Forest Chief Stumps For Ecosystem One Big Analysis Cheaper Than 70 Small Ones, Thomas Says
It will cost 20 times more and take four times as long to bring forest plans into compliance with environmental laws if Congress dumps the Eastside Ecosystem Management project, U.S. Forest Service Chief Jack Ward Thomas said Thursday.
Thomas isn’t getting much sympathy from some local environmental or industry advocates, who are ambivalent about keeping the program alive.
A blue-jeaned, bolo-tie clad Thomas, with an entourage of top agency officials, stopped in Boise and Spokane stumping for revival of funding for the behemoth, often-misunderstood analysis of federal lands in the Pacific Northwest.
Thomas also touched on the contentious issue of salvage logging during his visit. Even though federal legislation authorizing the harvest isn’t in place, he said, the agency is aggressively selling trees under a salvage program.
Thomas is concerned about ecosystem management because the U.S. House of Representatives slashed next year’s funding from $6.7 million to $600,000, an effort engineered in part by U.S. Rep. George Nethercutt. The measure now is in the Senate.
The ecosystem management effort is designed to provide a comprehensive scientific picture that will allow resource managers to avert problems like endangered species listings and assure a longterm timber supply.
It’s being conducted by 100 employees of the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management and will be used to update 70 forest plans with a single effort, Thomas said.
It also will allow for one, region-wide negotiation with the agencies responsible for endangered species.
The scientific information gathering phase is supposed to be done this fall. The loss of money would preclude writing the environmental impact statements that say what would happen on the ground, based on the technical data. A draft environmental assessment is due in November, and the final analysis would come next year.
The bill that passed the House directs the Forest Service instead to update the 70 forest plans individually. It pushes the cost and time frame of the environmental analysis from 50 cents an acre and 18 months, to $10-$15 an acre and three to five years of study, Thomas said.
Not completing the ecosystem management project doesn’t mean the Forest Service won’t have to deal with the problems, he warned. For example, “watershed assessment is inevitable, whether or not we put it in place,” because the National Marine Fisheries Service requires such information when evaluating salmon-saving plans.
The Idaho Conservation League says Thomas is on the right track. Not so, say the Inland Empire Public Lands Council and the Idaho Forest Industries Council.
The scientific information needed to be gathered, said Barry Rosenberg of the Public Lands Council. But it only will be used to “continue a high level of commodity extraction,” he said.
Industry fears just the opposite. “We don’t have a lot of faith in the Forest Service contention that this will solve problems instead of making problems,” said Joe Hinson of the Intermountain Forest Industry Association.
, DataTimes