Montana's one-two punch to D.C.
Inter Lake editorial
There's something to be said for two Forest Service chiefs being picked right out of the agency's Northern Regional headquarters in Missoula.
At the very least, it can be said that outgoing chief and former regional forester Dale Bosworth and incoming chief Gail Kimbell, the current regional forester, know Montana and its forest management issues, which gives us a personal stake in their success.
Bosworth certainly did lead the agency through significant changes. When he was called up from the Northern Regional Forester position to become chief in 2001, he pledged to address "analysis paralysis," a Montana phrase for the red tape that has hogtied the agency and frustrated its work force for years. Bosworth was largely focused on improving conditions and expanding discretionary "decision space" for forest supervisors and district rangers.
The changes that Bosworth pursued have yet to be fully realized, but they will likely become apparent in years to come. In the wake of historic fire seasons, he pursued the Healthy Forests Initiative, a measure that led to a four-fold increase in fuels treatment work, mostly concentrated on national forest lands close to populated areas.
That work came about partly because of a series of "categorical exclusions" that allowed certain projects to be carried out without full-blown environmental reviews. Those rules have been put to use in Montana, and on the Flathead National Forest, with a series of successful fuel reduction projects.
Perhaps the most significant paralysis-purging change came in 2005, with new regulations for developing long-range forest plans. Those rules are allowing for faster and more cost-effective forest plan development, compared to the immensely bulky, costly and litigation-prone plans that were produced in the mid-1980s.
The new rules are certainly controversial. Various critics charge that they don't hold the agency accountable by requiring forest management standards and voluminous environmental impact statements as part of a forest plan.
Instead, the rules set the stage for broad, strategic plans that establish "desirable condition" goals for various parts of a national forest. An EIS is not necessary, the Forest Service claims, because long-range plans don't prescribe any on-the-ground management activity.
The agency contends that the environmental reviews will be carried out as projects are planned to meet the strategic goals in the long-term plan.
It remains to be seen how the new rules will work out. And predictably, they are being challenged in court. If the rules pass legal muster and prove to be effective, then Bosworth can be satisfied that he cut a big chunk out of the agency's infamous tangle of red tape.
We can only hope that Kimbell will carry on in the same vein.