E&E News had an article that included information about this. There was an interesting quote from our friend Ted Zukoski:
“This proposal will bar the American people from offering input on the vast majority of massive logging projects that will be approved under Trump’s ‘log, baby, log’ plan,” said Ted Zukoski, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, about USDA’s proposal in a statement.
He added, “The public’s ability to hold federal agencies accountable is the crucial foundation of America’s environmental laws and we’re going to use every tool in our arsenal to defend it.”
Here’s a link to the document. I’m hoping that people who are paid to do so, possibly including the people who worked on it, will provide a summary of the general changes and the changes specific to the FS and what that means now and in the future for agency practitioners, contractors and partners involved in the work.
Please add any analysis you find, as well as your own views, in the comments.
I find it interesting that the non profit, ha ha, that destroyed most of the forests in California, including the old growth they said they wanted to save, is now crying about the poor forest. If something doesn’t happen soon there won’t be a green tree left in the west. If you want pictures and proof of what I am saying please feel free to email me.
I had to laugh at Mr. Zukoski’s reference to “massive logging projects”. The C for BD and others were successful in significantly reducing the infrastructure nationally to harvest and process timber. Our capability is at a minor fraction of what it was in the 1980s.
Who will invest in a lumber mill without the guarantee of 10 years of timber supplies?
To be fair, litigation was not the only reason for shutdowns.. many things we used to make in this country ended up being outsourced for various reasons, cost of labor, etc. And now there is difficulty with housing..as the folks in Montana have written about.
That was the narrative, but the study of the Northwest Forest Plan implementation refute all of that and shows the decline in rural economies tied to decline in timber harvest.
Some recent Forest Service research says, decline in timber harvest “yes,” from national forests “no.”:
“County-scale quantitative analysis of social and economic change since 1980 shows no clear correlation between federal forest management and social and economic change during the 1994–2017 “NWFP era.” In the 1980s counties where both federal forest lands and forest industry employment were highly important experienced negative socioeconomic change; the same counties changed little during the NWFP era itself. Counties minimally reliant on federal forest lands, but highly reliant on forest industry just before 1990, experienced negative socioeconomic change primarily during the 1990s and 2000s. Counties with high social vulnerability in 2017 generally had unusually high dependence on household income from private sector forest industry employment in 1978.”
https://research.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/69143#:~:text=Qualitative%20case%20studies%20revealed%20that,vary%20widely%20across%20the%20region.
Interesting,, the next paragraph is..
Qualitative case studies revealed that 9 of 10 rural communities experienced negative social and economic change during the NWFP era; the degree of change was related to geographic isolation. Two communities lost essentially all forest management infrastructure, but seven retained some industry employers, an agency duty station, or both. Community interviewees cited declines in services and civic engagement as problems much more frequently than lack of timber industry jobs. Multiple industry employers reported difficulty locating and retaining employees. Interviewees lamented the loss of community social capital traditionally contributed by federal agency staff as an example of how their community had been harmed by implementation of the NWFP, rather than reduced timber harvest volumes or forest industry jobs. These findings suggest that many rural communities in the NWFP area have experienced socioeconomic decline since 1994 and that changes to forest management and industry are important factors in the decline. However, the types of social and economic changes are contingent on local history and geography, and thus vary widely across the region.
Of course; anyone familiar with the absolute disaster of the NWFP, outside the I-5 Corridor can tell you what an economic disaster occurred! Crook County, Oregon had five large lumber mills in the early 1980’s, I don’t know if any are still there, maybe one….. Take a look at Burns, doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that dismal existence now. Good grief!
We’ve got one study that says you probably can’t blame this on the NWFP.
I doubt that there is very much Spotted Owl habitat around Burns. The Eastside Screens were a different animal.
Crook County is also not within the NWFP area. Neither is Burns or the surrounding area.
I find it a bit irritating that this is an “interim final” rule. It’s either interim or final.
OMG, there is such a thing… those lawyers..
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Interim final rules (IFRs) are rules issued by federal agencies that become effective upon publication without first seeking public comment on the rule’s substance.
Used during emergencies and other times of need, IFRs can help expedite the regulatory process to quickly put in place binding regulatory requirements.
Because IFRs offer agencies advantages over the typical regulatory process, the privilege of issuing them can lead to abuse.
Ultimately, courts determine if IFRs are justified, and adverse rulings can force agencies to restart the regulatory process.
https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/interim-final-rules-a-primer/
So perhaps the IF Rule can be litigated even before it’s a Final Rule..
They (decision makers) must have also rescinded the decision making ‘plain language’ a requirement, cause reading this “interim final rule” is making my head spin (this isn’t the first Federal Registry document I’ve ever read). I’m not sure if you’ve seen The Mitchells vs. the Machines, but I feel a bit like the Machines when they are trying to decide if the dog is a dog, pig or loaf of bread, while reading this IFR.
The “We’ll see what happens” strategy doesn’t seem to work well in environmental legal issues. You would think this Administration might have learned this from their track record in the courts.
Commenting on the comments: yes, it was litigation that started the slide of the timber industry. Eco-groups found a way to gain a sympathetic ear from elected officials, a Ninth Circuit who thought they could do no wrong and a passive FS leadership platform that reminds me of an “plastered” armadillo in the road!
As for a ten-year guarantee on timber supply, try 20 years! 4-FRI found out the trust level between industry and a “great plan” ain’t worth the paper it is written on. As for CBD, I’ve have some run-ins with that group, and also successes that rank as some of my greatest accomplishments as a Forest Sup! Our Arizona experiment with White Mountain Stewardship and 4-FRI brought together a collaborative that actually worked for common good.
I’ll need some popcorn and iced tea to see how this soap opera turns out….🤣🤣
Trump gutting the Magna Carta for the environment.
What a legacy!
Who could have guessed?
Will the denial of public involvement lead to erosion of the social license to log?
We may be about to find out.
What does it say, where in the regulation, about public comment? I couldn’t wade through it.
The people have a right to make public comment on all publicly owned lands.
What exactly does it say about public comment in the reg?