold a stake in outcomes.

If the Forest Service had embraced adaptive governance in this rule, we would see broad-scale assessments well up at appropriate scale and scope, accompanied by broad-scale policy, plans, or programs meant to address problems identified in the assessments. Monitoring regimes would accompany both. All would be structured at scope and scale appropriate to resolve issues and problems identified. Maybe we’ll see such anyway, somehow welling up for so-called forest plan implementation and other policy. Or maybe we’ll see endless, mindless, context-blind rituals at the forest scale: pretend assessment, pretend planning, pretend monitoring—forever missing opportunities for adaptive management, for adaptive governance.

Related: Fixing the Rule: An Adaptive Governance Roadmap