Eagle Creek Trail (Gorge) Closed by Fire (July 5)

[greenjello85]

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-con ... /3715/text

Thanks for posting that & I hope people read it. It's short I promise. I hope this doesn't pass. In particular, very broad categories of "recovery" activities that no longer require an environmental review:

(A) does not exceed 10,000 acres within the National Scenic Area; and
(B) includes lands that—
(i) are visible from key viewing areas, as described in the management plan for the National Scenic Area;
(ii) provide screening for human development;
(iii) are part of a municipal watershed; or
(iv) contain utility or power transmission right-of-ways.

Also very opposed to the 75% reforestation mandate, preventing court orders to halt actions, and well, pretty much everything else in the bill

[retired jerry]

In the news, people like Walden has talked about how thinning the forest should be done to prevent a fire like this in the future.

Some forestry professor from WSU on NPR said fire suppression is a problem east of the Cascades, now too much undergrowth, now fires will be much bigger, as is commonly known.

But he said this isn't a problem west of the Cascades. We get a lot of rain and undergrowth quickly grows back after a fire. We just occasionally get a big fire if conditions are wrong. The forest is not unhealthy because of past fire suppression.

It's not practical to "thin" the forest - it grows back quickly so it's not effective.

It would be possible to thin the forest adjacent to human buildings. Or make fire breaks. Or make buildings fireproof.

[greenjello85]

But he said this isn't a problem west of the Cascades. We get a lot of rain and undergrowth quickly grows back after a fire. We just occasionally get a big fire if conditions are wrong. The forest is not unhealthy because of past fire suppression.

I haven't studied this in depth but one thing I've noticed in older photographs is that steep ridgetops tended to have fewer trees then they do now. I think this created natural fire breaks helping to prevent massive wildfires. I also read somewhere about how some of the Native American tribes set ridge fires to create better huckleberry fields. I think this would have had the same effect. There would still be occasional big fires that jump the breaks but I think it would help contain the smaller ones.

[aircooled]

Is this a serious statement you're making? Are you actually suggesting conspiracy theories, or are you satirizing them?

I'm seriously suggesting that some conspiracy theorists will put that suggestion out there, if they haven't already. That doesn't seem any crazier to me than the 911 Truthers who believe the government flew planes into buildings and demolished others with planted explosives.

Personally, I don't believe that at all. But I agree with Jerry - people of all political stripes will look to find ways to gain from a disaster.

[Guy]

a little hard to interpret that

it says a "response activity" includes salvage logging and reforestation

within 30 days a response activity proposal has to be made

the public input, lawsuits, etc. are restricted

it says reforestation has to be achieved over 75% of the impacted area. Does this include salvage logging?

nowhere does it talk about Wilderness and whether it's okay to salvage log and reforest there. Since they don't talk about this, and much of the National Scenic Area is Wilderness, it seems like they're saying in this bill this doesn't matter, go ahead and salvage log/reforest

Thanks Mr. Peabody!

So I'm not a fan of this bill, but it doesn't mention Wilderness anywhere (that might be deliberate) It does mention the Columbia Gorge National Scenic Area which is a separately defined area outside of the wilderness right? Again I'm not a fan but statements like "The Greg Walden bill will allow salvage logging of the wilderness" Seem to be based only on supposition and not fact at this time at least.

It seems to me the bill would have to specifically mention Wilderness and what would happen in it before that would be allowed.

[retired jerry]

It's ambiguous at best not to mention Wilderness in the bill.

They said 75% of Scenic Area should be reforested (again, ambiguous if that includes salvage logging)

Scenic Area is about 300,000 acres. Hatfield Wilderness is 65,000 acres, slightly less than 25%, so they would barely be able to achieve 75% without including Wilderness.

But, many politicians just propose things to pander to their base, not to actually do anything, so we probably don't have to worry about this

[drm]

Keeping in mind the speed with which this legislation was drafted and put out, there can't have been that much deep thought or knowledge about the specifics of the fire. It might be that it is more of a political stunt for a certain constituency, but a risky one if it nonetheless slides through, or gets attached to other disaster bills that are going to be introduced into Congress given the huge hurricane disasters. They did attach a rider to the initial Harvey / Houston relief bill that in some form provided independent funding for Forest Service fire fighting.

[Bosterson]

So I'm not a fan of this bill, but it doesn't mention Wilderness anywhere (that might be deliberate) It does mention the Columbia Gorge National Scenic Area which is a separately defined area outside of the wilderness right? Again I'm not a fan but statements like "The Greg Walden bill will allow salvage logging of the wilderness" Seem to be based only on supposition and not fact at this time at least.

It seems to me the bill would have to specifically mention Wilderness and what would happen in it before that would be allowed.

Sorry Guy, I was using "wilderness" in a lowercase-W sense - as a forested place that has some measure of environmental protection. I didn't mean to imply we were talking about a threat to the Wilderness Act itself; Walden's bill is specifically about the Gorge. So the issue is not logging of the wilderness per se, but rather "The Greg Walden bill will allow salvage logging of the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area."

[Lurch]

(f) Prohibition On Restraining Orders, Preliminary Injunctions, And Injunctions Pending Appeal.—No restraining order, preliminary injunction, or injunction pending appeal shall be issued by any court of the United States with respect to any decision to prepare or conduct a response activity. Section 705 of title 5, United States Code, shall not apply to any challenge to the response activity.

I may be reading it wrong, but this seems troubling to me...

[Guy]

Sorry Guy, I was using "wilderness" in a lowercase-W sense - as a forested place that has some measure of environmental protection. I didn't mean to imply we were talking about a threat to the Wilderness Act itself; Walden's bill is specifically about the Gorge. So the issue is not logging of the wilderness per se, but rather "The Greg Walden bill will allow salvage logging of the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area."

No worries Nat, that makes more sense!

I may be reading it wrong, but this seems troubling to me...

Agreed!