Forest Service Planning: Accommodating Uses, Producing Outputs, and Sustaining Ecosystems

205 Pages·1995·2.3 MB·English

Forest Service Planning: Accommodating
Uses, Producing Outputs, and Sustaining
Ecosystems
February 1992
OTA-F-505
NTIS order #PB92-152560
Recommended Citation:
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Forest Service Planning: Accommodating
Uses, Producing Outputs, and Sustaining Ecosystems, OTA-F-505 (Washington, DC: U.S.
Governrnent Printing Office, February 1992).
Foreword
America’s forests and rangelands provide valuable commodities and amenities for U.S.
citizens. Forests and rangelands account for two-thirds of all U.S. lands, and 40 percent of
those lands are owned by the Federal Government. Forests and rangelands generate clean
water, forage for livestock and wildlife, timber for construction, habitat for fish and wildlife,
space for recreation, and pristine wilderness settings. The demands for these products and
services rises as the country’s population grows and leisure time increases. Thus, we are faced
with increasing conflicts over the use of forests and rangelands, especially the Federal lands,
and concerns about their long-run protection.
Congress enacted the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA)
in 1974, to assure long-term sustainable management of our Nation’s renewable natural
resources and to increase public involvement in associated policy and budget debates. In 1976,
Congress amended RPA in the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) to guarantee
sustainable management for the national forests managed by the USDA Forest Service and to
assure active public involvement in the forest planning process.
Congress questioned the effectiveness of planning at the forest level under NFMA and
expressed concern over the direction the process is headed. Most local forest plans have taken
much longer to complete than anticipated, and frequently Congress has been asked to address
controversial issues that it expected to be resolved in the planning process. Numerous
administrative appeals and litigation of forest plans have come from environmentalists,
business interests, and local governments.
In 1989, the House Committee on Agriculture, together with the House Interior and
Insular Affairs Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands and the Senate Committee
on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, requested that the Office of Technology Assessment
examine the Forest Service’s use of resource planning technologies. In Forest Service
Planning: Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA, released in July of 1990, OTA evaluated
past RPA efforts and identified options for improving RPA’s contribution to long-range
planning and to policy and budget deliberations. This second OTA report on forest planning
evaluates technological, biological, social, economic, and organizational dimensions of
national forest planning. It discusses the agency’s planning technologies, the appeals and
litigation processes, and the relationship between national planning under RPA and
forest-level planning under NFMA. The assessment presents options for Congress that could
improve forest planning under NFMA.
u
JOHN H. GIBBONS
Director
M.,!
Forest Service Planning: Advisory Panel
Hanna J. Cortner, Chair
Professor, Water Resources Research Center
University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ
Clark L. Collins Willard I. Hamiltonl R. Neil Sampson
Executive Director Coordinator, Timber Resource Executive Vice President
Blue Ribbon Coalition Policy American Forestry Association
Pocatello, ID Potlatch Corp. Washington, DC
Lewiston, ID
Richard C. Collins Maitland S. Sharpe
Professor/Director of the Institute Betty Huskins Conservation Director
of Environmental Negotiations Vice President Izaak Walton League of America
School of Architecture Ridgetop Association Arlington, VA
University of Virginia Linville Falls, NC
E. Maynard Smith
Charlottesville, VA
Andy Kerr Rancher
Dennis P. Dykstra Director of Conservation and Smith 6-S Livestock
Professor of Forestry Education Glen, MT
School of Forestry Oregon Natural Resource Council
Gaylord L. Staveley
Northern Arizona University Portland, OR
President
Flagstaff, AZ
Dennis C. LeMaster National Forest Recreation
Paul V. Ellefson Professor and Head Association
Professor, Department of Forest Department of Forestry and Flagstaff, AZ
Resources Natural Resources
A. Milton Whiting
University of Minnesota Purdue University
Chairman and Chief Executive
St. Paul, MN West Lafayette, IN
Officer
Jerry Franklin William S. Platts Kaibab Industries, Inc.
Bloedel Professor of Ecosystem Fisheries Consultant Phoenix, AZ
Analysis Don Chapman Consultants, Inc.
Louisa L. Willcox
College of Forestry Boise, ID
Policy Director
University of Washington
Robert Ragon Greater Yellowstone Coalition
Seattle, WA
Executive Vice President Bozeman, MT
George T. Hamilton Sun Studs, Inc..
Consultant Roseburg, OR
Recreation Resources
Gerald A. Rose
Management Co.
Director/State Forester
Bow, NH
Division of Forestry
Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources
St. Paul, MN
IResj~~ from I-Watch Corp. Apr. 30, 1991, to go into private consulting iII FlitiY Hwbor, WA.
NOTE: OTA appreciates and is grateful for the valuable assistance and thoughtful critiques provided by the advisory panel members. The panel does
nofi however, necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this report. OTA assumes full responsibility for the report and the accuracy of its
contents.
iv
OTA Project Staff-Forest Service Planning
Roger C. Herdman, Assistant Director, OTA
Health and Life Sciences Division
Walter E. Parham Program Manager
Food and Renewable Resources Program
Ross W. Gorte,l Project Director
Analytical Staff
Robin P. White, Analyst
Daniel J. Whittle, Research Analyst2
Susan J. Wintsch, Contracted Editor
Administrative Staff
N. Ellis Lewis, Office Administrator
Nellie M. Hammond, Administrative Secretary
Carolyn M. Swam, P.C. Specialist
NOTE: OTA wishes to express its appreciation to the Congressional Research Service for the assistance
provided in this report. CRS graciously granted Ross Gorte a 14-month detail to direct this
study, and to provide additional assistance before and after the completion of the assessment,
to assure the purposes and tasks of the report were fulfilled. Thus, CRS's contributions to this
study were substantial.
I@ de~ ~m me co~siod Research Service.
%orn November 1989 to May 1991.
Contents
Page
Chapter l: summary do . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Chapter 2: Policy Options. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Chapter 3: The Goals of National Forest Management and Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Chapter 4: The Legal Framework for Forest Planning and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Chapter S: Public Involvement in Forest Placing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Chapter 6: Biological Dimensions of Forest Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Chapter 7: Technologies for National Forest Placing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Chapter 8: Economics in National Forest Planning.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .143
Chapter 9: Organizational Factors in Forest Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .163
Chapter IO: Relationship of Forest-Level NFMA Planning to National RPA Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
vi
Chapter 1
Summary
Contents
Page
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *................**””*”””” . *.”””””””””””””””””” 3
l
Forest Planning as Strategic Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4
Multiple Use and Sustained Yield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Public Involvement in Forest Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Biological Dimensions of Forest Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
F o r e s t P lanning Technologies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Economics in National Forest Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 7
The Budgeting Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 8
Organizational Factors in Forest Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
NFMA Forest Planning in Relation to National RPA Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Role of Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....”.......””.” 10
Boxes
Box Page
l-A. NFMA Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3
l-B. Trust Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Table
Table Page
l-1. Major Findings on NFMA Forest Planning and Possible Options for Congress . . . . . . . . . . 10
Chapter 1
Summary
required to involve the public in the planning
INTRODUCTION
process.
The Forest Service is one of the major Federal
land managing agencies. It has been part of the
Significant administrative and legal challenges
Department of Agriculture since 1905, and now
have plagued national forest management and forest
manages some 191 million acres of land in 43 States.
plans over the past 10 years. Congress has expressed
The Forest Service Organic Act of 1897 and the
concern about potential impacts of appeals and
Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (MUSYA)
litigation on timber sales, employment, and budgets.
guide the management of these lands, providing for
Some of these challenges call for improving Forest
a variety of uses and outputs---commodities (e.g.,
Service compliance with environmental require-
timber, livestock forage, and fuels and minerals) and
ments. Others call for improving public involvement
unmarketed values (e.g., recreation, wildlife habitat,
in the planning process. Still others blame FORPLAN
and water flows)--and requiring management for
—the planning technology the Forest Service has
sustained productivity.
The laws provide little guidance on how to
Box 1-A—NFMA Planning
balance the various resource values and assure
sustainability. Initially, conflicts were managed by The National Forest Management Act of 1976
separating uses over space or time. However, (NFMA) was largely an amendment to the Forest
and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act
demands on the resources have continued to climb,
of 1974 (RPA). RPA, as enacted, required the
and unmarketed resources are now more widely
Forest Service to prepare land and resource man-
valued by our society. Congress enacted the legal
agement plans for units of the National Forest
requirement for national forest planning in the
System. The agency was to use an interdisciplinary
Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Plan-
approach to integrate physical, biological, eco-
ning Act of 1974 (RPA). The principal purpose of nomic, and other sciences. NFMA added guidance
RPA was to establish a national strategic planning for public participation and for Forest Service
process for meeting these conflicting demands while considerations and standards in the planning proc-
assuring the sustainability of America’s renewable ess. These land and resource management plans are
resources. RPA also directed the Forest Service to often called forest plans, and the process is typically
prepare integrated land and resource management called forest or NFMA planning.
plans for units of the National Forest System. As part
of the RPA Program, the Forest Service was to
develop the plans in accordance with MUSYA and chosen as its analytical tool—for a planning process
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 that is complex and insensitive to nonuse values,
(NEPA). such as preserving endangered species.
Congress amended RPA with the National Forest
Management Act of 1976 (NFMA). (See box l-A,) This OTA report presents a comprehensive as-
NFMA was largely a response to lawsuits that would sessment of national forest planning by the Forest
have substantially reduced Forest Service timber Service. It evaluates technological, biological, so-
sales. The new law provided guidance for forest cial, economic, and institutional dimensions of
planning by further emphasizing environmental forest planning. The report discusses the appeals
considerations and quality standards. Congress also process and the merits and weaknesses of the
intended NFMA to aid in implementing MUSYA. agency’s planning technologies. It then presents
Under NFMA the Forest Service retained much of its options for Congress that could improve forest
discretion in managing the national forests, but was planning under NFMA.
-3-
4 l Forest Service Planning: Accommodating Uses, Producing Outputs, and Sustaining Ecosystems
FOREST PLANNING AS agement is complicated by the difficulty of deter-
mining which lands to manage for which uses.
STRATEGIC PLANNING
Multiple use, to some, implies use of commodity
Strategic planning is a process for establishing
resources (e.g., timber, livestock forage, and miner-
management direction. The 1897 Organic Act,
als). Areas where laws restrict commodity uses,
MUSYA, NEPA, RPA, and NFMA implicitly re-
however, such as recreation sites and wilderness
quire a strategic planning process for the national
areas, can still produce multiple values (e.g., recrea-
forests. The Organic Act and MUSYA establish the
tion, wildlife habitat, and water flows). As a concept,
basis for the Forest Service to accommodate uses
multiple use assures consideration of varied resource
and provide outputs while sustaining forest ecosys-
uses and outputs, and seeks an appropriate balance
tems. MUSYA acknowledges that people’s needs
among these. However, the concept provides little
determine the proper mix of uses and outputs, and
guidance for managers on how to balance conflicting
that the mix can change over time. NEPA provides
uses and outputs.
a framework for reporting intended actions and
possible results of those actions to the public. RPA MUSYA represents the frost attempt by Congress
requires the Secretary of Agriculture to evaluate the to apply the goal of sustained yield broadly, to all
Nation’s renewable resources and to consider their renewable resources. Sustained-yield management
future use and sustainability. NFMA establishes requires maintaining the productivity of the land
management considerations and environmental stand- while producing high levels of annual outputs.
ards and guidelines, and requires public involvement Sustained-yield management of the national forests
in developing and revising management plans. has been compromised by a lack of knowledge about
ecological and social relationships and by a techni-
Strategic planning goals must be specific enough cal bias favoring production of individual resources
to provide clear direction for management activities over ecosystem management and protection. (See
and concrete enough to measure success. A forest
box l-B.)
plan should identify what kind of uses, outputs, and
conditions are feasible and desirable. It should focus PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN
on issues of public concern, explaining how man-
FOREST PLANNING
agement will affect key sites, produce important
outputs, and protect vital resources and ecosystems. The Forest Service has a long history of soliciting
By focusing on issues and explaining management
public input in its decisionmaking processes. Before
changes, a strategic forest plan can guide the agency NFMA, this was generally informal and sporadic.
and inform the public. With the enactment ofNFMA, Congress reinforced
the public’s right to participate in agency planning
and decisionmaking. NFMA embraces the notion
MULTIPLE USE AND
that conflicts can be addressed best by integrating
SUSTAINED YIELD the public into the decisionmaking process early and
often.
Multiple use, according to MUSYA, is the man-
agement of renewable resources on the national Consensus today is that the Forest Service has not
forests to best meet the needs of the American people used public input efficiently or effectively in its
without impairing the productivity of the land. The planning process. Much current criticism is similar
Act calls for forest management based on relative to that heard at least 20 years ago: the agency asks
resource values, not just on maximizing returns or for public input, but the input does not affect final
outputs. decisions. Despite numerous opportunities for indi-
viduals and interest groups to participate throughout
Multiple-use management has come to mean
the planning process, many final forest plans appear
either joint production (using the same land for
not to accommodate public concerns.
several uses simultaneously) or dominant use (using
different parts of the land for different uses). The ineffective involvement of the public in the
Management based on joint production is difficult planning process may result from several factors:
because of the lack of biological and social informa- use of incorrect models of public involvement, lack
tion on ecological interactions. Dominant-use man- of information on how to involve the public,