Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: THURSDAY, March 28, 1991                   TAG: 9103280434
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A-14   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: JIM LOESEL
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

HALT BELOW-COST SALES IN NATIONAL FORESTS, RESORT TO PRIVATE LANDS

The two national forests in Virginia, the Jefferson and the George Washington, supply less than 1 percent of the annual softwood (mainly pine) harvest. They produce less than 5 percent of the hardwood market.

Virginia is typical of the Southeast region (Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida). National forests in these states produce less than 3 percent of the annual softwood harvests and less than 4 percent of the annual hardwood production.

The assumption that private lands are being cut to their limit of sustained yield is not supported by the 1988 U.S. Department of Agriculture study, "The South's Fourth Forest: Alternatives for the Future." This shows that much more timber is growing each year on private land than is harvested.

The Department of Agriculture projects a 22 percent increase in hardwood harvesting on private lands in Virginia from 1990 to 2000, and 37 percent in softwood harvesting. In the Southeastern region, hardwood production on private lands is expected to increase 12 percent by 2000 and another 10 percent by 2010.

If we reduce below-cost timber sales on these national forests, production from private lands can more than make up the difference. In fact, the softwood and hardwood production from the Jefferson, George Washington and other Southeastern national forests is such a small part of the total timber volume that any decrease in national forest harvests will have no appreciable effect on the overall timber supply.

Stephen Bennett, board member of the Appalachian Forest Management Group (letter, March 15), suggested dire consequences if we do not continue the present level of below-cost harvesting on our national forests. We think the adjustments are reasonable. Some loggers may have to learn to operate on private lands. Some federal foresters may have to be reassigned. Some congressmen may hear a little squawking.

But taxpayers would save millions of dollars each year if deficit timber sales were phased out. I'm sure we can live with that.

The argument that below-cost sales are merely the result of incorrect accounting procedures is not supported by the facts. A variety of accounting methods by a variety of organizations (General Accounting Office, Wilderness Society, Natural Resources Defense Council and the Forest Service) all show a problem of timber sales on national forests in which the revenues do not come close to paying for the costs. No amount of creative bookkeeping by the Forest Service will make that problem go away.

Basically the problem is that the Jefferson, the George Washington and other Eastern national forests were formed from poor, mountainous lands - characterized by the seminal study of these forests as "The Lands Nobody Wanted." The George Washington contains nearly twice as much low-productive land as do private forest lands. The relatively few good timber sites are scattered in the mountains; an extensive and expensive road network is required to reach them for harvesting.

The balance sheet is likely to become even worse because the easiest and best sites have already been logged. The Forest Service faces a losing choice: build more and more roads to reach the remaining scattered good sites, or concentrate on the remaining poorer timber near existing roads. Considering the intense competition for scarce dollars in the budget, it is unlikely that below-cost timber sales will be allowed to multiply.

Congressmen and senators from Western states, where timber from national forests is economically (and politically) important, until now have maintained high funding levels for timbering in all national forests, including the below-cost forests. Last year the Senate even rejected a provision of the budget bill that would have tested the reduction of below-cost sales on 12 national forests, including the George Washington.

As long as Congress directs the U.S. Forest Service to spend money "to get out the cut" even though many of these sales will lose money, we will continue to get below-cost timbering. When Congress cuts off the money, they will end. While it may be in the interest of Bennett and the Appalachian Forest Management Group to lobby for a continuation of this spending, we believe it is in the public interest to phase out below-cost timbering in the national forests.