|
GrizzlyGator
Guest
|
 |
« on: April 04, 2007, 02:02:30 PM » |
|
Forests
The perils of 'psychic environmentalism'
by DAVID REINHARD
Rep. Brian Baird has now come to understand the special power of
environmentalists.
No, the Washington state Democrat is not cowering before them. He
remains
committed to co-sponsoring the Forest Emergency Recovery and Research
Act
with Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore. But Baird has come face to face with green
power.
Environmentalists who talked to him knew just what they didn't like
about
this bill. It waives environmental laws on the federal lands. It keeps
the
public out of the land-management decisions. It paves the way for roads
in
"roadless areas." It clears the way for massive clear-cuts and tree
plantations on restored lands.
There was one problem with the greenies' gripes. Walden and Baird hadn't
introduced the bill yet. Make that two problems: The stuff they opposed
was
not in the unintroduced bill. Baird calls it "psychic environmentalism."
Beautiful. It's bad enough that environmentalists too often don't seem
interested in offering solutions to the problems of our federal lands --
say, the problem of dead and dying forests prone to catastrophic
wildfires
prior to the Healthy Forests Restoration Act -- but now they're opposing
phantom legislation.
What fails to happen on federal lands after a natural disaster is no
phantom
problem. A tornado, windstorm, insect epidemic or wildfire decimates the
land, and failing to move quickly to log dead and dying trees and to
replant
costs us all economically and environmentally.
Procedural delays -- extended administrative appeals and lawsuits --
lead to
the deterioration of the trees and the reduction in the value of the
wood.
If the delay goes on too long, the trees aren't worth bidding on.
Result:
Vast tracts go unrestored.
A two-year delay after the 2001 Gap fire in the Tahoe National Forest
resulted in a $1.35 million loss in the value. That money might have
helped
watershed restoration, resource enhancement and the removal of trees
that
could fuel the next inferno.
Walden points out that an estimated 20 billion board feet of timber are
on
the ground after Hurricane Katrina. That's enough to build 800,000 homes
or
produce 25 million tons of paper. Much of this timber will be harvested
because it's on private land, but federal land managers cannot act in a
timely manner. After one fire, Colville tribal members were salvaging
still-smoldering logs. The Forest Service, by contrast, did almost no
salvage.
Baird says he finds psychic environmentalism "hysterically funny," but
"disappointing," as well. His message to environmentalists who were
roughing
him up before they had seen the unintroduced: "Read what's in the bill."
If they bothered they would find a measured, common-sense approach to
restoring devastated federal lands. It would allow interdisciplinary
teams
to quickly develop restoration plans for areas of more than 1,000 acres.
Salvage logging and reforestation plans would have to be completed in
120
days and could be appealed at the administrative level and in the
courts,
under the same guidelines as in the bipartisan-backed Healthy Forest
Restoration Act of 2003.
What they would not find is the phantom features of their phantom bill.
The
bill does do not supplant approved forest plans. Any recovery project
must
comply with approved forest plans.
It does not promote clear-cuts. Only dead, down, dying or broken trees
or
trees posing a hazard could be logged. It does not promote plantation
forests. It requires reforestation with native species and promotes
biodiversity. It does not allow permanent logging roads in roadless
areas.
It does not lock the public out of the administrative process or courts.
Interested parties can provide information during the process and, if
they're unsuccessful there, continue to object in court.
As Baird says, "It's a pretty reasonable solution." That is, unless your
problem is allowing anyone into these scarred federal lands. If so, he
has a
question for you: "They say don't kill the dead trees and don't kill the
live trees. Goodness sakes, where do we get the wood?"
Well, at least we now know what's in -- and not in -- the bill. We can
argue
about real rather than imagined things. Unless the greens want to try
their
hand at "Don Quixote" environmentalism -- tilting at (eco-friendly)
windmills.
|
