Forest Plans and ad hoc scientist groups in the 1990s: Coping with the Forest Service viability clause

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 requires U.S. National Forests to develop Forest Plans every 15 years to guide their actions on the forest. The 1982 NFMA implementation regulations require the Forest Plans to provide for “species viability.” Throughout the 1980s, plans were written to meet this charge. In the Pacific Northwest, many plans were subsequently challenged on their ability to provide for species viability; ad hoc science groups were then commissioned to assess the plans relative to the viability standard. The ad hoc groups universally concluded that the plans provided inadequate species protection, and recommended major management changes based primarily on decreases in timber production. The Northwest Forest Plan and the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Plan were both developed, in part, from ad hoc science teams' recommendations. Through interviews and an examination of numerous Forest Plans, we explore how two such divergent outcomes could result from the same set of planning regulations. Four propositions are discussed: (1) The planners and ad hoc science groups characterized risk differently. (2) The ad hoc science groups raised the bar relative to what was needed to ensure protection. (3) The agency was not able to introduce change into its own organization. (4) Changing social values and increased appeals to the court system forced a change in the agency's priorities.