|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Photo |
Proposal to Log in the Bethlehem Watershed
This is a transcript of the testimony Dave McGuire gave to the Bethlehem City Council on behalf of the Sierra Club regarding a proposal to log the Bethlehem watershed.
T0: Public Works Committee, Bethlehem City Council, Honorable Council Members
FROM: Lehigh Valley Group of the Sierra Club
DATE: April 23, 2002
SUBJECT: Comments on the Proposal to the Bethlehem Authority by Brooks Forestry and Resource Management Company
Is there any doubt that the proposal before the Committee is of a higher quality, has a broader vision, and is simply more professional, than the hurried up, poorly designed proposal that was pushed to the Council a few years ago? Council can commend itself for slowing down that ill-considered and poorly advised proposal. Those members of Council who saw through the effort at a “quick money for the City” scheme deserve the appreciation of our citizens. And we should value highly the input from citizens and groups, like the Sierra Club, who came and testified repeatedly on the topic, educating the Council, the public, and even themselves, about the situation of the Bethlehem watershed.
The proposal before you comes after the revelation that the proposed “pot of green” of the original proposal was more like a bag of hot air. The trees weren’t there! Talk about not seeing the trees for the forest!
This proposal is based on a through inventory of the forest resource. It has a philosophy of sustainability, rather than “quick money.” It takes the longer view. It uses words like ecology. It is a solid example of an approach based on using the forest as a resource for timber, and thus producing a possible revenue stream for the Bethlehem Authority, although at a much lower level than anticipated by the administration two years ago. The concepts of silviculture, managing a forest for timber yield, are utilized, and will be overseen by a responsible third party.
In some of the details, which propose to start timbering in 1,200 acres of the Tunkhannock Creek watershed this year, there are statements such as “An operational plan to minimize environmental impact.” There is a clear awareness of “specifications for road and/or skid way construction; preventive measure for riparian areas and other sensitive sites; erosion and sediment control.” Potential use of herbicides is noted, which should be of high concern, because it might impact the fine water quality.
The revenue stream is noted. There may be a tension between “maximizing” the financial stream and “optimizing” the financial stream. One is getting the “most” money; the other is getting money the “best” way, all things considered.
What is missing in this operational plan is any information on current environmental conditions. There appears to be no plan to take an inventory of the biota in the 1,200 acres and the surroundings. A solid plan to avoid environmental damage would require a through survey of the affected area during at least two seasons, such as spring and late summer. Information on the nesting and migration patterns of animals is required to time any intrusive activities, so as to do minimal or no damage.
The proposed plan already appears to be behind schedule.
The proposal notes three alternatives for moving ahead:
1. Use the old practices.
2. Develop a comprehensive management plan for both watersheds prior to implementation of any silvicultural treatments.
3. Provide an interim plan using information from the 2001 inventory and 1991 plan, starting with 1,200 acres this year.
None of these are based on ecological considerations, other than variables affecting timber yield. The Brooks firm recommends the third alternative “based on immediate need.” Presumably, this means the need of the Bethlehem Authority for cash.
We in the Sierra Club are wary of human actions that have the potential to destroy irreplaceable natural resources. These two tracts, totaling about 23,000 acres, are a precious resource in a sprawling area, where development is rampant.
Our foundation principle is to keep forests and natural areas “wild,” while this proposal is an example of “managing” the natural area. This tension, as well as the existence of other non-financial values, is clearly stated by the Brooks firm, and that is to their credit.
The wild approach gives us a forest, developing as nature intended, and alive with a diversity of all kinds of plants, insects, and animals. The managed approach gives us a tree farm, which must inevitably decrease the diversity of species because of the impact associated with steady timbering. But let it be clear: this managed approach is much better than the clear cutting timbering programs practiced elsewhere.
We believe that there a very few places where there is such a large contiguous tract of land, so close to populated areas. It is an aircraft carrier for nature on a sea of people and development. Think carefully before you tinker with it.
We suggest that council move to adopt the somewhat more expensive, more time-consuming alternative two: develop a plan for the entire area based on the thorough kind of work done by Brooks and with a solid study of the living systems there. Let us find a value for our forests, as well a price for our timber. As noted above, the time is already well advance for the proposed schedule. A small delay will yield us all a better plan, with better knowledge, and the chance to discuss all features with the public—and that’s always a good idea.
Let me close with a less happy note. The Brooks report clearly notes that wetlands have been filled in, as well as other forms of damage to this resource, over a period of years. The responsibility of this poor stewardship of a public resource needs to be explored. Specifically, the Bethlehem Authority must report the extent and details of this matter to the responsible authorities. Filling in wetlands without permits is against the law. Filling in wetlands within the confines of a public forest is a scandal. We urge the Authority to take the initiative in this matter, and quickly. Let’s clean up this mess and protect our resources.
Thank you.
Respectfully submitted,
David K. McGuire, Ph.D.
Chair, Executive Committee
