Here’s one from the Washington Post.
Here’s one from the Denver Post.
New federal management plan focuses on forest health
Obama administration officials on Thursday unveiled a sweeping new framework for managing national forests, saying “multiple uses” can continue but the priority must be improving forest health and resilience.
In Colorado, for example, they want fewer forests dominated by same-species, same-age trees. These are more vulnerable to the beetles that in recent years have ravaged more than 4 million acres in the Rocky Mountain region. The officials say they are aiming for greater diversity.
The nationwide “planning rules” announced by Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack replace rules developed 30 years ago that became cumbersome as forest managers tried to balance extractive industry interests with recreation and protection of water resources.
“This is a recognition that all of these uses are important,” Vilsack said in a conference call with reporters.
Forest managers now must figure out “how they can work together, not only to improve the resilience and health of the forests but the economies of the communities that surround the forests,” he said.
Conservationists were scrutinizing a 97-page draft document that lays out the administration’s approach.
Forest Service overseers seem to be “heading in the right direction,” said Mike Francis, director of forest programs for the Wilderness Society, a national advocacy group. “We are encouraged.”
Some are concerned that the national rules leave too much discretion in the hands of regional bureaucrats. The Wilderness Society will be working “to set some definitive standards that would lock in the direction they are going,” Francis said.
U.S. Rep. Jared Polis, a Democrat whose Colorado district includes forest land between Boulder and Aspen, said the new rules provide a better framework for local forest management planning. “Each individual forest will need to make informed and sometimes hard decisions,” he said.
The new planning rules guide the regulation of all activities on 193 million acres across 44 states, divided into 155 forest and grassland management units.
U.S. Forest Service land serves as the source of drinking water for 124 million Americans, including residents of Denver and other cities. Forests also are crucial for wildlife.
But pressures from climate change and energy development have presented challenges.
“Our natural ecosystems are only going to provide for us to the extent that they are healthy. National forest management, more than anything else, determines whether our forests are healthy,” said Rodger Schlickeisen, president of Defenders of Wildlife, a conservation group that successfully sued the Bush administration for failing to protect forests as required.
Courts ruled against the Bush administration’s approach. Obama administration officials decided not to appeal those rulings, which pleased environmental groups. Over the past two years, Obama officials have been developing their own rules.
In Colorado, the Forest Service owns 11.3 million acres, about 47 percent of the federally managed land that covers much of the western half of the state.
Rapidly growing communities are encroaching on those forests. This complicates the job of regional foresters as they develop local management plans that protect wildlife and water.
It’s interesting to compare the perspectives and the people quoted, given in that amount of time since posted it is difficult to assimilate exactly what it all means.
Does anyone know what is meant by:
Some are concerned that the national rules leave too much discretion in the hands of regional bureaucrats. The Wilderness Society will be working “to set some definitive standards that would lock in the direction they are going,” Francis said.
Just so it’s clear, as a “regional bureaucrat”, I would be thrilled to get more discretion.
And, in the Washington Post story
“They give too much discretion to individual forest supervisors” without specific directions, said Rodger Schlickeisen, president of Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund. “We don’t know that they’re going to protect species or not. There is no question that this is a rollback to required protection to wildlife habitat.”
Planning rules are pretty complicated. In the spirit of the Common Interest, I propose a contest for a five page briefing paper that most fairly and accurately compares the 1982 and proposed Rules (since “rolling back” seems a characterization in these stories). This might be a good class project. All entries will be posted on the blog and judging will be done by a “fair and balanced” panel. Let’s think about a suitable prize, and due date is March 11- a month from now to be able to share publicly to help inform public comment. The contest is open to individuals and groups.