Craig Has Plan For Lands Senator Unveils Proposal To Rewrite Forest Management Act

(From For the Record, December 11, 1996:) Sen. Larry Craig’s proposed “Public Land Management Responsiblity and Accountablility Act” offers timber purchasers credit for “forest health” work including watershed restoration and road improvement. A graphic in Tuesday’s story incorrectly detailed other items qualifying for the “forest health credits.”

It’s the most sweeping and controversial attempt to change the environmental rules for managing public lands in decades.

U.S. Sen. Larry Craig unveiled Monday a 100-page proposal to ease environmental laws governing the U.S. Forest Service and federal Bureau of Land Management.

Overall, the idea is to simplify land-management planning, eliminate layers of bureaucracy and make it easier for land-management professionals to do their job, he said.

But environmentalists are livid, calling it a detailed attempt to comply with every wish of extractive industries.

The “Public Land Management Responsibility and Accountability Restoration Act” would give states an opening to take over management of federal lands, keep most of the money they make and receive additional federal money for the first three years.

It would change significantly the National Forest Management Act, notable because it was the basis for a federal judge’s decision to restrict federal timber harvests to protect the spotted owl.

Craig’s proposal also would ease requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act for the Forest Service and BLM as well as ease logging rules in the name of forest health.

Craig held 15 hearings and took numerous hours of testimony to arrive at the contents of the bill, the Idaho Republican said Monday. “It became very obvious that all 200 witnesses agreed on one thing - the status quo is unacceptable,” Craig said.

His bill reaffirms multiple use, reduces conflict and “relies on science instead of stoking emotions,” he said.

The draft was unveiled well before introduction in the Senate next year, Craig said, to give everyone time to comment and work on the bill.

There’s no estimated cost for implementing the law, which would establish new Forest Service and BLM spending.

Craig’s concepts are well-received by industry. “The planning and decision-making process for federal lands is very badly broken,” said Jim Riley of the Intermountain Forest Industry Association in Coeur d’Alene.

“There’s endless planning, endless analysis, endless disputes and very little is done. It’s outrageously expensive, incomprehensibly cumbersome and results in bad decisions or no decisions at all,” Riley said.

One example: It took eight years to resolve an appeal of the Kootenai National Forest plan, he said.

While he hasn’t studied the detailed bill, the industry will look for two things, Riley said. First, the bill should deal with forest-health problems. Second, it should require more predictable commercial timber sales.

Environmental groups, scrambling to put together some analysis of the complex legislation, aren’t enamored by what they know.

“It looks to me like the old-guard agenda,” said Sara Folger of the Inland Empire Public Lands Council. “Every last little detail the Wise Use movement, the timber industry and the extractive industries could come up with is in there.

“Environmentally, it’s the worst possible scenario.”

Robert Wolf, a forester and the man who directed work on the original National Forest Management Act of 1976, said he believes it’s pages of trouble.

“I was struck by the length of the bill. I think it’s going to make life more complicated,” Wolf said.

“I’m reminded of the attorney who wrote a long opinion to get across a few of the things he wanted to hide. I don’t think it takes into account the hard facts of managing federal lands, whether they make money or not.”

Wolf highlights several provisions he said will cause problems. Trying to mandate “stable, predictable, timely, sustainable, and cost-effective management of federal lands” presents a list in conflict with itself, he said.

Industry wants the government to be predictable but it wants flexibility at both ends. “It wants to get no-cost contract extensions if the timber market is soft, doesn’t want to have to buy timber that it doesn’t want and it isn’t interested in cost-effective management because it doesn’t care if the government makes or loses money on timber sales,” Wolf said.

The new law assesses legal costs against people who file frivolous appeals without defining frivolous. It also puts a price tag on Freedom of Information Act requests estimated to cost more than $10,000 without saying who will make that critical determination or how they will arrive at the estimate, Wolf pointed out.

More problematic, he predicts, are proposals to allow the Forest Service and BLM to make their own fish and wildlife decisions under the Endangered Species Act, and to make their own decisions on some requirements of the Clean Water and Clean Air acts.

“If we are going to allow the Forest Service and the BLM to have exemptions from the laws, why not let all of the other agencies have them?” Wolf said.

Parts of the bill don’t seem to mesh with a country trying to cut back on its red ink, he added. A new land-improvement fund and giving timber companies monetary credit for doing “forest-health” work, “looks like a back-door to budget-busting spending,” Wolf said.

“If we are going to pass a constitutional amendment to balance the federal budget, as Larry Craig proposes, we have got to close all of the exits.”

, DataTimes ILLUSTRATION: Color Photo

MEMO: This sidebar appeared with the story: CHANGES IN FOREST LAWS U.S. Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, Monday unveiled proposed changes to national forest laws. Some of the key points of the measure, labeled the “Public Land Management Responsibility and Accountability Act,” include: Allowing states to apply to managed Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management land. The proposed bill provides money toward the first three years of management and allows states to keep any money generated from things like timber sales. Congress would have to authorize the transfer on a state-by-state basis. Restricting timber sale appeals and lawsuits, except for people with an economic stake for who opportunities are guaranteed for the first time. Mandating nominees for the chief of the U.S. Forest Service be confirmed by the Senate and establishes several minimum qualifications. Giving the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management the right to make endangered species decisions now made by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. Mandating the federal agencies evaluate and disclose the effect of their decision on the economic stability of a community when making long-range plans for federal forests. Cutting by half the amount of time for any environmental analysis of trading federal land for private land. Giving timber purchasers monetary credit for things deemed necessary for “forest health” such as road improvement and watershed rehabilitation. Modifies the forest planning process in several ways with the idea of simplifying and streamlining planning. SOURCE: U.S. Sen. Larry Craig’s office