Obama's new forest rules: Read the fine print

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...more