WASHINGTON, D.C. — A new planning rule from the USDA that will guide the future use of America’s 193-million acre National Forest System is getting mixed reviews.

Environmental groups are pleased with the rule’s emphasis on science and sustainability, while livestock groups blast the proposal for being unworkable. In reality, the impact of the new rules on the Midwest could be small, according to forestry experts.

“In my view, the main changes are that we’ll need to provide better documentation of what we’re already doing,” said Judi Perez, forest planning and public affairs officer for the Hoosier National Forest in Indiana. “The new rules also talk more about collaborating and using science. We’re already doing that, but this will step it up a notch to a higher level.”

The planning rule guides the management of 155 national forests, 20 grasslands and one prairie in the National Forest System. The new rule, which will go into effect in March, emphasizes keeping forests and watersheds healthy and provides new protections for wildlife.

Though it specifically allows for grazing, timber harvests and outdoor recreation, some livestock groups are skeptical.

“Our primary concern is that with this planning rule, we’re moving away from multiple uses toward more restrictive management and ecosystem preservation,” said Dustin Van Liew, director of federal lands for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Assoc. (NCBA). “That’s not what Congress intended when it passed the National Forest Management Act.”

One source of controversy is the requirement to “protect species of conservation concern,” which the NCBA claims could interfere with grazing sheep in the National Forest, a common practice in the West.

“It could take out 25 percent of the domestic sheep industry, and who knows where it will go from there,” Van Liew said. “This rule creates a whole new category of animals outside the Endangered Species Act.”

Outside of the 13 Western states, the agricultural sector will likely be less affected by the new rule, according to experts.

“It probably won’t have a huge impact on agriculture in the Midwest, because we don’t have that many national forests and most of (the land) is not grazed,” said Jeff Dawson, professor emeritus of forest biology at the University of Illinois in Urbana.

According to the USDA, the new rule is supposed to “create new opportunities” for the timber industry and encourage job creation in rural communities. Timber sales also benefit many local school districts. But once again, the impact on the Midwest may be limited.

“I don’t think they’ve cut anything out of the Shawnee National Forest for 10 years,” Dawson said. “The other thing to consider is that because of the recession, there’s not a lot of demand for timber. So even if all of a sudden it will be a lot easier to get timber permits, it may have little impact.”

Perez of the Hoosier National Forest doesn’t expect logging to increase there, either. “The timber harvests that we do in the Hoosier are mainly for the creation of habitats. In the 1970s and ‘80s we produced boards, but today the main output is quality habitats,” she said.

The Wilderness Society hailed the new rule as an improvement over current regulations. “The (Forest Service’s) latest proposal provides a strong vision and generally sound framework for sustainably managing our national forests,” said a statement from Mike Anderson, a spokesman for the organization. “It relies on sound science, provides direction to protect the ecological integrity of national forests, creates mechanisms for addressing climate change and emphasizes the importance of water.”

The current planning rule has been in place since 1982. Three previous attempts to update it, in 2000, 2005 and 2008, were all successfully challenged in court, both by environmental groups and the timber industry.

This time, the USDA and the Forest Service reviewed 300,000 comments on the proposed rule from different stakeholders before drafting a proposal.

“I think it probably will be challenged again, but because of all the public involvement, I think it’s more likely to be upheld,” said Perez. “In my crystal ball, I think this is what we’ll be using for the next 20 to 30 years.”