A Newsletter by and about the Quilcene Ancient Forest Coalition June/July 1998

Contents:

• PLEASE CALL ASAP
• CONSERVATIONISTS SUE TO ENFORCE FOREST PLAN
• OLYMPIC NATIONAL FOREST PLANS FOR REORGANIZATION

REP. NORM DICKS

Capitol Switchboard 1-800-504-0031 (ask for his office) and tell him:

1. SUPPORT THE FURSE AMENDMENT
2. HELP FIND MONEY TO MAINTAIN AND/OR CLOSE FOREST SERVICE ROADS
3. NEW ROADS SHOULDN'T BE BUILT WHEN WE CAN'T TAKE CARE OF THE ONES WE ALREADY HAVE
4. FIX THE PROBLEM, DON'T ADD TO IT

Congress will vote on the Interior Appropriations bill as early as July 14. The American Lands Alliance (formerly Western Ancient Forest Campaign) reports that the House bill increases funding for Forest Service Timber Sales Management by $11 mil-lion, decreases funding for Watershed Im-provements by $11 million, Recreation by $20 million, and Wildlife, Fish and Rare Plant Habitat by $7 million below the agency's request.

Almost 1/3 of the Forest Service's $3.3 billion budget is related to logging. The Forest Service justifies some of their log-ging for environmental reasons, but one particular line item ("Timberlands Management") is to subsidize logging for which no environmental benefits are claimed. Meanwhile, wildlife, watershed and recreation funding together constitute only 11% of the Forest Service's budget. Enormous needs exist for money for road obliteration, road maintenance (a $440 million maintenance backlog and $10 billion reconstruction backlog according to the Forest Service), watershed repair, etc.

National Audubon Society reports that in a recent report to Congress the Forest Service admitted that its logging program suffered a loss of $88 million last year. Previously, the Forest Service had failed to fully include the costs of building logging roads, payments to counties and administrative tasks in the accounting of its timber program. This is a victory for con-servationists, who have long maintained that the Forest Service was hiding the full costs of its programs.

In the past, taxpayer money spent to build roads for timber sales was prorated for 99 years under the theory that all roads were in the public's best interest. With the costs of roads included in the new accounting system, losses have gone from $15 million in 1996 to $88.6 million in 1997.

Rep. Elizabeth Furse (D-OR) will be offering an amendment to the Forest Service budget when the Interior Appropriations bill comes to the House floor. The amendment will cut $88 million in timber subsidies from the Timberlands Management line item and $37 million timber road building subsidies. From this cut, $100 million will be reallocated to road maintenance and decommissioning, watershed restoration and recreation and $26 million savings will accrue to the taxpayer.

If all of the riders and misplaced funding priorities in the Bill were to pass, the outcome for our forests, streams and wildlife would be devastating. This renewed attack on the environment by the Republican Congress can be turned back, but only if we raise our voices and demand our lawmakers support the environment over the special interests that these riders benefit.

CONSERVATIONISTS SUE TO ENFORCE FOREST PLAN

The ForestWater Alliance has issued a press release stating that a coalition of 13 leading conservation groups filed suit July 8, asking the court to order the Clinton administration to keep the promises it made four years ago to protect the region's dwindling forests.

The plaintiffs, which include organizations from northern California to the Canadian border, charge that more than 20 percent of the timber being cut on public lands is coming from areas designated in 1994 as "reserves." Though required by law, little -- if any -- monitoring or surveying has been done to study the effects of the log-ging on imperiled species, the lawsuit alleges.

Joe Scott, conservation director of Northwest Ecosystem Alliance, in Bellingham, Wash. -- a plaintiff in the suit -- said water quality, and salmon and trout populations have continued to decline since the so-called Northwest Forest Plan was adopted in April 1994 after a Clinton-convened timber summit.

"The President's Forest Plan is turning out to be a timber industry plum," Scott said. "It's supposed to pave the way to species preservation -- not serve as a road map to extinction."

The lawsuit was filed in Federal District Court in Seattle -- the same court which upheld the legality of the President's Forest Plan. In his December 1994 ruling Judge William Dwyer observed, however, that the plan met the bare minimum requirements for protecting endangered species, and warned that "[w]hether the plan and its implementation will remain legal will depend on future events and conditions."

Dwyer added, "Monitoring is central to the plan's validity. If it is not funded, or not done for any reason, the plan will have to be reconsidered." And, "If the plan as implemented is to remain lawful the monitoring, watershed analysis, and mitigation steps ... will have to be faithfully carried out."

In the 23-page complaint, the plaintiffs produced a long list of government actions (or lack of actions) which they argue are "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, not in accordance with law, and without observance of procedures required by law." That list includes:

• The failure of the agencies to find and protect imperiled species in the path of logging.
• Since the plan was adopted, at least eight new species that occur within the 19 national forests and seven Bureau of Land Management districts covered by the plan have been listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). At least nine additional new species have been proposed for listing under ESA, and at least seven additional new species have become candidates for listing. The government's own environmental study, however, predicted there would be "zero" risk that these species would be wiped out on federal lands.
• Since the plan was adopted, over 1,000 streams within the forests covered by the plan have been identified by government agencies as not meeting water quality stan-dards. The Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service stated, however, that under the plan water quality "would be maintained and improved."
• Lands designated in the plan as "late-successional reserves" are "designed to serve as habitat for late successional and old-growth related species including the northern spotted owl." With limited exceptions, the plan prohibits timber harvesting in these areas. Nevertheless, since the plan was adopted, extensive logging has been permitted in reserves --in 1997 over 20 percent of the timber sold on lands covered by the plan. In five national forests, the volume of timber sold in reserves was greater than that sold outside of reserves.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are represented by the Western Environmental Law Center. Questions may be directed to:

Michael Axline
Marianne Dugan
Western Environmental Law Center
(541) 485-2471

Doug Heiken
Oregon Natural Resources Council
(541) 344-0675

Copies of the lawsuit, a fact sheet and supporting materials may be found on the WorldWide Web, at: http://www.forestwater.org/

OLYMPIC NATIONAL FOREST PLANS FOR REORGANIZATION

In a briefing paper, the Olympic National Forest (ONF) explains that budgets for the ONF have been steadily declining since 1990, from around $20 million to $10 million today, and will most likely decrease further to about $8 million over the next two years.

While reductions have already occurred, further adjustments have been proposed in accordance with budget decreases.

The recommended organization includes a small Supervisor's Office in the Olympia area, an Eastside District with a Ranger Station in Quilcene, a Public Service/Work Center in Hoodsport, a Westside District with a Ranger Station near Forks, and a Public Service/Work Center at Lake Quinault. The organization will have approximately 100 permanent employees, down from the current 150.

Key points of focus are:

• Decreasing budget trends are a long-term, Forest-wide problem, not specific to particular districts or programs. Solutions address maintaining customer service and providing for stewardship of the land for the ONF in the long term.
• Reducing the amount of fixed costs, such as rents, utilities, and permanent salaries, is essential to enabling the ONF to accomplish work in the future. Present levels of fixed costs do not provide flexibility to hire seasonal employees, adequately train employees, or respond to sudden shifts in workloads.
• Many alternatives have been considered, ranging from staying with present facilities at a smaller scale, to combining Districts or combining with the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie Forest (northern Cascades).
• Maintaining critical services to communities and visitors such as visitor information, maps and special forest product permit sales has been a key criteria to evaluation of alternative options. The recommendation continues some level of service/presence in the communities presently served by District offices.
• Fixed costs of rents and utilities need to be reduced if services are to be maintained and work accomplished. Location of facilities is based on factors including cost, customer service and distance to field work sites.
• Maintaining a workforce on the ground and configured to accomplish future work as efficiently as possible is a key goal. A need to further reduce the permanent workforce by 50 positions is projected. Use of attrition, voluntary retirements and transfers will be used as much as possible.

QUAFCO News June/July 1998