Chapter 13: Multiple Use Forestry and Forest Planning

1. Chapter 13: Multiple Use Forestry and Forest Planning Text: Cubbage et al., 1992

2. What do we know about Forest Planning? • For what? • For whom? • By whom? • By when? • With what?

3. Proxy Falls, Wilamette National Forest, Oregon http://www.fotosearch.com/DGV076/200179076-001/

4. Redwood Forest, Smoky Mountain National Park http://www.fotosearch.com/CSK007/pr80581/ Uncompahgre National Forest, Colorado http://www.fotosearch.com/DGV077/200191807-001/

5. Medicine Bow National Forest, Wyoming http://www.fotosearch.com/CSK002/ks79234/ National Forests (a collage) http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/misc/autumn/natforests.jpg

6. Forest Management Planning Policy • Forest planning • government leads planning for society, long-term • include all woodlands (public & private) • Principal laws governing national forest management: • Multiple Use & Sustained Yield Act (MUSYA) of 1960 • Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) of 1974 • National Forest Mgmt Act (NFMA) of 1976

7. Major Forest Planning Policies RPA of 1974 & NFMA of 1976 provided: • principal legislative direction for NF management • fairly specific forest planning instructions • framework for resource use allocation, resource assessment, & analysis of federal forest policy alternatives • direction & consistency to fed. programs affecting all woodlands • Forest Service  lead gov’t agency for forest planning

8. Forest Management Planning Policy Who was the person at the heart of the original national forest planning – who said that “planning is a must”?

9. Forest Management Planning Policy Who was the person at the heart of the original national forest planning – who said that “planning is a must”? Gifford Pinchot, 1909, by Pirie MacDonald. At the time of this photo he was the first Chief of the United States Forest Service.

10. Forest Management Planning Policy • Pinchot: wise use & preservation are compatible • Two planning traditions under Pinchot’s philosophy: (1) utilitarian (2) protective • Four planning components (still considered today in NFMA): • prepare detailed inventories, • monitor the condition of the reserves (now NFs) • determine sustainable use levels, and • exclude use from specific areas where necessary to protect watershed and other resources.

11. Multiple Use Planning: History • 1905: Bureau of Forestry to achieve “the greatest good of the greatest number in the long run” (Pinchot) • good for SY but ill-defined and biased for MU (for timber) • Public Demands on National Forests (NFs) • 100 yrs ago, public conservation efforts  on wild animals • 1930s: wild animal advocates considered forests & land as habitats • after WW II, MU concept received much attention outside of FS • NFs  important timber supplier in post-war housing boom • NF mgmt  complicated with addition of non-commodity resources • Increase in demand for other forest uses (recreation)

12. Multiple Use & Sustained Yield Act of 1960 MU had been around for a long time! • Organic Act of 1897 considered timber and water • National Forests served other interests other than timber & rec • WW II: SAF produced formal policy calling for MU • 1950s: FS faced increasing pressure to change mgmt policies (MU) • FS proposed a legislation mandating MU for managing NFs • Bills introduced in House of Reps on MU & SY of NF lands • 1960: MUSYA was passed

13. Multiple Use & Sustained Yield Act of 1960 1960: MUSYA was passed • reserved discretionary authority to FS technical experts • gave equal statutory footing to outdoor rec., wildlife, water, range, & timber • failed to provide guidance for setting priorities (only provide equal “consideration” to all 5 resources) • simply codified FS mgmt policies up to that time (milepost)

14. http://www.sfrc.ufl.edu/Extension/FFSnl/LEAFS3.gif

15. Multiple Use & Sustained Yield Act of 1960 Criticisms • Bias for timber (timber primacy!) • Perceived Iron Triangle (Congress members, industry, FS) • FS discretionary authority • Citizen & environmental groups had no faith in MUSYA • Sierra Club: MUSYA lacks specific mgmt standards • Wilderness Society and others  sought another federal wilderness authorization (Wilderness Act of 1964)

16. Comprehensive Planning Major legislations after MUSYA affecting forest planning and the FS decision-making authority: 1. NEPA of 1969 –all federal agencies to integrate NEPA compliance into their decision making processes. All NF plans should: (1) have an EIS prepared using interdisciplinary approach, and (2) include comments from interested/affected parties 2. Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 – provides program for conservation of endangered or threatened species and their ecosystems (the forests!)

17. Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) of 1974 • 1972: Sen. Humphreys introduced bill (S. 2296), signed into RPA of 1974 by Pres. Ford • RPA dealt with 3 concerns: • lack of long-term planning in federal government • polarization of forestry issues (timber industry vs. conservation groups; both distrust FS) • Budgetary concerns (OMB impounding funds)

18. Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) of 1974 RPA’s 3 procedural requirements • Resource assessment every 10 years • includes inventory of all resources • Resource program every 5 yrs • includes resource goals • Presidential statement of policy, every 5 years • The president’s “cover letter” for budget requests

19. National Forest Management Act of 1976 • NFMA of 1976 – amended the RPA of 1974 • RPA already required planning for NFs using interdisciplinary approach; but did not specify how & what to prepare in individual mgmt plans. • Classic Iron Triangle legislation • FS: wanted legislative sanction for its planning efforts & for retention of professional mgmt discretion • House & Senate: wanted to get control over NF planning & budgetary decisions from White House • Conservation groups: pushed for planning & mgmt that consider all renewable resources based on SY, with guaranteed public input • Timber industry: wanted a resumption of clear-cut harvesting on NFs House (Comm. on Agric., Nutrition, & Forestry), Senate (Committee on Energy & Natural Resources

20. National Forest Management Act of 1976 Mandates of NFMA • Provided general principles for national forest management • Develop forest plans for each NF, and integrate multiple uses • Optimal timber rotations be based on a biological criterion (max MAI or mean annual increment); • Interdisciplinary teams of specialists prepare the plans (forestry, wildlife, recreation, social sciences, etc.) • Enhanced public input into the process (input, review, appeal)

21. National Forest Management Act of 1976 Contents (some important items) • Section 6 • Provides for public participation • Specify procedures ensuring compliance with NEPA in plan preparation • Guidelines for land mgmt plans  provide for diversity, and ensure economic & environmental aspects • Section 11 • Amends RPA on timber harvest limits  observe long-term sustainability (Annual Harvest = Annual Growth) • Section 14 • Further elucidates requirements on public participation in planning

22. NFMA of 1976 Implications of NFMA • NFMA - shaped following laws from environmental movement • 1969 NEPA, Fed. Water Pollution Control Act Amend. of 1972, ESA of 1973 • Optimal rotations based on max MAI (biological, not economic guide) • Timber ASQ based on sustainable harvests, but how to determine ASQ? • FS to allow public participation in planning process • FS to open its doors to other non-forestry disciplines (IDTs) • NFMA plans to show FS compliance with federal environmental laws • more public scrutiny, reduction in autonomy & discretion in doing its business

23. RPA/NFMA Debates Criticisms of the RPA/NFMA focused on: • size & lack of utility of RPA documents • extreme difficulties in getting forest plans implemented • lack of coordination between RPA assessments, RPA programs, & national forest plans

24. RPA/NFMA Debates Critics • Fairfax (1981): Immense data needed outweighs utility of RPA; interdisciplinary planning process becomes more important than the decisions  reverse of rational decision making • Forest industry: approach, costs, deficient economic analysis, & overemphasis on wildlife lower ASQs • Conservation: RPA plans presented alternative output levels but no specific recommendations  failure to fully fund programs • Behan (1981a, 1985): needs extraordinary resources (time, effort, $) to implement law • provides easy bases for litigation (from detailed procedural requirements)

25. RPA/NFMA Debates Advocates • J. Giltmier (Senate Committee on Ag, Nutrition, & Forestry) • Law helps FS to improve their mgmt • J. McGuire (1985) former FS chief: • Forest planning process is worth the expense (< $0.50/ac) • LeMaster (1982): • RPA was designed to protect FS from OMB budget cuts

26. National Forest Planning Today Important changes characterizing NF planning today, considering impacts on: • planning activity • appeals, negotiations, litigations • planning requirements • clarified expectations & roles of citizens, legislators, agency • clarified and simplified the planning process • agency/personnel orientation • Interdisciplinary personnel (no longer “timber beasts”) • Technical expertise in timber production  shift to being environmental planner • Ecosystem-based approach (vs timber as main output)

27. Approaches to resolve natural resource user conflicts (Clawson) 1.Market Approach (reliance on markets) - NFs as independent quasi-public corporation (concessions, mgmt leases) 2.Legislative-Judicial Approach - as long as plans follow NFMA mandates, & FS is not arbitrary 3.Negotiated Approach - planning process offers opportunity to resolve conflicts

28. Guiding the Negotiations Process Wondolleck’s (1988) 5 objectives to guide negotiation process over conflicts relating to national forests: • Building trust • Building understanding • Incorporating conflicting values • Providing opportunities for joint fact-finding • Encouraging cooperation and collaboration

29. Successful Negotiated Approaches Wondolleck: negotiating resolutions of land use conflicts in national forests 1.Mediation – San Juan NF (CO). Local citizens voiced concerns over scenic beauty & tourism in response to FS plans to build 50 miles of roads to support timber harvests. 2.Building understanding – Willamette NF (OR). Citizen concerns on recreation trails, scenic beauty, & access to wilderness area vs planned public timber sale. 3. Incorporating conflicting values –Bridger-Teton NF (WY). Oil-drilling permit in roadless area, made before RARE II

30. Jack-in-the-Box Planning? • What is it?

31. Jack-in-the-Box Planning? • public participation technique • produce draft plan, call for/gather public comment, go back into box, pop out later with final plan • Did it work with the FS? • characteristic of foresters’ traditional reliance on technically trained experts to determine forest management (without public input!)

32. 1999 Independence Day Windstorm, Northern Minnesota http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_nc216.pdf

33. 1999 Independence Day Windstorm, Northern Minnesota Today, in addition to NEPAof 1969 and ESAof 1973, what related laws make RPA/NFMA planning more difficult? http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_nc216.pdf

34. Northern Minnesota Forests http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_nc216.pdf

35. Iowa’s Own: Loess Hills State Forest http://www.iowadnr.com/forestry/loesshills.html

36. Iowa’s Own: Loess Hills State Forest Gary Hightshoe, http://www.igsb.uiowa.edu/Browse/loeshill/loeshill.htm

38. BLM - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (October 21, 1976) • NPS – National Parks Service Organic Act of 1916

40. Successful Negotiated Approaches Wondolleck: negotiating resolutions of land use conflicts in national forests 1.Mediation – San Juan NF (CO). Local citizens voiced concerns over scenic beauty & tourism in response to FS plans to build 50 miles of roads to support timber harvests. Professional mediators  found common grounds, led to compromise solution in 2 days 2.Building understanding – Willamette NF (OR). Citizen concerns re recreation trails, scenic beauty, and access to wilderness area vs planned public timber sale. Public hearing, show-me trips did not work. Citizen’s task force was formed; 6 months later, a series of proposals and counterproposals led to a compromise solution 3. Incorporating conflicting values –Bridger-Teton NF (WY). Application for oil-drilling permit in roadless area, made before RARE II (Roadless Area Review & Evaluation) process for identifying potential additions to National Wilderness Preservation System. Sierra Club filed an appeal – decision on permit should wait until RARE II decision. Company held dialogues with Sierra Club and FS  led to mutually acceptable drilling plan, resulting from good faith accommodations and considerations from each side

41. Jack-in-the-Box Planning? “Jack-in-the-box” –public participation technique that will not work: produce a draft plan, pop out of the box and call for public comment, gather all the public comment, go back in the box, and pop out some time later with a final plan. This was characteristic of foresters’ traditional reliance on technically trained experts who determine how forests should be managed, out of sight and earshot of the public.

42. Political Parties Democrats • Gov’t power used to regulate • Wealth redistribution, welfare, services • Environmentalists • Pro/personal choice Republicans • Less gov’t regulation & taxation • Individual initiative, hard work, frugality • Development • Opposed abortion, control pornography