June 1999 Volume 6, Number 5
by Jenny Coyle
Are the Chief's Words Progressive? Or Pulp?
After my interview with U.S. Forest Service Chief Mike Dombeck, I
realized I had dressed like a tree that day: long brown skirt, green
leaf-print blouse, hair swept up like a bird's nest.
Lucky thing I didn't accidentally dress like a logging road.
Dombeck was in San Francisco to speak at the North American Wildlife
and Natural Resources Conference in March. I got 35 minutes of his
time.
The chief sounds good on paper - and in person. He told me, for
example, that the Forest Service is "moving away from rewarding
people for hard targets - like board feet of timber, recreation
visitor days - to outcomes on the land, like soil stability, water
quality, forest health, what conditions your roads are in, the
quality of customer service."
His speeches to staff and the public emphasize the importance of
watershed health and restoration, sustainable forest management, the
need to maintain fish and wildlife habitat and provide recreational
opportunities. Even better, Dombeck has started to make some
positive changes in an agency that moves, critics say, slower than a
tree grows.
Still, the Sierra Club howled this spring when the agency's
moratorium on roadbuilding in roadless areas excluded 26 national
forests, leaving an extra 15 million acres vulnerable to
logging-road construction. And our forest-management watchdogs
regularly challenge poorly designed forest plans and projects that
put flora, fauna and water supplies at risk. "We'd like to believe
Dombeck's rhetoric," said the Club's forest issues specialist Sean
Cosgrove. "Unfortunately, the Forest Service continues to log
old-growth forests and puts a money-losing timber-sale program ahead
of protection and much-needed forest restoration."
The Club isn't alone in that thinking. Earlier this year the
Inspector General studied 12 Forest Service timber plans and sales
and found that all were flawed. The report noted illegal tree
cutting, failure to curtail environmental damage and the absence of
surveys for threatened and endangered species.
"We've got to be more vigilant in our inspections and in our
reviews of projects," said Dombeck when asked about the report's
conclusions. "Accountability is an issue for the Forest Service.
We've got to make sure that the right things are happening on the
land." He outlined a four-part accountability model to accomplish
that: set priorities, provide the resources to do the work based on
the priorities, monitor the results, and then reward or discipline
accordingly. "Most people, when they think of accountability, they
think someone's going to get in trouble. But the fact is that's the
wrong model; you've got to reward the good behavior," he said.
Dombeck is making personnel changes as well - and there are more
to come because 40 percent of the Forest Service workforce will be
eligible to retire in five to eight years. "This will really provide
us the opportunity to adjust the skill mix," he said. "I'm looking
for people with an impeccable land ethic, individuals with good
communication skills - people skills - because more and more of the
job of natural-resource management is working with people."
Something else he's working to change: the so-called 25 percent
fund. The government gives 25 percent of timber-sale receipts to the
counties in which the timber sale took place to assist schools and
road programs. More than one school superintendent has accused
environmentalists of "holding our children hostage" when appeals and
lawsuits delay or halt timber harvests. Dombeck would rather see a
set annual payment. As the chief says, "Is it appropriate for the
richest country in the world to fund the education of rural children
on the back of a controversial timber program?"
Controversial is right. So I asked him to name a national forest
where responsible management is taking place.
First he explained (as he had several times during our interview)
that his idea of good forest management is to "look at the land base
we have, decide the condition we want the forest to be in, and apply
the best science and technology." Then he named the Ocala National
Forest in Florida.
"It's the first time I ever saw a Sierra Club member support
clearcutting. Timber harvest is not the objective; the objective is
that there are scrub jays, which are a [threatened] species, and
scrub jay habitat needs opening. They're doing small clearcuts of
three to five acres, and prescribed fire. We're improving habitat
for a threatened species."
I ran that by Judy Hancock, forest issues chair for the Club's
Florida Chapter. "We have agreed to support clearcuts in the sand
pine, which mimics the large natural fires that historically swept
through these communities and helped maintain scrub jay habitat, but
which can't be used now because of encroaching neighborhoods," she
said. "The Club wouldn't support this management strategy if it
wasn't necessary."
What the Club does support is ending commercial logging on
national forests. I reminded Dombeck that in a speech to his
employees he set forth his philosophy by saying, "We must protect
the last best places and restore the rest." Calling a halt to
commercial logging seems consistent with that, right?
The goal is a healthy, functioning watershed that maintains water
quality, Dombeck said, and that shouldn't necessarily exclude
cutting trees.
"We've got to broaden our view of what forests do for us," he
said. "They're important for fiber production, but are also
important for lots of other values. An average tree produces enough
oxygen for a family of four to breathe in a year and sequesters 13
pounds of carbon. Now that's important."
"So why cut them down?" I asked.
"By law, we are a multiple-use agency," Dombeck replied, citing
the Organic Act of 1897, which orders the agency to provide
favorable conditions for water flows - and a sustainable supply of
timber.
Go on to the next article,
"EPA Listens: New Rules for Cars, Gas."
Up to
Top
|