Idaho Wilderness Hearings

Statement:

Mr. Williamson. Good morning. My name is David Williamson. I'd like to begin by stating I support the inclusion of Long Canyon and Mallard Larkins in the Idaho wilderness system. There is great concern by myself and others that in your haste to prepare your proposed wilderness legislation the technical information necessary for responsible decisionmaking is readily available only from sources that are generally opposed to wilderness. The Panhandle National Forest has in the past been poorly managed by the admission of the Forest Service itself. High quality accessible stands have been overharvested, leaving the poor quality and/or inaccessible timber to bear the brunt of future timber harvest targets. In support of its wilderness bill proposal, the Idaho Forest Indus try Council does not accurately represent the conditions as they exist in the Idaho Panhandle National Forests, maintaining that the majority of roadless areas are average acres, similar to the thousands of acres of national forest lands previously roaded and developed, and that the reason that these lands have not been developed is by default and not through conscious management decisions. This is simply not true. Steep slopes representing high road costs, and low timber values have kept the roadless areas in the panhandle as they are. The Forest Service has overcut the available and accessible lands in terms of other resource values. These resources include fish, game, hydrologic and recreational resources. These are not average acres. The roadless areas are, in a sense, the remaining oasis for these resources. In February of 1980 the Forest Service completed a timber harvest program analysis and evaluation which analyzed the timber harvest program in relation to other resource values. The conclusion drawn by the staff differ measurably from information presented by the Forest Service Industry Council. The merits of an accelerated capital construction access program for preharvest roading is the subject of a 1981 Forest Service study. The conclusion of the study is that such a program is necessary if high risk, low-value stands are to remain in the timber base in order to be consistent with multiple use sustained yield management. An analysis of the four top priority projects of the study reveal that the projects are all close to deficit sale conditions, meaning that the Government would be directly subsidizing the timber industry to remove timber from these areas.