Here is more about Carson National forest in New Mexico and how the Bush
administration continues to change the rules to get what it wants, no matter
what. Jerry Neff



     Copyright 2004 The Times Mirror Company; Los Angeles Times
                            All Rights Reserved
                             Los Angeles Times

                         August 11, 2004 Wednesday
                                Home Edition

 SECTION: CALIFORNIA; Metro; Editorial Pages Desk; Part B; Pg. 10

 LENGTH: 476 words

 HEADLINE: Two-Faced Forest Policy

 BODY:


 There are several good reasons to protect 40,000 acres of New Mexico's
 Carson National Forest from gas exploration. For one, the alpine meadow
 was donated to the national forest 22 years ago -- by an oil company --
 for wildlife habitat and recreation. The gift was intended to benefit the
 public and the environment, not to help out another energy company. The
 land lies next to a Boy Scout camp where for 65 years youths from across
 the nation have backpacked, ridden horses and worked on conservation
 projects.

 The U.S. Forest Service has determined that gas exploration could pollute
 water in the pristine countryside, as well as harm wildlife and
 recreation. Foresters consulted with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management,
 which is generally friendly to oil, gas and timber interests. The
 consensus: Reject the request of natural gas producer El Paso Corp. to
 drill in the meadow.

 Then, as Times staff writer Julie Cart reported Monday, came the White
 House Task Force on Energy Project Streamlining -- a title that tells the
 story. It nagged forestry officials to reconsider. Suddenly, the Forest
 Service came out with a report more favorable to the El Paso proposal, a
 first step in opening the forest to gas exploration.

 Once again, the Bush administration ignored the best science of its own
 experts, as it did in withholding a report on high mercury levels in
 women, rejecting the scientific consensus on climate change and banning
 over-the-counter sales of the so-called morning-after pill. Once again, in
 the New Mexico forest, a political agenda blurred environmental science
 and the proper workings of federal agencies. It also overrode the
 objections of a governor, the communities around the land and the Boy
 Scouts.

 Hold it. Weren't Bush officials the ones making pronouncements a couple of
 weeks ago about giving states and communities a bigger role in deciding
 what gets built in their national forests? In that case, the
 administration was unveiling a rule that would make it easier to build
 roads through the forests. Under the new process, governors and
 communities would have a major say in opening areas to development.

 The real message seems to be that state and local governments have an
 important voice on national forests, but only when they're saying, "Drill!
 Pave! Log!" Governors in other Western states who are trying to preserve
 wild land from gas and oil leases might as well lack larynxes, at the rate
 they're heard.

 In truth, though local opinions matter, final decisions on forest matters
 should be made by national foresters, based on science and public benefit.
 The national forests belong to all the people in this country, not to a
 state or town. Some resource development in these forests is appropriate,
 but it ought to be based on the best use of the land, not on the gas
 company guy having the right ties to the White House.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see:
 http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp