Letters.

FAMILY FORESTS: MORE IDEAS

editor: As a family forest owner in California, I read the Winter 2000 issue with great interest. But I wonder about the considerable amount of whining in Jane Braxton Little's article ("Family Forests: Loving Care, Heavy Burdens").

In California the Non-industrial Timber Management Plan offers significant relief for small forest landowners (fewer than 2,500 acres). A few years ago the legislature created an option for small forest landowners to receive a lifetime permit in exchange for a commitment to harvest sustainably. Now hundreds of NTMPs are in place, including my own. Little and the Doerksens can learn more from the California Forest Practice Rules or the department of forestry. Things aren't so bad if you look for solutions.

John Gaffin

via e-mail

editor: In "Family Forests: Loving Care, Heavy Burdens," I was mentioned for my participation in the Forest Stewardship Project's Volunteer Initiative Project in Pennsylvania.

As usual, the article is slanted toward larger forest landowners. Here, 500,000 Pennsylvania Forestry Association members own on average about 25 acres. The median acreage is about 10. Similar figures prevail throughout the 20 northeastern states, where more than 40 percent of the 9.9 million members live.

The problems emphasized in Little's article do not apply to most of these people. Most small forestland owners are unaware of these concerns and do not know the importance of sustainability, much less how to go about achieving it. Education is necessary for them to apply Best Management Practices and support sustainability in all forests.

Also, Little writes that the Doerksens own a 122-acre forest. If so, how is it possible that their taxes were reduced "by $600,000 a year"? High property taxes on forestland can be reduced with conservation easements, if you can get local assessors to agree the land has less market value.

John G. Buzzell

State College, Pennsylvania

editor's note: Jim Doerksen says their conservation easement reduced the property's assessed value by $600,000. That reduced their taxes by 25 to 30 percent--or as much as $180,000.

'RUCKUS IN RESTON' CONTINUES

editor: Lester DeCoster's "Leaving a Forest Legacy" (Winter 2000) misrepresented the facts. Fairfax County's Department of Public Works and Environmental Services cited the Reston Association for violations of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinance because of the actions the article described.

The ordinance is recognized as one of the nation's foremost laws protecting the environment. As homeowner members of the Reston Association, we cannot, and will not, brush aside that Association staff violated this most important natural preservation law. The statement "Some people hired a lawyer" is absolutely incorrect! No lawyer was hired and no lawyer was involved.

DeCoster observed that "upset people" railed against the ugly machinery used in the construction. Rightfully so. Heavy machinery has no place in an environmentally sensitive area. The "ruckus in Reston" as described is a superb example of why homeowners must not assume that a homeowner's association interprets its directives correctly. One of the Association's primary responsibilities is to protect natural areas. Instead, it violated the law. That fact is chilling to Reston homeowners, who pride themselves on living in a community sensitive to environmental issues.

The intent of any forest legacy should be viewed with common sense: The forest itself is the legacy. It cannot be improved. By leaving a beautiful and fragile area such as Glade Stream Valley in its natural state, we both honor the legacy's original intent and maintain a unique opportunity for enjoying nature.

Lois A. Andreano

Reston, Virginia 

POLITICAL TRAILS

editor: In the Winter 2000 issue I noticed Deborah Gangloff and Gerry Gray referred to President Clinton's recent initiative to protect 40 million acres of roadless areas ("Clippings").

These comments beg this question: What has been done in these roadless areas that needs restoring? "Roadless area" by definition means no roads. If anything, excluding fire has done more harm than any "perceived" past management practices. We cannot adequately protect forests from fire without an infrastructure that allows quicker response times.

To permit ecosystem restoration activities, we must be allowed to manage. Based on current overstocking of stand and vegetation conditions in many proposed roadless areas, reintroducing fire is not an option. Therefore, mechanical treatment and manipulation of current vegetative conditions should be considered in restoration and maintenance activities. The real issue: whether we have the political guts, backed by peer-reviewed science, to make the best decisions far the health of the forest.

Blair Moody 

Medford, Oregon

editor: I take issue with Deborah Gangloff's comments about President Clinton's executive order. Gangloff's statements indicate she has little knowledge of what occurs in rural areas or what composes our last roadless areas.

By using his executive order power his last year in office, Clinton precluded public input and local decisionmaking. And Gangloff paints with a broad brush when she says "these areas provide significant ecological services, such as clean water, fish and wildlife habitat, and carbon sequestration." Many Montana and Idaho forests have serious health problems. The Forest Service should be allowed to do its job: bringing back forests to their natural state. Meddling by politicians with no real concern for our great national forests only causes greater problems for professional foresters. AMERICAN FORESTS should oppose obvious political moves such as Clinton's.

Kennon McClintock

Moyie Springs, Idaho 

Deborah Gangloff responds: AMERICAN FORESTS works to ensure local partners have a voice in developing national forest policy. You are right that the president's proposal is about his environmental legacy. But it also reflects the vision of Forest Service leadership.

AMERICAN FORESTS has knowledge of activities in rural areas. Many of our community partners worry the proposal would limit local participation in planning and decisionmaking and fail to account for ecosystem restoration. Generally, our partners support keeping roadless areas roadless but recognize the need for restoration activities.

Restoration may be necessary in some areas to achieve broad ecological objectives; the proposal does not preclude such activities. And Forest Service Chief Mike Dombeck has called for adequate roads to protect the land's health. The proposal also calls for the EIS process to establish a framework for locally managing roadless areas. This suggests many decisions will remain in the hands of local planning processes. When the EIS is released this spring, we will address these concerns.