Forest Non-Planning

In some areas of the West, decisions made in Washington about public lands grate on local officials. They grit their teeth at endless paperwork and bureaucratic delay. Why not trade a few environmental protections for easier commercial use of those lands? The White House has heard those complaints, echoed by the timber and mining industries, and come up with one whopping Christmas present.

The price tag may include loss of endangered species and habitat, irreparable damage to wild land owned by all Americans and the silencing of public comments on logging and mining in remote areas, all in the name of “efficiency.”

The administration last week issued new National Forest regulations that push management more into the hands of local and regional forest supervisors, especially when it comes to drawing up new forest plans, which happens every 15 years or so. The administration also aims to speed the development of those plans.

Neither idea is bad by itself. Local managers know their forests best. And it’s always been incomprehensible that the U.S. Forest Service takes an average of five years to develop a plan meant to last 15. But instead of strengthening standards to make up for a shorter bureaucratic process, the new rules weaken and in some cases get rid of standards.

Forest planners could bypass the National Environmental Policy Act altogether, eliminating environmental impact studies. Rather than maintaining populations of native animals, foresters must ensure only some unspecified level of species “diversity.” They no longer need to keep wildlife from becoming endangered; that’s been muddied into a meaningless requirement to protect natural resources.

In fact, there are no longer actual standards at all. Previous limits on logging transform into “directives” that have less legal power. Instead of meeting specified standards, forest plans must follow “guidelines” that regional forest managers can veer from when they see fit. The public’s role is undermined by cutting the comment period to 30 days from the usual 90. Forest plans are complicated, acre-by-acre documents detailed in thousands of pages; the 30-day limit precludes well-researched challenges.

The new rules call for regular “independent audits,” but the auditors needn’t be very independent. A plan that allows unconscionable logging of old-growth forest could be audited by timber interests, if the regional forester desires.

This isn’t more efficient, effective forest planning. It’s a loosey-goosey system for avoiding any meaningful planning at all.

*

To Take Action: The public will have 60 days to comment solely on how the regulations affect the National Environmental Policy Act. Forest Service Content Analysis Team, P.O. Box 22777, Salt Lake City, Utah 84122. Or e-mail: planningce@fs.fed.us.