FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Obama and Vilsack Disappoint With New National Forest Planning Rules

Draft rules outline weaker protections than 1982 rules implemented by Reagan

Long-awaited National Forest Management Act planning rules are released by the Obama administration. Conservationists worry new draft rules are a step in the wrong direction.

The Obama administration today released a proposal to revise rules guiding management of the Mount Hood, Rogue-Siskiyou, Willamette, and approximately 191 million acres of other National Forests and Grasslands across the United States.  Oregon Wild, together with other conservation groups around the nation, expressed alarm that the Obama administration appears to be weakening environmental safeguards originally set by the Reagan administration.

The rules, required under the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), guide the development of individual forest management plans, and how the U.S. Forest Service will balance protection for clean water, fish, wildlife, and traditional recreation against logging, mining, and other forms of development.

Below is the statement of Rob Klavins, Wildlands Advocate for Oregon Wild:

Every weekend, millions of Americans head out to places like the Mount Hood National Forest.  For most, opportunities to see abundant wildlife, swim or fish in clean lakes and rivers, or enjoy traditional quiet recreation, are a central part of why they enjoy America’s public lands.  Unfortunately, draft Forest Service planning rules released today by the Obama administration would make the protection of those values optional.

When President Roosevelt created the National Forest System, he did so to stop the destruction of America’s natural treasures at the hands of logging, drilling, mining, and other development interests. Today’s new rules are a departure from Roosevelt’s vision.

Conservationists expected that any new rules would be at least as protective as those created during the Reagan administration.  The Reagan planning rules included mandatory requirements to maintain healthy, sustainable fish and wildlife populations and clean water. The new regulations issued today make protection of these basic values optional, and at the discretion of local forest supervisors.

In Oregon, we’ve seen the result of decades of mismanagement at the hands of old-school forest managers in places like the Umpqua National Forest, where tens of thousands of acres have been ravaged by clear cuts.  The Obama administration’s proposed rules could open the floodgates for more destructive projects. Additionally, these new rules tie the hands of American citizens seeking to hold the Forest Service accountable for how our public lands are managed.

From wolves and eagles to elk and salmon, Oregon’s wildlife, wildlands, and water are facing unprecedented threats. What they need are strong, clear, national standards that promote conservation. Unfortunately, the draft rules released by the Obama administration today fall far short.. As the process to finalize them moves forward, it’s critical for Americans who care about clean water, wildlife, and traditional recreation to voice their concerns and equally important for the Obama administration to listen.

More details on the new draft plan:

• The Obama administration removed the national standards that apply to plan implementation, in favor of local leniency. This undermines the concept of a system of National Forests managed for all Americans. Instead, Secretary Vilsack envisions a system of forests with “individual identities.” Provincial control of national resources is exactly what Teddy Roosevelt hoped to avoid when creating the National Forest System a century ago.
• The species viability requirement now only applies to species where there is "evidence demonstrating significant concern" instead of "all native vertebrate species." This represents a significant step back from the 1982 rules.
• The appeal process is replaced with a 30-day pre-decisional objection process.
• The rules approach to climate change is not well-balanced. It over-emphasizes action to make forests more resilient (which might require logging), and fails to provide an explicit goal to manage the National Forests to store more carbon and keep it out of the atmosphere which would mitigate global warming.
• If future projects are determined to conflict with the plan, managers are explicitly allowed just amend the plan to bring those projects into compliance.

###