Sunday, May 25, 2003
Don't be misled by extremist alarmists
Timber isn't king in new Jefferson forest plan
By
MICHAEL MORTIMER and SHEP ZEDAKER
MORE THAN one person has
suggested that the U.S. Forest Service's preferred option for the new Jefferson
National Forest plan reflects a timber emphasis at the expense of other natural
resource considerations. Are these comments well-grounded?
Of course,
the role that commercial timber harvesting may play in the new plan is a matter
of perspective. Extreme environmental groups opposed to all commercial timber
harvesting on public lands are naturally opposed to the proposed plan's
provision to produce commercial wood products from the forest. But for the
average citizen, unfamiliar with the details of the plan or with the supporting
science, the rhetoric and special interest group biases can be misleading at
best.
To clarify
some of the questions regarding timber harvesting in the proposed Jefferson
National Forest plan, consider the following:
Remember that
the national forests are not national parks. National forests were established
to provide a multitude of benefits to the nation's citizens, including a
sustainable supply of timber. National parks, by contrast, were established for
the preservation purposes that many environmental groups would choose to see in
the national forests.
The Forest
Service has no small task before it in balancing the various uses of the
Jefferson National Forest. For example, the agency must consider and comply
with nearly 100 federal laws. Failure to meet the requirements of any one will
open the door for disgruntled groups to challenge the plan.
As part of
that legal commitment, the agency must manage the forest for multiple uses, one
of which is timber. Unfortunately, multiple use has been criticized as meaning
all things to all people, leaving the Forest Service with precious little
practical guidance. The agency must rely on science, professional experience
and an appreciation of what the broad public seeks as outputs from the forest
to guide its decisions.
Contrary to
accusations that the new plan would increase timber harvesting, the plan
actually reduces the proposed sale volume over the next 15 years from 33
million (the 1985 plan) to 21.7 million board feet per year. Though that number
is the maximum limit, the agency has been unable to meet the previous plan's
timber harvesting commitments due largely to appeals and litigation from
extreme environmental groups.
For example,
timber volumes sold from the forest over the last five years have never
exceeded about 11 million board feet per year, and the volume actually
harvested has not exceeded 15 million board feet per year since 1996. On
average, only 1,833 acres per year have been logged over the last 15 years.
The proposed
timber harvesting volume of 21.7 million board feet represents about one-third
of 1 percent of the standing volume of timber in the forest, and is far less
than the net growth the forest experiences of some 122 million board feet per
year. In fact, the number of trees dying from natural causes every year in the
forest is nearly twice what is proposed for harvest.
Allegations
that the new plan will sacrifice water quality for the sake of timber
harvesting are misplaced. The Forest Service's standards meet or exceed the
state of Virginia's best management practices for the protection of water
quality. Additionally, the plan sets aside almost 79,800 acres (or almost 11
percent of the forest) for riparian buffers and aquatic habitat.
Contrary to
alarmed claims that timber road construction is a looming threat, the plan
proposes building only 3.4 miles of timber-associated roads per year, while
decommissioning 1.5 to 2 miles of road per year. To put these numbers in
context, the recent Peters Creek Road extension project in Roanoke alone added
5 miles of new road. Adding a net 1 to 2 miles of road per year in the
Jefferson National Forest has minimal environmental impact, while providing
access for hunters, hikers and individuals not able to negotiate rough and
steep trails.
The use of
clear-cutting, often a target of opportunity for those opposed to national
forest logging, has averaged a mere 746 acres per year over the last 15 years
in the forest, and the proposed plan will rely on clear-cutting for an average
of only 450 acres per year, or .06 percent of the forest per year.
While some
critics claim that timber harvesting poses a threat to recreation and
recreation-associated economies, a recent study from Montana suggests that
timber harvesting does not disturb the aesthetics of either wilderness or nonwilderness
counties to the point of affecting population growth. To the contrary, higher
levels of timber harvesting correlated more with increased population growth
than did the presence of wilderness.
While critics
of timber harvesting time and again argue the harm it will cause to local
tourism and recreation economies, there is a glaring lack of evidence to
support that myth.
Before
pointing fingers at "subsidized logging" or "below-cost timber
sales," the proposed plan clearly illustrates that the Forest Service
receives no revenues for recreation; wildlife and fish; soil, air and water; or
other protections and forest health. Except for the timber and mining income,
the Jefferson National Forest would generate no revenues at all. The costs
associated with all other uses of the forest are in fact subsidized by timber,
mining and taxpayer dollars.
The Society
of American Foresters is formulating a national position statement reflecting
the importance of active forest management to sustainable forestry. It is not
by coincidence that the Forest Service has sought to employ active management
in appropriate areas, on the remaining third of the Jefferson National Forest
not already set aside for other purposes.
Are active
forest management and timber harvesting lawful and necessary parts of the blend
of activities undertaken on the forest? Undoubtedly. But is timber the king of
the forest? Not by a very long shot.
MICHAEL
MORTIMER is an assistant professor of forest law and policy at Virginia Tech
and chair of the Society of American Foresters Committee on Forest Policy. SHEP
ZEDAKER is a professor of forestry at Virginia Tech and chair of the Blue Ridge
Chapter of the Virginia Society of American Foresters.
BARBARA
CUMMINGS / LOS ANGELES TIMES SYNDICATE