How environmental analysis inadvertently drains the Forest Service budget

With such an outdated process, it typically takes the agency over three years to complete an environmental impact statement and over two years to complete an environmental assessment.
And then nobody ever reads them.
I was (un)fortunate enough to have lived through some “interesting” times. I was at Texas Tech working on a PhD in Natural Resources (Range Management) when NEPA (the National Environmental Act) was passed.

The Forest Service and the BLM were trying to figure out how to get their legally mandated EISes (Environmental Impact Statements) done. They both started out to produce one mammoth EIS for the Environmental Impacts of grazing of domestic animals.

They got sued by a coalition of “Friends of the Earth, Lil Ol Ladies in White Tennis Shoes, etc, et al). The court ruled that they had to do their EISes what was termed “site specific” which the court chose not to define. So, the Forest Service decided to do theirs by National Forest and the BLM decided to do theirs by Planning Zone.

The results began to roll in sometime during the early 80s. It was common for Grazing Allotments to come in with half (50%) cuts in permitted numbers. Now, it doesn’t take a Greek Entrepreneur to figure out that if grazing allotments are trading for $1,500 per head and you get a 50% cut on your 500 head allotment, $375,000 in net worth has just disappeared into thin air with the stroke of a bureaucrat’s pen.

The “Sage Brush Rebellion” was about to move into the shooting phase. Enter the Range Task Forces at the University of Arizona and New Mexico State, both of which I was employed by at one time or the other. The best I could figure out, our main job was to get between the rancher and the agency and keep them from killing each other while we tried to figure out what to do.

Great times for some. Bad times for others.  — jtl, 419
at The Hill


A Handbook for Ranch Managers  During a visit to her native Washington State, U.S. Forest Service Chief Vicki Christiansen told an audience her agency was failing to meet the challenges of unhealthy forests and catastrophic wildfires. She admitted the agency is not reducing the risk, and “America’s forests are in crisis.”  With at least 80 million acres of National Forest System lands at risk of severe fire, Chief Christiansen understands the depth of this crisis and is working to change the culture and practices of her agency.

Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference Manual The Forest Service took an important step forward by releasing proposed changes to modernize how the agency complies with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This environmental law, initially approved by Congress in 1969, requires federal agencies to report the potential environmental effects of proposed actions.   Most agencies comply with this law without draining their financial and human resources, even for major infrastructure projects.

Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian ViewOpponents of forest management are predictably attacking this effort in partisan terms, though the Forest Service’s approach may bring the agency in closer compliance with existing regulations issued by the Obama administration’s Council on Environmental Quality. And if the agency successfully completes this process, the Forest Service will be better positioned to utilize many of the new tools and resources that have been recently approved by Congress with bipartisan support.

Changes are needed because the Forest Service has been negatively influenced by anti-forestry activism and the real and perceived threat of litigation over NEPA compliance.  Consequently, the agency developed a risk-averse culture, requiring its people to spend more time preparing paperwork when they should be actively managing and mitigating the threats to multiple-use public lands, especially those that have been identified as suitable for timber harvests.

Combat Shooter's HandbookReconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps InstituteThe Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other MisfitsThe Forest Service’s current NEPA compliance guidelines date back to 1992, at a time when timber harvests and other management activities dramatically declined on national forests.  Anti-forestry groups have exploited NEPA to bring forest projects to a halt, preventing the agency from reducing fuel loads and promoting the natural resiliency of the forests.  In the past 30 years, forest science and technology has improved significantly, and public lands managers understand the benefits of logging, thinning and prescribed burning for healthier forests, improved wildlife habitat, and cleaner air and water for nearby communities.

The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1) The Essence of Liberty: Volume II: The Economics of Liberty (Volume 2) The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3)With such an outdated process, it typically takes the agency over three years to complete an environmental impact statement and over two years to complete an environmental assessment.  It’s estimated the Forest Service spends more than $356 million annually to conduct NEPA analysis and compliance requirements on forest management projects. It is no accident the Forest Service’s focus shifted from forestry to fire management as wildfire suppression costs have consistently exhausted the agency’s budget and undermined its core mission.

After an exhaustive process that included examining years of environmental data, the agency determined its current process for environmental analysis was redundant and self-defeating.  The proposed changes signals the Forest Service is ready to do things differently, to increase the pace and scale of treatment and forest restoration while upholding environmental safeguards and public participation.

The agency’s updates would create a new series of “categorical exclusions,” a classification under NEPA excluding certain routine activities from more time-consuming analysis.  For forest management, the rules would allow the Forest Service to expedite forest restoration projects and treatments of forests that are at greatest risk of wildfire, insects and disease. Such use of categorical exclusions is nothing new; both Democrats and Republicans have supported the use of this tool to accelerate forest restoration and wildfire mitigation.

Anti-forestry groups have focused their opposition on a categorical exclusion that would expedite “ecosystem restoration” treatments at a maximum 4,200 acres, suggesting to their supporters this policy would result in large-scale clear-cuts.  However, categorical exclusions do not mandate logging, rather they give public lands managers the flexibility to use a range of tools to meet the objectives of a restoration project as long as they are permitted by an existing forest plan.

Under the existing process, the Forest Service is unable to keep up with declining forest health as well as the impacts of climate change. Forest scientists have consistently called for landscape-scale treatments in order to restore public lands and protect our communities and wildlife.  The proposed rules, as written, likely do not go far enough to address this forest health crisis.  But it shows the agency is responsive and are working to satisfy congressional and public support for better forest management.

Nick Smith is executive director of Healthy Forests, Healthy Communities, a non-profit, non-partisan grassroots coalition that advocates for active management of America’s federally-owned forests.

FOLLOW FLYOVER PRESS ON FACEBOOK

Check out our WebSite

The Essence of Liberty: Volume II (The Economics of Liberty)The Essence of Liberty Volume II: The Economics of Liberty Volume II will introduce the reader to the fundamental principles of the Austrian School of Economics. The Austrian School traces its origins back to the Scholastics of Medieval Spain. But its lineage actually began with Carl Menger and continued on through Adam Smith, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard and many others. It is the one and only true private property based, free market line of economic thought. Available in both paperback and Kindle versions.

You might be interested in the other two volumes of this three volume set: The Essence of Liberty Volume I: Liberty and History  and The Essence of Liberty Volume III: Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic.

Advertisements

About Land & Livestock Interntional, Inc.

Land and Livestock International, Inc. is a leading agribusiness management firm providing a complete line of services to the range livestock industry. We believe that private property is the foundation of America. Private property and free markets go hand in hand—without property there is no freedom. We also believe that free markets, not government intervention, hold the key to natural resource conservation and environmental preservation. No government bureaucrat can (or will) understand and treat the land with as much respect as its owner. The bureaucrat simply does not have the same motives as does the owner of a capital interest in the property. Our specialty is the working livestock ranch simply because there are so many very good reasons for owning such a property. We provide educational, management and consulting services with a focus on ecologically and financially sustainable land management that will enhance natural processes (water and mineral cycles, energy flow and community dynamics) while enhancing profits and steadily building wealth.
This entry was posted in Radical Environmentalism, Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to How environmental analysis inadvertently drains the Forest Service budget

  1. Reblogged this on Land & Livestock International, Inc. and commented:

    I was (un)fortunate enough to have lived through some “interesting” times. I was at Texas Tech working on a PhD in Natural Resources (Range Management) when NEPA (the National Environmental Act) was passed.

    The Forest Service and the BLM were trying to figure out how to get their legally mandated EISes (Environmental Impact Statements) done. They both started out to produce one mammoth EIS for the Environmental Impacts of grazing of domestic animals.

    They got sued by a coalition of “Friends of the Earth, Lil Ol Ladies in White Tennis Shoes, etc, et al). The court ruled that they had to do their EISes what was termed “site specific” which the court chose not to define. So, the Forest Service decided to do theirs by National Forest and the BLM decided to do theirs by Planning Zone.

    The results began to roll in sometime during the early 80s. It was common for Grazing Allotments to come in with half (50%) cuts in permitted numbers. Now, it doesn’t take a Greek Entrepreneur to figure out that if grazing allotments are trading for $1,500 per head and you get a 50% cut on your 500 head allotment, $375,000 in net worth has just disappeared into thin air with the stroke of a bureaucrat’s pen.

    The “Sage Brush Rebellion” was about to move into the shooting phase. Enter the Range Task Forces at the University of Arizona and New Mexico State, both of which I was employed by at one time or the other. The best I could figure out, our main job was to get between the rancher and the agency and keep them from killing each other while we tried to figure out what to do.

    Great times for some. Bad times for others. — jtl, 419

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s