Land Management Agency Discretion :: essays research papers

path discretion towards fetch guidance has been an issue since the Forest Services conception. Gifford Pinchot had envisioned local foresters managing reposes with ideas and guidelines that have been developed with modern science and preservation in mind. Since then, laws such as the National Environmental Policy function (NEPA), the Wilderness Bill and Endangered Species Act have limited the hail of authority and discretion a land management agency has everyplace a particular argona. These laws along with the current forest plans under the dirt & Resource Management plans under the 1982 Regulations have made it possible for agencies to be subject to earth opinion of whether the forest plans are best meet for a particular area and if the agency is successfully implementing these forest objectives.Historically, land management agency discretion has been much greater than present day. priming coat management was left to scientists and forest professionals who were entrusted with managing cosmos forests for the common good. This allowed for land management agencies to act without opposition from conflicting view points. But during the 1960s and 70s, America started to question the federal government and science. With the passage of NEPA, the public became more involved with policy decision making and opened agencies up to lawsuits and litigation. consort to National Forest System Land & Resource Management supply (1982 Regulations) Sec. 219.6, the intent of public participation in the National Forest governing body is to broaden the information base upon which land and resource management formulation decisions are made. It is also the intent to ensure that the Forest Service understands the needs, concerns and value of the public. NEPA requires that the Forest Service issues Environmental Impact Statements (EIS), hold public comment periods, and issue a description of the proposed planning action that is usable to the public. Though this limits agency discretion towards public lands, it is the values of the public that ordain how public lands should be managed.Americas National Forests and public lands are intended to represent the publics values and interests. With the requirement that the land management agencies issue EIS reports, land management discretion has been limited. Not tho are the agencies required to report the current environmental health of a proposed area, but offer alternative plans as well. NEPA has held agencies accountable for how the publics National Forests are managed. No longer could agencies, at their knowledge discretion, choose which the best way to manage public lands is whether or non it coincides with what the public wants out of its lands.