Ah, the elusive and ubiquitous planning rule

The Forest Service struck out again in Northern California District Court on NEPA grounds. 

So, they have gone back to the drawing board. 

The Notice of Intent published in the Federal Register poses several questions for public response that have little or nothing to do with the requirements of the National Forest Management Act, which is where the requirement to have forest plans comes from.  In point of fact, the purpose of national rule is to guide the preparation of forest plans.  Our concern with the questions in the NOI is that they have created an expectation on the part of the participating public that it will result in something happening or not happening on the ground (witness the large number of recreational users who are showing up at the regional meetings, probably because they are getting hosed at the forest level on off-road vehicle use, etc.).

Another bewildering aspect of the public participation process this time around is that we were given a deadline for written comments (Feb. 16, 2010), after which a whole series of facilitated / moderated / highly politically correct public meetings and workshops have taken and are still taking place. 

No one can answer my questions:  How will this input be used?  Is it part of the administrative record that forms the agency’s defense to future litigation if someone claims the rule does not comply with the APA, NEPA, NFMA, PDQ and FUBAR?  To make matters worse, there is a blog and the agency is said to be using “social media” (not to be confused with a mere social disease), such as Twitter and Facebook (although I am myself too busy perfecting my calligraphy using my Mont Blanc fountain pen to participate).  Again, the same questions about the Public Record, but even fewer answers (if there can be fewer than none).

My highly personal and prejudiced take on the “new” planning rule:  The requirements are in NFMA.  The agency should be able to adopt a rule that fulfills the statutory requirements and in compliance with the APA and NEPA.

The agency has most of the extant planning expertise on its vast staff (although there are few of us in the private sector paying some dark karmic debt by going through this exercise again and again). It should read the statutes, ask its lawyers to help it understand what the judges have said, draft a rule that demonstrates that it has learned from past mistakes, publish the draft, take comments, revise if there is anything worthy in the public input, finalize the rule and get on with it.  I loathe to think what all these touchy feely workshops, etc. are costing in time and lost productivity for less than zero benefit to the resource or the public which owns and uses same.