Splintered Views On Forest Plan Sides Speak Out On Aggressive Logging Proposal To Fight Regional Bark Beetle Infestation

A tiny insect is causing big problems for land managers in the region.

The Douglas-fir bark beetle has always been around, but its population has exploded since trees were damaged in the 1996 ice storm.

The Forest Service recommends an immediate, aggressive logging campaign. Some environmentalists argue that the proposed cure is worse than the disease.

The proposal is moving forward quickly, with cutting to begin this summer. In an attempt to encourage public discussion of the issue, The Spokesman-Review asked four Idaho residents with varying interests to give their views on the plan.

Ozzie Osborn of Coeur d’Alene is a private forest landowner.

Mark Sprengel of Blanchard is a member of the Selkirk-Priest Basin Association.

Stefany Bales of Coeur d’Alene represents the Intermountain Forest Industries Association.

Gary Greenwell of Deary represents an association of horse loggers.

1. What’s the driving force behind the Forest Service’s proposal?

Osborn: Primarily, the need to avoid increasing the already excessive buildup of the fuel load in the forest. Also, reduction in the spread of the bark beetle, especially to private lands. To lose trees and property because of an adjacent landowner’s inability to manage their resource is unfair and intolerable.

Sprengel: Some aspects of the proposal have scientific merit. The difficulty is that while the Forest Service assessment of the situation is quite accurate, the prescription has severe flaws. The real problem is a failure of vision and nerve on the part of management, which has resulted in a panicked response driven too much by political and economic considerations to the detriment of sound ecological planning.

Bales: To minimize the impact of the beetle on private lands adjacent to Forest Service land; to reduce the severity and intensity of wildfire by removing beetle-killed trees and other fuels; and to improve ecosystem health and balance by replanting disease-resistant white pine and using revenue generated through timber harvest activities to improve and restore watersheds.

Greenwell: The Forest Service has seized on two issues as excuses to sell logs - fire control and removal of diseased trees. Virtually all of their proposals include large tracts of timber - a small percentage of the trees having a disease problem - and a near clearcut to “solve” the problem, and destroy a forest.

2. Which parts of the proposal are acceptable to you?

Osborn: I would like to see the proposed plan implemented as presented using Alternative D. This will do the most to address the fuel-loading problem and have the greatest impact on reducing the spread of beetles to adjacent land.

Sprengel: The proposal to obliterate some ecologically destructive roads is welcomed. We support attempts to protect Ponderosa pine old-growth forests and restore dry-site ecosystems where appropriate. The Forest Service must, however, do adequate monitoring, refrain from rushed decisions and provide solid data that restorative programs really work. “Broad-brush” and/or simplistic responses to complex problems are likely to be worse than taking no action at all.

Bales: We support the preferred alternative, which is the most aggressive in terms of the number of acres treated, and generating revenue for watershed restoration. This insect epidemic is only one example of how out of balance our national forests are. Only through active and environmentally responsible management will all forest values - clean water, wildlife habitat, recreation opportunities and the wood people use - be sustained.

Greenwell: When the Forest Service proposes a logging practice that protects the soil, the climate, the habitat and removes only a small percentage of the trees growing on the site (less than 20 percent, averaging 10 percent), and when it monitors the performance of logging contractors vis-a-vis the environment, then I will support their proposals. There is nothing in this proposal worth supporting.

3. Which key issues need to be addressed before the proposal moves forward?

Osborn: I fear the Forest Service has lost so much of its expertise and work force in the past few years that it may not be capable of completing the task in the short time proposed while still maintaining a quality job on the ground.

Sprengel: Failure to significantly reduce excessive road density, a grossly inadequate prescribed fire program, potential degradation of forest soils, and the need for a more inclusive consideration of the “historic range of variability” concept.

Bales: The Forest Service is planning to manage only 10 percent of the acres affected by the outbreak. While we support the proposal, we would like to see it expanded to include all acres at risk.

Greenwell: The goal of forest management needs to be redirected toward managing the logging process and requiring all loggers to meet the standards set by the dedicated few who believe in stewardship and the use of appropriate technology. Horseloggers, for instance, can produce a logging strategy that will sustain rural economies and maintain the ecosystem in a healthy manner.

4. What would have to happen to move the discussion toward consensus?

Osborn: There are some skeptics who will never be convinced we have a serious problem, yet they will not be held accountable if nothing is done and fire predictions come true. Everyone needs to understand the consequences of doing nothing, and realize that is not acceptable. How ironic that a consensus is not needed to stop the proposal, only to implement it!

Sprengel: Managers have to recognize that perceived forest problems are often symptomatic - consequences of past misguided societal and agency priorities regarding forest management. If the Forest Service is serious about restoring our forests to health and grandeur and is willing to sincerely address our concerns, we are more than willing to work with the agency for solutions.

Bales: All parties must agree to engage in a civil, honest discussion of the facts. The science supporting the need to actively manage our national forest lands is overwhelming. An opportunity for our community to come together and support a plan that will help ensure our forests are alive and growing for generations is before us. It’s critical that we don’t waste it.

Greenwell: If the public lands managers would address the sustainability of their land management strategies, if they would seriously address the stress they’ve placed on the ecosystem and the risk they’ve placed on the resource base, if they truly want to support jobs and local economies, and if they are willing to manage activities but leave forest management to the forest, then we can move to consensus.

This sidebar appeared with the story: AT A GLANCE HOW TO GET INVOLVED The U.S. Forest Service is planning to schedule a final public meeting in Kellogg in the first week of March. For more information contact Nadine Pollock at (208) 765-7299. Between now and March 16, the Forest Service will provide a guest speaker for interested local groups or community organizations. Contact Pollock for details. For access to the Forest Service’s beetle documents via the Internet, the address is: http://www.fs.fed.us/ipnf/dfbugs. Written comments must be postmarked by March 16 and sent to the Idaho Panhandle National Forest at 3815 Schreiber Way, Coeur d’Alene, ID 83815. Comments also can be made by telephone to Pollock. Letters to the editor of The Spokesman-Review can be sent to 609 Northwest Blvd. Suite 200, Coeur d’Alene, ID 83814, or by fax to (208)765-7149 or by e-mail to kens@spokesman.com.