« September 2003 | Main | November 2003 »
October 24, 2003
Congressman Making Stuff Up Again
Leave it to Congressman John Peterson to make a false claim about the economics of the timber industry in Pennsylvania. In today's Bradford Era Peterson blames reduced logging levels in the Allegheny National Forest for the loss of value-added furniture makers. This is nonsense for a couple of reasons: 1) we have virtually no value added furniture makers because Peterson and his friends at AHUG have promoted the export of our logs and 2) logging in our region has increased over the past few years. Or does Peterson forget using his position in the State Assembly to promote funding to groups like the Pennsylvania Hardwood Development Council to push the export of hardwood logs.
In fact, in today's article Peterson says that we need to do more logging so that the timber industry can help improve our rural economy. However, logging in our areas has increased over 300% these last three decades and that has done nothing for our regional unemployment and economic stability.
And get this, despite blaming logging levels in the Allegheny National Forest Peterson admits that the problem is that jobs are disappearing to China. Is this amnesia or does he really forget that he voted to normalize trade relations with China three years ago?
Here are Peterson's comments:
Peterson said a lack of timber cutting in the Allegheny National Forest has also helped lead wood product businesses in his district to close their doors."The dynamics have changed," Peterson said. "Those furniture businesses that were once located here are moving to China. The forest is not putting enough cherry out on the market ... and the demand for cherry is intense now."
Peterson said China is currently buying saw logs, which don't need graded, sorted or dried. "It's put a crimp in what once was a steady business around here."
"Our wood products business was our 'ace in the hole,'" Peterson said. "Now, companies are going to China and they're not coming here."
"That was one part we could be secure in and continue to grow," he said of the timber industry.
It is time for Peterson and the timber industry to get real. If we want a healthy economy we need to attract a diversified economic base. And if we want to stem population declines we need to make our area more attractive to young aduts between 25 and 40 years old. This means meeting their demands for scenic beauty and recreation opportunities. And gee, what do you know, we have a 513,000 acre national forest right here available to do just that with the appropriate political will.
Posted by jkleissler at 03:17 PM | Comments (0)
October 23, 2003
EPA And Chemical Industry Standard For Testing Pesticide And Herbicide Safety Is All Wrong
This information article is excerpted from the Fall 2003, University of Pittsburgh, PITT Magazine.
Today's standard for testing pesticide and herbicide toxicity may, in fact, be all wrong, and the environmental impact from some of the world's most popular pesticides and herbicides may wind up being far greater than previously thought.
"Philips, a sophomore biology student, and the other students stand in the rain as they diligently drain and filter pond water, They can't help but notice that few or none of the 60 creatures added at the start of the experiment three weeks earlier are found in the pesticide-treated water. Meanwhile, untreated tubs teem with critters [tadpoles-leopard frogs, tree frogs, and toads and their predators]."
" 'We all expected a fair amount of mortality,' says Jason Hoverman, a second-year graduate student whose interest in biology was sparked by watching the Discovery Channel as a child with his father. 'But none of us expected to see it to such a degree.' "
"It has long been believed that dirt somehow helps absorb the pesticide before it hurts aquatic life. Although today's test results are still being analyzed, the sand and soil seem to have done little."
Tucked away in some northwestern Pennsylvania swampland is the University of Pittsburgh's laboratory of ecology. The research taking place there, headed by aquatic ecologist and professor of biological sciences, Rick Relyea, could change everything the world knows about pesticide safety.
Pymatuning Laboratory of Ecology is the field research station for Pitt's Department of Biological Sciences. The lab is located on the shores of Pymatuning Reservoir, within some 11,000 acres of water, wetlands, and forest.
Relyea's experiments are the first ever to test glyphosate (GLY-pho-sate) toxicity in North American amphibians like tree frogs and the first to test whether glyphosate may be a factor in amphibian population decline. Glyphosate is sold by Monsanto as Roundup.
He is also the first to test pesticide toxicity on carbaryl (CARB-a-rill) sold as Sevin, in a more natural environment, that is one with predators in the water.
Pesticide makers are required to test the toxicity of their pesticides and herbicides. "Then, the EPA must approve these findings before the chemical can be marketed. Relyea says manufacturers do their standard testing slowly by adding the chemical to a tub containing, say, fish, then figuring out how much is needed to kill half the fish within a given period of time. The trial usually lasts two to four days."
"Relyea considers those conditions 'highly artificial,' partly because predators are not part of the mix. There are some 21,000 chemical pesticides on the market-and counting. Adding predators to every batch would drive up the cost of testing, though Relyea says predators would create conditions far more likely to be found in nature."
Posted by at 11:15 AM | Comments (1)
October 21, 2003
So-called 'workshops' amount to minimal public input
The Forest Service, contrary to their press statements, is purposely excluding the public from Forest Plan revision.
The evidence of this is in their location and times in which they are deciding to hold public hearings. Two informal workshops (not public hearings) are being held on Oct. 27 & 28 (Monday and Tuesday) from 5:30 to 9:30 in Warren and Erie, respectively. The last round of meetings included Erie and Warren and the Forest Service received comments that in order to reach out to larger populations that represent a large portion of Allegheny visitors, they should hold meetings in large cities surrounding the Allegheny.
This is not happening. The only formal public hearing for this round of commenting is being held in State College on Wednesday, November 5th from 1 to 5 p.m!!
Steve Miller, ANF public affairs officer, says:
"We're trying. We're giving it a very, very heartfelt effort here (to include public comment in the Forest Plan revision process)."
Really?? How is holding the only public hearing from 1 to 5 pm a "heartfelt effort"??
Why is it that Forest Supervisor Kevin Elliott can travel to Pittsburgh for a private forum to discuss Allegheny National Forest managment but not for a public forum about the revision of that managment?
Posted by Ryan at 02:34 PM | Comments (2)
Risky policy change on snowmobile use
The Forest Service has proposed a policy change in snowmobile use in the Allegheny National Forest -- this change, which they are saying is simply codifying prior direction, would allow children from ages 10 to 15 to drive snowmobiles in the Allegheny.
Forest Service spokesman Dale Dunshie, apparently unconcerned about the safety of children, said that the decision was simply "good business management".
Karen and Ed Atwood, snowmobile safety instructors for nearly 30 years, have a different view:
"They (children) may be riding in a line but still they have to react to things that are unexpected out there. Kids don't have that kind of maturity. We have people in our club who will not ride on the weekend because of some of the things that happen out there...You don't have a lot of time to get the snowmobile out of the way. You have to respond like an adult," she said.
So, we can support the Forest Service's policy 'revision' that considers allowing 10 year old children to drive snowmobiles "good business management" or support the Atwoods who know better than most of us what constitutes reasonable safety measures.
Posted by Ryan at 02:15 PM | Comments (1)
October 17, 2003
Support Recreation in the Allegheny
The Forest Service has done nearly everything possible to suppress non-motorized recreation opportunities in the Allegheny. Make that everything imaginable. So when proposals like this one come along I believe that they should be supported:
Wesley Woods Christian Education Center has applied for a recreation special use permit on the Bradford Ranger District of the Allegheny National Forest. The purpose of this permit is to conduct outfitting and guiding services for youth trips from Center for rock climbing and rappelling at Rimrock and Minister Creek and for hiking on the North Country National Scenic Trail. Locations for both these activities are shown on the enclosed maps.Proposed activities include:
Rappelling and a limited amount of rock climbing will occur on approximately 1-2 days per week from June 1 to August 30. it will include no more than 30 people at one time (guides and students). No permanent fixtuers will be used and Leave No Trace guidelines for rock climbing will be taught and used.Hiking on the North Country National Scenic Trail will be one-week long, 96-mile hike. Termini will vary from year to year to give return students a different view and experience. Camping will occur on 5 nights at already established sites. No more than 10 people (guides and students) will be in the group at any one time. Leave No Trace hiking and camping techniques will be taught and used.
If you want to support this you can e-mail Forest Service Ranger John Schultz or write him at Bradford Ranger District, 29 US Forest Service Drive, Bradford, PA 16701. Comments are due October 31.
Posted by jkleissler at 01:58 PM | Comments (0)
October 16, 2003
Exploding Gas!
This is a very serious matter that often goes undiscussed. The idea of this kind of incident occuring near somebody's residence is appalling but not surprising. Most oil and gas accidents in the forest appear to go unreported.
The Bradford EraThursday, October 16, 2003
Officials trying to determine cause of gas explosionULYSSES (EC) - Gas company officials are still trying to determine the cause of a natural gas leak and explosion in Harrison Township Friday.
Apparently, a six-inch pipe leading from a gas well broke and the resulting explosion and fire damaged a nearby mobile home and several vehicles.
Trees along an approximately 100 yard stretch were also burned bare by the fire, which melted the siding on the home of Caramel Barker on Whitman Road.
Fire companies from Harrison Valley, Tri-town and Westfield responded to the alarm, but the fire was extinguished when the company shut off the gas flow.
Dominion, the company which owns the line, has sent a section of the pipe to a metallurgical lab for testing to try to determine what caused it to fail.
No injuries were reported.
It should be noted the Dominion has a significant presence on state forest lands in Pennsylvania.
Posted by jkleissler at 12:14 PM | Comments (0)
Review of Notice of Intent - Part II
The Notice of Intent is the first step in the development of a Forest Plan. In Part II I'm going to discuss the "Preliminary Issues" identified in the Notice of Intent. Remember from Part I that all "significant" issues must be addressed in an environmental impact statement (EIS) and therefore you cannot prejudice the process by arbitrarily selecting a limited number of "Preliminary Issues" to narrow the scope of the EIS. Check out Part I for more on this.
Now as to the substance of the Preliminary issues identified, there is this to say. The Forest Service identifies four "preliminary" issues: Recreation, Habitat Diversity, and Special Areas Designations.
I'll discuss the full range of issues not mentioned further down. However, note at the outset that watershed management is not a key issue identified here. This is significant - the Allegheny National Forest was founded to conserve the navigable waters therein. You can view the original proclamation right here on our website.
Recreation
There can be no doubt that recreation is a significant issue for forest plan revision. The language in the notice of intent is sufficiently broad to allow for a wide array of recreation related issues to be discussed. If anything it is disappointing that the Notice of Intent doesn't do more to break down this issue as it does for other issues. That said, at this point the Forest Service is most definitely jumping the gun by getting too specific on the other issues.
Allegheny Wild! would fix this problem of course. When this five part series on the Notice of Intent is done we'll post an analysis of the mysterious recreation plan released without fanfare (or consistent with federal law for that matter) over the summer. We'll post it sooner if we get a chance.
Vegetation Management
The vegetative structure and composition of a natural forest is complex involving many flora species across an array of habitats (wetlands, uplands, old growth, opening) and within specific niches in each habitat (e.g. ground layer, shrub layer, mid-story, overstory). The Forest Service's Notice of Intent has reached new heights in oversimplifying the complex concept of vegetation management by equating vegetation management with timber production:
This issue involves maintaining healthy forest conditions capable of providing sustainable levels of forest products.
That really says it all. This apparently doesn't mean maintaining vegetative forest conditions to provide the habitats necessary to maintain viable populations of native species - even though this is clearly mandated by the National Forest Management Act (NFMA). And in case you were wondering the Notice of Intent clearly equates normal "forest products" with timber as it equates all non-timber "forest products" as "special forest products" as a sub-issue here.
Now the Forest Service wouldn't be expected to come out and say "We need to come up with ways to log unhealthy trees faster" but then they clearly do in the Notice of Intent: "There is also a need to develop guidelines for more timely and effective responses to insect and disease threats." This is verbatim of a typical timber sale projects purpose and need. It should be duly noted that the Notice of Intent surmises just before this section on "Forest health" that forest health threats are disproportionately affecting American beech and sugar maple. What we saw with the East Side Timber Sale and we are seeing with others in the pipeline is the notion that because American beech and sugar maple are susceptible to health problems they should be replaced with black cherry (we'll save the serious forest health problems of a black cherry dominated forest for another day). This is something to watch out for as this process proceeds.
The remaining subcategories are more of the same. The topics (with my shorthand on them in parentheses) are: Reforestation techniques (what kinds of herbicides, fertilizers, and fencing to use after clearcuts), timber production suitability (what kind of volume can be produced), and Silvicultural systems (how can even-aged logging be justified despite the NFMA's restrictions on its use). Most significant about all of this is the language was chosen carefully and reflects an unwillingness by the Forest Service to revisit its illegal black cherry tree farming in the Allegheny.
Habitat Diversity
I'll take one step back here because this is where this point belongs. In the previous section the Notice of Intent explains that "vegetation composition ... addresses the diversity of tree stands (particularly by species and age-class) on the Forest." That bold emphasis is my own. Chew on that sentence for a second. At first glance it may seem to make sense. Forest diversity is in many ways defined by the species of trees and various ages. However, here the Forest Service isn't talking about species and age within tree stands but rather between tree stands. How do I know this? Well, for one because it is consistent with how they treat the subject in other documents. But also because of their use of the phrase "tree stands" here compared to the use of the qualifiers of "species" and "age-class". This is entirely consistent with how the Forest Service functions, it just isn't consistent with the forest ecology perspective on biodiversity.
That was a long throw-back to the prior section. Within the habitat diversity section the Forest Service actually defines habitat diversity to include the maintenance of "desired non-native species" found on the forest. The maintenance of non-native species is unquestionably undesirable in nearly all cases here except where irradication of those species is not feasible and acceptance and adaptation are unavoidable. The major problem here is the equivalency given to certain non-native species which should never be the case. Even where non-native species might be maintained that should never be given equivalency to native species. But remember we are talking about a native forest that is supposed to be 86% Eastern hemlock-Northern Hardwoods but is now increasingly "Allegheny Hardwoods", i.e. black cherry.
There are several subsections here including threatened and endangered species, habitat for game species, habitat connectivity, and old growth habitat. Overall the descriptions of each specific subcategory are adequately broad to allow for appropriate measure to be adopted (within this already compromised framework, which isn't to say that would be sufficient). There are a few things I noticed however.
The most significant is where is the commitment to maintaining viable populations of native species? The Notice of Intent seems to limit concern to species already given protections such as Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive ignoring the many species which are at risk but not listed (including untold invertebrates).
Another perhaps equally significant ommission is the failure to address aquatic habitats in any meaningful way. And this ties directly into the lack of a process for ensuring that both the quantity and quality of habitats are maintained. A lot of attention is paid from tree stand to tree stand but little attention seems to be given to maintaining quality habitats both across the forest and within specific forest stands. This probably reflects what I was talking about earlier with "tree stand" diversity across the forest instead of diversity within "tree stands."
Special Area Designations
As expected this section largely addresses Wilderness and Wild and Scenic Rivers. These are important issues and it is good that they are recognized here. However, this section is unnacceptably narrow.
National Recreation Areas, Research Natural Areas, Scenic Areas, and Heritage Special Areas are only mentioned in passing even though a new Scenic Area or Research Natural Area hasn't been designated in some 30 years. There are no identified Heritage Special Areas and apparently no attempts to identify Natural Areas or botanical areas. It is unclear to me what they mean by "Heritage" here: archeological or historical?
It is unclear what the Forest Service intends to do about other special designations such as state wild and scenic rivers, state wilderness trout streams, and stream designations under the Clean Water Act. In fact, the failure to give watershed management any serious consideration as a key preliminary issue is stunning. Not only is terrestrial "vegetative" management given its own prime position (why is management of animal life not given its own equal importance?) but aquatic management isn't given any mention that I can see in the habitat diversity section. The only mention here is the NFMA mandated issue of possibly designating Wild and Scenic Rivers. Now, in Part III you will see that watershed management is mentioned in the Notice of Intent but only in the section delegated to changes in the Forest Plan for "updates, corrections or modifications." That is hardly the pressing attention that I think President Coolidge might have expected when he signed the proclamation forming the Allegheny National Forest in 1923.
More on the Notice of Intent
Part I - Legal Issues
Part II - Preliminary Issues
Part III - Other Revision Changes
Part IV - Issues Not Addressed
Part V - Public Participation
Disclaimer: This is a quick review of the Notice of Intent to help folks understand the context better. Therefore, there may be significant pluses or minuses that are overlooked.
Posted by jkleissler at 12:19 AM | Comments (0)
October 15, 2003
Logging: America's Most Dangerous Job
The following is from an article entitled "The top ten most dangerous jobs in America" published Monday on the CNN/Money website:
-snip-
New York (CNN/Money) - On December 3, 2002, a section of a felled tree
struck and killed an 18-year-old logger. He was one of the last of 104
lumbermen to die in 2002, when timber cutters led the nation with the
highest on-the-job mortality rate of any vocation.
The mortality rate among lumbermen, 118 timber cutters per 100,000
workers, heads the list of the top 10 most dangerous jobs in America for
2002 put out by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and was more than 26 times
that of the average U.S. worker.
...Many timber fellers earn upwards of $60,000 working a nine- or 10-month year.
-end snip-
While the article states that loggers make upwards of $60,000 annually, that's not the case here in the Allegheny region. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics database loggers in Elk County, PA, earned an average of $409 per week. Even if these folks worked this most dangerous job for 52 weeks of the year (which they generally don't) that would amount to just $21,268. One likely cause of the disparity is the lack of unions in the timber industry in this area. The higher-paying jobs in this industry are in manufacturing. Unfortunately, much of the high-value hardwoods from this region are shipped to manufacturing facilities overseas. (Interestingly, the state, through the Hardwood Development Council, actively supports timber exports by furthering initiatives to draw timber buyers from Europe and Asia.)
-Rachel Martin
Posted by at 06:04 PM | Comments (1)
On Wilderness
The Warren Times-Observer ran an article in yesterday's hardcopy edition on the Friends of Allegheny Wilderness Wilderness Proposal. You might have noticed this interesting characterization of ADP's proposal:
A group of multiple-use proponents has lobbied for no more wilderness on the Allegheny National Forest than the currently designated 9,000 acres. Another group, the Allegheny Defense Project, stands for what would be an entirely wild 513,000 acres.
Remember that as wide-ranging as Allegheny Wild! is we are still only proposing an additional 50,000 acres as Wilderness. The FAW proposal is similar in most regards. As far as I can tell here are the significant differences:
• FAW does not propose Minister Valley as Wilderness;
• ADP does not propose any of the existing National Recreation Areas as Wilderness (FAW proposes all of them);
• Although we propose several identical areas, the boundaries between proposals vary significantly with ADP's proposed areas being larger in general.
I think it's good that FAW finally got a proposal out there. We remain concerned about the reduction in National Recreation Area acerage at a time when current acreage in non-Wilderness Special Areas is already deficient. At least one version of the FAW plan did propose some new National Recreation Area acreage that would maintain but not increase the current acreage. ADP, of course proposes an increase in new and total National Recreation Area acreage.
P.S. Part 2 of my analysis on the Forest Plan Revision Notice of Intent will be posted late tonight.
Posted by jkleissler at 02:34 PM | Comments (1)
October 09, 2003
DEP approves Coker in Warren
Chalk up another one for the DEP (insert appropriate acronym here). The DEP has once again proved they care more about catering to industry friends than protecting the health and well-being of the environment and people of Pennsylvania.
Ryan
Posted by Ryan at 10:53 AM | Comments (0)
October 07, 2003
Oil & Gas Co. sues county for back taxes
This is unbelievable. Folks should remember this when thinking about how much extraction industries really care about local citizens. Oz Gas of Tidioute is suing Warren County, Warren County School District, and Triumph and Deerfield Townships for 3 years of back taxes based on a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling from last December claiming it unconstitutional for the state to tax oil and gas interests as real estate.
This shows how contradictory the oil and gas industry is: They claim they are private property owners when it comes to drilling and demand to be recognized as such, particularly on public land or small private landowners who don't want to allow surface occupancy -- but they don't want to be taxed as private property owners. Now they want to sue taxpayers for back taxes.
Does anyone have info on Oz Gas?? Contact or otherwise. If I was in Warren County, I would be outraged! I am anyway.
Ryan
Posted by Ryan at 01:00 PM | Comments (5)
October 06, 2003
Scare tactics from the Allegheny Forest Alliance
Now that all four counties within the Allegheny National Forest will be receiving secure payments instead of 25% of timber receipts, timber industry apologists are using blatant scare tactics to discredit the decision by the county commissioners.
Jack Hedlund, Executive Director for the Allegheny Forest Alliance, said:
"The problem (in selecting the secure payments) lies with the sunset issue after four years and the comfort with a guaranteed payment, which is likely not to continue after that time."
How does Mr. Hedlund know that the payments will not continue after four years? It is one thing to speculate but to say "likely not to continue after that time", that is baiting. Mr. Hedlund and the AFA will spend the next 4 years scaring people into thinking that Washington is going to strip away the funding for this program which is actually unlikely to happen.
Another misrepresentation by the paper:
Until several years ago, the local share had simply been 25 percent of annual timber receipts. But as timber harvesting and receipts dropped drastically, chiefly as a result of litigation which slowed or halted many timber sales, the Forest Service has given municipalities the option of accepting a flat guaranteed "safety net" payment, or taking the chance that the 25 percent figure will bring in more revenue.
There, of course, is no mention that in 1995, the Forest Service reduced their Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ) by nearly half due to poor regeneration success under the even-aged management regime to promote black cherry. Also, market conditions are not that great and foreign competition continues to outstrip American viability in this great new "global economy".
Also not mentioned in relation to the halted or slowed timber sales is the fact that the Forest Service was breaking the law.
Isn't journalism supposed to cover both sides of the issue?
Posted by Ryan at 11:28 AM | Comments (1)
October 02, 2003
Review of Notice of Intent - Part I
The Notice of Intent to revise the Forest Plan deserves detailed attention. Therefore this is the first of a set of a 5 part series analyzing the Notice of Intent to revise the Allegheny National Forest "Forest Plan"
I talked some yesterday about the public involvement issues. I will continue that discussion as Part V of this review. Until then check out that post below.
The Legal Background
The Planning process must primarily comply with two principle environmental laws - the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
The National Forest Management Act
First, the NFMA explains the revision process as involving the same process and requirements as in the development of a forest plan (16 USC 1604(f)(5)).
There are several indications in the Notice of Intent, as well as in earlier communications, that the Forest service intends to short-circuit this process. One of these is by limiting the number of significant issues that are actually address (which I will address below in relation to the NEPA). Another is in insinuating that "The Allegheny National Forest proposes to narrow the scope of revising the Forest Plan by focusing on issues identified as being most critically in need of change." (FR 68(186): 55364) On its face, this statement contradicts the very notion of the NFMA which provides that the revision process must comply with the same provisions that are required in the development of a new forest plan. When we get to the variad of issues in the next part of this series you will see how significant this is.
The Notice of Intent does list the five areas where Forest Plans make decisions, and except for the exclusion of administrative designations of special areas the list seems to be accurate. However, the list of issues is qualified by the questionable statement cited above which undermines the seemingly accurate list of issues.
The National Environmental Policy Act
The Notice of Intent is issued as part of what is called the "scoping" process (which lasts until after the public comment period is closed) under the NEPA which requires:
Determine the scope (§1508.25) and the significant issues... (40 CFR § 1501.7(2))Identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant... (40 CFR § 1501.7(3))
Scope consists of the range of actions, alternatives, and impacts to be considered in an environmenal impact state. (40 CFR § 1508.25)
Now there is more to it, but we can see two things here. Number one, is that the threshold for whether or not an issue gets discussed is whether or not that issue is significant. The more significant issues there are the more issues that need to be discussed in detail. This is why arbitrarily limiting the process to a specific number of issues (the Forest Service has indicated they will limit to 3 or 4 issues) is illegal. The next two parts in this will get into detail what issues the Forest Service plans to discuss and what significant issues are somehow left out.
Now I said that there are two issues here. The second one has to do with their intent to narrow the scope of revision to those most "critically in need of change." I should mention here that there is a lot of case law about this that makes it clear that the scope of an Environmental Impact Statement cannot be arbitrarily narrowed to ignore significant issues. Here the Forest Service appears to be intending to narrow the scope from "significant issues" (which is a much broader category) to issues "critically in need of change." The result would unquestionably be an environmental impact statement that doesn't adequately address the environmental impacts or a broad range of alternatives.
More on the Notice of Intent
Part I - Legal Issues
Part II - Preliminary Issues
Part III - Other Revision Changes
Part IV - Issues Not Addressed
Part V - Public Participation
Disclaimer: This is a quick review of the Notice of Intent to help folks understand the context better. Therefore, there may be significant pluses or minuses that are overlooked.
Posted by jkleissler at 01:15 PM | Comments (2)
October 01, 2003
Forest Plan Revision - MARK YOUR CALENDARS!
This is it. The Forest Service has started the official process for revising the forest plan. And they have once again minimize the public notice of meetings and FAIL to hold any in the three biggest cities that attract Allegheny National Forest users: Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and Buffalo. Instead the choice of locations is clearly selected to minimize dissenters to their cut it all down mantra. Note how they once again have REFUSED to hold a meeting south of the Allegheny near Clarion, PA. This is a pattern of manipulation that must cease immediately.
Here are the scheduled dates for public meetings:
October 27 - Warren, PA
October 28 - Erie, PA
November 5 - State College, PA (PUBLIC HEARING!)
Two relevant links:
The Forest Service Press Release
Look for detailed analysis on this early tomorrow. In the meantime use this thread to add your own thoughts!
Posted by jkleissler at 11:51 AM | Comments (2)
Counties Go With Secure Payments
All four counties in the Allegheny National Forest will now receive secure payments from the federal government rather than rely on 25% of timber receipts from timber sales.
The Bradford Era reported today that the 3 counties who had yet to make the decision - Warren, McKean and Elk - decided to follow the lead of Forest County. Forest County opted for the secure payments two years ago and has been receiving more money than the other three counties - something that never happened when Forest County relied on the 25% fund.
However, not everyone is pleased with the decision, like McKean County Commissioner Larry Stratton:
"We're very concerned about it because this will reduce the impetus for cutting".
This is pretty much an admission that it was never about schools and townships for those who supported the 25% fund - it was about supporting the timber industry and its desire to log in the Allegheny National Forest.
I can see now where some of the 15% that the county receives for particular projects will be used:
"Another possible use is for a forestry education program."
In other words, teaching our children that clearcutting and spraying toxic chemicals to promote a few tree species that are valuable is responsible forest management.
Posted by Ryan at 10:17 AM | Comments (2)