By J.R. Pegg
WASHINGTON, DC, December 23, 2004 (ENS) – The Bush administration finalized major changes Wednesday to the federal government's management framework for the national forest system, granting federal land managers increased authority to approve logging, drilling, grazing and mining with less environmental review than currently required.
Administration officials said the new framework will ensure a balanced approach to managing the national forests and will not undermine environmental protections.
"The new rule will improve the way we work with the public by making forest planning more open, understandable and timely," said Forest Service Associate Chief Sally Collins. "It will enable Forest Service experts to respond more rapidly to changing conditions, such as wildfires, and emerging threats, such as invasive species."
The new regulations revise the Forest Service's application of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), which was passed by Congress in 1976 and governs the management of 192 million acres of national forests.
The law requires forest plans for each of the 155 national forests and 22 national grasslands. The new rule also eliminates wildlife species viability standards contained in an earlier rule adopted by the Reagan administration. The rule eliminates environmental impact analysis of forest plans, a requirement of the National Environmental Quality Act.
The Forest Service is tasked with managing these lands for multiple uses, including recreation, conservation and commercial use.
Forest Service lands are home to more than 3,000 species of wildlife and more than 10,000 plant species, including some 20 percent of federally endangered and threatened species.
Environmentalists said the new regulation reflects an administration that has little interest in protecting the wild character of the national forests and is instead focused on appeasing the timber industry.
"The rule is illegal – it rips the guts out of National Forest management plans," said Amy Mall, senior forestry specialist with the Natural Resources Defense Council. "The White House is deliberately creating a legal controversy, knowing the rule will be struck down in court, so it can give Congress the justification to roll back the forest protection laws these new rules violate."
Forest Service officials said the new rule is a fair revision of a framework that is currently too complicated and too expensive.
According to the Forest Service, it takes the agency some five to seven years and as much as $7.5 million to revise a 15 year management plan for an individual forest.
Officials said the new approach could slash costs some 30 percent and cut the process time down to two to three years, with an independent audit of the plan to ensure it is meeting goals and objectives.
Independent audits, to be conducted by agency officials and private firms, are at the center of what the Forest Service calls an "Environmental Management System" – a corporate structure used by timber firms and other resource extraction companies.
Administration officials said the corporate model emphasizes science and public involvement and also gives forest managers flexibility to account for changing forest conditions.
"This rule applies the most current thinking in natural resources management," said Collins. "It takes a 21st Century approach to delivering the full range of values that Americans want for their quality of life – clean air and water, habitat for wildlife, and sustainable uses that will be available for future generations to enjoy."
Collins added that forest managers will consider the "best available science" to devise strategies to safeguard air, water, wildlife and other natural resources.
Critics contend the regulation scraps important wildlife protection, shuts out the public and does not require timber sales and other commercial activities to be consistent with forest management plans.
"These are America's forests and should be managed for all of us," said Rodger Schlickeisen, executive director for Defenders of Wildlife. "These rules reject sound science, ignore the importance of public input, and tilt the playing field sharply toward the logging companies."
REP America, the national grassroots organization of Republicans for environmental protection, said the new forest planning rule is "another example of the administration giving the bum's rush to independent science."
"The rule was not vetted by independent scientists and does not require national forest supervisors to subject forest management plans to impartial scientific review," REP America Policy Director Jim DiPeso said.
"If the Forest Service is dead certain that its new rule could stand up to scientific scrutiny, the agency would not have hesitated to run it by an independent scientific panel. The fact that the Forest Service didnt is a bad sign that forest plans will be driven more by politics than by science," DiPeso said.
"In addition, we are troubled by the elimination of species viability standards, and the Forest Service's bizarre assertion that forest plans do not have environmental consequences, and therefore environmental impact studies are unnecessary," he said.
"Until this rule is subject to independent review by the National Academy of Sciences or an equally credible body, the public cannot be confident that their national forests will be managed in the nations best interest under this new rule."
Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2004. All Rights Reserved.
Loading...