Idaho Wilderness Hearings

Statement:

Mr. Robinson. Thank you, Senator McClure. Once again, I'm Tom Robinson representing the Wilderness Society. You won't out have to see me for at least 2 months now. I understand with- I understand at the Coeur d’Alene hearing that someone suggested that the Wilderness Society purchase all the roadless areas in Idaho. So I brought with me a blank check today which I'll present to you. The Chairman. How much are you offering? Mr. Robinson. I would like to discuss some of the results of the study our economic policy department did on the Clearwater Na- tional Forest. And, in particular, the Bighorn/Weitas. And if you don't already have a copy of this, I'd be glad to present this. We hear that these areas have been studied to death; but our study shows otherwise. Although some existing stands of timber may be profitable to harvest in the Clearwater, not enough infor- mation exists on timber stands in the Bighorn Weitas or the Mal- lard-Larkins to know whether there is much timber currently there. This study shows that reforesting and managing a treeless area for future timber production is generally not economic. The Forest Service will only recover costs if it is assured that existing stands can bare the cost of present and future harvests. Because of the uncertainty regarding existing timber volumes on the Clearwater, the Forest Service may wish to delay harvest in many of these areas until more is known about those volumes. The contrast of results between existing stands and regenerated stands raises a major policy decision for the Forest Service. That is, whether a continuous sustained yield of timber is simply a biologi- 672 cal concept or whether it is also—encompasses financial factors. Once existing stands of timber are harvested, regenerated stands may be biologically renewable. But their negative present net values indicate that they are not economically renewable. This study shows that delay in harvest on most of this area will increase deterrents particularly when anything higher than a 4- percent rate is used. It also suggests that only the most productive areas should be logged. And these areas should be logged more in- tensively. If there is a reasonable likelihood that nontimber values in at least some of the roadless areas outweigh the timber values there, at least in the next few decades, then it is economically inefficient for the Forest Service to rely on timber harvests from these areas for those years. The sustained yield concept applies to all renewable forest re- sources. Not just timber. Application to timber alone without taking into account the sustainability of other forest resources may not provide the optimal mix of goods and services on the forest. We hear that the industry needs certainty with respect to future timber supplies. Well, we also would like some certainty with re- spect to continual existence of elk and fish populations in the Clearwater National Forest. I just want to end with one quick point here. I've heard that the road credit provision, which was formerly part of the timber bail- out bill, may still be alive particularly in the Senate. And I just want to once again say that we oppose that particularly since— with respect to road credits, the industry would be receiving cred- its. Even if it's more than the cost of the timber, those credits would be applied to other forested regions. And I think that the majority of testimony during the last 4 days should tell you about how people in Idaho feel about it—this issue. Thank you.