Thad
02-17-2011, 09:27 PM
Proposed rule designed to stop use of lawsuits as delaying tactic
By MATEUSZ PERKOWSKI ([email protected])
Capital Press
The U.S. Forest Service has drafted a new rule governing the formation of national forest management plans throughout the country.
The new rule would supersede the current, 30-year-old forest plan development process.
The Forest Service has repeatedly tried to revise the planning rule in the past decade, but each attempt has been thwarted by lawsuits.
Most recently, a federal judge vacated a rule in 2009 that had been adopted by the Bush administration.
USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack, whose agency oversees the Forest Service, said the new rule is intended to move beyond the era of litigation.
"We want to spend less time in the courts and more time in the forests," he said during a press conference.
Under the proposed rule, the agency would overhaul the way it deals with opposition from outside parties, said Ann Forest Burns, vice president of the American Forest Resource Council, a timber industry group.
Currently, opponents can appeal a plan once it has been completed, potentially slowing down or halting the adoption of forest management plans, she said.
With the proposed "pre-decisional objection process," critics would have to make specific arguments against the plan beforehand, she said.
"We think that makes a lot more sense," Forest Burns said. "It gets the best ideas on the table while the agency still has the opportunity to respond to them."
The new approach would help prevent certain groups from "lying in the weeds," waiting to file an appeal as an impediment, she said.
Additionally, critics would only be able to sue the Forest Service based on their previously stated objections, Forest Burns said. "It can only be on the things you brought to their attention."
It's heartening that the planning rule would put more emphasis on socioeconomic considerations, such as the impact of logging on rural communities, she said.
Forest Burns said she's concerned about some aspects of the rule that may further drag out the already prolonged forest management planning process.
For example, the rule calls for documentation of the agency's search for the "best available scientific information."
That provision may prompt Forest Service officials to draw up a "Ph.D. analysis" of the data that's included in every planning document, she said.
The rule also expands the scope of "species diversity" considered in forest plans to include plants and fungi in addition to vertebrates, Forest Burns said.
"We're concerned it's placing on the planning process a burden that the Forest Service will not be able to meet," she said.
Bart Semcer, senior Washington, D.C., representative for the Sierra Club, said the group is pleased with many concepts in the new rule.
However, the Sierra Club would prefer if the rule didn't provide as much discretion to forest managers, he said.
Certain ideas included in the rule -- such as consultation with other federal agencies and outside stakeholders -- should be universally mandatory, Semcer said.
"It needs to be managed as a system," he said. "We shouldn't be looking at national forests in isolation."
The Sierra Club isn't yet taking a position on the revised process for filing objections, though it expects to eventually study those provisions and discuss them with the Forest Service, he said.
"We have been looking first and foremost at what the impacts to natural resources will be," Semcer said.
The group is optimistic about the increased public participation that's emphasized in the proposed rule, he said.
Even if it does stretch out the planning process, additional input may reduce the contentious nature of planning decisions, Semcer said. "It's better to proceed a little bit slower and come up with a plan everybody can sign on to."
https://www.capitalpress.com/newsletter/mp-forest-planning-rule-021811
By MATEUSZ PERKOWSKI ([email protected])
Capital Press
The U.S. Forest Service has drafted a new rule governing the formation of national forest management plans throughout the country.
The new rule would supersede the current, 30-year-old forest plan development process.
The Forest Service has repeatedly tried to revise the planning rule in the past decade, but each attempt has been thwarted by lawsuits.
Most recently, a federal judge vacated a rule in 2009 that had been adopted by the Bush administration.
USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack, whose agency oversees the Forest Service, said the new rule is intended to move beyond the era of litigation.
"We want to spend less time in the courts and more time in the forests," he said during a press conference.
Under the proposed rule, the agency would overhaul the way it deals with opposition from outside parties, said Ann Forest Burns, vice president of the American Forest Resource Council, a timber industry group.
Currently, opponents can appeal a plan once it has been completed, potentially slowing down or halting the adoption of forest management plans, she said.
With the proposed "pre-decisional objection process," critics would have to make specific arguments against the plan beforehand, she said.
"We think that makes a lot more sense," Forest Burns said. "It gets the best ideas on the table while the agency still has the opportunity to respond to them."
The new approach would help prevent certain groups from "lying in the weeds," waiting to file an appeal as an impediment, she said.
Additionally, critics would only be able to sue the Forest Service based on their previously stated objections, Forest Burns said. "It can only be on the things you brought to their attention."
It's heartening that the planning rule would put more emphasis on socioeconomic considerations, such as the impact of logging on rural communities, she said.
Forest Burns said she's concerned about some aspects of the rule that may further drag out the already prolonged forest management planning process.
For example, the rule calls for documentation of the agency's search for the "best available scientific information."
That provision may prompt Forest Service officials to draw up a "Ph.D. analysis" of the data that's included in every planning document, she said.
The rule also expands the scope of "species diversity" considered in forest plans to include plants and fungi in addition to vertebrates, Forest Burns said.
"We're concerned it's placing on the planning process a burden that the Forest Service will not be able to meet," she said.
Bart Semcer, senior Washington, D.C., representative for the Sierra Club, said the group is pleased with many concepts in the new rule.
However, the Sierra Club would prefer if the rule didn't provide as much discretion to forest managers, he said.
Certain ideas included in the rule -- such as consultation with other federal agencies and outside stakeholders -- should be universally mandatory, Semcer said.
"It needs to be managed as a system," he said. "We shouldn't be looking at national forests in isolation."
The Sierra Club isn't yet taking a position on the revised process for filing objections, though it expects to eventually study those provisions and discuss them with the Forest Service, he said.
"We have been looking first and foremost at what the impacts to natural resources will be," Semcer said.
The group is optimistic about the increased public participation that's emphasized in the proposed rule, he said.
Even if it does stretch out the planning process, additional input may reduce the contentious nature of planning decisions, Semcer said. "It's better to proceed a little bit slower and come up with a plan everybody can sign on to."
https://www.capitalpress.com/newsletter/mp-forest-planning-rule-021811