Plan Implementation Panel Discussion Forum
We know that many of you were unable to attend the Forest Plan Forum. Those who did attend had a great time discussing a variety of topics related to forest management. It was a very informative event. We hope that we can continue the discussions that the Forum stimulated in this online forum. I am creating a blog area for each panel.
We hope you will continue the open discussion from the Plan Implementation Panel here.
The plan implementation panel for the Forum was Bevan Killpack, Ken Sizemore, Mark Habbeshaw, Steve Smith, Terry Krasko. Topics that were on the table for the panel included process for selecting and prioritizing projects under the plan, monitoring, evaluation and adjustment, partnerships, project level analysis, etc..
Each panelist shared their particular point of view prior to the general discussion. We hope that the panelists will take a few minutes and post a comment sharing their perspective with the broader blog community (many of which were unable to attend the Forum).
Questions posed to the panel from the other participants fell into the following topic areas:
• Is “multiple use” a myth? For instance, can we have livestock grazing and a healthy watershed?
• Working together and respecting both local and “other” perspectives. There are many legitimate “national” interests in addition to the many legitimate and important local interests in these areas.
• Value of latitude and discretion. To what extent does this mean lack of accountability? To what extent does it allow for greater creativity in implementing the plan?
• Role of the planner and the specialist.
• Role of other forest service employees in implementing the plan.
• How do you see implementation taking place? Where should participation be – up front or reactionary?
I had a comment and question that I wanted to express at the end of the Implementation Panel, but time ran out to do so.
My comment was that history will judge all of us - Forest Service officials, state officials, county commissioners, enviro/Wise Use/recreation NGOs, interested publics, etc. - not by our good intentions, attendance at meetings, or lofty goals, but by how well we collectively solve the increasingly serious problems today that our children and grandchildren will otherwise inherit. These problems include, and somewhat overlap or interrelate:
1) Expansion of invasive weeds, especially cheatgrass
2) Excessive fuel loads due to past fire suppression and/or browse removal of fine fuels in fire-dependent natural habitats
3) Proliferation of unauthorized routes
4) Degraded watersheds, stream downcutting, soil erosion, and aquifer
depletion
5) Decline or extirpation of native species and reduced diversity of biotic communities
At this time of rapidly growing populations, increasing land use presssures, and greater user conflicts, federal land management agencies face the depressing prospect of flat or declining budgets. “Do more with less” has apparently become their matching order. This reality means that managers must make tough triage decisions to get the most “bang” from their limited dollars. However, in my cursory initial review of the proposed plan, I
could not find any explanation of how the plan will specifically guide how these difficult decisions will be made. This could lead to a continuation of a “status quo” that has not been sufficient, overall, to “turn the corner” on putting us on the trajectory to solve one or more of these problems.
Hence, my triage-related question: Is the draft plan a “menu” of positive objectives that may or may not be achieved, or an actual selection of those highest-priority and most urgent objectives that will receive the Lion’s share of future attention and funding at the project level?
From my perspective, I fear that the answer may be the former rather than the latter. If so, imagine being a waitress at a restaurant, and, after reviewing the lenghty menu choices, the customer says “yes.”
I look forward to reviewing the draft plan in more detail, and maybe I’ll find some specific “menu selections” in terms of specific management priorities that transcend the hundreds of “shoulds” throughout the document.
In any case, I agree with the speakers who said that we need to invest much more time and energy in building collaborative partnerships with positive energy and eclectic funding sources to implement high-priority projects. Ultimately, that is our best or only hope to get where we need to go.
Comment by Richard Spotts — August 16, 2006 @ 10:53 pm