In 1976, when Congress required the Forest Service to write comprehensive, long-range plans for each of the 100 or so national forests, the Chief of the Forest Service estimated that it would take about three years to write all the plans. In fact, it took eighteen.
Part of the problem was that planning took so long that reality changed in unexpected ways before the plan could be completed. Planners then had a choice of ignoring reality or starting over. Those who ignored reality delivered plans to forest managers that made no sense. Those who started over never really got done.
The Klamath National Forest was supposed to write the “pilot” forest plan in California. In fact, they were the last forest in the country to complete their plan. As one forest planner later told me, “The Klamath was supposed to be a lead forest and it became a bleeding edge.” Klamath planners started over from scratch at least five different times — and some forests started over even more times.
What forced forests to start over? Here are just a few reasons:
- The original planning rules were written under the Carter administration. When Reagan was elected, his people decided to completely rewrite the rules. Though early plans were supposed to be “grandfathered” under the older rules, the administration let the Forest Service know it was very unhappy with the first plans to cross its desks. “Appropriate changes will be made” unless those plans improve — a veiled threat to fire top personnel. Planners responded by starting over.
- Plans were supposed to use the “best available data,” but planning schedules often called for the writing of draft plans even as managers were conducting new forest inventories. Sometimes the new inventories revealed that the assumptions in the draft plans were completely wrong. Some planners pretended this wasn’t important, others started over.
- In 1987 and 1988, huge fires rampaged through much of the West. Some national forests lost so much timber that their inventories were completely invalid. Solution: start over.
- When a high-profile animal such as the spotted own was listed as a threatened or endangered species, planners often started over so they could incorporate the animal’s habitat requirements in their plans.
- Every single plan was appealed by environmentalists and/or industry interests. Many of those appeals sent the planners back to the drawing boards.
Unlike the MBTI, the 16PF examines our underlying personality, regardless of how we apply it or the surroundings in which order levitra on line we apply it. One of the reasons couples do not discuss about ED is it’s treatable with medicines like generico levitra on line online. levitra online Before purchasing from a site, ensure that it is coming for a reputable source. Moreover, they smoke, consume alcohol frequently and make use of illicit drugs. viagra best prices
Each plan was supposed to guide national forest managers for ten to fifteen years, after which the plan was to be revised. But such a planning process is not much use if it takes ten to fifteen years to write a plan, and even less useful if the plan is obsolete when it is finished.
My contact who once worked on the Klamath Forest plan says that “Good things that came out of the forest plan” that was finally published in 1994, including prescribed fire, consideration of biological diversity, and watershed protection. But these things did not need planners. If anything, the time-consuming planning process delayed their implementation.
Are urban plans somehow immune to the pace-of-change problem? Hardly. If anything, changes in technologies, tastes, and newly discovered needs happen far faster in cities than in forests. The result is that, no matter how fast they plan, their plans are obsolete even before they are printed.
If anything, changes in technologies, tastes, and newly discovered needs happen far faster in cities than in forests. The result is that, no matter how fast they plan, their plans are obsolete even before they are printed.
Thus adaptive management.
And visualizations, milestones, scenario analysis. You are straw-manning on an outdated model.
This argument you posted here only works with those who have no clue as to how things work, and would be better served if you would give actual examples from reality.
DS
Dan,
Thanks for the wonderful display of jargon. Since you always demand that I provide examples and proof, it would be nice if you could present some real-life examples of how planners use adaptive management to prevent shortages of transport facilities, housing, and other essential elements of an urban environment.
There is a computer game called “SimCity” which can be adjusted easily and quickly and replayed with new assumptions and changes. Perhaps if the Forest Service created a SimForest simulation game and constantly updated it their results would be better and more up to date.
I realize that God made the universe, earth, and life incredibly complex. He understands it and we don’t, but He wants us to try. That is why He assigned Adam, the first man, to be a scientist as his first jobs. He told Adam to take care of the plants in the garden and to name the animals.
From the little I have learned about forest management, it seems to me that the asian immigrants who managed the North American forests for several thousand years did a better job than the european immigrants who have been trying to manage the forests in the last three hundred years.
Randal:
What jargon? Scenario analysis? Adaptive management? How long has it been since you’ve been in the field doing natural resource management? More than a decade if you don’t know these terms.
Anyway, why do you think plans undergo regular review and revision? So planners can have more deadlines and late nights with the public? Oooh, fun.
WA requires periodic wholesale revision, and yearly cities make amendments. Yearly. This is adaptive management, even though the profession doesn’t call it that. You’d know that if you actually practiced planning or knew what they did.
DS
Do you think plans just sit there, unchanged? What planet do you live on?
Dan, I think Randal’s point is that you are now writing for members of the curious public, who read his blog. Sure, he knows what you mean because he deals with this stuff 24/7. But you can’t expect his readers to.
Most of us have zero familiarity with planning jargon, so when it’s thrown in our faces like that, we just tune out your response, as I did.
I’m in the computer field, and I can tell you that I am very careful to avoid all computer jargon when writing for the general public. The effort makes them a lot happier.
What would help is for you should explain the process and how it works. I know that as someone outside of the process, it astonishes me that something like a plan for a forest would take more than a month or so to write. Just figure out your goals, figure out the best way to achieve them, and write it down.
Why does it take so long? What is actually involved?
Hope that helps.
D
Good comment, Dennis.
I understand completely what you wrote, which is why I put links to definitions or explanations for the words above that I thought might need explanation.
That way, if people care to follow up, they don’t have to spend time on The Google.
As this is a comment board, people here spend only the time they have for writing comments. Some may spend more time composing comments than others.
Some comments might be longer, which reflects the time spent. Some might be shorter, which may indicate the amount of time available.
I taught myself HTML so I could point people to other sources of information, or visualiztions, or pictures, or the source of a quote I used. Linking both saves time in writing and allows precision.
As an example, I have no more time today for comments, although I wish to follow up on Randal’s comments and give readers some links to follow up on some of yours. But I can’t. So many things are unsaid.
Often, in comments, it has to be enough to point people to places, due to time constraints. HTH.
Regards,
DS