Thanks to Susan and Ted for mentioning Final Agency action review guidance 02012021 v2 FEB 01 (1) and sending it along..
The Forest Service shall submit for NRE’s review all projects and activities that fall within the categories set out below by February 12, 2021. Consistent with applicable law, and subject to any exception expressly authorized by NRE, the Forest Service will defer making any final decision regarding the actions listed below until NRE has reviewed the decision and authorized the agency to proceed with decision-making.
These instructions are applicable to the classes of plans, projects and activities listed below for which the Forest Service expects or intends to make a decision prior to March 31, 2021:
• Activities in designated wilderness areas taken pursuant to Sections 4(c) and 4(d) of the Wilderness Act.
• Road construction, road reconstruction and timber harvesting activities on lands originally designated pursuant to 36 CFR 294, subpart B (2001) as well as any roadless lands designated in a subsequent roadless rulemaking.
• Special Use Authorizations (and any Forest Plan amendments) involving new construction or expansion of infrastructure for conventional energy production, including pipelines or transmission lines.
• New, modified, or expanded locatable or leasable minerals activities involving ground disturbance on greater than 500 acres.
• Activities involving cutting or removal of more than 3,000 acres of vegetation that will be categorically excluded from documentation in an Environmental Assessment or Environmental
Impact Statement.
• Final decisions for revisions or significant amendments of Land Management Plans.Agency actions should be submitted for review in summary form with a brief description of the purpose and need, the intended selected action, significant effects to natural or social resources, and public involvement including with State, local and Tribal governments, and status of any objection process underway. The summary should include any legal or administrative timelines, including those associated with permit renewal.
The roadless one seems to be about Roadless Areas including those acres included in the Colorado and Idaho Roadless Rules. These all seem to fill the bill of “projects our friends are interested in” and “no PR surprises.” The good thing about having experienced politicals on board is that they have a good sense of what they need to look for.
The only one I thought was unusual was the cutting and removal of more than 3000 acres of vegetation in a CE. Since we know that legislative CEs HFRA Sections 603 and 605 are up to 3000 acres, they are apparently not watching those, so what can it be?
My guess is that it might be projects that use the wildlife habitat and thinning category, which has no acreage limit. Here’s an example of one from the Salmon-Challis. In that case, the project is designed to improve sagebrush habitat by removing conifers.
Here’s the category from the NEPA Handbook:
(6) Timber stand and/or wildlife habitat improvement activities that do not include the use of herbicides or do not require more than 1 mile of low standard road construction. Examples include but are not limited to:
(i) Girdling trees to create snags;
(ii) Thinning or brush control to improve growth or to reduce fire hazard including the opening of an existing road to a dense timber stand;
(iii) Prescribed burning to control understory hardwoods in stands of southern pine; and
(iv) Prescribed burning to reduce natural fuel build-up and improve plant vigor.
It’s easy to imagine large projects fitting this one as written, but the practice as I recall was generally not to use it for large projects.
But I don’t know. Other ideas?
I’d also note that there’s no hiring check, as with the BLM. Again, perhaps experience indicates to the politicals that this wouldn’t be a useful, and might be a demoralizing, exercise.
I am pretty sure that the CE reference *IS* to CE6. It has been routinely used for extremely large projects (100s of thousands of acres).
For example: https://forestpolicypub.com/2020/04/14/lets-talk-about-specific-ces-in-the-rissien-report-iii-pine-valley-wildlife-habitat-improvement-project/
Susan, I’m not sure what you mean by “routinely”; maybe that’s specific to a region?
When I was in the WO in NEPA, we discouraged people from using this CE for large acreages, although certainly units have discretion. Also, I think another issue with these large acres is that they are not site-specific. I think when most people think about using a CE it is for a specific place which is scoped with maps, and descriptions of planned treatment. Using a CE in a programmatic way is a different kettle of fish IMHO.
Jon, According to this, nothing’s happened on the project since 11/2019. https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=57110
Interesting that Deputy Chief Chris French is acting Undersecretary at USDA, and will review actions from whence he came and of his boss — the Chief. But maybe this is really more about once politicos are in place permanently at USDA…?
There could be other political folks around reviewing and making decisions, but just not as yet in an official capacity.
How about a little dark humor?
Is this the first step of renewing the “Wilderness Project” setting up those “Human Exclusion Zones” moving the US rural population into those stack-and-packs 0bama built around railroad stations?
Are we now going to see all of those high mountain passes covered with 150 foot wingspan Wind Turbines to chop up our migrating bird population?
Are we setting up the Forest so as to burn out the trees so we can cover the mountains with “Renewable Energy” solar panels in 1,000 square mile grids to provide all the electricity for all those new “Plug-ins” for all those new electric vehicles?
When will the Geo-engineering “Chemtrails” (ObamaDust) start again? Surely Biden has no intention of letting the Forest restore itself naturally now would he? Remember the eight (8) year “drought” in California – those planes flew EVERY day during that administration, blocking the rain.
Hmmmmm….
Tim, I know that you said it was “dark humor” but your comments sounds a little like partisan fear-mongering and conspiracy theorizing. We can disagree about policies without assuming the worst about other folks’ intentions. It’s surprisingly easy.
Sharon:
My position(s) comes from a real concern. One of my homes is on the back side of the mountains that ring Los Angeles (holding the smog in place). The 50 mile (sometimes) view from our place on the slope, on a winter day, is breathtaking. But, for about eight full years I walked out in the mornings with my cup of coffee, enjoying the brisk morning, only to see those “chemtrails” start about 8:45 AM, criss-crossing the sky until it settles into an awful looking haze.
What was even more disturbing was when I started asking people in high places what was actually going on with that spraying. All that crud cannot be good for the forests, or my coffee…
Then too, I have friends in Montana telling me what really is happening in those high mountain passes where they put all those bird-chopping wind turbines. Try C.J. Box, as an author.
And, of course, my wife and I now avoid the high forests in California for the simple reason that they look, and uncomfortably feel, to us like a fire is going to start in about a minute, and the flames are going to be 500 feet high – and there is no way out of there.
What I am looking for is a general Forest Plan that takes everything into consideration. Too often people see things only from the back of their own horse.
My comment about solar panels taking up an inordinate amount of space, bringing little, if anything in return, is right on target – not partisan at all.
On the flip side, my wife and I have some special places. There she can name every plant, and tell you which ones are edible, and who ate them originally. Did you know that there certain pine trees in certain places that smell like butterscotch candy? We are not casual outdoor people.
I am one of those that thinks we should re-grow our old hardwood Forests…
Tim, I grew up in southern Cal and went to church camp on the Angeles, so I have smelled the bark of pines that smell like butterscotch. I don’t know about the chemtrails, when did they start and stop timewise? I agree with you that the CJ Box book about the windfarm was the first time I’d read a novelist write about what it is like to be in turbine country. Do you remember which one that was?
The western Sierra forests seemed too dry and dense to me when I worked there in the 80’s so I get your feeling of denseness. If you are saying industrial solar facilities take up an inordinate amount of space.. well that’s one thing many people disagree about.. as in what is a right amount of space, solar vs. nuclear and all that. And you’re right there are plenty of D’s that disagree about what exactly future energy sources should look like. What do you mean by regrowing old hardwood forests? Where? What kind of trees? What happened to them.