This time mandatory standards ensure that a proposed pipeline project will protect water quality:
In Bath County, the Forest Service said an access road that impacts a wild brook trout stream, Laurel Run, “is unacceptable because it parallels the stream channel with the riparian corridor for much of its length and has numerous stream crossings.”
The letter says the access road is inconsistent with forest plan standards and best management practices concerning soil and water.
Why does the Forest Service want to get rid of standards when they revise their plans? Do they think that some mealy-mouthed desired condition of “high quality water” in a forest plan would have the same effect? That it would be legally sufficient to claim such vague, aspirational statements meet requirements to protect at-risk species?