|
|||||||||||||
| Home >> News About the Tongass >> February 23, 2006 | |||||||||||||
February 23, 2006 - USFS Continues a Losing Methodology On Tuesday, February 21, The Forest Service announced its decision to deny the appeal of various groups and citizens regarding the irresponsible Emerald Bay timber sale on the Cleveland Peninsula. This is the losing mentality we have come to expect from the agency, stated Gregory Vickrey of the Tongass Conservation Society. They do not care how many tax dollars are lost on this or any sale. They do not care about standards and guidelines associated with loss of habitat for various species in the area. They do not care about the economic losses associated with the denial of protections for multiple use of Emerald Bay and the peninsula on the whole. According to their own calculations, the Emerald Bay sale will cost tax payers over 1.5 million dollars. Even this exorbitant amount does not cover the true costs associated with the project and actual receipt losses on this sale alone will be well over $10 million. With regards to wildlife habitat, the Forest Service will implement its own standards and guidelines for specific species based on the illegal Tongass Land Management Plan only during the harvesting process after critical habitat has already been compromised for the sake of a single industry. |
The Forest Service does very little to address public concerns associated with loss of true economic value on the Cleveland Peninsula. The record of decision, while mentioning potential losses, does not provide any thorough analysis of the negative impact associated with creating a footprint of clearcuts on the Peninsula and disregards details provided by the appellants during the review process. Gregory Vickrey concludes, The Forest Service is beholden to a dying industry. They are short-sighted in that their statements in both the record of decision and the appeal process have little to no regard to multiple use of the area, the true economic value of the Peninsula, and the laws by which they must abide. As an agency that is supposed to serve the mandate of multiple-use, they fail miserably. It is time for a sea-change at the agency, in thought process and methodology. 2006 News |
||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||