« Prescribed Fire Project Approved | Main | Public Comment Periods »
December 30, 2003
Annual Report
Well, the US Forest Service's Allegheny National Forest 2002 Annual Report is finally out (more than one year after the fiscal year 2002 closed). It has a new format which is shorter which is just as well since the previous Annual Reports were nothing more than an extended volume of propaganda. That said, its not clear why it would take more than a year to put together an eight page report.
Even with eight pages, the Forest Service couldn't resist stretching reality. For example, page 5 claims that "Survey known Indiana bat hibernaculum" is one of the activities that the Forest Service is "doing" in the Allegheny. But we know that this is a stretch for the activities completed in 2002. In addition, the same table suggests that several Conservation Assessments have been completed without explaining why there have been no management changes made to reflect this alleged accomplishment.
This paragraph summarizes the absurdity of this propaganda quite well:
Silviculturists-working together with researchers-have developed promising new strategies for dealing with tree mortality and the decline of hardwood forests. Along with key partners, the Allegheny has launched a new program designed to collect data on forest health to better assess conditions and trends in the health of forest ecosystems.
The only "strategy" that has been proposed in the present is the same one that was proposed in the past - salvage logging through even-aged clearcut management. Painter Run, Forest Wide Windthrow Salvage, and the new proposed Martin Run Timber Sales are all examples of this log first, worry about implications later attitude. As for the "key partners", I believe that they merely are referencing their timber industry partners who have agreed to help the Forest Service reduce deer numbers by increasing hunting (ok, I get that) and the use of even-aged logging (which just happens to increased localized deer populations).
The most useful information that comes out of this report is the logging data. Here is a chart showing the logging levels from 1987 to 2002 in the Allegheny National Forest by timber volume offered in bids, bids awarded, and actual timber cut:
You can download the Annual Report from the Forest Service website (pdf format, 1.9 MB - LARGE FILE!)
Posted by jkleissler at December 30, 2003 03:54 PM
Comments
I also found the timber sales volume chart intriguing. I was abashed to see the significant decrease over the last sixteen years. I almost felt bad for the strong stand I have taken with the ANF, particularly Supervisor Elliott, on the subject. I consider the decrease to be very good however, and plan to continue to lobby the ANF to manage the forest for more dispersed recreation,less MA 3.0, and more areas protected by MA 6.1 and 9.0. The recent Painter Run WSP,the Martin Run Project, and the NOI of the LRMP revision are examples which show that this administration has no intention of preserving any natural forest and are in cahoots with the local extraction industries.
Posted by: RJ at December 30, 2003 08:30 PM
Don't be too kind to the Forest Service. There are two drop offs in there. One starting around 1991-2. That one was due to "regeneration" problems. In truth regeneration problems are worse than they acknowledged. That aside this was a voluntary drop but intended to be temporary. The Forest Service has been pushing since at least 1995 (earlier, really) to get cutting levels back up (although they've recently given in to the fact that that will never happen and have been targeting a 60 MB per year level).
The second drop off starting around 1997 was entirely involuntary. That major drop off directly correlates to our first lawsuit Curry v. U.S. Forest Service which in finding that the Mortality II decision was illegal truthfully defined the legal standards clearly enough to demonstrate that over 95% of the timber sale program was being conducted illegally. 1999 was the year the Forest Service had to finally do something about endangered species habitats (not to say that they have sufficiently handled that situation) and they haven't cut more than 20 MMBF since.
So, the Forest Service deserves some credit for the first drop-off. They deserve all of the credit for the second drop off for ignoring environmental laws for so long.
Posted by: jim k at December 31, 2003 09:26 AM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)