YellowSub1962
11-19-2001, 08:44 AM
I got this from Twin44s...If so many people are displeased, why are they not doing anything about it???
http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/1182969p-1250588c.html
Sierra forest ruling pleases few
By Tom Knudson -- Bee Staff Writer
Published 5:45 AM PST Saturday, Nov. 17, 2001
In one of his first major public policy decisions, U.S. Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth upheld a controversial Sierra Nevada management plan calling for greater protection of old-growth forests, wildlife and riparian areas -- but he also ordered that key parts of the plan be re-evaluated and possibly changed.
Concerned about deteriorating forest health and increasing fire danger in the 400-mile-long mountain range, Bosworth instructed Forest Service planners to take a new look at those issues, a move that could lead to more intensive thinning and logging.
"The big fires of 2000 further underscore the need for active management," he wrote in the decision released Friday.
"The scope of our forest health problem today is enormous," Bosworth added. "Decades of fire suppression have often produced overcrowded vegetation, weakening trees and rendering them more fire prone and more susceptible to pests (and) diseases."
In his decision, Bosworth rejected 234 administrative appeals of the Sierra Nevada Framework, which covers a broad range of land-management activities across 11.5 million acres from the Modoc National Forest in northeastern California to the Sequoia National Forest east of Bakersfield. The plan was originally approved by former regional forester Brad Powell in January, during the final days of the Clinton administration.
At the same time, Bosworth handed no clear victory to any side. Environmentalists, loggers, small-town residents and off-road vehicle users criticized his action, but for different reasons.
"It's a mixed decision," said Jay Watson, regional director of The Wilderness Society. "While a victory for land conservation, the chief's decision also will allow the (Bush) administration to try to undermine the framework in the future."
To the Quincy Library Group, a coalition of loggers, conservationists and business people who favor more aggressive forest thinning, the decision was a letdown.
"This doesn't even come close to helping us," said Linda Blum, a member of the Quincy group. "It's not going to fix anything."
Rep. Wally Herger, R-Marysville, co-author of the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act and a strong supporter of the Quincy logging strategy, was displeased, too.
"I was very surprised and disappointed," Herger said of Bosworth's decision. "This shows just how far the radical environmentalists have infiltrated public policy in America."
The matter may not be over.
At least two groups said Friday that they plan to ask U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman to overturn the decision. Veneman, former attorney for a group involved in the dispute, has recused herself, leaving the responsibility with Mark Rey, the undersecretary of agriculture who oversees the Forest Service.
One group planning such a move is the Blue Ribbon Coalition of off-road vehicle users. "It's no secret that this process was hijacked by operatives in the Clinton administration," said spokesman Don Amador.
The culmination of years of research, the Sierra framework calls for dramatic reductions in logging to protect rare species of wildlife, including the California spotted owl and Pacific fisher, a large, weasel-like carnivore. And while environmental groups favor such cuts, others say they are dangerous -- especially in a time of increasing fire danger.
"We're dismayed the chief would allow such a catastrophic decision to stand in light of the last several years' fires," said Chris West, vice president of the American Forest Resource Council, which represents timber companies and sawmills.
In his decision, Bosworth made it clear wildfire is a concern. "California continues to have unusually high levels of fire intensity," he wrote.
"Too often the result is soil erosion and habitat degradation, especially in sensitive areas. ... Therefore, I am instructing the Regional Forester (in California) to re-evaluate the decision for possibilities of more flexibility in aggressive fuels treatment."
Environmentalists don't like the sound of that.
"We are very concerned that the chief's decision to reconsider the plan will eventually ... threaten the Sierra's ecological values," said Craig Thomas, conservation director of the Sierra Nevada Forest Protection Campaign.
But Steve Segovia, assistant director for litigation at the Forest Service, said Bosworth is not calling for more logging.
"What the chief is asking in the decision is to further evaluate opportunities for more aggressive treatments," he said. "He's not saying there are opportunities.
"This was purposely left with flexibility" for Forest Service officials in California to determine on their own, Segovia said.
Matt Mathes, state spokesman for the Forest Service, said his agency welcomes the challenge of taking a closer look at parts of the plan. "We think any decision can be improved, especially one as complex as this."
But to others, more review is not the solution.
"The chief is saying, 'Let's go study some more.' Are we going to study it through next year's fire season, too?" said West. "This is going to continue to put forests, wildlife and communities at risk."
Though it reduces logging overall, the framework also calls for focusing forest-thinning efforts near populated areas.
But Blum, of the Quincy Library Group, said such a strategy does not go far enough. "If you are not within half a mile of a town," she said, "your fate is management by large fire fight."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About the Reporter
---------------------------
The Bee's Tom Knudson can be reached at (530) 582-5336 or tknudson@sacbee.com .
:usa:
http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/1182969p-1250588c.html
Sierra forest ruling pleases few
By Tom Knudson -- Bee Staff Writer
Published 5:45 AM PST Saturday, Nov. 17, 2001
In one of his first major public policy decisions, U.S. Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth upheld a controversial Sierra Nevada management plan calling for greater protection of old-growth forests, wildlife and riparian areas -- but he also ordered that key parts of the plan be re-evaluated and possibly changed.
Concerned about deteriorating forest health and increasing fire danger in the 400-mile-long mountain range, Bosworth instructed Forest Service planners to take a new look at those issues, a move that could lead to more intensive thinning and logging.
"The big fires of 2000 further underscore the need for active management," he wrote in the decision released Friday.
"The scope of our forest health problem today is enormous," Bosworth added. "Decades of fire suppression have often produced overcrowded vegetation, weakening trees and rendering them more fire prone and more susceptible to pests (and) diseases."
In his decision, Bosworth rejected 234 administrative appeals of the Sierra Nevada Framework, which covers a broad range of land-management activities across 11.5 million acres from the Modoc National Forest in northeastern California to the Sequoia National Forest east of Bakersfield. The plan was originally approved by former regional forester Brad Powell in January, during the final days of the Clinton administration.
At the same time, Bosworth handed no clear victory to any side. Environmentalists, loggers, small-town residents and off-road vehicle users criticized his action, but for different reasons.
"It's a mixed decision," said Jay Watson, regional director of The Wilderness Society. "While a victory for land conservation, the chief's decision also will allow the (Bush) administration to try to undermine the framework in the future."
To the Quincy Library Group, a coalition of loggers, conservationists and business people who favor more aggressive forest thinning, the decision was a letdown.
"This doesn't even come close to helping us," said Linda Blum, a member of the Quincy group. "It's not going to fix anything."
Rep. Wally Herger, R-Marysville, co-author of the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act and a strong supporter of the Quincy logging strategy, was displeased, too.
"I was very surprised and disappointed," Herger said of Bosworth's decision. "This shows just how far the radical environmentalists have infiltrated public policy in America."
The matter may not be over.
At least two groups said Friday that they plan to ask U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman to overturn the decision. Veneman, former attorney for a group involved in the dispute, has recused herself, leaving the responsibility with Mark Rey, the undersecretary of agriculture who oversees the Forest Service.
One group planning such a move is the Blue Ribbon Coalition of off-road vehicle users. "It's no secret that this process was hijacked by operatives in the Clinton administration," said spokesman Don Amador.
The culmination of years of research, the Sierra framework calls for dramatic reductions in logging to protect rare species of wildlife, including the California spotted owl and Pacific fisher, a large, weasel-like carnivore. And while environmental groups favor such cuts, others say they are dangerous -- especially in a time of increasing fire danger.
"We're dismayed the chief would allow such a catastrophic decision to stand in light of the last several years' fires," said Chris West, vice president of the American Forest Resource Council, which represents timber companies and sawmills.
In his decision, Bosworth made it clear wildfire is a concern. "California continues to have unusually high levels of fire intensity," he wrote.
"Too often the result is soil erosion and habitat degradation, especially in sensitive areas. ... Therefore, I am instructing the Regional Forester (in California) to re-evaluate the decision for possibilities of more flexibility in aggressive fuels treatment."
Environmentalists don't like the sound of that.
"We are very concerned that the chief's decision to reconsider the plan will eventually ... threaten the Sierra's ecological values," said Craig Thomas, conservation director of the Sierra Nevada Forest Protection Campaign.
But Steve Segovia, assistant director for litigation at the Forest Service, said Bosworth is not calling for more logging.
"What the chief is asking in the decision is to further evaluate opportunities for more aggressive treatments," he said. "He's not saying there are opportunities.
"This was purposely left with flexibility" for Forest Service officials in California to determine on their own, Segovia said.
Matt Mathes, state spokesman for the Forest Service, said his agency welcomes the challenge of taking a closer look at parts of the plan. "We think any decision can be improved, especially one as complex as this."
But to others, more review is not the solution.
"The chief is saying, 'Let's go study some more.' Are we going to study it through next year's fire season, too?" said West. "This is going to continue to put forests, wildlife and communities at risk."
Though it reduces logging overall, the framework also calls for focusing forest-thinning efforts near populated areas.
But Blum, of the Quincy Library Group, said such a strategy does not go far enough. "If you are not within half a mile of a town," she said, "your fate is management by large fire fight."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About the Reporter
---------------------------
The Bee's Tom Knudson can be reached at (530) 582-5336 or tknudson@sacbee.com .
:usa: