The McClatchy Take on the Planning Rule

I saw this earlier this week in a Louisville paper. It’s hard for me to criticize newspapers when the whole news business is in such poor shape. I know from experience it’s easier to criticize others, than to produce carefully checked documents on a short time-frame. But it’s still of interest to compare the different kinds of coverage, because this is the journalism situation this country is in, and could have repercussions on public understanding of issues. As usual, my comments are in italics.

New forest-management plan weakens wildlife protection
McClatchy Newspapers
Published Thursday, Feb. 02, 2012

WASHINGTON — Back in the 1980s, when conservation advocates were trying to stop logging in old-growth forests in the Pacific Northwest, they relied on a 1982 regulation that required the National Forest Service to protect wildlife such as the spotted owl throughout its range. They won, and a new Northwest forest plan in 1990 greatly reduced logging in the region’s old-growth forests on federal land.

Now the national planning rule that governs individual national forest plans is about to change, for the first time since the Reagan era. Scientists and environmentalists say many of the changes are improvements, but they object to a key change in the way the plan would protect wildlife.

Technically speaking, the 05 and 08 rules got this far (to publication). How about “some” scientists and “some” environmentalists object. Wouldn’t that be more accurate?

That part of the plan always has been controversial. The timber industry opposes it. Conservationists say it was vital to winning protection for old-growth forests. Now some ecologists and advocates say the Forest Service plan’s change on this point would punch a hole through key protections.

The plan, which covers all uses of forest — including timber harvests, grazing, recreation and wilderness — is expected to become final in early March. Until then, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack could still make changes. But when Vilsack announced the plan last week, he called it “a strong framework to restore and manage our forests and watersheds and help deliver countless benefits to the American people.” The plan is being published Friday in the Federal Register.

It’s interesting that the concept of “environmentalists vs. the timber industry” is in this newspaper, while some of us want to develop a restoration economy that would involve a timber industry. It’s also interesting that of the many groups quoted in many articles, they selected NRDC. Is this because more interesting articles have more controversy? Less interesting than “many groups applaud new rule?” Also if this story was published Thursday in the Bee, and it says the “plan” is in the federal register Friday.. One thing I always think about news articles is “if they don’t check easily checked facts, why should we believe them about complex concepts?

Conservationists say the wildlife provision is a crucial weak point.

“This plan is much less protective than the 1982 Reagan-era one on wildlife protection,” said Niel Lawrence, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council. “This provision is the single strongest protection for the national forests, and the agency is not retaining it.”

Technically, they are quoting one “conservation” group. And a group that really doesn’t specialize in this issue as I pointed out in my previous post here. So far we have the MSNBC and McClatchy stories heavily dependent on NRDC. My usual take is “why didn’t you ask your local environmental groups if you are writing a story?” But McClatchy is national, so I guess has to ask “national” people, who have their own framings of the issue. As the industry consolidates, will we be seeing more of this? Here’s their mission:

The McClatchy Company is the third-largest newspaper company in the United States, a leading newspaper and digital publisher dedicated to the values of quality journalism, free expression and community service. Building on a 154-year legacy of independence, the company’s newspapers and websites are steadfast defenders of First Amendment values and advocates for the communities they serve.

The 1982 rule required the Forest Service to manage fish and wildlife habitat so that healthy populations of animals are “well-distributed” throughout each forest.

The new plan drops that language. Instead, it requires forest managers to maintain habitats. It leaves it up to the official in charge of a region’s forests to decide whether any individual species needs extra protection to ensure that it will continue to exist over the long term with “sufficient distribution.”

The nation’s largest national forest, the Tongass in southeast Alaska, has some land set aside for timber harvests and other areas for recreation and wildlife, as do other national forests. The Tongass’ 2008 plan requires the Forest Service to “maintain contiguous blocks of old-growth forest habitat in a forest-wide system of old-growth reserves” where “viable and well-distributed” populations of animals that depend on this habitat can live.

Under the new national plan, without the “well-distributed” range requirement, managers of the Tongass wouldn’t need wilderness areas spread over the forests’ hundreds of islands, but could limit wildlife protection to smaller areas, Lawrence said.

Brenda Halter-Glenn, who led the team that created the new national plan, said in an interview that the new measure was more realistic about wildlife protection.

“The focus of this rule is on ecological conditions or habitat,” she said. “Those are the things we think through our management actions we can affect. We can create or maintain or restore habitat, but we can’t necessarily ensure that we have viable populations of all species.”

One reason for that, she said, is that some animals, such as migratory birds, also depend on lands that are beyond the Forest Service’s control.

Halter-Glenn said the plan addressed the question of how much discretion to give forest managers by requiring them to show how they used science to inform decisions. “There’s a lot of accountability built in,” she said.

This is where they start to quote “scientists”, which I find interesting from a science policy perspective.

Many scientists, however, are still concerned about the discretionary nature of the plan, said Barry Noon, a professor of wildlife ecology at Colorado State University.

“The requirements aren’t really requirements, because they’re largely discretionary,” Noon said.

In addition, it’s not possible to judge the health of animal populations only by measuring how much vegetation they have, Noon said. The plan also should require monitoring populations of certain animals that are selected to get a sense of overall wildlife health, he said.

This is a planning regulation.. so why would you talk to a wildlife ecologist rather than an expert in planning, say Martin Nie of University of Montana? Scientists are supposed to be experts based on their knowledge of empirical facts. “Shoulds” by definition are normative and are generally not considered to be an appropriate role for scientists.

John McLaughlin, an expert in wildlife ecology and conservation who teaches at the Huxley College of the Environment at Western Washington University in Bellingham, said the plan should protect all native species. The new plan could be more or less protective than the old one, he said. “It depends on who’s making the decisions.”

More “shoulds” from scientists.

In the Northwest, officials attempted during the George W. Bush administration to dismantle the forest plan and open areas to the kind of clear-cutting that was common in the region in the 1970s and earlier. The Obama administration scrapped that effort.

I’m not sure if the is the Northwest Forest Plan, and I’m not sure that the “kind of clearcutting” was the issue, maybe some Northwesterners can chime in here.

But the Bush administration’s attempt to increase logging, McLaughlin argued, is an example of how leaving too much discretion to officials could “make conservation very vulnerable to political whims.”

But one person’s “political whim” is another person’s “will of the people” as manifested through the process of “elections”. But why are we legitimizing the viewpoint of a biologist on a planning and political science question? Here are the backgrounds of Barry Noone and John McLaughlin. I understand Barry because he was on the Committee of Scientists (the 1999 one), but of all the people with experience and study in forest plans, why did they pick McLaughlin to interview? Unless this was a local article for Olympia or Bellingham that then went national.

Conservation groups and the timber industry have fought over the wildlife protection in the forest plan for years.

Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., the chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, and 58 other members of the Health

really, “Health”?

of Representatives wrote to the Forest Service last May, arguing that the provision in the rule that provides for plant and animal protection in the forests should be eliminated.

They argued that reliance on “best available scientific information” and the expansion of protection to all species — the 1982 rule covered only vertebrates — would cost too much and harm the forests. It also would “reduce the number of jobs in our already distressed rural communities and further limit the amount of the American wood and fiber available to aid our economic recovery,” the wrote.

The timber industry makes the same points.

Ann Forest Burns, a spokeswoman for the American Forest Resource Council, a timber industry group, said the 1982 requirement for healthy animal populations was a mistake in the first place, and that the Forest Service had made it “much worse.”

I don’t know that the FS, or the case law, made it “much worse”.

The timber group also argues that the rule’s wildlife protection terms should mention that the forest plan governs multiple uses of the forest, including logging. “They’ve moved beyond the objectives Congress had for them,” she said.

Conservation groups used the 1982 forest plan to argue for protecting the Northwest’s remaining old-growth forest on federal lands, a habitat that the spotted owl requires.

“If you take that away, there’s no other real legal protection,” said Mike Anderson, an attorney in Seattle for The Wilderness Society. The case for protecting old-growth forests from logging, he said, “has always been based upon it being an important habitat for imperiled species.”

This statement seems a bit dismissive of ESA.

The rule has some strong elements, such as the requirement to maintain and restore the health of ecosystems and watersheds, Anderson said.

“Protection for species as well as the ecosystem are important complementary protections,” he said. “Both need our attention. . . . We’d just like to see the species part strengthened before it becomes final.”

Dominick DellaSala, the president and chief scientist of the Geos Institute in Ashland, Ore., a consulting firm that focuses on addressing climate change, said there was another reason to keep the old forests: They store large amounts of carbon.

Cool-weather rain forests such as the ones in the Northwest and Alaska store more carbon per acre than any other forests do, DellaSala reported in 2010. A Forest Service study last year reported that worldwide, all forests soak up one-third of the carbon dioxide that’s produced by burning fossil fuels, keeping it out of the atmosphere, where it would trap energy and make the planet warmer.

The climate stuff seems like a bit of an unrelated thought, and the whole focus on “old growth” seems a bit Pacific Northwest-centric to me. The spotted owl is so.. one piece of the country and so.. 20th century. Note the quotes are all from PNW folks:

Niel Lawrence Olympia (?)
John McLaughlin Bellingham
Ann Forest Burns Seattle
DellaSala Ashland
Mike Anderson Seattle
Barry Noon Fort Collins Colorado
(which makes me wonder why they didn’t select Norm Johnson in Oregon?)

Which maybe is not so odd in Olympia or Bellingham, but look at the other McClatchy newspapers.

Anchorage Daily News (AK)
Beaufort Gazette (SC)
Belleville News-Democrat (IL)
Bellingham Herald (WA)
(Biloxi) Sun Herald (MS)
Bradenton Herald (FL)
Centre Daily Times (PA)
Charlotte Observer (NC)
Columbus Ledger-Enquirer (GA)
El Nuevo Herald (FL – Spanish)
Fort Worth Star-Telegram (TX)

Fresno Bee (CA)
The (Rock Hill) Herald (SC)
Idaho Statesman (ID)
The Island Packet (SC)
Kansas City Star (MO)
Lexington Herald-Leader (KY)
Merced Sun-Star (CA)
Miami Herald (FL)
Modesto Bee (CA)
(Raleigh) News & Observer (NC)
News Tribune (Tacoma, WA)
The Olympian (WA)
Sacramento Bee (CA)
The State (SC)
he Sun News (SC)
The Telegraph (GA)
The Tribune (CA)
Tri-City Herald (WA)
Wichita Eagle (KS)

Terry Seyden’s New News Site

Back in pre-web time, Terry Seyden used to have an email list to which he would forward all kinds of interesting Forest Service news. Then he retired, and we were bereft. Now he’s back with his new website that provides the same kind of information, www.seyden.net.

If he posts something you would like to discuss here, just send me a link (terraveritas@gmail.com)

Plan for Plans; Rule for Rules

Controlled burns are just one of many issues addressed in a proposed rule change in the National Forest Service. (photo Chattahoochee-Oconoee National Forest)

I really liked the “plain Englishness” of this story by Orlando Montoya of Georgia Public Broadcasting.

Forest Land Plans Could Change
By Orlando Montoya

ATLANTA, Ga. —
Controlled burns are just one of many issues addressed in a proposed rule change in the National Forest Service. (photo Chattahoochee-Oconoee National Forest)
National Forest Service officials are considering changing how they manage public land.

The details go by a long name — the Forest System Land Management Planning Rule.

It’s long and complex.

But, it basically tells officials how to plan everything in the national forests — from controlled burns and use of roads and trails — to how to manage wildlife and what factors go into declaring areas off-limits to human activities.

Call it a plan for plans. Or a rule for rules.

And for the first time, the proposal takes into account how forest officials should plan for the effects of climate change.

It’s the first major overhaul of the Forest System Land Management Planning Rule in almost 30 years.

Sarah Francisco of Southern Environmental Law Center says, with more than 800,000 acres in 25 Georgia counties under the rule’s juridiction, it’s critical to get right.

“Each national forest has to have a forest management plan,” Francisco says. “This is the rule that tells the agency what the plans need to consider.”

Fransisco says, her organization applauds most of the proposal, but also has some concerns about it, including a lack of “concrete steps” and “clear standards” that will ensure healthy forests.

But National Forest Service planner Paul Arndt in the Atlanta Regional Office says, specificity isn’t exactly the rule’s aim and actually would tie local hands.

“This is a national rule, so it’s hard to get too specific on things,” Arndt says. “There’s a lot of discretion give to the forest supervisor to look at what is the current situation and what are those local needs and adjust accordingly.”

You can find more details and offer your comments on the proposal by going to this National Forest Service website.

Officials are taking public comments through May 16th.

Missoulian Story on Planning Rule Public Meeting

Somehow I missed this one earlier.

Here’s the introduction:

It’s a little like changing the shape of the strike zone in baseball, or the allowable deductions on your income tax form. A proposed planning rule for all U.S. Forest Service activity is both deeply wonky and game-changing.

The draft rule spreads fine print from page 8,480 to page 8,528 in the Federal Register. In there is something that may affect every trail walker, tree cutter, mushroom picker, snowmobile rider, hunter, angler, small-plane pilot, outfitter, gold miner, folf player and who-knows-what other national forest user.

About 80 such interested parties gathered on Tuesday in Missoula to hear Forest Service planning specialist Regis Terney answer questions about the draft rule. For all its complexity, the rule is the simplest part of a process that guides the writing of huge plans for 125 national forests and grasslands across the nation. The Missoula audience was ready to scrutinize it down to individual word choices

NY Times Editors Need New Nemesis

Here’s the link and here’s what is says about the planning rule:

The other piece of news is more complicated. Last month, the Agriculture Department proposed long-awaited forest-planning rules. The rules, mandated by 1976 National Forest Management Act, are supposed to guide forest managers as they decide which parts can be logged and which should be fully protected.

The act’s bedrock principle is that the health of the forests and their wildlife is to be valued at least as much as the interests of the timber companies. The Clinton administration’s rules firmly embraced that principle; the industry-friendly Bush rules did not.

The Obama administration’s proposed rules improve on the Bush rules and are full of high-minded promises about maintaining “viable” animal populations. But they are disappointingly vague on the question of how — and how often — the biological diversity of any particular forest is to be measured and what actions are to be taken to ensure its survival.

The net result is to give too much discretion to individual forest managers and not nearly enough say to scientists. This is dangerous because, over the years, forest managers have been easily influenced by timber companies and local politicians whose main interest is to increase the timber harvest.

As secretary of agriculture, Tom Vilsack has been more attentive to the needs of the forest, so far, than any agriculture secretary since the Clinton days. He should make sure these rules are strengthened.

When we had the law students visit earlier this week, they also talked about “industry,” and I asked them who do they mean? The ski industry, the oil and gas industry, the ranching “industry” (not sure anyone uses that expression, but..). Is there anything they are all united on? Do they actually work together to “open up” NFs to all uses? No.

Earth to NY Times editors- timber wars are over! They need to find new evil empire or federation of empires. Timber industry folks just aren’t very scary- see this press release about the Montrose mill.

Of course, my favorite part of this editorial was this quote

“The net result is to give too much discretion to individual forest managers and not nearly enough say to scientists. This is dangerous because, over the years, forest managers have been easily influenced by timber companies and local politicians whose main interest is to increase the timber harvest.”

Now, if we were on this side of the Hudson looking in that direction, we might suggest that the NY State Legislature, or perhaps the Mayor of New York could also be replaced by scientists. Because, after all, their “local” elected officials can be too easily influenced by industries of various kinds, instead of listening to those who know better, perhaps the editors at the Denver Post ?

ENS Article on Planning Rule Forum- Expecting Too Much From a Planning Rule?

Here it is, with some quotes below.

But Defenders of Wildlife says the draft rule ignores scientific recommendations on wildlife diversity protection.

Rodger Schlickeisen, president and CEO of Defenders of Wildlife said, “President Obama holds the future of our nation’s forests and wildlife heritage in his hands as his administration crafts the new rule governing national forest policy. His administration has an opportunity to lead us into a new century of forest management. Unfortunately, in its present form, the draft rule promises much more than it delivers, leaving the future of wildlife on 193 million acres of land belonging to the American people mostly up to chance.”

The nonprofit Sierra Forest Legacy, based in California, says, “At first reading, we note that the single most important measurable protection to ensure protection of wildlife, afforded by the 1982 regulations, has been removed entirely.”

The group is referring to the “Viability Standard” at 219.19 in the 1982 regulations, which states, “Fish and wildlife habitat shall be managed to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species in the planning area.”

The 1982 Viability Standard continues, “For planning purposes, a viable population shall be regarded as one which has the estimated numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals to insure its continued existence is well distributed in the planning area.”

“In order to insure that viable populations will be maintained, habitat must be provided to support, at least, a minimum number of reproductive individuals and that habitat must be well distributed so that those individuals can interact with others in the planning area,” the Viability Standard concludes.

The Sierra Forest Legacy warns, “Without such clear direction for protecting wildlife, the new planning rule represents a step backward, suggesting that the agency has abdicated its long held responsibility for maintaining our national forests as the last refuge for the continent’s increasingly imperiled wildlife.”

Marty Hayden, vice president of policy and legislation with the public interest law firm Earthjustice, said, “The Forest Service’s draft rule shows that the Obama administration understands and supports the basic concepts of how to protect the indispensible watersheds on our National Forests, but, by failing to adopt enforceable standards, it falls short of guaranteeing the protections our country desperately needs.”

And

But conservationists are not convinced the draft planning rule will protect waters and wildlife. “It’s not just the streams, rivers, and wetlands outside my back door and yours that remain in trouble. Waters across the nation are threatened by a legacy of serious harm from forest and grazing land use on National Forest lands,” said Dr. Chris Frissell, director of science and conservation for the Pacific Rivers Council.

“This history is a principal reason why our native trout and salmon are in such tough shape today, and this means the new planning rule will need to take firm steps forward, not backward, to ensure the health of our watersheds and fisheries is restored,” he said.

“The rule still needs, among other things, clear direction to reduce harm to watersheds by removing and restoring forest roads, an established national minimum streamside buffer zone, and development and compliance with firm standards protecting waters and aquatic life,” said Dr. Frissell. “Good intentions are great, but in an ecosystem as complicated as a watershed, standards and a commitment to real monitoring are necessary to ensure that the agency’s actions in fact protect and restore the environment. This draft rule doesn’t get us there. “

On the proposed rule’s treatment of science, Dr. Frissell said, “The rule still needs language to say it’s the Forest Service’s job to both bring the best available scientific information to the table and to actually use it as the basis for planning, and to implement and monitor the measurable standards that are necessary to ensure water resources and watershed health are in fact being protected and restored.”

I don’t know what Dr. Frissell means by using science as “the basis” for planning. But I also ran across testimony of Dr. Pielke, Sr. on climate change this week.

Decisions about government regulation are ultimately legal, administrative, legislative, and political decisions. As such they can be informed by scientific considerations, but they are not determined by them. In my testimony, I seek to share my perspectives on the science of climate based on my work in this field over the past four decades.

For those of you unfamiliar with his work, he describes other forcings than CO2 in a way accessible to the public (or at least, me) in his testimony here.

News (?) Article on Planning Rule Forum

This is from the “Public News Service” whose mission is:

The Public News Service (PNS) provides reporting on a wide range of social, community, and environmental issues for mainstream and alternative media that amplifies progressive voices, is easy to use and has a proven track record of success. Supported by over 400 nonprofit organizations and other contributors, PNS provides high-quality news on public issues and current affairs.

Last year the Public News Service produced over 4,000 stories featuring public interest content that were redistributed several hundred thousand times on 6,114 radio stations, 928 print outlets, 133 TV stations and 100s of websites. Nationally, an average of 60 outlets used each story. This includes our bilingual content, which is growing rapidly as we strengthen relationships with Spanish media outlets.

In addition, about one-third of our stories are picked up by national networks and redistributed across the country.

Of course if we were looking for a plain old news story, they might have interviewed people with more than one point of view.

Forest Service Planning Rule Gets Lukewarm Reception

March 11, 2011

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Conservation groups are giving a lukewarm reception to the proposed planning rule that guides U.S. Forest Service policy and will affect much of Oregon when it becomes final.

The agency held a forum on Thursday in the nation’s capital to discuss a draft of the rule, which some say lacks enough “teeth” to protect water quality and wildlife. Concerns were also voiced about whether the focus on monitoring and adaptive management of public land can work for an agency that has been chronically underfunded. Chris Frissell, director of science and conservation for the Pacific Rivers Council, attended the forum.

“The Pacific Northwest, under the Northwest Forest Plan, is somewhat of an exception. But prior to that, and then pretty much everywhere else, the Forest Service has had great difficulty getting any sustained monitoring program off the ground and has not been able to keep it funded. Congress just hasn’t put money into those things.”

Watershed management is another concern, Frissell says, because the rule does not include buffer zones to limit some activities along streams and lakes. The current rule has been in place since 1982, and has been controversial over the years. If there’s one word for the new proposal, Frissell says, it’s “cautious” – and people interested in the various issues affected are taking note.

“It’s pretty much the full slate of issues – everything from restoration to forest fuels treatment and fire management, to timber. And in fact, a lot of the interest groups around that whole table had the same concerns, about uncertainty and vagueness in the rule and what the rule delivers for their interests.”

The draft planning rule is open for public comment until mid-May, and comments can be made online. Two forums will also be held March 25 in Portland to discuss the rule, both at the Sheraton Airport Hotel.

The draft rule, including comment instructions and a related Forest Service blog, are online at www.fs.usda.gov/planningrule.

Deja Vu, All Over Again

While researching back issues of High Country News for a future post, I ran across this article..from 1995.. the year the original Toy Story was the #1 movie and Microsoft introduced Windows ’95.

- From the September 04, 1995 issue by Erik Ryberg

While reform of the Endangered Species Act captures headlines across the West, some conservationists say an equally important law is also in danger.

It is the National Forest Management Act, or NFMA, which has governed watersheds, soils and wildlife for nearly two decades. Forest Service officials now propose wholesale changes in the regulations that implement the 1976 law.

“The Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act get all the press, but really it’s the NFMA that’s been holding our forests together,” says Jennifer Ferenstein of Missoula’s Alliance for the Wild Rockies.

Ferenstein says the law’s current regulations specifically direct the Forest Service to maintain viable populations of native species throughout their ranges and protect water quality and soil productivity. “No other public-land law is so sweeping and so straightforward,” she says.

But the Forest Service, in a 35-page explanation, contends that these rules are difficult to understand and contain too much “language without real substance.” It says new rules are needed to give the agency greater flexibility, to streamline forest plans, and to allow for “adaptive management” necessary to implement ecosystem analysis.

Environmentalists fear the new regulations go far beyond streamlining.

“All the clarity in the current regulations has been removed,” says Ferenstein. “Wherever the current regulations say the agency “shall protect streams and streambanks,” or “shall provide for fish and wildlife habitat,” the proposed regulations substitute a lot of vague language about professional judgment and the need for flexibility.”

Ferenstein says when her group makes an administrative appeal on a logging project, it is almost always based on the act. “We use (it) to ensure that riparian areas are protected, to ensure that soil compaction doesn’t occur, and to ensure that regeneration needs are met,” she says. “All of that is going down the drain with these new regulations.”

Jeff Juel of the Inland Empire Public Lands Council in Spokane, Wash., says the new regulations amount to “total industrial dominion” over publicly owned forests. His group recently filed a legal challenge to a timber sale on the Kootenai National Forest, alleging the sale will threaten population viability of eight native species. The new regulations would prevent such court challenges on behalf of any species not already listed under the Endangered Species Act.

Speaking for the Forest Service in Washington, D.C., planning specialist Ann Christensen says the current regulations require her agency to perform unrealistic analyses. “The meaning of a term like population viability has evolved over the years,” she says. “Depending on the interpreter it can be beyond the grasp of anyone to implement the current regulations.”

But Kieran Suckling of the Southwest Center for Biodiversity in Silver City, N.M., says rules like the minimum viability requirement are essential. “With the current rules, you can measure the effect of Forest Service projects and hold the agency accountable for them,” says Suckling. “You can go out and count woodpeckers; you can judge the accuracy of a forest plan by acquiring data.”

The proposed rules, he says, reflect an “ethereal world with no measures and no accountability.”

Because grassroots groups across the West have used this law to shut down countless logging and grazing plans, adds Suckling, “It’s no surprise the Forest Service wants to get rid of it.”

A copy of the proposed regulations, which are scheduled to become final in early 1996, can be obtained at any forest supervisor’s office or by requesting them from the Forest Service at P.O. Box 96090, Washington, D.C. 20090.

HCN Story on Planning Rule: New National Forest Rule Lacks Rigor

Camas blooming on the Malheur NF, by Dave Powell, USFS

Here’s the link.

Here is a quote.

But it’s precisely that flexibility that worries Peter Nelson, federal lands director at Defenders of Wildlife. “Flexibility absent consistent guidance can lead to a variety of outcomes for water and wildlife,” he says, “not all of them good.” For instance, “the proposal directs forest managers to provide for the viability of species” — to make sure, in other words, that no species is at risk of extinction. “But it also says that if you’re not able to, you don’t have to. And it’s not clear to me how forest managers are required to prove that they can’t.”

The proposed rule requires forest supervisors to develop plans that “maintain or restore the structure, function, composition, and connectivity of a healthy and resilient ecosystem,” writes Tony Tooke, the agency’s director of ecosystem management coordination, in an e-mail. Yet there’s little in the rule to define those terms.

“How will you or I know that we’ve walked into a resilient ecosystem?” Nelson says. “There’s no clear criteria set out in the draft to determine that.” Nor does it require proof in numbers that such an ecosystem is, as the proposal assumes, beneficial to a variety of wildlife. “I’m afraid the Forest Service thinks monitoring at the species level is burdensome,” Nelson says. “I think of it as a trust-building exercise.” With ecosystem protection as with nuclear arms control, it’s “trust, but verify.”

In short, the new rule leaves a lot up to the discretion of local forest managers. That’s not necessarily bad: Forest supervisors can observe changes at the local level that would elude bureaucrats in D.C. “It’s hard at the regulation level to provide any one-size-fits-all standard,” says Martin Nie, associate professor of natural resource policy at the University of Montana. “I can think of some forest supervisors who’ll go to town with this thing in terms of meaningful standards and requirements.”

Local supervisors under pressure from politics or industry, however, could theoretically veer in a less constructive direction. “The pushback is always economics,” says Congressman Raúl Grijalva, D-Ariz., who has criticized the proposal for weakening wildlife protection. “But when you have habitat shrinking, species disappearing and wild places not being protected, your decision-making can’t be subjected to biased outside pressure. You have to have strong federal oversight to make sure what you do is based on facts and science.”

Timber and other industry interests have not yet commented on the rule, except to say they’re watching it closely. Meanwhile, the Forest Service will take public comments through May 16.

Francis thinks everyone should consider contributing. For Westerners, “the planning rule affects everything from where you hike to the quality of your drinking water.” After all, it’s your plane the agency is piloting, he says, “and you need to have some way of knowing whether it’s staying on course.”

The funny thing about this to me is that I think I agree with Peter, for opposite reasons. He sees the FS requiring conceptual ideas like resilience as questionable, because he doesn’t know that the concept means what he wants (protecting species). I don’t like requiring concepts in regulations because judges will ultimately decide anything fuzzy based, more than likely, on their own views.

In any conflictual writing exercise (say legislation, writing plans), fuzzy and vague seems good at first because everyone seems to get what they want. It’s when the poor implementers take it forward (and get litigated) we realize that we just postponed, and changed the arena of, the conflict.

Here’s a quote from Martin in the same article:

In short, the new rule leaves a lot up to the discretion of local forest managers. That’s not necessarily bad: Forest supervisors can observe changes at the local level that would elude bureaucrats in D.C. “It’s hard at the regulation level to provide any one-size-fits-all standard,” says Martin Nie, associate professor of natural resource policy at the University of Montana. “I can think of some forest supervisors who’ll go to town with this thing in terms of meaningful standards and requirements.”

But it’s not the supes we really have to worry about.. at least according to Congressman Grijalva..

Local supervisors under pressure from politics or industry, however, could theoretically veer in a less constructive direction. “The pushback is always economics,” says Congressman Raúl Grijalva, D-Ariz., who has criticized the proposal for weakening wildlife protection. “But when you have habitat shrinking, species disappearing and wild places not being protected, your decision-making can’t be subjected to biased outside pressure. You have to have strong federal oversight to make sure what you do is based on facts and science.”

I guess it’s politicians .

Voice in Democracy: When Anonymity Helps

As we are seeing these days in the Middle East and Africa, even Wisconsin, democracy is never easy—whether to initiate or to keep. What we know is that we cannot maintain a democratic form of government without “voice.” After all, democracies are “temples of talk.” Yet, many times it proves too threatening to express opinions, or even to interject facts, into public discussions. Discussions sometimes threaten work, family, or community relations, yet without discussions, none of these institutions can long survive. In many situations, only the few dare voice opposition to either the status quo or to proposed change. But these days it is getting easier to be heard without some of the threat that has traditionally attached to voice. We are seeing an upwelling of “anonymity” as a form of voice.

I follow a bunch of blogs in the economics and finance arena. Believe me, there are a bunch of these. As you might guess, given recent financial shenanigans events, there are very active conversations in these blogs, and also in mainstream periodicals—that themselves now embed blogs. Some who comment and some who blog remain anonymous. Why? Because of perceived threats, sometimes very real threats. Anonymity allows a particular voice that would be disallowed if people were to “post” or comment under their real names.

Here are two examples. One noted financial blogger, The Epicurean Dealmaker, posts as TED (an acronym). TED is widely viewed as a sage in the arena of Wall Street financial deal-making. TED claims to be a mid- to higher-level employee of a Wall Street firm. He (or she? Not likely!) has been very critical of the culture wherein he makes a fine living. And his posts, and guarded/shielded interviews, have helped to unravel some of the mysteries of this arcane world. TED is unabashed. He even challenges people to find out who he is. He is so sure of himself that he believes that he will not be “outed.”

Then there is Maxine Udall (girl economist), who spent a few years blogging and attracted a following. Turns out that “Maxine” was not her real name. Unfortunately, the real author passed away suddenly a few weeks ago. She was “outed” after her untimely passing. Most everybody had previously thought Maxine was a savvy graduate student. Turns out that she was a professor. Had she been blogging under her real name, her voice would have been less edgy.

If you want to comment with anonymity, here’s what you can do. First create a fictitious name/email address, then begin commenting. Or, particularly if you want to carry conversation “off line” set up a real email, like TED did, with a “handle”, not your real name. If you feel you have more to say, start an anonymous blog—it is very easy.

We need more “voice” in the public lands arena. I don’t understand why there are not more blogs on matters we discuss here. Is it just timidity? Is it that there is so little passion among employees and public lands watchers? Really? Likely not. So what else is going on?