Inner Voice
|
Winter 2007. Dead trees live. Idaho wilderness is at risk. Welcome, James. NO MALHEUR SALE The allegedly dying ponderosa pine trees proposed for logging in the Malheur National Forest’s High Roberts timber sale are still alive and well. Four years after a minor ground fire moved through the forest, and three years after the U.S. Forest Service declared the slightly singed trees mortally wounded, the old–growth pines continue to thrive. In 2004, Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics obtained a preliminary injunction that protected the trees until a trial could be held. At that time, U.S. District Court Judge Garr King wrote, “Although the Forest Service categorizes many of the marked trees as ‘dying,’ the plain meaning of ‘live’ is still living, in other words, not dead.” A few months later in a similar case challenging the Easy timber sale, Judge King changed his mind, ruling that trees the Forest Service predicted would die from fire damage could be logged. This legal issue remains unresolved. Before our High Roberts case could get to trial, the Forest Service withdrew its timber sale decision. Forest Service district ranger Brooks Smith wrote that a “recent review of the sale area has me concerned that the Project may no longer be in compliance with the Forest Plan.” On that basis, the Forest Service has asked the judge to declare our lawsuit moot. The Forest Service has also re–thought its methodology for predicting tree death after wildfires in northeast Oregon’s Blue Mountains. Forest Service insect specialist Don Scott, who developed a ranking scheme used to predict tree death after fire, issued an “amendment” in late August 2006. Scott reviewed the survival rate of large ponderosa pines both four years and ten years after two different wildfires on the Malheur National Forest. He found that “delayed mortality of large, old ponderosa pines has not occurred at the rate projected by the current Rating System.” According to Scott, the new amendment “offers a conservative approach to salvage marking and will result in the retention of greater numbers of large–diameter, mature and over–mature ponderosa pine.” We certainly hope so.—Andy Stahl IDAHO GIVEAWAY In July, the anti–environment Idaho delegation passed its artfully named Central Idaho Economic Development and Recreation Act, or CIEDRA (HR 3603) through the U.S. House of Representatives. Among other things, this bill would give away thousands of acres of federal lands in the Sawtooth National Recreation Area, dilute wilderness protection standards and require that off–road vehicles become the dominant form of use in several hundred thousand acres of the spectacular Sawtooth. Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics recently asked its 6,000 members in the twenty states with senators on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which held a hearing on HR 3603, to urge their committee member to oppose the bill. The bill has split environmental interests, with the Sierra Club and more than eighty other organizations lining up against the legislation, and The Wilderness Society and Idaho Conservation League favoring the bill. The Idaho delegation’s support of this bill showcases the state’s long–held anti–wilderness bias, a stance that politicians with more pro–environment views have not been able to alter. It has been the custom in Congress to defer to each state’s delegation for decisions designating the boundaries of a state’s federal wilderness areas. This nod to the principle that “all politics are local” has worked adequately, but only in states with members of Congress on both sides of the wilderness ideological divide. Vigorous and open debate between opposing views has most often ensured reasonable wilderness compromise. In 1984, Congress passed bills protecting more than 8 million wilderness acres in twenty–one states whose delegations represented a cross section of wilderness views. The congressional delegations of Oregon, Washington, California and Arizona, for example, were split evenly for and against wilderness, and were motivated to reach an agreement. They did so to the lasting benefit of their constituents and the nation. But Idaho’s 1984 delegation—made up of then–representative and now Senator Larry Craig, as well as Jim McClure, Steve Symms and George Hansen—refused to endorse any wilderness protection for Idaho’s federal lands. The only legislation they would have supported would have cut the heart out of the 1964 Wilderness Act, gutting the established standards for wilderness preservation. Like other extremist, anti–wilderness congressional delegations of that era, they were stopped in their tracks by committee chairs in the House and Senate who protected the integrity of wilderness preservation from any state’s delegation running amok. In today’s Congress, the checks and balances that ensure wilderness bills remain faithful to the Wilderness Act are threadbare, at best. In place of former Public Lands Subcommittee chairman and wilderness protector John Sieberling, a Democratic representative from Ohio, we now have anti–environment zealot Richard Pombo, a Republican representative from California. In place of former Senate committee chairman and wilderness stalwart Henry “Scoop” Jackson, a Democratic senator from Washington, we now have the aforementioned Craig, a Republican. The Idaho delegation still holds to its anti–wilderness bias. The anti–environment views of today’s members—Craig, Republican Senator Mike Crapo and Representatives Butch Otter and Mike Simpson—equal those of their 1984 predecessors, with their voting records ranging from 5 to 11 percent on the latest League of Conservation Voters scorecard. The Idaho delegation, at long last, has found a Congress and President willing to entertain its radical anti–wilderness stance. But its window of opportunity is narrow and may close after the November election, if Republicans lose control of the House or Senate. Such a change would return wilderness defenders like Representative Nick Rahall, a Democrat from West Virginia, to the key committee chairs that control the fate of wilderness legislation.—Andy Stahl WELCOME, JAMES In August, Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics welcomed James Johnston to our staff as a policy analyst. A native Oregonian, James has been active in forest issues for many years. He cofounded the Cascadia Wildlands Project, and most recently served as the executive director of the Bellingham Bay Foundation. James is working on a number of projects. He is preparing scientific challenges to biological opinions that adversely impact spotted owl habitat in the Rogue, Siskiyou, Umpqua and Klamath National Forests; working to highlight ecologically responsible thinning operations by reviewing and commenting on environmental assessments and impact statements for the Deschutes, Malheur, Six Rivers, Shasta–Trinity, Klamath and Mendocino National Forests; and monitoring U.S. Forest Service plans to clear–cut aspen groves throughout the San Juan National Forest in response to a mysterious die–off (see News, page 9). He is also preparing comments for several states that have begun implementation of the new national Off–Highway Vehicle Rule, to ensure that areas in which OHV use is allowed are properly designated and mapped. James is an avid hiker, backpacker, fly fisherman and photographer who has covered more than a thousand miles of trail per year since he was old enough to drive. His wilderness advocacy, along with his extensive knowledge of forests and policy issues, makes him a welcome addition to the FSEEE staff. His hiking companion and occasional office partner is Zella, a red–haired Rhodesian Ridgeback.—Kay Crider |
