Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
biodiversity that is dependent on the regional forester's discretion as to what species
are of concern and whether the Forest Service has the authority and capability to
maintain a viable population. That does not mean the Forest Service can choose to
ignore species conservation; it must in its plans under the new rule “maintain or
restore ecological conditions within the plan area to contribute to maintaining a
viable population of the species within its range.” Conservationists would argue that
the rule's focus on species of concern lessens protections for all native species, and
its diffusion of decision-making authority to lower levels risks capture by local
economic interests. The Forest Service currently maintains technical guidelines for
species monitoring, but it is unclear how those might change in light of the new rule.
USDA-FS states in the fi nal rule that it “recognizes…that development of renew-
able and non-renewable energy resources are among the potential uses in a plan
area. However, the fi nal rule does not dictate the activities that may occur or not
occur on administrative units of the NFS” [
45
]. Assessments for planning purposes
must account for energy resources. The extent to which those resources are acces-
sible depends on other sustainability factors incorporated into planning such as bio-
diversity and water-quality conditions. New Section 219.8 contains the core
sustainability provisions for forest planning, spanning ecosystem integrity, air qual-
ity, soils, and water quality. Persistent violation of state water-quality standards led
to an added requirement in the fi nal rule that the Forest Service Chief promulgate
national-level best-management practices to maintain and restore water quality and
a system of ensuring that lessees implement them.
The Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003
While environmentalists were successful in blocking George W. Bush's changes to
the NFMA forest planning rule that would have exempted leasing decisions from
environmental review, he was successful in getting the Healthy Forests Restoration
Act of 2003 (HFRA) passed [
47
]. HFRA contains similar exemptions from environ-
mental review, such as (1) categorical exclusion from environmental review for log-
ging projects up to 1,000 acres in size when the projects are intended to combat
forest-damaging insects; (2) exemption of hazardous fuel reduction projects from
the administrative appeal process, allowing the Forest Service to establish a “pre-
decisional administrative review process”; and (3) limiting plaintiffs to specifi c writ-
ten issues raised during this administrative review process unless a court determines
the process is futile or inadequate with respect to the specifi c client or claim [
48
].
While these provisions can serve to facilitate the process of biofuel harvesting by
limiting time-consuming public review and litigation that could hinder or com-
pletely halt harvesting, forest-protection advocates claim that destructive overhar-
vesting and accompanying ecological degradation could occur and have pursued
legal challenges against Forest Service HFRA decisions. The Forest Service and
Department of Interior's Bureau of Land Management have issued an interim fi eld
guide for HFRA implementation, but substantive changes made by HFRA to the
Search WWH ::
Custom Search