Rules & Regulations, who Needs ‘em?

Since the late 1990s, the Forest Service has been trying in vain to solidify a new forest planning rule in accordance with the National Forest Management Act. At some point they will adopt a rule, the courts will let it stand, and new political leaders won’t undermine it. We’re probably nearing that point now, making this revision all the more important.

In late-February, the agency released a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on their proposed rule. The DEIS includes some great language, but language can be deceiving. If we hadn’t read the fine print, we’d think the rule was terrific, but it’s long on vision and short on requirements. The agency did a good job addressing many public concerns while providing maximum discretion and a minimum of red tape.

As far as substance, we see pros and cons. On the plus side, the rule is visionary in nature, and specifically recognizes the importance of water, climate, and ecosystem services. In addition, the rule includes language about watershed protection – a significant improvement over previous rules.
On the down side:

• The rule lacks specific requirements to ensure the agency’s vision for the future is met.
• The Forest Service adopted a biased and seemingly impossible process for protesting and
challenging forest plans.
• Threatened, endangered and sensitive species receive fewer protection than under previous ules, especially the 1982 requirement to maintain “viable populations.” The proposed rule ould make the viability standard discretionary, limit monitoring, and reduce the geographic area over which a species should be protected. Whereas the current viability rule ensures that “common species remain common,” under the new rule, protections may not kick in until species are in danger.
• While the agency has included new language on watershed and water quality restoration,
it doesn’t go far enough to guarantee positive change on the ground.
• The agency fails to require the use of the best available science in forest planning.
• Climate change is acknowledged as a stressor to forest, watershed and wildlife health, but the rule does not include clear mandates for addressing its impacts.

Our initial comments on the proposed rule include:

• The agency must improve public participation by allowing extensions on the objection period, ensuring the data used to make decisions is available during the objection period, and allowing objections to be raised at any time during plan development.
• Plans must provide for viable populations of all native and focal species across the planning area.
• The final rule should adopt enforceable standards that require protections for streams, rivers, lakes, and riparian areas.
• The final rule should require road density standards to protect and improve watershed (and wildlife) conditions.
• The agency must require the use of the best available science instead of just recommending that forest managers consider such science.
• The agency should require that forest plans assess the risks of climate change and take ecologically sustainable actions to reduce those risks and the expected impacts of human caused stressors on natural resources.
• The final rule should require that forest plans preserve existing refugia for climate-sensitive species and protect migration corridors and linkage zones.

To download a copy of the final rule, the DEIS, or the schedule for regional meetings, click here. For specific ideas about issues to raise related to the planning rule, don’t hesitate to contact our office 406-543-9551.