Next Monday marks the final day for public comment on a proposed new Bush Administration rule that will restrict public input and environmental review of forest management plans under the National Forest Management Act (NFMA). It will also rescind wildlife protections that were established decades ago under President Reagan.
Under the Bush Administration's proposed forest plan rules, it would no longer be necessary to complete an environmental impact statement, a basic requirement of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
This is not the first move by the Bush Administration to reduce the role of NEPA in forest policy. Its "Healthy Forest Initiative" eliminated nearly all environmental reviews for logging in the public's forests. [1]
Environmental impact statements ensure that forest decisions are based on the best available science. By removing this step, an important tool for forest managers to evaluate plans for potential harm to water, wildlife, old-growth and roadless areas is eliminated.
Wildlife viability requirements will also be negated, meaning that viable levels of native fish and wildlife populations will no longer need to be maintained. The Forest Service will also be relieved of duties to monitor wildlife populations. Instead, forest plans need only a "framework to provide the characteristics of ecosystem diversity in the plan area." [2] Disclosure, and even studying, cumulative impacts of management activities across the national forests will be unnecessary under the new regulations.
The proposed changes also ignore the role of science in the decision-making process. Under the new rules, agency officials are actually given the discretion to ignore scientific evidence and recommendations. [3]
Environmentalists point out that lack of reliable public information regarding environmental consequences of forest plans -- combined with increased discretionary power over the level of scientific involvement in forest planning -- will mean an open door for corporate incursions into timber, mining and oil resources in our nation's forests.
"This is yet another example of the Bush administration putting industry profits ahead of the interests of Americans," Randi Spivak, executive director of the American Lands Alliance, told BushGreenwatch. "The new rules reject science and demonstrate blatant disregard for public input. Americans care deeply about the places where they hike, fish and relax, and want to protect these places for future generations. With Bush¹s allegiance to the timber, oil and gas industries, what is now a forest heritage could soon be history."
