Idaho Wilderness Hearings

Statement:

Ms. Keller. My name is Pam Keller, and I live in Oroflno, and I want to thank you for holding these hearings. I would very much like to see more wilderness preserved in Idaho. At the very least, I think that Idaho wilderness, of course, should receive wilderness designation. Idaho has a lot of wilderness. And I think this is great. It doesn't mean there shouldn't be more. Most of our wilderness is in the central part of the State. But wilderness qualities are not restricted to one or two blocks of land in Idaho. We're fortunate that way. Wilderness is perhaps most beneficial and enjoyed when it's scattered and easily accessible to everyone. A little bit of wilderness in your back yard, so to speak, is good for your environment. All of our public lands should be managed according to their best use. Wilderness designation shouldn't be precluded because there's wilderness elsewhere. But the Idaho Forest Industry Council by their own figures said there's 2V2 million acres of roadless area in Idaho that does not have commercial timber on it. And yet they only recommend 600,000 acres. This doesn't make sense to me. There are several roadless areas in the Clearwater National Forest that have values that far outweigh their timber values. Specifically, the Great Burn and Cayuse Creek area, Fish Creek, Elk Summit and Mallard-Larkins and the upper North Fork. All of these areas are scenic and inspiring. And they've long been popular camping and hiking areas. They're all excellent producers of fish and wildlife. I would say that that's what they do best. Fishermen and hunters use these areas extensively. Much of this country in the upper reaches of the Clearwater County has little commercially valuable timber due to huge fires or the harsh growing conditions. The soils, for example, are often dry and loose and of low fertility. This makes the regeneration very difficult as in removing the vegetative cover during harvest and road building can cause great erosion and stream sedimentation, particularly with these soils. And as far as the so-called conflict between the timber industry and roadless areas, I think this is overblown. The timber industry blames too many of its woes on the roadless area controversy. The roadless area appeals were really preventing the timely harvest of these areas. Why is there a 3-year backlog of approved timber sales that have yet to be cut? Forest Service contributions to county budgets that are derived from timber sales have dropped in recent years. This has also been blamed on roadless area lockups.