Managing Montana's trust land old-growth forests: Practical challenges in implementing scientific policy

Administration and Society

Volumn 38, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 447-471

  Mortimer, Michael J ^a   McLeod, Scott D ^b  

^a VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation   (United States)

Author keywords

Agency; Decision making; Public lands; Public participation

Indexed keywords

EID: 33746367440     PISSN: 00953997     EISSN: 15523039     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0095399706289712     Document Type: Article

References (71)

1. Arabas, K., & Bowersox, J. (Eds.). (2004). Forest futures: Science, politics and policy for the next century. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
2. Arney, J. D. (1996). Montana State Lands Sustained Yield Study. Helena: Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation.
3. Atkins, D. (1996). Discriminant function for old forest classification of mesic types in the Northern Rocky Mountains. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Montana, Missoula.
4. Bardach, E. (1977). The implementation game: What happens after a bill becomes a law. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5. Bolduan, L. M. (1990). The Hatfield Riders: Eliminating the role of the courts in environmental decision making. Environmental Law, 20, 329-385.
6. Bolton, M. J., & Stolcis, G. B. (2003). Ties that do not bind: Musings on the specious relevance of academic research. Public Administration Review, 63, 626-630.
7. Clawson, M. (1975). Forests for whom and for what? Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
8. Cross, F. B. (1999). Shattering the fragile case for judicial review of rulemaking. Virginia Law Review, 85, 1243-1334.
9. Cross, F. B. (2000). Pragmatic pathologies of judicial review of administrative rulemaking. North Carolina Law Review, 78, 1013-1069.
10. Edley, C. F. (1990). Administrative law: Rethinking judicial control of bureaucracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
11. Ellefson, P. V. (2000). Integrating science and policy development: Case of the national research council and US national policy focused on non-federal forests. Forest Policy and Economics, 1, 81-94.
12. Fairfax, S. K. (1998). Forest management gridlock: The devil we know and the emerging alternatives. In J. M. Calhoun (Ed.), Forest policy, ready for renaissance (pp. 188-201). Seattle: University of Washington, College of Forest Resources.
13. Fairfax, S. K. (2000). State trust lands management: A promising new application for the Forest Service? In R. A. Sedjo (Ed.), A vision for the U.S. Forest Service: Goals for its next century (pp. 105-141). Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
14. Freemuth, J., & Cawley, R. M. (1998). Science, expertise, and the public: The politics of ecosystem management in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem. Landscape and Urban Planning, 40 (1-3). 211-219.
15. Friends of the Wild Swan v. Clinch, 1st Judicial District, Cause BDV-2000-369 (2000).
16. Friends of the Wild Swan v. Montana Department of State Lands Eleventh Judicial District, DV-93-361-B (1993).
17. Fritz, E. C. (1996). Broadening judicial review under the National Forest Management Act. Wisconsin Environmental Law Review, 3, 27-47.
18. General Accounting Office. (1996). Federal and state programs differ significantly in Pacific Northwest (RCED-96-108). Washington, DC: Author.
19. Gordon, J. C., & Lyons, J. (1997). The emerging role of science and scientists in ecosystem management. In K. A. Kohm & J. F. Franklin (Eds.), Creating a forestry for the 21st century (pp. 447-453). Washington, DC: Island Press.
20. Gormley, W. T. (1998). Regulatory enforcement styles. Political Research Quarterly, 51, 363-383.
21. Green, P. J., Sirucek, D., Hann, W., Zack, A., & Naumann, B. (1992). Old-growth forest types of the Northern Region. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region. Internal manuscript.
22. Habeck, J. R. (1988). Old-growth forests in the northern Rocky Mountains. Natural Areas Journal, 8 (3). 202-211.
23. Hayward, G. (1991). Using population biology to define old-growth forests. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 19, 111-116.
24. Helms, J. A. (2004). Old-growth: What is it? Journal of Forestry, 102 (3). 8-12.
25. Hoberg, G. (2003). Science, politics, and U.S. forest law: The battle over the Forest Service planning rule. Natural Resources Journal, 44, 1-24.
26. Hunter, M. & White, A. S. (1997). Ecological thresholds and the definition of old-growth forest stands. Natural Areas Journal, 17, 292-296.
27. Idaho Department of State Lands. (2003). Fiscal year 2005 Department of Lands budget. Boise: Author.
28. Idaho Federal Lands Task Force. (1998). New approaches for managing federally administered lands. Boise: Author.
29. Jackson, D. H. (1983). Economic returns and the management of Montana's trust forest lands. Helena: Joint Interim Subcommittee No. 2 of the Montana Legislature.
30. Jackson, D. H. (2003, June). The role of state forest lands in balancing Montana's constitutional initiatives: Developing the full educational potential of each person and protecting the inalienable right to a clean and healthful environment. Paper presented at the Western States Land Commissioners Association Annual Meeting, Big Sky, MT.
31. Kagan, R. A. (2001). Adversarial legalism: The American way of life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
32. Kerwin, C. M. (1999). Rulemaking: How government agencies write law and make policy. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
33. Koontz, T. M. (2002). Federalism in the forest: National versus state natural resource policy. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
34. Lackey, R. T. (1998). Fisheries management: Integrating social preferences, decisions analysis, and ecological risk assessment. Environmental Science and Policy, 1, 329-335.
35. Lackey, R. T. (2001). Values, policy, and ecosystem health. BioScience, 51, 437-443.
36. Leal, D. R. (1995). Turning a profit on public forests (PERC Policy Series 4). Bozeman, MT: Political Economy Research Center.
37. Ludwig, D., Mangel, M., & Haddad, B. (2001). Ecology, conservation, and public policy. Annual Review of Ecological Systems, 32, 481-517.
38. Manring, N. (1993). Reconciling science and politics in Forest Service decision making: New tools for public administrators. American Review of Public Administration, 23, 343-359.
39. Matland, R. E. (1995). Synthesizing the implementation literature. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 5 (2). 145-174.
40. Mazmanian, D. A., & Sabatier, P. A. (1983). Implementation and public policy. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
41. Mills, T. J., & Clark, R. N. (2001). Roles of research scientists in natural resource decisionmaking. Forest Ecology and Management, 152 (1-3). 189-198.
42. Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation. (1996). State forest land management plan. Helena: Author.
43. Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation. (2000). Old-growth management on school trust lands, Supplemental biodiversity guidance. Helena: Author.
44. Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation. (2003). Administrative rules of Montana, §36.11.418. Helena: Author.
45. Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation. (2004). Sustained yield calculation. Helena: Author.
46. Mortimer, M. J. (1999). Condemnation without compensation: How environmental eminent domain diminishes the value of Montana's school trust lands. Dickinson Journal of Environmental Law & Policy, 8 (2). 243-271.
47. Mortimer, M. J. (2002). The delegation of law-making authority to the United States Forest Service: Implications in the struggle for national forest management. Administrative Law Review, 54, 907-982.
48. Mortimer, M. J., Scardina, A. V., & Jenkins, D. H. (2004). Policy analysis and national forest appeal reform. Journal of Forestry, 102 (2). 26-32.
49. O'Laughlin, J. (2004). Policy analysis framework for sustainable forestry: National forest case study. Journal of Forestry, 102 (2). 34-41.
50. O'Laughlin, J., & Cook, P. S. (2001). Endowment fund reform and Idaho's state lands: Evaluating financial performance of forest and rangeland assets (Report 21). Moscow, ID: Forest, Wildlife, and Range Policy Analysis Group.
51. Patton, M. Q. (1980). Qualitative evaluation methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
52. Pedynowski, D. (2003). Toward a more "reflexive environmentalism": Ecological knowledge and advocacy in the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem. Society and Natural Resources, 16, 807-825.
53. Pfister, R. D., Baker, W. L., Fiedler, C. E., & Thomas, J. W. (2000). Contract review of old-growth management on school trust lands: Supplemental biodiversity guidance 8/02/00. Helena, MT: Department of Natural Resources and Conservation.
54. Pielke, R. A., Jr. (2004). Forests, tornadoes, and abortions: Thinking about science, politics, and policy. In K. Arabas & J. Bowersox (Eds.), Forest futures: Science, politics and policy for the next century (pp. 143-152). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
55. Pouyat, R. V. (1999). Science and environmental policy - making them compatible. BioScience, 49 (14). 281-287.
56. Rabkin, J. (1989). Judicial compulsions: How public law distorts public policy. New York: Basic Books.
57. Robertson, D. P., & Hull, R. B. (2003). Public ecology: An environmental science and policy for global society. Environmental Science and Policy, 6, 399-410.
58. Rohlf, D. J. (2004). Science, law, and policy in managing natural resources: Toward a sound mix rather than a sound byte. In K. Arabas & J. Bowersox (Eds.), Forest futures: Science, politics and policy for the next century (pp. 127-142). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
59. Salazar, D. J. (1998). Beyond the virgin and the chain saw: Political analysis and forest policy. In J. M. Calhoun (Ed.), Forest policy, ready for renaissance (pp. 173-187). Seattle: University of Washington, College of Forest Resources.
60. Satterfield, T. (2002). Anatomy of a conflict: Identity, knowledge, and emotion in old-growth forests. Vancouver, Canada: UBC Press.
61. Schoenbrod, D. (1993). Power without responsibility: How Congress abuses the people through delegation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
62. Senate Bill 354, codified at Montana Code Ann. §77-1-116, Montana Code Annotated. (2001).
63. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. (2001, October 2). Forest protection initiatives and national forest policy before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forestry, 107th Congress, 1st Session, 44 [testimony of Thomas Bonnicksen].
64. Shannon, M. A. (2004). The Northwest Forest Plan as a learning process: A call for new institutions bridging science and politics. In K. Arabas & J. Bowersox (Eds.), Forest futures: Science, politics and policy for the next century (pp. 256-279). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
65. Souder, J. A., & Fairfax, S. K. (1996). State trust lands: History, management, and sustainable use. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
66. Souder, J. A., Fairfax, S. K., Rice, T. A., & MacDonnell, L. A. (1998). Is state trust land timber management better than federal timber management? A best case analysis. Hastings West-Northwest Journal of Environmental Law and Policy, 5 (1). 1-43.
67. Spies, T. A. (2004). Ecological concepts and diversity of old-growth forests. Journal of Forestry, 102 (3). 14-20.
68. Tyrell, L., Nowacki, G., Crow, T., Buckley, D., Nauertz, E., & Niese, J. (1998). Information about old-growth for selected forest type groups in the Eastern United States (Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-197). USDA Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station.
69. Wallace, M. G., Cortner, H. J., Moote, M. A., & Burke, S. (1996). Moving toward ecosystem management: Examining a change in philosophy for resource management. Journal of Political Ecology, 3 (1). 1-36.
70. Worell, A. C. (1970). Principles of forest policy. New York: McGraw-Hill.
71. Yin, R. K. (1989). Case study research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.