Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, September 5, 1993 TAG: 9309050209
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: A1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: CATHRYN McCUE STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
\ Forty, 50 years ago, folks didn't much mind lumberjacks going into the Jefferson National Forest and cutting down trees. They didn't care about having well-groomed hiking trails with interpretive signs and modern campsites.
Most were oblivious to endangered reptiles and rare plants and never would have thought industrial pollution could threaten the vast, wild woods.
Things are different these days.
The public sees timber clear-cutting as a crime against nature, an assault on the optic nerve. Pristine wilderness areas are considered sacred, and biological diversity has emerged as an international concern.
Citizens are demanding unrestricted access to the great outdoors. We want mountain bike trails, paved roads, horse paths, all-terrain vehicle areas, trailer hookups, boat ramps and facilities for the handicapped.
Meanwhile, the lumberjacks and others who depend on the forests for their livelihood insist on their right to harvest trees from public lands.
Everybody feels they have a stake in what happens to those 708,000 acres of federally owned Western Virginia land.
And they'll all want a say in updating the management plan for the Jefferson, which promises to be a painstaking, contentious and emotional struggle.
It's up to the U.S. Forest Service to figure out who gets to do what, and where, in the forest.
"It will be confrontational," says Bill Leichter, a retired U.S. forester who has taken sides with the Appalachian Forest Management Group, a timber interest lobbying group. "The players on this revision . . . are from opposite ends of the spectrum."
His group wants to see twice as much tree-cutting as is allowed.
In the opposite corner is the Citizens Task Force for National Forest Management, which argues there's too much logging. There's also too much emphasis on deer, turkey and other game animals at the expense of other wildlife, says Jim Loesel, secretary of the group.
Consider, says Loesel, that the Forest Service's own computer analysis shows that the public favors recreational uses on forest land over logging almost 20-to-1. According to the agency's best estimate, there were 2.2 million visitor days last year. Camping, picnicking, swimming and driving along scenic roads were the favorite forest pastimes.
Yet, the agency does not ration its time or money according to those public preferences, says Loesel.
Steve Bennett, co-founder of the timber group, counters: "Jim Loesel doesn't live on the forest. He doesn't depend on the forest for his livelihood. We represent more the traditional use of the forest.
"That's where you can draw the lines."
\ "Land of many uses," is the motto of the U.S. Forest Service. The agency is charged with managing its land for logging, mining, grazing, wilderness areas, recreation and wildlife. It so happens that most of these uses conflict most of the time.
For instance, more and more people want to drive their all-terrain vehicles in national forests. But the ATVs are prohibited in wilderness areas, where the law forbids any motorized equipment. Is it appropriate to have an ATV area next to a horse trail? Do ATV's destroy wildlife and vegetation? Do the noise and exhaust prohibit hikers from enjoying the woods the way they want to?
Drawing up a 10-year management plan for a forest that's expected to meet such conflicting expectations isn't easy.
"It's like looking into a crystal ball, trying to see what the American people feel, what they want," and what they'll want 10, 20 years from now, says Dave Olson, a spokesman for the Jefferson forest.
The agency must stick to its plan or risk being challenged by the interest groups who find fault with the plan's implementation. People can appeal an agency's decision administratively, and then have the option of pursuing their case in federal court.
Olson describes the plan as a "dynamic document," its management goals subject to budget changes. It also can be amended at any time.
Add to the public clamor a recent directive from the Forest Service chief that all forests must apply "ecosystem management" on their lands by taking a more comprehensive look at the links among all resources - water, air, soil, scenery, flora and fauna.
Although it's unclear exactly how the agency will accomplish this, the directive does point to a departure from the traditional modus operandi of the forestry profession - not easily done in a large federal organization.
"Bureaucratic inertia is incredible," says Jefferson National Forest Supervisor Joy Berg. "This isn't a canoe we're steering."
She and her staff need help. They're seeking comments, concerns, information and ideas from people so they don't have to rely on the crystal ball.
This summer, the agency held seven public information meetings at various spots on the forest, which stretches in irregular patches from the Tennessee line to Lexington. The meetings drew sometimes only four people, sometimes 20, but all had an opinion about what should be done with the forest.
\ Red oak, white oak and yellow poplar dominate the Jefferson, which also hosts white and yellow pine. Because it is a second- and third-generation forest, most of the trees are too small to make good saw timber. Sixty-five percent of the timber is sold for pulp and waferboard, the rest is used in furniture, veneer and other uses.
Those trees and what to do with them will be at the core of the management plan. How much logging should be allowed? Should the timber be clear-cut or felled by less drastic methods? Does logging do a forest more harm than good? Why does the forest lose money on timber sales?
And what if logging were banned altogether on the Jefferson?
"I don't have the authority to tell loggers, `No, we aren't going to have timber harvests this year.' Not and keep my job," says Berg.
She doesn't have the authority, but Congress does, and is mulling the issue. The Clinton administration's proposed budget would, by 1995, ax all logging on national forests that spend more money selling timber than they make.
Sixty of the nation's 155 national forests, including the Jefferson, would be affected. Between 2,000 and 3,000 acres of the Jefferson are harvested each year. From 1990 to 1992, private companies and individuals paid $2.38 million for the wood.
But the Forest Service spent about $5.6 million during that time to sell the Jefferson's timber. The money is spent on administrative costs, road building, road maintenance, botanists, biologists, landscape architects, handling appeals and preparing environmental impact statements.
However, the agency and timber-interest groups contend that the ledger isn't as simple as cash in, cash out. Logging generates 300 jobs in the region, creates wildlife habitat and enhances the forest's overall health.
But many environmental groups blast the timber sales as a taxpayer ripoff.
In the middle of this maelstrom, Hank Sloan is trying to craft a strategy for the muddied future. As a logging engineer for the Jefferson National Forest's timber program, Sloan is supposed to work out the details for selling publicly owned trees to private loggers over the next decade.
He has to bushwhack through dense economic analyses and technical reports, and carefully pick his way around thorny issues such as clear-cutting, below-cost timber sales and environmental impacts.
He also has to accommodate the opinions of an increasingly splintered public - some people want more logging, others want less.
Problem is, if the Clinton administration eliminates below-cost logging, Sloan won't be able to sell a toothpick's worth of wood.
The idea of stopping below-cost logging has been bandied about for years. This time around, Sloan says, "It's as real as it's ever been."
\ Developing the management plan will consume the Jefferson's employees for the next several years.
"It's definitely a challenge because it's a big job to take on," says Berg, the forest supervisor. "If any forest comes out of the planning process and not have an appeal, you could knock me over with a feather."
The Jefferson's current plan, released in 1985, was promptly challenged by the Citizens Task Force and other environmental groups, with legal help from the Southern Environmnental Law Center.
After two years of appeals and negotiations, all the parties reached a settlement which assured more public participation, reduced road building and lowered the number of acres allowed to be clear cut from 2,215 to 2,100.
Other issues that will be taken up in the new plan will be:
New areas for wilderness designation.
Increased recreation trails, campgrounds and other areas.
Air and water pollution monitoring.
Wild and scenic designation for rivers.
Gypsy moths and other pests that damage forest resources.
Wildlife species to emphasize, and how.
Definition of "ecosystem management."
It's a lot of work to do in 2 1/2 years. The forest has targeted Dec. 31, 1995, to release the new management plan.
Neither Loesel nor Bennett think the forest will meet its deadline. Both groups have a lot at stake, and both have a lot to say.
Citizens wishing to comment on the forest plan revision should write by Sept. 7 to: the Jefferson National Forest, 210 Franklin Road . Roanoke 24001, or call 982-6270.
by CNB