Planning

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.

Proposed Planning Rule Available!

by

Just when we were running out of things to talk about. ;)..

HERE.

Found this summary on the AFS website:

USDA Forest Service Unveils Proposed Planning Rule to Provide Science-Based Framework to Support Healthy Forests and Communities
Posted on February 10, 2011 by grassam
USDA Forest Service Unveils Proposed Planning Rule to Provide Science-Based Framework to Support Healthy Forests and Communities

Forest Service Seeks Public Comment on Proposed Rule

WASHINGTON, Feb. 10, 2011 – The USDA Forest Service unveiled its proposed Forest Planning Rule today which would establish a new national framework to develop land management plans that protect water and wildlife and promote vibrant communities.

Forest Service land management plans guide management activities on the 155 National Forests and 20 Grasslands in the National Forest System. The proposed planning rule provides a collaborative and science-based framework for creating land management plans that would support ecological sustainability and contribute to rural job opportunities. The proposed rule includes new provisions to guide forest and watershed restoration and resilience, habitat protection, sustainable recreation, and management for multiple uses of the National Forest System, including timber.

“This proposed planning rule seeks to conserve our forests for the benefit of water, wildlife, recreation and the economic vitality of our rural communities,” said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. “The proposed rule will provide the tools to the Forest Service to make our forests more resilient to many threats, including pests, catastrophic fire and climate change. Healthy forests and economically strong rural communities form a solid foundation as we work to win the future for the next generation.”

Publication of the proposed planning rule in the Federal Register will kick off a 90-day public comment period, ending May 16. The Forest Service will use comments to develop a final rule. To encourage public engagement, the Forest Service is hosting an open forum to discuss the proposed rule on March 10, 2011 in Washington, D.C. The meeting will be Web cast to allow for national participation, and there will be additional public forums held throughout the country. The proposed rule, meeting information, and additional information can be found at www.fs.usda.gov/planningrule.

Highlights of the proposed planning rule include:

■A more effective and efficient framework that would allow adaptive land management planning in the face of climate change and other stressors.
■Increased requirements for public involvement and collaboration throughout all stages of land management planning.
■Improved ability to respond to climate change and other stressors through provisions to restore and maintain healthy and resilient ecosystems.
■Increased protections for water resources and watersheds.
■More effective and proactive requirements to provide for diverse native plant and animal species.
■Provisions to guide the contributions of a National Forest or National Grassland to social and economic sustainability.
■Updated provisions for sustainable land, water and air-based recreation.
■Requirements to provide for integrated resource management of a range of multiple uses and values including outdoor recreation, range, timber, water, wildlife, wilderness, energy, mining, and ecosystem services.
■New requirements for a local and landscape-scale monitoring program that are based on the latest science.
“This proposed planning rule is the outcome of an open and transparent development process,” said Agriculture Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment Harris Sherman. “It’s a positive framework that will allow the Forest Service to more effectively restore our natural resources, support the economy, andadapt to changing conditions.”

The proposed rule would update planning procedures that have been in place since 1982, creating a modern planning process that reflects the latest science and knowledge of how to create and implement effective land management plans.

“The Forest Service has been a steward of American lands for more than a century, and this proposed planning rule will build on that tradition,” said Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell. “We value the thoughtful input we’ve received in the development of this proposed rule, and we look forward to continuing collaboration to construct an adaptive management framework for the people’s forests and grasslands, based on sound science and reflecting public values.”

The proposed rule is the product of the most participatory planning rule development process in Forest Service history. To develop the proposed rule, the Forest Service held over 40 public meetings and roundtables across the country that drew more than 3,000 participants, and hosted a blog to engage the public. Additionally, the Forest Service reviewed more than 26,000 comments on the notice of intent to issue a new planning rule.

The USDA Forest Service manages 193 million acres of forests and grasslands across the country. Drinking water for approximately one in five Americans comes from the National Forest System. American forests, including those in the National Forest System, also capture and store enough carbon every year to offset 11 percent of the nation’s industrial greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, hundreds of millions of Americans visit National Forests and Grasslands annually, with 98 percent of these lands offering free access. More information is available at www.fs.usda.gov/planningrule.

###

Here’s a link to an AP story with a title “Forest Service to stress science over politics”
that says, among other things.

–

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 find common ground between industry and conservation groups to avoid lawsuits that stall projects.

Planning rules are complicated for sure, but this story is not at all clear on what planning rules or plans are all about.

Recreation and the Planning Rule- New West Story

by

Is Recreation in the Rockies Becoming a Bigger Forest Service Priority?
Ski resorts, outfitters and others in the recreation industry want the U.S. Forest Service to think about outdoor sports enthusiasts in the same way they think about species and habitat. Will the Forest Service listen? by Steve Bunk

This story is a description of the planning rule development and the interaction with people interested in recreation.
Well worth a read. Here’s a quote.

Seven leaders of the groups met with Tidwell later that month, including Lyle Laverty, CEO of the National Association of Gateway Communities, headquartered in Denver. Laverty’s job history includes Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, director of Colorado State Parks, and associate deputy chief of the U.S. Forest Service.

He said the letter to Tidwell and the subsequent meeting with him were sparked by a Forest Service document issued during last year’s development of the planning rule. Addressing input received by the agency concerning the new rule, the document said, “Many noted that the Forest Service does not have much ability to influence economies, and should focus instead on the land management business it knows.”

“That stimulated a lot of angst,” said Laverty. During about 38 years working for the Forest Service, he never had heard anyone in the agency question its importance in influencing economies, he said.
For years, a notion has been brewing in the agency that it should leave the planning for recreational uses of national forests up to local and regional officials, Laverty said. “My personal sense is that this didn’t just happen. It’s a trend we’ve observed, starting back in the early 1990s.”

Derrick Crandall, president of the Washington, D.C.-based American Recreation Coalition (ARC), which organized the letter to Tidwell, suggested that other aspects of Forest Service work are trendier than planning for recreation. Global planning issues, such as climate change and biodiversity, “have a lot of cachet within the beltway circle,” he said.
Recreation is a key use of national forests under various federal laws, but the agency’s written materials that outlined the core concepts of the upcoming plan did not include it, he noted. “We did find it very serious that the number one benefit of national forests—camping, hiking, fishing, skiing, and other recreational activities—wasn’t even represented.”
Michael Berry, president of the National Ski Areas Association, headquartered in Lakewood, Colorado, which is the leading trade group for ski resort owners and operators, also attended the meeting with Tidwell.

“We all know that recreation, particularly in the 11 western states … plays a huge part in economies,” he said. “The issue of the agency’s ability to manage recreation is a topic that we want to continue to ensure will be addressed.”
The lobby’s emphasis on that topic bore further fruit last November, when 41 House of Representatives members wrote to Tidwell in support of recreational opportunities in national forests, including Rob Bishop and Jason Chaffetz of Utah, Doug Lamborn of Colorado, Denny Rehberg of Montana, Mike Coffman of Colorado and Mike Simpson of Idaho. Simpson is chairman of the House Interior and Environment Appropriations Committee, which overseas Forest Service funding.

“We were very interested to see the dramatic interest of the congressmen in this issue, and we think that’s probably been very helpful, also,” Crandall said.

In a recently updated list of core concepts for the planning rule, recreation now holds equal place with four other concepts: people and the environment, climate change, watershed health, and resilience, the latter of which is defined as “the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and still retain its basic function and structure.”
In terms of inviting public input, the process of developing the new planning rule has been impressive. More than 40 public meetings were held in 2010, and more than 26,000 written comments were received, plus many informal comments on the agency website devoted to the rule.

Even so, Laverty thinks that a deeper change might have been instigated by the recreational lobby’s involvement in developing the new planning rule. He said the traditional model of collaboration with interest groups is shaped like a wheel, with the Forest Service at the hub. That process involves one-on-one dealings between the agency and each interest group, with the Forest Service reviewing comments received.

The new model, which he and others suggested to Tidwell, is a circle with a number of nodes on it, one of which is the Forest Service. The others include representatives of county and city governments, wildlife management, ATV use, hunting, and numerous other special interest groups. Final decision-making power still resides with the Forest Service, but all the nodes interact with each other.

“It’s a table of trust,” Laverty said. “You have to take off your stripes and sleeves and leave your gun at the door when you come to the table.”

In the comments, Matthew Koehler linked to a couple of articles. I thought this one from 1997 was particularly interesting. It’s about Lyle coming to Denver to be Regional Forester for the Rocky Mountain Region.

Outdoor enthusiasts like Laverty used to be seen as friends of the environment, but conservation groups increasingly contend that the growing demand for outdoor recreation is wreaking havoc on national forests. They argue that ski-resort construction, off-road vehicles and mountain bikers not only drive reclusive animals out of their natural habitats, but also create trails that irreversibly damage soil and plants. “There’s no shortage of favor for the Forest Service from ski resorts and the like,” says Rocky Smith of the Colorado Environmental Coalition. “Sometimes it seems like the Forest Service is acting as an agent for the ski areas, especially since the Forest Service has been promoting this sort of industrial-strength recreation.”

Colorado environmentalists are already firing warning shots at Laverty, sending letters of concern and other documents to his D.C. office.

“I don’t have a problem with ski resorts or recreational trails,” says Jasper Carlton, “but we’re afraid that Laverty is going to allow all-out development and the forests won’t tolerate it.”

McClellan points to the impact caused by the 100,000 mountain bikers she estimates visited Vail last summer.

“The mountain bike is dangerous,” she says, “because of its potential to get people further into undisturbed backcountry–the last refuge for reclusive species like the lynx and wolverine. Where a hiker can maybe get ten miles into the backcountry, a biker can get forty and an off-road vehicle one hundred. When you throw in skiing, the result is a year-round gridlock of recreation, which is a greater threat to our lands than logging ever was. Twenty years from now, forests harvested for timber will have grown back, but a trail will always be there.

“If this kind of proliferation continues, which it looks like it will when Laverty gets out here, I predict that we’ll have uniform saturation [of Forest Service land] within two decades.”

It’s 14 years out.. I wonder how we are doing with the “saturation” idea?

Who’s at the Table and Who Decides?

by

Observing the stories in the press on our favorite topics over the past two weeks, I found a common set of questions that I hope can illuminate the controversies. ”Who’s at the Table and Who Decides?” There is another thread, in some of these stories, of the appropriate role of state and local governments.

In this post, we’ll examine the settlement of case against four forest plans (82 Rule) in southern California.

Here’s the link to the below quote. http://lakeconews.com/content/view/17531/931/
Here’s the link to another piece on the settlement on this blog.

SAN FRANCISCO – Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. has announced a settlement that requires the U.S. Forest Service to reconsider its plans regarding wilderness lands in four national forests, including the Los Padres, home of the endangered California condor. “With this settlement, the state of California will now play an active role along with the Forest Service in determining which areas of Southern California forests will be preserved as wilderness,” Brown said. The settlement resolves a lawsuit brought by Brown and various state agencies and environmental groups against the U.S. Forest Service for its plans to allow roads to be built through hundreds of thousands of acres of wild lands in the Los Padres, Angeles, Cleveland and San Bernardino national forests.

Who’s at the table? The plaintiffs (listed in the agreement) and the Forest Service and DOJ.
Who decides? The Department of Justice and the Forest Service and the plaintiffs, which in this case includes the State of California.

It appears to me that the State and groups that used the tactic of litigation moved the decisions in forest plans from being an open process, where the FS decides, to a not- open process where it is not so clear who decides. If land management allocations are ultimately to be made in the courts, because plans are so complex that it is difficult to do one perfectly- especially when people are paid to find flaws- perhaps it tells us that more conflict resolution, and not more analysis is what is needed. Again, I think it’s OK to use that as a tactic, but using that as a tactic has potential negative ramifications, from the perspective of openness and transparency, that need to be acknowledged.

It looks like the settlement imposes roadless-rule like requirements or, in other words, establishes a policy for federal lands in part of the State. We have had the discussion before on this blog about whether settlement agreements actually set policy. This seems to be an example of that.

Southern California Settlement Agreement

by
John Gastaldo

Here’s a story on the settlement to the four California forest plan litigation.
It sounds interesting:

Under the agreement, federal and state agencies, conservationists and off-roaders will work together to improve roadless areas. The Forest Service will reconsider protecting several of the areas permanently as wilderness.
In addition, parties will identify roads and trails that are degrading designated roadless areas, and the Forest Service will prioritize them for decommissioning and restoration. The agency also will protect all roadless areas from harmful activities, including those that could prevent them from being recommended as wilderness.
The compromise includes $250,000 to cover attorney’s fees and other costs incurred by environmentalists, who praised the deal as a step toward protecting natural resources on federal property.
“As the Southern California population pushes past 15 million, wild lands are even more critical to the region because they provide drinking water, clean air and outdoor recreation,” said Annette Kondo, spokeswoman for The Wilderness Society’s California office.
The Blue Ribbon Coalition and the California Association of 4-Wheel Drive Clubs were among the user groups who signed the deal. They could not be reached immediately on Thursday.

What strikes me about the agreement is how much it’s about roadless. I have to wonder if this agreement might have been reached without litigation.
Here’s the settlement agreement.

Rethinking the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum in Forest Service Plans

by

“Primitive.” 

“Semi-primitive non-motorized.” 

“Roaded-natural.” 

The fine print of most Forest Service Plans contains terms from a recreation zoning scheme that is essentially the same as when it was developed in the 1980s.  The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) is a means to subdivide a forest by desired physical, social, and managerial features to provide a setting for compatible recreational activities.  Although the basic framework has been in place for nearly 30 years, it may be lost in the discussions about a new forest service planning rule, and the system is showing some wear.  The system was never fully integrated across resources.  Forests and Regions have developed processes independently, leading to inconsistencies within and across Regional boundaries.  Naming conventions vary, and there are differences in how wilderness areas are mapped, and how seasonal distinctions are addressed.  Now, the importance of ROS maps in Forest Plans may be even greater than previously thought, after at least one court ruling saying these maps are constraints on recreational activities.

The 1979 ROS Users Guide, the 1990 ROS Primer and Field Guide, and the 2003 National ROS inventory mapping protocol describe the six distinct settings that are mapped in a Forest Plan:  urban, rural, roaded natural, semi-primitive motorized, semi-primitive non-motorized, and primitive.  Used in conjunction with Sense of Place (SOP) mapping, the Scenery Management System (SMS), and Benefits Based Management (BBM), ROS is an approach to display human values, meanings and attachment to the landscape.

The ROS system was at the heart of a sixth circuit decision discussed here a couple of months ago which struck down the revision of the Huron-Manistee Forest Plan.  In that decision, the court addressed the concern about providing “quality recreation opportunities for hikers, backpackers, and cross-country skiiers” by upholding the ROS system as a “thoughtful methodology for matching settings and activities, among other planning purposes.”   However, the court then went further and said that the Plan should not allow activities such as gun hunting and snowmobiling that are inconsistent with ROS descriptions like semi-primitive non-motorized.  The court said: ”The [Forest] Service cannot expect us to defer to its ROS descriptions when they support its decision (which we have done above), but then to disregard those same descriptions when they conflict with its decision.” ….  “the [Forest] Service’s decision not to balance these competing uses, and to disregard its own ROS descriptions, is what fell outside the relevant standards.”

One of the esoteric debates among forest planners these days is where exactly an ROS map fits in a forest plan.  Often, ROS maps don’t match management area maps, and treatment of ROS zones varies from plan to plan.  Some plans contain ROS elements as part of an aspirational “desired condition” while other plans list the identification of an ROS class as a “standard” that all projects must meet.  Although ROS is very similar to the idea of a suitability map, like timber suitability or grazing suitability, ROS is not specific to a particular activity.  It merely describes a setting for recreation activities, and only suggests certain recreational activities that might be compatible in that setting.  Because the actual conditions of the recreation setting need to be validated on the ground, it’s difficult for a forest plan to specifically identify recreational opportunities.

Arguably the most important element of the ROS mapping process is the separation of semi-primitive non-motorized areas from other motorized or roaded settings.  Essentially, a SPNM area is a contiguous unroaded area of at least 2,500 acres. A plan should have consistent direction for ROS, scenery management, travel management, road construction, and other developments.  This part of a forest plan can be very important, because it can limit road building and other development on parcels smaller than the 5,000 acre threshold for potential wilderness areas, or areas previously mapped as roadless and controlled by roadless policies.  While a “roadless” area by definition is larger than 5,000 acres, backcountry recreation activities are certainly possible in areas as small as the 2,500 acre threshold.

ROS needs to be featured as a central part of the forest planning rule.  But it needs to be updated.  Here are some considerations:

  • The terms need to be simplified.  Many people don’t understand the concept of “semi-primitive.”  In some forest plans, management areas adopted a simpler concept known as “backcountry.”
  • New categories may be necessary, to address distinctions between summer non-motorized and winter non-motorized, variations within Wilderness areas, or roaded-natural areas that may be roaded but generally non-motorized.
  • The ROS concept should be expanded to incorporate other activities and resources.  This might best work by requiring ROS zones to be integrated into the forest plan management area process.
  • ROS classifications probably shouldn’t be treated as forest plan standards.  There are too many variables that influence what recreational activities can occur in an area.  However, the planning rule should treat the ROS idea as an important feature of forest plans and plan objectives, standards, and guidelines should be consistent with the ROS classifications.
  • The designation of ROS zones needs to be made at multiple scales.  ROS zoning is subject to the same pitfalls as general management area zoning – it can tend to fragment a forest, and doesn’t lend itself to the larger question of regional recreational experiences.  One report suggests that the inability to “think and act regionally” leads to a homogenization of recreation experiences which suboptimizes and reduces the flow of recreational experiences in the region. 

The ROS system is a sophisticated tool that has been adopted by other agencies and even extended to nonfederal lands.  It’s time to dust it off, and make sure it’s a key element of the new planning rule.

Rep. Rehberg of Montana on Planning Rule and Recreation

by

Here’s an article in the Clark Fork Chronicle.

Here’s a quote

Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-MT) is demanding the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) protect recreation and access in national forests when drafting National Forest System land management planning rules. The letter is in response to concerns being raised in Montana and elsewhere that current draft planning concepts are ambiguous and leave critical decisions to unelected bureaucrats.

“We’ve seen time and time again that when a regulation is vague, unelected bureaucrats tend to abuse the wiggle room to the detriment of the people of Montana,” said Rehberg, a member of the Congressional Western Caucus and the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus. “It takes more work to get it right the first time, but in the long run, it saves money and leads to better policy.”

The USFS is in the process of developing a new national planning rule, which will be used to guide local officials with developing individual forest management plans. Draft concepts, which will ultimately be used to develop the rule, have been posted on the agency’s website.

Unfortunately, these drafts include vague and ambiguous terms that could lead to reduced recreational opportunities on forest lands and endless litigation. For example, the Draft Recreation Approach (DRA) specifies that recreation must be “environmentally and fiscally sustainable”, but fails to define what that means. Because stakeholders may be unable to agree on definitions, this could hamper individual forest supervisors’ ability to develop land management plans that include robust and diverse access and recreation provisions.

The complete letter from Rehberg to Chief Tidwell is reprinted in the article.

40th Anniversary of Bolle Report

by

Next Thursday, Nov. 18, marks the 40th Anniversary of publication of the “Bolle Report” in the Congressional Record in 1970 (Bolle Report in pdf).  Our readers are likely familiar with the Bitterroot controversy and the importance of the Bolle Report in shaping contemporary National Forest law and management.  But here is some background I wrote a while back just in case: 

The Bitterroot controversy was a major flashpoint in American environmental history that engendered significant changes to national forest policy.  It served as an important reference during a larger national debate about public lands management.  The case brought into stark relief several issues that would come to characterize U.S forest politics and conflict, including the practice of clearcutting, forest economics, road building, federal budgetary pressures, and the role of public participation in natural resources management. 

Responding to increased demand, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) began to more aggressively harvest timber after World War Two.  This national change in management philosophy, from so-called custodian to timber production agency, was very apparent on the Bitterroot National Forest (BNF), located in the northern rocky mountain region of western Montana and Idaho.  Here, the USFS used clearcutting and terracing silvicultural techniques to meet its timber production goals.  Several citizens of the Bitterroot Valley, however, disliked this degree of intensive forest management and charged that it was environmentally and aesthetically harmful.  Among other complaints, citizens objected to the practice or intensity of clearcutting and/or terracing, stream siltation and watershed impacts, excessive road building, the level of timber harvesting, real estate effects, and the inadequate attention given to other multiple uses. 

In response, the BNF conducted its own task force appraisal acknowledging that land management could be improved and that communication between the agency and public had been “seriously inadequate.”  It found insufficient multiple use planning principally at fault for management problems on the Bitterroot.  It also observed an implicit attitude among personnel that “resource production goals come first and that land management considerations take second place.”  But in the agency’s defense, it noted how this pressure to meet production goals comes from the federal level, and that Congress and the Executive branches had shown great interest in making sure the BNF met its timber sale objectives.  While the Task Force admitted that mistakes had been made in the past, it defended the approved allowable cut on the forest, and found other criticisms regarding environmental impacts unwarranted. 

Shortly thereafter, Montana Senator Lee Metcalf, from the Bitterroot Valley himself, responded to widespread constituent complaints about forest management, especially about clearcutting and the dominant role of timber production in USFS policy, by requesting an independent study of the problem by Dean Arnold Bolle of the University of Montana’s School of Forestry.  Bolle appointed a select group of faculty members from the University of Montana to investigate, and this group went further in its critique of forest management on the Bitterroot and beyond. 

The Committee began its report with the startling statement that “[m]ultiple use management, in fact, does not exist as the governing principle on the Bitterroot National Forest.”  It viewed the controversy as substantial and legitimate, with local and national implications.  The Committee’s approach was to contrast the actions of the USFS with the written policies and laws governing forest management.  From there, the “Bolle Report,” as it became known, criticized the Bitterroot’s “overriding concern for sawtimber production” from an environmental, economic, organizational, and democratic standpoint.  Other multiple uses and resource values were not given enough serious consideration according to the Report: “In a federal agency which measures success primarily by the quantity of timber produced weekly, monthly and annually, the staff of the [BNF] finds itself unable to change its course, to give anything but token recognition to related values, or to involve most of the local public in any way but as antagonists.”  The subculture of forestry, it seemed to the Committee, was out of step with shifting American values and goals.  Though professional dogma was partly to blame, the Bolle Report also found that “[t]he heavy timber orientation is built in by legislative action and control, by executive direction and by budgetary restriction.” The Report also focused on the economic irrationality of clearcutting and terracing on the Bitterroot, and the serious lack of democratic participation in forest management.

Together with a parallel case on the Monongahela National Forest in West Virginia, the Bitterroot controversy helps explain the significant changes that were made to U.S. forest policy in the 1970s, including new guidelines on clearcutting in the National Forests, and passage of the National Forest Management Act in 1976.  Though its significance continues to be debated, the latter at least partly addressed some of the issues in the Bitterroot conflict, like by placing limits on clearcutting, and giving the public a more meaningful role to play in forest management and planning.  But these and other issues, like top-down federal budgetary pressures, road building, the economics of forestry, and the purpose of planning continue to cause controversy.”

A few years ago I spent a few days going through Dean Bolle’s files and correspondence that are archived here on campus.  I left pretty humbled and a few things struck me.  First, it made me really appreciate how controversial the Report actually was at the time.  Newspaper coverage and clippings galore.  And the Bolle Committee certainly took their lumps from disgruntled powers, from Montana’s timber industry to the Society of American Foresters.  But it was also neat to see letters from distinguished faculty members from all over the country that were so impressed with the mavericks at Montana, some asking Dean Bolle how they could come to Missoula and do work that matters. 

A lot has obviously changed since 1970.  Take the Bitterroot for starters, as one could make the case that motorized recreation and development in the wildland urban interface are now the big issues of the day.  When it comes to forest management, the general context is fundamentally different than it was back then, from new science and law to international trade deals.  

But some of the issues addressed in the Bolle Report have been stubbornly persistent.  Problematic Forest Service budgets, road building, the economics of forestry, and the purpose of planning and public participation continue to cause controversy.  Consider, for example, some of the debate on this blog about financial incentives and the USFS and the use of commercial timber sales.  And Some of our contributors still reference things said by some Bolle Committee members, like Dick Behan’s provocative argument that NFMA was a “solution to a non-existent problem.”  He wasn’t exactly enamored with the forest planning mandate that somehow came out of the Bitterroot/Monongahela controversies—what he considered to be place-based problems with place-based solutions. 

And so here we are, closing in on 2011, and we continue to ask about the purpose of planning, the adequacy of NFMA, and the meaning and future of multiple use. 

Martin Nie, University of Montana

Adaptive Co-Management- Exploring Our Future

by

Here are some links contributed by Lynn Jungwirth and her thoughts…

This, I think, is where we are going with forest planning efforts……. I think this is what TNC is doing with their Fire Learning Networks….creating learning networks. The Berkes article contrasts decision making collaborative with learning collaborative and puts them in the context of adaptive management….so now, the term is “adaptive co-management”. I think the jig is up in terms of thinking that there are natural systems and social systems……7 billion people puts us at eco-socio systems…..and these guys are trying to figure out what is emerging in terms of “bright spots” of success for that…

Here are the papers she sent Hill.etal_2010_adaptive.co-management_Australia, Cundill.and.Fabricius_2010_adaptive.monitoring and Berkes_2009_adaptive.co-management.

Clearly landscape scale collaboration is the way to go.. as so many currently funded initiatives in the federal agencies would attest. They are almost too numerous to list.

It may take a while to read the above papers for all of us busy people, but I’d be interested in hearing from readers in the next few weeks.. which ideas do you think are the most key to have in forest planning (or in a forest planning rule) and why?

Forest Plans May be More Meaningful after Sixth Circuit Decision

by

Are Forest Service Land Management Plans themselves a final decision about the location of activities such as snowmobiling and hunting, or are they merely guidance for when decisions are really made at a project level or subsequent travel management decision? 

That question has been central to controversies about new Forest Service planning rules that were developed in 2005 and 2008, and relevant to the team now writing a new planning rule.  The 2005/2008 planning rules were based on the concept that plans are merely aspirational and not inherently enforceable, citing the 1998 Supreme Court Ohio Forestry decision on timber harvest projections in the Wayne Forest Plan.  The Forest Service used the Supreme Court decision in its logic for the 2005 rule, explaining that plans do not need to be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Statement, because no specific decisions are being made and because environmental documentation will be completed as timber projects are proposed.  It also led to the idea that the planning process itself could be simpler, because forest plans don’t make site-specific decisions.

A Sixth Circuit decision on Wednesday could lead to a different view of the nature of a Forest Plan.  The decision on the Huron-Manistee Forest Plan ruled against the Forest Service in favor of Kurt Jay Meister, an attorney representing himself.  The Court ruled that Forest Plans under the existing 1982 rule (under 2000 rule transition provisions) make meaningful recreation decisions.  Citing inadequacies in the analysis of the noise impacts of snowmobiling and hunting on semi-primitive recreational experiences,  the Forest Service has been given 90 days to correct the deficiencies of the Huron-Manistee Plan.

The Sixth Circuit Court noted the difference between recreational activities in a Forest Plan and timber activities mentioned in the earlier Supreme Court decision:

“But the (Supreme) Court observed that the Plan itself “does not give anyone a legal right to cut trees, nor does it abolish anyone’s legal authority to object to trees being cut.”  To the contrary, additional agency action – namely, issuance of a site-specific permit – was required before anyone could engage in the logging that the Sierra Club said would harm its interests.  Thus, the Court held, the plan had not yet “inflict[ed] significant practical harm upon the interests that the Sierra Club advance[d].  Hence the case was not ripe.  Meister’s case is different.  Unlike logging, the activities about which Meister complains – gun hunting and snowmobile use – do not require further action by the Service before they can occur.  To the contrary, they have in fact occurred ever since the Plan’s issuance, with the resultant harms that Meister now alleges.  Thus, the Plan itself has harmed him in concrete ways.  His claims are ripe.”

Regarding travel management, the Circuit said that the 1982 regulations “imposed the bulk of its obligations at the (forest) planning stage; and one such obligation, as we read the regulation, is to determine whether certain clases of areas and trails ought to be altogether off-limits to off-road vehicle use.  Meister says that one such class are trails that the Service itself admits are “in or near” semiprimitive nonmotorized areas. That claim is properly presented at the Plan level.”

Regarding hunting, the court rejected a Forest Service argument that it is solely controlled by the State.  Instead, the court said that both the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, and Forest Service directives allow the Forest Service to limit hunting when it is inconsistent with direction in forest plans such as the establishment of semi-primitive non-motorized areas.

This case underscores how the 1982 planning rule is continually being interpreted by the courts.  In the development of the new planning rule, it will be important to clearly spell out what analysis will be expected in the forest planning process.  Elsewhere on this blog, there have been discussions about the importance of addressing recreation in the planning process, and how recreation isn’t being taken seriously.  However, the planning process needs to be simplified and must be more concise.  The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) does not require the planning rule to direct zoning of recreational uses in a Forest Plan.  If recreation is addressed in the new planning rule, hopefully the requirements will be clearly laid out and are achievable.