Environmental Management

, Volume 13, Issue 5, pp 583–592 | Cite as

Forest service experience with interdisciplinary teams developing integrated resource management plans

  • Margot W. Garcia


The National Forest Management Act and National Environmental Policy Act require the use of an interdisciplinary team (ID team) to do integrated resource planning for the National Forests and the concurrent environmental analysis. A survey sent to all National Forest planning officers (82% response) reveals the composition of the ID teams used in integrated resource and land management planning. More than half the National Forests ID teams met NEPA and NFMA compositional requirements. National Forest planners recount their experiences with these ID teams. Despite frustrations with many aspects of the ID teams, the planners strongly support the idea that ID teams are an important part of the land-use planning process and think that their use leads to better National Forest integrated resource plans.

Key words

ID teams Interdisciplinary National forest planning Integrated land and resource planning NEPA NFMA 

Literature cited

  1. Bailey, R. G. (ed.). 1986. Proceedings of the Workshop on Lessons from Using FORPLAN; April 29–May 1, 1986, Denver, Colorado. USDA Forest Service Land Management Planning Systems, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  2. Belbin, R. M. 1981. Management teams, why they succeed or fail, Heinemann, London: 179 pp.Google Scholar
  3. Benyon, P. R. 1972. Computer modelling and interdisciplinary teams.Search 3:250–256.Google Scholar
  4. Bonnicksen, T. M. and Becker, R. H. 1983. Environment impact study; an interdisciplinary approach for assigning priorities.Environmental Management 7:109–117.Google Scholar
  5. Conacher, A. 1980. Environmental problem-solving and land use management; a proposed structure for Australia.Environmental Management 4:391–405.Google Scholar
  6. Dillman, D. A. 1978. Mail and telephone surveys; the total design method. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Garcia, M. W. 1986. FORPLAN and land management planning.In R. C. Field and P. E. Dress (eds.), Systems analysis in forest resources management: proceedings of the symposium. Society of American Foresters, SAF Publications 86-3, Bethesda, Maryland. pp. 55–76.Google Scholar
  8. Hardin, G. 1985. Filters against folly. How to survive despite economists, ecologists, and the merely eloquent. Viking, New York: pp 3–25.Google Scholar
  9. Hoekstra, T. W., Dyer, A. A., and LeMaster, D. C. (eds.). 1987. FORPLAN: an evaluation of a forest planning tool, proceedings of a symposium, November 4–6, 1986, Denver Colorado. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-140, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  10. Holling, C. S. (ed.). 1978. Adaptive environmental assessment and management. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, England: 377 pp.Google Scholar
  11. Holling, C. S., and Chambers, A. D. 1973. Resource science: the nurture of an infant.Bioscience 23:13–20.Google Scholar
  12. Holsti, O. R. 1969. Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  13. Iverson, D. C., and Alston, R. M. 1986. Genesis of FORPLAN; a historical and analytical review of forest service planning models. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service Technical Report INT-214, Ogden Utah.Google Scholar
  14. Jameson, D. A., Moore, M. A. D., and Case, P. J. 1982. Principles of land and resource management planning, USDA Forest Service, Land Management Planning, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  15. Johnson, K. N. 1986. FORPLAN version 1: an overview. USDA Forest Service, Land Management Planning Section, Fort Collins, Colorado.Google Scholar
  16. Johnson, K. N. and Crim, S. A. 1986. FORPLAN version 1: structure and options guide. USDA Forest Service, Land Management Planning Section, Fort Collins, Colorado.Google Scholar
  17. Mar, B. W. 1974. Problems encountered in multidisciplinary resources and environmental simulation models development.Journal of Environmental Management 2:83–100.Google Scholar
  18. Miller, A. 1982. Environmental problem solving: psychosocial factors.Environmental Management 6:535–541.Google Scholar
  19. Miller, A. 1983. The influence of personal biases in environmental problem solving.Journal of Environmental Management 17:133–142.Google Scholar
  20. Petak, W. J. 1980. Environmental planning and management; the need for an integrative perspective.Environmental Management 4:287–295.Google Scholar
  21. Walters, C. 1974. An interdisciplinary approach to development of watershed simulation models.Technical Forecasting and Social Change 6:294–323.Google Scholar
  22. Warfield, J. N. 1976. Societal systems, planning, policy, and complexity. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  23. Welch, H. W. and Lewis, G. D. 1976. Assessing environmental impacts of multiple use land management.Journal of Environmental Management 4:197–209.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Margot W. Garcia
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PlanningArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations