Forestry Flashcards
- A common statement made by the courts when reviewing either the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (BLM) or the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act (USFS) is that the multiple use mandate “breathes discretion at every pore.” What do they mean by this statement? (5 pts)
The courts have said that the multiple use mandate gives agencies the freedom to decide what should be done in every decision regarding multiple use. This freedom gives agencies the discretion to balance and prioritize different uses (under FLPMA/MUSYA) according to their expertise and judgment.
- What are the primary purposes of National Forest under the U.S. Forest Service’s 1897 Organic Act (5 pts)
The primary purposes of National Forests are, “to improve and protect the forest, or to secure favorable conditions of water flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber”.
- Briefly stated, how did the conflict over the Bitterroot and/or Monongahela National Forests lead to reform of National Forest law and passage of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA)? Describe one detailed provision of NFMA for illustration. (10 pts)
They both led to reforms of timber harvesting on forest service lands. Resulting from heavy timber harvest during the post WW2 housing boom, they both warranted new guidelines on clearcutting in National Forests and allowed the public a more meaningful role to play. In both cases, timber was heavily harvested and multiple uses were not considered, as the sole focus was timber harvest, not any of the other listed multiple uses. In the bitterroot specifically, communication between the agency and the public had been “seriously inadequate”. To be fair, the agency had federal pressure to meet timber sale objectives and represented the change from “custodian to a production agency”. NFMA provides substantive planning requirements, goals, and constraints on the agency that help prevent events like those that occurred in the Bitterroot/Monongahela National forests.
One detailed provision of NFMA is the one that requires the USFS to create Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMPs). These forest plans must be made in accordance with NEPA, so public participation is necessary as well. They are based on inventory & interdisciplinary study and multiple use. Plans provide constraints on timber harvesting and protections for wildlife & environment. However, the courts will still give agencies discretion in what scientific methodologies the USFS uses to write their plans and their multiple use decisions will be reviewed by courts using the very deferential “arbitrary and capricious” standard of the APA. So, despite the importance of LRMPS, the courts give agencies a lot of discretion in determining what the plans look like and how to implement them.
- What are the most significant ways that the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 constrained the amount of discretion the U.S. Forest Service had under the 1897 Organic Act and the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act (MUSYA) of 1960? Please be sure to discuss the issue of wildlife somewhere in your response. (10pts)
NFMA provides planning requirements, goals, and constraints, unlike the Organic Act and MUSYA. The organic act focuses solely on timber/water supply while MUSYA provides 5 distinct uses in extremely discretionary language. NFMAs plan provisions follow a type of tiering hierarchy: all projects and activities need to be consistent with forest plans, forest plans need to be consistent with NFMA regulations, and NFMA regulations need to be consistent with NFMA. This extensive planning process dramatically expands opportunities for public participation, which under NFMA is required in the “development, review, and revision” of forest plans. Public participation opportunities allow for the public to have their opinions heard before the USFS creates forest plans and during the process, so the agency has less discretion than it does under the Organic Act and MUSYA.
NFMAs wildlife diversity mandate requires that these forest plans “provide for a diversity of plant and animal communities … (in order to meet overall multiple use objectives). This language provides specific importance to wildlife communities. This mandate constrains the agency and the discretion it has under MUSYA and the Organic act. 2012 forest plans say, “maintain a viable population of each species of conservation concern in the plan area.”. There is still discretionary language in NFMA (what is a “viable population”?), but it still provides environmental constraints and forces agencies to consider them in planning.
Organic act: timber/water supply
MUSYA: 5 uses; super discretionary
NFMA: constraints on USFS
→ timber constraints. Eg. how to do timber management.
→ Riparian areas
→ Wildlife diversity / viability
“We’re not gonna take away your discretion, but there will be some environmental constraints. You need to go forth and plan” -NFMA
Forest plans make wilderness recommendations for congressional consideration and they serve as a “gateway” -> open to some uses, closed to others.
How does the concept of multiple use (as codified in the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act (MUSYA)) differ from NFMA’s wildlife diversity mandate in terms of agency discretion, flexibility and enforcement? Be sure to reference wildlife diversity/viability and the role of the courts in your answer. (10 pts)
Multiple use places priority on the lands that will have the biggest benefit for the people, and it’s highly discretionary towards the agencies. MUSYA uses discretionary language (could/can) while NFMA uses stronger, enforceable language (must/shall/required). For example, MUSYA states, “
NFMA says that you SHALL provide for diversity of plant and animal communities, but MUSYA says that you could consider wildlife as one of the multiple uses in managing (outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes). NFMA’s wildlife diversity requires that forest plans “provide for a diversity of plant and animal communities … in order to meet multiple-use objectives”. This mandate essentially forces USFS to hold diversity of wildlife as one priority when creating plans, and this mandate is often used in courts against USFS actions (when they aren’t considering wildlife in multiple-use/plans). MUSYA is discretionary while NFMA is used as a weapon against USFS by environmental groups in court. The diversity mandate works as a limitation on timber production in that it requires treating wildlife diversity as an equal. The 2012 Planning Rule (NFMA) requires that forest plans “provide the ecological conditions required to maintain a viable population for species of concern”. Viability is measurable and enforceable language.
- RE: Land and Resource Management Plans (Forest Plans) prepared by the U.S. Forest Service: What is the National Forest Management Act’s (NFMA) “plan consistency” provision? (5pts)
The plan consistency provision ensures that all projects and activities on forest lands are consistent with forest plans, forest plans are consistent with NFMA regulations, and NFMA regulations are consistent with NFMA. This ensures that plans are following NFMA’s mandates/provisions and that any actions on forest lands follow the corresponding forest plans. (Tiered planning: 3rd tier/highest level-> national-level NFMA regulations, 2nd tier-> forest plans, 3rd tier/lowest, most specific level-> site-specific projects. (site-specific projects must comply with the region’s forest plan and overall national level NFMA regulations)
- What are management area designations/zones as found in Land and Resource Management Plans (i.e., Forest Plans prepared by the U.S. Forest Service in accordance with the National Forest Management Act (NFMA)). (5pts).
Management area designations are smaller divisions made from a larger planning area as designated in an LRMP. A single planning area under an LRMP can have smaller zones that each have a different management plan (plans can apply to entire national forest or a single particular area within). The plan components state how each zone will be managed and what activities are/aren’t allowed in the zone.
- Describe two ways (total) that the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) imposed legal constraints on timber harvesting and provided protection to wildlife on National Forests? (10 pts).
NFMA ensures that timber harvesting will only occur on national forest system lands when these protections (and others) are met. This provides obvious constraints on timber harvesting and forces environmental protections with timber harvest. One way is that NFMA provides protection for bodies of water from changes in water temperatures, blockages of water course, or deposits of sediment “where harvests are likely to seriously and adversely affect water conditions or fish habitat”.
A second protection doesn’t allow any timber harvesting that will irreversibly damage soil, slope, or watershed conditions. This, similarly, to the first protection discussed, provides protection toward environmental conditions that the local wildlife depend on.
Prior to NFMA, there were little to no constraints of timber harvesting and extremely detrimental practices such as clearcutting could often be used with minimal environmental considerations.
- What is the U.S. Forest Service’s “Roadless Rule” (2001)? What does the Administrative Procedure Act and NEPA have to do with development of the Rule and its subsequent legal challenge? Do you agree with the court’s view that the Rule is compatible with the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act (MUSYA)? Please explain. (15pts)
The USFW’s roadless rule states that 58.5 million acres (1/3 of National Forests) must be roadless. Areas designated as roadless cannot have previous roads repaired or new roads built.
The Supreme Court disagrees with the district court’s claim that the USFW did not follow NEPA’s range of alternative requirements. The supreme court found that the Forest Service followed these procedures (APA and NEPA) when developing the Roadless Rule, but the rule was challenged in court by several states and industry groups. The legal challenge argued that the Forest Service had not followed the APA and NEPA procedures correctly when developing the rule.
I would agree with the court’s decision that the rule is compatible with MUSYA. In Wyoming V. USDA, the court states, “Although the Roadless Rule does not permit all uses specifically identified in MUSYA—namely, “timber” purposes—that is not required under MUSYA”. This is the main reason why I agree with their decision. MUSYA doesn’t call for all potential uses to be administered, for example, timber doesn’t need to be used every time under MUSYA. Other uses can be prioritized as long as there is still multiple use. Multiple use also aimed to not give priority to any one use by listing the example uses in alphabetical order (“outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes”. This means that there is no one use that should be dominant over another, and there can be different uses allowed in different places depending on the needs of that system. So, timber isn’t “prioritized” under multiple use, all of the uses have “equal footing”. It’s not the end of the world if timber isn’t used to some extent in each possible management area. The roadless rule still allows for many activities such as recreation, wildlife habitat, and grazing/oil and gas development.
