A Living Plan for Forests

The Bush administration has been properly criticized for brushing aside strong and appropriate environmental protection rules from the Clinton administration, usually to the benefit of commercial interests and not the general good. But today, the administration deserves and gets our applause for embracing an enlightened way to manage more than 11 million acres of national forest running the expanse of the massive Sierra Nevada range in California.

The final decision by U.S. Forest Service chief Dale Bosworth signals a major shift in the federal government’s management approach to the forests, away from commercial exploitation and in the direction of long-term protection of old-growth forests and endangered species. The new emphasis will properly regard the forests as a resource for recreation and renewal, not for abuse and misuse.

Ranging from south of Mt. Whitney to north of Lake Tahoe, the 11 forests involved constitute a huge playground for more than 30 million Californians and millions of others. The old policy of large-scale logging will shift toward thinning as a means of fire prevention and control rather than sheer timber production. There will be new emphasis on watershed protection and the salvaging of other forest resources; less cattle grazing. More logging and grazing may be appropriate in some Western forests, but no longer in California.

Alas, Bosworth’s acceptance was not absolute. He left some areas open for further review, including the possibility of more general thinning of forest areas that are fires waiting to happen. Fine-tuning is appropriate as long as it’s limited to that.

What cannot be denied is the significance of the entire Sierra Nevada plan itself, developed after more than a decade of scientific study, legal battles and negotiation in hundreds of public meetings.

One environmentalist critic suggested that the administration was not really happy with the arrangement but is stuck with it because it’s the best plan based on the best possible science. That may be true. In fact, the plan is an example of the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act and other environmental laws working at their best in a large, complex ecosystem.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, the parent agency of the Forest Service, still can review Bosworth’s decision. That should be easy. This is a monumental ruling in favor of the future of our forests and their use by generations of Californians and visitors from other states. The department should affirm Bosworth’s decision with pride.