Roadless Area - Final EIS

[Evan & Nancy Holmes <ncmholmes@moscow.com>]

Dear V2020 Subscribers;

The following letter was too long to be printed by the Daily News. I
thought somebody might want to read it anyway. The Forest Service Roadless
Area EIS is full of good information.

Dear Editor and Readers of the Daily News;
>
>    As always,Bob Dudley 's dedication to analysis of public interest
>issues is commendable. His recent letter to the editor concerning the
>Environmental Impact Statement for USFS roadless area is the most recent
>example of his efforts. I caution you, however, to proceed slowly before
>you accept his conclusions and condemn the Idaho Conservation League or
>other "friends of the forest".
>     For instance, he uses the estimated 20.5 billion board feet of volume
>growth on all National Forest lands in 1996 to suggest that all timber
>harvesting since 1905 has been greatly offset by growth. Keep in mind that
>measuring forest growth by volume is not the same as measuring harvestable
>trees and we cannot simply compare volume of wood fiber without considering
>change in forest acreage, future estimated yield, forest diversity and many
>other factors.  Even so, the increase in forest volume as reported by Bob
>suggests perhaps that we should welcome rather than fear the preservation
>of roadless areas. Here's why.
>     There are nine million acres of roadless yet commercially viable
>forest land within USFS boundaries where existing management plans allow
>for harvest and road construction. This is 1.2 % of all forest land in the
>country (public or private owned), 1.8% of the commercially viable forest
>land, 15% of the total roadless acreage under USFS jurisdiction and 26% of
>the USFS acreage where roads would be allowed. Thus, most of the 1260
>billion board feet of National Forest trees mentioned in Bob's letter are
>standing outside of roadless areas and most of the increase of volume
>occurs there also. According to the numbers presented in the report we can
>imagine quadrupling the volume of timber removed from acreage outside the
>roadless areas and not use up the yearly gain in volume growth.
>    The point is we can manipulate data like these to support a wide
>variety of "conclusions" about forest and land management.  But we must
>think beyond timber. For instance, according to the study,  management of
>the inventoried roadless areas discussed in this EIS affects thirty-three
>percent of major watersheds in the country. Perhaps the focus is more about
>water than trees. Also at stake are issues concerning management of
>scenery, recreation, air quality and biodiversity.
>    I won't join Bob in his criticism of the Federal government's timber
>sales policies either. Domestic production still supplies about 90 percent
>of the country's demand for timber products. Although there has been a
>shift away from production in western National Forests to eastern private
>lands this could be as easily blamed on Reaganomics as on policies of the
>Clinton administration.
>   In conclusion I want to thank for their efforts,  Bob Dudley, The Idaho
>Conservation League, "friends of the forests", "enemies of friends of the
>forests" and any reader who muddled all the way through this.
>
>                                                       - Evan Holmes
>