Please note that the public comment period for the National Forest Management Act revisions closed April 7, 2003. The final version of the changes is expected in fall, 2003. Environmental groups likely will pursue legal action to prevent the rules from becoming law.

Originally posted May 15, 2003

Recently President George W. Bush and his administration have made various attempts at weakening or eliminating environmental protections for national forests— 18 of which are in California— and other forested federal lands. In August, Bush introduced the "Healthy Forests Initiative," which aims to increase logging in national forests in the name of fire protection.

Then in December, the administration proposed changes to the regulations implementing the National Forest Management Act that would reverse 20 years of protections for national forests.

Under the proposed rules, national forests such as Klamath National Forest, above, would be vulnerable to increased logging.

Forests Forever Executive Director Paul Hughes said the revisions would undermine the very purpose of the forest management act– to ensure sustainability of national forests.
“Excluding forest management plans from environmental review and public appeal strikes at the heart of our strongest protections against industry abuse of our public lands,” Hughes said. “Alternatives to logging, mining or development wouldn’t have to be considered.”

The proposed changes would make forest management plans virtually meaningless by:

• allowing individual projects– including timber harvests– to be easily exempted from forest plans.
• enabling regional foresters to issue interim amendments, lasting up to four years, without public review.
• exempting forest management plans from analysis outlined in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), virtually eliminating scientific environmental review from the project.

The revisions would weaken species protections by:

• eliminating the existing requirement to maintain native wildlife species on national forests.
• removing wildlife management standards and leaving wildlife protection largely up to the discretion of local forest managers.

Background:

The United States has 155 national forests, 18 of which are in California. The forest management act was passed in 1976 to prevent the cumulative impact of projects in national forests from compromising the forests’ sustainability. Until now, every time the act’s rules have been rewritten, the changes have been reviewed by independent scientists.

This time, the Bush Administration created the proposed revisions without the help of independent scientists. In fact, the new proposed regulations defy recommendations by the federal Committee of Scientists, which was formed specifically to review Forest Service decisions. The new rules would restrict public comment in several ways, including the elimination of postcards and form letters as a means of voicing objections to management plans.

The proposed rules come on the heels of President George W. Bush’s so-called “Healthy Forests Initiative,” which would increase logging in national forests in the name of fire protection. By allowing timber harvesting to proceed without environmental review, the proposed changes would further pave the road for logging in national forests.

WHAT YOU CAN DO:

Submit comments on the proposed rules by April 7, 2003, to:
USDA Forest Service Planning Rule
Content Analysis Team
P.O. Box 8359
Missoula, MT 59807
E-mail: planning_rule@fs.fed.us
Fax to: Planning Rule Comments at 406/329-3556.
Forests Forever recommends you include the following points in your comments:

• The revisions threaten many of America’s already-vanishing wildlife species by:
– eliminating the requirement to maintain native wildlife species on national forests, and
– leaving wildlife management to the discretion of local foresters.
• The changes would severely limit public input regarding Forest Service decisions by restricting the type of public comments considered. The bypassing of NEPA review also eliminates opportunities for public participation.
• Any revisions to the act should be subject to thorough independent scientific review– which has been U.S. policy for more than two decades.
• Wildlife and the ecological health of national forests should come first, not timber industry profits.

For information on how to comment, visit http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/