***********************************************

FOREST CONSERVATION NEWS TODAY

Proposal: Give Timber Priority Over Ecosystem Health in U.S. Forests

***********************************************

Forest Networking a Project of Forests.org, Inc.

  http://forests.org/ -- Forest Conservation Portal

  http://forests.org/links/ -- Forest Conservation Links

 

06/15/01

OVERVIEW & COMMENTARY by Forests.org

President Bush is poised to make good on his campaign pledge to put

America's National Forests back to work.  A new Bush administration

proposal would drop policy that gives ecological sustainability

priority over economic and social activities in the country's 192-

million-acre national forest system.  The draft rules would also

reduce the public's ability to comment on forest plans, eliminate

safeguards for wildlife and drop required environmental impact

statements for new forest plans.  The Toxic Texan continues to govern

as though ecosystems have little value.  In the Bush worldview, as

long as the economy is strong, all else will take care of itself. 

This is tantamount to a global death wish.  Without water, air, soil

and biota there can be NO economy.  No ecosystems, no economy. 

Period.

g.b.

 

*******************************

RELAYED TEXT STARTS HERE:

 

ITEM #1

Title:  Forest Service Mulls Policy Change 

Source:  Copyright 2001 Associated Press

Date:  June 14, 2001  

Byline:  KATHERINE PFLEGER, Associated Press Writer

 

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Forest Service is considering scrapping a

policy of the Clinton administration that requires giving ecological

considerations priority over logging, recreation and other uses of

the country's 155 national forests.

 

The Associated Press obtained a copy of an internal draft report

detailing possible changes in management of national forests. Agency

officials emphasized it is a draft and could face multiple revisions.

 

The goal is to write a ``plain English rule'' that can be used to

make decisions that reflect local and national viewpoints, said Sally

Collins, associate deputy chief of the 192-million-acre national

forest system.

 

``We want to make sure we have the resources going to the ground,

(rather than) spending it all on planning,'' Collins said Thursday.

``There is a huge desire to make sure we make the right decisions.''

 

Conservation groups say they're worried.

 

``This is taking the Forest Service back more than 20 years to time

when timber was king of the national forests,'' said Mike Anderson,

senior research analyst with the Wilderness Society.

 

The draft, dated Monday, gives environmentalists another reason to

criticize President Bush, who already is under fire for an energy

plan that includes expanded oil and gas drilling on public land and

breaks a campaign pledge to regulate carbon dioxide emissions.

 

The Forest Service is working on revisions to what many

conservationists consider the key element of President Clinton's

environmental legacy: the ``roadless rule'' that bans road

construction and most logging and mining on a third of all national

forestland. The agency hopes to have the revisions completed by the

end of the month.

 

The Clinton policy on forest management, issued in November, allowed

restrictions on logging, skiing, hiking and other activities if

managers believed the ecosystem could be permanently harmed. The

order ended a previous requirement that managers give equal weight to

ecosystem health and other activities.

 

The draft eliminates the priority given to ecosystem health. It also

removes specific requirements for scientific review when officials

make decisions about how to manage national forests, instead offering

broad guidelines for managers to follow.

 

Environmentalists are particularly worried about what they see as an

attempt to dramatically reduce public comment periods and undermine

the Endangered Species Act. The draft says management plans ``are not

subject'' to consultation from the agencies that protect endangered

species.

 

Collins said the agency has no intention of limiting public comment

but wants to provide a forest planning process that can be

efficiently implemented by managers. She said the agency remains

committed to the ecological health of national forests and to

protecting endangered species.

 

She also said decisions on how to manage forests still will be based

on science, although exactly how local officials seek that input

might not be prescribed by the rules.

 

The timber industry is hopeful the final version of the rules will

return the federal forests to a system that allows multiple uses.

 

``Clearly the Clinton administration had an agenda that they wanted

to radically change the direction of the Forest Service,'' said Chris

West, vice president of the American Forest Resource Council.

 

Not all conservation organizations approved of the way the Clinton

administration revised the management rules. The Western

Environmental Law Center, on behalf of a dozen conservation groups,

filed a federal lawsuit in February saying the rules gave the Forest

Service too much authority.

 

The draft proposal is being circulated for comment within the Forest

Service. The agency hopes to have a final proposal and begin taking

public comment in August.

 

 

ITEM #2

Title:  Conservation groups wary of forest-policy plan

Source:  Copyright 2001 Denver Post

Date:  June 15, 2001  

Byline:  Bill McAllister, Denver Post Washington Bureau Chief

 

Friday, June 15, 2001 - WASHINGTON - The Bush administration may drop

a Clinton administration policy that would have given ecological

considerations priority over economic and social activities in the

country's 155 national forests.

 

Conservation groups criticized the idea, contained in proposed

planning regulations for national forests circulated this week among

Forest Service officials.

 

The draft rules would reduce the public's ability to comment on

forest plans, eliminate safeguards for wildlife and drop the current

requirement for environmental impact statements for new forest plans,

environmentalists said.

 

U.S. Forest Service spokeswoman Heidi Valetkevitch denied

conservationists' claims that policies have already been changed.

 

"It's very, very preliminary at this stage," she said.

 

She did acknowledge that one major change is possible. Forest Service

Chief Dale Bosworth had signaled previously that he favors a change

to one key standard that had been proposed by the Clinton

administration, Valetkevitch said.

 

Bosworth has proposed elevating social and economic sustainability to

the same level as ecological sustainability in future forest plans.

In November, the Clinton administration issued a draft rule that

emphasized ecological sustainability, a rule that conservationists

applauded for giving top priority to forests' flora and fauna.

 

Conservationists fear that the new rules will allow foresters to give

higher priority to economic issues, such as maintaining logging

towns' economies or opening the forests to more recreational uses.

 

Bosworth wants to give the agency "a common-sense rule" that will

allow foresters to spend more time "managing resources" and less time

on planning, Valetkevitch said.

 

"The proposal effectively throws out two decades of environmental

protections for America's national forests," said Jane Danowitz,

director of the Heritage Forests Campaign. "Once again, the Bush

administration has given its friends in the timber industry the final

answer in determining the fate our national forests."

 

Michael Francis, a Wilderness Society spokesman, said he feared that

the new rules would return forest policy "to the 1960s, where a

little cadre of timber company officials and road planners took

charge of forest policy. The public was just left out of the

process."

 

Josh Penry, a spokesman for Rep. Scott McInnis, R-Colo., chairman of

the House Forests Subcommittee, said Forest Service officials had

warned lawmakers that they were likely to hear complaints about the

draft.

 

###RELAYED TEXT ENDS### 

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is

distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior

interest in receiving forest conservation informational materials for

educational, personal and non-commercial use only.  Recipients should

seek permission from the source to reprint this PHOTOCOPY.  All

efforts are made to provide accurate, timely pieces, though ultimate

responsibility for verifying all information rests with the reader. 

For additional forest conservation news & information please see the

Forest Conservation Portal at URL= http://forests.org/ 

Networked by Forests.org, Inc., gbarry@forests.org