Environmental Legislation Affecting Use of Forests

ESRM 101 Forests and Society

Patterns of ownership

Jon HoneaMarch 27, 2001

CFR 101 Forests and Society

Some patterns of ownership in Washington

Themes

• Acquisition and disposal (giving away) of land.

• Reserving land.

• What to do with the reserved land (i.e., what is the management focus)?

Indigenous Peoples were Dispossessed

Disposal of the federal domain

• Land given away in place of money• Land given away to US citizens to settle

land for US gov’t: sovereignty– Dispossess land from American Indians– Establish and control borders against the

Spanish, Mexicans, French, British, and Canadians.

• Privatization: minimize govt control of citizens

General Ordinance of 1785: established rectilinear survey system with Meridians and Base Lines.

(Willamette Meridian)

Legislation to Dispose of Federal Lands

Act DateGeneral Ordinance 1785

Railroad Land Grants 1850-1871

Plain

Telma

Winton

Monitor

Merritt

Cashmere

Peshastin

Leavenworth

THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE May 10, 2005Land exchange refloated in HouseRobert Gehrke WASHINGTON -- Utah officials are pitching an 88,000-acre land swap that

would protect popular recreation destinations along the Colorado River, world-renowned mountain bike trails, and soaring redrock arches in sensitive wilderness areas while helping fund Utah schools. "It's quite unique," said Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, who is sponsoring the exchange in the U.S. House. "We've got a lot of support on it. We hope it will go very smoothly and we'll get it done very quickly.“ It is the first exchange proposed since Utah's bid to swap out land in the San Rafael Swell collapsed in 2002 after whistle-blowers at the Bureau of Land Management alleged it was a $100 million boondoggle for federal taxpayers. The proposal would grant the Interior Department areas that include the Kokopelli and Slickrock bike trails, renowned for their scenery and terrain; parts of Westwater Canyon, a popular white-water rafting route; and sweeping arches and potential wilderness areas near Arches National Park and Dinosaur National Monument.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-nevada29aug29,1,3213522.story?coll=la-headlines-business

Advocates Sue Over Nevada Land Exchange

Groups charge in federal court that the Bureau of Land Management violated the law in its swap with Coyote Springs developer Harvey Whittemore.

By Chuck Neubauer, Times Staff WriterAugust 29, 2006

Two public-land advocacy groups filed a lawsuit in federal district court Monday in Reno to overturn a land swap between the federal government and Coyote Springs, a controversial Nevada real estate development north of Las Vegas. The groups charged that the U.S. Bureau of Land Management violated

environmental and publicland laws when it agreed to the swap. They agreed to trade — at no cost — nearly 10,000 acres of federal leased lands set aside for the desert tortoise in the middle of the project for equal acreage of developer-owned land at the edge of the site. The move helped consolidate the private holdings of Coyote Springs developer Harvey Whittemore and may have enhanced the value of his property. Neither Whittemore nor the bureau, part of the Interior Department, offered any comment Monday on the lawsuit. Whittemore's dream of building a city 50 miles northeast of Las Vegas with as many as 159,000 homes and 16 golf courses has drawn scrutiny for the role of his friend Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). Reid has helped Whittemore remove obstacles to development. But Whittemore, a Nevada lawyer and lobbyist, has said neither Reid nor his son Leif Reid — Whittemore's personal attorney — played any role in the swap. The lawsuit charges that the bureau acted illegally in changing the boundaries of the leased land and the property Whittemore owned. The lawsuit wants to reverse the exchange. "This was a huge change in favor of Whittemore. It rearranged 10,000 acres of the lease land," said Janine Blaeloch, director of the anti-privatization group Western Lands Project, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. The bureau "just did it instantaneously," she said.

Full rail map

Westward expansion

Legislation to Dispose of Federal Lands

Act DateGeneral Ordinance 1785Railroad Land Grants 1850-1871

Homestead Acts 1860sMining Law 1866,1872Desert Land Act 1877Timber and Stone Act 1878

Mismanagement of Forests• Corruption and misallocation

– Give-aways to railroads– Lands not given away according to best use

• Deforestation– Railroads sold land to timber barons– Timber barons had a cut and run policy

• Fires– Drought– Sparks from train engines– Slash (waste) from timber harvest created additional fuel

Legislation to Reserve Land

Act DateReserve Act 1891

•Allowed the President to permanently reserve lands on the public domain.

Legislation to Reserve Land

Act DateReserve Act 1891

Antiquities Act 1906

•Allows president to set aside lands with cultural or scientific importance. •Enacted due to damage to Indian dwellings and artifacts.

Monuments on BLM land

established by President

Clinton and other BLM lands under

consideration

Legislation to Reserve Land

Act DateReserve Act 1891Antiquities Act 1906

Weeks Act 1911

Authorized purchase of cut-over and abandoned or tax-delinquent lands

Most effect east of the Mississippi River

Early Management Legislation

Act DateOrganic Act rider 1897

Defined purpose of federal reserves:1. To protect forests.2. To secure adequate water flow.3. To be a continual resource for timber,

mining, and grazing.

Conservation vs. Preservation(or showdown at Hetch-hetchy Valley)

Progressive Conservationists•Prevent wood shortages•Conserve and manage water•Stop corruption•Control erosion

•Fernow•Pinchot•Roosevelt

Romantic Preservationists•Preserve nature•Commune with nature and your soul

•John Muir•Thoreau•Emerson•Bob Marshall

Early Management Legislation

Act DateOrganic Act rider 1897

Organic Act 1916

National Parks"Organic Act" of 1916, states that the National Park Service “shall promote and regulate the use of Federal areas known as national parks, monuments and reservations . . . by such means and measures as conform to the fundamental purpose of the said parks, monuments and reservations, which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same

in such manner and by such means as will leave them

unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations."

Later Management Legislation

Act DateMultiple Use Sustained Yield Act 1960

Stated that national forests had to be managed to maintain a continual source of water, timber, mining, and grazing (as stated in the Organic Act of 1897), but also the forests must be managed to permit recreation and protection of wildlife and fish.

Change of Direction• Forest Policy: Pre-1960s

– Development Oriented– Professional Foresters– “Iron Triangle”: Forest Service, Congress, Industry

• Forest Policy: Post-1960s– Organized environmental movement– New environmental laws– Increased participation in policymaking– Biologists, ecologists, hydrologists, archeologists

and sociologists joined foresters

Later Management Legislation

Act DateMultiple Use Sustained Yield Act 1960

Wilderness Act 1964

A wilderness, "in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man  himself is a visitor who does not remain."

Later Management Legislation

Act DateMultiple Use Sustained Yield Act 1960Wilderness Act 1964

National Env’l Policy Act (NEPA) 1969

•Environmental Assessments (EA) required for federal actions that may damage the human environment.•Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) required if EA finds that damage is likely.

•Considers environmental, social, and economic effects.•How use will affect long-term productivity of area.•Must provide alternative actions.•Must allow comments from affected parties.

Judge tosses new forest rulesHenry K. Lee, Chronicle Staff WriterSaturday, March 31, 2007A federal judge in San Francisco threw out the Bush administration's new rules Friday for managing the country's 155

national forests, saying the government had failed to consider the environmental effects that could result from the changes.

The administration also failed to give the public a chance to review the new regulations before they went into effect in 2005, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton said in a ruling on two consolidated lawsuits filed by environmental groups and the state of California.

Hamilton said the government had violated the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act and couldn't institute the new rules until environmental reviews are conducted.

"Those who love wildlife and care about our public forests should be elated by this ruling," Pete Frost, an Oregon attorney representing environmental groups, said Friday.

Justice Department spokeswoman Cynthia Magnuson said officials were reviewing the decision and had not decided whether to appeal.

Under the administration's new rules, regional forest managers were given more discretion in approving logging, mining and livestock grazing in the country's 192 million acres of public land.

But after hearing arguments in November, Hamilton determined that the administration had "illegally failed to prepare an evaluation of how these changes would affect our resources in the forest," Frost said.

Justice Department attorneys, representing the U.S. Forest Service and the Agriculture Department, said in court papers that the new rules didn't have any "on-the-ground" effects on the environment.

The Justice Department was supported by the timber industry, including the American Forest and Paper Association and the American Forest Resource Council.

More than a dozen environmental groups had filed suit, including Citizens for Better Forestry, Defenders of Wildlife and the Sierra Club.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/03/31/BAGE5OVFUT1.DTL

Who was the “mother” of the modern environmental movement?

Later Management Legislation

Act DateMultiple Use Sustained Yield Act 1960Wilderness Act 1964National Env’l Policy Act (NEPA) 1969

Clean Water Act 1972

Later Management Legislation

Act DateMultiple Use Sustained Yield Act 1960Wilderness Act 1964National Env’l Policy Act (NEPA) 1969Clean Water Act 1972

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 1973

Endangered Threatened Recovery Plans

Mammals 63 9 47

Birds 78 15 76

Reptiles 14 22 30

Fish 70 44 93

Insects 33 9 28

Flowering plants 564 141 554

Lichens 2 0 2

Lands affected

by salmon listings

Northwest Forest Plan of 1994

Northwest Forest Plan of 1994

• Covers habitat of the endangered northern spotted owl

• Addresses conservation needs of the northern spotted owl and then-soon-to-be listed salmon species

• Emphasizes involvement of all stakeholders in harvest management

• Intended to sustain timber-dependent communities

National Forest System Roadless Areas Rule

Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003

Context of Act

• Past fire policy has led to dangerous fuel accumulations.

• Northwest Forest Plan of 1994 put 80% of Northwest federal forests off-limits to logging.– Only about 40% of legal sales occurred.

• Lack of funding to do pre-sale ecological assessments.• Law suits hold up sales.

– Timber industry declining• Fewer logs available.• More automation.

• Increase thinning

• Decrease environmental assessment– Rationale:

• Expensive

• Redundant

• Wastes time while communities and resource at risk

• Decrease public review and appeal– Rationale same as above

Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003

Increase Thinning• Clearly needed near communities at risk

– All parties agree• Thinning is expensive

– Focus on removal of small diameter trees– Not worth much money on current market

• Thinning in backcountry – Reduces risk of fire there

• Is fire a problem in such places?– Less expensive

• Because contractors allowed to also cut some big trees

• Issues– Fire!– Healthy forests.– Jobs: keeping loggers trained and in business.– The influence of lobbies and political pressure on the

sustainability of federal forests.Photo: Kari Brown, USFS

Other Management Legislation

Washington State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) 1971

•Covers state actions that may damage the human environment.

•Like NEPA.•Requires an Environmental Impact Statement for such actions.

Other Management Legislation

Boldt Decision 1974

Tribes became co-managers of salmon and gained a voice in all management decisions affecting the salmon.

Other Management Legislation

Washington Forest Practices Act 1973and

Forest & Fish Rules 2001

Ecosystem Management• Management based on whole ecosystem

function

• In practical terms, it is the integration of ecological, social, and economic objectives for natural resource management.

– Emphasizes biological diversity and ecosystem integrity.

CURRENT ISSUES

• Fire Management Policy• Oil Production in the Alaska National Wildlife

Refuge (ANWR)• Endangered Species Protection/Recovery

– Forest management– Dam breaching– Urban, suburban and rural growth management

• Roadless Policy• Snowmobile Use on Federal Lands• Grazing Fees• Forest Planning Regulations• Fee Demonstration Program• Water• Sprawl and Growth

• And Global Climate Change!