Planning Rule Development Process

What’s Pew Up To?

by


A blog-buddy told me that he had received an invitation to a meeting for leaders of faith communities put on by Pew Environment on the planning rule.

The Pew folks seem to be fans of the “national standard” approach although it’s a bit hard to tell based on their press release.. also a brief scan of their website did not yield a letter or other clear information on their views.

Jane Danowitz, public lands director for Pew, also backed calls for the agency to maintain concrete standards to protect viable plant and animal species and protect watersheds critical to public health.

“Our national forests are the source of drinking water for more than 120 million Americans and host more rare species than even our national park system,” she said in a statement. “We hope that the administration will back up its proposal with clear standards for water and wildlife protection.”

Now the planning rule is not your run-of-the-mill issue- it’s pretty complex, or arcane, depending on your point of view. So I was surprised that Pew would choose to focus attention on it- but to invest in getting folks outside our resource community up to speed raised a question.

This is from the Pew Environment website:

Pew is a major force in educating the public and policy makers about the causes, consequences and solutions to environmental problems. We actively promote strong conservation policies in the United States and internationally. Pew applies a range of tools in pursuit of practical, meaningful solutions—including applied science, public education, sophisticated media and communications, and policy advocacy.

I’ve always been a bit confused with how this fits in with the broader Pew goals.

The Pew Charitable Trusts is driven by the power of knowledge to solve today’s most challenging problems. Pew applies a rigorous, analytical approach to improve public policy, inform the public and stimulate civic life.

It’s OK to be an advocate. It’s OK to use “sophisticated media and communications.” But concerned people might wonder how that fits with the “the power of knowledge” and a “rigorous, analytical approach.” If they read a press release, which side is speaking?

And back to the religious leaders. What’s that about? I prowled around the Pew website and didn’t find anything. Have any readers any more information?

P.S. This post is not to be taken as a general criticism of Pew efforts per se. I worked with an excellent group of folks on the Pew Agbiotech Initiative where everyone put a great deal of effort into ensuring that different voices were heard and objective information evaluated. The kind of quality work they did can be found here.

Why Three Planning Levels?

by

Anyone who has followed this blog knows that I am fond of talking about adaptive management (here) and railing against planning. (here, here, here). Sometimes both at once. Today I puzzle, once again, over why the Forest Service insists on three levels of planning: national, forest, and project or activity. Note: it used to be four levels, adding “regional”, but that is likely a trivial point. I ask: Why? Why? Why?

So I decided to try and understand how this particular three-level planning scheme came to be. “National” is understandable, at least in some contexts—particularly budgeting and organizational accountability, and some policy development. “Project or activity” is where work gets done. Logical enough, at least for budgeting and work planning and accountability. But I don’t know what role such plays in a forest plan, unless we are taking about the “loose leaf compendium” that the Clinton-era Committee of Scientists recommended.

“Forest”? That too makes sense for budgeting and work accountability, etc. Remember the “cut and sold” reports, during the good old go-go timbering days? I do — painfully! But there again I can’t quite wrap my mind around ecosystem/social system planning or management at this “level”, unless we are once again talking about the “loose-leaf compendium” for administrative purposes. But even here the case for a “forest” level of planning is weak. Better to work toward planning at scales where “sense of place” and/or “sense of purpose” are in play. These type scales often cross forest borders, and often include other than forest service lands.

Finally, I began to think through the history of the Forest Service and in particular try to better understand the run-up via controversy to the National Forest Management Act (1976), following in the heels of the then recently passed Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974. Not much help there. NFMA mandates a “forest plan” but doesn’t require the type forest plan the forest service keeps writing into its “rules.” Note that the timber sale, etc. restrictions in the NFMA can still be applied even with the COS “loose-leaf compendium” notion of a forest plan.

For completeness, here is what the Clinton-era Committee of Scientists recommended, in part (from Proposed Summary of COS Report, Feb 9, 1999):

The NFMA calls for development of an integrated land- and resource-management plan for each national forest and grassland. In our approach the integrated plan is the assemblage of all policies and decisions affecting an administrative unit. It can include regional guidance for conservation strategies relevant to the area; the strategic vision, policies, and multiple-use goals developed through large landscape planning, including the description of the desired future conditions; proposed management pathways for achieving the desired future condition and multiple-use goals; implementing decisions and proposed project-level management activities developed at the small-landscape level; and sufficient records and documentation from monitoring to support ongoing adaptive management. As the foundation of administrative policy and guidance, this planning documentation also should include the budget and staffing needs for implementation as well as the procedures and timing of monitoring and review processes. As a management tool, the plan not only includes monitoring processes, but also records ongoing results and subsequent changes in both strategic and implementation decisions.

In the past, the use of administrative units as the planning units often caused large-scale ecological, economic, and social processes to be neglected or resulted in inconsistent decisions by adjacent administrative units. Therefore, the Committee suggests a planning and decision-making hierarchy whose geographic extent will often not be limited to the boundaries of a particular national forest or grassland but whose physical repository will rest at [sic] within multiple administrative units.

Thus, the land- and resource-management plan should be in the form of 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. It must also contain the monitoring methodologies that will be implemented as well as the evaluation results from monitoring. Because this model of the land- and resource-management plan is different than that employed during the first round of NFMA planning, the process of plan amendment is also different. Rather than a formal process involving review and comment, these loose-leaf plans are dynamic and evolving, readily reflecting and accommodating the outcomes of adaptive management. Thus, as decisions are revisited and revised in response to changing social understanding, natural and social events, and policy priorities, the loose-leaf notebook immediately reflects those changes. Consequently, any “amendments” made to these plans reflect decisions that have been made and reviewed elsewhere.

I find no fault with the COS recommendations! I’m just puzzled why they are not on the table this time around. I am well aware that these recommendations were developed at the very end of Clinton’s term of office, and the incoming George W. Bush Administration moved quickly to nullify all that they could that were marked by Clinton’s footprints. (including the 2000 NFMA Rule (pdf)). Why were they not followed in the 2000 rule development?

I’m puzzled. Maybe some of you who are smarter than I can help me understand what the hell is going on here with these bizarre “three levels”? And what has been going on since 1979. What were/are the drafters of these various rules thinking? Is it just “Tradition”? (Like in Fiddler on the Roof), i.e. the language was there in 1979 rule, so it will stay until hell freezes over. Something else? Can it be justified today?

Update: As Sharon points out in comments, the 1999 Committee of Scientists Report is available on the sidebar. Here the Synopsis: pdf

We’ll Consider It…

by
Tongass NF, SE Alaska. The draft regs require that "the physical and biological integration of the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems within a landscape" be taken into account.

Instead of taking on the proposed forest planning regulations in one fell swoop, I’d like to use our blog to analyze it in sections, with a lot of debate and discussion along the way.  There are things in the proposed regulations that I really like.  And I’m planning on writing about those soon.  But I’d like to start with some connected questions that our readers might be able to help answer. 

1.  Do the regulations give too much discretion to National Forest Supervisors?  The USFS, like most bureaucracies, will go down swinging in order to protect their administrative discretion.  It’s part of the agency’s (and Sharon’s) DNA.  And there is a considerable amount of discretion provided in the proposed regulations, though nothing close to 2005 or 2008 versions.  It will be up to the discretion of each National Forest to determine what the specifics look like in every place (and how standards, guidelines, suitability, monitoring, and other plan components are used).  Discretion cuts both ways and the regulations could be used to draft very different forest plans in the future.  This is not necessarily a big change from the past. 

 2.  Do the regulations ask planners to do too many things?  Does the 2011 rule ask more things of the agency than does the 1982 or 2000 versions?  I read Andy Stahl’s insightful comments before I finished reading the regulations, so I was influenced by his argument that the proposed regs are a form of “ecological rationality.” 

So I made a note of how many times the regulations ask planners to “consider” or “take into account” X, Y, Z.  This is pretty standard in environmental law and planning, but I’m curious if these regulations take it up a notch? 

Instead of mandating that the agency shall do this or that, the regulations require all sorts of important things to be considered or taken into account.  I can’t complain because I asked the agency as part of its Science Panel to consider various things when planning, so I’m guilty too (like most groups whom asked the agency to consider something better in the future).    

Before skimming the list below, consider a few questions:  Are these required considerations a good thing? Will they impact agency decision making?   Is the agency capable of doing all this?  How do these required considerations simplify planning? Are the considerations nothing new, maybe already required or done as part of NEPA analysis? 

Here are some examples, with Fed. Reg. page numbers provided: 

The planning process would take into account other forms of knowledge, such as local information, national perspectives, and native knowledge. 8481.

In doing so, responsible officials would take into account the various stressors or impacts that could affect the presence of ecological resources and their functions on the unit.

This section of the proposed rule addresses the role of science in planning and would require that the responsible official take into account the best available scientific information.  8485.

Additionally, the proposed rule would require the responsible official to use collaborative processes when possible, to take into account the various roles and responsibilities of participants and the responsibilities of the Forest Service itself, and to create a process that is open and accessible. 8486.

 In designing plan components to maintain or restore ecosystems and watersheds, the proposed rule would require the responsible official to take into account the physical (including air quality) and biological integration of the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems within a landscape.  8490

Agency proposes that the planning rule require responsible officials to take into account cultural conditions when developing plan components for social and economic sustainability.  8492.

 In developing these plan components, the responsible official would be required to take into account through the collaborative planning process and the results of the assessment the social, cultural, and economic conditions relevant to the area influenced by the plan; the distinctive roles and contributions of the unit within the broader landscape; sustainable recreational opportunities and uses; multiple uses, including ecosystem services, that contribute to local, regional, and national economies in a sustainable manner; and cultural and historic resources and uses.

Instead of adding a new aspect to sustainability, the Agency proposes that the planning rule require responsible officials to take into account cultural conditions when developing plan components for social and economic sustainability. 8492

The proposed rule would require responsible officials to consider opportunities to coordinate with neighboring landowners to link open spaces and take into account joint management objectives where feasible and appropriate. 8495

 The responsible official would also be required to consider the landscape-scale context for management as identified in the assessment and the land ownership and access patterns relative to the plan area. These requirements reflect the ‘‘all lands’’ approach the Agency is taking to resource management.  8495

 Paragraphs (a)(8) and (a)(9) would require that the responsible official take into account reasonably foreseeable risks to ecological, social, and economic sustainability and the potential impacts of climate and other system drivers, stressors, and disturbance regimes, such as wildland fire, invasive species, and human-induced stressors, on the unit’s resources. 8495

Plan components must also take into account cultural and historic resources and uses. 8513.

Section 219.4(a) requires that when developing opportunities for public participation, the responsible official shall take into account the discrete and diverse roles, jurisdictions, responsibilities, and skills of interested and affected parties as well as the accessibility of the process, opportunities, and information. 8513

When developing opportunities for public participation, the responsible official shall take into account the discrete and diverse roles, jurisdictions, responsibilities, and skills of interested and affected parties; the accessibility of the process, opportunities, and information; and the cost, time, and available staffing. 8515.

(a) Integrated resource management. When developing plan components for integrated resource management, to the extent relevant to the plan area and the public participation process and the requirements of §§ 219.7, 219.8, 219.9, and 219.11, the responsible official shall consider:

 (1) Aesthetic values, air quality, cultural and heritage resources, ecosystem services, fish and wildlife species, forage, geologic features, grazing and rangelands, habitat and habitat connectivity, recreational values and settings, riparian areas, scenery, soil, surface and subsurface water quality, timber, trails, vegetation, viewsheds, wilderness, and other relevant resources; (2) Renewable and nonrenewable energy and mineral resources; (3) Sustainable management of infrastructure, such as recreational facilities and transportation and utility corridors; (4) Opportunities to coordinate with neighboring landowners to link open spaces and take into account joint management objectives where feasible and appropriate; (5) Habitat conditions, subject to the requirements of § 219.9, for wildlife, fish, and plants commonly enjoyed and used by the public, such as species that are hunted, fished, trapped, gathered, observed, or needed for subsistence; (6) The landscape-scale context for management as identified in the assessment; (7) Land ownership and access patterns relative to the plan area; (8) Reasonably foreseeable risks to ecological, social, and economic sustainability; and (9) Potential impacts of climate and other system drivers, stressors and disturbance regimes, such as wildland fire, invasive species, and human induced stressors, on the unit’s resources (§ 219.8).

 (5) To the extent practicable, appropriate, and relevant to the monitoring questions in the program, unit monitoring programs and broaderscale strategies must be designed to take into account: (i) Existing national and regional inventory, monitoring, and research programs of the Agency, including from the NFS, State and Private Forestry, and Research and Development, and of other governmental and non-governmental parties; (ii) Opportunities to design and carry out multi-party monitoring with other Forest Service units, Federal, State or local government agencies, scientists, partners, and members of the public; and (iii) Opportunities to design and carry out monitoring with federally recognized Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations. 8521.

Etc.

Planning: The View from Plato’s Cave

by

A “forest planner” friend called me the other night to chide me for missing one of the best powder skiing days ever. As our conversation progressed I shared my frustration with the Forest Service’s thirty years failed national forest planning efforts. My friend said that I ought not to expect forest planning types, including those charged with writing “new rules,” to do anything other than minor tweaking of older rules. After all, that’s what they know and where they find comfort. My friend has a point! Sometimes, however, there is Danger in the Comfort Zone.

Keep in mind that most people, both managers and employees prefer bondage in bureaucratic power-play organizations, “psychic prisons,” to the freedom and responsibility of adaptive management learning organizations (shorter verson, longer verson (pdf)). I prefer the empowerment of the latter.

Digging deeper into the FS comfort zone, I believe the Forest Service’s “comfort” is much like that Plato talked about in his Allegory of the Cave (Wikipedia). In short, Forest Service top brass are too often like the inhabitants of Plato’s cave, chained in some way to see only the shadows of outside reality flickering on the cave walls, but unable to encounter that reality themselves.

I admit that I too am blinded by ideology/methodology, taking too much comfort, for example, in adaptive co-management. None of us is immune to this failing. Still, questions linger: Which frame serves best, planning or adaptive management? Or are both bankrupt? If not these, then what? And if an adaptive co-management frame is better, how can the Forest Service ever get there? In answering the last question, remember what Kristen Blann and Stephen Light told us a decade ago, Adaptive ecosystem assessment and management will be The Path of Last Resort (doc)! Perhaps the “path” will never be taken at all. That would indeed be unfortunate.

Links, for those unfamiliar with Plato’s Allegory:
Allegory of the Cave, Wikipedia
Plato’s Allegory of the Cave: A short summary (Warning: Not for those offended by the “f-bomb” and other “street talk”)
The Cave: 9 min. audio (with text), that explains Plato’s allegory well in contemporary context

More Stories- NY Times and Courthouse News Service

by

This story is from the NY Times/Greenwire. It’s well thought out and touches on some topics that other news stories did not.

Here are a couple of quotes:

Forest Service officials say they want the rule to provide flexibility to account for varying local conditions. What is best for a forest in Alaska, for example, is likely to be different from what is needed in a Florida forest. They also want to make sure the new rule is simple enough that it can be easily implemented. One of the complaints from forest managers about the 1982 rule is that it was too complex, and the planning process takes too long as a result.

But Francis says simplicity should not come at the expense of effectiveness.

“It could be complicated, because we’re heading into somewhat unchartered waters, and we don’t know how climate change is going to affect things,” he said. “So you need the transparency and the accountability that we’re going to move in those directions [put forth in the rule]. That’s what the forest needs. Just because it’s hard and will require some tough decisions doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it.”

and this..

Karen Hardigg, forest program manager for the Wilderness Society in Alaska, said if Tongass managers incorporate the new planning rule’s objectives into the forest’s management plan, it could help accelerate a shift away from old-growth logging to a more restoration-based economy.

“The emphasis on restoration and resiliency, on climate change, on collaboration — getting to shared priority-setting and preventing conflict — that could all be especially beneficial in southeast Alaska,” she said.

But like Francis, Hardigg believes the new rule leaves too much up to local forest managers. “We would have liked to have seen more solid direction. A little more teeth,” she said.

and

Its protections for wildlife are pretty weak,” said Jane Danowitz, public lands director for the Pew Environment Group. “There are some good aspects to the rule, but when it comes to a couple of key protections [for] wildlife and watersheds, they’re not strong and they tend to be left up to the discretion” of local forest managers, she added.

Michael Francis, national forest program director for the Wilderness Society says the new rule has a lot of good provisions, although he finds it long on vision but short on direction.

I wish the author of the piece has pressed those quoted to be more specific about what they wanted that they didn’t get. Those of us who are outside those “inside the Beltway” discussions would like to know. Is it as simple as “viability should be for all vertebrate species, and we don’t think the requirement for “maintaining or restoring ecosystem composition, structure and function” covers it because ____________”(fill in the blanks)?. Or do they actually want national standards of some kind?

Just as I was considering this, I found this story from the Courthouse News Service that indeed had more specifics.

“The administration appears to be looking to do the bare minimum for wildlife,” Defenders of Wildlife president Rodger Schlickeisen said in a statement.
The group, which was party to the lawsuits resulting in the California rulings, wanted the species viability standard reinstated and clear requirements for species monitoring.
Instead, the new rule eliminates use of management indicator species, and failed to include the species viability standard.
Earthjustice criticized the rule for lacking specific guidelines to protect streams and watersheds.
Environmentalists across the board say the rule gives agency managers too much leeway.
Marc Fink, senior attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity – also a party in both California lawsuits – said the new plan eschews the viability requirement for a longer process in which forest supervisors determine species of concern.
Fink added that a new pre-decision objection process reduces public involvement and is step in the wrong direction.
“We’re concerned it would leave too much discretion to the forest service,” Fink said in an interview.

Fink thinks the Obama administration simply did not make the forest plan a priority, and instead of clamping down to assure specific protections, gave way for the agency to seek greater autonomy.
The Forest Service said the new plan’s flexible processes should reduce litigation. “We want to spend less time in the courts and more time in the forests,” Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said at a press conference.
The Associated Press reported that lawsuits to protect habitat for threatened and endangered species in past decades have slashed logging in National Forests by three-quarters from its peak.
But it’s false to assert that environmental litigation against logging projects is tying up taxpayer resources, Fink said.
“The data just doesn’t back them up,” Fink said, adding that only a small percentage of projects are litigated.
A Government Accountability Office report in 2010 found that only 2 percent of Forest Service fuel-reduction decisions end up in court. They are called “fuel-reduction” projects because their ostensible purpose is to reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfire.
But many environmentalists view that as a cover. They point out that if fuel reduction were truly the purpose, the projects would focus on brush and small trees, and not on mature trees that are valuable as timber.
Problems with the projects justified the challenges, Fink said, adding that legal victories have proven that the Forest Service historically abused its discretion.
“We need these meaningful sideboards and constraints so the public can act as watchdogs,” Fink said.
Although the Forest Service’s plan also emphasizes multiple uses, including recreation and resource use, preservation is intended to be its core.
“The heart of this planning rule is the requirement that we maintain and restore our forests,” USDA Undersecretary Harris Sherman said at the press conference.
There are plenty of good intentions in the regulations, Fink said, including a mention of climate change for the first time.
“But when you chip away the nice-sounding language, get to the shalls and shall nots, there’s not much left,” Fink said.
The public comment period for the plan ends in May; a final rule is expected around the end of the year.
If the Forest Service does not improve its draft rule, a legal challenge is “highly likely,” Fink said.

I guess as I go to my next litigation phone call, I’ll have to remember that my and my colleagues’ time (plus OGC, plus DOJ, plus the folks on the forest preparing the record) must not be defined as “taxpayer resources” because the GAO found that lawsuits are only filed on a small percentage of all projects.

Also, who knew that objections “reduced public involvement.” It seems like they increase public involvement because you end up talking to the objectors as well as others. What kind of “public involvement” is sending an appeal to DC for review, compared to sitting with the decisionmaker, their boss, and members of the public who are interested, to describe your concerns?

Also, the way to win friends and influence people is generally not considered to be threatening lawsuits if you don’t get your way. Just sayin’

Mark Squillace Reviews Draft Rule

by

Mark Squillace, Director of the Natural Resources Law Center at the University of Colorado in Boulder, is quick out of the gate with a review of the draft rule:

http://rlch.org/blog/2011/14/2/first-look-draft-forest-planning-rules

If filmed, the Squillace trailer/teaser would begin with the voice of James Earl Jones:  He sees “much to like about the new draft rules,” but notes that “there is also cause for concern.”

What’s Goin’ On with the Planning Rule- Q’s in need of A’s

by

I have spent the weekend dealing with leadership issues in one of my volunteer organizations…so have been slow to respond to blog comments. I’m sure I’ll have something thoughtful to say about this experience, when it’s over, if it ever is…


Anyway, here’s a question from Bob Berwyn, editor of Summit County Citizen’s Voice and photographer par excellence. The photo above is his work.
IMHO we ought to be able to explain to a member of the public who is not a planning wonk “what’s goin’ on”.

Here’s the classic Marvin Gaye version of “What’s Goin’ On” for those of you for whom this reference seems unfamiliar.

Almost at the same time that I read the Forest Service press releases about the new draft forest planning rule, and even before I had a chance to click on all the links, I also had a couple of press releases from conservation and wildlife advocacy groups in my inbox, decrying the new rule as less protective of wildlife.

Sometimes, in my haste to “scoop” the local print newspaper, I rush into posting stories, using such press releases, combined with some of my own contextual understanding of the issue, to try and create something interesting for readers. I was tempted to do the same late last week, but decided against it. Instead, I posted a straightforward story about the release, along with the YouTube video (here it is,SF) , and the links straight off the Forest Service planning rule page, along with letting readers know that this is the start of another important public comment period and that there will be a meeting in Lakewood.

I figure there will be plenty of time to follow up and take a closer look at some of the particulars of the plan.

I did have a long conversation/interview with Andy Stahl, someone I’ve learned to trust over the years, knowing that he speaks from the watchdog perspective. I asked him what was different in this rule, and he zoomed in on the same issue – wildlife viability.

What I gathered from the combination of the press releases and the interview is that the new rule requires the Forest Service to carefully consider impacts to species listed as threatened or endangered, and to species of concern, but that it leaves a lot of loopholes (my word, not his) with regard to other species, or “common” species, as was posted here.

According to Andy, the 1982 version had a simple requirement to maintain the viability of all species. The new rule instead, sets a very high threshold … and relieves the Forest Service of any affirmative need to show that protection.

Andy brought the spotted owl into play and said that, ever since the spotted owl decision, the Forest Service has been trying to chip away at the viability provision.

So Friday, I tried to call the national Forest Service HQ to get some perspective from a Forest Service biologist. Couldn’t reach anyone in time, so Sharon suggested posing the question here on NCFP.

What I want is a FS biologist to explain how this new rule would be applied on the ground to protect viability of all species. I’m assuming it’s in the monitoring and assessment process, but what do I know?

I know there’s a lot more to the rule than this, but that’s what the conservation groups and wildlife advocates seem to be focusing on — Why is that?

Second question: How exactly does this rule give local forest officials more control? Can someone explain how the old rule was more centralized in Washington, D.C., as written in the Washington Post story?

Any feedback to help me explain all this my readers would be appreciated!

New Planning Rule Fails as Adaptive Management

by

What is a forest plan? A committee of scientists once said that a forest plan is simply a loose-leaf compendium of all decisions large and small that affect the administration of a national forest. Following adaptive management principles and practices, “decisions” can and are made at multiple scales: international, national whether or not made by the US Forest Service, regional and local. So too with assessments, and monitoring and evaluation measures. All these are the workings of adaptive management (pdf), not planning . The whole of the Forest Service ought to be charged to work together to accomplish broad conservation, preservation, and use goals through adaptive management. Framing needs to be changed to do this. A central planning frame has failed for 30 years. Why continue down this path?

In an adaptive management frame, forest supervisors oversee the day-to-day workings of a national forest administrative unit. But decisions affecting that unit are made in various ways at various scales, whether as part of laws, policies, programs, or activities. There are no administrative “kings” in this worldview. Instead we have various actors, some within the Forest Service and some without, working in interrelated systems that frame the workings of a national forest. We have whole organizations working together to accomplish the work of adaptive management. The task is not left to “planning.”

Now let’s begin to parse the most recent “proposed rule” for developing a forest plan. Note first that the three levels of administrative decision-making outlined in the proposed rule — national, forest, project or activity — don’t fit the adaptive management model outlined above. Why does the Forest Service continue to pretend that managing a national forest comes down to three levels of decision-making? I can see no reason, beyond tradition for maintaining this hierarchy. Can you?

If the Forest Service is incapable of understanding adaptive management, is there any hope in trying to fit adaptive management into the Forest Service culture? After thirty years watching and attempting to participate in rule development for the RPA/NFMA I am once-again left to doubt whether any progress can be made.

Adaptive management is about organizations learning to adapt to ever changing environmental and social systems. Adaptive management is not about “planning.”

Perhaps I’m too old to dabble in this stuff anymore. Perhaps the “devil in the details” ought to be left to those younger. But I believe I’ve seen this same rhetoric before — since 1979 — and it appears, broadly speaking, pretty much the same to me. The Wilderness Society gives the proposed rule a B. I give it, once again, an F. The Forest Service simply doesn’t get adaptive management. The F is for failing to adequately frame the process, for “frame blindness” and other decision traps.

If I were a forest supervisor I would feel victimized by this (and earlier “planning rules”). Forest supervisors are asked to act as “forest kings,” not forest administrators. The Washington Office of the Forest Service does a disservice to both forest supervisors and regional foresters, as well as many in the so-called “staff” program areas of the Forest Service by continuing this tradition of laying it all at the feet of forest supervisors. We might as well call them “forest scapegoats” if this tradition continues. The Forest Service seems intent to continue its 30-year tradition of gridlock unless and until there is an awakening.

I will not comment here on the many process failings leading up to this proposed rule. I’ve done it before. Suffice it to say, despite many pleadings, the Forest Service once again gathered some input in the early stages, then went into the isolation booth to hatch a rule. It should surprise no one that it closely resembles earlier rules. No “real” blogs, no wikis, no true collaboration in rule development. Why not? Other government organizations use them. What we got instead was administrative politics as usual, with associated administrative gridlock.

It is likely too late to change this rule. Despite billing it as Draft, we all know that only minor tweaking will be allowed between Draft and Final Rule. It would be refreshing for the Forest Service to admit that it botched this effort. But American politics will not allow it. Too bad! Peter Drucker once remarked that one key measure of the worth of a decision is how rapidly it can be changed in light of new information. Would that the Forest Service could “see the light,” and change this rule.

Forest Service “Takes Control” or “Flexible Plans for Resilient Forests”

by

This one from the Huffington Post

In its first sentence this article asserts that the point of the planning rule was to “take more control over the forests”; “hoping to break a legal logjam that has stymied logging”.

I would assert that that we are doing just fine, thank you, with the natural process of coevolution of litigation and agency response. I would argue that the reason for a new rule is:

That the case law around the 1982 rule has become obtuse and unworkable; that timber is no longer a big deal and should be treated as such; that a new rule should take into account the success of place- based collaboration and advisory committees; form a structure for adaptive management; and be cognizant that with the plethora of assessments (state assessments, vulnerability assessments, species assessments) that there is little that is going unassessed and that assessments have a shelf-life. I also agree with Andy that we have plenty of other layers of decisions now, such as oil and gas leasing decisions and travel management, that a forest plan no longer needs to be the comprehensive as it used to be. Monitoring and changing through a formal power-sharing arrangement with an advisory committee of some kind would be so much more 21st century.

As regular readers know, I am a biologist by education and most of my career, and so this quote was interesting:

“This flies in the face of the principal that has been in place, that the Forest Service’s job is to keep common species common,” said Rodger Schlickeisen, president of Defenders of Wildlife.

If a species is common, it is hard for me to imagine that any project that crosses my desk, or the sum of all these projects, could actually have an impact.

Forest Service Revising Rules In Bid For More Control

GRANTS PASS, Ore. — Hoping to break a legal logjam that has stymied logging as well as ecosystem restoration, the U.S. Forest Service said Thursday it was revising its planning rules to take more control over national forests and find more common ground between industry and conservation groups.

The old rules, dating back to the Reagan administration, designated certain animal species that must be protected to assure ecosystems are healthy. However, the system became the basis of numerous lawsuits that sharply cut back logging to protect habitat for fish and wildlife.

The new rules call for monitoring a broader range of species, including plants, while giving forest supervisors greater discretion to decide what science to apply and which species to protect, depending on local conditions.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said from Washington, D.C., that it’s in everyone’s best interest to have forests that stay healthy amid climate change and economic demands.

“Rather than responding to the political pressure of the time, it would be much better to say to the scientists, ‘What is the best way to make this forest the most resilient it can be,'” Vilsack told The Associated Press.

The conservation group that forced the revision by persuading a federal judge to throw out the last one said the proposal represents a dangerous rollback of mandatory protections and gives too much discretion to forest supervisors.

“This flies in the face of the principal that has been in place, that the Forest Service’s job is to keep common species common,” said Rodger Schlickeisen, president of Defenders of Wildlife.

The 155 national forests and grasslands managed by the agency cover 193 million acres in 42 states and Puerto Rico. Balance between industry and conservation in those areas has been tough to find since the existing rules went into effect in 1982.

One revision of the rules by the Clinton administration and two by the Bush administration were thrown out by federal courts.

Here’s a piece from

Feds Propose Flexible Plans for Resilient Forests

Feds Propose Flexible Plans for Resilient Forests

With climate change posing new threats—more frequent forest fires, for example, and plagues of tree-killing beetles—the U.S. Forest Service is proposing to change the way it makes its management plans for national forests. The goal is to dramatically speed up the 5- to 8-year process, which is currently governed by a 1982 rule that officials describe as expensive and inefficient. The proposed draft, released yesterday, emphasizes the use of scientific evidence in creating management plans, as well as restoring forests so that they are resilient to pests and other stresses. “It’s very important that we get this [natural] system into a healthy state as quickly as possible,” says forest ecologist William Wallace Covington of Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff, who thinks the changes would be a positive step.

Not all environmental groups agree. Some do not like the latitude given to local supervisors of forests. But Covington says what’s important is allowing supervisors to take actions, such as thinning forests, that will make the overall habitat more healthy. The Forest Service is taking public comments for 90 days.