Ohio Chapter

NEWS RELEASE

Local Forest Advocates Say Revisions Threaten Wayne and Priceless Roadless Areas

Washington, D.C. -- The American Lands Alliance and local organizations including the Buckeye Forest Council and the Ohio Chapter of the Sierra Club denounced efforts today by the Bush Administration to significantly weaken management processes for National Forests. The Administration released its revisions of regulations today that guide the implementation of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA). The announcement comes on the heels of a long series of proposals that damage public lands and degrade public health and safety, including new rules that allow snowmobiles in western national parks and rollbacks of major clean air safeguards.

“The Bush Administration is clearly at war with our environment, “said Joshua Martin, Midwest Organizer for American Lands. “Recent polls show the public opposes the President’s destructive agenda by a 2 to 1 margin, and yet environmental rollbacks keep falling on us like bombs.”

The proposed changes would render forest management plans meaningless and dismantle a powerful means of ensuring that National Forests are managed appropriately. The revisions would essentially remove science and the public further from the Forest Service s decision-making process, jettison species protections, and open the door to uncontrolled logging. The Wayne National Forest in southwest Ohio is currently revising its forest plan and local advocates are concerned.

“The Bush Administration is re-writing the rules to exclude the public and promote commercial logging even though government studies have shown that continued logging provides almost no economic benefit to the people in this state,” said Brian Pasko, Conservation Chair for the Ohio Chapter of the Sierra Club. “These new rules will render forest planning meaningless and will speed up the destruction of Ohio’s only national forest, rather than protecting our forests for our families and our future.”

In 1976 the NFMA was passed with the recognition that landscape level planning and direction were needed to ensure that the cumulative effect of numerous projects across the landscape would not undermine the sustainability of National Forests. The recognition of this need for planning came out of a growing understanding of ecology and public opposition to clear cut logging on federal lands. Until now every version of the regulations governing the planning process has been based upon the best science of the time and created with the active participation of independent scientists. Unfortunately, the proposed revisions were created without independent scientists. The revisions would undermine the purpose of the NFMA by largely removing science from the development and monitoring of the management plans and by making the plans voluntary and non-binding.

Specifically, the proposed regulations would render the forest management plans meaningless by undermining environmental analysis, revoking critical species protections, eliminating science from the planning process, giving logging top priority, and restricting public participation. See attached factsheet for more details.

"Under these new regulations, big industry gets to carve up our National Forests like a holiday turkey. Industry executives are going to gobble this new policy up," said Martin.

Rendering Forest Management Plans Meaningless

Soon after the election the Bush administration is expected to issue a revision of the regulations that guide the implementation of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA). The proposed regulations render forest management plans meaningless and dismantle a powerful means of ensuring that our National Forests are managed sustainably. The revision will remove science and the public further from the Forest Service s decision making process, jettison species protections, and open the door to uncontrolled logging.

Background

In 1976 the National Forest Management Act was passed with the recognition that landscape level planning and direction were needed to ensure that the cumulative effect of numerous projects across the landscape would not undermine the sustainability of our National Forests. This recognition of this need for planning came out of a growing understanding of ecology and public opposition to clearcut logging on federal lands. Until now every version of the regulations governing the planning process has been based upon the best science of the time and was created with the active participation of independent scientists. The proposed revision of the regulations was created without independent scientists and is in direct defiance of the recommendations of the last Committee of Scientists. The revisions undermine the purpose of the NFMA by largely removing science from the development and monitoring of the management plans and by making the plans voluntary and non-binding.

EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS:

The proposed regulations render the forest management plans meaningless:

• Individual projects will not have to be consistent with the forest plan due to provisions for easy exemption from the standards set out within the plan
• Interim amendments to the plan may be issued by a regional forester without any public review and can remain in effect for four years

Forest management plans will not have to undergo analysis under NEPA:

• It is explicitly stated that forest management plans do not make an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources that may have a significant effect on the environment and thus categorical exclusions can be used to exempt the plans from any formal environmental analysis or impact statements.
• The categorical exclusion of plans means that different alternatives of the plans will not have to be offered or considered for review the provision for evaluating the merits of alternatives is the heart of NEPA
• Analysis of the environmental impact of the plan is significantly reduced

Species protection is revoked:

• Restricts the need for consideration of species viability to vertebrates and vascular plants, eliminating any protection for fungus and insects
• Bases species protection on habitat capacity, a concept that has already been rejected as an effective protection of species viability
• The large scale population dynamics of species would be ignored, possibly creating isolated and unsustainable populations
• Provisions are established that allow the sacrifice of short term viability for long term goals

Science is eliminated from the planning process: