Forest Service Planning: Accommodating Uses, Producing Outputs, and Sustaining Ecosystems
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Forest Service Planning: Accommodating Uses, Producing Outputs, and Sustaining Ecosystems February 1992 OTA-F-505 NTIS order #PB92-152560 Planning: Accommodating Uses. Producing Outputs. and Sustaining Ecosystems co-.~ A fU Of' T ~' ' ~ "f~ ~ ' A'" ,,!\VOC' O"'CO ". T[ r. ....OCWy ASS. !;S ... ~t 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. JOHN H. GIBBONS u 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 Linville Falls, NC University of Virginia 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 Forest Planning as Strategic Planning . .. 4 Multiple Use and Sustained Yield . 4 Public Involvement in Forest Planning . 4 Biological Dimensions of Forest Planning . 6 Forest Planning 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 INTRODUCTION required to involve the public in the planning 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 a variety of uses and outputs---commodities (e.g., Some of these challenges call for improving Forest 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 demands on the resources have continued to climb, and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act and unmarketed resources are now more widely of 1974 (RPA). RPA, as enacted, required the 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.