The Daily Green By Dan Shapley

Friday 11 April 2008

Defied once by courts, Forest Service tries a new tack.
EarthJustice has accused the Bush Administration of slyly defying a federal court decision, as it implements new rules governing national forests. The 2005 National Forest Management Act would have reduced the need for environmental impact studies before new projects are undertaken, and changed the way the public comments on proposed changes to the way the 193-million acre National Forest System is managed. It would have replaced wildlife protection provisions in the 1982 act approved by President Reagan.

In other words, the new rules would allow for easier logging of forests owned by the American people, while giving the public less oversight of decisions made about the use of those forests, which cover an area roughly the size of California and Montana combined. Those regulations were invalidated by federal court, but now could be implemented in a different regulatory manner, according to EarthJustice, an environmental group that frequently sues with the backing of coalitions of other environmental groups.

"This new decision is simply a renewed attempt to dodge accountability by adopting standardless rules with no consideration of the loss of wildlife and other environmental damage that would occur in the national forests with the elimination of longstanding protections," said Trent Orr, attorney for Earthjustice who represented a coalition that challenged the 2005 forest planning regulations. "This is the Bush administration's parting gift to the timber industry, regulations that remove vital checks and balances on logging while minimizing the role of science and the public's say in maintaining wildlife and other natural resources. We will be headed back to court to challenge this new proposal, where we will fight to insure that the Forest Service protects these invaluable resources and allows full public review of and participation in its decisions about how our national forests will be managed."

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

US, After a Court Reversal, Issues New Rules for Forests
By Dan Frosch
The New York Times

Friday 11 April 2008

The United States Forest Service has released new regulations for managing the country's 155 national forests, after a federal judge struck down an earlier set of rules. The service's associate chief, Sally Collins, said the rules, which took effect Wednesday, gave forest managers more power to react to natural disasters and climate change and to decide how land they supervise should be used.
The new regulations also end the requirement that each species be evaluated for sustainability. Instead, the service will focus on the overall habitat in and around a national forest, it says. Environmental groups say the rules remove critical protections for wildlife and will allow more logging. At least one environmental law firm, Earthjustice of Oakland, Calif., said it would challenge the rules. "This is a parting gift from the Bush administration to the timber industry," said Trent Orr, a staff lawyer for Earthjustice. "It is just a complete gutting of the provisions to protect wildlife."
The rules are an outgrowth of the National Forest Management Act of 1976, in which Congress set out how national forests should be run. In 1982, the government created a system of protections for wildlife species in the forests.In 2005, the Bush administration, which favors more logging and development on federal land, issued a revised set of rules that, like the new ones, also broadened the power of forest managers. But after environmental groups sued, Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of Federal District Court in San Francisco ruled last year that the Forest Service had not adequately analyzed the environmental impact of the rules or allowed enough of a role for the public. This time, Ms. Collins said, the agency completed an environmental impact statement and has made provisions for more public participation.
Mr. Orr, whose firm represents a coalition of environmental organizations, said the new rules were much too similar to what had been struck down.