ESRM 101 Forests and Society
Environmental Legislation
Affecting Use of Forests
CFR 101 Forests and Society
Patterns of ownership
Jon Honea
March 27, 2001
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
Date
General Ordinance
1785
Railroad Land Grants
1850-1871
Telma
Merritt
Plain
Winton
Leavenworth
Peshastin
Cashmere
Monitor
THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE
May 10, 2005
Land exchange refloated in House
Robert 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 whistleblowers 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 Writer
August 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
Date
General Ordinance
Railroad Land Grants
1785
1850-1871
Homestead Acts
Mining Law
Desert Land Act
Timber and Stone Act
1860s
1866,1872
1877
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
Reserve Act
Date
1891
•Allowed the President to permanently reserve
lands on the public domain.
Legislation to Reserve Land
Act
Date
Reserve 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
Date
Reserve Act
Antiquities Act
1891
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
Organic Act rider
Date
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)
Romantic Preservationists
•Preserve nature
•Commune with nature and your
soul
•John Muir
•Thoreau
•Emerson
•Bob Marshall
Progressive Conservationists
•Prevent wood shortages
•Conserve and manage water
•Stop corruption
•Control erosion
•Fernow
•Pinchot
•Roosevelt
Early Management Legislation
Act
Date
Organic 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
Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act
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.
Date
1960
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
Date
Multiple 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
Date
Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act
Wilderness Act
1960
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 rules
Henry K. Lee, Chronicle Staff Writer
Saturday, March 31, 2007
A 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
Date
Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act
Wilderness Act
National Env’l Policy Act (NEPA)
1960
1964
1969
Clean Water Act
1972
Later Management Legislation
Act
Date
Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act
Wilderness Act
National Env’l Policy Act (NEPA)
Clean Water Act
1960
1964
1969
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
2
0
2
Lichens
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.
Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003
• 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
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 comanagers of salmon and
gained a voice in all
management decisions
affecting the salmon.
Other Management Legislation
Washington Forest Practices Act
and
Forest & Fish Rules
1973
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!