Rehberg is the "do nothing" politician. Obsessed with process and totally ineffective when it comes to an actual product. Great letter.

SNIP: "Why would Rep. Denny Rehberg propose changes to Sen. Jon Tester’s Forest Jobs and Recreation Act when Montana mill owners say it won’t work?"

Lecticia: Having a little fun with you opening paragraph (above), I have some questions for you:

Why would Senator Jon Tester create a bill that Forest Service officials, including the top Forest Service official in America, say won't work?

A bill that the top Forest Service official in the country says would cause serious budget shortfalls for national forests in Montana and throughout the region and country?

A bill that includes mandated logging levels which the Forest Service says are "unachievable and perhaps unsustainable?"

A bill which the Forest Service says has NEPA provisions which are "flawed?"

A bill which the Forest Service says will create "balkanization" and establish a system of "haves and have nots" when it comes to funding?

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."

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.