Logging guidelines for the Pisgah and Nantahala national forests will be re-evaluated starting in 2007, a process required every decade or so. Typically, it takes several years to finish and involves many public meetings.

But this time around, there could be little to no public input.

The Bush Administration wants to eliminate public input in the creation of logging guidelines.

Technically called a “forest plan,” the guidelines serve as a road map for what will be logged and how much. It designates backcountry, scenic and recreational areas that are off-limits to logging, names creeks and rivers that should be protected, and lists species that should be safeguarded.

“These are plans that determine what each national forest is going to do for 10 to 15 years in the future. It would be a terrible thing not to give the public a voice in any of that,” said Bob Gale, an ecologist with Western North Carolina Alliance.

But supporters of the change say it will cut out excessive red tape.

“I think it is moving in the right direction. It is going to expedite things,” said Steve Henson with the Southern Appalachian Multiple Use Council, a regional logging industry group based in Waynesville.

It took eight years to do a forest plan for Cherokee National Forest in Tennessee, the Jefferson in Virginia and Chattahoochee in Georgia, Henson said.

“It was just one meeting after another, with everyone saying the same thing at each one. It was meeting people to death,” Henson said. “By the time you’ve finished your plan, it’s time to start all over again. You are in a perpetual planning cycle. Imagine the money we spend on people sitting in their offices writing these massive documents. Hopefully, we will see more active management on the ground instead of constant analysis.”

Henson pointed out that each logging operation will still go through a public review and comment period.

But the justification for those logging operations will already be laid in the forest plant. Each logging proposal begins with: “the purpose of this project is to implement the direction set forth in the Land and Resource Management Plan.”

The Bush changes would not only eliminate public input during creation of the plan, but block the public from challenging the forest plan once it is created.

Gale said the move would create a public relations nightmare. It would rejuvenate forest watchdog groups and that died back following a series of logging victories in the 1990s.

“The forest service could be shooting itself in the foot by taking a giant step backwards in time,” Gale said.

But Henson said environmental groups use the forest plan as an excuse to insert language that will later give them justification “to attack the forest service in the courts”

“They are looking for ways to shut down any kind of timber harvesting,” Henson said.

And that’s the crux of the debate: the fundamental, philosophical differences between environmental groups and the National Forest Service. Environmental groups, including all the ones quoted in these articles, are against any and all commercial logging on public lands — which is the antithesis of the forest service’s mission.

“National forests were established under the department of agriculture to set aside lands for two purposes: one was for watershed protection and one was to provide a continuous supply of timber for the country. That has never changed,” Henson said. “They need to challenge that in Congress, not on these forest plans at the district level.”

The decision on the proposed changes will be made in coming weeks. For a detailed analyses by WildLaw and The Wilderness Society of rule changes, go to www.americanlands.org/documents.