|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Photo |
Comments
To Bethlehem City Council On
Proposed Timbering Plan
June
4, 2002
Honorable Council Members, Mayor and Staff:
Here
we are again to deal with a proposal to save the City of Bethlehem from
financial devastation—otherwise, why would such a radical plan
be proposed? The plan is radical because it is an extreme use of scarce
resources.
Across
America, there is a steady attack on our forests and public lands—all
in the name of money. We in the sierra Club have concerted campaign:
stop logging
our legacy. In our national forests, in the public forests and parks of Pennsylvania,
and here in our region, We seek to save these treasures of a wild forest
and places for future generations. This is not a new idea in principle—this
generation thing—your predecessors set up this pristine watershed
in the 1920’s and 30’s to provide safe, healthy drinking water.
We
don’t have any more forests. There are no more old growth and old
forests. If we don’t save these
forests, there will be none for our grandchildren. We will only
be able to take them to see nice tree farms. And that’s what this
kind of proposal is about—turning a forest into a tree farm. There
is no legacy in that.
The
current proposal is much improved over the bogus and half-baked proposal
you were originally offered. Some members of Council persisted in asking
questions and looking at numbers—and it became clear that the proposal
was baseless, a pig in a poke. So now we have a much better proposal,
one that makes clear there will not be anywhere near the financial bonanza that was held
out to you two years ago.
However,
it is still logging, and it is still without a fundamental principle
that we always fight for: an environmental analysis of the entire resource
should be conducted before decisions can be made. This should not be
a portion of a logging plan, but done before the logging plan is made.
We
again urge the council to use good judgment. Require a full environmental
study of the watershed, and then consider ways in which sustainable
timbering might be done. As a matter of principle, we don’t want
any timbering to be used as a steady source of
city cash. But if you determine to do it, do an environmental analysis
first.
You
know that the amount of money now being suggested for this timbering
effort is on the order of about $250,000. You may feel that is money
that should not be declined. You might even feel that you need it now for city finances. I again
remind you: the city can get around $4-6 million as soon as it signs an environmental
easement with the Nature Conservancy. Now that’s money worth talking
about. If the city is in such dire straits, why delay consummating an
easement agreement?
Please
step back and take the longer view. Put of an action plan for timbering
until after the results of a system-wide environmental analysis is completed.
Remember that the value of a forest is far more than the price of wood.
A tree farm is not a forest.
Thank
you.
Respectfully
Submitted,
