Obama's new forest rules: Read the fine print

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2011/02/obamas_new_forest_rules_read_t.html

Published: Saturday, February 19, 2011, 1:34 PM

Recognizing the need for a 21st-century vision, the Obama administration recently announced a sweeping planning rule for the 193 million acre national forest system. The rule will govern management of the national forests with the goal of maintaining and restoring forests and watersheds that Oregonians will increasingly depend on for climate change insurance.

National forests are among the last places to find old-growth trees and untrammeled places. They also serve as economic engines for local communities through dollars spent on outdoor recreation like hunting, fishing and camping. And they provide drinking water for more than 120 million people -- in the West, more than half of our water comes from national forests. So a lot is riding on this proposed rule.

The U.S. Forest Service's vision is good. It acknowledges the need for early public input on forest planning and, because national forests differ from place to place, maintains that forest plans should reflect some of these differences. The agency also recognizes that management decisions need to be grounded in sound science. But as always the devil is in the details. A closer look reveals that sound science only has to be considered, not actually used in forest plans. And while forests differ, the rule should ensure that essential ecosystem benefits transcending all forests -- such as clean drinking water and viable wildlife populations -- have meaningful protections.

The rule would require protective buffers around streams, but lacks measurable, enforceable standards such as limiting activities known to be harmful to watersheds. It punts these decisions to local managers. People who live in Bend, Medford, La Grande, Baker City, Salem and Ashland, who get a significant amount of their drinking water from national forests, should be concerned.

The rule is less protective of wildlife than even the 1982 Reagan planning rules. It does not require that Forest Service managers show that management actions are actually maintaining fish and wildlife populations. This omission could result in local wildlife extinctions that are important indicators of the health of ecosystems. And while the Forest Service talks about transitioning out of old-growth logging, there's no guidance on whether the agency will walk its talk when timber companies want to cut down our last mature and old-growth forests and mining companies are polluting salmon-bearing streams.

History shows that absent adequate safeguards, old-growth forests, roadless areas and clean water all take a back seat. Take for instance, the days before the 2001 roadless conservation rule was in place. At the time, about 1 million acres nationwide (an area the size of Rhode Island) was being damaged by logging and road building every decade because there was no national rule to guide local decisions.

The new proposed rule falls down on not providing enough guidance to local land managers and weakens protections for wildlife at a time when they are needed most. It will therefore become a litmus test for a 21st-century agency that is clamoring for new direction but may not actually achieve its objectives. The proof is in the fine print.

Dominick DellaSala is chief scientist and president of the Ashland-based Geos Institute. Randi Spivak is vice president of government affairs at the institute.