Forests threatened by federal proposal

Did you know that you own almost 190 million acres of forest land across the United States? It’s true! This is the amount of land that has been placed in the public domain through our 155 National Forests. This is YOUR land and it is your right to say how it is managed.

Those rights are now under threat of being severely limited via House Bill HR 2647, The Resilient Federal Forests Act. “Resilient Federal Forests” is misleading language that echoes other titles being employed by the US Forest Service (USFS) and its collaborative partners such as, “restoration” “fuels reduction” “forest health” and “collaboration.” All of these terms are merely runaway rhetoric that provides cover for what is really going on.

Within The Resilient Federal Forests Act are provisions that allow massive timber sales (between 5,000 and 15,000 acres) under a “categorical exclusion”(CA). This mean the USFS would not have to do an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement prior to CA “management activity.” This would effectively open the door to clear-cuts on our national forests; many done under the guise of “restoration” or “fuels reduction.” Logging is not restoration, removing logging roads is restoration, and there isn’t the scientific data available to support the notion that “fuels reduction” reduces the threat of fires.

HR 2647 would promote USFS “management activities” that are developed through the “collaborative process,” which is a process without rules. The USFS “collaborative process” includes cherry-picked members of the community, involves backroom deal making between the USFS, the timber industry and politicians. It reduces forest management decisions to a pro-forma exercise that usurps real public involvement.

Sadly, many national conservation organizations wanting to “get along” have bought into this de facto process of managing the national forests. HR 2647 would severely limit a citizen’s right to challenge any management decisions in court. Anyone seeking judicial redress would be required to post a bond to cover all government expenses if they were to lose their case.

Conversely, if they won, the government would not have to pay their attorney fees. This would effectively make any legal challenges to bad decision-making unaffordable for the general public (or for small grassroots environmental groups) and make a mockery of one of the highest legal principles in our country, “equal justice under the law.” USFS timber sales have increased by 18% from 2.38 billion board feet (BBF) in 2008, to 2.82 BBF in 2014. Fiscal Year 2015 expects to produce 2.9 BBF, while projections for 2016 are 3.2 BBF.

Clearly, under current environmental laws, the USFS is not stifled in “getting out the cut.” The only thing “resilient’ in this and other such bills moving through Congress, is the relentless feel-good verbiage that serves to misinform the public of its true intent to weaken environmental protections and limit the public’s representation in managing its National Forests.

Janet Torline is a board member of Kootenai Environmental Alliance.