There are many interesting things in this FrezBee article on the Earth Island Institute Dispute Disposal Tree Disposal.
(1) Park Service cannot comment because it is in dispute ጣጣ Silence. So we get only one side of the story. Sadly, some park retirees do not have access to a reporter.
“Yosemite National Park is aware of the controversy surrounding the removal of trees in the park,” Yosemite spokesman Scott Gideman said Wednesday afternoon. “We are currently reviewing the content of the debate. We have no further comment on the matter and we will continue to focus on it.
(2) NEPA-nerds for you
Instead of making a new environmental impact statement or environmental assessment, the lawsuit alleges that Yosemith provided a slightly more complete classification form, mostly on older studies. According to the Earth Island Institute, the document is inadequate and contradicts key points of previous plans, including the fact that Yosemite can now remove trees up to 12 inches in diameter and up to 20 inches in diameter. “Standards cannot be ‘separated’ from the documentation – this is contrary to what NEPA thinks,” the lawsuit alleges.
It is my understanding that CE does not need to be associated with anything, and why not if they do not need a park service standard?
(3)
According to Hansen, some of the cut trees are being sent to commercial factories, and in the past, dangerous trees cut down by Yosemite were removed from the ground as part of the ecosystem. Hansen said: “This is a big departure from this, and they have not even told anyone that they are doing this.
Obviously for Hansen, all biomass must be left in its place, even if it is dead and within 200 feet of the road, it will fall naturally (?).
Hansen is concerned about the potential of this project. He had never heard of such a project in another national park. “I am very concerned,” Hansen said, “because if Yosemit National Park can launch a large-scale commercial logging program, this could happen in any national park in the country.”
I know that the Rocky Mountain National Park has cut and removed the bark beetle that kills trees on the streets and in the camp. They may have been burned in a pile, which could be said to be worse for the environment than to be wood or sent to a biomass plant (recycled carbon and air quality, as well as the risk of pile burning). The validity of the action depends on whether the trees are sold or not, rather than what happens locally when they are removed or burned.
Biden Park’s service is to cut down many trees to satisfy the bad wood industry (IMHO doesn’t seem very reliable).
(4) This verse is related to our questions, “How long does the plan work?” And “Is it controversial?”
In a statement, Hansen Yosemite said he should not rely on the 2004 fire management plan. Since then, he continued, “the overall scientific landscape of forest and wildfire science has changed dramatically, and the assumptions and assumptions of the 2004-year project are now strongly debated, debated, or largely rejected.”
If we follow his logic, any dry forest NFMA plans before 2004 will be outdated and will not be legally valid. And because science is changing so fast, we can expect a five-year plan to be out of date. The plan review function sounds a little syphilis. Of course, this is not news for many FS employees.
(5) If it is 200 feet from the center line, how can the public be involved in the outcome of the lawsuit because the plaintiffs are concerned about the existence of a public vote? Maybe set up settlements designed for public comment? I think this is a great innovation. This seems to be more conducive to open and transparent mediation than IMHO litigation.
