Tom's Turn: Notes from our Senior Editor

No Tree Left Behind

January 15, 2005

The deathless line has been used by many, including Earthjustice's chief Washingtonian, Marty Hayden, to sum up the Bush forest policy. "We told you so," is rarely a satisfying chant, but I have a feeling it will be on all our lips frequently over the next 48 months.

Specifically, regarding the national forests, the administration copied its technique from 2003, when it waited until right before Christmas to announce another disastrous decision. A year ago it was the news that the Tongass National Forest, which covers nearly all the Alaska panhandle, would be removed from behind the protective shield of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. (The rule itself is under attack and may well vanish in the coming months, so the effect of last year's holiday gift may be temporary.)

This past December, the missive from the latter-day Ebenezer Scrooges was a new set of guidelines to govern the long-term (15 year) management plans for our national forests. In short, the new rules seek to give broad authority over the forests to local and regional foresters eliminating many of the checks and balances that were originally put in place to curb the dominance logging interests once enjoyed in our national forests. An example of this is the new rule's elimination of the forest wildlife conservation standard that has stood since President Ronald Reagan.

In tandem with the new rule, the administration unveiled a proposal to exempt forest plans from the environmental impacts analysis required by the National Environmental Policy Act. Beyond side-stepping a hard look at potential impacts of a forest plan, the elimination of NEPA would also significantly reduce the quality of information that the public receives regarding the agencies' plans for its forests.

One would fully expect that this new rule will be challenged in court. It's entirely possible that the administration knows full well that what it has proposed is illegal and that it expects to use a defeat in court to try to get Congress to change the law. (The outgoing Agriculture Secretary, Ann Veneman, was griping about all the litigation that has tied the hands of Forest Service employees the day I'm writing this -- January 5 -- conveniently ignoring the fact that if the agency obeyed the law it wouldn't face [and lose] so many suits.)

Meanwhile, out here on the Left Coast, the administration has recently announced that it plans to triple the amount of timber it sells from the eleven national forests in the Sierra Nevada. Here the stated rationale is fire suppression, but a close look at the plan shows unmistakably that the main motive is profit for timber companies at the expense of wildlife, recreation, and watershed protection.

Tom Turner, Senior Editor
yourturn@earthjustice.org