Joel Holtrop, Deputy Chief of the National Forest System said, “The process of developing a forest plan is a public service that ensures a great future for national forests on behalf of the American public. We’re proud of this vitally important planning process and yet we recognize that improvements were needed to emphasize more public collaboration, to be more adaptive to changing environmental conditions, and to ensure the protection of wildlife. The preferred alternative encompasses all of these elements.”
    After receiving and considering over 79, 000 comments on a draft environmental impact statement, the Forest Service developed "Alternative M" as their preferred alternative. They said, "The alternative is based on public comment and builds on the 1982, 2002, and 2005 Planning Rules and years of professional forest planning experience. The preferred alternative provides extensive public participation and offers an approach to quickly respond to changing natural resource conditions."
    David Dillard, Director of Ecosystem Management Coordination said, “This preferred alternative expands public involvement by requiring early and frequent public dialogue in all phases of the development, implementation and monitoring of land management plans. This exceeds National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements for public involvement. Our goal is to create strong, relevant conversations that address local issues as well as incorporate the latest available science and technology in the plans. Additionally, all plans and projects developed under those plans are expected and required to comply with NEPA.”
    The FEIS will now be sent to the Department of Agriculture for a decision on a final rule for forest planning. The Record of Decision and final rule will be published in the Federal Register in approximately 30 days.

    In a release, Earthjustice points out that almost a year ago, a Federal judge threw out the Forest Service's attempt to seriously weaken the rules that protect 193 million acres of National Forest land all across the country. The court found that administration officials had failed to do a legally required Environmental Impact Statement to determine how weakening protections for wildlife, clean water, old growth, and public involvement in the planning process would affect our forests. Trent Orr of Earthjustice, who argued that case said, "The national forest planning rules are like the Constitution for our national forests, and the Bush administration tried to throw out the Bill of Rights. The Forest Service appears to be rushing out yet another set of regulations that weaken protections for wildlife and biological diversity on the national forests. This proposal will continue to favor industrial forestry over protecting clean streams and fisheries."
    Earthjustice said, "Unfortunately, the court-ordered Final Environmental Impact Statement released today fails once again to live up to what the court, or the law, required. Like the draft released this summer, it provides no actual impact analysis of Bush's proposed regulations or of potential alternative forms of those regulations, which should be the heart of an EIS. Instead, it brashly states that none of the alternatives would affect the environment. This doesn't come close to complying with the National Environmental Policy Act."
    Access a release from USFS (click here). Access the FEIS and multiple appendices (click here). Access a lengthy release from Earthjustice (click here). [*Land]