Threat to National Forests?

“Administration Overhauls Rules for U.S. Forests
By FELICITY BARRINGER

Published: December 23, 2004
WASHINGTON, Dec. 22 - The Bush administration issued broad new rules Wednesday overhauling the guidelines for managing the nation's 155 national forests and making it easier for regional forest managers to decide whether to allow logging, drilling or off-road vehicles.
The long-awaited rules relax longstanding provisions on environmental reviews and the protection of wildlife on 191 million acres of national forest and grasslands. They also cut back on requirements for public participation in forest planning decisions.
Forest Service officials said the rules were intended to give local foresters more flexibility to respond to scientific advances and threats like intensifying wildfires and invasive species. They say the regulations will also speed up decisions, ending what some public and private foresters see as a legal and regulatory gridlock that has delayed forest plans for years because of litigation and requirements for time-consuming studies.
"You're trying to manage towards how we want the forest to look and be in the future," said Rick D. Cables, the Forest Service's regional forester for the Rocky Mountain region.
The rules give the nation's regional forest managers and the Forest Service increased autonomy to decide whether to allow logging roads or cellphone towers, mining activity or new ski areas.
Environmental groups said the new rules pared down protection for native animals and plants to the point of irrelevance. These protections were a hallmark of the 1976 National Forest Management Act.
"The new planning regulations offer little in the way of planning and nothing in the way of regulation," the conservation group Trout Unlimited said in a statement.
Martin Hayden, a lawyer with Earthjustice, a law firm affiliated with the Sierra Club, accused the administration of watering down protections "that are about fish and wildlife, that are about public participation, or about forcing the agency to do anything other than what the agency wants to do."
"What you are left with is things that are geared toward getting the sticks out," Ms. Hayden said.
The original 1976 law on forest management was intended to ensure that regional managers showed environmental sensitivity in decisions on how the national forests would be used. During the 1990's, the Clinton administration sought major revisions in the rules governing how the act was carried out. But the Clinton-era regulation was not completed in time to take effect before President Bush assumed office.
The new rules incorporate an approach that has gained favor in private industries from electronics to medical device manufacturing. The practice, used by companies like Apple Computer, allows businesses to set their own environmental goals and practices and then subjects them to an outside audit that judges their success.
These procedures are called environmental management systems. When the Forest Service started investigating these systems, said Fred Norbury, a deputy associate chief at the Forest Service, "what we discovered to our surprise is that the U.S. is a little behind the rest of the world and we in government are a little behind the curve."
In the case of the Forest Service, the supervisors of the individual forests and grasslands will shape forest management plans, and the effects of those will be subject to independent audits.
The auditors the Forest Service chooses could range from other Forest Service employees to outsiders, said Sally Collins, an associate chief at the Forest Service. She said the auditors could come from an environmental group or an industry group like timber "or a ski area, local citizens or a private contractor."
Forest supervisors are appointed by the Forest Service to manage national forests and report to regional managers. Some are more supportive of pro-timber policies, while others are more steeped in the environmental ethos.
One of the ways the new rules give forest supervisors more power is that they are allowed to approve plans more quickly for any particular forest use - ranging from recreation to logging to grazing - and to adjust plans with less oversight.
For instance, an existing requirement to keep all fish and wildlife species from becoming threatened or endangered is jettisoned. In its place is a requirement that managers consider the best available science to protect all natural resources when they are making decisions.
Michael D. Ferrucci, a partner in the Connecticut consulting firm Interforest and a former forest manager who now performs audits for private industry and state governments, said Wednesday: "I personally think the flexibility implied in this approach is terrific. It will help to unlock the power and creativity of a lot of good people."
He added: "Most environmentalists and most scientists who follow forestry understand that more flexibility is needed. But there is a risk of making some of the mistakes we made 20 and 25 years ago. The mistake we made was to be a little too narrowly focused on the timber side." In the 1980's, extensive logging took place in places like the Tongass National Forest in Alaska and Oregon's old growth forests.
But Chris Wood, the vice president for conservation at Trout Unlimited, warned that the new approach would require a heavy financial commitment to ensure enough people could monitor the impact of regulations and alert managers to problems.
Amy Mall, a forestry specialist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, said in a statement: "The rule is illegal. It rips the guts out of National Forest management plans. It doesn't ensure that the Forest Service provides the necessary resources to implement plans."
The final rule requires forest managers to comply with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, the cornerstone of the current environmental regulations on government and industry.
But an accompanying proposal - which is open to public comment for 60 days - gives managers new discretion on what kind of environmental review constitutes compliance.
Mr. Norbury of the Forest Service said that under this proposal, the forest supervisor would be making the call as to whether a particular plan must undergo a full environmental impact statement, a more modest review or no formal review.
In Congress, where partisan divisions over environmental protections have grown more acute in recent years, the new rules were greeted with enthusiasm by Republican leaders and anger by Democrats.
Representative Richard W. Pombo, the chairman of the Republican-controlled House Resources Committee, hailed the change, saying that currently "the process is so burdensome and time consuming that the plans are obsolete before they are finished."
But Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Agriculture Committee, said, "The Bush administration's new plan threatens to derail decades of progress in that direction by backing away from longstanding, bipartisan commitments to nontimber resources like wildlife, public involvement and scientific review."
For instance, an existing requirement to keep all fish and wildlife species from becoming threatened or endangered is jettisoned. In its place is a requirement that managers consider the best available science to protect all natural resources when they are making decisions.
Michael D. Ferrucci, a partner in the Connecticut consulting firm Interforest and a former forest manager who now performs audits for private industry and state governments, said Wednesday: "I personally think the flexibility implied in this approach is terrific. It will help to unlock the power and creativity of a lot of good people."
He added: "Most environmentalists and most scientists who follow forestry understand that more flexibility is needed. But there is a risk of making some of the mistakes we made 20 and 25 years ago. The mistake we made was to be a little too narrowly focused on the timber side." In the 1980's, extensive logging took place in places like the Tongass National Forest in Alaska and Oregon's old growth forests.
But Chris Wood, the vice president for conservation at Trout Unlimited, warned that the new approach would require a heavy financial commitment to ensure enough people could monitor the impact of regulations and alert managers to problems.
Amy Mall, a forestry specialist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, said in a statement: "The rule is illegal. It rips the guts out of National Forest management plans. It doesn't ensure that the Forest Service provides the necessary resources to implement plans."
The final rule requires forest managers to comply with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, the cornerstone of the current environmental regulations on government and industry.
But an accompanying proposal - which is open to public comment for 60 days - gives managers new discretion on what kind of environmental review constitutes compliance.
Mr. Norbury of the Forest Service said that under this proposal, the forest supervisor would be making the call as to whether a particular plan must undergo a full environmental impact statement, a more modest review or no formal review.
In Congress, where partisan divisions over environmental protections have grown more acute in recent years, the new rules were greeted with enthusiasm by Republican leaders and anger by Democrats.
Representative Richard W. Pombo, the chairman of the Republican-controlled House Resources Committee, hailed the change, saying that currently "the process is so burdensome and time consuming that the plans are obsolete before they are finished."
But Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Agriculture Committee, said, "The Bush administration's new plan threatens to derail decades of progress in that direction by backing away from longstanding, bipartisan commitments to nontimber resources like wildlife, public involvement and scientific review."”

“It doesn't matter!

Bush is gonna get us all killed anyway.”

“See to me this seems to be a method for shifting the blame away from the Administration to local managers when species go extinct, or people start complaining.”

“Finally. Now we can get rid of all those damned trees.”

“Well there'll be more places to pitch a tent. Hammock users could have issues though.”

“LOL @ Bison!”

“Well, they're always blocking the good views. They better take out the stumps and roots too, I hate having to pitch my tent on exposed roots.”

“It's all part of the No Tree Left Behind Act. Trees cause forest fires and tree diseases. With the trees gone, those issues are solved.

And all those endangered species will become extinct, so another upside is that the list of endangered species will get shorter for the first time in history.”

“What would happen if we just level every forest and kill every animal in North America. I am tired of hearing the 2 sides #&%!$ and complain about how we need to cut every tree down or how a deer or bear hunt is bad.

Get rid of everything so we won't have to deal with it anymore.

and while we are at that, we can level Mt. Rushmore and start over. I see Regan, Bush, and Bush Jr. and a big sign above them saying , "Paid by Hallerburton."”

“The new rules allow for better Forest management, takes advantage of new tehnologies in protecting our environment, and provides for more flexibility. None of the "sky is falling" prognostication will ever come true. The election is over, and the People won.”

“Do you buy everything Bush tells you Prosecutor? ;o) What do you disagree with this administration on? Or is it just too liberal for you overall? ;o)”

“I really don't have a problem with Bush. I have a job, gas prices are coming down, life is good.

I was serious about destoying our forests.”

“Can we make sure they get rid of the dwarf spruce too? That stuff is a pain in the ass to go through.”

“That would be the first I get rid of.”

“Good. Next should be all that alpine vegetation, because I hate having to avoid stepping on it.”

“Well do. You hunt Zac, right. We can give you an M-16 with enough rounds to kill off any animal you see.”

“Cool. But can you make it a 50 cal machine gun? That way I can cut down some trees with it as well.”

“You mean you can't blame Bush for being unemployed WK? Shhhh.... don't tell Violin.

BTW - The forests ain't going nowhere, libs love to howl about death and destruction with dire predictions that never come true...



Shhhhh.... conservatives do that too.”

“Why is it so difficult for lefists to understand that big government actually can get in the way of sound environmental policy? What's so wrong about having more LOCAL voice... and for anyone who has followed the dabacle regarding the Sierra Management plan, it's been years & years of no action due to all the political in-fighting & special interest manipulation. The end result has been an ineffective management plan which has served NO ONE well exccept the lawyers and the people who make a living by complaining and whining for the radical environmentalist groups.

How about you guys actually READ the proposal and then comment with some basis in fact, not just your tired, old, "well Bush is gonna get us all killed anyway" crap?

Something else to consider. If you truly consider yourself an environmentalist and truly care about the issue, then you would be better served by learning to work together with those with whom you don't agree 100% to reach a middle ground & compromise a little. The radicals who won't consider any other position / approach other than their own are the very reason we have made no progress in this area. They are to blame for many of the ills we are faced with by their hard-core positions which leave no room for any position other than their own. Take a look in the mirror sometimes, it just may be that YOU are more a part of the problem than a part of the solution!

How does THAT make you feel?”

“Y2, it just came to me. Bison is prosecutor's son. two of a kind they are.”

“Local voice???? Would that mean the voices of the trout fishermen, hunters, birders, backpackers, etc and the timber companies.....or just the timber companies?”

“Anyone who is organized. That potentialy includes anyone on your list. We all have two choices... (1) get involved or, (2) whine & complain that "someone else" isn't looking out for your interests.”

“This land is your land, but it's really MY land
From California, to the New York Island
From the redwood forest, to the gulf stream waters
This land was made for only ME!

I am George Bush and I approve of this nonpartisan message.
last edited: 12/23/04 11:50:13 AM”

“Waderer. As in some cases the middle ground doesn't exist. Sometimes a middleground has to be found, in others there's no justification for compromising the environment for the sake of the profits for a few shareholders. This administration sacrifices the environment to benefit business at every turn, then sticks some lipstick on the pig and shoves it out for the public claiming it will work better.”

“Hmmm... That sounds more like the Sierra Club than the President.”

“Why is it so difficult for whining conservatives to understand that local control of an asset that is owned by the nation collectively is an invitation for corruption and theft?

Take a look in the miiror sometime, you just might be a dipwad.”

“Violin, thanks for showing your colors with your usual stooping to name-calling with anyone who has an opinion other than yours.

Seriously, what in the he!! is wrong with you?”

“To quote y2: "As in some cases the middle ground doesn't exist. Sometimes a middleground has to be found, in others there's no justification for compromising the environment for the sake of the profits for a few shareholders"

There is almost always some room for compromise & to find a middle ground. The problem I am citing is that BECAUSE too many are so intractable in their position, NOTHING gets accomplished, so we end up with NO workable program year after year. My point is, if one trult did care about devising a solution they would learn to work WITH people of opposing views.

If you want to continue to have no respect for any opinion other than your own, then the status-quo will continue and we will have no workable plan. In that case, everyone suffers.”

“Incidentally, just in case anyone feels so strongly that they want to get involved (a god thing!), here's how you do it:

"The Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, is requesting comment on a proposed revision to its procedures for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations. This proposed revision is being made to Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Chapter 30, which describes categorical exclusions, that is, categories of actions that will not result in significant impacts on the human environment and which are therefore exempt from requirements to prepare further NEPA documentation absent extraordinary circumstances. The proposal would add one such category of actions to the agency’s NEPA procedures for final decisions on proposals to develop, amend, or revise land managment plans that are comprised of five components which are desired conditions, objectives, guidelines, suitability of areas, and special areas for a forest.

Send written comments by mail to: Content Analysis Team, ATTN: Planning CE, USDA Forest Service, P.O. Box 22777, Salt Lake City, UT 84122; by facsimile to 801-517-1015; or by e-mail at planningce@fs.fed.us. Please note that the Forest Service will not be able to receive hand-delivered comments. Comments may also be submitted via the World Wide Web/Internet website http://www.regulations.gov. Please note that all comments, including names and addresses when provided, will be placed in the record and will be available for public inspection and copying. The agency cannot confirm receipt of comments. Individuals wishing to inspect comments should call Jody Sutton at (801) 517-1023 to schedule an appointment."

http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/index2.html is the website for more info.

Of course, you could just sit back & whine on TT about how unfair the world is & how conservatives are all "dipwads".... your choice.”

“Ok, you have a pristine enviroment with gas under it. You allow drilling and the construction of rigs, but you make the company promise to clean up is a mess is made. That's not really a compromise or a middle gound, it's allowing gas companies to drill on a previously untouched environment, usually for a minimal aound of gas.
The drilling company gets its way with only a few caveats, the pristine site now has a drilling rig on it. Where's the compromise here”

“Wanderer, in some instances a good tradoff can be made, in others a stand needs to be made and someone needs to say no. I don't really think in the past four years there has been any "compromise" that's been good for the environment. The compromises have always involved giving more to the oil, logging, energy and other business interests.”

“The energy and logging companies aren't the only ones who have an interest, everyone who buys their products does too. There's no more powerful vote than the one you make with your wallet. If you want to not have logging I suggest you don't buy anything that involves wood. If you don't want oil extraction I suggest you not use any energy, or buy anything that is made with oil products. So no plastic or wood for you. Lets see how long you get buy with that.”

“Y2, is this a specific, real situation or a hypothetical?

Assuming it's hypothetical, let's discuss the following. Please note that I am not necessarily agreeing with any one "side", just looking at it from different perspectives, I would need to know some details before casting my vote one way or another. Having said that:

1. "Construction of rigs" does not necessarily mean a huge, ugly eyesore. There are technologies available today that make these unnecessary. Perhaps that is one are for "discussion" where some compromise might be acceptable.. as in "OK you can drill, but the "rig" mus be approved as environmentally acceptable.

2. You seem to be "assuming" a "mess will be made". Actually, extracting gas (as opposed to oil) presets very little opportunity for a "spill" or eco-disaster.

3. Perhaps they should be allowed to drill in return for spendin XXX amount on sustaining the environment in the area? Thus, you actually have a revenue source coming in dedicated to preserving / protecting the environment that you didn't have before?

4. The drillin company employs... how many people?? Generates How Much $$ to the local economy?

5. Part of the agreement could be that the Drilling Comnpany must leave the site as theyr found it... or beter... as in "leave no trace" ethics whenever you or I venture into the wilderness.

There are feasibly LOTS of benefits, and if all parties actually agreed to work togerther, t's just possible this could be a traditional "win/win" scenario.

But, one must have an open mind and be wiling to talk rationallly in order for that outcome to occur.”

“Yay, I'm going to buy a dirt bike and do wheelies on the AT from Maine to Georgia! Wooo hooo!
last edited: 12/23/04 12:35:51 PM”

“The lands of the state, now owned or hereafter acquired,
constituting the forest preserve as now fixed by law, shall be forever
kept as wild forest lands. They shall not be leased, sold or
exchanged, or be taken by any corporation, public or private, nor
shall the timber thereon be sold, removed or destroyed.
Article XIV, section 1, New York State Constitution.”

“The lands of the state, now owned or hereafter acquired, constituting the forest preserve as now fixed by law, shall be forever kept as wheelie land. They shall be wheelied with dirtbikes or changed to mass parking lots for these purposes, or be taken by any biker, public or private who is doing wheelies.
Article IV, section 160,000, New York wheelie Constitution.
last edited: 12/23/04 12:49:52 PM”

“Under Bush, the air has gotten cleaner, and the National Forests are being logged at about only half the long term traditional rate. Bush could have easily scapped the Clinton Roadless Rules that were shoddily imposed during the last few days of his administration. But instead of scapping those rules that were being thrown out by federal judges, Bush found a way to largely keep them intact and improve upon the mistakes Clinton made in his haste to enact the rules.”

“Dammit prosecutor stop tellin' the truth, it will only make the libs angrier.”

“Bison - I think we disagree in a fundamental in life. For me, not everything comes down to profit and how much money I have in my Wallet. Let prices rise for a while, people will soon start conserving energy or finding cheaper alternative sources. I don't mind paying a little more for goods and services that are produced in a viable sustainable way. This does not mean not using energy or wood, but trying to use it wisely. One thing i noticed about America is that some of the easiest ways to conserve energy are not applied here. How many times do you see one person in a huge car or SUV getting about 10mpg if you're lucky. How many people have proper insulation in their homes, double glazed windows, (I'm not talking storm windows?) Heating and cooling homes is one of the most energy intensive uses for electricity and gas, people could consume far far less. Americans constitute 5% of the worlds population yet consume about a quarter of it's energy. I'm not suggesting people stop using these things, but maybe people can make more rational choices.
You seem to be putting out scare tactics that you accuse liberals of using, but you try to frighten people that it will cost them jobs and wages. The sky won't fall in if we don't drill in ANWR. Lets see some of these compromises that you talk of from you as well as from the environment.

Wander
1) Lets see one of these then
2) The mess is not always made directly by the rig, but there are roads that go with them, people go out to these areas to run them. Gas drilling is not as risk-free as you suggest. Better than oil though, certainly.
3) This is often one of the compromises that can be reached, drill at site a and pay to imrpove site b. This can work if the plan if carried out, it often isn't. Administration is cutting down on the enforcement of these agreements.
4) Struggling local economies can get more and longer lasting cash from promoting tourism than the short-term fix of drilling. There needs to be greater diversification in the area rather than relying on a single drilling energy company.
5) This now needs to be part of every agreement.

Sometimes there's a win win situation, the way things are being changed by the Bush administration means a win for business and a lose for the enviroment, forests, national parks and endangered species.”

“Prosecutor. Air has gotten cleaner under Bush - debateable, but if you take this to be true this is largely a result of pre-Bush legislation. Bush administration is loosening emissions regulations at every possible stage.

Roadless rule is still on the table for scrapping, or amending in such a way to make it irrelevant.

Logging has gone down because of glut of timber on world market. Prices are also low. Bush has sought to restict import of Canadian timber in protectionist move.
last edited: 12/23/04 1:09:21 PM”

“listen up everyone, the father and son team just spoke”

“Actually I think you're exactly right Y2 and not only should we educate people on how to conserve but we should make sure that we only elect leaders who live that ethic -

For instance, this guy.”

“1) Lets see one of these then
Haven't you seen any of these pic's? Sometimes you can't even tell it's a rig! Go here http://alaska.bp.com/alaska/environment/env_statement.asp and download a copy of the Environmental statement. It's 46 pages long so I don't want to paste it all here, but you'll see the positive that can happen.

2) The mess is not always made directly by the rig, but there are roads that go with them, people go out to these areas to run them. Gas drilling is not as risk-free as you suggest. Better than oil though, certainly.
A lot of this is covered in the above document. A lot of technologies are available for "remote extraction" methods that don't necessitate road-building. In some situations, the local citizenry WANTED a road to better accommodate tourism!


3) This is often one of the compromises that can be reached, drill at site a and pay to imrpove site b. This can work if the plan if carried out, it often isn't. Administration is cutting down on the enforcement of these agreements.
If the plan isn't caried out then there are legal remedies available. Either you agreed to do something, or you didn't. This isn't realy a legit rebuttal in that regard. The "Administration" can't / shouldn't be responsible for all enforcement nationwide, that's why we have LOCAL agencies. You, as a citizen, have tremendous power as a whistle-blower, just do your job if you see something that needs the attention of law-enforcement.

4) Struggling local economies can get more and longer lasting cash from promoting tourism than the short-term fix of drilling. There needs to be greater diversification in the area rather than relying on a single drilling energy company.
Actually this isn't always true. You're making assumptions that tourism creates a better economy for the locals. In some cases yes, in some cases no. An economy that depends upon tourism is unstable, it is impacted by downturns in the stockmarket, etc., which impacts peoples $$ available for tourism.

5) This now needs to be part of every agreement.
That's why I'm advocating working together to achieve mutual goals, not at odds with each other.”

“But Wanderer - I see what you're saying, but in my view "a compromise" is not what happens in reality, certainly not in the past four years. The environment is compromised and the business are being freed to act in these areas with fewer and fewer checks on thier activities. The compromises being reached there days are not real compromises, more sell outs to profit.
last edited: 12/23/04 1:42:40 PM”

“I knew this was all Clinton's fault.”

“You're right Y2. And the reason "compromises" aren't reached is that people from BOTH sides of an issue approach the table with intractable positions. The refuse to listen to different perspectives or diferent solutions to a "problem", and the end result is that no agreement is reached.

So... who suffers? In this case, the environment suffers. What we need to do, as a society, is learn to discuss / debate the merits of different proposals.

Reminds me of what many think is "political debate", ala Hannity & Colmes, etc. That is not real debate, those are disgusting programs that do nothing to illuminate / educate / inform, the "winner" is deemed to be whoever shouts the loudest. A lot of people are now adopting that infantile mentality and bring it to the negotiation table, and, surprisingly, no agreemnets are reached!

OK, I'm geting off my soapbox now & going shopping, I actually have enjoyed our exchange, thanks.”

“All of this just sounds too intelligent.”

“I collect newspapers!!!!!!!! OLD ONES!!!!!!!!! I have them from 1887 to date from NEW YORK TIMES TO LA, and I have thousands from Inner US communities. When I read everything happening yesterday,I hear the same happening again today. Kinda like history repeating itself.... Don't get me wrong!! I believe in TREES, and anything else that goes along with NATURE!!!! Reading the oldies I realize problems have been here for at least 100 years, according to my news papers, just different areas of the US and different politics, different people but the same #&%!$!!!!!!! All politicians upper gov, have a silver spoon or gold one. If you don't think so !!!! Let them come hike with me. Without there shadows to protect them. I am a much older Backpacker and a proud Veteran and love this country, Brought up from a blue collar family and built my LOG HOME myself with my own money, not my DAD or mom, OPPS sorry!! My wife had as much too do with our prosperity as I Did. Our politicians have it made, GOOD INSURANCE, THE BEST PENSION, AND GOOD AT ENGLISH LANGUAGE because of there STAFF support!!!!!!! as far as wealth!!!!!!!! HELL I don't know any politician who is DOWN AND OUT!!!!, Maybe because they don't have too worry about Insurance or retirement like the MIDDLE CLASS. OUR GOVERNMENT is so diversified because we are such a diverse NATION. WE OUTDOOR, HIKERS, BACKPACKERS, NATURE LOVERS, will never win completely because our GOV has been CULTURED into a melting pot of ALL, or everyone. Our society will Fall eventually. I hate to admitt that !!!!!!!! Study other great Nations or Impires! Nothing stays the same!!!!!!!! All who own property and actually own it!!!!!!! stop paying taxes on it!!!!!! The GOV will take it.. WHY do they get away with this. Hell IF you bought it with your own money that has been already TAXED, Why do you continue too pay taxes on your INVESTMENT!!!! Maybe for ther INSURANCE!!! THERE SALARIES, THERE PROSPERITY!!!!!!! Actually We all who OWN anything really do not own it,,,,,, If you don't believe me ,, stop paying TAXES.”

“Wow, no comeback for that!”