- Home
- News
- Opinion
- Letters
- Sports
- Prospecting
- Essentials
- Obituaries
- Real Estate
- Comics
- Gallery
- Classifieds
- Advertisers
- Coupons
- Contact Us
Share Article
420
994420994
Deep within a forest of acronyms and departmental jargon, there is a set of regulations that mandates protocols under which the United States Forest Service and other federal agencies must deal with local governments.
Known as “Coordination,” the laws outline under what circumstances and in what manner the forest service, for example, must consider local entities and issues when planning construction or other projects on federal land that may impact other jurisdictions.
Along with the acronyms comes a caveat that certain requirements are governed under the auspices of the Secretary of the Interior while others are within the purview of the Secretary of Agriculture. The “Federal Acts Requiring Coordination with Local Governments” runs the gamut of issues and concerns from fish and wildlife and water quality through recreation and historic preservation.
The Secretary of Agriculture oversees the National Forest Management Act, while the Secretary of the Interior is responsible for the Federal Land Policy Management Act. Specific issues are addressed by one or the other or both departments.
Eldorado National Forest Public Information Officer Frank Mosbacher provided the Mountain Democrat with a copy of a letter that details and summarizes both the concept and the practice of “Coordination.” Vilsack’s letter was written to California Congressman Wally Herger responding to Herger’s request for information late last year.
Vilsack’s letter notes that the “Forest Service’s primary responsibilities to coordinate with counties are found in the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) … This coordination allows the Forest Service to take into account and consider the State or county’s proposed management for lands under their jurisdiction and vice-versa.”
In the next paragraph, Vilsack clearly points out that, the “Forest Service’s NFMA obligation … does not in any way subordinate Federal authority to counties.”
The forest service has the authority to designate a state or county as a “joint lead agency” in order to coordinate (for example) “the preparation of a joint Environmental Impact Statement (EIS is the federal terminology for Environmental Impact Report) that will be used by each agency in making (a) decision” regarding separate proposals.
A “cooperating agency” is status conferred by the forest service upon a “State or county whose role would be to assist the Forest Service in preparing an EIS for a project on National Forest System lands,” Vilsack’s letter continues.
No matter the “Coordination” status of the local agency, it “has no authority to impose specific provisions of county ordinances in forest plans or to require that the Forest Service comply with its procedural obligations,” the letter states.
El Dorado County Supervisor Ray Nutting described “Coordination” as “definitely not to preempt federal law but rather to engage us earlier” when there are issues of concern or potential conflict.
Tuesday, the board of supervisors authorized an effort to create an advisory committee that could be beneficial in the county’s future relationship with the forest service and could inform its role in future “Coordination” efforts with that and other federal agencies.
The Mountain Democrat does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy
Tim RoffeJune 18, 2012 - 8:02 am
Well done, Chris. This is the process I have discussed here many times that will go a long way to giving a local say in actions taken at the Federal level. No one can say, if we had coordination in effect, that it would have made a difference on the 42 road closure issue for example, however I can no reason that local input into proposed plans by the various Federal agencies... would not be a good thing..
WatchfulJune 18, 2012 - 8:56 am
Way to go Ray, now after twelve years you want to be a part of helping, wow now that it's seems as if this will be your last term you want to be a part of something that makes sense. Well look under this word coordination and you will see A-21 and the whole Government Control Issue, and that's why Ray wants in, don't be fooled.
citizenJune 18, 2012 - 9:55 am
Now completely controlled by centralized federal agencies, local jurisdictions have lost all autonomy. Our Constitutional protections have been suborned. Everything must be "coordinated" with the feds. Citizens have been reduced to vassals. Does anyone in government retain even the foggiest memory of the late great Constitution of the United States? Certainly not our Board of Supervisors.
Judith MathatJune 18, 2012 - 10:04 am
If this Board of Supervisors ever thought to looking at how other successful coordination processes were being used by other counties they would save themselves a lot of talk and dribble and county staff time. Coordination has been being used for years under staqrting under Stewards of the Range with Fred Kelly Grant's tutelage to his own organization whose two seminars in EL Dorado County (one of which we got many attendees to learn about the process) during which two supervisors, including Supervisor Nutting attended. Nutting has had to be pulled screaming and bellowing into learning about how coordination works by those of us who have known about this process for years the only reason Nutting got involved is his pocketbook and the effect USFS issues would have on his timberlands and Supervisor Sweeney needed to understand how the Rubicon Trail issues could be effected by using this method to keep the trail open. To bad it has to take a personal threat or interest to get a Supervisor to react instead of act. Hopefully this committee may be able to work successfully, as do other counties, but only if the staff does not come up with limiting the input and methodology needed to be effective. It is always better to look to the successful counties than try and invent a new wheel. What hasn't been said is that ANY entity like EID, GDPUD, CSD's, or any taxing agency can require government agancies to come to the table under coordination. It does not have to be the BOS. So lets hope they do not screw this up as they have in the past (aka getting a pitance from SMUD relicensing) (SNEP) etc.on making sure El Dorado County gets its citizens property rights protected.
Tim RoffeJune 18, 2012 - 10:41 am
Perhaps some skepticism is warranted, therefore understandable.... I look forward to proving the validity of this process for El Dorado County and our future conversation where we discuss the successes coordination has brought to our home.
robinJune 18, 2012 - 12:26 pm
It's funny how everyone ignores what is happening these days. It's like there is too much information and we just all don't have enough time to process it all, so we can't take lessons from even the small stuff anymore. If we tried to read everything that was published every day we couldn't even do that. Like this massive Cornell clinical study that benefits Chromadex (CDXC) that no investor knows about. http://weill.cornell.edu/news/releases/wcmc/wcmc_2012/06_14_12-2.shtml