Obama halts road-building in national forests for one year

[babylonsister]

Obama halts road-building in national forests for one year

By Erika Bolstad | McClatchy Newspapers


WASHINGTON — No new roads or logging will be allowed in 45 million acres of national forest land for the next year, the Obama administration announced Thursday.

The one-year moratorium reinstates a Clinton-era ban on new road construction and development in remote national forests. It's designed to provide "clarity and consistency" on a number of disparate court rulings while the administration develops long-term management plans, said Chris Mather, a spokeswoman for Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack.

"This is a way to provided some clarity and consistency while we develop a long-term roadless plan," Mather said. "These conflicting court cases have created confusion, and we want to eliminate any inconsistency, and, more importantly, ensure the decisions that are made are reflective of President Obama's commitment to protecting forests."

The one-year "timeout" is a major step in protecting roadless areas, said Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., the chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, who along with 120 other members of the House of Representatives asked Vilsack to put the moratorium in place. They feared that they'd be unable to protect some of the land from damaging activities that might be able to proceed because of the conflicting court decisions.

Still, Rahall said, "these wild forests need permanent protection to continue providing clean water, wildlife habitat and boundless recreational opportunities."

more...

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/69019.html

[villager]

1. Yay! Next step - pull out the roads that are there!

:thumbsup:

[vadawg]

4. hell no, without the roads how the hell do we get in their to enjoy them

[CreekDog]

6. you use the roads that are currently there

that doesn't require building a bunch of *new* *logging* roads.

and why is getting in there (which you already can do) on your mind while pollution and damage to these places from roads is not? :wtf:

[vadawg]

9. if you look i was replying to the poster wanting the roads all removed

you might not realise it but a lot of those roads are life savers for hikers etc, nothing worse than me having to schlep 25 miles to get your ass when there could have been a dirt road that took me to within a mile. its all very well wanting to preserve pristine wilderness but without people having access to it the people wont want to protect it, kinda catch 22 situation.

[CreekDog]

11. Wildnerness areas are actually roadless and yet they get the highest level of protection

but i agree with you that removing all the roads period from all forests is a nonstarter.

[depakid]

17. Remediation of legacy roads is extremely important to the restoration of watersheds

and fish habitat.

A little bit about that here: http://www.wildlandscpr.org/legacy-roads

[babylonsister]

16. Is that what you do for a living, rescue people

in the forest?

If so, your 'take' on this is bizarre. You're supposed to like it there and not to mess it up with 'civilization'.

[vadawg]

20. yeah part of my job is rescue, but the dirt roads are a godsend

they do allow us to repsond to areas that would take forever to hike into and make searches much easier. wilderness is nice but the problem is people want to use the wilderness, and when they do stuff happens, then they have to be rescued, the roads are also good for firefighting as well, its much easier to make a firebreak along existing roads than to try and cut a fresh one.

[BeFree]

28. Forest socialism?

Gotta have expensive roads to save the butt of a few stupid ass hikers?
Smacks of socialism: government nannies.
Roads are expensive; who pays for them?

[depakid]

31. Actually, it can be even worse than than that -- it's crony capitalism

Government often pays more for the roads and maintenance than it receives in return for the timber harvested (and there's no entry on the accounting books for the degradation or destruction of formerly "free," sustainable ecosystem services like fresh water, carbon sinks, fish stocks and mycological resources- some of which are quite tasty and expensive). The clearcuts are then replanted with a monoculture that leaves vast portions of the forest vulnerable to disease and/or insect infestation.

It's a lose/lose situation for everyone other than the big logging companies and it amounts to nothing less intergenerational theft.

[babylonsister]

2. So now good news sucks?

So sad.

[FrenchieCat]

19. DU is where good news goes to die.....or sink,

whichever will do at this time.

But yes, this is great great News!

Now perhaps some will see the thick forest even with the trees. :shrug:

[BlooInBloo]

29. Be real. You know what forum you're in.

[SeattleGirl]

3. Good!

I hated it when Bush opened everything up.

[babylonsister]

5. Maybe it's the 'one-year'. But for people who complain about

this prez, when he does something positive, I don't get the boredom. Has this place become somewhere to just argue?

Now only criticism is a hot-button?

[SeattleGirl]

7. A step in the right direction is a positive step.

More steps in more areas are definitely needed, but yeah, lots of crickets on threads containing some good news.

[Jennicut]

8. Exactly. Its a place to complain. Even good news is complained about.

But I like this, so at least I am happy.

[HowHasItComeToThis]

15. WHAT will the AX-men do now

oh terrible

[Scurrilous]

10. K & R

:thumbsup:

[snowdays]

12. Now, Halt the DADT military people for a year -.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[depakid]

13. ""These conflicting court cases have created confusion,"

No shit.

Here's a situation where the Obama administration has a chance to do right where Clinton screwed up and backstabbed the environmental community with the salvage rider. Right now, with timber demand way down, the decision has little economic impact and so is low risk politically. That will change down the line.

What makes a lot of us skeptical is that the nominee for Forest Service Chief is an unknown and inexperienced conservationist from Mississippi, Homer Lee Wilkes.

More on that:

Wilkes earned his bachelor's, master's of business administration and doctorate in urban conservation planning degrees from Jackson State University and lives in Madison, Miss., with his wife and three sons.

"As far back as anyone cares to recall, the undersecretary position was held by a Forest Service expert," said Andy Stahl, executive director of Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics. The conservation group filed several lawsuits against the Forest Service while Mark Rey, a former timber industry lobbyist, held the undersecretary job during the Bush administration. Stahl said choosing Wilkes was "an indication of the relatively low priority the Obama administration places on the national forests."

Rey had tried to remake Forest Service policy to increase logging, particularly in the old growth stands held dear by environmental groups, but he was largely thwarted by federal court rulings. Meanwhile, national forests were starved for funding for everything from trail maintenance to timber sale planning as half the agency's budget went to fight wildfires.

<snip>

Tom Partin, president of the American Forest Resource Council, a timber industry group, said he was confident after a short meeting with Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack that he would provide firm direction to the Forest Service. Partin said he expected Vilsack would increase funding for logging and thinning projects starved for money under the Bush administration, and work to resolve the problem of around $1 billion a year in wildlife spending taking money away from other priorities.

<snip>

Conservation groups were surprised by Wilkes' nomination, but encouraged by his background in conservation and Obama's commitment during the campaign to keeping logging out of millions of acres of national forest roadless areas.

Many scientists say those areas are more valuable as a source of clean water and wildlife habitat than for timber. Mike Anderson of The Wilderness Society said Obama has expressed support for keeping logging projects out of roadless areas many scientists deem more valuable for clean water and wildlife habitat, and he hoped Wilkes would do the same.

"This is probably a non-controversial figure who is not going to be like Mark Rey," said Anderson. "I think we are just glad they are filling the position. The delay has been a concern to us. There are a lot of important issues that the administration needs to deal with."

More: http://www.examiner.com/a-2001663~Obama_names_nominee_to_oversee_national_forests.html

[babylonsister]

18. It says in your quotes that this isn't a controversial selection...

so are you borrowing trouble? Isn't something being done better than nothing? Jeeze. Guess not.



Conservation groups were surprised by Wilkes' nomination, but encouraged by his background in conservation and Obama's commitment during the campaign to keeping logging out of millions of acres of national forest roadless areas.

Many scientists say those areas are more valuable as a source of clean water and wildlife habitat than for timber. Mike Anderson of The Wilderness Society said Obama has expressed support for keeping logging projects out of roadless areas many scientists deem more valuable for clean water and wildlife habitat, and he hoped Wilkes would do the same.

"This is probably a non-controversial figure who is not going to be like Mark Rey," said Anderson. "I think we are just glad they are filling the position. The delay has been a concern to us. There are a lot of important issues that the administration needs to deal with."

[depakid]

22. The deal is that no one in the community knows who the guy is

and others who it was thought were in line for the position (and had impeccable credentials) were passed over.

Which makes him a wildcard. Having been burned by the Clinton administration in one of those industry "compromises," people are justifiably wary (the salvage rider was known as "logging without laws" and Clinton has since apoligized for it).

Generally, I'm not given to tooting my own horn in terms of accomplishments or vocation(s) but in this case for backgrounds' sake, it might be worth saying that I've been involved in forest policy issues since before a good many folks here were born (and yes, I started quite young). I cut my teeth on the http://www.ohs.org/education/oregonhistory/historical_records/dspDocument.cfm?doc_ID=234DCB15-017A-356D-7B4BABA231B68210">Alsea Studies (2-4-5-T or "Agent Orange" spraying & miscarraiges) and the RARE II process (Roadless Area Review and Evaluation) and its aftermath.

So you might say I have something of an interest in where this is going- and also a little hesitancy about premature celebrations. Yes, the moratorium is a "good thing" (and also a no brainer) but the real, long term policy choices have yet to made.

[leftyclimber]

23. Point of clarification

This Wilkes guy is up for Undersecretary of Ag in charge of the USFS. He's a go-between between Vilsack and the USFS higher-ups, i.e., the Chief of the Forest Service. On paper, it doesn't sound like he's a terribly good choice -- I don't see the USFS listening a whole bunch to someone whose specialty is urban conservation, seeing as urban forestry is a minuscule part of what the USFS does. That specialty doesn't key him in to the complexities of wildland conservation/ecology/forestry, regardless of how many letters are after his name.

Regardless, USFS Chief is a different job -- the Chief of the USFS is still Gail Kimbell, someone I would like to see go and replaced with someone with a more up-to-date view of forestry and ecology.

And I'd like to reiterate for posterity that I think Mark Rey is the slimiest human being I've ever had the displeasure of meeting.

[depakid]

26. That would be exactly right

I mispoke on that- generally, the position is known to folks as "head of the forest service." Thankfully, I never had the misfortune of meeting Rey- though in return I hope you never had the displeasure of meeting John Crowell, Reagan's point man on the job.

Mr. Cut (beyond sustained yield) and Run was the former Chief Counsel for Louisiana Pacific. It would be too painful to recount for all his corruption and the damage that he caused- but one can probably sum it up by saying that judging by his actions, it would be no surprise if he agreed with Reagan that "Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do."

[leftyclimber]

27. Oh, ick.

Thankfully I'm a little too young to have met Crowell, but it sounds like he was out of the same mold as Rey.

Met the dude twice. Wanted to take long, long showers after both times. What a sleazebucket.

[leftofthedial]

21. good!

:-)

I hope we can get permanent protection and begin undoing some of the devastation the repukes wrought.

[ClarkUSA]

24. Excellent news. This is the CHANGE I voted for.

[scheming daemons]

25. Oh dear, babylon... don't you realize that you are breaking DU norms?

You are NOT permitted to post good news here, you bootlicking, koolaid drinking, kneepad-wearing Obama whore.


;-)

[babylonsister]

34. Hey, that's the second time today I was called that.

I'm getting used to it.

[Forkboy]

30. I wish it was longer than just one year, but it's still very good news to see.

Do you know why it's just one year? The article didn't mention, so I'm wondering if it's something that's just reviewed on a yearly basis or what. Curious how it works, because it would be great if we could do this permanently, or even just for longer periods that one year at a time.

Either way, this is a cool step to begin to repair the damage Fuckface did the environment.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

33. I wanted to know that too. A year seems rather arbitrary.

[Jakes Progress]

32. Excellent move.

Gotta start stopping before you back up. We have done much damage to our forests. If this is done right, a year can give us a chance to start fixing the problems instead of creating new ones.

[sellitman]

35. Good deal!

I'll take a year of that.

:toast:

[Honeycombe8]

36. Yaaaay! This is EXACTLY part of the change in direction I voted for.

This is the definite change in approach to the environment that I voted for.

Slowly but surely, the big ship veers starboard.