Forest Service says local is better for flora & fauna
Environmentalists are concerned that a new U.S. Forest Service proposal that moves decision-making about forest and wetlands maintenance to local officials of the service would mean a rollback of conservation standards, according to reporting by Darryl Fears in the Washington Post. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack says the reforms would acknowledge the differences between forests in America’s diverse climates and landscapes, but some experts say it leaves too much discretion to local officials.
But in cases where a Washington agency wants to give up some control — and offer responsibility to its local representatives — isn’t it good for democracy, and not necessarily a threat to forests? It might cause some problems, but it might also empower local activists and concerned citizens. And the debate would not have to go through the Washington bottleneck.
A scant 19 years after the plan was first proposed by California regulators, the US Environmental Protection Agency announced it has approved a comprehensive approach to restoring water quality and fish habitat in the storied, but now officially “impaired,” Klamath River. 
Legalizing it may be only a pipe dream for the advocates of California’s latest statewide ballot proposition.
In attempting to contain costs and gain efficiency, the U.S. Forest Service badly bungled the response to what grew into last year’s deadly Station Fire that torched 250 square miles of Southern California and incinerated 200 structures, according to a review by the Department of Agriculture described in a 
