The new Forest Planning Rules certainly change the
landscape of Forest Planning. The overriding change is the explicit
definition of the Forest Plans as "strategic", defining planning
as perhaps a useful exercise in communicating with others, but not of much
real consequence.
This view has certainly not been communicated to our
local officials who continue to doggedly assert that they have no choice
except to implement certain provisions contained in Forest Plans,
especially the more recent prescriptive amendments (A-19 and A-21).
I see positive aspects and some negative ones,
especially as they affect local communities.
Multi-forest planning—The new rule legitimatizes
planning for more than one administrative unit. This has already been
implemented by the Forest Service for amendments and forest plan revisions
for a number of years. This is just one aspect of the new regs that moves
the planning process back toward a centralized process, which I believe is
contrary to what NFMA and the old regs intended - local control at
theForest unit level where local land capabilities and local economic and
social needs could be better addressed and coordinated.
General nature of plans—The new regs only require
establishment of general desired future conditions, objectives,
guidelines, and suitability designations (all defining aspirations not
commitments). This clearly changes the old concept of a Forest Plan being
a "contract with the public" on what to expect from their
National Forest in the decade ahead even though what we actually
experienced had little to do with what was promised in the original Plan.
A plan under the new regs simply tells us up front what may happen
On the plus side, the Forest Service is freed from the
substantive, quantitative and analytical analysis requirements in the old
regs, and that will substantially reduce planning costs. In addition, the
complex and costly Environmental Impact Statements will no longer be
required, and that compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act
can be achieved with a Categorical Exclusion. This should be a huge
savings in the cost of appeals, and litigation regarding compliance with
those requirements. This may be one of the most fought over aspects,
because of the huge environmental conflict industry that depends on
contesting these requirements.
On the minus side, the entire process will be more
subjective and political in nature, and more centrally controlled out of
Washington DC. The public and the decision maker will have less
quantitative information on tradeoffs between various resources and
economics, and local needs and desires will be diluted even more than what
we have experienced in the last 10-20 years.
The new plans seem to provide an administrative
structure using an Environmental Management System (EMS) to systematically
guide planning, evaluation, monitoring, and adaptive change in the future.
Finally, the new regs make the entire process more
administrative in nature. "Administrative Corrections" may be
made at any time without processing a formal amendment to the plan. The
appeals process is replaced with an opportunity to file an
"Objection" to a Plan decision.
The new regs potentially appear to permit local
officials, who are supposed to be unbiased professionals, to do a better
job of stewardship of National Forest lands and resources to meet the
needs of the American people (more benefits) at less cost to the
taxpayers. On the other hand, the reduction of analytical requirements and
increased administrative discretion provided by the new regs could be used
by officials to more easily implement social or ecological agendas such as
the Agenda 21 Wildlands project to the detriment of the American people
and our natural resources.
The new regs permit Responsible Officials who are
already in the process of revising or amending plans to choose to continue
under the old regs, or to incorporate the required components of the new
regs into their process and complete the plan revision under the new regs.
Comparing the new regulations with the requirements contained in the old
regs, I do not see why a Responsible Official would choose to proceed with
the old regs and fight the legal challenges that can be brought against
the compliance with those old regs. On the other hand if they use the new
regs and those are later overturned in court the whole planning process
might be overturned.
You can see the new regulations and information about
them at
