Give Costly Process A Chance To Succeed

In theory it seemed so visionary: Ecosystems are interconnected. So, federal management of ecosystems should be interconnected, too. Take an ecosystem the size of France, study its condition, write a plan to manage it, and, wheee. Salmon, loggers and Sierra-Clubbers all live happily ever after, guided by The Plan.

Thirty-five million dollars later, the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project has produced two things:

1. Paperwork. If the 2,400-page draft environmental impact statement becomes final, it will guide federal land management in a seven-state region. And it will breed more documents - 74 of them, each one a plan for a particular federal jurisdiction. Each, in turn, will inspire correspondence, press releases, interest-group newsletters and lawsuits.

2. A familiar disagreement. Environmentalists object that the plan might allow (eek) logging and livestock grazing. To those who admit the need for wood products and beef, that’s good news. But it also means the plan will be fought with a blizzard of litigation. If the federal government has not set aside a national forest to supply pulp for all of the necessary paperwork, it should consider doing so forthwith.

The first decision to come from all this is reasonable: an agreement to allow interested parties and their lawyers more time to analyze the massive document and its significance. An extended comment period will end Feb. 6.

Residents of rural communities adjoining affected federal lands also should applaud U.S. Rep. George Nethercutt’s move to require a close look at the plan’s social and economic impact on them.

The study’s findings do have value. They provide scientific documentation for the region’s forest health problems and outline ways to restore the land.

Further, the proposal allows discretion in decision making by federal land managers who are most familiar with the affected topography, because they live near it.

Such flexibility is a good thing.

Land management cannot be intelligent unless it recognizes that creeks and hillsides differ from one locale to another and need different management strategies.

But environmentalists find such discretion, even if it’s illuminated by fresh research, to be alarming. So, they’ll probably sue. Our political system seems incapable of trusting government employees to make and implement informed decisions. It’s enough to make you think there’s a new definition for “multiple use” of the national forests: They rot, they keep lawyers and lobbyists busy, and every summer, they catch fire.

, DataTimes The following fields overflowed: CREDIT = John Webster/For the editorial board