Skip to main content

Secondary menu

User menu

  • Join
  • OR
  • Log In

MNN - Mother Nature Network

Thursday, May 23, 2013
SPECIAL FEATURES:
  • Leaderboard
  • Nest
  • TreeHugger
  • Photos
  • Blogs
  • SB 2013
  • Joy of Less

Search form

Social links

Main menu

  • Earth Matters
    • Browse all »
    • Animals
    • Weather
    • Energy
    • Politics
    • Space
    • Translating Uncle Sam
    • Wilderness & Resources
  • Health
    • Browse all »
    • Allergies
    • Fitness & Well-Being
    • Healthy Spaces
  • Lifestyle
    • Browse all »
    • Arts & Culture
    • Travel
    • Natural Beauty & Fashion
    • Recycling
    • Responsible Living
  • Green Tech
    • Browse all »
    • Computers
    • Gadgets & Electronics
    • Research & Innovations
    • Transportation
  • Eco-Biz & Money
    • Browse all »
    • Green Workplace
    • Personal Finance
    • Sustainable Business Practices
  • Food & Drink
    • Browse all »
    • Beverages
    • Healthy Eating
    • Recipes
  • Your Home
    • Browse all »
    • At Home
    • Organic Farming & Gardening
    • Remodeling & Design
  • Family
    • Browse all »
    • Babies & Pregnancy
    • Family Activities
    • Pets
    • Protection & Safety

Breadcrumb Navigation

MNN.COM › Earth Matters › Wilderness & Resources
    x
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Bookmark and ShareShare
  • Earn Points
    What's this?
Environmental groups question Obama's forest plan
A plan to protect wildlife and water in national forests drew fire from green groups who say the new rule needs stronger scientific standards.

By

Deborah Zabarenko, Reuters
Mon, May 16 2011 at 4:58 PM

Related Topics:

Conservation, Forests & Trees, Obama, National Parks, Deforestation, Wild Animals
Congaree National Park

FORESTS: The proposed Forest Planning Rule gives too much discretion to individual managers of the 155 forests and grasslands that cover 193 million acres of public territory. (Photo: ZUMA Press)

WASHINGTON, D.C. - An Obama administration plan to protect wildlife and water in U.S. national forests drew fire on Monday from environmental advocates who contend the new rule needs stronger scientific standards.
 
As it stands now, the proposed Forest Planning Rule gives too much discretion to individual managers of the 155 forests and grasslands that cover 193 million acres of public territory, a former U.S. wildlife official said in a telephone briefing.
 
"Our forests are in real trouble," said Jamie Rappaport Clark, former director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and now with the conservation group Defenders of Wildlife.
 
Clark and other environmental activists noted that national forests are a source of drinking water for some 124 million people, and cited a U.S. Department of Agriculture report that said these areas sustain 223,000 jobs in rural areas and contribute $14.5 billion a year to the U.S. economy.
 
While Clark praised the planned rule for its ambitious goals, including restoring areas that have been damaged by logging and mining and making national forests more resilient to forest fires, bark beetles and shifting climate zones, she raised alarm about the lack of specific scientific guidance.
 
She noted that President Barack Obama has pledged to uphold science in public policy.
 
Martin Heinrich, a Democratic member of the House of Representatives from New Mexico, said the proposed rule rolls back long-standing protections for water and wildlife.
 
Logging, mining and energy
"There's widespread concern among conservationists and forest managers that the rule doesn't have clear standards to ensure how it will translate well on the ground," Clark said. "The rule promises but doesn't clearly outline how to deliver protections for wildlife, water and wilderness."
 
Without clear science-based standards, she said, individual forest managers could be more susceptible to political and commercial pressures. Mining, logging and energy development take place in some national forest areas.
 
A 90-day period of public comment on the proposed rule ended on Monday; the rule is expected to go into effect by year's end. That deadline prompted a flurry of communiques to the Obama administration.
 
(Editing by Mohammad Zargham)
 
Copyright 2011  Reuters Environmental Online Report

You might also like:

Join the conversation

Sign in with one of these accounts to add your comment.
Log in or
create an account
  • Sign in using this account:

EDITORS' PICKS

tease drones

line

tease book cars

line

tease sunscreen

Advertisement

TODAY'S MOST POPULAR ON

  1. Student science experiment finds plants won't grow near Wi-Fi router
  2. U.S. solider and stray cat save each other in Afghanistan
  3. World's oldest beehive discovered in ancient church
  4. 13 natural remedies for the ant invasion
  5. 10 false facts most people think are true
  6. 9 habits that may do more harm than good
  7. Kidnapped women will have chance to adopt Ariel Castro's dogs
  8. Happy World Turtle Day
  9. Jon Stewart explains the ‘Monsanto Protection Act’
  10. Tornado survivor finds dog during live TV interview
+ Add this to my site

Advertisement

NEWSLETTER

Mother Nature. Delivered
Advertisement
Advertisement

Footer menu

  • Quick Links
    • Joy of Less
    • About Us
    • Advisory Board
    • Editors' Blog
    • Press
    • Privacy
    • Sitemap
    • Terms of Service
  • MNN Tools
    • Advice
    • Blogs
    • Day in History
    • Eco-glossary
    • Infographics
    • Lists
    • Photos
    • Videos
  • Connect
    • The Nest
    • Contact Us
    • Mixed Greens
    • Newsletters
    • RSS
    • Social
    • TreeHugger
    • Mobile
  • Channels
    • Earth Matters
    • Health
    • Lifestyle
    • Green Tech
    • Eco-Biz & Money
    • Your Home
    • Family
    • State Reports
  • Follow MNN
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Pinterest
    • Tumblr
    • Google+
    • StumbleUpon

Copyright © 2013 MNN Holdings, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Website by GLICK INTERACTIVE | Powered by CIRRACORE

SPONSORS