WSPC04645 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

" evaluation of its planning alternatives, but in. developnent and fotJrnula-- tion of those a.rnatives as Ivell.. In other wo"""s, economic efficiency is one of the factors that must be taken into account not only in producing a given level of resource outputs or objectives cost effectively, but also in decisions on the specific goals and resource produdon targets that will be achieved in national forest management to provide the yreatest benefiltS to the public. In the 1982 revised NFMA regulations this is referred to as tllne greatest "net public b~n)'!(it" (36 cm 219.3). /1&l.. A particularly strong obligation is imposed on the Forest Service to explain tile economic. ,;od,ll ilnd environmental tradeoff1L I,hich are likely to COICcur Ivllen resource objectives or responses to expressed public issues are Ilt"a~,osed which would reduce economic efficiency (reduce present net value). ElO'ItHn the anticipated costs and the benefits of such resource objectives Should be eVi'lluated and explained so thilt decisionma~ers and the public can reatdi1y un- derstand the implications of decisions that \vould have an adverse im?:,ct on economic efficiency. The previously cited October la, 1983 paper on the role of economics in na- tional forest planning indicated that the plannin'] documents should: " (I)dentify and display both financial costs and anticipated bene- fits and other effects of constraints designed to achieve non-priced object i ves that reduce PNV. Examples of such obj ect i ves include non-dec1ininq yield, rotations based on biological criteria, and reyuirements designed for wilalife or aesthetic objectives, such a view zones. They also include production of commodity resources, such as timber, at levels greater than is economically efficient for the [1urpose of aiding dependent industries in nearby cOllununities. All such situations should be addressed and evaluated explicitly." (I::mphasis added) Thus, the Forest Service has an obligation to provide information on the short and long term economic implications of the 6lternatives it evaluates in forest 1'1.1nnin'1. where, as is the situation on the San Juan and GMUG, the selected alternative authorizes an expansion of timber sales, and projections are for costs to exceed revenues for the entire planning horizon, a considerably greater burden is imposed on the Forest Service to provide even greater oetail as on the rationale for, and specific benefits that will be achieved from such a continuation and expan3ion. ROLE OF THE EIS ~~D RECORD OF DECISION lIfldd current procedures, the EIS and associated planning records provide in- formation on the economiC, social and envirorunental effects of each planning alternative. After the final EIS is completed and the alternative to be im- p;. p1ef~el.1ted is, selected! a Record of Decision is pr~pared which exolains wlw the Q decLdLng oEElcer consLdered the selected alternatlve to be the one which pro- vides the greatest benefi the public. / v.\len a lJarticular alte ativefts selected by the Regional Forester, the Recor.A--. of Oecision (ROD) sho exn~rn in flrlp'1""~P np~,,; 1 why that alternati.ve is <:j..I thou'Jht to provide grij n'~ public benefits than the other alternatives ev,)luilted. The ROD 1'5:"'103.';. extremely important planning document which describes the busis and;(rationa1e for the decision. Through the ROD the - 6 - '11', '9~,. . "., . ,. . -------- -&"..- .-_,.,. -f. ,_ '_'....... .~rl.,~;~..,-- "-"- ',; - . ......- ..':'!z,.....':;.. '.'" .,.... . ...-.