Stop the Elimination of Forest Protections
THIS PETITION HAS BEEN CLOSED. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS!
Under the guise of simply changing federal regulations implementing the
National Forest Management Act (NFMA), the Bush administration is
planning to eliminate or seriously weaken vital environmental
protections that apply to all of our national forests. These protections
safeguard our drinking water by preserving vital watersheds, protect
habitat for nearly 3,000 species of wildlife and assure that our forests
remain American treasures for future generations.
Under this proposed rule, forest plans could be adopted and revised without preparing an environmental impact statement leaving the American people with only minimum information about the environmental effects of Forest Service proposals.
The changes would eliminate or seriously weaken vital safeguards for all of America's 155 national forests, allowing reckless logging by timber-industry profiteers and the destruction of habitat for many species of wildlife.
TAKE ACTION!
The Forest Service is accepting public comments until April 7, 2003. Tell the administration not to weaken NFMA regulations and listen to the scientists, not the timber industry. Sign the letter below to send an official comment and a copy will also be sent to your members of Congress.
Under the guise of simply changing federal regulations implementing the
National Forest Management Act (NFMA), the Bush administration is
planning to eliminate or seriously weaken vital environmental
protections that apply to all of our national forests. These protections
safeguard our drinking water by preserving vital watersheds, protect
habitat for nearly 3,000 species of wildlife and assure that our forests
remain American treasures for future generations.
Under this proposed rule, forest plans could be adopted and revised without preparing an environmental impact statement leaving the American people with only minimum information about the environmental effects of Forest Service proposals.
The changes would eliminate or seriously weaken vital safeguards for all of America's 155 national forests, allowing reckless logging by timber-industry profiteers and the destruction of habitat for many species of wildlife.
TAKE ACTION!
The Forest Service is accepting public comments until April 7, 2003. Tell the administration not to weaken NFMA regulations and listen to the scientists, not the timber industry. Sign the letter below to send an official comment and a copy will also be sent to your members of Congress.
Forest Service Chief Bosworth
USDA FS Planning Rule
Content Analysis Team
P.O. Box 8359
Missoula, MT 59807
planning_rule@fs.fed.us
CC: Your U.S. Representative/Senator
Dear Chief Bosworth,
I am submitting this letter as an official comment to your proposed rewrite of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) regulations. I strongly oppose the proposed new rules that would eliminate or seriously weaken vital safeguards for all of our 155 national forests and allow reckless logging by timber-industry profiteers and the destruction of habitat for many species of wildlife.
I am particularly opposed to the attempt to change what have historically been mandatory and enforceable requirements for surveying and maintaining viable populations of wildlife in our national forests into optional considerations left to the complete discretion of forest planners. This flaw is contained in both of the alternative wildlife options presented in the December 6 proposal.
Similarly unacceptable is the proposal's indication that forest planning may be categorically excluded from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). As our nation's bedrock environmental
law,
NEPA ensures both full consideration of potential environmental impacts of planning decisions and meaningful public participation.
I am also troubled that the draft regulations seek to create a presumption that all national forest lands are open to logging, grazing, mining, off-road vehicles, and other commercial uses unless specifically prohibited, making other considerations like fish and wildlife of secondary importance.
In fact, I oppose the overall direction of the proposed regulations, which seek to give forest managers total discretion to manage public forests however they see fit while reducing scientific and public input. This proposal would eliminate balance, scientific credibility, and public accountability in forest planning, the very foundations upon which the National Forest Management Act is based.
I urge you abandon these proposed regulations in their entirety and return to the balanced and accountable forest planning envisioned by the NFMA.
firma la peticiónfirma la peticiónUSDA FS Planning Rule
Content Analysis Team
P.O. Box 8359
Missoula, MT 59807
planning_rule@fs.fed.us
CC: Your U.S. Representative/Senator
Dear Chief Bosworth,
I am submitting this letter as an official comment to your proposed rewrite of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) regulations. I strongly oppose the proposed new rules that would eliminate or seriously weaken vital safeguards for all of our 155 national forests and allow reckless logging by timber-industry profiteers and the destruction of habitat for many species of wildlife.
I am particularly opposed to the attempt to change what have historically been mandatory and enforceable requirements for surveying and maintaining viable populations of wildlife in our national forests into optional considerations left to the complete discretion of forest planners. This flaw is contained in both of the alternative wildlife options presented in the December 6 proposal.
Similarly unacceptable is the proposal's indication that forest planning may be categorically excluded from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). As our nation's bedrock environmental
law,
NEPA ensures both full consideration of potential environmental impacts of planning decisions and meaningful public participation.
I am also troubled that the draft regulations seek to create a presumption that all national forest lands are open to logging, grazing, mining, off-road vehicles, and other commercial uses unless specifically prohibited, making other considerations like fish and wildlife of secondary importance.
In fact, I oppose the overall direction of the proposed regulations, which seek to give forest managers total discretion to manage public forests however they see fit while reducing scientific and public input. This proposal would eliminate balance, scientific credibility, and public accountability in forest planning, the very foundations upon which the National Forest Management Act is based.
I urge you abandon these proposed regulations in their entirety and return to the balanced and accountable forest planning envisioned by the NFMA.
Ver más peticiones:
Has deshabilitado JavaScript. Sin este programa, puede que nuestro sitio no funcione debidamente.
al firmar, aceptas los condiciones del servicio de Care2 Puede administrar sus suscripciones por correo electrónico en cualquier momento.
¿Tienes dificultades para firmarla?? Infórmanos.