|
Forests and Government Ohio's Wayne National Forest Plan Illegal
The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires the Forest Service to prepare a land management plan for each National Forest. These forest plans guide all resource activities on individual forests for ten to fifteen years. All timber contracts, grazing leases, camping permits and other on-the-ground activities are based on the forest-level planning process. These plans were supposed to improve the quality of multiple-use management by ensuring equal consideration to all resources and by opening public land policy to broader public involvement. Earlier this year, a federal appeals court said that the Forest Service got it wrong when they prepared the plan for the Wayne National Forest. The Wayne National Forest, located in southeastern Ohio's Hill Country, is characterized by narrow ridges, steep slopes, deep valleys and striking cliffs, as well as a winding network of rivers, lakes and streams. The deciduous hardwood forest of the Wayne includes a great portion of Ohio's last remaining older forest, and comprises much of the less than 4 percent of Ohio's publicly held lands available for recreation. In January 1997, a three-judge panel for the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Sierra Club that the Forest Services plan for the Wayne National Forest was improperly biased toward timber production. In a strongly worded opinion the court described many of the problems in the Wayne National Forest problems seen throughout Americas National Forest System and concluded that the Forest Services planning process was improperly predisposed toward clearcutting. The courts opinion in selected excerpts tells the story best: The court starts by examining why Congress requires the Forest Service to prepare forest plans in the first place: "The National Forest Management Act was enacted as a direct result of congressional concern for Forest Service clearcutting practices and the dominant role timber production has historically played in Forest Service policies. Congress was concerned that, if left to its own essentially unbridled devices, the Forest Service would manage the national forests as mere monocultural tree farms. . . . [NFMAs] formal planning process was designed to curtail agency discretion and to ensure forest preservation and productivity." The Court then points out the fallacy that clearcutting promotes recreational opportunities: "...one example of bias is particularly illustrative. The Forest Service argues that its even-aged management plan is based on evidence that timbering will provide new opportunities for recreation that will, in turn, preserve and enhance the diversity of plant and animal communities in the Wayne National Forest. Most recreation does not require timber harvesting, however. . . . Timbering simply does not promote the kind of recreational activities that are in demand in the Wayne; in fact, recreation like fishing and hiking is harmed by clearcutting....Cutting is unlikely to stimulate new and valuable forms of recreation because much of the Wayne has already been cut or developed. The Court also points out that NFMA says the Forest Service should restrict clearcutting to only exceptional circumstances and only when consistent with the protection of soil, watershed, fish, wildlife, recreation, and aesthetic resources, and the regeneration of the timber resource....Yet, the [Forest Service] would utilize even-aged management logging as if it were the statutory rule, rather than the exception. By arbitrarily undervaluing the recreational value of wilderness, the Forest Service created a very distorted picture of the Wayne National Forest." Then, in frank and bold terms, the court reveals the perverse budgetary incentives and political pressures that drive the agency's bias toward timber: "It is not surprising that the Forest Service came to this conclusion. Created, in part, to ensure a reliable timber supply, the Forest Service has a history of preferring timber production to other uses. Rather than being a neutral process which determines how the national forests can best meet the needs of the American people, forest planning, as practiced by the Forest Service, is a political process replete with opportunities for the intrusion of bias and abuse." "Because national forests are located near rural communities, foresters make management decisions to support perceived needs in the communities. By sharing timber proceeds with those communities, the Forest Service strengthens the link between timber sales and the livelihoods of local constituencies.... The resulting dependency of these communities on timber production causes over-harvesting and destructive harvesting methods. The relationship of the Forest Service to the timber industry also constrains the Forest Services planning freedom. Rural constituencies reliant on timber sale revenues may provoke politicians to place pressure on the Forest Service to sustain that revenue. Consequently, the Forest Service becomes trapped: cutting off timber sales would cause loss of employment and revenue in local communities but continued timber sales risk over-harvesting and below-cost sales." "The Forest Service budgeting process, which allows the Forest Service to keep a percentage of the funds it realizes from timber sales, provides an incentive for the Forest Service to sell timber below cost or at a loss. . . . Again, conflicting interests lead to perverse results: clearcutting provides the Forest Service with a higher congressional subsidy because the Forest Service can request preparation and administrative costs. Consequently, decisions may be made, not because they are in the best interest of the American people but because they benefit the Forest Services fiscal interest." Ultimately, the Courts decision comes as no surprise:" Accordingly, in light of our examination of the structure, legislative history, and purpose of the National Forest Management Act we find the Forest Service has failed to comply with the protective spirit of the National Forest Management Act." More on forests and government | Report Contents Up to Top HOME | Email Signup | About Us | Contact Us | Terms of Use | © 2008 Sierra Club |
