Idaho Wilderness Hearings

Statement:

PRESIDENT, INLAND FOREST RESOURCE COUNCIL Mr. Blasing. I'm not sure we have got ourselves quite organized here. Gentlemen, I'm Larry Biasing. I'm acting executive director for the Inland Forest Resource Council of Missoula, Mont. We are a timber industry association representing some of the companies in north Idaho. One of the objectives of both RARE I and RARE II was to allo cate the lands so that the public resource users would know what areas would be managed for their particular resource use. After 12 years, here we are requesting that Congress act to re solve that same issue. As a result of the California decision, the forest products indus try still does not have a defined resource base. Employees are un certain about their future. Companies' access to financing is some times restricted. Building programs and equipment purchases are postponed and raw material prices have escalated due to a restrict ed supply. The whole issue of raw material uncertainty has led to an atmos phere of instability throughout the industry. Since the ninth circuit court of appeals rendered its decision, sev eral appeals have been filed against timber sales, access roads, and other development projects using that decision as the basis for com plaint. The Forest Service cannot operate effectively and efficiently in this ever-shifting morass of uncertainty. For this reason, it is abso lutely essential that Congress act to define the resource base that the various user groups can utilize. Congress must act to insure that all nonselected roadless areas be released from further consideration by the Forest Service for wilderness. The forest industries believe that this really should be a very long-term one, and, at a minimum, well beyond the year 2000. Any shorter release period will only perpetuate the uncertainty that now surrounds our commercial forest land base. Hard release is ab solutely essential to allow orderly development of national forest lands. We have seen several appeals in Montana and north Idaho that were based entirely or in part upon California RARE II decisions. In all cases, these appeals were to prevent development of some roadless area. Unless Congress specifically acts, this legal cloud 27 will continue to haunt development of roadless areas that were studied under RARE II. The public has been asked to participate in the land allocation process on inventoried roadless areas since 1971 —