Urgent, NC!! U.S.F.S. proposes opening most of Pisgah-Nantahala National Forest to logging

[G_j]

http://wnca.org/usfsloggingnationalforest/

U.S.F.S. proposes opening most of Pisgah-Nantahala National Forest to logging
by WNCAADMIN
November 12th, 2014
logging memePress Release from the Southern Environmental Law Center
For Release: November 12, 2014
Contact: Kathleen Sullivan, SELC, 919-945-7106 or [e-mail]

Forest Service proposes massive logging program in an area bigger than the Great Smoky Mountains National Park

CHAPEL HILL, N.C.—In what conservation groups flag as a dramatic shift, the U.S. Forest Service is proposing industrial-scale logging in the vast majority of the Pisgah-Nantahala National Forest in western North Carolina – about 700,000 acres, or an area bigger than the Great Smoky Mountain National Park – instead of protecting popular backcountry recreation destinations and conserving the Blue Ridge landscapes treasured by residents and tourists from across the United States.

“Under the law and for everyone who enjoys America’s forests, the Forest Service’s first priority should be fixing the mistakes of the past – restoring the parts of the forest already damaged by prior logging,” said DJ Gerken, senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center. “But the misguided logging plan proposed by the agency will repeat those old mistakes, causing more damage and putting the healthiest forests we have left on the chopping block. The people who use and love these forests won’t stand for cutting them down.”

The Forest’s new proposal would inevitably increase logging over the levels of recent years, though the precise amount has not been disclosed. “This increase would come from ramping up logging all over the forest, including backcountry areas like the South Mills River area, home to the popular Black Mountain Trail,” said Hugh Irwin, conservation planner for The Wilderness Society. According to Forest Service documents, such areas would be managed for “timber production,” which it interprets as “the purposeful growing and harvesting of crops of trees to be cut into logs.”

This industrial-style logging would also require cutting new roads for trucks and equipment into sensitive, unspoiled backcountry areas. “Not only is that destructive and disruptive, it’s also fiscally irresponsible,” added Irwin. “The agency shouldn’t be expanding its road system when it can’t even afford to maintain the roads it already has.” Agency reports confirm that the Forest has less than 13 percent of the funds needed to maintain its existing roads, leading to safety and water quality problems. Several popular roads remain closed due to unrepaired washouts.

“This proposal is absolutely the wrong direction for the forest,” said Ben Prater, director of conservation for Wild South. “Times have changed, and our mountain economy doesn’t depend just on logging anymore. We should be capitalizing on our wonderful Blue Ridge forests, not cutting them down. Treating practically the entire Pisgah-Nantahala as a ‘crop’ is simply irresponsible.”

The Pisgah-Nantahala National Forest has become a tourism and recreation destination, and revenue generated by visitors is a major driver of the western North Carolina economy. The National Forests of North Carolina are the third most visited national forest in the country. Industrial logging not only damages scenery and natural features, which are the key draw for half of those visits, but also requires popular areas to be closed to the public for months at a time while trees are being cut. “They’re our public lands,” says Prater. “Where is the balance?”

Josh Kelly, public lands biologist for the Western North Carolina Alliance, calls the proposal a “missed opportunity.” According to Kelly, “the Forest Service could sell more timber, meet game wildlife goals for hunters, and fulfill its ecological responsibilities by focusing its limited budget on restoring degraded areas with existing road access. We have a historic opportunity to care for this forest like it deserves – a real win-win solution – but if the Plan is mired in conflict, none of that work will get done.”

Public participation is important to the planning process underway, in which the U.S. Forest Service will decide how to manage the Pisgah and National Forests for the next 15 years.

TAKE ACTION TO STOP THIS PROPOSAL BY CLICKING HERE NOW!

The public can also comment by email at [e-mail].

The Forest Service will also hold a public meeting with opportunities for public questions and comments at the McDowell Technical Community College in Marion, N.C. on Thursday, Nov. 13.

###

The Southern Environmental Law Center is a regional nonprofit using the power of the law to protect the health and environment of the Southeast (Virginia, Tennessee, North and South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama). Founded in 1986, SELC’s team of more than 60 legal and policy experts represent more than 100 partner groups on issues of climate change and energy, air and water quality, forests, the coast and wetlands, transportation, and land use.
www.SouthernEnvironment.org

For more than 30 years, the Western North Carolina Alliance has been a trusted community partner, marshaling grassroots support to keep our forests healthy, our air and water clean, and our communities vibrant. Utilizing a combination of policy advocacy, scientific research, and community collaboration, the Alliance and its chapters throughout Western North Carolina unleash the power of citizens’ voices to protect the natural heritage of our region so that people and the environment can thrive.

Categories : Stay Informed, Take Action

[CurtEastPoint]

1. Appalling. Alerting my WNC friends.

[badtoworse]

2. A National Forest is not the same as a National Park

Logging is one of the purposes of a National Forest. From 16 U.S. Code § 475 - Purposes for which national forests may be established and administered: "... and to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of citizens of the United States;"

That doesn't mean they should be raped, but it does mean that timber is a resource and the National Forests were established to ensure that we have a continuous supply. There is no reason why that can't be done responsibly.

[lumberjack_jeff]

4. +1 n/t

[G_j]

6. as a North Carolinian who loves these forests,

I think the least you could do, would be to read the complete post.

[badtoworse]

7. I read the complete post and I'll stand by what I posted.

There needs to be a balance in how the resource is utilized, but from what I've seen, the environmentalists frame the issue in black and white terms. Clear cutting the forests would be extreme and wrong, but so would an outright prohibition on logging. Responsible management is needed that considers the interests of all stakeholders, not just the environmentalists.

[G_j]

8. OK

I get that you are not an environmentalist. You still have not addressed any of the specifics of the letter.

[badtoworse]

13. "I get that you are not an environmentalist."

You would be wrong about that. For decades, I've enjoyed the outdoors and done quite a bit of hiking, backpacking, hunting and fishing in the Adirondacks. That area was extensively logged in the 19th century and there are few true, old growth areas left. The areas that are left are magnificent and should be preserved. It's also worth noting that the areas that were damaged have largely recovered in the past 100 to 150 years and are quite beautiful today. I've seen what clear cutting has done in the Pacific northwest - it looks like shit and runoff from the lack of tree damages stream and rivers that are needed by salmon and trout. It also raises the water temperature in those streams making them unsuitable for cold water species. That type of logging should not be allowed, even if it's done on private land as is largely the case in the northwest.

What I object to is environmental extremism. I'll characterize that as the complete disregard of any priorities or needs except the environmental agenda. I see that here on DU. I've worked in the electric power business for more than 30 years and I'm pretty familiar with environmental regulation. For many environmentalists, the cost of emission control technology is not a consideration no matter how small the incremental benefit might be. We might (and do) have technology that gets out 99.9% of a pollutant, but if it's possible to get out 99.99%, they want that no matter how much it costs and how much it will raise rates. Oppose that and automatically, you're OK with our air being as bad as Beijing's. I've seen environmentalists take the position that logging of any kind in the National Forests should be prohibited, effectively saying that no one's interests, but their own should be addressed.

I see a bit of this extremism in the environmentalists' proposals for Pisgah. They say that the priority should be to restore damaged areas. I didn't actually see anything mentioned that would allow logging except areas that are already degraded. Is there any timber there worth harvesting? How much area would be open to logging? Would it be economically feasible to operate in those areas? Have those questions even been considered by the environmentalists? It seems to me that they want almost the entire pie and to hell with anyone else's interests. I'll repeat Prater's question, "Where's the balance?" I think you need to put more on the table than what I've seen.

[G_j]

32. The Southern Environmental Law Center

is far from an exremist organization. They are highly respected.

And as a general rule, the environmental extremists are the ones destroying the environmrent.

[kcr]

30. You should try to see more

Because your view of environmentalism is very narrow.

[Octafish]

3. Gee. Isn't the Forest Service supposed to serve, you know, what's their name?

The People? Unfortunately, in these days, that includes The Corporate Person.

[SoCalDem]

5. Unfortunately, it has not been that way for a very long time

Last edited Thu Nov 13, 2014, 12:59 PM - Edit history (1)

Google clear-cutting

We have been house hunting in Washington state, and many of the nice properties are in forested areas that WILL be cut down, so we have crossed them off our list.. No reason to pay for a view that will be gone soon.. They cut every 30 years..Naturally the pretty views are in the high end of growing time..soon to be gone..

We do not have another 30 years to wait..

[Octafish]

11. Koch Brothers in need of supply.

Nothing we wouldn't do for those in need, especially seeing the market for T.P. is going through the, um, roof.

Sorry to hear about the changes in Washington, SoCalDem. I'm in Michigan and can attest: Clear-cutting is a crazy way to approach things. Hope you and yours find the place you deserve, which would be "The Best."

[Travis_0004]

27. Clearcutting is not as common today

My parents live in a national forrest, and I helped them gather firewood by following behind timber crews. They cut out small areas and create a meadow.

[SoCalDem]

28. True, but when you look at the google map overhead view it sucks

to see all that empty everywhere.. For woodland creatures, it's not so great either

[Enthusiast]

19. The Forest Service has always protected the interests of the timber industry first.

[Zorra]

9. Signed, thanks for the heads up. nt

[RiverLover]

10. This is tragic. It MUST be stopped!!

I used to live in the area & hiked in Pisgah almost every weekend. Its a national treasure, and home to much wildlife. Its precious & beautiful & greed should not destroy that too.

[Iliyah]

12. Slowly but surely America is being defamed by yours truly

the greedy.

[MynameisBlarney]

14. Dammit.

They're going to turn my beautiful home state into a wasteland.

[Enthusiast]

18. In the words of Saint Reagan, "You ain't seen nothing yet."

Look for this to happen all over the 50 states.

[Duppers]

15. oh, Hell No!!

Thanks for the heads-up!

[marions ghost]

16. K&R

no words. It's not debatable to me.

[Enthusiast]

17. Subsidized destruction of wildlife habitat for the profits of a very few already wealthy individuals

The logging jobs created will be short lived. Then the trees will be gone.

[badtoworse]

20. New trees will replace them.

If you drove through the Adirondacks today, you would probably not realize that the area had been heavily logged in the late 19th century and was devastated by forest fires. In fact, the Adirondack Park (the largest state park in the country was created to save the area from the damage being done by unrestrained logging.

Timber is a resource that can be responsibly managed.

[MynameisBlarney]

21. I've seen first hand how they "replace" trees in SC

They do, in fact, clearcut, and then plant pines.
Nothing but pines.
They don't replace the hardwoods.

[badtoworse]

22. Is this on NFS lands?

[Enthusiast]

24. All the more reason to protect remaining wildlife habitat on National forestland.

When the states allow their holdings to be turning into white pine plantations protecting national forests become all the more essential.

[MynameisBlarney]

25. Not sure actually.

Why would it be any different?
With these crooked ass Talibangelicals in charge, I don't trust them to actually give a shit about any environment regulations.
Remember the Duke Power Coal Slag spills?

[badtoworse]

26. I've seen clear cut forests and I agree, they look like shit and they're environmentally undesirable

I agree too that there needs to be diversity in planting new trees. Even from a purely timber standpoint, you need to have a variety of different trees available for harvest. From a wildlife and ecological standpoint, as well, diversity is important. I think that's part of responsible management of the resource.

At the same time, we need to recognize that the National Forests were set up to provide the country with a source of timber, i.e. that they would be logged. The position of many, i.e. that there should be no logging, is not consistent with federal law. I'm for a balanced responsible approach.

[MynameisBlarney]

31. Of course.

But as I said, with the anti-science, anti-environmentalists running the show, there will be no balanced, responsible approach.

[Enthusiast]

23. Not in my lifetime. I've seen it. I live in a national forest.

Timber harvest is almost always mismanaged. Once diverse forests are often turned into monocultures of white pine planted in rows.

If this resource is so goddamned renewable how about we renew it on private land.

We won't be here by the time these forests regenerate. All for profits of a very tiny number of people at the expense of millions of us. And the government doesn't profit in the least.

[KamaAina]

29. Anti-choice nutters should push to have the Nantahala National Forest declared a national monument

that's where their hero Eric Rudolph hid out after the clinic and Olympic bombings in Atlanta.