| Do you support the proposed revision to the Clinton-era forest management regulations? * 4131 responses |
|
Yes 35% |
|
| No 63% |
|
| Can't decide 3% |
|
 |
|
Posted on 11/29/2002 7:02:20 PM PST by farmfriend
Battle over new Bush forest proposal
Nov. 27 — Igniting a new fire over forests, the Bush administration on Wednesday proposed streamlining a rule that dictates how the 155 national forests across the country are managed. The U.S. Forest Service said the proposal would streamline a Clinton-era rule that had elevated environmental priorities over economic ones. Critics said the proposal would let regional forest managers authorize more logging and commercial development with little or no study of potential environmental damage.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.com ...
Do you support the proposed revision to the Clinton-era forest management regulations?
| Do you support the proposed revision to the Clinton-era forest management regulations? * 4131 responses |
|
| Yes 35% |
|
| No 63% |
|
| Can't decide 3% |
|
|
|
Nam Vet
THE SHIFT revolves around what constitutes sustainable forests. The Clinton-era rule “had elevated the ecological component of sustainability” above recreational or economic components, said Forest Service spokeswoman Heidi Valetkevitch. The proposed rule, she added, “makes them all equally important” — a definition in line with international standards.
The agency said it wasn’t known if the proposal would impact logging. “We can’t say it’s going up or down or sideways or the same,” said Sally Collins, the Forest Service’s associate chief, when asked about the possibility.
Both the 2000 rule and the proposed revision provide for multiple uses of federal forestland, but the new proposal would turn more of the decision-making over to regional foresters. Environmentalists have complained that regional foresters often develop close ties with local timber interests.
Specifically, the proposal would allow those managers to develop management plans for the land they supervise without having to first conduct an in-depth environmental impact study. The administration argues that such plans are essentially a zoning document, and that it would be better to do environmental studies on a case-by-basis when possible environmental concerns are anticipated. A regional forester, however, still could decide that a management plan itself has significant environmental impacts, triggering the need for a study. But the official no longer would have to formally assess the environmental impact every time the management plan is revised.
The proposal also would eliminate specific standards and procedures for maintaining and monitoring wildlife populations that foresters had to comply with, substituting broad goals in their place.
[snip]
At last an article with some substance...biased but at least it is partially informational. Evidentally there is more here then what I originally thought. The first part I bolded deals with repealing the changes Clinton made to the USFS planning regs right before he left office. The part that alot of people didn't like was making the primary mission of the USFS that of "restoring forests to their pre-settlement conditions"....despite the fact that nobody really knows what that is.
The National Forest Planning Act of 1976 (NFMA) has turned the USFS into an agency that is in a perpetual planning mode. Under NFMA, each individual forest must write up a management plan that guides activities on the forest for 15 years...only problem is that these plans take 7 - 10 years to write, not to mention getting them through the gauntlet of environmental appeals and lawsuits.
Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho) has been working on reforming NFMA for several years now. If I remember right, his former chief of staff, Mark Reyes, is now the #2 guy in the Department of Agriculture over the USFS. Soooo, it is very likely that all of the reforms that Senator Craig formulated during his field hearings are now being implimented administratively rather then legislatively.
The second part I bolded is the repeal of the "Survey and Manage" regs for the spotted forests. I have commented on these regs in another thread that I will link in the next post.
The link to the proposed rule in the MSNBC article does not work. I went to the USFS main page unfortunately, their link to the new rules doesn't work either. According to the article, it is 155 pages of rule revisions. With this many pages, I wonder if the fire prevention and thinning rules proposed two months ago are in this rule package as well. If so, this could be the first steps towards reforming this hamstrung agency.
PRESIDENT BUSH....LEAD A ROLLBACK BLITZKRIEG WHILE AMERICANS SHOP AND CONGRESS IS HOME!!!
My cynical side says it will take six years to settle the lawsuits and until then a blizzard of TROs and injunctions will rule the day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.