Restoring our forests isn’t a one-size-fits-all process. It requires flexibility, adaptability, and a willingness to respond to changing conditions on the ground. That’s why many forest managers are turning to condition-based management—a more nimble approach that allows project details to shift depending on the specific needs of the forest.
The Twisp Restoration Project in Washington serves as a prime example of this approach in action. With this project, the U.S. Forest Service aims to improve watershed health, protect wildlife habitat, and reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire. It’s a smart strategy for an area the Service had already identified as at high risk for severe fire. In fact, this particular area was so at risk that during the Twisp project’s development, the Cedar Creek Fire tore through the area, forcing the Service to significantly reduce the scope of the project. Clearly, restoration in this forest is needed.
To ensure compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act’s (NEPA) requirement of taking a “hard look” at a project’s effect, the Service analyzed the Twisp Project using a “maximum impact analysis.” Under this approach, the Service considers the potential effect of all potential treatments applied to the entire project area, even though under condition-based management, specific treatments only happen where they’re needed.
Still, the project faced legal challenges. The North Cascades Conservation Council challenged the project, arguing in part that condition-based management and maximum impact analysis categorically violate NEPA. The Council asserted that the Service must predict and analyze exactly which treatment will be applied to which areas, regardless of what is best for the forest ecosystem and the changing conditions. That rigid view doesn’t just clash with NEPA’s own “rule of reason,” but it would also tie the hands of land managers working to restore forests. Given our 80-million-acre backlog of needed restoration work, this approach is both impractical and leaves forest ecosystems vulnerable to the ravages of wildfire.
PERC filed an amicus brief in the case defending the Service’s use of condition-based management and maximum impact analysis. We believe this kind of flexibility is key to smart, science-based stewardship of complex forest ecosystems. Fortunately, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals mostly affirmed the Forest Service’s reasoning and specifically held that the Twisp Project’s condition-based management did not violate NEPA. While the decision didn’t go so far as to say condition-based management is a valid approach for all projects, it did affirm that this approach can work when done transparently and thoughtfully.
As questions remain about the use of condition-based management in larger projects, PERC will continue to support management practices that are as dynamic and adaptive as the forest ecosystems they aim to protect.
