• Welcome to the new NAXJA Forum! If your password does not work, please use "Forgot your password?" link on the log-in page. Please feel free to reach out to [email protected] if we can provide any assistance.

Proposed rule would exempt some restoration projects from NEPA review

lobsterdmb

Just a Lobster Minion
NAXJA Member
FOREST SERVICE: Proposed rule would exempt some restoration projects from NEPA review
Phil Taylor, E&E reporter

E&E PM: Tuesday, June 12, 2012


The Obama administration today proposed a new rule to accelerate environmental reviews of projects designed to restore national forests and streams.

The rule, to be published in tomorrow's Federal Register, would allow the agency to bypass traditional National Environmental Policy Act reviews for projects such as dike, culvert and debris removal; stream bank stabilization; and road and trail decommissioning.

Harris Sherman, the Agriculture Department's undersecretary for natural resources and environment, said the rule would save taxpayer dollars and agency time by eliminating unnecessary documentation.

"These projects are really a win-win for the environment and the public and will result in positive environmental outcomes," he said.

The new categorical exclusions cover projects that:

· remove, replace or modify water control structures to restore flows into natural channels and floodplains;

· remove debris and sediment after natural or human-caused events including floods, hurricanes and tornados;

· restore nonsystem roads and trails to more natural conditions in order to stabilize habitat.

"These proposed changes will allow us to be more responsive and do a better job of working with local governments, tribes and communities to move forward important on-the-ground projects," Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell said in a statement.

The new categorical exclusions appear less controversial than earlier proposals that sought to exempt certain tree removal projects from NEPA reviews, said Andy Stahl, executive director for the Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics.

While excluded from NEPA reviews, projects in streams that contain threatened or endangered species would still require consultations with the Fish and Wildlife Service, Stahl added.

The Forest Service said the new exclusions would speed restoration by calling for a three- to five-page decision document that could shorten reviews by as much as nine months compared with environmental assessments, which can run hundreds of pages long.

Qualifying projects will still require public notice and comment-and-appeal procedures that already apply to categorical exclusions, the agency said.

The agency is accepting public comments on the rule until Aug. 13.

The Forest Service in February announced more than a dozen new collaborative restoration projects to increase the pace of tree thinnings, invasive species removal and road decommissionings, among other steps (E&ENews PM, Feb. 2). The projects are designed to combat threats like erosion, wildfires, bark beetle infestations and climate change.
 
Questions:
What is NEPA? That abbreviation is used often.
How does the elimination of this NEPA review affect our recreation?
Finally, what is the source of this information?
 
and road decommissionings

Sounds like a way to sneak a road closure through without a hearing.
 
Blue Ribbon Coalition's Official Response:

BLUERIBBON COALITION CRITICIZES U.S. FOREST SERVICE PROPOSED RULE

POCATELLO, ID (June 13)--The BlueRibbon Coalition (BRC) today strongly criticized a U.S. Forest Service proposal to exempt major ground disturbing activities from environmental analysis and public comment.

The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) today began accepting public comment on a proposed change in regulations that would allow certain activities, including road obliteration, to be exempt from any public comment or analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).


Recent Congressional subcommittee field hearing exposed the serious problems that exist on today's National Forests. Learn more.
The proposed rule would allow the agency to bypass normal environmental review for projects that remove, replace or modify water control structures and remove debris and sediment after natural or human-caused events including floods, hurricanes and tornadoes. The rule would also exempt road decommissioning efforts such, as stabilizing slopes, restoring vegetation, blocking the entrance to the road, installing waterbars and removing culverts.

However, the proposal would also exempt major ground disturbing activities such as completely eliminating the road bed by restoring natural contours and slopes.

"Some of the agency's recommendations make sense, but as usual, they go too far," said Brian Hawthorne, Public Lands Policy Director for BRC. Hawthorne said, "If 40 years of NEPA has taught us anything it is that noble intentions don't justify half-baked analysis. A bulldozer moving dirt is a bulldozer moving dirt. Environmental impacts don't magically disappear because the source of sediment is called a restoration project."

"This borderlines on willful mismanagement," said Greg Mumm, BRC's Executive Director. "The Forest Service is sitting on 20 to 40 million acres of beetle-killed fire hazard and the fuse is lit. Their priorities are out of whack." Mumm said.

As an example, Mumm said that just in Colorado some 6.6 million acres are affected by the mountain bark beetle epidemic. The agency estimates that, over the next 10 years, an average of 100,000 trees will fall daily. Visitors to USFS lands are affected not only by the visual impacts, falling trees pose serious risk to human life and the infrastructure our rural communities rely on. Dead trees across the state have created heavy fuel loading which can result in intense, so-called "fatal wildfires." Beetle-killed trees now threaten thousands of miles of roads, trails and developed recreation sites. Mumm said; "Exempting culvert removal is all well and good, but the agency crosses a line when, at the same time, they increase analysis on such things as maintaining safe power transmission corridors."

Hawthorne also expressed frustration with the proposed changes. He noted that the USFS is saying the majority of issues associated with road and trail decommissioning arise from the initial decision whether to close a road or trail via the travel planning process. "That's not our experience," Hawthorne said. BRC has been urging the USFS to develop a streamlined procedure to allow public comment before any ground disturbing or road obliteration activities are proposed precisely because the travel planning is usually focused on recreational users of the Forest. Other users are often assured their access and activities could still continue under stipulations of their permit, lease or other agreement.

Hawthorne said few, if any, USFS travel planning projects get it right the first time. "Many travel planning projects we are aware of have been amended within one or two years after completion, and many have been amended even before the plan has been completely implemented on the ground." It is quite likely that routes proposed for decommissioning will be necessary additions in future recreation and travel planning. Hawthorne said the fact the agency doesn't want any public involvement means the agency probably doesn't care about any potential recreational uses of these routes.
 
A few other responses:

The response to BRC's last couple of alerts has been overwhelming. We need to shout a big "thank you" to those joining and making financial contributions to our efforts.

BRC isn't funded by the big powersports businesses. We depend on YOU for the funds to do our work. Thank you!

We also wanted to forward a couple of excellent responses to the USFS wanting to exempt road obliteration activities from any public comment or environmental analysis.

First up is Greg Weirick from Advocates for Access to Public Lands

The Center for Biodiversity (a bunch of lawyers making fortunes suing everyone) has again filed suit against Inyo County over use of the County's own roads. The first was just lost because the judge claimed Inyo County couldn't prove the Death Valley roads in question were the County's? Folks, when a road is in a county and the county claims it,....it's a county road and that is based on applicable Federal Law RS 2477!!! The latest suit involves the County's support of the Adventure Trails Program that is a pilot program to promote reasonable use of county roads to connect OHVers with recreational opportunities. Ironically, the forest and even the Friends of the Inyo publicly support the program?

Here's a link to the PEER site (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility) co-plaintiffs suing Inyo County over the Adventure Trails Program. They obviously have done little to no research into the criteria for using combined use roads, but that's irrelevant they would tell you? How they can claim any credibility given the shoddy contrived arguments is beyond me, but that seems to be a standard in the Enviro Industry, so who am I to question?

http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=1596

What makes this even more egregious is that the same Forest employees are proposing legislation to Congress to be allowed to use heavy eqpt. to obliterate the roads that they have illegally closed. They don't feel they should have to do any NEPA environmental review to take heavy eqpt into Roadless areas, yet their own employees (PEER) support suing the county because some OHVs, within strict guidelines, will be using existing County roads. They want this passed so that if and when common sense returns to this nation of OURS, the roads will be mere memories rather than the wonderful historical and cultural examples of man's ingenuity and drive that they now are.

Simply amazing! Sending this to forest employees as well, to solicit response about the hypocrisy of these two issues when placed side by side, but not going to hold my breath!

I, for one, will be in front of those bulldozers and hope others will join me when the time comes!

Greg Weirick


Second is from Joanne Spivack, of the New Mexico Off Highway Vehicle Alliance (NMOHVA)

Joanne sent a comment on a Washington Post story about the USFS road obliteration plan.

Watch out, all trail users !...the USFS is out to decommission and obliterate our roads and trails, WITHOUT public participation...

Don't be fooled by No. 3. 'Restoring' lands occupied by roads and trails 'to a more natural condition' means destroying roads and trails. This is done by tearing them up, blocking them with rocks, felling trees across them etc. A lot of the trails used by hikers, mountain bikers, horse riders, and others are non-National Forest System routes. That means they are NOT on the agency's maps. A lot of them used to be, but the 'disappearing' wand gets waved when new versions of maps are done. Right now, hikers and mountain bikers and horse riders haven't had to worry if a trail is 'system' or 'non-system' because we had the right to use all of them. The only limit has been against mountain bikes in wilderness areas. Now the Forest Service wants the power to destroy them, in the name of 'streamlining' restoration.

The USFS is using the fires to ask for this huge expansion of their power and authority, and to block the public's ability to oppose, or even be informed of, what the Forest Service is doing.

The folks over at NMOHVA are doing outstanding work in the fight for access, and are certainly deserving of your support. So visit their website and learn more about how you can help.

Thanks in advance and, as always, if you have any questions or concerns, please contact BRC.

Ric Foster
Public Lands Department Manager
BlueRibbon Coalition
 
Back
Top