Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: MONDAY, April 5, 1993 TAG: 9304050219
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A4 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: DANIEL B. DEEDS
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
TIMBER PROGRAM BOOSTS ECONOMIC ACTIVITY
I WOULD like to reply to the March 10 article by George Kegley entitled "Timber sales lose more than $1 million in Va. national forests."The George Washington National Forest has released its 1992 Economic Summary, which covers all the resources it manages and the cost factors for various activities. It might be good to compare some of these to see where the majority of the taxpayer dollars are lost.
The timber program has an expenditure of $1,896,110. This also includes costs (assessments) for such things as office rent, utilities, general administration and support charges for wildlife, fisheries, soils, water, dispersed recreation and engineering that do not directly benefit the timber program. The forest had returns of $1,007,286 from the timber sold, of which 25 percent was returned to the local communities for schools and roads. The dollars received represent a return of about 53 cents for each dollar invested. This would be much more if the Forest Service did not have to count the assessments as costs against the program. Many of those assessments are nothing more than a normal cost of doing business. In addition, the money returned to the local communities under the 25-percent fund is counted as a cost against the program.
For comparison, we should look at the forest's recreation and other programs. Recreation had an expenditure of $2,650,906 with a return of $288,159 - or about 11 cents returned for each dollar invested. True, it had some assessments such as office rent, utilities and general administration as a cost of doing business. But it had no assessment for timber support. This fund returned $72,039 to the local communities under the 25-percent fund. Special uses and minerals returned approximately 17 cents for each dollar invested, but these programs are small and have few costs associated with them. They spent $761,543 with a return of $128,652. The only other program that had a return was the small range program, which spent $9,362 and returned $3,024, or 32 cents per dollar invested.
Out of a total forest expenditure of $12,883,156, there was a return of $1,427,121. A comparison of the numbers shows that the timber program accounted for almost 71 percent of the money returned to the federal treasury. There was $356,780 returned to the counties for schools and roads, of which more than $251,182 came from the timber program. Without this money, Congress would have had to appropriate more taxpayer dollars to give to the counties under the Payment In Lieu of Taxes Act. Those dollars would come from the general revenue fund and would not be available for other programs.
A study by the state of Virginia found that every dollar spent by a logger to purchase trees generated more than $28 of economic activity, of which $14 was returned to the locality where the trees were cut. This means that the timber program on the forest generated more than $28 million of economic activity in the area. The forest spent $1,026,033 for the protection and management of watershed, fish and wildlife, with no monetary returns. The problem with the timber program is the accounting system that must be used and the cost of appeals filed on proposed timber sales. The normal cost of doing business, which would have to be paid even with no timber program, should not count against this one program.
The Clinton initiative will cost the taxpayers - and not save funds or the environment, as stated by Peter Kirby of the Wilderness Society. The forest spent more than $150,000 on the management of the designated wilderness areas with no monetary returns. These areas also have future potential negative impacts on local industrial development.
\ AUTHOR Daniel B. Deeds is chairman of the Appalachian Forest Management Group in Covington.