New Forest Protections Proposed

In a significant departure from past practices, federal officials Thursday proposed new regulations for managing the country’s national forests that would place a greater emphasis on environmental protection and scientific considerations.

The 154-page document would heavily impact California, which has 18 national forests covering substantial chunks of the state.

“Today, we are announcing more than just a change in policy,” Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman said in releasing the proposal in Washington. “This is a fundamental change in philosophy.”

In many ways the rules, which will undergo a three-month public comment period before adoption, reflect a shift that is already underway. Pressured by lawsuits, environmentalists and the Clinton administration, the U.S. Forest Service has in recent years slashed timber harvests on its vast holdings and paid more attention to wildlife needs.

In the past, “estimates of timber harvest dominated planning and management,” said Agriculture Undersecretary Jim Lyons, whereas the new management guidelines would “look at all the parts of the forest, not just wood products, but water quality, wildlife habitat and recreation uses and try to balance those resources.”

The rules also call for more public input in drawing up management plans for individual national forests, as well as greater reliance on scientific information about the wildlands.

The proposal generally drew praise from environmental groups.

“Overall, I’m impressed and pleased with the direction the regulations are taking the forest service,” said Mike Anderson, a senior resources analyst for The Wilderness Society. “It’s got a strong emphasis on maintaining and restoring the health of ecosystems of the national forests and includes some strong standards for wildlife and plant species. That’s all for the good.”

At the same time, Anderson and Barbara Boyle, regional director of the Sierra Club, expressed concern that the proposal eliminates the ability to appeal individual forest management plans.

Boyle also questioned whether the administration policies would fully trickle down to the local level. “The key question is, ‘Will the administration hold the forest supervisors accountable to moving to more forest sustainability?’ ” she said.

The proposal is more a broad policy statement than a specific blueprint, leaving its impact open to somewhat different interpretations.

Chris Nance, vice president of public affairs for the California Forestry Assn., a timber industry group, saw some hope in the proposal’s emphasis on forest health.

“For the last eight years they have not been managing our national forests but instead have just been leaving them alone,” said Nance, whose organization has been unhappy with the decline in timber cutting on federal land.

“For them to say we are interested in managing national forests according to statute, that would be a refreshing change,” Nance said.

A spokesman for Republican Rep. Wally Herger of Chico, who has favored increased timber harvests, said the congressman liked the regulations’ promotion of public involvement but wished the proposal paid more attention to the social and economic aspects of forest use.

Lyons insisted that the focus on forest ecosystems would help local economies. “It doesn’t mean you just set it all aside,” he said. “It means you just better sustain the goods and services you can produce.”