Below is a joint press release from Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center, Klamath Forest Alliance, Environmental Protection Information Center, and Northcoast Environmental Center.
Arcata, California — Four leading northwest conservation organizations have written a letter to Congress to alert legislators that the Orleans Community Fuels Reduction and Forest Health Project (OCFR) violates the intent of the Health Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) by targeting too many big trees and not doing enough to prevent catastrophic wildfires and protect forest health.
The letter, sent today to members of Congress, precedes a Congressional tour of the Orleans plan area next Tuesday, August 5. The OCFR lies in the district of Rep. Mike Thompson, who has agreed to send a member of his staff for the tour.
The four groups sending the letter are: the Environmental Protection Information Center, Klamath Forest Alliance, the Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center, and the Northcoast Environmental Center. On July 15 these groups, as well as the Karuk Tribe of California, the Mid-Klamath Watershed Council, and the Orleans/Somes Bar Fire Safe Council filed a formal Objection to the OCFR with Region Five of the United States Forest Service.
The Objection represents a unique collaboration, and unanimity, among proponents of projects that promote forest health and sustainable forestry.
The groups have worked for nearly three years to bring the Orleans plan into compliance with HFRA. The original OCFR contained 14 miles of new roads and logging in riparian reserves.
To its credit, Six Rivers National Forest has worked with local and regional groups and individuals to remedy many of their concerns. The plan now proposes less than one mile of new permanent roads, and 2.7 miles of temporary roads that are slated to be decommissioned after the project is completed.
Yet a major stumbling block for the groups is that the OCFR still proposes logging 444 trees larger than 32 inches in diameter. Logging these trees will in no way improve forest health or reduce fire danger, and would clearly violate the intent of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, which requires that agencies “maximize retention of large trees.” This is not the only remaining problem with the project, but it is the most significant.
August 1, 2008 at 3:26 pm
WHAT EXACTLY ARE THESE FOUR GROUPS LEADERS IN?????
August 1, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Is no one going to talk about the California State Workers pay cut?
August 1, 2008 at 3:37 pm
you’re a part of EPIC aren’t you Heraldo
August 1, 2008 at 4:53 pm
That’s code for “it’s not illegal; we just think it sucks.”
August 2, 2008 at 11:11 pm
thanks for posting this Heraldo–you have become a major news source for the kind of news I care about, whether your usual posters care about this thread or not. If the local print media picked this up, I missed it.
August 2, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Thanks, 11:11. I don’t think it’s hit the papers yet.
Let this be a lesson to you news makers: bloggers should be on your press list.
August 3, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Sheesh, why do I get the feeling that 3:37 thinks Heraldo being a member of EPIC would be a bad thing, and somehow prove some point or assumption about Heraldo that 3:37 holds, one that clearly includes disdain. It comes off almost like an “are you now or have you ever been a member” of … question. This time EPIC being in 3:37’s mind what?, some kind of godless communist group that would question the government in its environmental decisions or some other sin? Lots o’ baggage buried in that snippet. Why do these folks obsess on you Heraldo? It’s quite fascinating, really.
BTW, I want to thank you too for posting this. Sad thing is, it won’t get nearly as much energy going as the stuff that inspires personal wrath — like anything to do with the personalities, the candidates, or the newspapers. I guess people come here jonesing for the adrenaline of personal conflict, with the exciting edge of substance to spark off of.
August 3, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Yes, it’s true. But I know that some people care about issues beyond their potential for sniping comments. Besides that, I care, and it’s my blog, so let’s hear it for teams EPIC, NEC, KFA and KS Wild.
August 3, 2008 at 5:55 pm
I’ve been out in the woods the past 11 days and can tell you that we don’t want any more poor harvest plans. There is no reason to cut down old, large trees other than greed. Our forests are a treasure of monumental proportions, none seen like this elsewhere in the world. Logging companies know how to harvest sustainably and must be held accountable to the rules and regulations that are meant to retain our forests for future generations. Money is not a good reason to violate plans to secure healthy forests.
I’m thankful to all groups that fight to save what many would destroy for profit.
It’s amazing to come back to society after not hearing news for all this time. No computers, electric lights, newspapers, etc. makes for a relaxed woman.
August 3, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Hello Kate,
We need to converse. Please email me bill@eurekaworkers.org
have a peaceful day,
Bill
August 4, 2008 at 11:09 am
The Orleans fuels project violates the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, to be sure, that is why seven groups have co-filed an objection to the plan. There is no “code,” 4:53, except for the legal codes being violated by our public representatives at the Forest Service.
We are comparing the Orleans fuels project to five other recent HFRA projects that we do support, which will collectively remove tens of millions of merchantable board feet of timber: Big Flat (Smith River National Recreation Area), Mt. Ashland (Klamath National Forest), Upper Applegate (Rogue-Siskiyou National Forest), Happy Camp Phase II (Klamath National Forest), and Point (Klamath National Forest). These five plans will provide jobs and improve forest health while reducing the threat of catastrophic wildfire. In Orleans the timber industry is (so far) prevailing, in that Six Rivers National Forest will allow the successful bidder to cut 444 trees over 32 inches in diameter. Leaving large trees actually reduces the threat of catastrophic wildfire, so taking these trees is really just about the money.
Don’t forget that the U.S. Forest Service has thus far spent more than $100 million fighting just the fires in northwestern California. Fire suppression now takes up more than half of the National Forest budget in our area. Throw even a small percentage of this funding to true fire safe and forest health projects and the results would be far fewer catastrophic wildfires, far fewer firefighter deaths, low-intensity burns that would actually be good for the forest, better wildlife habitat, and more long-term jobs.
Greg King
Executive Director
Northcoast Environmental Center