Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Use of Recreation Planning Tools in U.S. Forest Service NEPA Assessments

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

U.S. Forest Service managers are required to incorporate social and biophysical science information in planning and environmental analysis. The use of science is mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act, the National Forest Management Act, and U.S. Forest Service planning rules. Despite the agency’s emphasis on ‘science-based’ decision-making, little is known about how science is actually used in recreation planning and management. This study investigated the perceptions of Forest Service interdisciplinary (ID) team leaders for 106 NEPA projects dealing with recreation and travel management between 2005 and 2008. Our survey data show how managers rate the importance of social and biophysical science compared to other potential ‘success factors’ in NEPA assessments. We also explore how team leaders value and use multi-disciplinary tools for recreation-related assessments. Results suggest that managers employ a variety of recreation planning tools in NEPA projects, but there appears to be no common understanding or approach for how or when these tools are incorporated. The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) was the most frequently used planning tool, but the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (VERP) framework was the most consistently valued tool by those who used it. We recommend further evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of each planning tool and future development of procedures to select appropriate planning tools for use in recreation-related NEPA assessments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bosworth D (2003) We need a new national debate. Speech to the Izaak Walton League, 81st Annual Convention, Pierre, SD, July 17. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/news/2003/speeches/07/bosworth.shtml. Accessed 23 July 2008

  • Butler KJ, Koontz TM (2005) Theory into practice: implementing ecosystem management objectives in the USDA Forest Service. Environmental Management 35(2):138–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caldwell LK (1998) Beyond NEPA: future significance of the National Environmental Policy Act. Harvard Environmental Law Review 22(1):203–239

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark RN, Stankey GH (1979) The recreation opportunity spectrum: a framework for planning, management and research. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest Experimental Station, General Technical Report PNW-98, Portland, OR

  • Cortner HJ, Moote MA (1999) The politics of ecosystem management. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreyfus DA, Ingram HM (1976) National Environmental-Policy Act—view of intent and practice. Natural Resources Journal 16(2):243–262

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver BL (2009) Managing to optimize the beneficial outcomes of recreation. Venture Publishing Inc., State College, PA

    Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek JS (1997) The politics of the earth: environmental discourses. Oxford University Press, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhauer BW, Krannich RS, Blahna DJ (2000) Attachments to special places on public lands: an analysis of activities, reason for attachment, and community connections. Society and Natural Resources 13:421–444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Francis TB, Whittaker KA, Shandas V, Mills AV, Graybill JK (2005) Incorporating science into the environmental policy process: a case study from Washington State. Ecology and Society 10(1):35

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia MW (1989) Forest Service experience with interdisciplinary teams developing integrated resource management plans. Environmental Management 13(5):583–592

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoberg G (2004) Science, politics, and U.S. Forest Service Law: the battle over the Forest Service Planning Rule. Natural Resource Journal 44(1):1–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman H (1960) The forest ranger. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimbell AR, Schuman A, Brown H (2009) More kids in the woods: reconnecting Americans with nature. Journal of Forestry 107(7):373–377

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruger LE, Williams DR (2007) Place and place-based planning. In: Kruger LE, Mazza R, Lawrence K (eds) Proceedings: national workshop on recreation research and management. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698, Portland, OR, pp 83–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Manning RE (1999) Studies in outdoor recreation: search and research for satisfaction, 2nd edn. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR

    Google Scholar 

  • Manning RE (2007) Parks and carrying capacity: commons without tragedy. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • McCool SF, Cole DN (comps) (1997) Proceedings—limits of acceptable change and related planning processes: progress and future directions. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mt. Research Station, General Technical Report INT-GTR-371, Ogden, UT

  • McCool SF, Clark RN, Stankey GH (2007) An assessment of frameworks useful for public land recreation planning. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-705, Portland, OR

  • More RL, Driver BL (2005) Introduction to outdoor recreation: providing and managing natural resource based opportunities. Venture Publications, State College, PA

    Google Scholar 

  • Nilsen P, Tayler G (1997) A comparative analysis of protected area planning and management frameworks. In: McCool SF, Cole DN (comps). Proceedings—limits of acceptable change and related planning processes: progress and future directions. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mt. Research Station, General Technical Report INT-GTR-371, Ogden, UT, pp 49–57

  • Pergams ORW, Zaradic PA (2008) Evidence for a fundamental and pervasive shift away from nature-based recreation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105(7):2295–2300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selin S, Hunt F, Blanche C, Thompson K (2009) Outdoor recreation research and education for the 21st century: defying national direction and building capacity. Journal of Forestry 107(7):346–349

    Google Scholar 

  • Shelby B, Heberlein TA (1986) Carrying capacity in recreation settings. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR

    Google Scholar 

  • Stankey GH (1999) The recreation opportunity spectrum and limits of acceptable change planning systems: a review of experiences and lessons learned, Chap. 12. In: Aley J, Burch WR, Conover B, Field D (eds) Ecosystem management: adaptive strategies for natural resource organizations in the twenty-first century. Taylor and Frances, Philadelphia, PA, pp 173–188

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern MJ, Blahna D, Cerveny LC, Mortimer M (2009) Visions of success and achievement in recreation-related Forest Service NEPA processes. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 29:220–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern MJ, Mortimer MJ (2009) Exploring NEPA processes across federal land management agencies. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-799. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR

  • Stern MJ, Predmore SA, Mortimer MJ, Seesholtz D (2010) The meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act within the US Forest Service. Journal of Environmental Management 91(6):1371–1379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • USDA Forest Service [USFS] (1996) National forest landscape management. Vol II, Chap. 1. Landscape aesthetics: a handbook for scenery management. Agriculture Handbook 701. US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • USDA Forest Service [USFS] (2005) 36 CFR Parts 212, 251, 261, and 295. Travel management; designated routes and areas for motor vehicle use; final rule. Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/ohv/final.pdf. Accessed 16 June 2010

  • USDA Forest Service [USFS] (2010a) Forest Service handbook. 1909.15.12.1. Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/cgi-bin/Directives/get_dirs/fsh?1909.15. Accessed 16 June 2010

  • USDA Forest Service [USFS] (2010b) Forest Service manual. FSM 1950.2. Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/cgi-bin/Directives/get_dirs/fsm?1900. Accessed 16 June 2010

  • USDA Forest Service [USFS] (2010c) National Forest Management Act Planning Directives [2005]. FSM1920 Land Management Planning. Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/index5.html. Accessed 16 June 2010

  • USDA Forest Service [USFS] (2010d) National Visitor Use Monitoring Program. Available at www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum/. Accessed 16 June 2010

  • Williams DR, Patterson M, Roggenbuck J, Watson A (1992) Beyond the commodity metaphor: examining emotional and symbolic attachments to place. Leisure Sciences 14:29–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank the Pacific Northwest Research Station of the USDA Forest Service for providing funding for the project and the many team leaders who devoted their time to respond to the survey and follow-up interviews.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Pacific Northwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service, 400 NW 34th Street, Suite 201, Seattle, WA, 98103, USA

    Lee K. Cerveny & Dale J. Blahna

  2. Department of Forest Resources and Environmental Conservation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 304 Cheatham Hall, 0234, Blacksburg, VA, 24061, USA

    Marc J. Stern & S. Andrew Predmore

  3. Virginia Tech College of Natural Resources and Environment, National Capital Region, 7054 Haycock Rd., Falls Church, VA, 22043, USA

    Michael J. Mortimer

  4. Phase One Consulting, Alexandria, VA, USA

    James Freeman

Authors
  1. Lee K. Cerveny
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dale J. Blahna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marc J. Stern
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michael J. Mortimer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. S. Andrew Predmore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. James Freeman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lee K. Cerveny.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cerveny, L.K., Blahna, D.J., Stern, M.J. et al. The Use of Recreation Planning Tools in U.S. Forest Service NEPA Assessments. Environmental Management 48, 644–657 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-011-9701-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-011-9701-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation