I saw the hearing as well and it was remarkable to see the support that Tester's colleagues have for him, especially Wyden from Oregon. He's pushing a restoration bill as well and understands that compromise and collaboration don't have to result in a weaker approach to conservation. Tester is proving that point with a bill that's nearly 700,000 acres strong where Wilderness is concerned.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

Many of the major concerns that conservation groups and citizens in Montana and around the country have been expressing about Senator Tester's FJRA/S1470 for months are also concerns shared by the Forest Service, White House and the Chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

Remember, at the Dec 17th Senate hearing, Under Secretary Harris Sherman (the top Forest Service official in the land) came out strongly against major provisions of Tester's bill. Under Secretary Sherman's entire testimony is available here: http://energy.senate.gov/public/_files/She….

Specifically, here is some of what Under Secretary Sherman said at the December 17, 2009 hearing:

"If the Committee decides to go forward with a bill, we would urge you to first, alter or remove the highly specific timber supply requirements, which in our view are not reasonable or achievable.

Secondly, we like to urge you to amend the National Environmental Policy Act related provisions, which in our view are flawed and are legally vulnerable.

Thirdly, we would urge you to consider the budgetary implications to meet the bill's requirements. If we were to go forward with S1470 it would require far greater resources to do that and it will require us to draw these monies from forests within Region One or from other Regions.

And lastly, there are a number of other issues that I have flagged in my written testimony that we think needs to be addressed and hopefully corrected."

If you want to watch this portion of the hearing for yourself, you can do so at the following link. I'd encourage everyone to watch Under Secretary Sherman's oral testimony, especially the portion that begins at the 67:50 mark of the hearing and again at the 74:15 mark of the video, when Sherman is asked questions from Senator Bingaman, Chairman of the Committee. :
http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?…

Senator Bingaman: "Let me ask Secretary Sherman, first this is with regards to S1470. I believe you stated in testimony, 'The levels of mechanical treatment that are called for in S1470 are likely unachievable and perhaps unsustainable.' I guess that raises the question in my mind as to whether the Forest Service was involved in the discussions, the collaborative discussions that lead to this legislation that Senator Tester and Senator Baucus have put forward here. Did the Forest Service discuss sustainability and achievability with the various stakeholders as part of those discussions? Are you aware of what the history of that is?"

Under Secretary Sherman: "My understanding is that the regional and local offices of the Forest Service did not have, were not participants in the stakeholder process."

Under Secretary Sherman: "There is the likelihood that if Congress were to move forward and pass legislation such as we are talking about today, that other regions will want to do so similarly. Now, if that happens, my concern is that there will be somewhat of a balkanization that occurs between the different regions in the country. Those who are first in may get funded and those who come later may find there are less funds available. There will be certain "haves" and "have nots" that result from this process. Then in someways there is no longer a true national review, an effort to sift out what priorities ought to exist across the country."

As you can clearly see, these are hardly insignificant, trivial concerns coming from the top Forest Service official in America. Let's recap. The Forest Service believes that the logging levels in Tester's bill are "likely unachievable and perhaps unsustainable." The Forest Service feels the NEPA shortcuts are "flawed and legally vulnerable." The Forest Service warns Senator Tester that his bill includes numerous unfunded mandates, which would require the Forest Service to pull money from other budget-strapped national forests in the region and nation to pay for the mandated logging requirements of S1470. That's right, money would be taken from the Bitterroot, Flathead, Custer, Lewis and Clark, Helena National Forests (and others) to pay for the mandated requirements of S1470 related to the Beaverhead-Deerlodge portion of the bill. And finally, the Forest Service's top official warns Senator Tester that his bill may, in fact, unravel the entire National Forest system through increased "balkanization." Again, hardly insignificant, trivial concerns.

So given these facts, here's a suggested New Year's Resolution for supporters of Tester's bill: In 2010 can we please move the debate about this bill beyond shallow talking points (and letters to the editor) and actually dig deeper and have an adult discussion about what this bill, as written, would actually do?

As our coalition has been saying all along - and as the Forest Service said at the hearing - there are some serious problems with this bill that, if passed, would forever change the way our public national forests are managed, not just here in Montana, but around the country.

So far, Senator Tester, his staff and the supporters of his bill have completely ignored all of these concerns. Senator Tester even told the Montana Standard last week that he's not willing to listen to the major concerns of the US Forest Service (see: http://www.mtstandard.com/articles/2009/12…). Last week, we sent Senator Tester a letter respectfully requesting that he "include representatives of the Last Best Place Wildlands Campaign in any and all discussions and communications between his office, the Forest Service, the Obama administration, members of the Beaverhead Partnership and any other interested parties related to changes, alterations and improvements to S 1470." To date, we haven't heard back.

But seriously, the Forest Service and the White House are not going to let this bill pass as written. Senator Bingaman (chair of Energy and Natural Resources Committee) is not going to let this bill pass as written. On the House side, the same is true of Rep Rahall and Rep Grijalva, who each chair important committees.

The bill needs a major over haul of the provisions that are highlighted above, which greatly concern the head of the entire Forest Service, the White House and many conservation organizations and citizens. That's the reality now, so supporters of Tester's bill better come to terms with this reality and drop the shallow talking points and re-focus on what this bill, as written, would actually do.

You can learn more about this bill, including a detailed line-by-line analysis of what the bill actually says and what it would actually do at:
http://testerloggingbilltruths.wordpress.c….

The Last Best Place Wildlands Campaign is a coalition of conservation organizations and citizens dedicated to wildlands protection, forest restoration and the sound long-term management of our public lands. Our coalition includes 4th and 5th generation Montanans, small-business owners, veterans, retired Forest Service supervisors and district rangers, hikers and backpackers, hunters and anglers, outfitters and guides, scientists and community leaders.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike