Federal Lands Given More Local Management Power

BigHornRam

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
13,713
Location
"Land of Giant Rams"
New rules give more power to managers
By MATTHEW DALY of the Associated Press




WASHINGTON - Managers of the nation's 155 national forests will have more discretion to approve logging and other commercial projects without lengthy environmental reviews under a new Bush administration initiative.

The long-awaited rules, announced Wednesday, overhaul application of the landmark 1976 National Forest Management Act, which sets guidelines for managing 191 million acres of national forests and grasslands and protecting wildlife there.

Forest Service Associate Chief Sally Collins said the new rules will make forest planning more open, understandable and timely. Forest managers will be able to respond more quickly to changing conditions, such as wildfires, and emerging threats such as invasive species, she said.




The complex forest management rules have not been updated since the 1970s, and officials have long complained that detailed analyses required under the law take years to complete. For example, a 15-year management plan for the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forest in Colorado took seven years and $5.5 million to revise. Under the new rule, forest plan revisions could be completed within two to three years, officials said.

Environmentalists reacted with skepticism, saying the administration was catering to the timber and paper industries and weakening standards for protecting endangered or threatened species.

"The president's forest regulations are an early Christmas gift to the timber industry masquerading as a government streamlining measure," said Rodger Schlickeisen, president of Defenders of Wildlife.

The new plan gives regional forest managers more discretion to approve logging, drilling and mining operations without having to conduct formal scientific investigations known as environmental impact statements.

Forest Service officials say the idea is to make forest planning more responsive to changing conditions by eliminating unnecessary paperwork and relying on assessments by local and regional managers rather than one-size-fits-all federal requirements.

"We really have a process that takes way too long - that really isn't as responsive ... as it should be," Collins said.

But environmentalists say the plan eliminates analyses required under the National Environment Policy Act, which mandates that federal agencies assess potential environmental impacts of their actions and examine alternatives. The plan also would scrap wildlife protections established under President Reagan and limit public input into forest management decisions, they said.

"We can't imagine it's going to be satisfactory for replacement of the wildlife safeguards and public involvement that the public has enjoyed for the last 25 years," said Mike Anderson of The Wilderness Society.

Collins disputed that, saying the new rule directs forest managers to take into account the best available science to deliver clean air and water and sustainable habitat for wildlife.

The new approach could cut costs by as much as 30 percent, Collins said. She also noted the new rules require independent audits of all forest plans.

The audits, to be conducted in some cases by private firms and in others by federal employees, are based on a concept known as "environmental management systems." Such standards are frequently used by the timber industry as a way to address environmental issues and ensure compliance with the law, Collins and other officials said.

Environmentalists said there is no evidence a corporate model will ensure accountability for managers of public lands.

"It sounds like they are keeping on track with putting the logging interests in the driver's seat while shoving wildlife and the public to the back of the bus," said Marty Hayden, legislative director of the environmental advocacy group Earthjustice.

Environmentalists also said they were troubled the plan relaxes a requirement to protect fish and wildlife in national forests so species do not become threatened or endangered. Instead, the rules assert an overarching goal to "maintain healthy, diverse and resilient" ecosystems and species native to forest lands.

Tom Partin, president of the American Forest Resource Council, a timber industry group, called the new rules "a lot more responsive" than the current rules, which he called cumbersome and counterproductive.

House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo, R-Calif., called the rules change long overdue.

"The process is so burdensome and time consuming that the plans are obsolete before they are finished," Pombo said. "These Soviet-like methods have produced so many outdated plans and so much red tape that the agency has been incapable of responding to changing conditions in our forests, such as insect and disease outbreaks, hurricane and storm damage, and catastrophic wildfire."

The new rules take effect following publication in the Federal Register, expected next week.
 
Hey Paul,

You sure you want this?

relying on assessments by local and regional managers rather than one-size-fits-all federal requirements.

Didnt you say the FS is nothing but a bunch of hippie tree hugger greenie enviro college idiot types???

Good to see you want them making more of the land management decisions.
 
Paul,

You may also want to read the FS version...and the actual story, instead of the abbreviated version you just supplied.

Its spells things out a little more clearly...like that the NEPA requirements will still be in place for "on the ground" work.

For your viewing pleasure:

FOREST SERVICE PUBLISHES PLANNING RULE
FOR BETTER MANAGEMENT OF NATIONAL FORESTS AND GRASSLANDS

Environmental Management System will be adopted; new rule will allow forest managers to
adapt more quickly to changing forest conditions



WASHINGTON, Dec. 22, 2004 — The U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service today released its final rule that provides the framework for individual forest management plans governing the 155 national forests and 20 grasslands. For the first time, an Environmental Management System (EMS) will be used during the planning process to improve performance and accountability. The rule establishes a dynamic process to account for changing forest conditions, emphasizes science and public involvement, and ultimately will help local forest managers provide future generations with healthier forests, cleaner air and water, and more abundant wildlife while sustaining a variety of forest uses.

“The new rule will improve the way we work with the public by making forest planning more open, understandable and timely,” said Forest Service Associate Chief Sally Collins. “It will enable Forest Service experts to respond more rapidly to changing conditions, such as wildfires, and emerging threats, such as invasive species.”

The agency will adopt an EMS for each forest and grassland—a management tool used widely by the public and private sector both nationally and internationally that includes internationally-accepted standards. EMS connects planning with implementation so that plans can be dynamic, and outcomes of project-level decisions can be assessed for continuous improvement. A key feature of the EMS is the requirement for independent audits of the Forest Service’s work. This new review and oversight of agency performance will help the Forest Service more fully account for its management of more than 192 million acres of public land.

The new rule will make forest planning more timely and cost effective. Currently, the forest planning process generally takes 5-7 years to revise a 15-year management plan. For example, the management plan for the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forest in Colorado took seven years and $5.5 million to revise. Under the new rule, forest plan revisions will take approximately 2-3 years, with a comprehensive evaluation of the plan to be completed every five years to ensure it is meeting goals and objectives. Desired land conditions will be outlined in each management plan, and local managers will be held accountable for their efforts to achieve them. This will make planning more relevant to on-the-ground practices and outcomes.

“This rule applies the most current thinking in natural resources management,” said Collins. “It takes a 21st Century approach to delivering the full range of values that Americans want for their quality of life: clean air and water; habitat for wildlife; and sustainable uses that will be available for future generations to enjoy.”

The new rule directs forest managers to take into account the best available science to protect air, water, wildlife, and other important natural resources at a landscape-level. Plant and wildlife protections will be provided first by conserving ecosystems as a whole, with more targeted protections for listed species and other species of concern. Management decisions will consider ecological, social, and economic sustainability, consistent with broadly accepted international standards.

Under the new rule, local experts will be able to more effectively comply with environmental laws, like the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act. Because information gathered and analyzed at the local level will be current and constantly updated, the Forest Service will have a better basis for evaluating the environmental effects of projects.

Land management plans under the new rule will be strategic in nature. Generally, these plans will not include specific project management decisions. If a plan does include decisions with on-the-ground effects, it will require an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement as appropriate, consistent with NEPA. This provision is in a separate proposal identifying how plan development, amendment and revision will comply with NEPA requirements.

The final rule moves many detailed procedural requirements to the Forest Service’s directive system, which is the agency’s “how to” internal manual. For example, broad species protection goals remain in the new rule, but the analytical procedures on how to achieve those goals will be spelled out in the directive system. The proposed directives will be released soon for public review and comment.

The new rule neither promotes nor discourages any particular forest use, such as recreation, grazing, timber harvest, or mineral development. Decisions regarding such uses will be made on a forest-by-forest basis and will be informed by local conditions, science and public input. Guidelines on activities, such as timber harvesting, will be placed in the directives.

The National Forest Management Act of 1976 requires the Forest Service to develop, periodically revise and amend all forest and grassland plans. The first generation of forest plans was developed under a regulation adopted in 1982. There are currently 49 revisions underway using the 22-year-old regulation. Those forests and grasslands may now choose to change to the new rule or wait to use the new rule for their next revision or amendment. An additional 42 are awaiting revision and must use the new rule.

The new rule and the proposal identifying how plan development, amendment and revision will comply with NEPA are expected to be forwarded to the Federal Register today for publication. Both documents are available at www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma.

The public will have 60 days to comment on the NEPA proposal. Written comments may be sent to: Forest Service Content Analysis Team, P.O. Box 22777, Salt Lake City, Utah 84122. Comments also will be accepted by electronic mail to [email protected] or by facsimile to 801-517-1015.
 
Buzz,

I think it was ringer that said the F. S. was infested withenviros, not me.

If all this gobbly gook means that the F. s. will be more efficent than I'm all for it.
 
From what I read, this sounds like a better deal all around, well.... Ceptin for those lawyers and far off annalists that have put their bankrolls into keeping this stuff in the works for as long as possible...
Streamlining the whole process and getting rid of all of the extra nothing, will save the FS billions, and in the end won't save the tax payer any more $$$ but give more services back for that $$$.
I bet if more Buisness Masters "with a lot of expeirence" were hired into the higher decision making and less Science Majors, less $$$ would be spent over all. :)
 
You want business majors managing natural resources over scientists? :eek: Wonder what the trimming would be on wildfire suppression?
 
Back
Top