Critics say Obama bails on science in forest rules

The Obama administration's proposed new rules for protecting clean water and wildlife on the United States' nearly 200 million acres of national forests go against the president's pledge to let science be the guide, conservation groups and two former Clinton administration officials said Monday. The administration made a "clear commitment" to make conservation policy based on sound science when it took office, said Jane Danowitz of the Pew Environment Group. The comments came in a teleconference from Washington, D.C., marking the end of a 90-day public comment period on new rules governing administration of the National Forest Management Act. The U.S. Forest Service expects to come out with final rules by the end of the year. Also participating was Jamie Rappaport Clark, a Defenders of Wildlife executive and former U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service director. Clark said forest supervisors being given unprecedented discretion under the new rules need strong standards and guidelines to resist the political pressure they regularly face in making decisions on managing their lands. Jim Furnish, a former deputy chief of the Forest Service, said the proposed rules tell local forest supervisors to consider science but leave them room to ignore science when making decisions on protecting clean water resources, fish and wildlife habitat, and endangered species...more

See the comments on the planning rule by the National Association of Forest Retirees at SOS Forests.

An excerpt from their comments:

...However, we believe that the overall content of the proposal is overly ambitious, overly optimistic, complex, costly, and promises much more than it can deliver. Rather than providing a simplified, streamlined process for developing and amending plans, we fear that the opposite will result. This is especially troubling in what are likely to be difficult times for funding of federal programs of all kinds. Without addressing the overarching issue of the fundamental purposes of the national forests in this age of controversy, it is unlikely that any of the current controversies involving the use of the national forests will be resolved by this proposal. This issue must be addressed by Congress and is timely given that the last significant consideration of this subject occurred in 1976 with passage of the National Forest Management Act. And even this did not fundamentally address the issue of the purposes for the national forests. In the meantime, the proposed planning regulations establish new purposes for the national forests, such as dealing with climate change and providing “ecosystem services,” and management for “ecosystem restoration,” for which there are no statutory authorities.