Foes fear new forest policy would cut input

Foes fear new forest policy would cut input

November 1, 2001

By Jim Mimiaga
Journal Staff Writer

Critics of a proposed new management policy by the U.S. Forest Service fear it could limit public input on some logging and road-building within national forests.

But local land managers are saying that, even if approved, the internal directive would not affect the public input process regarding road-building and timber sales in the San Juan National Forest.

"We would not do that because it would just end up in court," said Thurman Wilson, a spokesman and forest planner for the Public Lands Center in Durango. "New policies don’t prohibit us from doing more than they require, and public input for us is always a priority."

Opponents fear that the little-known proposed policy change could have big impacts because it broadens what can fall under the so-called "categorical exclusion" measure, established to remove routine forest maintenance, like campground improvements, from the cumbersome environmental-review process.

"But this directive would give the Forest Service the authority to pretend significant impacts will not occur on smaller logging and salvage projects," said Rocky Smith of Durango-based Colorado Wild. "In effect, it would remove the public from reviewing what occurs on their public lands, and it circumvents laws in place to protect wildlife habitat."

Under those laws, current proposals for logging, mining and new roads or trails require ecological review under the National Environmental Policy Act. NEPA is the basic legal charter establishing the public’s right to know. Its studies also suggest alternatives and mitigation measures regarding resource-extraction projects in order to promote forest rehabilitation and the protection of critical wildlife habitat.

Environmentalists fear the new rule could open the door for salvage logging in habitats relied on by lynx, a threatened species recently reintroduced to Colorado, Smith said.

"Lynx prefer to build dens in tangles of downed trees, and those are targeted by the Forest Service to sell commercially as salvage," Smith said. "Under this directive, salvage logging could be approved without analysis of that impact."

The policy change proposes that "threatened and endangered species critical habitat" be included as exclusionary criteria. If approved, land managers could cite the policy language and approve projects they believe will not have a significant effect on resource conditions.

But linking seemingly minor projects together under the exclusionary clause is a concern because cumulatively it could cause significant impacts the public deserves to know about, said Harlin Savage, of the American Lands Alliance.

"The Bush Administration says it’s very important to have public input on the management of public lands, but this directive seems like a behind-the-scenes effort to dismantle laws that protect America’s national heritage and the public’s right to know."

In a flurry of press releases, opponents said they wanted to raise awareness of the issue and to encourage participation in a Forest Service public-comment period that expires Nov. 19.

"Public participation improves the whole process, for conservationists and for industry relying on natural resources," Savage said, adding that if approved and then abused, the new directive would spur expensive lawsuits and cause divisiveness.

In the interest of cooperation, such abuse is avoided locally, forest managers say.

"If we got direction to use categorical exclusion with less documentation, we might do that, but we would still talk to the public," Wilson said. "You can’t really hide. The exclusion language has been an ongoing controversy because people have tried to push their limits but we certainly try not to do that."