Brian, I appreciate your passion for wild areas, but I have a few questions for you directly related to what's actually in the bill.

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 former Forest Service Chief (and Bitterroot Valley resident) Jack Ward Thomas described as follows: "the approach is flawed, inappropriate, less than fully informed, and has implications for the management of the entire national forest system. It should be debated in that context." (see: http://missoulian.com/news/opinion/columni…)

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? Does this not concern you?

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 and legally vulnerable?"

A bill which the Forest Service says will create "balkanization" and establish a system of "haves and have nots" when it comes to funding? Why are you working Brian to create a future for a national forests like this?

Also, Brian, why do you suppose that Under Secretary Sherman and Jack de Golia, the Beaverehead Deerlodge National Forest public affairs officer from 1989 to 2008 (see letter below) have such a much different take on the Beaverhead Partnership process than the one you relate above? Are you willing to say that Under Secretary Sherman and Mr. de Golia are mistaken? Are you will to put these folks into your "radical" box? Thank you for taking the time to answer these important questions Brian.

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."

--------------

NOTE: This letter is from Jack de Golia, the public affairs officer of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest from 1989 to 2008. He is recently retired.

Background on the Forest Service, forest partnership
By Jack de Golia - 02/23/2010

Source: http://www.mtstandard.com/articles/2010/02…

Sunday's online article by Standard State Bureau reporter Jennifer McKee on Sen. Jon Tester's wilderness/timber bill for the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest was very accurate and an exceptionally good summary of the Beaverhead Partnership, except for one phrase: "The Forest Service accepted the plan." The Forest Service accepted the Partnership proposal as it accepted any comment from the public. It gleaned a few ideas from it. But no, the Forest Service did not adopt the Partnership's wilderness/timber proposals. That's why the Partnership went to Tester to try to legislate the idea. The story goes on to say that the eventual forest plan didn't satisfy the Partnership group.

The unfortunate outcome of the Partnership was to cast doubt on the integrity of the forest planning work that people had felt was open until about 2006. The Partnership's political shenanigans then put the forest plan on hold for a time and it never regained public trust.

Now Tester wants special legislation for decisions that should be left to forest managers. Does this mean we'll get special laws for each national forest? If we do, it's the end of "national" forests - they'll become legislated fiefdoms of the local congressional delegation. That's not a good outcome. And mandating a cut isn't good forest management either.

The Partnership group was on to something, but drew up their drawbridge too soon, before bringing in the Mike McGinleys and Matthew Koehlers and others who were definitely left out.

Then the Partnership sold their idea like it was the best thing since sliced bread and they did that very effectively.

But, putting their plan into law is not the right thing to do. Let the forest planning process work. Tester should not be monkeying with that.

Jack de Golia
(Editor's note: Jack de Golia, now retired, was public affairs officer for the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest from 1989 to 2008.)

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.

Great letter, Brian. There's a big difference between people who voice criticisms in the context of their overall support for Senator Tester's bill and those who voice their criticisms in an effort to kill Tester's bill. The first want to see more Wilderness designated and more work get done. They want to work with Tester to improve this bill and get it passed. The others are committed to defending the status quo and hoping for something better some day. That's not enough certainty for most Montanans. I'm glad to see three letters in the Indy this week supporting a proactive approach and backing a great bill.

Thanks Brian! It's also worth noting the difference between collaboration and compromise. Compromise is making trade offs and accepting less than you want. Collaboration is coming together, working to understand each other's values and then making the best decision for all. The collaborators in each of the three areas this bill effects did a phenomenal job working to understand each other and developing these plans. Of course as with any legislation, there will be compromises, but the heart and soul of this bill is communities partnering to determine their best path forward.

Erin

Marc Cooke said on: March 7, 2010, 4:16 pm
I attended a fund raiser last night in Missoula for Wilderness Watch Walking Jim sang some songs and all talked abit. I have seen very few fundraisers that were so well attended. An older gent named Bill Worf had spoken to me in the past about what a terrible bill this is. This gentleman has nothing to gain and everything to loose. Bill was in on the original 64 Wilderness act. If he says it stinks then it stinks. Tester is about building a war chest with lobbyist and (FOJ) friends of Jon money to get re elected. Bill Worf doe not support this bill neither can I or the rest of Montana.
Quote Comment Report Abuse Admin Delete CommentFeature CommentAdd Moderators Note

Beargrass said on: March 7, 2010, 1:21 pm
What matters in tester's bill is that it releases roadless areas to logging, makes our national ofrests locally controlled fiefdoms and disregards almost all current environmental laws. As far as I know the secrecy charge has never been "debunked" becuase the bill WAS crafted by only a select few powerful env. groups and a few local mills. No one is trying to make all public lands wilderness in MT. If these lands have managed to survive this long without commercial exploitation it is becuase they are too rugged and remote to perform that task feasibly. There is so much dishonesty surrounding this bill from Tester's broken campaign promise to "work to protect all remaining roadless areas in MT" to the current attempts at claiming the bill was open to eveyones input and was available for everyone to view, which if you do any real, honest research on this bill you will find that is simply not true. If anyone really thinks Jon Tester cares about MT's last wild public lands you you should know that he wholeheartedly supports mining in the Cabinets Mountains wilderness.