Publicly Owned Forests Are Being Subverted
 

Publicly Owned Forests Are Being Subverted
How the Bush Adminstration is Leading An Assault On National Forests
by TOM UDALL | posted 11.13.03 |


|

http://www.tidepool.org/original_con...rticleid=97378


this article is from


more Tidepool contributorsTime For Plain Speaking by Ed Hunt

Publicly Owned Forests Are Being Subverted by Tom Udall

Seattle Natural for Life-Cycle Conference by Joe Cole

Syringe Could Improve Health in Developing World by Geoff Koch

U.S.-Made Hybrids? M.I.A. by Derek Reiber

Privatizing the Ocean, the Last Great Mahele? by Jeremy Brown



_______


As the nation remains preoccupied with the war against terrorism,
President Bush has been carrying out a less visible assault on another
front: our national forests. Most of the attacks over the last year
have been below the radar -- in arcane rules, stealth riders and
misnamed legislation. In this many-fronted assault, big timber is the
winner.

Under the guise of buzz words such as forest health,
catastrophic-wildfire prevention and streamlining, the
administration's initiatives transform forest policy in ways that are
staggering in their scope as well as in their implications for
democracy.

The changes revamp laws fundamental to sound forest management,
including the National Forest Management Act, the Appeals Reform Act
and the National Environmental Policy Act. Their cumulative effect is
to undermine or eliminate open decision-making, agency accountability,
resource protection and recourse in the courts. Add to the mix a
congressional rider that allows the agency to pay for restoration work
with the logging of large trees, as well as the Healthy Forests
Restoration Act that Congress stands poised to pass, and a revolution
has occurred.

It began in December 2002, when the administration proposed a
forest-planning regulation that renders public involvement virtually
meaningless. The rule ignores scientific involvement, eliminates fish
and wildlife protection, and fails to protect roadless areas. It skews
the planning process to favor logging, mining and off-road vehicle
use. It renders plan standards more discretionary, further reducing
agency accountability. Most shocking, the final rule, due out
imminently, exempts forest plans from environmental analysis and
eliminates the opportunity for the public to appeal the final plan.

The Forest Service assured critics that it would undertake in-depth
environmental studies when specific logging projects were proposed.
Not so.

In June 2003, the administration abolished environmental review of
logging done in the name of "hazardous fuels reduction" on up to 1,000
acres of land as well as post-fire rehabilitation projects on up to
4,200 acres. One month later, the administration carved out more
loopholes for National Environmental Policy Act exemptions for
commercial logging by setting acreage limits of 70 acres for timber
sales and 250 acres for salvage sales.

These projects have few, if any, meaningful constraints. For example,
the projects must be "consistent" with local forest plans. Yet, under
the soon-to-be final planning regulations, forest plans can be amended
simply by changing the plan on an interim basis with no public notice.

Under the banner of hazardous fuels reductions, large-scale, intensive
commercial logging projects may take place virtually anywhere in our
forests, regardless of forest type or tree size. In effect, these
changes allow logging and associated road building with no
environmental analysis, no appeals and limited public involvement.

Equally sweeping are changes to the Appeals Reform Act. In 1992,
Congress gave citizens a statutory right of appeal after the Forest
Service tried to eliminate appeals on timber sales. Although billed as
part of the "Healthy Forests Initiative," changes to these regulations
significantly curtail rights to appeal a broad range of timber sales
and land management decisions -- not just those pertaining to fire
risk. These changes remove the requirement that projects stop during
an appeal -- making appeals meaningless. The changes also give the
agency broad discretion to consider only public comments it considers
"substantive." Finally, merely by having the Agriculture secretary
sign decision documents, the changes also allow the agency to evade
the appeals process entirely.

Congress is also pushing citizens out of the picture. If the Healthy
Forests Restoration Act compromise passed by the Senate becomes law,
it will reduce environmental review on logging projects not already
given a wholesale exemption, create a new appeals process likely more
narrow than even the amended one, and severely restrict opportunities
for public involvement or for courts to review the legality of logging
projects almost anywhere on our publicly owned forests, including
roadless areas and old growth. If bug and disease-control are the
purported reasons for logging, projects up to 1,000 acres will bypass
all environmental review and appeals.

With millions of dollars authorized in the act for any hazardous fuels
project on public lands, logging without laws can proceed throughout
the backcountry.

The synergistic effects of these radical rollbacks are breathtaking. I
predict that the assault will only foment more controversy and
stimulate more distrust of the Forest Service for years to come.