Subject: NFMA Rulemaking and Conflict Management
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments:
On Feb 15th, the Forest Service unveiled a new set of regulations (a
proposal to develop them at least) for National Forest Management
Act planning and implementation... They were issued in response to
much criticism on forest planning and project planning. I've
packaged some of the highlights herein, and coupled them with a
timely note by Cris Hansen, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie NF, on conflict
management. I put the two together, because I firmly believe that
constructive conflict management is the key to effective project- and
forest planning.... 5 pages follow.... Dve.
-------========X========-------
ECO-WATCH
3/8/91
NFMA Planning Regulations
"Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking"
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking:
Fed. Reg. (Feb. 15, 1991)
Proposed Rule: October 1991
Final Rule: March 1992
Much has been learned about the strengths and weaknesses of the forest
planning process since 1982 when the existing regulation (36 CFR part 219) was
adopted. Since that time, the agency has completed all but eight out of 123
forest plans, has handled over 1000 administrative appeal decisions, and has
years of experience in implementing and monitoring the forest plans.
In addition, the Forest Service recently completed an all-encompassing
internal and external review of the planning process. This "Critique of Land
Management Planning" involved over 3500 persons, both employees and members of
the public, and culminated in publication of 11 detailed reports containing 232
recommendations for improvements in the planning process. Based on reports from
the "Critique" and experience gained by the agency, it is apparent that the
existing regulation needs to be updated to reflect progress already made (eg,
incorporating a variety of landmark administrative appeal decisions and court
cases) as well as provide more focus on implementing and changing forest plans.
To this end the Forest Service issued an "Advanced notice of proposed
rulemaking" in the Federal Register (Feb. 15th). Packaged therein are a summary
of desired rule changes, some "supplementary information", and a first cut at
new NFMA regulations (36 CRF 219). For many of us who have lived through the
last ten years of planning, this proposal is required reading. But more
important we should require ourselves to work in every way possible to make what
seems to be a good first cut even better.
THE GOALS OF THE NFMA PROPOSAL ARE:
o Simpler, more understandable process.
Reduce the complexity of the existing planning process, which
should result in a more relevant, understandable approach to
Forest planning.
o Shorter time needed for Forest Plan revision.
Make procedural changes which should shorten the time period
needed to revise a Forest Plan, thus reducing costs and some of
the frustrations associated with previous, lengthy planning
efforts.
o More dynamic, responsive Forest Plans.
Streamline the planning process and increase emphasis on
monitoring and evaluation, both of which should lead to a better
ability to recognize when changes are needed in a Forest Plan
and should allow such changes to be made in a more timely,
efficient manner.
o Emphasis on the on-going nature of Forest planning and project
decisionmaking.
Stress that Forest planning is a continuous process dependent on
periodic monitoring and evaluation, keeping plans current and
updated through amendment or revision, and maintaining on-going
and meaningful communication with the public and other
governments.
o Better focus for analytical efforts.
Focus analytical efforts on key information needed by
decisionmakers regarding environmental, economic, and social
effects rather than on trying to define a wide range of
standardized analytical requirements which may not be relevant
to local conditions or the decisions being made.
o "Ends" rather than "means" orientation.
Reduce the amount of regulatory direction which instructs how to
accomplish various planning tasks and focus instead on
clarifying the desired results of the planning effort.
THE KEY FEATURES OF THE PROPOSAL ARE:
o Establish "a need for change" as the basis for revision of a Forest
Plan.
Describe a Forest Plan revision process that is based on the
"need to change" a plan (e.g., incrementally based), rather than
repeating the same "zero" based procedural steps as used for
development of initial Forest Plans.
o Clarify the staged-decisionmaking process.
Define the nature of decisions made in Forest Plans and the
relationship of programmatic Forest plans to site-specific
project decisionmaking:
"Forest Plans are broad, programmatic documents which provide
the framework for how a National Forest will be managed, but
generally do not provide final authorization for irretrievable
resource commitments. ... Authorization of site-specific
activities within a National Forest normally occurs through
project analysis and decision- making. ... [With] NEPA
compliance" (Advanced Proposal @219.33(a-c)).
o Define consistency requirements.
Specify that the consistency of a project with the Forest Plan
is based on adherence to the standards and guidelines.
o Define overall planning and decisionmaking framework.
Address the relationship of Forest planning to other resource
planning and decisionmaking efforts and would clearly identify
that Forest Plans are the mechanism by which the results of
these other efforts are integrated into on-the-ground management.
o Eliminate requirement for regional guides.
Replace the previous requirement for regional guides with a more
flexible planning and decisionmaking structure for addressing
regional resource issues.
o Emphasize the role of public involvement and coordination with other
governments.
Strengthen the commitment to public involvement and coordination
with other Federal agencies and State, local, and Indian tribal
governments and would introduce new provisions designed to
promote on-going and meaningful communication.
"Public participation and coordination with other [Government
entities is an integral part of Forest Planning and plan
implementation]. The intent is to . . . encourage conflict
resolution" (Advanced Proposal @ 219.39, emphasis added).
o Require preparation of an annual monitoring and evaluation report.
Promote the role and visibility of monitoring and evaluation by
establishing a requirement for preparation of an annual
monitoring and evaluation report to be transmitted to the
Regional Forester and made available to the public.
o Define requirements to provide for biological diversity.
Provide for diversity by establishing requirements related to
threatened or endangered species, sensitive species, rare or
unique biological communities, and other selected species and
would provide for their monitoring.
o Introduce the concept of "management indicators".
Replace the concept of "management indicator species" with a
somewhat similar concept of "management indicators" -- linked to
the monitoring and evaluation of selected species and
communities for the purposes of assuring biological diversity.
o Establish a new process for identifying unsuited timber lands.
Establish substantially altered procedures, including a
provision for categorizing suitable timber lands as either
"suitable-scheduled" or "suitable-unscheduled".
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Contact the planning staff of your nearest National Forest office or
write to Land Management Planning, USDA-Forest Service, P.O. Box 96090,
Washington, D.C. 20090-6090 (202-447-5933)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ECO-WATCH
3/8/91
PUBLIC LANDS CONFLICT AND RESOLUTION
By: Chris Hansen, Economist
Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie NF
Recently, I had a chance to listen to Julia Wondolleck, from the University of
Michigan, talk about conflict management and resolution. She has written a book
on that subject, Public Lands Conflict and Resolution, highlighting the Forest
Service land management planning experience. She had a number of interesting
things to say.
I decided to try to summarize relatively briefly her more salient points.
Without question, we have some difficult land management conflicts on the MT.
Baker-Snoqualmie NF and in Region 6. And we will continue to face more as we
move into Forest Plan implementation. The appeals on our Forest Plan, and the
likely contention over proposed timber sales in roadless areas, are just two of
those areas. As such, I thought it might be of interest to pass along some of
what Wondolleck had to say, as there are definitely differences in her
recommended processes and approaches compared to our standard way of gathering
public input and making decisions via the NEPA requirements.
Our "sort-of standardized" approach to the public input and decision process has
been:
1) Identify issues through open houses, workshops, focus groups,
and other formal or informal requests for public input;
2) Go through the draft EA/EIS preparation process, developing a
series of alternatives that we believe speak to those identified
issues;
3) Send out the draft and request public comment within a certain
time period;
4) Perhaps hold public open houses or more formal sessions to
inform interested parties and gather additional public input;
5) Gather up the input, disappear back into our offices, analyze
the input and prepare responses, possibly adjust the EA/EIS, and
issue the final decision.
This seems like such a logical process -- so why do we almost inevitably end up
with oft-times rancorous dissent, appeals, and even litigation?
Wondolleck would argue that the missing critical ingredient is the use of direct
multiparty discussions (or even negotiations) that involve representatives of
major interested groups who hold differing positions on the issues at hand.
This involvement is critical in at least two places in the process. First, she
argues that agencies should involve interested parties in discussions and
decisions that establish criteria for the rest of the analysis and decision
process. Second, agencies should work with these group and position
representatives either to arrive at a decision, or to define a range of possible
decisions. The results of those discussions should be public, and the rationale
for the final decision should also be made public and show how that decision
followed, or differed from, the original criteria established.
From my experience and observation, our typical approach
to conflict "resolution" has been one of two types. 1)
We deal with conflicting parties individually, and then
try to serve as the intermediary among those parties.
We go from one to another, acting as the communications
conduit among them, trying to relate the position(s) of
one or more groups to another. Or, 2) we take in all
the public input, go back into our office, shut the
door, work through it all to the best of our ability,
and then announce our decision which we think will best
deal with the issues at hand.
According to Wondolleck, we are just about guaranteed
problems if we don't get the conflicting interests
talking face-to-face, and if we don't involve them
collectively in the process leading up to the final
decision. Of course, appeals and litigation may still
occur, but they should be fewer in number and less
severe in nature.
This shouldn't really be a new idea to any of us, as we
have watched the Timber/Fish/Wildlife agreement process,
and more recently, the Sustainable Forestry Roundtable
negotiations. (Even though that appeared to fall
through because of the split among the environmental
groups, I read recently that the process is definitely
not as dead as it appeared before Christmas.)
I think that we as an agency have generally been afraid
of this type of process for a couple of reasons. First:
we have strongly resisted any appearance of "giving up"
what we consider to be our decision authority. Second:
more subtly but perhaps more strongly, I think we have
been afraid of facing, dealing with, and possibly
getting figuratively clobbered by the conflict and
emotions that could arise from getting all those
"enemies" together in one room at the same time. But
this process CAN work. Those fears have been largely
unfounded where it has been tried. And with the
increased availability of professional mediators and
facilitators (who are not agency people), there is more
opportunity to carry out this type of multiparty process
without our having to try to play the dual role of both
facilitator and interested party with a stake in the
outcome.
I think we should give strong consideration to a process
that holds promise for improving our ability to deal
with conflict around the management of the Forest(s).
One of the things we hear about New Perspectives is that
it means listening to our publics better. This could be
a very effective way to do just that. To the degree
that real communications are increased, and conflicts
mitigated, everyone will be a winner!
I recognize that the procedural requirements of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act can be onerous and
intimidating. But we should consider trying to work
with (or around) those requirements, or trying to get
more flexibility written into the Act, if the end result
will be better decisions, more support for those
decisions, and fewer adversarial proceedings against us.
Editors note: Both the Boise and the Bridger-Teton NFs
in Region 4 have used these ideas and found ways to
build public decisions through deliberation without
running afoul of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
They simply asked the interested parties if they would
like to charter themselves as a group interested in
deliberating the various aspects of the process, and
then let them invite the Forest Service to participate.
It might be a good idea to seek legal counsel before
using this approach everywhere, but it sure made things
easier (maybe made things possible) in those cases....
Dave Iverson.