BigHornRam
Well-known member
Firestorm of controversy follows Forest Service rule change
By PERRY BACKUS of the Missoulian
Northern Region Forester Gail Kimbell has a pair of visual aids in her presentation about the U.S. Forest Service's new planning process.
Resting on her desk is a copy of the Kootenai National Forest's 1987 land use plan - three large green binders containing the forest plan and its accompanying environmental impact statement. The total package is maybe a foot and a half tall.
In Kimbell's hand is a copy of a forest plan revised under the new rules. It's maybe half an inch thick.
The Forest Service is in the midst of fundamental change in the way it develops its long range land management plans.
“We're pretty excited about this new process,” Kimbell said. “We think that it better reflects what the public wants from its national forests.”
In December, the agency completed an environmental review of the 2005 planning rule and concluded that new forest plans no longer need detailed environmental impact statements. The proposal to list the land use plans as a “categorical exclusion” was then published in the Federal Register.
And the firestorm was ignited.
Among those unhappy with the proposed change are key Democrats who will control the next Congress. Rep. Nick J. Rahall II, a West Virginia Democrat and incoming chairman of the House Resources Committee, has been a vocal critic of the agency's move.
“Changes in fundamental forest policy should be made with the cautious precision of a whittling knife,” Rahall said. “Instead, the Forest Service is slashing forest laws with a high-powered chainsaw.”
The environmental group Earthjustice filed a lawsuit challenging the new rule. Conservation groups say the provision strips forest plans of their authority and cuts back on meaningful public participation.
But Ellen Engstedt of the Montana Wood Products Association said the new rule is a “common sense approach” to planning that allows the agency to focus its efforts on actual, on-the-ground projects.
“Until a project is actually proposed, why should it have to go through a lengthy review process?” Engstedt said. “That seems kind of nonsensical to me.”
Categorical exclusion is a provision under the National Environmental Policy Act which allows the Forest Service to forgo lengthy environmental documentation for actions that do not result in “significant impacts to the environment.”
“A categorical exclusion doesn't excuse or exempt us from going through all the analysis required by law,” Kimbell said.
The agency contends that since forest management plans developed under the new rules don't propose specific projects, there is no impact to the environment. The Forest Service will continue to do environmental studies on specific projects, like major timber sales or updates to travel management.
The decision to change the direction of forest planning is a result of lessons learned from the first round of planning that began back in the 1980s, Kimbell said.
Updating forest plans under the old process could take five to 10 years and cost millions of dollars. Worse yet, by the time the plan was published, changes in the landscape or advances in science often rendered it outdated, Kimbell said.
“We learned that you can go through this long analysis completed by a variety of experts and it can be obsolete on the day it's completed,” she said. “The Forest Service decided there had to be a more meaningful way to involve the public to develop strategies for managing the national forests. We wanted to be able to build a plan that was more adaptable to changing conditions on the ground level.”
The old planning process attempted to quantify all the different possibilities that might occur over a 15-year period and then put each one through a comprehensive analysis. The result was a cumbersome document with divergent alternatives.
“We found over the last 30 years that planning wasn't occurring in a very collaborative way,” Kimbell said. “People would choose sides and then battle over which alternative they liked the best.”
Under the new planning process, the public is involved from the beginning of the development of a single strategic plan, she said.
“The new planning process requires us to work with the public right from the very beginning,” Kimbell said. “On the Lolo, Bitterroot and Flathead national forests, this process has been going on for years and the public has been involved every step of the way.”
Kimbell says the notion that the public is somehow cheated out of its opportunity to be involved is a “red herring.”
“The public has the opportunity to be involved to help shape the document,” she said. “They have the opportunity to influence the final package.”
By PERRY BACKUS of the Missoulian
Northern Region Forester Gail Kimbell has a pair of visual aids in her presentation about the U.S. Forest Service's new planning process.
Resting on her desk is a copy of the Kootenai National Forest's 1987 land use plan - three large green binders containing the forest plan and its accompanying environmental impact statement. The total package is maybe a foot and a half tall.
In Kimbell's hand is a copy of a forest plan revised under the new rules. It's maybe half an inch thick.
The Forest Service is in the midst of fundamental change in the way it develops its long range land management plans.
“We're pretty excited about this new process,” Kimbell said. “We think that it better reflects what the public wants from its national forests.”
In December, the agency completed an environmental review of the 2005 planning rule and concluded that new forest plans no longer need detailed environmental impact statements. The proposal to list the land use plans as a “categorical exclusion” was then published in the Federal Register.
And the firestorm was ignited.
Among those unhappy with the proposed change are key Democrats who will control the next Congress. Rep. Nick J. Rahall II, a West Virginia Democrat and incoming chairman of the House Resources Committee, has been a vocal critic of the agency's move.
“Changes in fundamental forest policy should be made with the cautious precision of a whittling knife,” Rahall said. “Instead, the Forest Service is slashing forest laws with a high-powered chainsaw.”
The environmental group Earthjustice filed a lawsuit challenging the new rule. Conservation groups say the provision strips forest plans of their authority and cuts back on meaningful public participation.
But Ellen Engstedt of the Montana Wood Products Association said the new rule is a “common sense approach” to planning that allows the agency to focus its efforts on actual, on-the-ground projects.
“Until a project is actually proposed, why should it have to go through a lengthy review process?” Engstedt said. “That seems kind of nonsensical to me.”
Categorical exclusion is a provision under the National Environmental Policy Act which allows the Forest Service to forgo lengthy environmental documentation for actions that do not result in “significant impacts to the environment.”
“A categorical exclusion doesn't excuse or exempt us from going through all the analysis required by law,” Kimbell said.
The agency contends that since forest management plans developed under the new rules don't propose specific projects, there is no impact to the environment. The Forest Service will continue to do environmental studies on specific projects, like major timber sales or updates to travel management.
The decision to change the direction of forest planning is a result of lessons learned from the first round of planning that began back in the 1980s, Kimbell said.
Updating forest plans under the old process could take five to 10 years and cost millions of dollars. Worse yet, by the time the plan was published, changes in the landscape or advances in science often rendered it outdated, Kimbell said.
“We learned that you can go through this long analysis completed by a variety of experts and it can be obsolete on the day it's completed,” she said. “The Forest Service decided there had to be a more meaningful way to involve the public to develop strategies for managing the national forests. We wanted to be able to build a plan that was more adaptable to changing conditions on the ground level.”
The old planning process attempted to quantify all the different possibilities that might occur over a 15-year period and then put each one through a comprehensive analysis. The result was a cumbersome document with divergent alternatives.
“We found over the last 30 years that planning wasn't occurring in a very collaborative way,” Kimbell said. “People would choose sides and then battle over which alternative they liked the best.”
Under the new planning process, the public is involved from the beginning of the development of a single strategic plan, she said.
“The new planning process requires us to work with the public right from the very beginning,” Kimbell said. “On the Lolo, Bitterroot and Flathead national forests, this process has been going on for years and the public has been involved every step of the way.”
Kimbell says the notion that the public is somehow cheated out of its opportunity to be involved is a “red herring.”
“The public has the opportunity to be involved to help shape the document,” she said. “They have the opportunity to influence the final package.”
