Seventeen of us gathered in the Monarch Room of the Pronghorn Motel in Lander last May to talk about forest planning. The room felt empty. It's hard to draw people in for a discussion on our national forests when the sun is shining and the very wild lands under discussion beckoning. But there we sat. Talking.

Both the Bridger-Teton and the Shoshone National Forests are rewriting their forest plans-visionary documents designed to guide management decisions for the next 10-15 years. And while forest plan revisions are nothing new, this process is. In January 2005, the United States Forest Service adopted a new planning rule that has changed just about everything.

"The Forest Service told us to take anything we knew about forest planning and pitch it," says Kevin Hurley, a wildlife biologist with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department in Cody. Hurley is one of the department's representatives on the Shoshone Government Cooperators Work Group. He participated in the last round of forest planning for the Shoshone back in the mid-1980s.

"The new process is hard for me," Hurley continues. "We're still on the outer fringes of this thing working our way toward the center. I'm ready to get to the meat and potatoes of it, to get my hands around what we are trying to accomplish."

Bryan Armel, the forest planner for the Shoshone, agrees that the new rule has made things challenging, but he is optimistic about the process.

"This is a change," Armel says. "In the past it was easy to figure out what steps to take next because we knew the procedure. Now we have to figure out how to do this as we go along. It's like anything new.

"But I think the new rule looks positive at this stage. It's more strategic and doesn't get into too much detail, which has the potential benefit of allowing us to get through the process and begin implementing changes more quickly."

The Forest Service calls this new planning process a "paradigm shift." Plans will now be "more strategic and less prescriptive in nature than under the 1982 planning rule." The new final rule for national forest planning, published in the Federal Register on January 5, 2005, announced its intended effects are to "streamline and improve the planning process by making plans more adaptable to changes in social, economic and environmental conditions; to strengthen the role of science in planning; to strengthen collaborative relationships with the public and other governmental entities; and to reaffirm the principles of sustainable management consistent with the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act and other authorities."

What this actually means on the ground is subject to debate. According to some, flexibility will enable the Forest Service to adapt to changing conditions and demands; to others it has the potential of creating a plan so vague it has no meaning.

What's different?

The Wyoming Outdoor Council is working to influence the forest planning process in ways that protect our water, air, wildlife and wild places. We are also seeking to keep people informed so that you—or anyone else who knows and loves these forests—know how and when to be involved.

One of the biggest changes is that forest plans no longer require analysis of multiple alternatives under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Plans can be developed and revised from a single alternative instead. Analysis of multiple alternatives will be conducted on a project-by-project basis-say a specific timber sale-when that project comes on line. In theory this sounds good, but it makes many nervous.

The new rule also means that the public cannot appeal forest plans. There is an "objection" period before the plan is finalized during which the Forest Service will hear concerns. But it is not clear what weight an objection will hold or how it will be addressed in the final plan.

"I'm not completely comfortable that a planning document doesn't require environmental analysis," says Jen Lamb, the public policy manager at the National Outdoor Leadership School, one of the largest permittees on the Shoshone and the Bridger-Teton National Forests.

"I don't think streamlining at the cost of environmental analysis is a good idea. However, the agency has told us in no uncertain terms that environmental analysis will not suffer, so I guess we have to trust them and wait and see," she says. "But we should not forget that these plans do have weight. The oil and gas leasing going on in the Wyoming Range now was identified as available for leasing in the 1990 Bridger-Teton Forest Plan."

Wait and see

A number of stakeholders and members of the public have echoed this "wait and see" viewpoint but also expressed divergent opinions about the forest planning process.

"On the one hand the process has been encouraging," says Steve Dutcher, the chairman of the board of supervisors for the Popo Agie Conservation District and the district's representative on the Shoshone Government Cooperators Work Group. "I feel as if our comments are noted and our input considered. But I'm not sure where it's going. I'm concerned that this is a way for the government to go through the backdoor to get around process in the name of expediting things.

"We're working on a plan that is supposed to be flexible. But I worry that it seems like an easy way out. Look at what happened with the Jack Morrow Hills. They worked with cooperators and took input from the public and then in the final plan the Bureau of Land Management blew by what people wanted," Dutcher adds.

In the past, forest plans took five to seven years to complete, and it was not unheard of for the process to drag out for ten years. The Shoshone's Armel said the old plans cost up to $1 million per year. The planning process is now supposed to be completed in three years with an average budget of $500,000 per year. Both Armel and Rick Fox, the Bridger-Teton's forest planner, say their respective plans are on schedule, although the two forests have opted to follow different paths to reach
the same end.

"All the regions are handling this a little differently," says Fox of the Bridger-Teton. "Personally I think it is a good thing that we're trying different approaches. This will give us more diversity of perspectives on how to go about forest planning in the future."

But for some people interested in both forests, the differences can be confusing.

"The fact that the Bridger-Teton and the Shoshone are doing the same thing in different ways is totally mind boggling," says Liz Howell, executive director of the Wyoming Wilderness Association. "I think the public is being ditched in this process."

The forest planners disagree with Howell's contention and the forest rule states explicitly, "This final rule assures the public an effective voice in the entire planning process from beginning to end." Still the meetings can be confusing and the weight of public comments hard to discern. At the May meeting on roadless areas, the discussion rambled and which comments were actually being recorded was unclear.

"I care about the forest. I use it heavily and it is a large part of why I choose to live here," says Nathan Foster, a Lander resident. "Management of the forest is critically important to me personally. But I left the planning meeting with a feeling that I don't totally understand the process, and I have the sense that not too many others understand it either."

In spite of the confusion and an element of pessimism on the part of some, the planning process is moving forward rapidly. Both forests hope for a final plan in 2008, so now is the time for public participation in protecting the lands we love.