Oregon groups split on new federal forest rules

registerguard.com ^ | 10-10-03 | By Sarah Linn from the AP

[bicycle thug]

PORTLAND - A final Bush administration plan that paves the way for quicker approval of logging and other commercial projects with less environmental review received predictably mixed reactions from Oregon forest groups.

The plan, which goes into effect this fall, overhauls the 1976 National Forest Management Act. The new rules give forest managers more discretion to approve logging, mining and other projects without completing lengthy environmental reviews.

Chris West, vice president of the American Forest Resource Council, said the formal scientific studies - known as environmental impact statements - waste time and money.

Forest plans need to be made on the ground by local experts, the timber advocate said, adding that following the current requirements is ``like turning a battleship in the Potomac.''

Land management plans typically take up to seven years to complete due to scientific studies and other measures. During that time, new research, laws or ecological conditions may arise, making the 10- to 20-year plan obsolete before it's even implemented.

U.S. Forest Service officials say the new rules cut down on unnecessary paperwork and make managers more responsive to changing information.

But environmental groups worry that the shortened process will let managers skip steps while caring for Oregon's 14 national forests and grasslands.

For instance, the new rules place less emphasis on preserving threatened and endangered wildlife, Doug Heiken of the Oregon Natural Resources Council said. They replace forest rules on population size and habitat with less stringent Endangered Species Act regulations, he said.

Heiken said the key issue is accountability. While most national forest managers will remain accountable to environmental concerns, he's worried that some will take advantage of the reduced supervision.

[bicycle thug]

ping

[Libertarianize the GOP]

ping

[r9etb]

The plan, which goes into effect this fall, overhauls the 1976 National Forest Management Act. The new rules give forest managers more discretion to approve logging, mining and other projects without completing lengthy environmental reviews.

FWIW, the huge B&B Complex fire is in an area that used to see a lot of selective logging operations. All that stopped after the '76 Act -- they transitioned to clear-cuts. As I understand it, the selective logging tended to keep the forest open, and relatively invulnerable to fire.

The USFS had been alarmed about the buildup of undergrowth for a long time, and had even set up some demonstration sites in Camp Sherman -- Bush was actually going to visit the sites on the day the big fires hit.

Ironically, the tree-huggers had also opposed the removal of beetle-killed trees in the area for "habitat" reasons, ya know. If you read the daily fire reports, the biggest dangers (and spreading threats) are in -- you guessed it -- the "bug-killed timber."

[bicycle thug]

I agree the bug kill should have been logged. I think though that logging interests have too often high graded their select cuts in Eastern forests exacerbating the insect problem by leaving populations of weaker and insect vulnerable trees.

I hope in the future they do better when doing select cuts and start leaving the robust large 'fatties' in greater numbers, and taking more of the weaker and marginal trees on the East side of the Cascades.