Idaho Wilderness Hearings

Statement:

Mrs. Groves. My name is Verna Groves. I'm acting for my husband. I live in Parma, Idaho, and own property in the proposed Salmon River breaks national recreation area near Dixie, Idaho. I am one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit that has been brought in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho against the Forest Service proposal to construct an all-weather road in the Jersey Jack roadless area for the purpose of timber sales. I would wish to make the following statement before this committee: For a number of years, my family and I have spent a good deal of time during the late summer and early fall in each—hunting—each season hunting elk and deer in the Jersey Jack roadless area. This area currently supports one of the largest elk herds in the State of Idaho. Hunting is excellent. The hunting season is long—longer than any other area in the State. And no permits are required for hunting the Jersey Jack area. We thoroughly enjoy the opportunity to hunt big game in the unroaded and undeveloped area such as the Jersey Jack roadless area. The Nez Perce National Forest plans to engage in intensive road building and logging activity in the Jersey Jack area in the next 10 years. My own experience with the impact of logging and road building on game herds and the information provided to me by the Idaho Fish and Game Department has lead me to the conclusion that the Forest Service proposal for development of this area will significantly reduce the quality of the big game hunting now available in the Jersey Jack. I am therefore opposed to logging, road building in the Jersey Jack roadless area and wish to express my support for the designation of this area as a Salmon River Breaks National Recreation Area. If the standing timber in the Jersey Jack was so valuable that its removal would provide great benefits to the State of Idaho, our timber industry, or the Nation as a whole, then I propose that logging in this area might be wise—a wise choice. But the forest economists have estimated using the Forest Service estimates of cost of road and high timber values ever recorded in this area. The cost of the building access roads to remove the timber will exceed the value of the timber by a minimum of $4V2 million. It would be sad enough if the prime elk habitat had to be sacrificed in order to achieve the greater benefits of removing valuable timber. But that is not the case. The Jersey Jack roadless area—the Federal Government plans to spend several million dollars building road access to timber that has a market value of only a fraction of the cost of building the roads to get it out. In these times of fiscal conservation—conservatism, I see no reason why the current recreational benefits and the big game habitat in the Jersey Jack roadless area should be sacrificed. Thank you.