Craig Stumps For Agreement On Forest Laws Assembles Longtime Foes To Help Draft Bill

It was a noble idea: Bring together the warring factions BEFORE the formal introduction of a bill to rewrite logging and wildlife protection laws.

Or as one staff aide to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee put it: “Hopefully we can break down the ritualized, inside-the-beltway warfare.”

Typically, the aide said, after any sort of logging bill has been introduced in Congress the past five years, “one group goes and hangs bunting around the Capitol to celebrate and the other cuts down trees on the Mall to build bonfires and hang the authors of the legislation in effigy.”

Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, is trying a new strategy.

He circulated a draft of his proposed reform of the National Forest Management Act in December. Then he invited environmentalists, timber industry officials and other forest users to participate in a series of informal workshops through March 25 to try to craft a compromise.

And at two workshops on Capitol Hill last week, there did appear to be some improvement in the overall tone of the discussions.

Craig, one of environmentalists’ most despised adversaries, politely thanked each witness for his or her thoughtful remarks.

The staunchly conservative chairman of the panel’s subcommittee on forests and public lands even engaged in some friendly banter with Kevin Kirchner, a lawyer for the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund and archenemy of the timber industry.

“The last time I saw you in the hall, you gave me some grief about my Jerry Garcia tie,” Kirchner said, referring to neckwear designed by the late Grateful Dead rocker, “so I wore something a little more traditional.”

“Ah, tradition,” Craig responded with a smile.

But beyond the civil discourse, the arguments were the same as ever. Passionate pleas for the survival of both timber-dependent communities and forest ecosystems underscored the long-held differences between the two sides, and indicated the gulf that separates them is unlikely to be bridged by Congress this year.

Here’s a sampling of discussion about a single paragraph of Craig’s draft legislation: “Your bill attempts to impose Soviet-style logging quotas and clamp down on public involvement,” said Mitch Friedman, head of the Northwest Ecosystem Alliance in Bellingham.

“This proposal would make logging the dominant purpose of our national forests at the expense of wildlife,” said Walter Kuhlman, a lawyer for the Defenders of Wildlife in Madison, Wis.

“Frankly, I’m not sure we read the same document,” said Mary Flanderka, a friend of the timber industry who works with the Black Hills Multiple Use Association in Hulett, Wyo. “When I read this bill, it comes close to hitting the bull’s-eye.

“We are suffering from what I call analysis paralysis. We need designated harvest levels. Forest plans must consider community stability,” Flanderka said.

“I couldn’t agree more,” added Deborah Baker of the Southern Timber Purchasers Council in Atlanta, Ga.

Craig’s draft proposal would rewrite Forest Service planning procedures.

Backers say it would lead to better management decisions by ending bureaucratic delays caused by appeals and lawsuits. Critics say it would rob citizens of any say over logging of public lands.

Craig’s proposal is needed to keep distant critics from filing appeals that can block commercial activity, said Clark Collins of the Blue Ribbon Coalition in Pocatello, Idaho, an organization that represents loggers, ranchers and miners.

Collins especially likes parts of the draft bill that would allow appeals only from those who were involved in the public-comment period from the beginning and can show they would be harmed by the proposed activity.

“You should require some personal knowledge or concern about the decision. Some groups that appeal every decision have clogged up the system,” he said at last week’s session.

On the other side is Tim Coleman of the Kettle Range Conservation Group in Republic, Wash.

“People have a right to challenge laws. Your proposed $10,000 fine for frivolous appeals is the most overt attack on the citizen process I’ve ever seen,” he told Craig.

Craig has said that the one thing all sides agree on is that the status quo is no good, that the laws need fixing.

But Kirchner disagrees.

“The laws aren’t broken,” he said. “The problems are with implementation and the Forest Service’s drive to manage trees for production of timber.”

“These checks and balances” - lawsuits and appeals - “give you a reason to trust the government, Kirchner said. “This legislation is an attempt to throw those processes out the window.”

The committee aide, speaking on condition he not be named, said the next step after the workshops “is to see if the administration is interested in sitting down and talking about what a bipartisan bill would look like.”

Craig has said it may take years to accomplish the kind of reforms he’s keen on passing through Congress.

Individual sections of the bill may be pulled from the package and submitted for congressional approval this year, the aide said.

xxxx

These 2 sidebars appeared with the story: 1. MEETING Craig’s workshops resume on Capitol Hill this week. The last one is set for March 25 at Coeur d’Alene.

2. IN CRAIG’S PROPOSAL Among other things, Craig’s proposal would: Subject the chief of the Forest Service to Senate confirmation. Eliminate the requirement that the Forest Service consult with other agencies, such as the Fish and Wildlife Service, about the impact of logging plans on wildlife habitat. End the automatic stay imposed on any timber sale when an appeal is filed. Impose a $10,000 fine on those filing appeals if the secretary of agriculture finds the action to be a stalling tactic or filed for any “improper purpose.” Set up a series of hoops for states to jump through to take temporary control of federal forest lands, subject to approval by Congress and the president.