Red Lodge Clearinghouse

 A new rule exempting federal forest plans from National Environmental Policy Act studies is "crucial to the success of the Forest Service land management planning," said USFS Chief Dale Bosworth in a letter yesterday to key House Democrats.

Bosworth defended the rule allowing the Forest Service to issue categorical exclusions under NEPA for management plans and amendments by declaring they have no direct effect on the environment in letters to House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick Rahall (W.Va.) and Rep. Tom Udall (N.M.).

The Forest Service has learned much in 30 years of drafting management plans and associated environmental impact statements (EIS), Bosworth said. "One thing we learned was the bulk of environmental analysis in the plan EIS was focused on 15 years worth of hypothetical projects, many of which were never proposed, much less implemented," the chief wrote. "That speculative analysis was very expensive and provided little of value to the public or the decision maker."

Rahall, Udall and Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), along with environmental groups, have expressed concern that the categorical exclusions will limit public input under NEPA, but Bosworth said the new planning process allows for public involvement "beyond the requirements" of NEPA.

Required for 155 national forests and 20 national grasslands, forest plans govern activities from timber harvests to recreation and protecting endangered plants and animals (E&ENews PM, Dec. 12, 2006).

Foresters thank CEQ

Meanwhile, nine USFS regional foresters last week sent a thank you note to Jim Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, expressing their gratitude for the new policy.

"We believe the categorical exclusion from documentation you approved on December 12 has created a significant opportunity for us to improve management of the National Forest System," they wrote. The foresters thanked Connaughton for the "invaluable support from your staff in developing the categorical exclusion to insure that it is both clear and consistent with the letter and intent" of NEPA.

Ironically, the categorical exclusion proposal was shelved for nearly two years as staffers within CEQ, USDA and Forest Service debated whether it was legal and going too far.