News
Sports
SUMMIT COUNTY — For the third time, a federal court has rejected attempts to strip important environmental requirements from national forest planning rules. In a scathing decision handed down last week, U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken ruled that the U.S. Forest Service failed to consider the environmental impacts of streamlining the forest planning process.
The decision means the agency must continue using measurable standards to maintain viable wildlife populations for species that reflect ecosystem health. The case affects national forest plans for 193 million acres of federal lands, including the White River National Forest in Summit County.
At issue are the regulations outlining how the agency formulates plans for individual national forests. For example, the White River forest plan was updated in 2002 after a multi-year process that included tens of thousands of public comments — at a cost of several million dollars.
Former White River forest supervisor Martha Ketelle hailed the plan as a successful collaborative effort and touted the high level of public involvement. The plan essentially zones the forest for various uses, including ski resort development, logging and non-motorized recreation. An in-depth environmental study that carefully examined different management alternatives was at the heart of the process.
But a few years later, the agency proposed eliminating the requirement for environment studies, along with axing strict rules aimed at maintaining healthy populations of plants and animals. Top-level agency leaders, including Rocky Mountain regional forester Rick Cables, said the changes would save time and help the Forest Service put money and people to work on the ground, rather than sitting behind planning desks.
Under the proposed change, the next revision of the White River plan would have looked quite different, with no serious environmental studies, no hard look at alternatives and less responsiveness by the Forest Service to public input.
Conservation groups said the changes were a thinly disguised attempt to cut public involvement and to give the agency free rein for logging projects. They immediately challenged the Forest Service in court and prevailed three times. In the case decided last week, the judge chastised the Forest Service for copying legal arguments that were previously rejected by other federal courts. She also ruled that the agency violated the Endangered Species Act by failing to consult with other federal agencies on the changes.
The decision means the agency must continue using measurable standards to maintain viable wildlife populations for species that reflect ecosystem health. The case affects national forest plans for 193 million acres of federal lands, including the White River National Forest in Summit County.
At issue are the regulations outlining how the agency formulates plans for individual national forests. For example, the White River forest plan was updated in 2002 after a multi-year process that included tens of thousands of public comments — at a cost of several million dollars.
Former White River forest supervisor Martha Ketelle hailed the plan as a successful collaborative effort and touted the high level of public involvement. The plan essentially zones the forest for various uses, including ski resort development, logging and non-motorized recreation. An in-depth environmental study that carefully examined different management alternatives was at the heart of the process.
But a few years later, the agency proposed eliminating the requirement for environment studies, along with axing strict rules aimed at maintaining healthy populations of plants and animals. Top-level agency leaders, including Rocky Mountain regional forester Rick Cables, said the changes would save time and help the Forest Service put money and people to work on the ground, rather than sitting behind planning desks.
Under the proposed change, the next revision of the White River plan would have looked quite different, with no serious environmental studies, no hard look at alternatives and less responsiveness by the Forest Service to public input.
Conservation groups said the changes were a thinly disguised attempt to cut public involvement and to give the agency free rein for logging projects. They immediately challenged the Forest Service in court and prevailed three times. In the case decided last week, the judge chastised the Forest Service for copying legal arguments that were previously rejected by other federal courts. She also ruled that the agency violated the Endangered Species Act by failing to consult with other federal agencies on the changes.
Forest Service adrift?
Environmental activists are unsure of what it will take to convince the Forest Service that it can't simply brush away the over-riding requirements of the federal laws that outline forest management. Conservation advocates who had hoped that the Obama administration might turn the agency around have been disappointed so far.Under Obama, the Forest Service pursued the very same arguments in the planning rule case as it did under Bush. That's worrisome to Andy Stahl, who heads up Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics. The group is comprised of former and current agency employees who watchdog the agency and protect whistle-blowers.
“There's two options,” said Stahl. “One, There's nobody in charge,” he said, referring to the lack of an appointment to a key position in the Agriculture Department. Under that scenario, the agency might simply be following the momentum set by previous officials.
The other alternative is more ominous, according to Stahl.
“Two, whoever is in charge is no different than the previous administration,” he said. One hint might be the appointment of Doug Crandall, a senior-level Bush administration official, to the position of Forest Service legislative affairs director, or chief lobbyist for the agency.
Stahl said Crandall is a former timber lobbyist. Rocky Smith, who analyzes Forest Service policy for the conservation group Colorado Wild, said Crandall is known for his support of “industrial recreation” on national forest lands.
“I don't think the National Forests are all that important to Obama. I think his administration sees them as places to spend federal stimulus dollars and for energy production,” Stahl said.
“The jury is still out,” said Ryan Demmy Bidwell, director of Colorado Wild. According to Bidwell, the most hopeful sign so far for conservation groups is the temporary time-out on development in roadless areas. Incoming Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack appointed himself as a czar over roadless decisions, and that shows that the administration is at least listening to concerns from conservation groups, according to Bidwell.
Bidwell said things could also be looking up slightly on the federal budget front, as stimulus money could go toward forest restoration work that has long been neglected.
Bob Berwyn can be reached at (970) 331-5996, or at bberwyn@summitdaily.com.
