Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: MONDAY, February 7, 1994 TAG: 9402080002
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A5 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: DANIEL B. DEEDS
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
condition of this land is the result of the protection and management provided over the years by dedicated public servants. Without their dedication andwork, this land would not be in the condition to benefit the public as it is today.
How did all the trails gotget in the national forests? How were the populations of various wildlife species brought back? How were the recreation areas established? How were streams improved to support fisheries? How did these and so many other things get developed, if this land was run with an eye more toward timber harvest than other aspects of natural-resource management? Without the management and protection of the past, would all of the things that are now so great be here today?
Look at old pictures of the area and talk to the managers who brought this land to where it is, before making recommendations based on a lack of knowledge of its history.
The new chief of the U.S. Forest Service is the man who made a mess out West on the spotted-owl issue. His study concerned virgin stands and did not compare that data with comparable data from second-growth stands. As a result, thousands of people lost their jobs.
A recent study in northern California shows there are more spotted owls in 50-year-old second-growth stands than in virgin stands. This makes sense because younger timber provides a greater food supply than virgin timber. Old growth doesn't support the wildlife diversity that younger timber stands do.
Is this the man to lead the Forest Service toward balanced-ecosystem management? Dedicated people with experience and knowledge in balanced natural-resource management are needed, not specialists.
Many forget how dependent we are on wood and the fact that it comes from a renewable natural resource. Studies show we are growing more wood today than 50 years ago. Yet many advocate that we don't harvest any trees on national-forest land. Even the paper that newspapers use comes from trees. The environmental movement claims that reduction in timber sales from national forests can and will be made up from private land. Studies on this show that only 25 to 30 percent of the private timber is available for sale at any price. How long will the available private timber last? What will happen to the price of wood and paper products? How many jobs will be lost?
In the past year, the price of wood and paper products has increased tremendously. The reason is supply and demand. The reduction in timber harvest on national forests nationwide has reduced the supply, while the demand for wood and paper products continues to increase.
Westvaco does not use more wood from national forests because the national forests are not selling their fair share. Westvaco must reach out farther, at increased cost, to obtain enough raw material to operate the mill. We all know thatIncreased operating costs are passed on to the consumer. If the local national forests sold their fair share, it would not be necessary for the paper mill to go 200 miles for needed raw material.
In Craig County, where the Jefferson National Forest owns 56 percent of the land base and is only 20 to 40 miles from Westvaco, the forest does not plan to sell any saw timber or pulpwood in that area in 1994. Nearby ranger districts also have had their timber-sale volume drastically reduced. This is not sound ecological management.
The management of the national forests in the past few years is not balanced, multiple-use management. It is a preservation form of management, better known as benign neglect.
Is there such a thing as "below-cost" timber sales? The fact is, all of the regulations and constraints imposed in the past 15 years increased the cost of timber sales. They have not improved the quality of resource management. Many do not apply to other programs.
The timber is sold at fair market value under competitive-bidding procedures. The accounting system that the Forest Service is forced to use, and only for timber sales, is not even accepted by the Internal Revenue Service. It does not give credit for benefits derived from the sale of timber. Overall, the timber-sale program makes money for the government. In 1992, revenues from timber sales exceeded costs by $255 million nationwide, under the biased accounting system used by the Forest Service.
Until 1993, the money that timber sales paid to local rural counties for schools and roads was counted as a cost against the timber program. Now it is not counted as a cost or as a benefit. Yet it reduces the amount of tax dollars that Congress must appropriate to pay the governments where national-forest land is located under the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Act. This is surely a benefit and should count as such. The cost of the environmental assessments, even if the proposed sale includes other activities such as wildlife or soil and water improvements, count against the timber sale.
The environmental movement appeals almost every timber sale. It costs only the price of a postage stamp. The cost to the Forest Service to settle the appeals is thousands of dollars, and this counts against the timber program. The cost of lawsuits filed against timber sales, such as one recently filed on the George Washington, counts against the timber program. Most of the salaries of the specialists count against the program. These all add to the smoke-and-mirror issue of "below cost."
The benefits derived from the sale of timber do not count on the revenue side of the equation. Even with the biased accounting system, timber from the national forests in Virginia returns from 45 to 50 cents on the dollar invested while the other Forest Service programs return from 0 to 10 cents on the dollar invested.
Why not use the same type of accounting system for all Forest Service programs? That way the public could better understand the economics and benefits of national-forest management.
The majority of the roads people use for driving for pleasure were constructed with timber sales. These same roads provide access for fire protection and suppression, hunting and fishing, search and rescue, other management programs, etc. These benefits are not counted on the revenue side of the equation.
Areas of Virginia with national forests can have their cake and eat it too, but not under benign-neglect management. Such a management scheme will lead to disaster, especially with the gypsy moth just a few miles to the north. The Jefferson and George Washington forests are not even salvaging the timber killed by the southern pine beetle within the past year. Thousands of acres of pine timber have been killed. The few proposed timber-salvage sales continue to be appealed by some environmentalists. By the time the Forest Service works through the environmental assessment and appeal process, the timber will have deteriorated to a point where it cannot be used. What a waste!
Those who are revising forest plans need to ask hard questions and look to the past to learn the best way to manage this land. However, by law, they must listen to those who yell the loudest, and those are the environmental preservationists. Never heard from is the public that is satisfied with sound, balanced management of these public lands.
\ Daniel B. Deeds is chairman of the Appalachian Forest Management Group in Covington.
by CNB