Dear members of the newsgroup:
We seem to have a nasty little debate going on. Given the general
nature of the comments, I thought you might be interested to see the
actual bill versus commentaries.
I found the timber salvage rider on the Thomas web site
(http://thomas.loc.gov) after a bit of searching. I'm pretty sure the
below address goes right to it, but if not, use the Search option and the
rider title.
http://rs9.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/4?c104:/temp/"c104kqN
Since I'm supposed to be working on my thesis and not goofing off on the
Net, I left out a lot of things. Feel free to look up the original. I
won't be insulted.
Sec 706. Emergency Two-year salvage timber sale program
covers National Forest system and other public lands as defined by Forest
Management Act of 1976
The Secretary shall advertise and award during the two-year emergency
period contracts for salvage timber sales from Federal lands to satisfy
the volume requirements as seen below:
For National Forests: no less than 3 billion board feet for each year,
for a total of a minimum of 6 billion bf.
For other Federal lands: no less than 115 million board feet for each
year, for a total of 230 million board feet.
Now, this is where things get tricky for me. I'm not very good at Legal
talk and I'm not really sure what is said below. I paraphrased the parts
I did understand.
For each salvage cut, the Secretary must prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement and an Endangered Species Act biological evaluation. "In lieu
of preparing a new document under this paragraph, the Secretary concerned
may use a document prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 before the date of the enactment of this section, a
biological evaluation written before such date, or information collected
for such a document or evaluation if the document, evaluation, or
information applies to the Federal lands covered by the proposed sale."
I would appreciate it if someone could decipher this.
The rest of the rider deals with scedualing the sales,funds for the
sale, and reporting to Congress that sales are on track.
Now, I don't know much about the Western forests, so I don't know if
Forest Service data says that there is that much board feet out there
which needs to be salvaged (if that's your decision). So, instead of
making nasty comments, let's talk about the bill and the science and/or
policy behind it.
On a strictly private note, as a Jew, I was highly insulted by D. Orr's
comment about comparing the anti-Jewish laws of Nazi Germany and forestry
management. It was an unnecessary and unappropriate statement. There is
no comparison between the two. I believe the newsgroup deserves an
apology.
Thank you for your time.
Douglas J. Marshall
marshall@forestry.auburn.edu
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0