Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Follow Tester’s lead
Posted Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 4:01 PM
Marilyn’s Olsen’s letter on Sen. Jon Tester’s forest bill (see “Tester taken to task,” Feb. 11, 2010) got one thing right: More people need to read Tester’s bill.
The levels of timber treatment called for in the bill are sustainable precisely because the mandates include a range of activities, not just commercial logging. Mechanical treatment can include pruning the understory of overgrown stands, hauling forest materials that are building up on the ground, doing selective thinning in the wildland-urban interface, among many other activities. What’s more, the bill only mandates a level of acres to be treated, not an amount of board feet to be cut. And the 21 amendments that Tester has proposed make sure that restoration work is done within a set amount of time, that only local mills will get the contracts, and that treatment projects are prioritized in the wildland-urban interface.
The mandates in the bill can be met using a very broad range of treatments, but the critics of Tester’s bill love to talk about commercial logging because that’s the bogeyman that frightens other environmentalists. Thankfully, most Montanans are getting beyond scare tactics and following Tester’s lead. Tester is talking about much more than commercial logging. He’s talking about getting more work done in lands that are already roaded and suffering from extensive beetle kill. He’s trying to forge a future for our timber mills that focuses on restoration instead of just “getting the cut out.” He’s trying to work alongside timber industry leaders to preserve our options for the local management of our forests.
And, he’s trying to make sure that we protect the headwaters of Rock Creek, Monture Creek, the North Fork of the Blackfoot and the Clearwater River. These are Montana rivers and last time I checked there isn’t even one other bill that stands half a chance of protecting them.
Tester just introduced 21 proposed changes to a bill that was already quite good. For some people, it will never be enough. For Tester and for most Montanans, though, enough is enough. We aren’t going to get a bill that is perfect for everyone, that’s why we compromise and work together on these things, something you know if you’ve spent much time at all in the West. We need to designate these 670,000 acres of new wilderness and get more work done in the woods. Here’s to Tester and to Sen. Max Baucus for backing a fine bill.
Emma Young
Missoula
Comments (5)
Showing 1-5 of 5
like
dislike
Well put Emma. This brings up a good point, that extremists always seem to use the weapon of fear to dismantle the truth. I appreciate your level-headed, factual, and calm rebuttal to these false claims.
"There are so many factual criticisms of the bill that go unanswered because of the attention given to (some of) the messengers instead of their message."^^^
Sen. Jon Tester’s cavalier remarks about the Obama administration’s objections to his logging bill demonstrate incredible arrogance and willful denial of reality (see “Logjam,” Feb. 11, 2010). Undersecretary Harris Sherman, whose hearing testimony strongly questioned essential aspects of Tester’s bill, is not just any old witness—he’s the guy who was hired to oversee the Forest Service, and to formulate and give voice to the administration’s forest policy.
It’s not about Sherman having “heartburn,” as Tester puts it. And it’s immaterial whether there are individuals in the Forest Service or anywhere else in government who don’t share Sherman’s views, as Tester speculates. A policy has been articulated—the administration, representing citizens inside and outside Montana and a broader public interest, has put its foot down on the senator’s over-the-top logging mandate and the terrible precedents his bill would establish.
Unfortunately, since the hearing, Tester’s contrarian response has been to increase the amount of logging the bill requires. He says “the jury is out” on his bill, even though it’s hard to find anyone who likes it. He promises “plenty of places to find and cut trees” to prop up the timber industry, when there’s little demand, and a huge backlog of uncut timber under contract.
Tester seems to have made a personal decision to just bully and bluster his way ahead, no matter what common sense would dictate. By contrast, the Forest Service appears to be trying to serve the public interest with its assertive stand against the bad ideas in Tester’s bill.
Steve Gilbert, board member, Helena
Janine Blaeloch, director, Seattle
Western Lands Project
Emma, It's interesting to note that Harris Sherman, the Obama Administration's Under Secretary of Natural Resources and Environment (the top Forest Service official in America), has a much different take on some of the provisions currently written into Senator Tester's FJRA.
Why do you think Under Secretary Sherman has such a profoundly different take on the major provisions of the FJRA from those that you currently have?
Could it be that perhaps one of you knows a little more about these issues (and potential policy implications) than the other?
The following are statements from Harris Sherman, the Obama Administration's Under Secretary of Natural Resources and Environment, given at the US Senate's hearing on Senator Tester's bill.
"The levels of mechanical treatment that are called for in S1470 are likely unachievable and perhaps unsustainable."
"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 met 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."
"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."
Also from the Senate hearing is this exchange between Senator Bingaman and Under Secretary Sherman:
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."
---------
Also, the other day we obtained copies of the official testimony submitted to the US Senate's Energy and Natural Resources Committee by The Wilderness Society. As people may know, The Wilderness Society is listed as a supporter of Sen Tester's FJRA (see the coalition's very own website: http://www.montanaforests.org/about).
What's I find particularly interesting is that when you read major portions of the official testimony from The Wilderness Society you'll notice that when it comes to issues of mandated logging and NEPA provisions within FJRA, the concerns expressed by The Wilderness Society are nearly identical to the concerns expressed by members of the Last Best Place Wildlands Campaign and by the US Forest Service leadership.
Specifically, The Wilderness Society's said: "We oppose Congressionally mandated treatment levels in the bill because they, a) neglect the root causes of the problems this bill is intended to address, b) set an adverse national precedent, c) create unreasonably high expectations, d) fail to provide the agency the resources it needs to do its job, and e) most important, we do not believe this approach will work on the ground. "
Also, The Wilderness Society said: "based on consultation with NEPA experts, we do have concerns that some of the specific language in this section of S. 1470 could effectively undermine the application of NEPA and its implementing regulations."
These are hardly insignificant or trivial concerns. And The Wilderness Society isn't the only "supporter" expressing these serious concerns. For example, the Great Yellowstone Coalition's official testimony includes strong concerns about the NEPA provisions in the FJRA. And even the president of the Lewis and Clark Chapter of Trout Unlimited from Sheridan, MT has sent Senator Tester a letter that details seven major concerns this TU Chapter has with the FJRA.
It's important for the public to understand that while Senator Tester has proposed some suggested changes to the bill, none of the suggested changes deal at all with the substantial concerns raised by bill supporters and opponents alike (and the US Forest Service) regarding the logging mandates or the NEPA provisions.
I'm providing this information in the spirit of a more informed and focused discussion about what's actually in the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act and what it would actually do, if passed. I can't help but wonder how the whole debate about the FJRA would be different if more of the general public clearly understood that many of the same exact concerns expressed by people and groups labeled as "bill opponents" were the same exact concerns expressed by "bill supporters." Thanks.
Twitter
Facebook
RSS