Double Standard

By Thembi Borras

I suppose if we could do right by the air, soil and water we share, we wouldn't need laws to protect the environment. However, our actions have compromised the environment resulting in a stack of well-intentioned legislation that has created a morass of regulation. In forestry, the tangle of paperwork, permits, fees and multiple Agency review can be time consuming, costly and frustrating.

However, it doesn't have to be that way. Project proponents could be rewarded with, at a minimum, reduced or waived fees and reduced or waived paperwork if the type of forest management proposed steps beyond the minimum standards to improve forest related values. There is inequity in the present system; the hoops appear when the proponent offers timber harvest. Conversely, the hoops disappear when the project proponent offers restoration. Even though, the timber harvest project may incorporate restoration. For example, I have worked with the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) in three of their many programs, timber harvest review, fish habitat restoration and permitting. If the undertaking is a DFG funded fish habitat restoration project the fees and much of the paperwork associated with the permitting is absorbed by DFG. On the other hand, if the project is a timber harvest, fees and paperwork are required from the project proponent. Ironically, the specific treatments, such as sizing and designing stream crossings for 100-year storm events and improving road drainage by draining roads well and frequently onto stable surfaces, may be exactly the same.

Agencies may not be equipped to accommodate shades of gray but with the exception of the small number of projects on either side of the spectrum that are either black or white the rest are shades of gray. In fact, timber harvest can pay for restoration and if the conclusion is reached that the timber harvest project in the method and level of harvest and the proposed sediment saving treatments will yield the same or better results as a restoration project of equivalent size then it should be afforded similar reprieves if for no other reason than to provide incentive for this behavior.