Bush Revises Forest Rules

[D]

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration will keep in place a ban on road-building in much of the nation's federal forest lands while it revises the regulations to give more say to local officials on forest maintenance.
The ban, a pivotal part of former President Clinton's environmental legacy, ropes off 58.5 million acres - about a third of the federal forest land - from developers, loggers and mining companies. These industries are lobbying to have the measure reversed.

While the ban could still be altered dramatically, congressional and administration officials said Thursday the White House has decided to keep it in place while new rules are developed. This process could be lengthy since it would require formal rule-making, including public comment periods.

The revised regulations, expected to be formally announced Friday at a news conference with Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman, are expected to give a greater say to regional and local Forest Service officials, said Doug Crandall, chief of staff for the House Resources forests subcommittee.

The new provisions will allow road-building decisions to be applied on a forest-by-forest basis, rather than using a one-size-fits-all national policy, Crandall said.

He expects the administration will craft a new rule in about nine months, though it will take one to five years for each national forest's plan to be reviewed.

``There is no silver bullet,'' Crandall said. On the forest level, ``there is going to be much more attention put on roadless protections now, but at least they will be doing it on a site-by-site basis rather than some blanket rule from Washington.''

The vast majority of roadless federal forests are in the West, including parts of Idaho's Bitterroot range and Alaska's Tongass, viewed by environmentalists as North America's rain forest.

Smaller sections are scattered across the country from Florida's Apalachicola National Forest and Virginia's George Washington National Forest to New Hampshire's White Mountains.

Clinton's policy, announced Jan. 5, was supposed to take effect in March. The Bush administration delayed implementation until May 12 while it conducted a review.

The Clinton administration began creating the rules about three years ago, but did not issue them until just weeks before President Clinton left office.

The road ban on much of the federal forest in the West was praised by environmentalists as a way to protect the nation's most pristine forest lands from developers and preserve critical wildlife habitats. Opponents, including the timber and mining industries, say the rules needlessly place valuable resources off-limits.

The state of Idaho and timber company Boise Cascade sued in federal court in Boise seeking to block the rule from taking effect. The Bush administration had until Friday to file a brief with the court outlining its analysis of the rule.

In an interim decision, U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge rejected a call to immediately block the policy, but said there was ``strong evidence'' the rule-making process was hurried and the Forest Service was not prepared to produce a ``coherent proposal or meaningful dialogue and that the end result was predetermined.''

While awaiting the judge's final decision, Chris West, vice president of the American Forest Resource Council, said he would be disappointed if the Bush administration kept the ban in place while a new rule was created. Such a move could put forests in the West at risk to insects, disease and fire because the roadless areas will be inaccessible, he said.

``What has us worried is what they are going to be doing in the interim,'' said West, whose Portland, Ore.-based group represents timber interests.

Jim Lyons, an agriculture undersecretary in the Clinton administration who oversaw the Forest Service, said the only way the Bush administration could legally change the rules was through the rule-making process.

``Clearly, the people close to this process have a strong philosophical problem with protecting roadless areas,'' said Lyons, now a professor at Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.

Marty Hayden, legislative director for Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund, said he thought the expected revisions would take the Bush administration back to where the government started three years ago - trying to maintain 380,000 miles of roads that have an $8.5 billion maintenance backlog.

``They have chosen not to suspend it because they are feeling the heat of the public support that was behind the rule in the first place,'' Hayden said. ``But they are still heading down a path for undoing it.''

Other conservation groups, including Trout Unlimited, were cautiously optimistic the administration was moving toward implementing the rule.

``This short-term decision is one that gives us some hope. They easily could have gone the other way,'' said Steve Moyer, Trout Unlimited vice president. As the forest plans are revised, ``You'll have conservationists on the ground that will be very aware of changes that are proposed.''

 

[Deere John]

Now you guys may call me a (Canadian) cynic, but I read into this the same thing that I read into the protectionist Softwood Lumber dispute. Consumers will be the losers.

The american side of the softwood lumber dispute is being pushed by big companies with secure timber holdings and secondly by landowners who hold immense tracts of private forest land. It is in their interest to either squeeze supply at the border with Canada, or now, as it seems, within the national forests through development moratoriums. I'll bet my wife's McCulloch saw that if one digs deep into the interests that want to see access restricted, besides environmentalists, you will find the producing private land holders. They are speculating that their investment in the countervail and backing environmentalists will be rewarded through higher prices for their logs.

Squeeze supply hard enough, and demand remains the same or goes up, and price follows. The danger is that with prices going too high, alternatives will become more popular (ie. steel studs). (It is for this reason that OPEC does not want to see the price of a barrel of oil go much beyond $30, because alternate technologies begin to make econimic sense, and they would lose their grip on our economies).

Alternately, if a countervail duty is applied to imported (read Canadian) lumber, then all of a sudden, the price goes up in the states, and the domestic supplies of logs can raise their prices.

Free trade is good for the consumer. free trade has the potential to put many lobbyists out of work.

Thanks for the topic Darin - I needed that.

 

[Deere John]

One week later - I read that lumber prices jumped by 20 percent as buyers waited for the prices to fall further. But with supply short re: the above, prices shot up by 20 percent. The sawmills still charge the same $$$ to perform the sawing service: its the property owners or log suppliers who stand to gain directly from this artificial market situation.

 

[Deere John]

Like I said - who are the villans??? It is pretty easy to see who the victims are planned to be.


OTTAWA (CP) - Canada's strongest ally in a dispute with the United States over softwood lumber may come from south of the border. International Trade Minister Pierre Pettigrew met Wednesday with a coalition of 15 U.S.-based consumer groups representing more than 95 per cent of American softwood lumber consumption and millions of American jobs.
"People see more and more this softwood lumber issue as a U.S.-U.S. issue," Pettigrew said - "that is, a challenge between producers and consumers. We are very pleased at this time to see the consumers expressing themselves in Washington."
The coalition - representing home and furniture builders, lumber yards and independent retailers as well as chains - says it believes strongly in free trade and will support Ottawa's efforts to resolve the dispute with Washington.
The group claims to be turning the tide in favour of Canadian softwood after the U.S. International Trade Commission agreed to hear from it for the first time this year.
It would be no small feat.
In April, U.S. lumber producers launched their fourth countervailing duty complaint in 20 years against Canadian softwood exports, days after a five-year managed trade deal expired.
The Canada-U.S. Softwood Lumber Agreement imposed export quota restrictions on products worth more than $10 billion a year that support hundreds of thousands of jobs coast to coast.
Canadian softwood is a hot commodity among U.S. home builders because it's strong and doesn't warp, making ideal framing material.
But U.S. producers contend the lumber is subsidized through low provincial fees for cutting on Crown land.
The softwood deal was signed in 1996 to head off another expected countervail case after Canada defeated previous challenges.
Producers reasoned they would exchange unrestricted access to the U.S. market for an end to U.S. trade harassment. But problems, like reclassification of some products, continued and many producers soured on the deal.
Now U.S. producers are demanding countervailing duties and anti-dumping tariffs of up to 80 per cent.
The consumers' representatives, who visited Pettigrew and new U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci, quoted U.S. Census Bureau statistics estimating the duties would prevent more than 1.2 million families from qualifying for mortgages and add up to $4,000 US to new home costs.
"The greater voice of U.S. consumers is certainly going to help us find a long-term solution to this difficult issue," said Pettigrew.
"This protectionism that U.S. producers of softwood lumber are proposing is very costly to American consumers."
Gene Ormond, vice-president government relations for Atlanta-based Home Depot, said the group's voice is "quite clearly" being heard.
It claims that more than 100 congressmen onside.
"If we do not sell that stick of lumber, then we don't sell the nails to hold that lumber together," said Ormond. "Then we don't sell the hammers to drive the nails.
Canadian producers and governments contend exports are not subsidized. Last month they submitted 250,000 pages of documents to the U.S. trade commission, which is expected to issue a preliminary ruling this month.
The United States could then start collecting tariffs and under U.S. law would not have to return the money even if Canada ultimately wins the case on appeal, as it has in the past.
Pettigrew recently announced Canada would ask the World Trade Organization to rule on that law.
Said Mike Fritz, president of Massachusetts-based Rugg Lumber Co. and head of a 9,000-member association of independent lumber dealers: "It's a survival issue for us."

 

[Deere John]

November 9th - I'm just peeved off enough to post tonight. The American Lumber Producers lobby, whose aim it is to pinch off supplies of affordable lumber to Americans and force prices up the demand curve as much as possible, have (temporarily) succeeded in imposing a 32% import duty on our Canadian lumber. The immediate effect, as I can count the mills, is the closure of at least 9 mills, two of which are within the company that I am proud to work for.

I say temporary because I believe one of two things will happen. The Canadian government will attempt to negotiate a settlement with the US - something that will be neither good for Canadian producers nor American consumers. The second thing that I hope will happen is that Canada will take the American position to the World Trade Court to be ruled upon - litigate, not negotiate. Both Canadian producers and American consumers stand to benefit by this, as softwood lumber should be affirmed as a commodity that falls under the Canada-US free-trade deal or the North American Free Trade Deal, and should be free of duty.

The American lumber producers have historically not invested in more efficient sawing technology, and as a result of our continuous improvement approach to technology, recovery and efficiency, the easiest ( and most profitable way) they can overcome their competative disadvantage is to go after their competitors. Give us all a break, and concentrate on what is important! As said by me.

 

[wendell hollis]

Daddy, what was a logger?

Well I don't know a lot about import/export jazz but, I have worked in millwork mills where all they used was up north lumber and for good reason It's cheaper. I would rather see them use our own but they are so screwed up down here they can't tell there head from a hole in the ground. A local mill conglomerent shut down one of its local mills and has anouther one 70 miles away that won't take any logs untill the first of the year. While back at the town that lost it"s mill a second mill independtly owned can't get logs and shuts down also!!!!! I AM HAVING TROBLE GETTING SOMEONE TO BUY MY AND A FRIENDS LOGS. So we will end up shipping them at great expence to the other side of the state for a buyer!!!! I am just about ready to give up, NO NOT QUIT!!!, and turn wonderful saw logs into FIREWOOD!!!!!! at least I have a market!!! Well I guess I will go cattle ranch until I go broker again ----- Daddy what was a rancher???

 

[WillClimb]

I can understand exactly where you guys are coming from. Here in Charleston, my grandfather owned 600 acres of gorgeous land, some of which was plantation land that was made into a beautiful public garden. The garden went out of business many years ago but I was given a 2.5 acre lot right in the heart of that garden. My brothers and I are sure to be given more in the future and we are more than thankful.

But now, the governent is passing laws that we are fighting (and losing) that prohibit us from building within 500 feet from the river. We also are going to be required to have a 100' buffer of trees between the river and the house...can you say, "Bye bye river-view."? They're also trying to prevent us from passing property down to our children.

I am all for some restrictions on certain land. I mean, I cant stand to see our land cluttered with trash, tires, factories in inappropriate places, or even mobile home parks in the wrong place (I know, I'm maybe being politically incorrect here), but to take property away from someone who has had it in the family for years or limit their use in such a way as this really ticks me off!