Just how much logging in roadless areas Senator Jon Tester’s 84-page Forest Jobs and Recreation Act of 2009 would allow is a matter of dispute, but this language pertaining to the Kootenai special management areas troubles me:
Sec. 209 of Tester’s bill (page 77):
(f) TIMBER HARVESTING.
(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), timber harvesting shall not be permitted within the special management area.
(2) MAINTENANCE OF SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA.—Timber harvesting may be permitted in the special management area to the extent allowed under section 4(d)(1) of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1133(d)(1)) for purposes relating to the necessary control of fire, insects, and diseases, and for public safety.
Although the word “timber” appears several times in the Wilderness Act, the term “timber harvest” does not. Here’s the section of the Wilderness Act of 1964 referenced above:
Sec. 4
(d) The following special provisions are hereby made:
(1) Within wilderness areas designated by this Act the use of aircraft or motorboats, where these uses have already become established, may be permitted to continue subject to such restrictions as the Secretary of Agriculture deems desirable. In addition, such measure may be taken as may be necessary in the control of fire, insects, and diseases, subject to such conditions as the Secretary deems desirable.
Note the key differences. Section 4(d)1 of the Wilderness Act does not mention timber or even forest, and identifies only the control of “fire, insects, and diseases” as justifications for “measures” for control. “Measures” is not another word for “timber harvest.”
Section 209(f)2 of Tester’s bill adds “public safety” as a justification, and explicitly states that “timber harvesting” is what’s being justified. I think that’s a loophole big enough to drive a logging truck through. If that section stays in the bill, there could be huge timber sales masquerading as emergency measures to reduce the fuel load in the forest to prevent catastrophic fires. If “public safety” is intended to authorize very small activities such as removing dead trees within a campground to prevent campers from being flattened in their tents during a high wind, the bill should say so explicitly.
Here’s a better wording:
Proposed Sec. 209(f)2. In the special management area, measures taken for the necessary control of fire, insects, and diseases, shall be permitted only to the extent they are allowed by section 4(d)(1) of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1133(d)(1)).
If that substitute language cannot be accepted, the refusal to accept it would suggest to me that Sec. 209(f)2 is designed to allow large logging projects.