- 95th Congress COMMITTEE PRINT
2d Session I
ROADLESS AREA REVIEW AND
EVALUATION (RARE II)
PRINTED AT THE REQUEST OF
HENRY M. JACKSON, Chairman
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND
NATURAL RESOURCES UNITED STATES SENATE
Publication No. 95--9
,- / "
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
21-945 WASHINGTON 197S
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington, Chairman
FRANK CHURCH, Idaho CLIFFORD P. HANSEN, Wyoming
LEE METCALF, Montana MARK 0. HATFIELD, Oregon
J. BENNETT JOHNSTON, Louisiana JAMES A. McCLURE, Idaho JAMES ABOUREZK, South Dakota DEWEY F. BARTLETT, Oklahoma
FLOYD K. HASKELL, Colorado LOWELL P. WEICKER, JR., Connecticut
DALE BUMPERS, Arkansas PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
WENDELL H. FORD, Kentucky PAUL LAXALT, Nevada
JOHN A. DURKIN, New Hampshire 11OWARD M. METZENBAUM, Ohio SPARK M. MATSUNAGA, Hawaii
GRENVILLE GARSIDE, Staff Director and Counsel
DANIEL A. DREYFUS, Deputy Staff Director for Legislation D. MICHAEL HARVEY, Chief Counsel W. 0. CRAFT, Jr., Minority Counsel
MEMORANDUM OF THE CHAIRMAN
To Members of the Senate Committee on L'nergy anl Natural
On September 21, 1977, Senator Frank Church convened the first in a series of roundtable discussions on the Forest Service's latest roadless area review and evaluation (RARE II).
I share Senator Church's view regarding the importance of this programin for all users of our national forests. In response to his request, I have directed that the proceedincrs of these meetings )e printed as a committee print so that they will be readily available to Members of the Senate and others who are interested in the issues raised by the study.
HENRY M. JACKSON. Chairman.
CO3D13ITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES.
Ho--. HENRY M. JACKSON,
Chairman. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate,
DEAR AIR. CIHAIRNIAN: As you know. late in the spring of 1977. the Forest Service and the Department of Agriculture bean a comprohensive review of the roadless lands within the national forest system.
This roadless area review and evaluation (often referred to as RARE II) is aimed at identifying all of the remaining roadless ares within the national forests. Once this inventory is complete. the roadless lands would be classified by the Forest Service under one of three categories: (1) areas best suited for inclusion in the national wilderness system: (2) areas to be mado available for nonwilderness uses, such as timber harvest andl development. and (3) areas for which insufficient data exists to make a final decision.
RARE II is a refinement and expansion of the first road]ss area review and evaluation (RARE I) conducted bv the Forest Service in 1972-73. That first review process identified 1.449 roa(dless re:s within the national forest system. Of those areas. 274 were c':,(tt for further wilderness study. The Forest Service concedes that th}pve were serious problems with the first review. Contiguous roadless areas were arbitrarily subdivided and considered piecemeal rather than as a whole. The boundaries for some areas were not accurate. and thus did not reflect the full extent of the roadless unit. Some roadless areas were completely overlooked. The absence of firm criteria as to what was to be inventoried caused inconsistencies between each Forest Service region.
According to the Forest Service, RARE II is aimed at resolving these problems. It is designed to provide sufficient information for deciding the disposition of millions of acres of roadless lands. The intent of tile process. according to Forest Service Chief John McGuire is to --pursue, a determination of just which national forest system areas should be selected to round out our share of the national wilderness preservation system and gain timely release of the remaining roadless areas from further wilderness consideration.'
In response to the intense interest being expressed from all quarters in the RARE II process, I have initiated a series of roundtable discussions on the issue bringing together Members of Congress and their staff, representatives of the administration, as well as interested groups and citizens. As the outcome of the RARE II program will undoubtedly have important consequences for everyone concerned with our national forest and wilderness systems. I hope that the proceedings of these roundtable discussions can be printed as a committee print for the use of the public and Members of the Congress.
F ILXANK CHtuRCH.
Memorandum of the Chairman ..------------------------------------I
Baird. Dennis W.. Citizens for America's Endanzered Wilderness ------- 25 Church, HIon. Frank. a U.S. Senator from the Stlte of Idaho 1------------- 1
Cutler, Dr. MI. Rupert, Assistant Secretary for Conservation. Research. and
Education, Department of Agriculture, accompanied by John Mc(Tuire.
Chief, Forest ServiDe Ge re I)avis. RARE II Staff. Frest Service Rexford A. Resler. Associate Chief. Forest Service: and Zane G. Smith.
Director, Recreation Management, Forest Service 3--------------------- 3
Ewart, R. Kirk, director, industry affairs. Boise Cascade Corp.. Boise. Idaho -----------------------------------------------------------34
Fiddler, Richard. Citizens for merica's ndan,-ired WVilderness_------ 20 Hattield. Ilon. Mark ().. a U.S. Senator front the State of regon 2----Resler. Rexford A.. Associate Chief. Forest Service -------------------- i
Scott. Douglas. northwest representative. The Sierra ('liub -------------- 1s
Smith, Zane G.. Director, Recreation Management. Frest Serive------- 6
"Wilderness Withdrawals and Timber Supply," prepared by the National Forest Association ------------------------------------------------ 59
"RARE II Wilderness Attribute Rating System: A User's Manual, prepared by the Department of Agriculture 1---------------------------RARE II inventory list -------------------------------------------- 150
Snodderly, David A.. executive director, Associated California Loggers. letter to the committee dated September 20, 1977 ----------------------180
Digitized by the Internet Archive
ROADLESS AREA REVIEW AND EVALUATION
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1977
The meeting convened, pursuant to notice, in room 3110, Dirksen Office Building, Hon. Frank Church presiding.
Present: Senators Church, Hatfield, McClure, and Domenici.
Also present: Tom Williams, professional staff member: Tomn Imeson, professional staff member for the minority; and Fred Hutchison, legislative assistant to Senator Church.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK CHURCH, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Senator CIiurcii. This afternoon we are trying an experiment. It is patterned after an experiment this committee conducted some months ago that dealt with 'eothermal energy, and brought representatives of the geothermal industry and of the Government together to informally discuss the problems of getting on with the development of geothermal energy.
That roundtable discussion turned out to be very productive. It tended to spotlight many of the bottlenecks associated with geothermal development and I think, as a result of that session, some problems were resolved that might never have been identified except for the free flow of discussion and the fact we got all of those groups together to meet with the committee.
That first roundtable discussion was sufficiently successful to encourage us to conduct a similar seminar today in connection with a very perplexing problem; namely. the problem presented by RARE IT. a continuation of the effort bv the Forest Service to review roadless areas in the national forests and to determine the future management of those roadless lands.
As the size of this problem has grown with a series of court decisions, the complexities have crown as well. The first roadless area review, RARE I. has been supplanted by RARE II. and everyone who has been drawn into this net has become increasingly aware of the need to speed up the process and reach some decisions upon which the wood products industry, and all other citizen groups who are interested in the management of the national forests, can rely.
So we would hope this experiment in a seminar session this afternoon proves as successful as our earlier experiment in the field of geothermal energy.
We have had hearings going late in the evening last night and the night before. I would like to try and get this process started, and
then I hope it will sustain itself. I am sure it will, looking at the number of people Ipresent here and their interest in the subject.
At the proper time we are going to ask Assistant Secretary Cutlerwho 1 must say has shown a great deal of leadership on this issue and gives us hope that this Gordian knot may yet be cut, and who is with us today together with his associates-to give us a brief presentation. If his p)eol)le will reverse their position at the tables so that they are facing- the rest of thle seminar's participants, I think that will stimu]at e better inte change between us.
Senator Hatfield is here. I know of no member of the committee who is more conversant with natural resource issues and the nature of the problem we are going to be discussing this afternoon than Senator Hatfield.
I would like to ask him for whatever opening remarks he would like to make at this time.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARK 0. HATFIELD, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Senator HATFI'EL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank the chairman for making this arrangement. I feel it will provide the committee with valuable assistance in making some determinations we are called upon to make. I think the chairman ought to have the staff go out for some fuel.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that we have a number of pressing issues, but one of the most important-and one concern to everyone in this room at this particular time-is what will be the required time necessary to complete RARE II-not only the time factor, but what ckind of cooperation can we expect and should we expect from the various interest groups that relate to this particular subject.
I think we have some very immediate questions that come to mind. such as relating to the EIS requirements. Will a programmatic EIS be sufficient, or will we have to have unit-by-unit EIS reports?
I think we ought to understand what the relation of NEPA is to this whole process, and obviously the requirements under that law. IHlow much time and money is going to be required, especially as we look at some of the problems we have had where we have added fundinr to the Appropriations Committee for more intensive forest management practices.
After we have done that, we find the personnel ceiling limitations imposed by OMB.
I would hope. out of this roundtable, we will get some assessment of these particular problems-whether or not we could undertake more contract relationships with institutions of forestry or in other areas where such personnel are available on an ad hoc basis, rather than depending so much upon a permanent employee staff of the Department.
I think we have to consider, too, the broad impact during the study of RARE II on other uses, not only recreational, environmental, and wildlife habitat, but let me illustrate by the impact occurring in one national forest, the Umpqua National Forest in the State of Oregon.
We have a number of roadless areas being studied in this very rich forest, rich in its resources and rich in its potential. Because of this, the Forest Service has had to concentrate timber sales in the remaining part of the forest in other areas.
This has led to clearcut after clearcut after clearcut. instead of the more disbursed type of timber practice that might have Iotherwise been engaged in.
I think another important issue involves how fast we can free up the controversial areas now. Senator Church has provided us with a very interesting pilot project here in the Gospel-IHIimp situation where the environmentalists and other interest groups have conic to agree to that which is OK for logging and other purposes, and that which would be set aside to be protected from such logging.
I think we ought to find, from the Forest Service, some kind of comment, at least, and hopefully a commitment as to the fact that there will be other designations you will be called upon to make, such as designating some areas administratively for more intensive mana !elnent.
Where possible, we ought to get some figures from the Forest Service on how management can be intensified to make up for the withdrawals of other areas.
Senator Church, I have been at your side on many occasions as we have taken up important issues from our work on the question of clearcuttin, to forest management, and many other problems. I feel, here again, we are breaking new ground. and I appreciate vour leadership and welcome the opportunity to work with you during this roundtable.
Senator CH-iRcir. Thank you very much. Senator Hatfield.
I am told other Senators will be joining us through the afternoon. Senator Wallop, who is not a member of this committee, has nonetheless, indicated his desire to attend. I am sure other members of the committee will be coming in as well.
With us today from the administration in addition to Assistant Secretary Cutler, we have his associates, Mr. Zane Smith who is with the Forest Service. Rex Resler who is the Associate Forest Service Chief, and George Davis who is on the RARE 11 staff.
First of all, we would ask the Forest Service to make their presentation of where it is with regard to RARE II and where it seeks to go. Then we would ask for a presentation of the particular concerns felt by conservation groups, followed by a presentation of the particular concerns that are felt by the forest products industry and its associations.
I understand that Doug Scott will speak for the conservation groups and Kirk Ewart for the forest products industry. After that, it is kind of free-for-all.
STATEMENT OF DR. M. RUPERT CUTLER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR CONSERVATION, RESEARCH, AND EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN McGUIRE, CHIEF, FOREST SERVICE; GEORGE DAVIS, RARE II STAFF, FOREST SERVICE; REXFORD A. RELER, ASSOCIATE CHIEF, FOREST SERVICE; AND ZANE G. SMITH, DIRECTOR, RECREATION MANAGEMENT, FOREST SERVICE
Dr. CUMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we are having a logistical problem here. Perhaps the members could move to a better location.
I would like to express the Department of Agriculture's and the Forest Services' appreciation for this opportunity to talk to the Members of the Senate and the members of the groups interested in the RARE process and clarify for all concerned the steps we are taking to ex:pedite the allocation of the roadless lands of the national forests to clear up the question of for which values or for which of several multiple uses that roadless country will be designated to be used.
We would at least make the separation, as far as much of that roadless terrain is concerned, between those areas we think would most appropriately be proposed for addition to the National Wilderness Preservation System and whose areas we think have the highest and best use for one or more of the other of the multiple uses. Mr. Chairman, the Forest Service initiated the wilderness concept in 1924, and began its establishment of primitive areas with the Gila area in New Mexico by then Forest Service employee Aldo Leopold.
The National Forest System's wilderness areas became the initial units of the wilderness preservation system established by the Congress in 1964 with over 9 million acres of wilderness and wild areas identified by the Forest Service being placed in the wilderness system at that point.
The AVilderness Act had a second provision. That was the review provision. It required the Department of the Interior to review all of the roadless areas of 5.000 acres or more and all the roadless islands in the park system and the refuge system for their possible suitability to the wilderness system. The Wilderness Act required the Forest 'Service only to review those primitive areas on which the Forest Service had not completed its wilderness or wild area administrative review for addition to the wilderness system.
The Forest Service proceeded in its review of the primitive areas, and has completed that review. 'Many of those areas, with perfected boundaries, have been added by Congress to the wilderness system. The balance are pending before the Congress.
We are now carrying out an administrative review of the. primitive area studies and proposals submitted by the previous administration with an eye to reviewing those proposals and making any necessary modification in our recommendations to the Congress. That is what was required by the Wilderness Act. In addition, we found ourselves-and you found yourselves-subiect to proposals coming from local citizen" groups for additions to the wilderness system of what has been called de facto wilderness areas in the National Forest System.
M v friend, Clif Merritt. was a proponent for example of the Lincoln Sca-Deaoat, area, which ultimately was ,dded by the Congress to the wilderness system. Many other areas followed in a piecemeal unsystematic fashion.
In response to this piecemeal nibbling kind of approach, Forest Service Chief Ed Cliff. in 1971 I believe, authorized, in fact ordered his regional foresters to conduct a review of all of their national forest lands to identify forest, areas that. might be desiornated wilderness from the, st,andpoint of their undeveloped status. This was referred to as RARE -Roadless Area Review and Evaluation.
RARE I was accomplished in a matter of a few months and, as a result, because it did not provide for very much public involvement, it did not provide for complete inventory of the eastern national f orests or the grasslands. It did not inventory in much detail the Alaskan wilderness opportunities in the Alaskan forests.
RARE I was found to have some weaknesses.
Then we moved into the implementation of all of the laws and related procedures we have adopted over the last few years that comnbine to make up the land use planning process. These include the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Forest and iRangreland Renewable Resource Planniing Act, the National Forest Management Act, and all of the procedures that have been adopted by the Executive Office, the Council on Environmental Quality, and the Department of Agriculture.
Ultimately we came to the so-called C anti decision which was an out-of -court settlement between the Chief of the Forest Service and the Sierra Club that an environmental impact statement would be filed before authorizing future contracts for development within a roadless area except for statutory rights.
We found ourselves with a morass, a tangled web of procedural complications, and we are having a hard time fighting our way out of it to arrive at decisions as to how this roadless land would be allocated.
Years and years have gone by and decisions have not been made. When Secretary Bob Bergland and I were appointed to our jobs in this new administration, the f orest products industry macdc it clear to us that this tang-les this web, this delay in the allocation of that roadless back country of the national forest, which ultimately obviously was to be used for many different uses, was creating major economic hardships in parts of this country; particularly in your region.
Therefore, we resolved to try to do something about that. The result, Mr. Chairman, is RARE II.
We are very pleased to have this opportunity to talk about it with all of the groups concerned because without the support of the Congress and without the cooperation of all of the interest groups that have something at stake in this process, we may not succeed in accomplishing our very important objectives.
I hope that, among the results of this meeting, will be at least a tentative consensus, and that we can proceed this afternnon in an open fashion to resolve some of the unresolved procedures of timingr.
I think it is up to us in this room to work on some of these unresolved details and resolve, among ourselves if we can, that this process is going to -work to the benefit of all of us.
We have begun the process. We have held over200 public meetings. We have had over 17,000 citizens attend these meetings.
This has to be one of the great public-involvement exercises of all time as far as the Federal Government is concerned. This is just the first stage. We are just setting the inventory, the criteria review, and information-gathering process now, and there will he two more opportunities for public involvement-as we develop the inventory and as we propose the disposition of these inventoried lands.
I have asked Zane Smith-former Supervisor of the Willamette National Forest in Oregon and the Director of the Forest Service Recreation Management Staff to take over leadership on RARE II because we needed a good man in charge of that program, and I think he is a gyood man.
le is widely respected. We are pleased to have him in charge. Zane has been able to conceptualize this program, I am glad to note, to tie it in in a very logical way to the Resources Planning Act, the N national Forest Management Act, and to make it clear how it is a part of our statutory requirement to do a certain kind of planning.
I would like, with your permission, to turn the meeting over to Zane and have him describe the process.
Senator CHuRCli. Before we do that, let me ask you to include in your remarks some indication of how you visualize bringing all of this to an end.
In other words, after the evaluation has taken place what approach (1oYou anticipate taking that will finally lay the whole roadless areas question to rest?
Hinder the original Wilderness Act, as you correctly pointed out, Cono'ress did provide a mechanism that identified the areas that were to be studied for wilderness, and restricted those areas to national parks and wildlife areas and to the established primitive areas of the national forest system at the time of the enactment of the legislation.
Back in 1964. we knew what the wilderness system contemplated by the act would be, and we gave the Forest Service a period of time in which to review the existing primitive areas. exclude commercial timber lands, recommend redefinition of the boundaries, and come up to Congress with a set of recommendations.
So the process was complete as envisioned by the original Wilderness Act. We knew where we were going and we knew what the ap)roximate size of the wilderness system would be.
Then, as you have very ably described, subsequent events, most notably the, court decisions, fuzzed things up.
I know everyone here would be particularly interested in knowing how you intend to proceed once the assessment has been completed, the public hearings are over, and the Forest Service has reached the point where it has recommendations to make about how we are going to get this thing finished.
Dr. CUTLER. That is exactly what Zane will address, Mr. Chairman.
STATEMENT OF ZANE G. SMITH, DIRECTOR, RECREATION MAN.
AGEMENT, FOREST SERVICE
Mr. \MTIT I appreciate Doctor Cutler's endorsement..
This RARE IT is a special planning effort. I want to emphasize that. It is within the context of our land management planning that has been ongoing in the National Forest System and within the general guidelines of the RPA program and assessment prepared in 1975, and that will be updated in 1980.
rThe RARE II project's purpose, of course, is to accelerate the resolution of as many of the roadless properties of the National Forests as possible, acknowledging that we are not satisfied with the speed with
which we are able to do that job through our regular unit planning Process at the National Forest level.
As Dr. Cutler pointed out. we did become engaged in a morass that was resulting in no decision. In fact, it was resulting in a serie- of fragmented decisions resulting from litigation and legislation n an attempt to calibrate and perfect our planning system.
In many instances, these represented a less than cOmipl)relhensive approach. so RARE II's purpose is to resolve as much of that pairti ilhl r land management issue as possible: the final disposition of the roadless properties.
We do not expect that we can do it all within a years period of time, for which RARE II is scheduled, but at least a good headtiart can be made on the decisions and the data collection for what remiain-.
The planning effort itself can be categorized into three basic lements: Inventory. which we are in the process of completing leadin to a two-step evaluation and analysis; and finally. Mr. Chairman, the formulation of recommendations and the decision itself.
In a chart form in back of us, we have sort of a conceptual model beginning with the inventory and leading to a decision, partially within the Congress and possibly at a high level of the executive branch for a portion of it.
Inasmuch as many of you have seen this model. I think I will step up there and attempt to summarize it again for the sake of getting back to the full discussion.
The National Wilderness Preservation System is made up of publliC lands in several jurisdictions: The national forest system, the national park system; fish and wildlife refuges; and more recently public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management.
It is in the rounding out this national system that we are concerned about a final disposition of roadless properties.
In the national forest. we have 187 million acres, some of which we know contain wilderness that could be considered in rounding out this national system of wilderness. In this first step, we, then. are attempting to perfect our inventory of the possible candidates for rounding out this system.
That is the relatively undeveloped inventory that was brouit hefore the public in a series of some 200 workshops nationwide. As" Doctor Cutler pointed out. over 17.000 attended those workshops. We will probably receive double that amount of comment: those comments will be collected by forest supervisors and regional foresters. They will be transmitted to the Chief late this month.
The Chief hopes to issue a final Forest Service inventory of roadless areas by mid-October.
At the same time. we asked the public to comment on the roadless area inventory. We asked them to give us a sense of the relative priorities and values of certain criteria that could be applied to the inventory in an effort to round out the National Wilderness Preservation Systeni.
We will probably issue a set of final criteria sometime in mid-November which will then be used as a first step in the evaluation. After the inventory is finalized and we know what the universe of the properties is, we will move into an evaluation and analysis phase.
We designed that in two steps. The first, to be applied nationally, will examine the national wants or needs in rounding out what we believe to be a desirable and ultimate wilderness system.
This will give us a notion of where our best candidates are. and how the national forests can best contribute to the final wilderness product.
The second phase will then be done more locally because basically wilderness occurs near communities and in States where there are publics that are dependent on these kinds of lands for other purposes, as well. That is not to say that there are not national implications as we select the areas for wilderness, but usually those costs are more heavily felt at the local level.
Therefore, we will be conducting the tradeoff analysis, as we refer to it, at the State and community levels.
Once that is done, we would'expect to array all of the inventoried lands into one or more alternatives, and those alternatives into categories such as immediate wilderness designation. In other words, we will have discovered enough through this special planning effort that we would be willing to sign off without any further study a proposal for wilderness legislation. That is depicted by the blue on this chart.
Equally important in the resolution of the roadless area dispositions is to determine what areas require no further consideration for wilderness purposes and can, in fact, be remanded back to a planning process that will establish what that use might be other than wilderness. That is depicted by the yellow.
Certainly in an accelerated planning effort of this type we do not expect to resolve all of the issues. We would then have a third category, depicted by the green, in which we would say that we cannot decide. We have inadequate data. We cap-not reach agreement. We do not know the relationship between other jurisdictions, such as the BLI, et cetera.
We would place those back into our more lengthy and systematic land management planning process. It is our hope, however, that there will be a significant number of properties that will fall in the blue. a significant number that will fall in the yellow, so that as this thing is brought up to a decision point much of the planning will hiAve been accomplished.
At that time, the forest supervisors will have this additional guidance from the national prospective as they proceed with their planning process.
Once, this is done. we would most likely package it into some sort of environmental statement process. There are several alternatives we are examining here. We are looking at the State level, regional geographic level-environmental statements-and at the national level.
Most likely when it reaches the national level the Secretary of Agriculture would become the deciding official. He would be prepared to select one of these alternatives and propose to Congress, certainly, legislation for immediate designation of certain areas as a part of the wilderness system-helping round out the wilderness system.
IHe could also propose that the Congress, through statute, provide planning guidance back to the Department through iRPA and land management planning for unit planning at the local level.
Of course, there are other possible approaches. The Secretary or the President could issue the planning advice contained in these two categories. Congress, of course, must ultimately designate wilderness.
Senator CHURC. May I interrupt ? I did not quite understand what the yellow represented. Would you explan that again?
MAir. SiTn. The yellow represents those areas which we could include as a part of the RARE II planning effort that require no flIIrther consideration for wilderness purposes. Those would be available for other multiple uses depending on the character, nature, and relative value of those uses.
These properties would then be available for appropriate timber harvests, for off-road vehicles, and other multiple uses except wilderness.
Senator CURCIT. Are you considering submitting that to Conlrress for ratification so that can be as definite, permanent, and reliable a classification, and as resistant to further appeals and designation as the wilderness would be once enacted ?
That would be highly desirable. It would provide Congress with a complete legislative package which would propose not only the wilderness, but the planning guidance as proposed in these two categories.
Dr. CUTLER. Mr. Chairman, I think we ought not reach the point at which we have made up our minds-and you may help us make up our minds-as to how we should )proceed.
What I have in mind here is the desirability of not changing our traditional procedures with respect to the role of the executive branch in what you might call administrative zoning of the multiple uses on the national forests, other than wilderness.
Traditionally you have decided. under the Wilderness Act, to make the decision on wilderness designations. This congressional designation is important in the lives of the sponsors of the Wilderness Act because the decision to make an area something other than wilderness is an irreversible decision, at least for a generation or two. Because of that it is important that we have a permanent statutory kind of zoning for wilderness.
From the standpoint of the Department, I think we would like to reserve our recommendation for the moment on how oir ultimate recommendations of RARE II will come as recommendations to you for statutory action as to what should become of the areas not proposed for wilderness, or whether we should continue our traditional pattern of recommending wilderness areas and proceeding administrativelyv to zone and plan the balance of the national forests for other multiple uses.
Senator Crncii. You understand my concern, Mr. Secretary. I speak as one of the floor managers of the National Wilderness Ac't of 1964. I am a strong believer in the need for a wilderness system in this country.
On the other hand, I am also mindful of the fact that, although RARE II may give us some notion of how large the ultimate syvstemn of wilderness is to be. which in my opinion, would( be very helpful, once Congress legislates land into wilderness, it is there. It is written into the law.
Although there are possible new discoveries or new national needs which will cause Congress to change the law in the future, wilderness is as permanent as we can make it, as permanent as the law can make it.
On the other hand, the remaining areas are still susceptible to a continuing controversy, and you get to the point where wilderness advo-
cates are in a position to say, "This is ours because the Congress has said so; now let's take a closer look at what is yours over here." That process keeps bubbling along year after year.
What we are looking for is some way to resolve this so industry can depend upon the allocation of the land and make its investments for the future, and so that every group can have some confidence in what is going to happen.
Dr. CUTLER. WV have no objection to that route. We would like to be able to offer you a set of options, including a Presidential order for nonwilderness areas that may have status beyond the departmental decision level.
I appreciate what you are saying. We are as anxious as anyone to resolve the total land allocation question. Therefore, we are open-very much so-on that-whether or not there should be legislation on the nonwilderness decisions, too.
Senator MCCLUR As I look at the chart and as I listen to your presentation, I hive one concern. That is about the second box on the left, the "National Needs Criteria."
I understood you to imply that the "National Needs" related to wilderness. Does that include "National Needs Criteria" for the conflicting resource uses on the public lands?
Mr. Sviii. If I may, I will get right into that question. That is an important point.
We are attempting to resolve the issue of wilderness of these roadleSs lands within the constraints of other parts of the national forests' purposes. We are relying a great deal on the RPA goals to provide broad planning guidance that will keep us within that box.
The needs criteria we are talking about in this first screen are, indeed, wilderness, but they are within the context and the restraints of goals. This is what we have envisioned this process to be.
We have an existing wilderness system of 141/ million acres, most
of which is national forest. I have illustrated this as a circle with missiwig gaps.
Since we are adding to the wilderness system, we presume that there must, be some reasons why we would like to add to it.
We think these gaps or niches should be filled in to arrive at what we consider to be the desired system. We cannot precisely say what that is, but we believe-for this planning purpose-we can come close.
These needs or wants relate to moving from the existing system to the desired system and selecting candidates from the various roadless properties on the national forests and other jurisdictions.
Senator MCCLURE. Let me stop you there-and I apologize for doing it.
How can you evaluate a system without looking at other national needs? How can you look only at what is desirable for wilderness without also looking at what is necessary for other resource use?
Mr. S311ITI. This is kind of a first step. This would, in a sense, refine and specify the national RPA goal for wilderness. We need to be doing-and we have to some extent done-the same thing for the other RPA goals-water, wildlife, recreation. timber, and so forth.
Where we would get into that analysis is at a more local level.
In order to round out the wilderness system, maybe we should be looking at a better representation of ecosystems-a better system of
providing accessibility of these properties to thie Aiieiiann people a better presence of certain kinds of wildlife not beeen; Ie tlhey niet! f) be protected in wilderness but because t ley a re .' -inte( d witi a (eIable wilderness system, and certain land fonrw Ihat nonI 1 be desirable to have within the system.
These, of cour.e. do not talk to acreages. Tley talk to the (charn,te'ristics, the scope of the wilderness system.
We would then ask ouri regional fore-ters to examine tie area- i, meet these missing gaps without telling them they must add them or not, or how many acres. This would be inii the foriii of planlel guidance.
We might ask the regional forester in Ogden or Port land to attel It t to find a candidate that would fill in the e('osy tem a). lie w(ii(lI then examine those areas, along with thie other area -. in tensl'- of thir tradeoffs. the cost involved in actually moviii(ng it iniito the svsteim. Tiiat would be in the context of the present RPA goals.
In that way a regional forester who has a 1.5-inillion-board-foot timber goal would not be reaching outside of that, lie would not he breaking that bank or getting out of that ball park. Ile would be exanining it in that context.
As he begins to examine the relative wilderness values or needs awl compares them to the tradeoffs, hlie could probably oilne ip witi a simple matrix that would indicate areas of high wilderness value. litedium wilderness value. or low wilderness value-low, itiedium, andi high tradeoff costs.
If he categorized the area as being of high wilderne-s value and low in tradeoff costs, he probably has a prime candidate for the blue area, an immediate candidate for wilderness.
On the other hand, if he discovers, through his analysis of tlese tradeoffs, constraints, and so forth, that he has an area of low wilderness value or need and high tradeoff costs, he may have a candidate
for no further consideration.
RARE II has tried to establish those outer bounds-not to try to precisely determine the use for every single area, but to resolve as much of the wilderness issue as possible.
Therefore, we think that a combination of this kind of need criteria with the RPA goals is the way; a hard-hitting payoff analysis that boils down to jobs, consumer interests, and economic interests to the State, and he can categorize the lands into these various groups.
)Dr. CUmTLER. I would like Rex to address the relationship to the Resources Planning Act.
STATEMENT OF REXFORD A. RESLER, ASSOCIATE CHIEF, FOREST SERVICE
Mr. RESLER. Mr. Chairman, to keep on in this process,. we had to define-under the requirements of the Resources Planning Act-an array of options, different alternative levels of production, of that whole mix of resource uses for the National Forest System.
Obviously, there is a cost associated with selection of one given alternative that is high in wilderness, for instance, and lower in production.
The administrations proposal is for certain levels under the Resource Planning Act requirements, and Congress can bless us or not as it sees fit. The next update of the renewable resource program will be coming up in 1980.
When we go through this analytical process we are going to have to look at the tradeoffs as they relate to those goals established in the Resource Planning Act-in that context.
If we elect, as a Nation, to put as high a value on commodity use as we do on wilderness use, then the conclusion would be, obviously, a very low level of increase in wilderness or vice versa, as the case may be.
However, as we see our reponsibility it is where we can display those tradeoffs so a decision within the executive branch and the Congress may be made.
What Mr. Smith is describing here is an evaluation process that will be all part of the same overall evaluation effort. The needs or the criteria we have identified is a starting place, but as we go through that evaluation process we will also come to the local level and look at all kinds of commodity tradeoffs to try to identify those tradeoffs as well as wilderness quality.
We will try to display those before we make any kind of judgment ourselves so Congress can, itself, make its judgments.
Mr. S.NITTh. I would make one other point here. That is that we must consider roadless areas of other jurisdictions.
The roadless area of the national forests appears to be in the neighborhood of 67 million acres. The Bureau of Land Management, although they have not conducted their inventory, estimate 80 to 90 million acres outside Alaska. The National Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service have inventoried and proposed for the most part all their roadless areas for wilderness classification.
It is important that we keep in mind all of these jurisdictions as we begin to move our analysis forward.
Doctor Cutler has worked with the Assistant Secretary in Interior and the agencies in the Department of the Interior. They are all helping us in using the criteria to inventory lands.
Senator CHURCH. Give me the total acreage, of the National Forest System.
Mr. SmITIH. 187 million acres.
Senator CHURCH. Of which there 141/ million acres is now in wilderness?
Mr. SMIT. It is a little under 121/9 million.
Senator McCLU-RE. Is that excluding or including Alaska?
Mr. SMTTT. Including Alaska.
Senator CHURC-h. What is the total acreage of the roadless areas outside the wilderness system?
Mfr. SAITT Sixty-seven million acres, tentatively. We have not finalized that.
SMnator CiuiCrc. About a third?
Mr. STTTT. Yes, sir.
Senator CiUncii. Of the total national foreo4, area.
Now, can you give those same figures for Alaska?
Mr. S~uITI. I think it is 18 million acres of roadless in Alaska and 20 million total. There is 20 million total acres in Alaska and 1 million of that is roadless.
Senator McCLURE. Would you give me the first figures? I will do the mathematics.
Mr. SiruiTH. 187 million acres in the National Forests System, 67 million acres roadles ; 1 million acre in the wilderness y.te: ; and, in Alaska, 2) million acres of national forest land. 18 million of which is roadless. There is no presently classified wilderness in Alaska in the national forests.
Senator McCLURE. So the figures would be 167, 49, and 1I21, excluding Alaska.
Mr. SITI. Yes.
You asked about planning. We have a critical path chart which I do not think will )e very readable for you.
We are designing this to reach decisions in late 197S. Our inventory is being completed in late October of this year. We will be developing the data necessary for evaluation to occur in the winter of 197: the draft environm ental statement-at whatever level that might be-in the spring of 197S.
This is to allow a full field season for people to look at our work and get on the ground if they wish. We can then wrap it up in an environmental statement at the end of the year.
Senator McCITRE. Where in this process is the public involved in the assessment of the needs?
MIr. SIriTH. The public was involved during the 227 workshops looking at sucgested criteria and volunteering other criteria of their owvn. That is being analyzed by regions and at the national level. We will develop the national need criteria, as well as the RPA guidance.
Senator McCLURE. The RPA process does that. but the RPA process is circumvented by the entire RARE II flow chart. It is not involved in this.
Dr. CUrLER. This is a subset of the RPA process.
Senator McCLUrE. I ask that because if all von are doing is assessing wilderness needs in a vacuum somebody has to make a determination of how you assess that need.
You h-ave suggested that that goes back to the statement of goal; in the RPA. but there are a number of other laws also that have some statement-presumablv a public statement-of national needs.
It is not all embedded in the RPA.
Mr. SMITT. That is correct. In fact, our planning effort deals with that every day.
Of course, we have our 199P0 RPA goals. We do not expect that RARE II is going to resolve those. This may be one of the reasons we have to keep some in the green.
Mr. RESLER. The particular area of public oDportunit for exDTpresPsing their views on the evaluation process will come in May or thereabouts when we issue some form of environmental statement. In that process. we will have to display this evaluation system.
Senator McCLUTE. But tle ePvaluation has already been luidedl by the national needs criteria, and the public has not been involved in the development of the national needs criteria.
Mfri. RESLER. We use criteria as only one element in the whole evaluation. We will display that along with all of the other resource tradeoffs. We will display the rationale behind each of these alternative levels.
We will go out to the public with that, with a full display of those. Tihey can add 1to them. critique themSenator McCLURE. Let me see if my understanding is correct of the national needs criteria as you define it there.
Withlin the Forest Service planning process you will make that decision. You will not be subject to critical public review until you get into the evaluation of the net tradeoffs, and the public will be involved at that stage.
Mr. RESLER. That is correct if I can modify one word.
We are using these criteria in a refined way. They are mainly a screening device. but we will display that and the rationale behind it, as well as these other resource tradeoffs to the public.
A review of the draft environmental statement will have an opportunity to critique it, including our assessment of tradeoffs. Then, in tlhe final part of the process, the executive branch will have to make a decision on the basis of all that input and recommend certain levels of lands for inclusion in the wilderness system.
The public will have an extended period of time, through this draft environmental statement, to fully critique and respond to our complete evaluation on a site-specific basis, area by area. This is the way we envision it now.
Mr. SMITH. I do not want to mislead you. We did subject these national criteria to very extensive public involvement. We have a great deal of feedback on these criteria.
I should have prefaced my remarks about the ecosystem and so forth with what appears to us to be a fairly certain public endorsement based on the preliminary look, the public involvement comments we have.
Not only did they comment on those things, but they also told us what they felt was important in the area of tradeoffs-whether an area should be considered if it had a high timber yield potential, for example.
I think the public has had a hand in developing these criteria. We will not finalize them until we fully look at everything they have given us. Then they will have another opportunity to look at the way we applied them.
As Dr. Cutler pointed out, we have several alternatives here-the various weights we might place on them.
Senator CitiRciH. When you get to this process, that will be the end of next year ?
Mr. SrrriT. Yes, sir.
Senator CiiuiRii. If you put that all together in one big package with the blue, the yellow. and the green and say, "Here is the wav we are going to manage the national forests; here is the grand blueprint." you are going to get into a lawsuit that will last from now until the end of the next ice age.
Senator MAcCLRmE. I suspect, in most old fashioned of all inputs, you and I. and many others, will hear from these groups.
Senator ( itimir. If you come up to Congress and say you have it all settled, yoi are going to find us elsewhere. [Laughter.]
Mr. SMr[rr. We agree that the success of any alternative will hinge on our ability to find agreement. This band in the iid(le may be cIhl, much wider than we like, but if we could resolve 10 to 40 percent on1 either side, if there is such a consensus, that is what we want to ident i f in RARE II; not to try to solve all tmhe controversies in this mli(ddle .area.
There will be areas on which there will not be coilsenslts. We will have further study of those areas, and I think that I)r. Cutler has acknowledged that we may do that.
Dr. CUITLER. Mr. Chairman, unless you wantT firtlfier retaill from us we would just as soon conclude our initial presentation, respond to questions, and get into some of the more detailed alternat ives in response to questions.
Senator McCLURE. Could I make one comniment?
Mr. Secretary, as I have stated at more than one public nieetingr,one at which I was with you at Coeur d'Alene, Idahlo-I applaud the effort and I support what you are trying to do.
However, I suspect when we get to the end, the areas of blue and yellow will be smaller and the area of green larger than we like. I hope that is not correct.
That leads us to the question that we must address, now. What about the effects of a lack of decision if. as a matter of fact, all von can do is identify 10 percent of the land on one extreme or the other of that chart, and 80 percent is left in the middle unresol ved ?
Then you have 80 percent of our problem remaining. Right now. we have 20 percent of it cleared up which is probably more than we would have otherwise.
A 20-percent solution is no solution at all that will satisfy the kind of problems that are confronting us in regard to the maintenance of vinble industries.
Dr. CUTLER. Senator, our response to that is that the standard opl'rating procedure with respect to land use )planning is continuing and, as the land use plans mature which are underway now, the inventory will change.
It is our advice, it is our recommendation that that land use planning, process be continued to run through this period of time in order to resolve questions of land availability for uses other than wilderne-s, and particularly in areas which are short of raw material.
We hope the diverse groups involved in this process will allow the process to run and participate in it, parallel thereto, so we can address particularly difficult supply situations in parts of the cointrv whe e mills are running short of material and where the land use process is pretty well along.
We also hope the final environmental statement. on a particular unit plan, can be adopted, and that land use allocations (can be made prior to the conclusion of RARE II.
We have recommended that, when the final envi ronmental statement if filed, a unit plan. based on our regular planning Iprocess-that at that point the roadless areas in that unit drop out of RARE II. except in those instances where a roadless tract within that planning unit might be contiguaus with roadless lands being in RARE II. This is the Gospel-Hump type of situation.
We think the roadless area should be addressed as a unit. Otherwise, it is our recommendation that the decision embodied in that unit plan, which has gone through all of the public involvement, all of the other EIS processes, be implemented, and be dropped out of the RARE II inventory.
Senator CiaURcii. Mr. Secretary, we will move on to the next two speakers; but, since we are all here to give our advice to you and to question you, my advice to you is to "Think Small." Have you read that book?
Dr. CUTLER. Yes, sir.
Senator CHu-Rcii. The national evaluation is fine. I hope you can keep within your target date and complete it by the end of next year.
However, when it comes to the implementation of the program I think you are going to have to break it into pieces. My suggestion to you is that you break it into politically palatable pieces that will enable the Congress to take action, and that will bring various groups together.
In Idaho, for example, we have tried to do that in the Gospel-Hump area. I have hopes that we might legislate the management plan there which will do two things: create wilderness and, by statute, designate the other land as multiple-use land which will be restored to the workinr forests.
Now, when you come to the end of the study, it seems to me that you are not going to be able to be in a position to break it into pieces that the Congress can masticate and digest. If you break it into pieces that have balance so each interest gets its entitlement, then you will be asking the Congress not only to create a wilderness, but also, in the process, to solve the problem for the industry-to designate parts of that package that are going to be restored to the working forests.
I believe that is about the only way we will ever get everybody's interests considered in the decisionmaking process. You cannot leave the whole national forest for the Congress at one time, nor can you make the kind of assessments that are necessary except on a less grandiose scale.
You could come with individual national forests, as Senator Hatfield and I were discussing, on a forest-by-forest basis. Then we can get all of this settled at the same time for each forest.
That is not so different from what we have done in the past as you have brought individual recommendations for wilderness areas to the Congress. I am suggesting you extend yourself beyond that-bring the whole forest sand say. "We have com nleted our plan for the forest. This part should be multiple use. This should be wilderness. Here are the reasons. Here are the witnesses." Then we could have an ultimate plan with te congressional stamp of approval on it enacted into law.
That would be my advice.
Senator HATFIELD. I would like to add to that statement.
I think the Gospel-Hump is. indeed, a qood example of what Senator Church and I have been discussing. I think this all has to be done in a comprehensive approach by pieces for the simple reason that you do not only recognize the tradeoffs for values.
I am of the opinion that when we undertake a wilderness designation, when the wilderness people are very attentive, very solicitous,
that is the time when we ought to get their commitments as they relate to other multiple-use areas.
If we take it one piece at a time, they turn off their hearing aids, whether it is the lumber people on one hand or the environientalists on the other. However, when they have to sit down together and they have come to consider a comprehensive plan-perhaps we ought to expand this present comprehensive bill vis-a-vis the Gospel-Ilump approach for those areas that are under study.
We would exclude them from the existing wilderness area for the proposed wilderness area, and the remainder would be attached as instant return to multiple use.
We have the attention of all of the interest groups at this particular moment. I think whatever plan we come up with here is going to have to be done in the open arena where all the interest groups have a real stake, and where they are much more willing and attentive to the proposition that there are tradeoffs.
This is better than to come up with wilderness one day and come up with instant return to multiple use in a separate action.
I think Senator Church has broken ground here, perhaps. On Gospel-Hump. he got all the parties together.
I would only remind you of our problem with Bull Run in the State of Oregon. One person goint to court can get an injunction.
This is what has created the problems in the State that we have had up to this point in trying to resolve the question of Bull Run. Therefore, whatever plan you do come up with, we have potential litigation whether it is forest by forest. State by State. or region by region.
I think the best possibility is to tie it into one legislative act as it relates to the wilderness and multiple use.
Dr. CUTLER. Mr. Chairman. may I respond?
Senator CIarncI. Yes. of course.
Dr. CUTLER. I would like to suggest that I think our current thinking with respect to the disaggregation of this information for the purposes of environmental impact statements is tending to indicate that we must have a national programmatic statement that covers the tradeoffs nationwide and addresses the national needs question, and we need to have a State-by-State package, as well. because that is about as much as anybody can masticate in terms of getting a really good idea in your head of what the tradeoffs are in a geographical region that you can conceptualize.
We can probably do a program that can do it on a State-by-State basis. That is the way I am beginning to think about it.
With respect to the legislative output. it seems to me that what Senator IHatfield is describing is somewhat similar to a city council adopting a zoning plan for an entire city that encompasses all the uses.
That seems logical because you do have all of the interest and attention at one time. but I plead that decision by the Congress be limited to wilderness or nonwilderness.
Senator CarcH. I do not think any of us have any intention of trying to usurp the responsibility of the Forest Service to manage the forests, and we do not want to get into the detailed decisionmakingr the Forest Service has to confront every day.
I think the main problem is. how do we dispose of the roadless areas? How do we decide what type of national wilderness system we want,
and what parts we want restored to the national forests for multiple use under tlie joint principles of management.
Senator MICCLIRE. I support both statements you made. Even if you break it down so that we can politically cope with the size of the problem presented at the end., still some of the pieces have to be in the context of the whole or we will miss the whole.
('ertainly I agree with you; Congress should not attempt to be the public land managers. We ought to be the policymakers and set the guidelines. Somebody has to do the day-to-day management. We cannot do that.
I do not think there is a person in this room who would say that the Congress is doing too well what we are trying to undertake now without trying to undertake other responsibilities.
Senator CHURCH. Let us go on to Doug Scott.
STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS SCOTT, NORTHWEST REPRESENTATIVE, THE SIERRA CLUB
M. ScorTT. My name is Douglas Scott. I am an employee of the Sierra Club. I am speaking today only loosely on behalf of my colleag~ues. I would like to summarize a broad picture of concerns for thle roadless areas on the national forests, which is a slightly broader topic than RARE II.
In the national forests of the United States in the East, in Alaska and in the West, there exists a significant acreage of potential wildernes- which has never been adequately considered for possible preservation by the Forest Service.
Many of these roadless areas, amounting to millions of acres, undoubtedlv have such important wilderness values-once we come to know them and know the tradeoffs-that we will want wilderness pre4rvation for these areas.
Other areas will be found to be best dedicated to other multiple uses as the overall land allocation pattern of our national forests is resol ved. We should bear in mind that people care about these national forest wilderness areas that are not yet preserved as wilderness.
In virtually every city and every small town across this land there are (.it izens who know each of these areas individually and intimately, aid who seekl to perpetuate these areas as a part of their lives. In fact, t lh-ee iomadless lands are widely used today as wilderness.
TIhe fact that they (1do not have a formal boundary sign in front of their does not. for a moment, detract from the fact that the people who ue them have been able to have a wilderness experience there.
The land blse for wilderness recreation is shrinking. More and more of Amenricas de facto wilderness is being developed, shifting to use w e,'e it I)ad been previously preserved as wilderness.
T afternoon we will speak for the concerns of those who wish to see a reasonal)le portion of the roadless lands of our national foresIts preserved for the future as wilderness. It is important for all to understand. however, that we merely represent a much broader sl)etrum of wilderness supporters who are not at this table today.
We represent citizens who have a great wealth of experience with lthe roadless area issue, and with the history of efforts by the Forest
Service to deal with those roadless areas. We know, in great detail, the serious shortcomings and fatal flaws that attended the first RARE program; that its exceedingly haphazard inventory was grossly inadequate.
It was applied using widely varying criteria from one region to another, leaving out millions of acres of land qualified by the Wilerness Act, and upon criteria more strict than Congress has often used in making decisions.
There was enormous bias and inconsistency in the evaluation of those roadless areas inventoried in RARE I through a whole series of problems, fragmentations, of the areas into subunits or into artificial bases, piecemeal evaluation, gerrymandering, and so forth.
The upshot of that is that RARE I did not work. It did not accomplish the purpose of making decisions that would stick, that the American people would accept.
It did identify some wilderness study areas, but many of those were too small and prejudiced from the outside by the Forest Service selecting a portion of the total wilderness tract. Then the reina ii(l' of that tract, the margin where the conflict where other uses might be the most serious, would receive the least study.
Most important, however, were the 44 million acres of roadless lands identified in that first RARE process that were not selected for any further wilderness study.
In 1972, a lawsuit, to which Dr. Cutler made reference to. in turn led to an order by the Chief of the Forest Service guaranteeing that each of those nonselected roadless areas. 44 million acres in total, would receive further wilderness evaluation as a specific alternative in an environmental impact statement.
The people we represent today also have an enormous amount of experience with these Forest Service environmental impact statements affecting roadless areas. These are almost entirely on land use or unit plans that the Forest Service issues, and are required to include evaluation of the wilderness alternative for the roadless areas involved.
We think it was a wise choice of the Forest Service to use the land use mechanism as a place to apply NEPA to the major decisions affecting the allocation of lands of the national forests. We have a great deal of experience with those unit plans. 200 of which conservationists, after review, have responded to over the past 4 yea rs.
The quality of national forests land use planning has been iml-proving-I will be the first to acknowledge that-but the standard of Forest Service planning as it regards roadless areas or other areas is still far too low.
Here, again, citizens simply do not believe the decisions pronooed in many of these plans have been fairly reached on the basis of sufficiently thorough and objective analysis of the data.
Flaws in the structure of the planning approach and the enormnius range of quality in the planning job itself have led us to reach our conclusion. The land use planning process is not giving roadles, areas sufficient, acceptable, or adequate evaluation as it reaches decisions which seal the tombs of those roadless areas.
No one should be surprised if inadequate planning is about the clearest controversy over decisions reached. I think all of us are aware of the controversy about those plans.
The controversy exists because people do not believe things they care deeply about have been adequately treated in those land use plans.
If the quality of plannin r can be significantly improved, not only would we see better decisions but, we would see far (reater public acceptance-even of the decisions the public does not like-because they would have more faith in the planning process.
Against the backg-round of this continued inadequacy of forest land use planning, controversy has grown-not diminished. Controversy has been reflected in some administrative appeals. one or two lawsuits about this process, and an increasing number of citizen requests to their Members of Congress for congressional action where administrative action has failed.
Many of the proposals embodied in the Endangered American Wildern ess Act represent results of citizen petitions to their elected representatives to overrule decisions which are simply not adequately made at tlhe administrative level.
The inadequacies of the land use planning process have been extensively documented during the course of hearings on the EndanO'ered American Wilderness Act and elsewhere.
I wish to submit testimony prepared by environmentalists with great experience in this matter before earlier hearings on some of this ley~slat ion.
One is a statement by Richard Fiddler, of Seattle, Wash., which represents a summary of environmentalists' problems with the flaws in RARE I. The second is a statement by Dennis W. Baird, of Moscow. Idaho, which represents a national overview of some samples of the gross inadequacies of current land use plans as regards the wilderness areas on the national forests.
Senator CHiurlcH. We will be happy to have these statements.
[The statements follow: the exhibits to the statements have been retained in Committee files:]
STATEMENT OF RICHARD FIDDLER, CITIZENS FOR AMERICA'S ENDANGERED WILDERNESS
ON T.R. 3454, THE "ENDANGERED AMERICAN WILDERNESS ACT OF 1977" BY HON.
MORRIS K. UDALL BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS AND PUBLIC LANDS. COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C.-FEBRUARY 28, 1977
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Richard Fiddler. I reside in Seattle, Washington. By training, I am a mechanical engineer. IIowever. over the past six years I have devoted a major portion of my time, as a volunteer, to work with a number of Washington State and Pacific Northwest conservation groups. I have been closely involved in work With the U.S. Forest Service regarding wilderness matters. Today. I and my colleagues are here on behalf of "Citizens for America's Endangered Wilderness." an informal coordinating committee we have formed to Work with many local, State, and nationwide citizen groups in support of this bill. The leadership of "Citizens for America's Endangered Wilderness" involves many of the most knowledgable citizen-experts in this field. We deeply appreciate the opportunity to make this presentation today, to lay out for you the "big picture" on America's Endangered Wilderness, and to explain what de facto wilderness it, why it is so valuable and important to us, and why citizens are coming to the Congress to seek your help in giving this category of important wildlands proper protection and management.
We would not be here before you today if the Forest Service was doing a good job of understanding the immense value of the wildlands under their Jannagement to the Nation and its citizens, and was doing a reponsible job of protecting them. After a long period of neglect, planning for wilderness lands has become respectable if not very popular within the Forest S "ervice'. (It about in large part as a result of a citizen lawsuit.) Now, elaborate-looking, thick, and very expensive documents are coming forth which purport to le the results of a thorough, professional planning effort. Decisions to r)ad and (Ir much of our remaining wildland heritage. including several of the areas included in 11H.R. 3454. are being based on these national and local "plans."
We are sorry to have to report to you that behind the handsomely printed covers on the reports lies, in almost every case, little or nothing of substance. ()ften there are serious misrepresentations. Resource allocations are being made on the basis of habit, prejudgment, and industry pressure rather than on sound economic principles.
The areas to be designated as parts of the Wildernes; System oras study areas by HR 3454 include many of the most immediately endangered wildland areas of the Nation. They are endangered, and we must come to the Congress seeking relief, primarily because the Forest Service processes are inadequate to yield informed or fair treatment for them. Officers assigned to planning teams frequently have a very thin background in land use planning, and overall the Forest Service is permeated with a sense of haste and urgency to wrap up roadless area decisions in the next few years. The consequences for roadless areas which are unwisely developed clearly last for lifetimes.
We should like to begin by briefly outlining what "de facto wilderness" is. and then go on to discuss the crippling problems which lie beneath the surface of Forest Service planning efforts.
What are the de facto wilderness lands?
They are varied lands of peaks, lakes, valleys, meadows,. ridges, forests, swamps, plains deserts. They are the natural habitat for wildlife of all kinds. They provide a vast amount of primitive and uncontined recreation, with varyin' degrees of solitude for a wide spectrum of people, including local fishermen and hunters, backpacking enthusiasts, day hikers, and casual tourists. They are important sources of unIolluted water to nourish Western lands. As Rep. Morris Udall, the Chairman of this Committee, said in introducing H.R. 3454. "Wilderness is our country's highest form of land dedication. Values of wilderness to the American people are multiple in nature, not just primitive recreation alone. Wilderness is an ecological condition where all values and uses are administered to maintain the natural condition which is so vital to preserve for ourselves and future generations."
Some of the Nation's resource of wilderness lands are already part of the Wilderness System. or are protected pending study and Congressional consi(leration. Many more wildland areas, however, fully equivalent in beauty and value to protected areas, have no formal protection. These are the Nation's de facto wilderness lands.
These lands have provided wi(erness herefits throughout the history of our Nation, with minimal formal protection and attention. But due to this lack of protection. the area of land providing these benefits has continually dwindled as development has proceeded to exploit other resources. However, this development has been concentrated largely in the more valuable resource areas so that the extractive resource values of the presently remaining lands is low in comparison to surrounding developed areas.
Citizen involvement in the entire issue of de facto wilderness on Forest Service lands has its modern roots in a series of actions taken by the Forest Service in the period from 195-64. It started not d'e to) development of de facto lands so much as to the declassification of land which had previously been administratively protected. The actions I refer to were the general process of shrinkage of primitive area boundaries and in some cases the complete abolition of administrative protection for entire areas. Many of today's controversies over unprotected wilderness began when the Forest Service proposed decla
development bias that the agency demonstrated in defending them, caused citizens to begin a re-examination of the agency's approach to the issue of wilderness resources on de facto lands.
Conservationists hoped that with the passage of the Wilderness Act in 1964an act which firmly established wilderness as an important resource and part of the spectrum of multiple 'ise, and which directed two other agencies to inventory the wilderness resource on their lands and report to Congress-that the Forest Service might begin to pay more attention to their part of the Nation's unclassified wilderness resource. These hopes were disappointed. The Forest servicee waited for three years after the passage of the Wilderness Act to issue the first of several internal directives which were to eventually form the Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (RARE) program.' Citizens did not see any tangible results from the RARE program, initiated in 1971, until 1972, eight years after the Wilderness Act. It was not until 1973 that the Forest Service finally directed that development of roadless areas be temporarily halted to allow timely evaluation of their wilderness resource.
In the nine years between the signing to the Wilderness Act and 1973, millions of Ocres of de facto wilderness were logged, roaded, and mined without even the most rudimentary study of their wilderness values. While some of these areas were well suited to development, others were poorly suited for development but well suited for wilderness. These misallocations drew more citizens into the growing debate surrounding de facto wilderness.
The great increase in hiking and other primitive outdoor recreational activities also contributing to citizen concern. Miles and miles of popular trails were lost to logging roads, and favorite fishing streams destroyed by sediments from roads and loggin. operations.
Finally in 1971 the Forest Service began their Roadless Area Review-the RARE program. It was intended "to determine which undeveloped areas of National Forest lands may be given priority for further intensive study because they have strong wilderness characteristics." 2
The agency stated that they intended this process to select the highest priority a reais to be given Wilderness Study. However, it appears that the program was intended as well to select nearly all Wilderntss Study areas, since few substanital additions are being made to the Study List as the follow-up land planning process begins to be completed in many areas.
Selection of an area for formal Wilderness Study of course does not represent a conimittment of that area to event-ual Wilderness designation; it merely is a deferral of development of the area while a detailed resource study and public involvement process are conducted and then compiled into an agency recommendation to Congress. This process of study and public comment helps to resolve some controversies, and in all cases clarifies the issues involved and make the important facts widely available. Thus, even if such a study does not itself finally resolve questions about the management of an area, it does lay the groundwork for using the political system to rationally come up with a solution or suitable compromise.
In this light, it is very confusing to citizens why the RARE program did not firstly select for study obvious areas of known and established wilderness value where controversy existed, as well as selection of areas of a less controversial nature. There were a fairly small but highly significant number of areas which, even in 1971. were obvious candidates for Wilderness Study because their historios indicated that they had wilderness values and where public controversies would be enlightened by thorough study. While several such areas were selected in the RARE program, far too many were not. Most would fall into one of the following categories:
1. Areas which had been administratively protected for their high wilderness values but which were later declassified despite public protest. Most of these areas were formerly within Primitive Areas or Limited Areas. French Pete, most of the North Kalniopsis additions. Waldo Lake, and the Elkhorns in Oregon, the Tucannon and Mt. St. Helens in Washington, and Elk Summit in Idalho are all examples.
2. Lands should have been included in studies of existing Primitive Areas, but which were deleted because of manpower or funding shortages within the Forest Service or the U.S. Geological Survey, despite wilderness values and pub' RARE Final Environmental Statement, p. 1.
2 RARE. Final Environmental Statement, p. 3, item .
lic support. The Idaho and Absaroka-Beartoth IPrimitive Ars ar exa o l( )f truncated Primitive Areas which should have been re-established for st udy through the RARE program.
3. Areas of national significance previously proposed for wilderness or National Park status due to their outstanding quality. Missed in the RARE selection were areas in the Siskiyous, Oregon's Volcanic Cascades, and the St. Joe-( 'learwater proposal in Northern Idaho. of which only a small portion is classified.
Next I would like to discuss how the RARE selection p)rcess worked, or did not work, at the local level, in the field. Duiriing the winter of 1971-72. the Forest Service directed its field offices to inventory all existing roadless areas f'i'r potential wilderness consideration. Unfortunately, the inventory suleffred badly from a shortage of both time and direction. The inventory mapping was done in a brief period of office work from maps at a time of year when field cheeks wert, next to impossible. The national directives provided very little in the way of instructions as to what to include. For example, although areas of less than 5,000 acres were permitted to be inventoried, there was no direction as to under what circumstances they should or should not be included. Countless irregularities resulted; some Forests inventoried small units adjoining wild areas of National Parks, while others d(lid not.
Again, some Forests properly included areas with minor disturbances such as unconstructed jeep tracks within the inventory. Congress has included many such areas in the Wilderness System and in some cases the Forest Service itself has recommended such inclusions. However, other Forests used such primitive track to subdivide large roadless units into smaller ones, or to totally eliminate them from the inventory. In a dramatic example, the Beaverhead Nation:al Forest identified 777,000 acres of land which was still essentially roadless and undeveloped, but which was excluded from consideration for Wilderness Stuldy due to insignificant jeep tracks, minor pole cutting. etc.
Again, there was no guidance as to how close roadless area boundaries should come to existing roads. Some Forests decided that no roadless land should be included in the inventory if its width were less than some given instance, while other put forward areas with narrow necks and p)rotrusions as prime candidates for Wilderness Study. Very often, one large roadless area was inventoried as if it were several smaller roadless areas.3
A special case occurred in Alaska, where there is a vast acreage of undeveloped land. For nearly 21 million acres ranging over more than 500 miles of the Alaskan coastline, the inventory included only seven separate units:
Four areas already mandated for Wilderness or Scenic Area study, totaling
Two additional areas totaling 144.000 acres, eventually added to the Wilderness Study list.
And one immense roadless area covering all 18 million acres of reimaiiine:roadless land on the North Tongass. South Tongass, and ('hugach Natiomal Forests.
Athough Alaska has obvious problems with choosing reasonable roadless area boundaries and sizes, other options would have been much better. Alaskan conservationists and the Alaska Fish and Game Department had identified prior to the inventory roughly fifty separate units with high wilderness values. At least these specific proposals could have been inventoried and( evauated separately rather than lumping them-along with millions of other acr(,s not proposed for Wilderness-together into one unmanageable roadless area which obviously was not going to be selected for Wilderness Study.
In short, the inventory portion of the RARE program was inconsistent, inaccurate, and hurried.
Following the inventory. local Forest Supervisors conducted a varied program of public involvement to obtain input on the inventoried areas, once again while most of them were still covered with snow. The Supervisors then sent thir recommended candidate Study areas on to the Regional Foresters, who considered them and sent their own recommendations on to the Chief.
At this point it was apparently decided that such simple reliance on the d 'isions of local and regional oficers of the agency would not stand up) to phli! scrutiny as an objective national program for the selection of Wildernes td Areas. So in July of 1972. a series of complex forms were distributed to field offices requiring that a series of complicated ratings be prepared on each roadless
3 Exhibit 1, attached.
area to measure its wilderness attributes and a series of cost forms be filled outto calculate various costs and output reductions which would result from classifying such areas as Wilderness. The accompanying directions indicated that these forms "should require no more than 2 to 21/2 hours total time per Roadless Area" I Obviously, once again the process was a rushed desk job.
These forms created wilderness quality ratings of widely varying accuracy based on dubious theory. The ratings varied greatly from Forest to Forest on similar areas. For instance, the Clearwater roadless area, 22,000 acres, in the Snoqulamnie National Forest of Washington State adjoins Mt. Rainier National Park and is a highly scenic complex of ridges and forested valleys including a 4000-foot relief, over a dozen lakes, spectacular views of Mt. Rainier, a good trail system, and a wide variety of terrain including peaks, lake basins, river canyons, rocky and forested ridges, and alpine meadows. Lost Creek roadless area on the adjacent Mt. Baker National Forest is the same size, adjoins the Glacier Peak Wilderness, has 5000-foot relief, consists of a long ridge of meadows and rock, and is the same size. It has two lakes and a trail with access at either end. Clearwater received a quality index of 89 and Lost Creek a rating of 143 (out of a possible 200).
The system of arriving at a quality index rating for a roadless area was subjective and arguable, but it did have the apparent advantage of producing an "objective" numerical rating at the end. Unfortunately, the method of producing the number had many flaws. There was, for instance, a great overemphasis on the importance of lakes and streams in arriving at the measure of wilderness quality. The overall size of an area was an important factor-despite the fact that in the inventory some units were arbitrarily broken up into small roadless areas, each with not only smaller size but often less variety in landforms.
The quality index, with size already used as a rating factor, then was often used after being multiplied by area acreage, thus using the factor twice.
The rating method had internal contradictions. For instance, a roadless area received plus points for having a trail system in one category since a trail system was considered to be a recreational asset, while in another category a roadless area was penalized for having a trail system, since a trail system was considered a factor in reducing wilderness solitude.
These are only examples of the confusion and errors inherent in the calculation of the numerical 'quality index' for the inventoried roadless areas. Further trouble came in the application of the index, in combination with other factors, later in the selection process. An extensive critique of the process pointing out many of these flaws was prepared by the conservation comnmnity in the northwest,' as well as by national conservation groups 6 and research papers."
Cost estimates considered none of the economic benefits of wilderness and in many cases considerably overestimated the timber harvest contributions of roadless areas. For example, the Willamette National Forest Land Use Plan Draft Environmental Statement indicates that the numbers used in the RARE document overestimated the timber productivity of those roadless areas by 28 percent. Similarly, data in the Final Environmental Statement for the Quinault Planning Unit on the Olympic National Forest in Washington State show that the RARE estimates for timber were 30 percent higher than that shown by more detailed study
These overestimnates took place in part because of the practice of evaluating the forest land in the roadless areas using the average productivity values for commercial forest land in the Forest. Since the roadless areas were generally the most marginal, least desirable commercial forest lalds on the Forests, using the average Forest value inflated the actual timber impact in the RARE study."0
Another confusion entered when areas presently administratively withdrawn from the allowable timber harvest base were nonetheless listed as having a timber "cost" associated with Wilderness Study. The Wenaha Backeountry, for example, was listed in RARE as having an allowable harvest impact of 3.6 million board feet per year, when the entire area has been withdrawn from the timber base since l)57 and there would be no impact at all associated with a selection of the area for formal Wilderness Study.
4 Exhibit 2. attached.
s Appendix, Draft Environmental Statement, Willamette National Forest Land Use Plan, pp. 211-'2.
,'in:' El.nvi ronmentql Statermet, Quinault Planning Unit, pp. 16, 20, 24, 28. 10 RARE Final Environmental Statement, pp. 622-3.
Ecosystem data was also collected for each roadless area, but the system used to collect the data was inadequate ; the entire sIectruin of diverse flora 'and fauna of a National Forest system stretching from Puerto Rico to Alaska was to he classified into only 52 different types, depending on the douminanit vegetation. For example, all non-coniferous trees in the western states were lumped together as "hardwoods", as if aspens in Colorado, alders in Washington, and oak in ("alifornia were the same ecosystem. There exist several more definitive ecosystem classification systems, including that of the Society of Anierican Foresters. Very detailed work categorizing the ecosystems of the Ptacific Northwest has been done by the Forest Service, showing the need for more detailed consideration than was given in RARE.'
Other data collected included national population distributions and distanl.es from roadless areas to nearby units of the National Park or Wilderness systenl:s.
This quantitative phase of the RARE analysis, whatever its shortcomings, provided the objective basis for selection of Wilderness Study Areas. But the analysis had to be converted into a decision, and for this many criteria were tried and a few were chosen. (However, the criterion I mentioned earlier, of clarifying the issues in areas of existing controversy, was not one of th-s, considered.) The final selection criteria made one factor the one of overriding inI)ortance: the old, pre-analysis Regional Forester's recommendation. If an area had the recomlmendation, it almost certainly appeared on time selected list ; if it did not, it had to pass many very difficult hurdles."
Using the ecosystem data, for instance, seven areas were identified as being of particular value. Not one of those areas was selected.
The selection process consisted of a draft list of selected areas released in January 1973, followed by a period of public comment anl prepartion of a final list in October 1973. The Chief's office received a great deal of public comment ill this interim period, which can le partly summarized as follows:
One third of all input favored Wilderness Study status for all roadless areas.
Support for enlarging the Study List outnumbered support for reducing the list by a nine to one margin.
However, the final list of New Wilderness Study Areas was only enlarged in response to that input from 11 to 12.3 million acres, and that increase included 200,000 acres (approximately) which was committed to Wilderness Study by the primitive area reclassification program and had merely been overlooked in the first draft list. Both lists included not only "new" areas but also many areas already committed to study by Congressional directive or which were contiguous to existing primitive areas under study. These latter categories accounted for
5.9 million acres, nearly half the total.
The RARE study began as an attempt to identify the priority areas for further wilderness study, using criteria relating to the national perspective on Forest Service wildlands. It was to provide a "comprehensive analysis" "* of the National need for wilderness on Forest Service lands. (Additional areas would be deferred for study based only on "local and regional considerations".) In fact, the "comprehensive analysis" was discarded as a mechanism for choice and the final selection of areas was based on subjective judgments of agency personnel. Despite the handsomeness and thickness of the RARE document, the job remains to be done. We hope a small step is being taken today.
STATEMENT OF DENNIS W. BAIRD, CITIZENS FOR AMERICA'S ENDANGERED WILDERNESS
During the Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (RARE) program of 1973, the Forest Service received considerable criticism from the conservation conmunity for the haste, inaccuracy, flawed and arbitrary nature of the whole RARE program. Litigation on this issue under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was eventually filed by conservation groups. There evolved from this a recognition that the RARE program was never intended to be 100 percent complete and final, and that as a result, the millions of acres of roadless country not selected for Wilderness Study by the RARE program would have to receive a detailed, fair, and thoughtful new wilderness
1 Research Natural Area Needs in the Pacific Northwest, Pacific Northwest Range and. Experiment Station Report PNW-38. 1975.
12 The following discussion relies on the RARE Final Environmental Statement. '4 RARE Final Environmental Statement, p. 3. 15 Ibid.. P. 5.
16 Exhibit 6, attached.
con sideration through the land use planning process of each national forest. This new look was. and is. particularly necessary since the Forest Service had done nothing to adequately rectify some of the major problems of RARE pointed out to them by conservationists: a grossly inaccurate inventory of the roadless, caused by the haste of their initial evaluation, which caused a large amount of ro tdlless acreage to be totally missed; and the arbitrary and often capricious sii(ldivision of large single roadless areas into several numbered subunits-all of whiNch were then treated as independent, unrelated areas in the RARE process ( t(rnied "fragmentation" by conservationists). Citizens had great hopes that a thoughtful and highly professional land use pIn dining effort by the various national forests would serve to rectify these many faults, and would properly and fairly consider the potential wilderness values of the millions of roadless acres not selected by RARE.
Unfortunately, this has not proven to be the case, and what ought to have been 81 orderly and unl)iased look at the question of roadless areas has become a nightmare of chaos, misdirection, and litigation, fraught with a mind-boggling a, array of problems, all of which bring into serious doubt the ability of the Forest Service to fairly and objectively consider the disposition of America's small remaining treasure of roadless areas. Using as many examples as I can (althoi-gh drawing only a tiny portion of the dismal array of potential examples), I hope below to point out some of the worst of these problems.
Starting with an initially hurried and sloppy effort to locate and inventory all areas still roadless, a process which turned out to have missed thousands of i(,res of roadless land, many national forests then proceeded to assume that the 19)73 RARE program was the definite study. As a result, many land use plans were then prepared without any more attention given to identifying accurately what lands were essentially undeveloped. In the South Fork Salmon River Planning Unit of the Boise and Payette National Forest, Idaho, several thousand acres were missed in this fashion, yet even the Regional Forester declined to act on reports that such areas were overlooked, and it was only through a long and difficult appeal to the Chief of the Forest Service that the question received any review at all. A similar situation exists on the Warren Unit of the Payette Nalional Forest, and both the Warren and South Fork plans are now being done over agail.
Elsewhere in Idaho. the land use planning process "missed" 63,765 acres, which were later found by conservationists, but the problem of poor inventory is not confined to Idaho. Some 40.500 acres of Washington's Gifford Pinchot NF has now also been found to be roadless, but much more still has not been inventoried. A similar situation exists on the Snoqualmie N.F. in the same state. Worse still, several timber sales have actually been completed (Red Mtn., Siskiyou N.F., Oregon and Lost Creek, Snoqualmnie N.F., Washington) in areas that were roadless and prisitine, but which somehow were "overlooked" in the inventory process. Such areas could hardly be said to have received a fair and undi sed look at their wilderness potential, and they are now, of course, gone.
The Chief of the Forest Service, in August 1974 (Exhibit 1) recognized that there may have been "a few inadvertent omissions or errors" in the original RARHE inventory process, but few forests have pjid serious attention to his direellve requesting them to identify such omissions. Indeed, Region Four (in which are located the Idaho forests with major inventory problems mentioned earlier in my testimony). told its Forest Supervisors in June of 1974 that:
"We believe R-4's inventory of roadless areas was comprehensive, and few circumstances such als noted above will be encountered." (Exhibit 2.)
The same region however, in June of 1976, had to eat those same words, who~ it admitted :
*"In our various planning efforts, our failure to recognize roadless areas which were not included in the original RARE inventory has been a continual source oI embarrassment. Of even greater concern is the increasing number of appeals by various wilderness and environmental organizations due to our failure to r(eo(,nize such a, reas." (Exhibit 3.)
Thus it can he fairly said that a large amount of roadless acreage is not only not receiving the thoughtful wilderness evaluation that it deserves, but has
In the Landmark Planning Unit.
not even been recognized as being roadless, and when pressed on this issue, the worry of the Forest Service has not been over that wilderness values have been lost, but instead, over how much trouble the error is going to cause them. Fewv citizens could have much faith in the agency after this type of record has been developed.
FRAGMENTATION OF ROADLESS AREAS
The often artificial subdivision and fragmentation of roadless areas perpetrated in RARE has been, despite assurances to the contrary by the Chief, continued and repeated. Rather than conducting any overall evaluation of the many large combined roadless areas, Forest Service planners have continued to look at separate segments as if they were isolated cases, and in some cases proceeded to divide these roadless areas into different planning units, producing, in effect, subdivision of subdivisions. One of the classic (if that is the right word to describe it) examples of this iliconceived fragmentation is the case of the 450,000 acre Gospel-Hump Roadless Area, located north and south of the Salmon River on the Nez Perce and Payette National Forest, Idaho. This vast and lovely roadless area, an ecological whole by any standard, has been subdivided and re-subdivided, by standards probably comprehensible only to God, into a total of seven roadless areas and nine planning unit, producing a display which, when mapped, resembles a jumbled mess more than anything else. There are also numerous examples of such planning unit elsewhere in the west. Large roadless areas in the Siskiyou's and Red Butte areas of California were divided into multiple planning units. On the Gifford Pinchot in Washington, the Lewis-Shark Rock Roadless Area was divided first into four roadless areas, and then into four more planning units. In Montana, the McGregor-Thompson area was divided into two planning units, the Saphires into three, and Mt. Henry into three units. In none of these cases was convincing evidence shown that any serious look was being taken at the overall potential of the entire contiguous roadless area, and on the too-numerous cases of fragmentation on the Payette and Boise Forests in Idaho, subdivision and fragmentation seem to have been the prelude to elimination of significant roadless areas. The arbitrary and seemingly senseless nature of much of this fragmentation has led to an increasing loss of faith in the ability of the land use planning process on the national forests, and has led us to a point where only Congress seems capable of providing the badly needed remedy.
NO REAL CONSIDERATION OF WILDERNESS
One of the other critical shortcomings of the land use planning process derives directly from RARE. Some forest planners appear to have decided that if the area was considered and not selected in RARE, then that was proof enough to them that the area was not suitable for Wilderness Study, and that they needed give no further consideration to the matter. The record of land' use planning to date, a process which has identified pitifully few new Wilderness Study Areas, would seem to confirm this point of view.
Still other forests have insisted on using arbitrary and subjective Quality Index and Effectiveness/Cost evaluation systems for roadless areas-systems which were at their best very inaccurate and vague guides with which to do evaluations of individual areas.
In many cases, the total consideration given to wilderness potential in a land 'use plan has been a simple regurgitation of the flawed and hastily assembled RARE data. The Umpqua (Oregon) National Forest's plan for the Williams "Creek-Coungar Bluffs roadless areas and the Siskiyou N.F. (Oregon) plan for MNt. Butler-Dry (Creek are two of many ]and use plans that follow this route, failing even to reconsider the numbers provided by the RARE process, preferring to accept them as gospel truth. The Gifford Pinchot Fore-st's Upper Lewis River Land Use Plan similarly repeats all the old RARE numbers, occasionally discussing- the merits of the roadless areas with the plan, but never revising the basic evaluation provided by the RARE numbers. z
Some unit plans have attempted a newer, and presumably more thoughtful evaluations of the roadless areas' wilderness potential. The Rainy Day plan of Idaho's Nez Perce Forest and Elk Summit on the Clearwater (in Idaho too) both include such a reevaluation. with the latter plan actually showing an increase in wilderness quality. Yet all these reevaluations have been done using the same system as used in the original RARE process, rather then any form
of detailed and objective system which would have given these areas the fair look they deserved. Ironically though, flawed as this system has proved to be, its results have been largely ignored by the Forest Service, especially in those cases where the numbers seem to show that the area should receive a Wilderness study. Remembering that there are existing wilderness areas with a Quality Index of only 82, we still find that even after land use planning has been completed, areas like Elk Summit in Idaho (Quality Index: 148) and WenahaTucannon in Oregon and Washington (QI: 166) are still not slated for a Wilderness study. The fact that many existing Wilderness Areas, all of them places of great beauty and serenity, have low Q1 numbers by Forest Service standards, raises real questions about the utility of this system, and the fact that the Forest Service has tended to disregard results of the system's use that tend to be "adverse' to them (i.e., tend to favor anything but timber harvest), both combine to force even the most friendly observer of this evaluation system to doubt its value. To rely on it exclusively, as many land use plans continue to do, seems foolishness of the highest order.
The simple fact is that detailed consideration of the wilderness merits of an area continues to be uncommon in Forest Service land use plans. It can be done though, in those cases where agency planners seem committed to good planning. Compare, for example, the kind of detailed description and evaluation of the Colonel Bob Roadless Area (Quinault Planning Unit, Olympic N.F., Washington) with the kind of brief and perfunctory consideration of roadless, areas for the Kettle Range Planning Unit, Colville N.F., Washington-less than 11/2 pages.
Serious as these concerns about the evaluation system are, of equal concern Is a growing belief on the part of conservationists that the agency simply is not playing the game by the rules, and that decisions preceeding the start of land use planning are dictating the conclusions of the plan itself. Much of this concern revolves around the fact that many units have had very large timber sales planned for them, far in advance of land use planning-sales often located in the heart of roadless areas that the land use planning process is intended to fairly and honestly evaluate. Often thousands of dollars of timber sale preparation and engineering money has been invested in such sales (the Honker Sale, MNlill Creek Planning Unit, Nez Perce N.F., Idaho, is a good example), and only the most naive would believe that a new or honest consideration is being given to the wilderness potential of such areas-the prior investment has doomed them. Similarly, these are cases of large and expensive bridges crossing rivers, only to dead-end at the edge of a roadless area-no difficulty in guessing what will happen next there, or in the other cases where wide, surfaced roads end abruptly at roadless area boundaries. Finally, conservationists have noted alarming similarities between the fates of roadless areas after the land use planning process has been completed, and the presumed fate of such areas in the often old (manytimes pre-NEPA) Timber Management Plans for the same area. Either these Timber Plans have a remarkable ability to predict the future, or much of the land use planning process for roadless areas must be viewed as a joke.
The California Region of the Forest Service has been especially cavalier in its disregard of any fair, honest, or unbiased look at roadless lands. The its disregard of any fair, honest, or unbiased look at roadless lands. The Regional Forester, in a November 4, 1976 memo to all supervisors concerning timber harvest estimates and allocations for 1980, flatly told the Supervisors that in the sale preparation assumptions, they could assume that:
"Non-select roadless areas will become available for management at the rate of 100,000 acres per year or one half the area by 1980. The Forests with this area should assume their proportionate share." (Exhibit 4.)
I-low then, could anyone in California assume that roadless areas there will be evaluated in any fair fashion, knowing now that Supervisors have been ordered to plan for the elimination by 1980 of at least half of all such areas? And under these conditions, how could any Supervisor make a claim of honesty about his evaluations of such areas?
The facts are fairly clear-the cards are already stacked against roadless, areas and the Forest Service is operating under criteria that negl.ect any realI study of the merits of this or that roadless area, criteria than can only favor development of roadless areas for timber. It is this background which clearly
explains th truly bizarre logic of planning unit statements like this n
Curtis Lake Rotadless Area. 6.750 acres. "Coin n erci al timber is only in scattered patches. Resource development is considered marginal. Reconimenda-
tion: Resource development" From: South Fork Salmon River Land Use 'lan Boise and Payette N.F., Idaho. Jan. 1977.
It is also clear that if logic is to prevail, the Congress will surely have to intervene and play an umpire role. The Endangered Anierican Wilderness Bill is a superb start.
LUMPING AREAS TOGETHER
Another problem which has also developed is the so-called "lumping" problem. It was not enough to just subdivide some roadless areas, but in many cases, the planning process has evaluated jointly different roadless areas miles apart and of different character and value. This was done by considering in the land use plan only one alternative providing any form of Wilderness Study-that one including all the roadless areas, with all the other alternatives considering no areas for Wilderness Study. Thus the only alternatives considered were studying either all or none of the roadless areas, either extreme proving to be unfair and unrealistic in many cases. In planning units where the qualities of different roadless areas vary considerably and citizens are particularly interested in one of these areas, this lumping together deprives both the (itizens and the Forest Service of the ability to honestly evaluate a particular roadless area on its own merits.
As with other problems, there are a host of examples for this one. Only two alternatives are offered in the South Boise-Wood River Plan (Boise N.F.. Idaho). and only one of these considers the 506,000 roadless acres at all-and then all ten inventoried roadless areas, in six non-contiguous groups, are given the all or nothing treatment. Not one alternative provides for, for example, studying the best of them for wilderness, or even just part of the best.
The five roadless areas in the Wallowa Valley Planning Unit ("Wallowa-Whitman N.F., Oregon) also appear as potential Wilderness Study Areas only in Alternative B (which was naturally not selected), all to get a study, even though they are not all connected, and are different in character. The other alternatives presented provide for the study of one of the areas. Many other plans on other national forests have also pressed this unrealistic all or nothing approach, with plans offering a wide range of alternatives being less common than they ought to be. (Mount Henry is another case.)
LACK OF SUFFICIENT DATA
It is, or certainly ought to l)e, a "given", that before any type of land use planning goes forward, the Forest doing the planning should first have accumulated a very substantial level of basic resource knowledge-knowledge covering geology, soils, wildlife, hydrology, timber type and quality, to name just a few. When substantial and lovely roadless areas are involved, the need for such base data is even more critical, since the decisions being made are irreversible, and since no plan can be better than the data on which it is based, conservationists have been careful to examine carefully this aspect of land use planning. The results of this scrutiny have been disconcerting.
All too often, rather than working to improve its planning and to gather the necessary data not now available, the Forest Service tries to steam roller ahead. completing blatantly inadequate plans and, in effect, covering up their lack of the rudimentary data that sound planning would require.
These are strong words, I know, but the thousands of hours I've spent involved in battling plans in north Idaho forests with just such flaws have made me. unfortunately, an "expert" on the question of inadequate data. Let me cite just one example.
At issue is the Gospel-Hump Roadless Area, approximately 450.000 roadless and wild acres. located chiefly on the Nez Perce National Forest. in north central Idaho. I spend a great deal of my volunteer time working with the Nez Perce Forest on this issue, which has now dragged on for several years. I have met repeatedly with the Forest Supervisor, the District Rangers, the planners and various staff people .1 have personally reviewed each land use plan coverin- the Gospel-Hump Roadless Area (unfortunately it takes several plans to cover it). making constructive public input on the basis of careful research and a good knowledge of the area in the field.
In reviewing plans for this vast area, one of the largest unprotected areas in the west, I have been absolutely appalled by the lack of fundamental resource data on which to base the kinds of development decisions (and most units done so far commit roadless areas to development) the Forest Service is seeking to
make for the Hump region. At first I assumed that they had the data, but merely had not reproduced it in the unit plans as a matter of convenience. However, I now know better, and I will just limit my talk here to the absence of two kinds of data-wildlife data and soils data.
The Gospel-Hump Roadless Area is a wildlife paradise, with large populations of game and non-game species present and thriving. The sections in land use plans on wildlife have been short and brief, with an occasional map purporting to show areas of critical habitat for a handful of the species present. Many species weren't mentioned at all, and for those that were, data on population and movement patterns was not provided. Amazingly, the files of the Forest Supervisor were found to contain little scientific data to support even the pathetic amount of "data" that did appear in the plans. In fact, conservationists quickly discovered that the Nez Perce Forest really knew very little about the wildlife of this large area, an area of which they had already slated a large proportion of which for development.
The Supervisor's response to concerns about this problem has been to claim that he knew enough about the area's wildlife to allocate munch of it to timber. This is an opinion shared by no wildlife biologist, and I am submitting for the hearing record a Statement of Reasons' concerning two of the Gospel-Hump land use plans, which contains statements b~y several biologists from other government agencies supporting the views I have just expressed. Senator Frank Church, to his considerable credit, has already promised help in securing funds to help rectify this problem of lack of wildlife data, but even were the funds (at least $250, 000) available today, at least four years of study would be needed to provide the needed data. Meanwhile, the Nez Perce plunges on in its uninformed quest to commit large parts of Gospel-Hump to development.
The other problem area that I'd like to discuss is soil, the most basic and important of forest resources, and the very key to sustained yield forestry. In many parts of the mountain west, and over most of the Gospel-Hump area, soil types are very fragile and constitute the limiting factor in land management planning. Any plan worthy of the term "multiple use" must be founded on careful, thorough, and expert knowledge of the soils within the area for which decisions are being ma de.
We have learned of a report by the Regional Forester's office, which constitutes a review of tile quality of soils data available for the 'Nez Perce, National Forest. Our attempts to obtain a full copy of this report have been blocked by the Forest Siipervisor and the Regional Forester, and as a result, my attorney has instituted a Freedom of Information Act appeal to the Chief of the Forest Service to obtain full disclosure of this important document. I can quote a part of it to you today. Remember, this report was produced by the Regional Soils .Scientist in order to establish the "quality of the information base (on soils) presently existing on the Nez Perce National Forest. The report was produced less than six months ago, so it is very current. H-ere is just an excerpt:
"The lack of documentation of basic assumptions and collection of field and laboratory data is a growing problem which has ramifications for the future. The Environmental Protection Agency has requested the data files supporting inventories and their interpretations on planning units, such as Mill Creek. These are not challenges but are requests to provide assistance in developing their mid~erstafding- of the logic involved in developing unit plans. Lack of the ability to Supply this basic data could result in future challenges of the Forest Service planning process. A dependence on intuitive j'mdgment for resource management interpretations will not satisfy E.P.A. nor will it stand the test of any ftuire court action.
A review of present mapping indicates single purpose surveys were made in some areas to meet short-term resource planning goals. Mapping units in single Ilurpos4e surveys usually cannot be extrapolated, reevaluated or redesigned to suit other objectives or for use in multiple resoirce inventories.
Tlhes( o inventories cannot be correlated nor do they meet the standards establislied' in the Re--ion Land Inventor-, Guide nor Soil Taxonomy. rhelse inventories will have difficulty withstanding the technical scrutiny of the scientific community and will not be able to withstand court action involving Environmental impact Statements."
Since these are the conclusions of government soil scientists, it is little wonder that I'm having to threaten legal action to obtain a simple copy of this full report, which was prepared with my own tax dollars.
From what I have said so far, I hope that it will be apparent to the Committee that the conservation groups have invested a great amount of time, moncy, sweat, and love in reviewing the land use planning process of the Forest Service. What we have found has caused Iprofound dismay, and has led us to propose the legislation now before you. Interestingly enough, much of the timbier iIldustry in the west is also convinced of the erratic and unscientific nature of Forest Service land use planning.
The following comments on Forest Service planning come from a recent booklet of the Western Environmental Trade Association, a timber industry organization :
"Unfortunately. there is no uniform set of planning procedures to follow, there are no standards or goals to measure land use decisions, there a ppeairs io he no overall coordination of the National Forest planning effort, y I i 'iiortant far-reaching decisions are being made daily for the future uses of your pulblie lands." (Exhibit 6.)
The Forest Service has been sadly deficient in reviewing the quality of its own work. In fact. except through the legal appeals process, the a-eney has doio little in the way of serious review. The fact that a remarkalble numb er of land use planI appeals to the Chief by conservation groups have been su> t ined(l ( e.g., Elk Summit. Warren. South Fork Salmon in Idaho. Mt. Tenry in Montana. etc.) have been sustained offers good argument that a better kin'd of review is in order.
In one remarkable document prepared by Region 2, a level of review ,was attempted. I am inserting this document in the hearing record (Exhibiit 7) hiut will summarize it here by stating that it recognizes that the statements (Environmental Impact Statements accompanying land use plans) are "particularly weak" in the following areas: economics, analysis of alternatives, objectives, selection of alternative, and interrelationships with other lands. The review goes on to conclude that "data gaps in social, economic, and natural elements are signiticant," and that "the EIS process is not always being used as a part of the decision making process but rather is implemented to meet a requirement or as a shield against criticism."
The record of abuse in the Forest Service land use planning process is a long and very sad one, and the point has now been reached where, unless Congress takes action now, significant roadless resources. all of them increasingly rare, will be unwisely sacrificed for extremely insignificant amounts of timber. A small number of additional exhibits are being appended to demonstrate various elements of bias in the land use planning process, and to illustrate with maps and EIS excerpts various points made in this testimony.
Mr. Scorr. The upshot of this is that wilderness areas are not receiving acceptable consideration, and the controversy is up instead of down.
It is against that background that Dr. Cutler has launched an effort of reform-and we all understand that that is what it is-to find a way to make roadless area decisions that can be accepted and which will resolve controversy instead of extending it.
Therefore. we applaud the basic goals of the RARE II program. We commend Dr. Cutler and his colleagues for it.
If this program can help correct the seriously inadequate inventory of RARE I-and it has-then that is a positive step to help avoid future controversy, appeals, and petitions to Congress.
If this program can improve on the quality of information and data which has been available in analyzing roadless areas in tradeoff, in the planning process, and in the setting of RPA goals. that will help in)prove the quality of those decisions-and that is commendable.
If this program can provide some consistency in the standards and procedures with which the Forest Service evaluates roadless areas, then that will help resolve the controversies which have arisen from glaring inconsistencies.
If these are things which RARE II can improve, then we support that, but there are some things RARE II has no promise of improving
as they are presently defined. Therein lies the seeds of future major c( )ltreit 'sO V OVr roadless areas.
To put it bluntlv. IZARE II promises no serious improvements in rte way roadless lands are being evaluated right now, today, in land use plans that are inow at the printers. and which will be issued week after week after week during the coming months on the western nat ional forests.
Every week more of these plans are being finished. As a general rule, Ile most recent ones-which we have reviewed in detail-just extend tihe pattern of consistency in inadequate evaluation.
We have been advised and admonished to put great store in an improved land planning process that was mandated by section 6 of the National Forest Management Act passed last year. Under regulations which are now under preparation under that act, an improved quality of planning is much sought bv1 us.
We look forward to that generation of improved planning, but the roadless areas will not be around to benefit if some relief is not granted quickly to get the quality of planning improved right now.
The cold facts are that those regulations, the provision of that act, require only that improved quality of that planning be in place by tle 1inid-1980'I's.
We have documents from the regional forester in California who advis, that. in planning timber sales for 19 80), to assume half of the roadless areas are available to be cut. That means that decisions on the roadless areas will be made before the improved planning.
We are prepared to document case after case of current land use planing which simply will not stand up and, therefore, will not help to reduce the level of controversy. Therefore, as far as we understand it. this offers us no reason to see that these roadless areas will get a better deal because, as presently organized, these lands will simply disappear off of the RARE II inventory just at the time that they mighlt (et a better shake through the decisionmaking process.
Absent some general reform in wilderness decisions, there will not be a resting of the roadless area controversy as those plans are issued, but it will decrease.
We are prepared to discuss some positive sides of this point. We are prel)ared to discuss the timber issues. Tim Mahoney of the Wilderness Society is prepared to explain the significant breakthrough which was reached in region 2. particularly in Colorado where roadless areas have been able to be removed entirely from the allowable cut base without any reduction in the operating level of the local timber mills.
Kurt Kutay of the Wilderness Coalition is prepared to present details of his efforts and others in the Northwest who are doing landmark work on the question of tradeoffs between development of roadless areas and improved timber management which can enhance timber growth on lands not involved in roadless area controversies.
I would advise you to share our ideas. All of us are here to speak to our experience.
Here is a set of plans affecting one national forest in Oregon. This is the McLaughlin-Klamath Planning Unit. It was issued in April and is nearly ready to be finalized and approved.
There is no alternative in here for intensified management as a tradeoff to the other lands. We would hope that that had been considered in the limber management planning for that area.
Here is the timber management plan issed in Augusi. It contains no alternative having to do with the size of the timber base available. You cannot put thoe two documents together and make any rational conclusion about the possibility of having the best of both possible worlds-Imore intensive management of lands not subject to wildel(n controversy, and the wilderness preserved as well.
We think the planning system ought to begin to look not at issues that divide people, but at issues that bring people together, and that is one of them.
We welcome the prospect of this discussion to help clear the air. We welcome this opportunity to talk about balance in the multiple-use system of our national forests, to which we are committed.
We welcome this forum to seek mutually beneficial accommodation between the concerns of the timber industry and the concerns of many Americans who treasure their wilderness areas including those areas of wilderness which have vet to receive formal protection.
We seek a fair informed decision on these roadless areas. We believe the national perspective is entirely appropriate. We believe that the public involvement process should be encouraged and widened in scope to insure all of the American people who own these lands that they will have an opportunity to determine the future of them.
I am pleased to hear you talk of the Gospel-Hiump arrangement. Am one who negotiated with the chamber of commerce in that instance. I am proud to say that I think Gospel-Humup represents the reverse of the big myth that most of us see on this table.
We want to maintain the stability of the timber industry in that area. and we are seeking a solution for these kinds of problems.
If some tight situations are going to develop in the course of RARE II, let us identify those and get people involved in that local area to sit down together. It has worked in Idaho. It has worked in Oregon.
It would be a sorry admission and lack of foresight to conclude that people working together cannot resolve these issues. It would be a sorry admission of the failure of our imagination if we did not address ourselves to the constructive question: How can we maximize the preservation of America's treasured wilderness heritage in a balanced land use pattern that also enhances the other uses of our land and brings prosperity to the West and to the products which all of us depend on from our natural resources?
We are very hopeful about RARE II. We are very guarded in our optimism. We are here today to speak in that spirit.
Senator Cinui. Thank you very much. Doug.
You say you are hopeful about the end results of RARE II, hut that you are guarded in your optimism. You express, I think, the general view all of us are taking: that RARE II could produce what we are looking for.
Your prinicipal criticism dealt with examples of land use planning which you feel are not adequate. I think you hope RARE II will come out a lot better than RARE I and take into account the better methods of land use planning that will be applied.
I think we ought to hear from the forest products industry next. and then go to general questions.
Senator McCLuRE. May I make one comment at this point?
I do want to hear the other witnesses, but I might note in passing, Doug, you mentioned the unit planning process and forest base identification which was insufficient because it did not identify the opportunity for intensive management.
I will fully share that criticism. That is a point I have been trying to raise for a long while, as you know. There are those kinds of alternatives and tradeoffs available to us.
On the other side of that, at the same time, is the difficulty of writing a plan that fully considers the possible alternative, and I do not think it is possible for anyone to write a plan that someone cannot criticize because it did not go as fully into some area as might have been suggested.
B way of comparison on the amount of criticism, I might point out the Gospel-Hump compromise, with which you are very familiar as am I. It does not identify any intensive management practice as an alternative end, therefore, is subject to the same criticism.
I mention that only to illustrate the difficulty of creating any kind of agreement or plan that is not subject to valid! criticism by someone.
Mr. SCOTT. That is perfectly true, Senator. The people who negotiated that plan are not bound by the difficulties that attend the Forest Service in providing real alternatives. We found one that brought us together.
Senator MCCLurE. I am not certain of that justification, however, any more than to say that the Forest Service has greater difficulty and is subject to greater criticism.
Senator CiIuRcii. This means to me that there comes a time, no matter how the planning is done, when a decision must be reached in your plan to the Congress. There will then be public hearings that will give opportunity for everyone to criticize the plan, and for the Congress to make such alterations as may seem justified before giving it a final stamp of approval.
Kirk, I understand you are speaking for the industry.
STATEMENT OF R. KIRK EWART, DIRECTOR, INDUSTRY AFFAIRS,
BOISE CASCADE CORP., BOISE, IDAHO
Mr. EWART. Thank you Mr. Chairman. My name is Kirk Ewart. I work for Boise Cascade's operation in Boise, Idaho. I am acting as a spokesman briefly, this afternoon, for the National Forest Products Association and the gentlemen to my right as chairman of NFPA's roadless areas withdrawal task force, and I have a few remarks for the committee as they relate to RARE II.
Dr. Cutler referred earlier to a meeting held by him and Secretary Bergland, and representatives of the forest products industry some time ago where we attempted to explain to the Secretary and Dr. Cutler our concern over the impact of RARE I on the ability of the Forest Service to put through a meaningful timber sale program in the Northwest.
We explained these concerns using a map of the State of Idaho, and pointing out the literal paralysis that existed at the time, and still exists, because of the massing of roadless areas in certain portions of the State.
We pleaded that the land use planning process should be accelerated to free these areas for management. We pointed out that additional manpower would not resolve the problem in these areas of Idaho and elsewhere because the land base was crippled because of the overlay of RARE I.
We in the industry are basically pleased with the response Dr. Cutler and the Forest Service to our plea. We are somewhat, I miglt say, horrified by the aspect of RARE II which involves a change in the wilderness criteria used in creating the RARE II inventory of some 67 million acres of national forest land. According to the RARE II criteria, wilderness areas may now contain many activities of man which were forbidden in the past, suichl as roads of certain description, fence lines, certain radio transmisson equipment and so forth.
I cite. as an example, one roadless area in eastern Oregon through which passes a railroad track upon which rides the Antrak service from Boise to Portland. Therefore, we have a proposed wilderness area which is bisected by the main line railroad.
The railroad certainly does not. in my opinion, enhance the quality and solitude reqiiiremenits of wilderness. There are mnany other exanpies of that which we are prepared to show yon at a later date.
Senator Ciiuncm-. That particular example would seem to me to conflict with the clear provisions of the Wilderness Act against motorized vehicles.
M)r. EwART. Amtrak is somewhat normally on schedule. Assuming it is motor powered, I would agree with you.
Mr. EWArT. I have shown photographs of that to Mr. Smith so he is familiar with it, and I assume that will be one of the early fallouts.
Senator IATFIELD. You are basing that on Dr. Cutler's memorandum of interpretation of the Wilderness Act ?
Mr. EWAIIT. Yes.
Senator HATFIELD. I just wanted to identify the source of Amtrak going through the wilderness.
Mr. EWART. We are also concerned about the RARE II process as it relates to the Forest Service depending upon 22 meetings held to explain the RARE II process to the public. The number given to us recently was 17.000 people who attended the RARE II meetings which., in my opinion, does not nearly represent the 200 million-plus people of this country which the gentleman to my left happily points out are the owners and users of the national forest system.
We are also concerned that perhaps many of the other users of the national forest system were not truly represented in the RARE II input process, such as the mining industry, the livestock industry, and many of the other interests that represent organized labor in this country, which, as you all know, are totally dependent upon the national forests for their livelihoods.
We are also extremely concerned in the. RARE II process. No one can report to me that any of the public meetings identified the RPA process, the goal and assessment of the RPA program, which would enlighten those participating in those meetings as to the impact on the ability of the national forest system to continue to produce
(roods and services at the level projected in the assessment of the programi for the RPA which now exists as guidance to the Forest Service for future years' mana cement.
In other words. the RARE II program, in our opinion, is again becoming an example of planning from the ground up to determine the goals, iistead of planning in line with the goals established before us in the RPA assessment program.
There is now a 295- to 30-million-acre goal for the national forests' portion of the wilderness system. The RARE II process must be completed in light of that goal, in our opinion.
We do not think that the land use planning process is being accelerated or, in some instances, is being moved at all while the RARE II process is being operated in the national forests. I know the Chief's instruction to the regional foresters is to continue their planning process, but in fact, in the field, this is not occurring.
These field people have to do both jobs. They cannot do RARE II and land use plannings.
Also, gentlemen, we are concerned that this process will never arrive at a final solution. That concern goes beyond RARE II. The NEPA process and its accompanying environmental impact statements have shown us in the past that these processes never end.
There never seems to be a point where a plan can be implemented without appeals or litigation or other disruptive action.
We are concerned that 67 million acres of the National Forest System could be thrust into this never ending squabble of the enviromnental impact statement process which would lead to crushing social impacts not only on the forest products industry, but the wood consumers of this country who are right now, at this moment, in a price squeeze demand problem which has pushed the cost of homes beyond the reach of many.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that concludes our opening remarks. As we open this area for discussion. I am sure my colleagues will have many more enlightened comments.
Senator CHURCH. Thank you, Kirk.
There are two questions you raised in your remarks on which we should get a response from the Secretary. The first was whether the RARE II process takes into account the RPA goal of 25 to 30 million acres of wilderness within the national forests, or whether it is a process that establishes some new goal after all of the evaluations have taken place.
I think we need some answer to that question. It is a very important question.
Dr. CUTLER. Mr. Chairman, I will take a stab at it. I think I will probably pass the microphone to the Associate Chief of the Forest Service.
Of course, the RARE II process takes into account the current 1975 RPA program goal of 25 to 30 million acres for wilderness within the National Forest System. As I recall, the alternatives that were circulated as we developed the 1975 goal included a high level of 41 or 42 million acres.
The goal that was ultimately adopted or recommended was 25 to 30 million acres. The Forest Service is in the process now of distributing
questionnaire material to the Amerie Cn public upon which to develop its 1980 program.
It may well be on the basis of that input. Sulppl)!peieiinted by tihe iuformation we have obtained during the RARE 11. that we may 1m ake an amendment to the goal adopted for the 197,5 RPA program.
However, Mr. Chairman. I have no intention of Sl)pportingo ie r"ldically different goal for wildlerness within the National Wil(leriess Preservation System.
Recognizing that the national forest system is only one of four national public land systems that contribute to the National Wilderness Preservation System, there are many other uses to be served by tll(hese lands.
I would ask Rex Resler to contribute to this.
Mr. RESLER. Mr. Chairman, the RPA goals will have to be a controlling element in our planning process as we understand it now. Those goals may be changed, as D)r. Cutler pointed out, but oI the basis of a recommendation for a change Congress can either agree with or disagree with that recommendation, and we would then consider that as a controlling device in our planning process.
As you well know. the wilderness system can be expanded on t wo bases: No. 1, an executive initiative; and No. 2, by congressional initiative.
The problem we have encountered since we have completed the primitive area review has been a series of individual initiatives leading to additional studies and/or designations of instant wilderness.
We think it is appropriate at this time for this country to address the total wilderness system under a democratic process-lowere'ase "d." if you please-and try to make some judgments as to what the wilderness system ought to look like and all of the lands that may contribute to that process.
We would hope to be able to try to provide the kinds of information, working with the Department of the Interior, that would allow niot only the executive branch, but Congress. also, some means of providing us with a better guideline as to what we ought to be seeking in the national forest system component of this wilderness system.
In the event that the present RPA goals are not'changed for whlateverl reason-let me put it in the positive. In the event an amendment to the goals is proposed and Congress accepts it, we would use that as a planning guide for further recommendations to fill out that component of the wilderness system.
If it were changed to 30 to 35 million acres. as opposed to 25 to 30 million acres, we would use that figure in this entire process and come forward with that level of recommendation for the executive branch.
Senator CHRCi. Do you understand that answer?
Mr. EWART. Yes, sir.
Senator CHURaCH. The fact that the process never ends is another point that I think you made. Kirk.
My only answer to that is that one way to end it is with legislation. I do not know of any other way to cut off appeals and litigation that can extend out year after year.
Now comes the time for the free-for-all. I am sure that, by now, you gentlemen have many questions suggested by the previous p)resentations.
I invite you to make vouv own contribution now and get the discussion started.
Mr. CUNNIN(I[AME. Senator Church and members of the committee, I want to make a general comment on Mr. Ewart's statements wherein lwe indicated the industry is horrified at the wilderness criteria being applied to the inventory and further described RARE II as an example of planning from the. ground up, rather than, I presume, from the top down.
First of all, it seems to me that we are talking about the kind of planning process we have seen so far. This is a tremendous example of public involvements-the likes of which, on a national scale, I have never seen.
I think that this means we are g'oing to have more broad-based planning from the ground up, from the grassroots, from the people in tihe affected areas. I think nothing but positive benefits can come from this basic process.
I think it is really -premature to prejudge what RARE II is or what it would become. In a sense, we are only now completing the first stage, wich was basically an objective inventory to remedy the inadequacies of RARE I.
We are going to reserve judgment on the RARE II inventory until inid-October, until we see the final inventory list, but generally I think every indication is that these inadequacies are being remedied.
If anything, the industry should be pleased with the new roadless area definition criteria being applied to the inventory. Unless improvements are made, we are going to be bogged down and the process slowed down for years and years, and we are not going to see any remedy or the kinds of solutions people are talking about.
Therefore, with this first step being made in the right way with the past deficiencies appearing to be remedied now or to be remedied in the process, I think this is something we should all join together' in common support of with some degree of unanimity. This is going to help us all.
Your concern that the process will never arrive at a final solution, I think, is certainly a legitimate concern. We have no idea what the final output will be or how that will be implemented.
I feel that, to some extent, we might want to do a better job of defining the problem if we expect to come up with solutions. I don't have a definition for the problem, but I might ask a rhetorical question.
Is there really a need to find out the ultimate disposition of all 67 million acres in a very short period of time? A need does exist on some of these lands, but if we can-somehow limit the problem to what actually exists, then I think we will all be better off, particularly in those circmnstances such as the Gospel-Hump case where there are legitimate, serious, and important questions of community dependency-where solutions, answers, and decisions need to be made soon.
Therefore, I think a better definition of the problem is in order.
Senator McCLuRE. Do you imply by your rhetorical question that you feel there is not a need to identify the ultimate disposition of all of the needs?
Mr. CUNNINGHLA. I refer to that middle category referred to by Mr. Smith and Dr. Cutler, the areas that might require further study.
Senator MCCLURE. You are saying that there should be some blue and there should be some yellow, but there is perhaps no need to eliminate the green? It that correct.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No need, perhaps, to immediately eliminate that.
Senator MCCLURE. I do not disagree with that. There itlay be some unresolved questions, but there is an impact upon those areas which are designated for multiple use by the size of the unresolved acreage in the, middle. They are not neatly separated.
If you have a large area of unresolved questions, then that nmst inevitably get back to the question of: What is the allowable cut on the areas which have been leased for use?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. We need to identify those cases.
Senator CHURCH. I understand and agree with Mr. Cunningham's point that the most urgent cases, where the economic base of a given region might be directly threatened, ought to be the first to be considered.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. My point would be this: If you can use GospelHump as an example, you could resolve Gospel-Hump and you can release the sale; but if you are applying the same criteria which has been adopted in region 2 and which is being urged in other regions, then you will not solve the problem at all.
Even if you have released it, you cannot make the allowable cut on that area on an annual sales basis.
Senator CHURCII. That is true.
I am saying that you cannot reach a final decision on everything_ all at once, and we ought to start with priorities.
Mr. KUEHNE. I would like to know what your intended management would be for this green or study area following the completion of RARE II. How would you manage that area during the interim of the continued possibility of study?
Mr. SmITH. These would be the areas that would still be considered for the full range of the uses including wilderness. Until those areas pass through the landmanagement plan and are subjected to an environmental statement, they would be limited to those management activities, development activities, that would not foreclose or preclude their consideration for wilderness.
Those things which would change the character of the lands during that interim period of time, except for statutory rights, would not be permitted, as is essentially the case on the inventory of roadless area today.
Mr. KumNE. Would they continue to contribute to the allowable cut level?
Mr. Sm=rr. I think that is accurate to say. However, there has to be a time, if a decision is not forthcoming that this question be further considered. They cannot continue to contribute if they remain in a study or "hold" category. However, it has been our policy to continue to include these areas as part of the base for the other program activities, such as timber, range, or whatever.
Mr. RESLER. It would be our intent, as indicated, to allow the volume on those sites to continue contributing to the total program harvest level on the unit, provided it did not carry on for an extended period of time.
We are looking to 1983-1983 as the point in time at which we basically will have covered the national forest system with the land planning system. The problem is the same one that was indicated earlier. In some areas the level of activity has been such that if we continue the green areas for an indefinite period of time, the hydrological impact will be such that we will have to program timber harvest at a lower level.
If we cannot get the land allocation resolved in a reasonable period of time-which varies from one region and one forest to the nextwe will try to hold the land in the allowable harvest until those land use studies are completed.
Mr. KUEI.NE. My second question relates to a statement made by Mr. Smith regarding the wilderness in the blue selected areas, that it would probably be within the 25-million- to 30-million-acre RPA goal or whatever, and that the study area may not be.
Does that include the areas currently on the wilderness study list?
Mr. SMITH. The areas currently on the Chief's list would be expected to be the core of the blue. The candidates for immediate wilderness may not all necessarily be that way. We may not know enough about them, but certainly they would appear in that group.
They might also appear in the other groups as a part of this process, as a part of this decisionmaking process. They could occur in all three (Trollps as I see it today.
Mr. KUF'TINE. That would resolve whether those areas went into the harvest base at that time, when you make this final on the RARE II on the process-when you make that allocation.
Dr. CUTLERm. The status of areas selected by the Chief in RARE I is a whole new ball game.
Mr. KUE-INE. They are out of the timber harvest base in calculating that level. That would change them immediately upon completion of RARE II.
Mr. SMITH. That would have to be recalculated on the basis of what went into immediate proposals. Obviously, those should be withdrawn, I would think, and the remainder put back into the base but not necessarily programed for the reasons submitted.
Mr. KUEiiNE. I would like to make a couple of observations based on this green study area.
One is that certainly this area should be kept at the minimum possible, or else you are not resolving anything or any problem here that would not have been resolved with the completion of the unit planning process, probably.
The second is that there be consideration of an immediate timetable for completion of those, and if the areas were not added to the wilderness system within that timetable, that they be added to the yellow area and be returned to multiple use.
Has there been anv consideration of that?
Mr. RESLER. We have looked at that as a possibility. No decision has been made, yet, but we see two benefits.
No. 1, it would set an expressed time frame in which we would complete those decisions. Second, it would allow for planning for manpower and money to get along with that job.
As of now, roadless areas selected are not being treated. They are on the back burners.
Mr. KUEIINE. It seeins to me that if these are considered State by State and forest by forest, and an allocaiton plan comes ul) to Conrress, that Congress should consider possibly limiting the time under which that could remain in study at the time they consider those areas.
Otherwise, I do not ever foresee decisions being made on that study area.
Senator CHURC. Senator McClure and I were discussing the possibility at that point of legislation which might establish a time limit and prescribe a certain percentage of the land in that category would have to be moved out each year, so we would be sure they would move through that in a reasonable length of time.
Dr. CUTLER. In the testimony Monday night on the Endangered American Wilderness Act, we proposed that any areas established by Congress for wilderness study have a Sunset provision limiting the restriction to no more than 4 years. I assume that could be applied here.
Senator CHURCH. I favor time limits. I think that is an excellent suggestion, and one we should look into.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I think some of the frustration-at least of the older of us here-might be illustrated by the comment we heard from Mr. Scott to the effect that millions of acres qllalified under the terms of the Wilderness Act for classification as wilderness in the National Forest System, and were overlooked in RARE I.
I would like to remind Mr. Scott and any others younger than me that there was a very long battle in connection with the development of the Wilderness Act and, as a consequence, there did come about a piece of legislation which was developed and accepted rather generally-and we are among those who accepted it.
However, that description of the lands that were to be included in the national forest system did not include these lands that Mr. Scott has identified.
I would like to point out that Congressman Saylor, for example, said, "The wilderness preservation system can be established without affecting the economic arrangements of communities, counties, States or business enterprises since the areas are already withdrawn. There will be no withdrawal of timber lands on which lumbering operations depend."
Similarly, the leader of the Senate said, "The bill constitutes no threat to any legitimate economic interest. No one will be adversely affected by passage of the bill. It has been carefully drawn to give all possible protection to the economic interests of the west."
The Senate committee report said, "There will be no withdrawal of lands from the tax base of towns or communities, no withdrawal of timber lands on which lumber operations depend, nor any withdrawal of present grazing or mining rights."
However, when the Forest Service looked at the wilderness needs under RPA and solicited public input, they got a response that indicated, at page 602 of the program, "The public preference stems toward the resource systems, except wilderness."
What did the Forest Service do? They said, "We will have a modest increase." That modest increase was a doubling of the 1975 wilderness system in the National Forest System.
Now Dr. Cutler suggests there may be a modest increase and we are apprehensive.
One, final thing about this program. We are being impacted now in our timber sale programs by this IRARE II process. In California, before the RARE 11 limitations, we have had a reduction from a normal sale, of about 2.1 billion feet average over a 5-year period, 10 years ago, to 1.7 billion feet, this year.
I hiave printouts here from the regional office which show that there will he a drop off of 6.3 million feet in 1978, not from the 1.7 but from the planning program which is a little more than that.
In 1979, there will be a drop off of 153 million board feet in the sales program.
This is the intolerable consequence of the mess we are in, and we do need some help.
The committee of scientists appointed under RPA, as amended, is at work today in the St. Paul and will be, tomorrow and the next day. They are going to come up with a planning approach that will lead to some beneficial results, but the idea that we may have a 4-year sunset provision is not encouraging.
We need something more quickly to meet the needs of these communities.
Senator CHURCH. I think the 4-year sunset provision was suggested in connection with the land denoted in green for which no definite decision can be made at the close of the RARE II evaluation next yearjust for that land so that it will not remain in the study category indefinitely.
We are trying to get what you want, moving this thing along.
Senator MCCLU-RE. I have this concern and I should express it.
Whiile it looks good to have all of these unresolved issues in the land base for the calculation of allowable cut, when the ultimate decision is made the entire impact of that decision will be felt then.
I am not certain that that is in anybody's interests, let alone the timber industry's interest, to postpone the day of reckoning and take it all in one big dose.
Mr. EILINGER. I would like to make a couple of comments, throw figures around, discuss things, and bring it down to a few "for instances" to show what is happening, and also to show what our concern is from the standpoint that I feel we are on a train on which we do not know where the engineer is going and does not know where the station is that we are going to get to.
I listened to the environmental group yesterday. Over in the House, they talked with reference to 1979, 1980. We have talked about 4 years. We have talked with reference to the litigation, Congress solving the problem.
Mr. Scott here has amply described what lie considers to be a total lack of quality in the planning procedure under RARE I.
Now, the people who are going to plan RARE II are the people who planned RARE I. The same people are going to be out there in the field. They are going to do the same thing. We are not going to have instant brilliance or instant competence. wC7
We are going to deal with real people in the real world to get this job done.
In essence, as far as I can look at it from our side, if there is something as a side in this, but from where I see it it is that the basis an1d ground work is here for continuing litigation, He, in essence, htis thrown down the gauntlet.
He has put what we would all have to consider if you are dealil.2' with people, and people are imperfect. He has said he, ca nnot accept thie quality of work we have had before, and that we have to have some magic increase in quality and so on. That never existed before.
WXe also have to take a program that is a lot smaller in size and make it bigger. Lehvsmting here that I see no end to from an operating stnpoint.
I would like to throw out a few examples of what RARE 11 meant. Here is one. Here is the Caribou National Forest. I ami shiowing- vyou pictures. Too bad you cannot see the green underneath. The green is largely colored by red and blue.
The blue was the original roadless area of RARE I. This one down here that is speckled was a candidate for wilderness. Red represents RARE II. That forest is blocked out effectively until RARE 11 is resolved.
Zero. At Afton, Wyoming, they are not going to get any timber. They are down to the bare bones. There is no way to end the process once the process has started.
I asked Dr. Cutler--double our pleasure. double our fun. Just like Shakespeare, I asked Dr. Cutler, and he doubled our toil and trouble.
Let's go over into Wyoming. We are talking about people and jobs. Here is another one. Look -at the blue and look at the red. Saratoga, Wyo. This is the biggest hunk of wood right there. It is blocked out now. All the sales for the next fiscal year-the fiscal year coming and thereafter, the layout has been done, the roadwork has been done-all down the tube.
The Forest Service says, "We have no money to do this. We can get barely enough timber sales up as it is." How can we put all that down the tube and expect these people to have a normal timber sale program?
These are the kinds of things that concern us.
I have a letter from the Arapahoe National Forest which shows the same thing. These are the problems that mean a town where the people will be out of jobs, a mill will be down. We talk of 67 million acres rather glibly. We talk about millions of dollars. When you get down to millions, that is not so bad.
Sixty-seven million acres, that is the whole State of Wyoming and then some. It is nine Eastern'States.
When we took out the 7 or 8 million by draft environmental statements, we put 20 million back. I think we were doing that bad under RARE I. Maybe we are doing pretty good. At least we reduced it. That goes down from 55 to 47 million.
Then I listened to Zane, and he said maybe we only had 10 percent on each side, so in RARE 11 we may have a net 52 result when we only had a net 47 when we started. V
The whole problem is that von have grot to get it down to the real world. Mills are going out of business. In this process, ouce froPS Inw. one goes then; it does not make any big clatter, but they don't come back.
We have our problems today. Somewhere somebody has to be concerned about what is happening on Main Street, what is happening in the real world of people who have jobs, homes, families, and aspirations.
It is not going to be done the way we are doing it now--appeal after appeal after appeal. I know somebody said they were going to tout what was done in region 2. The agreement was reached there taking the roadless areas out of the allowable cut. It (lid not hurt a thing.
It would be an unmitigated disaster for any other region. The only reason it worked there at all was that we have never been able to get funding for over -50 percent of the available cut. When you have only 0-0 percent of the allowable cut, hell you can make all kinds of concessions without hurting a real business.
However, try to expand a business and put out investment and create more jobs to utilize timber better-with the kind of thing going on here no individual in their right mind would even consider it.
That, is myspeh
Senator sALPech. Chairman, could I make a comment?
You got close to my turf.
MNr. El-INGER. I thought I would.
Senator WALLOP. I share the concern you have expressed. I have to say. Dr. Cutler. there has been no Federa ciiyta a vrbe undertaken that has done more to generate an antiwilderriess sentiment in Wyoming than IRARE 1I, and I think it is a tragedy. We have areas in that State-but you talk of public participation. The greatest public participation that has ever been undertakenf rankly, the people of my State participated in growth to their utter f rustration.
The maps they were presented with were not, colored. Their ability to make comment was totally restricted. The Forest Service was unp~repared,~ even with sufficient numbers of uncolored maps, to receive comment.
They were then told that whatever comment they made had to be on a specific basis which made it virtually impossible for the average citizen to go down there, ,get a Forest Service map, Icolor it himself, and make specific comments in order to be received.
Therefore, the public is extremely cynical about that.
I have good timber. The Bridg-er-Teton Forest is down to less than 40 days' supply of timber, and they are carrying it 180 miles. The town of Afton and others in the area have gone clown the tube, and there is absolutely total f rustration. People cannot get an answer.
I am expressing my own frustration because there are areas in Wyoming which should become wilderness, but I would not dare mention it and I do not know anyone else in the State who would right now.
I think it is a tragedy.
I have a timber operator on the west side of Big Horn Mountain who has been operating there a long time. He said he was allowed to go on bidding. His cut was the same. The only trouble was that he was going on the other side of the mountain to compete with GeorgiaPacific.
lie has to cgo 60 miles, up, and on the other side of the mountain to compete and bid for timber up there in areas that have roads in them. That is what frustrates them.
They are shown on the maps, yet they are in roadless areas and the roads are shown on the maps.
I am happy that Senator Church is holdings tis meeting. I am sure_, we will get some real sense of the real world. Frankly, it has done the environmental movement in Wyoming the single greatest damage of which I can conceive. It is a tragedy.
It has coalesced other forces that have been totally supportive into total hostility. In addition, by reducing timber operations within ily State to such a drastically smaller area to try to keep everybody's cut uip somewhere close to the environmental impact of that policy, it is 100,000 times more serious than it would be if we were operating just on a general level in the forests of the State.
One hundred thousand may be somewhat of an exaggeration, but the impact of reducing these cuts to a smaller area in the State, (a) makes it much more visible and, therefore, much more controversial for those who do not like it in the first place; and (b) it is destroying any kind of logical management plan for those Forest Service, borders.
You have concentrated cuts, then. When this is all done, there will not be any viable ongoing timber economy in those areas because it will be concentrated for too long a period of time in too small an area. Those forests are going to be environmentally damaged.
I think, from the standpoint of our people, we have to have some iininediate resolution.
Senator CHURCH. Senator, it is because we are concerned about this problem that we are here, that I sponsored-along with some of the other Senators at this table-the bill that just passed the Senate to restore traditional bidding practices to help small mills in dependent communities.
We are trying to help, and trying to do it in any way that will enable us to reach decisions that everyone can identify and that will not be subject to endless appeal, litigation, and the rest which keeps the forest tied up for years to come.
Mr. EWING. I know we are all here looking for a solution to the same problem. I think we all agree that the solution must be expedited. I think we all agree that the Forest Service and the Secretary have very strong intents and purposes. of establishing RARE II's to get these problems resolved wherever they might be.
I would like to throw out a couple of comments which I hope are constructive criticisms.
I recognize that there is a need to identify roadless, areas. We may have differed with the specs in arriving at those roadless areas, but whenever you are in a planning stage you have to have a good inventory, whether it is timber, wilderness, or what.
'We have developed an inventory through this questionnaire. 'We might differ with the specs, but you have to have something to start with. You cannot make a good evaluation if you do not have that as a base.
I like the things that the people in Zane's shop are involved withthe ecosystems, the proposals for the national preservation system needs-but I am disappointed in several aspects I would like to bring out here that I think we should take a look at. Z
It appears to tell me that I have a responsiblity to use as many Forest Service lands as possible to fill those little graps in your wheel.
1 think you missed something in there when you said the total wilderness preservation needs without bringing in the needs for other agencies t o help fill those gaps. I do not think that was y our intent. I have not~ seen any input-and this is specifically directed to the Secretary-by this agency, and specifically the Secretary, in his presentations, on the proposed legislation whereby he evaluated those areas you propose as wilderness. You did not evaluate those, how they fulfill this ecosystem distribution as you propose.
I assume you have had to for some time. I think that is something that should have been done before this total wilderness concept is c omip1let ed.
We 1,ll1 know that, years back, we had a lot of problems with lots of fires. We tried to figure out, how do we put out those fires? How do we get people conscious of them? WXe did a fine job of proposing Smokey the Bear. I know it did not come out overnight. I bet there were 10,000 different ideas, and you all differed as we do now.
I think it is helpful that we get together and try to straighten out some of these things. The thing that is worth doing is trying to evaluate what -we do in these areas.
One part of the Forest Service Agency that is doing a fine job is in developing the wheel where you put up your chart. I am not criticizing your guidelines, seeing what you have done here and the need to fill those gaps.
I am dismayed that the Forest Service, as a multiple-use agency, does not consider all the RPA goals that are needed for all needs simultaneously.
As indicated yesterday, this looks like a unicycle to me. I do not see. any other wheels. I was referred to the part down below, which is your regional analysis and which shows your tradeoffs versus your wilderness.
I recognize that, but I recognize the way this graph is set up that when you look at those tradeoffs it still gears the man on the ground to look at those tradeoffs and how he can fill one gap, a gap for one. need-wilderness.
I think you have to have a wheel for every use, and you have to have all these wheels and examine them simultaneously. In other words, you have to have this matrix down below that examines all of these things, but you still have to have these wheels for all of these uses and recognize there are gaps as indicated because we do not have an unlimited land base as indicated yesterday.
Senator McCLURE. I have asked staff to put up another chart which hears on the question you raised: What does the chart show in regard to the contribution of the other agencies?
Maybe you should not have the Forest Service's inventory up there, in the middle. It ought to be the boxes on the left, out there in the middle.
Mr. ScoTT. Senator. I would like to respond to the spirit of what Arnie juist said. I think those came across as very constructive. comments.
I think we can have very considerable agreement between us on a number of those thincrs.
It seems to me that the difference I hear between the two sides of this table ,,t the moment is that every body wants to do something to
the process. These gentlemen over here want to accelerate the process and they want to improve the process, and I am not sure those two goals are necessarily inconsistent.
We talk about the RPA. tradeoffs and the possibility of expanded RPA goals. I am looking at page 652 of the RPA program sent up to Congress last year. I find the distinction between a goal of 28.5 million acres of national forests wilderness and 41.2 million acres of national forests wilderness-that is, alternative four and alternative five in the program-shows the tradeoff of that as arrayed under the median of 28.5, the timber sale offerings would be 146.6 and under the high wilderness goal of 41.2, a considerable increase in acreage-the timber sale offered under that alternative will also be 146.6, precisely the same.
A broad question which gets lost in these national goals is: Can we have our cake and eat it, too? Are there ways to address a process to this question that can say, in any particular case-a% small community highly dependent in the State of Wyoming or one of the timber shedts in the State of Oregon where there are serious problems, or in Idaho County where we have had experience with this. Is there some way we can sit down and come to some resolution that intensifies the production of the lands for that purpose, and save the wilderness important to people and meet some of the multiple uses?
You say the process you have does not allow us to look at the answer that satisfies everybody. It says you gentlemen are going to have to choose between our side and their side.
I think there is a way to revise this procedure to simply get some data out that show us how to do both. It may not work in every case. In somec ases we are going to have to come to decisions that will not make everybody happy.
We talk about 20 percent solutions with 80 percent unresolved. Impossible. We got 100 percent of the solution on the north side of the Salmon River. On the south side of that river, we tried very hard-as environmentalists-to come to agreement with the interests there and we are going to see an interesting textbook case-the fact that people sat down and resolved something north of the Salmon River.
They do not have the uncertainty, assuming that plan is approved this year, as the south side of the river has because the Forest Service is still trying to figure out what should be done down there. Let's have a process that allows that to happen. I think we can do that.
Senator HATFIELD. I wonder, Mr. Secretary, if you have gone through the RARE II designations and made any evaluation on any of those that could be extrapolated now and some quick agreement reached on final disposition, rather than having each one go through this long and rather involved process.
Is there such an evaluation?
Dr. CUTLER. I think that would be subject to criticism from both sides if we attempted to abort the process; if we were not able to accompany our decision with land use planning data and an environmental impact statement that we have agreed to do otherwise.
There may well be areas on which a consensus can be arrived at more easily than on others, and I am hopeful-particularly in regions where there is a short supply of raw material-that the Forest Serv-
ice, will, through its normal planning process, kick out some of those areas in which there is no controversy.
IHowever, I do not think at this time that we can suggest that some of the areas inventoried in RARE II can be released from that inventory unless Zane Smith can correct me. No?
A little premature right now.
Senator ITATFIELD. Would Mr. Scott care to comment on that?
Mr. ScoTT. We have quite clearly accomplished something this afternoon. I feel perfectly at liberty to say that Mr. Ewart and I can come, to some agreement with the Forest Service about the Amtrak going through a forest in Oregon.
I think there are other cases. As George says, some of the people are not quite as good at doing those inventories. T hey made mistakes both ways. As I understand what Zane tells me. they are cleaning them up as fast as you bring them aerial photographs and documents that demonstrate how they can clean those up.
I think you can identify those areas, Senator, in some places.
In the State of Oregon where things are likely to get tight before they get tight in other places, our people are willing to sit down with the Forest Service and with the industry to work out something.
I think we could have a little improvement on the Gospel-Hump situation by having the Forest Service at the table, too.
Senator HATFIELD. I would like to emphasize-with the situations described by Senator Wallop and other situations that are perhaps less severe, perhaps in the making or moving in that direction-that we must establish some sort of priorities so as to recognize those unique circumstances.
I have found that, in the omnibus wilderness bill which passed the Senate, we have not reached complete agreement with all parties involved. We have reached a lot of agreement on designated areas theremodifying, shifting borders, and recognizing interest groups and their legitimate rights.
I was amazed that we were able to move along with the degree of enthusiasm, or the degree of opposition-whichever way you want to look at it-which has really been rather mild compared to what it might have been.
I think, Dr. Cutler, you find not only the example I have cited at Gospel-Hump, but others. I would think that one might look at this in terms of trying to categorize, and not deny anybody their rights for input in the process and so forth, but expedite and put priority on certain of these areas.
Dr. CUTLER. One way we can address this opportunity is by cleaning up our inventory, by kicking out the roadless areas that were put i by mistake, and by any appropriate application of the criteria. I think that is what Zane, George, and that staff are doing right now, between now and the middle of October.
We hope we get these mistaken wilderness areas out of the inventory.
Senator HATFIED. I would like to add one final comment to the frustrations enumerated here today. I am not laying blame, I am merely making an observation.
When we talk about the need for expediting and doing these various and sundry things, then we come back to the question of money, the tool with which to accomplish the objective.
As an example. juist thi- afternoon I offered an :iunem et ~ w
appropriations bill relating to the Fore-st Service to carry over .19 million from supplemental 1977 as it related to intense -ive iore-t 11a:nagement and sales preparation program attendant to ilt eroue o'; the unexpended amounts that had been appropriated under SI).mental 1977 which would otherwise expire at the b eginning of the new fiscal year, and that we have added money to the budget from lime to time on the basis that that was the key for the Forest Service to aecomplish a number of their objectives.
Then we come to that point and we find its limitation in per.c on-1a ceiling limitation.
Here we have appropriated the money, but that is really not the olution. Now we come iup with a problem of a ceiling on personnel.
A concentrated effort was made by the Fore-t Service and friends of the Forest Service to get the OMB to lift the ceiling to acconllno(late the expansion. We must get their response in a week or so.
I feel these ave the things that also add much to the confusion of tlhe public, to the confusion of Members of Congress. the user groups. and interest groups; that we have not really put the house in order. -0 to speak, to be able to accomplish a lot of these goals we announce.
Then if we cannot do it. people feel disappointed, cynical, and a few other things.
Again, I am not making any indictment. I am only making an observation.
I know, Dr. Cutler, that you have only been in office a short time. You have made an imprint already of a very positive nature.
I want to make record that, as of today, we have fought for the inerease to increase within the Forest Service. for the recommendations for agreement for 750 billion board feet of which only 220 billion board feet was able to be programed, leaving half a billion board feet. and for the funds required to process that in order to then provide you with that continuing tool to have to transfer or carry over almost 20 million into fiscal 1978.
I just am hopeful that, in this RARE II process. we do not find ourselves again with these problems of tools, and with problems of money and personnel, then bog down to the point where we have to start a RARE III program to try to pick up the pieces from RARE I and RARE II.
There is an old adage that relates to the bureaucracy: If it does not work, just double your effort.
I am just making an observation. I am not asking for an answer. You are free to comment.
Dr. CUTLER. The only comment I would like to make is the fact that if all of the people in this room will it. RARE II will succeed.
Senator MCCLURE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to piggyback on the back of that last comment.
I think a large part of the answer to the problem will be found in the will of the people in this room, but we are in danger of repeating an error in the Gospel-Hump compromise. Not everybody involved is in this room. There are other interests, also.
On the three sides of this roundtable, I see the Federal agency on one side, and two user groups or advocates on the other sides. We do
not have organized labor represented here today. They have a big stake in this, and their voice is not being heard.
I do not see organized recreation groups and they were certainly very evident in Grangeville at the Gospel-Iump hearings. I have heard nothing but a passing reference made to the minerals industry, and there are those in the minerals industry who feel that the Department of Agriculture has never really considered them because they are not a renewable resource user.
The Forest Service has inadequately, in the past, considered the nonrenewable resource values of the public lands. Whether advertent or inadvertent to the planning process, it does not identify the National Minerals Policy Act. There has been no reference to its goals at all, although it is existing law.
That interest was also invited to participate and failed to participate in the Gospel-Hump, and to our detriment in terms of acceptance of the final solution.
I do not see any livestock groups represented in this room, and they have a big interest in how this comes out.
I am trying to say that, yes, I agree with you if everybody here has the will to make it work. In that case, RARE II has a chance.
However, to focus for a moment, there are a whale of a lot of other people with quite different interests who are not represented here at all, except by those of us sitting up here and those of us who, in one way or another, those of you, and the broad user groups, are trying to represent, their interests. I think that is too bad.
I think this is a good beginning, but it is only a beginning of that problem. I think we have to address the interests of these other groups and bring them in in a very meaningful way.
I do not mean to detract from the value of this hearing. If I did not think it was a valuable one, I would not have been spending all afternoon here. I think it is, but it is only a beginning of the process.
Mr. KuTAY. I want to concur with Senator Hatfield's comments earlier, and hope there are corrections which can be made to revise the institutional arrangements which might be blocking improved management of the national forests as an important step which must be taken right away.
I think if there is any major area of agreement we had in timber in Oregon recently in the conference in Eugene, it is that we both can work together for our mutual benefit to improve management on already-accessed lands in the beginning. Perhaps those lands might be opened up in the RARE II process.
I have worked with a lot of local interest groups in Oregon. I tried to help them review lands. I find it difficult, as Mr. Scott suggested, because of the lack of data presented in some of those plans.
I have taken it upon myself to try to make some economic analysis ef the endangered American wilderness bill and the omnibus wilderness bill of Senator Hatfield. I was looking at some of the areas and thinking about the high cost of determining those areas, as well as timber harvesting practices.
When I looked a little further, I found out there were considerable amounts of funds being appropriated by Congress for the specific purpose of building main access roads in the roadless areas. Those were, of course, in the millions of dollars.
I thought what a tremendous resource there was there, to put some of that road development money into improved management for previously developed lands. I took the roadless areas that were in both bills and figured out how many miles of roads could be built, the average cost per foot, per mile, per road and got a general figure of how much would be required to build a main access road.
That did not include spur roads or logging costs. Then I figured out what the return per dollar would be for investing those moneys in precommercial operations which seemingly might be the most proper level for them.
Through the allowable cuts, we would be able to take those moneys, invest them in already accessed !',nds, and take credit fot future harvests and continue to liquidate that amount of timber which we could harvest from those funds.
That was more than the contribution those roadless areas would provide if they were simply accessed with roads and used for harvesting.
Senator Cienci. We recognize that as a valid point. If we en get more intensified management and get the job done, it would be of immense help.
VWe have a vote on the Senate floor. I hope you will all continue your discussion. We will put Dr. Cutler in charge and let the conversations continue.
Before I leave for the vote, I want to thank all of you for coming, and for your participation in this roundtable. From the discussion thus far, I have gotten some ideas as to how we might endeavor to legislate, in connection with RARE II, some provisions in the law that might be helpful.
I had not thought of them before this discussion began, so it has been very useful to me. I am sure it has been useful for the other Senators as well.
Again, I want to thank you all for coming and participating.
Senator McCLURE. Before you go, I want to make one addition to the statement I made a moment ago.
I would not want my statement to say that there was an error in the arrangement at Gospel-Hump which resulted in a compromise agreement.
The context of that comment was that some who were not there helped engender the reasons for dissatisfaction with the compromise after-it was reached. It was in that sense that I made the comment, but also the comment you made a moment ago regarding diversion of money into more intensive management practices has been one of my frustrations with environmental groups over the years.
They have said no to one thing and have not given us a whale of a lot of help in getting the other thing done. I think your comment is exactly on target. I think we ought to be doing that sort of thing. I think we can work together to accomplish it.
Dr. CUTLER. Mr. Chairman, can we assume the transcript of this meeting will be reproduced as a Senate document?
Senator CiuncIm. Yes; as far as I am concerned.
Senator MCCLURE. I think we can get bipartisan support in doing that.
Senator CiHURCHu. We will leave to vote.
AIr. EwAIrrT. I wish to make a statement. My intention has been to iIpr)I>S uoH you that the RPA roals c(an be recognized in selecting the RARE II study goals in relation to the tradeoffs for other resolurces.
Tihe RPA goal is now 95 to 30 million acres of the national forests wilderness system land. If that can be tolerated without undue pause and come out of the other amenities of the National Forest System, t lihat must be a part, in my opinion, of the RARE II process or we are doing no more than planning on a local level based on local prejudices.
Mr. RESLER. Mr. Ewart. that is a gimmick. It has to be a part of the evaluation process. The national goals will provide the framework for the alternative developed. Obviously, you have to go to the local level to get the refined information you need, but there will be control at the national level over those RPA alternatives.
I agree with the point Mr. Ewing was making. that we do need those other wheels represented. You have to visualize them as if they are t.here. That is a part of the evaluation process.
We realize the frustration all of you are feeling about this roadless area process and the land management planning process in general. If you can take your own frustrations and multiply them a few times, you will get the idea of what some of us feel about trying to execute a program required by law which has a few complexities in it along the way.
Some of those complexities have to do with a difference of opinion reflected right here. Regardless of how we define the planning process we are going to undertake, there are going to be different viewpoints of what constitutes adequacy.
What we are trying to do here is do a uniformly effective job of displaying inventoried information, such as we can-we, the agency, and the public involved-so we can make some solid decisions.
There is no way we can get out of this roadless area process, except to support Dr. Cutler and carry on through to completion as competent an evaluation of all of the roadless areas as possible, identify the tradeoffs with the public's assistance-all of the public's assistance, not just portions of it-and then come out with some recommended courses of action.
That biting the bullet is going to be the difficult part. That is when the fun is going to commence.
I see no way out of this process unless we do the best job we can with your assistance, and then define what we believe ought to be done and propose to the Congrress as the process requires. W'e propose and Congress disposes.
You will have the opportunity at the time to express your disagreements or agreements with the proposal, but somebody, some organization-in this case the Forest Service-has to be the catalyst. We have to provide the information, set up the target. and hopefully this democratic process will work effectively. That is what we propose today to do.
Mr. Scorr. I want to respond.
You said all roadless areas. If we could have some covenants that all of the roadless areas would get the kind of treatment that it to be. at least theoretically, sought in RARE IT with consistent data and iradeoffs reflected. that would be one thing. but many of the roadless
areas will disappear before we get there thlroii(gh thle land use planllig process which, until recently, contained no data that there would b!e any tradeoff.
One of the most irksome examples is the Boulder planning unit inll North Idaho. If a person wants to go with a wilderss alternative iln responding to this document, they get no choice-thev also have to buy the least intensive management and all of the other acres in thei planning unit.
There is not a have your cake and eat it alternative displayed for anybody to even think about. That is something that can be improved quickly.
Ir. RESLER. I agree that that would not be an acceptable alternative. I do not know what the background of that case is. You should not have to only accept or reject, but suggest other alternatives.
Mr. Scorr. Unless they file it under appeal.
Mr. RESLER. I am talking about the process. The process is to define an array of alternatives. Then those alternatives can be adjusted. This obviously was not done.
Mr. ScoTrr. I think you can be more specific. One improvement you can make would be to set some direction for what the array of alternatives would be. There is really nothing there says. "Don't hinge it to the least intensive managementt" Show that tradeoff. but it is not there in most of them.
Mr. RESLER. We are not there yet, but it will be part of the RARE II process.
Mr. CxRAIG. I am in agreement that there are opportunities for investment in more management opportunities that would be more productive. I also agree that there may be areas scheduled for timber harvesting that probably should not be harvested.
The Resource Planning Act and, to some extent actually. the National Environmental Policy Act requires the agency to use economic analysis as part of their planning process. I am really somewhat encouraged by this, and what they are working on and what they may come up with.
I think it is possible that they will offer good guidance as to the allocation of resources to provide these various outputs.
In spite of all I would like to tell you, your proposal-while intriguing in some ways-has a fundamental flaw. That is that all of this money that is spent on roads comes from the timber that will be hauled over those roads. It is not from appropriated money.
Ninety percent or more of the road construction done in the national forest is done by timber purchasers, so it is not that you can take something that is available and shift it. to another use.
There is still going too have to be some additional funds for that type of activity.
Dr. CUTLER. We tried to estimate what the mileage would be on the main neaccess road in the roadless areas-not those necessarily paid for by timber purchasers or credits. but those paid for through appropriated funds and our forest road trails.
MIr. CRa.m. That is a minimum thing, at least in California. Ninety percent of the mileage is paid for by timber purchasers.
[Off the record discussion.]
Mr. IHAMPTOxN. I have a couple of comments I want to make-observations-call it what you will.
I am not sure they are too well organized. It seems to me that we might have room for greater agreement on this whole wilderness issue if we can somehow take a look at the things that relate to areas where there are real wilderness values present in the country, but not necessarily in the heavily timbered areas.
I am encouraged to see that the ecosystem is one of the national need criteria you are looking at here. Unfortunately, I suppose, from your standpoint and that of the Forest Service, there are not too many of these roadless areas that are in ecosystems other than those that contain a lot of timber.
I recall, Dr. Cutler, when you first announced you were going to have a RARE II study that it seemed to me you were missin- something here in not having an interagency approach to this whole thing where we involve BLM and the other agencies so we can be looking at all of the other wilderness values in the country.
Out in the desert areas, I can remember as a younger man, going to Joshua Tree National Monument with my young family and having a great time. It was truly a wilderness experience. That is one example. I amn sure there are hundreds of them around the country where we do not have to be engaged in a constant struggle for timber.
I am not suggesting that there are not great timber areas that still need to be set aside as wilderness. I am suggesting that there is probably greater room for some agreement here if we can be looking at the other ecosystems and the values contained therein.
Maybe what I am leading up to here-and I am not even sure in my own mind-is that there has to be an interagency approach and perhaps some way of triggering them could be some oversight hearings on the part of the Congress to bring together all of the agencies that are involved in identified wilderness areas to get together and see where we are going, and establish a little better direction to this whole effort.
Dr. CUTLER. Thank you.
We have not taken your time to go through any detail. The maps on the easel show the ecosystem and the land forms we are using as selection criteria. We think they are important. We think they are a breakthrough for wilderness criteria to give us a scientific basis for selection of the wilderness system.
I am working with assistant secretaries Bob Herbst and Guy Martin, and the staff is working with the National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Land Management in developing these criteria. They are trying to, in effect, coordinate the vision of this administration as to what the national wilderness preservation system should be. Hopefully, we can delegate some of these gaps to those other agencies.
We have opportunities on the National Forest System to add grasslands where John McComb is from down in the Cornado National Forest. For the first time, this gives us a really good rationale to put those other types into the system.
Mr. HAMPTON. Can I expend a little bit on what I said?
I think all of us-and I am certainly guilty of this-have been accustomed to thinking of wilderness as the mountain land forms covered by timber. We do have another opportunity. I cannot overemphasize the importance of trying to get together and using this as, perhaps, a common meeting o'round where we can resolve some differences.
It might well be that, in some of this middle area where tiie Forest Service and RARE II will not be able to identify areas that immediately can be set apart as wilderness, they will be put back into multiple use. Maybe there will be some questionable areas in there that have timber value where the tradeoffs are involved where you are going to have to study them further where they would be close to areas of a semidesert character or brush where we do not have the timber values, but where they do have other wilderness values.
You could make a slot that would be acceptable to all the parties concerned.
I have one other comment, a comment on wildlife.
That, also, is one of the national needs criteria. I am sure that I do not have to tell you again that sometimes in the perception of the public they think we have to have pure wilderness to protect certain wildlife.
This might be true in a few cases, but more often than not most wildlife are going to get along much better if we are able to manipulate that habitat.
I recognize that the act does not preclude that, but there have been problems here in the past in that regard.
I would hope that we do not overlook the role of the professional wildlife manager in addressing this issue. Sometimes the public can get a little emotional on the subject of wildlife. Somewhere in that crunch, the professional managers' view can be overlooked.
Dr. CGI:TLER. It does not include vegetative manipulation for wildlife habitat improvement.
Mr. HA-PTON. Are there not wildlife management areas?
Dr. CUTLER. Not in wilderness areas unless the managinent is just to leave it alone. There could be introductions, reintroductions-some modest opportunities of this kind.
I think if the highest and best use is for wildlife which is dependent upon continued manipulation of habitat, then it should not be listed as wilderness.
Mr. MAHONEY. Mr. Secretary, I think all of us are aware, but perhaps it needs repetition, that trees, minerals, cattle are not distributed evenly across the land. As Mr. Hampton is saying, there are areas of lesser conflicts.
I believe, as -Mr. Smith has shown, that is one way in which you are going to be evaluating wilderness. It makes it conv'enient to illustrate as, say, the color here illustrates as to mix, board feet, and acres.
Pretend that if you take this many million acres you take a su!bsequent corresponding effect on board foot reduction. I come from a State in which the trees are not as big as they are in Oregon. They do not grow as close together.
You will find most of the people here today representing timber interests are from the Northwest. In fact, most of the exanIip!es given of urgency of need are coming from the Northwest.
What hlas happened to conservationists in Colorado in the past is that we have had our areas treated as if they were in the Northwest. We have had them treated as if they were a large timber industry that needs our lands.
We fear that, while the needs expressed here today are quite legitimate, they may overreact. The reaction to that may be a straitjacket
on the entire system, which would not allow inaginative management which would help us in our region reach more agreeable solutions among the competing needs for that region. In Oregon we have an industry that is cutting at 100 percent of the level which the Forest Service calculated as potential, but in Colorado the industry cuts at only 25 percent of what the Forest Service calculates as potential.
That is not to say, necessarily, that the industry should be as large as its potential. The Arapahoe National Forest was mentioned as an example of a national forest full of roadless areas.
The last timber management plan for the Arapahoe showed that it cost the Federal (Government $8 to remove $1 worth of timber. As Mr. Kutav has shown, there may be ways in which we can have both timber and wilderness in the Northwest. There exist other ways that are not at all alike, and which we may be able to resolve such as the crisis in the central Rockies.
We would like to see the planning effort-RARE II or whatever form this evaluation of roadless areas finally takes-ask some of these fundamental questions: How can we have both roadless lands and timberlands?
We do not want to see a "rush through" planning process when our area does not need to be rushed. No one is losing any jobs in our area because, for the first time, people are looking not only at lands that should be put into the wilderness, but at what lands need to be developed.
We cannot get away from applying some local solutions to local needs.
Dr. CUTLER. I would like to speculate that one way to address your suggestion-to take more time to do a better job-would be the Stateby-State environmental impact statements at a staggered period of time, addressing ourselves first to Idaho, Oregon, and the areas where we have hotspots, material shortages-a crisis-and perhaps taking a little longer to perfect the recommendations in the draft environmental statement, in terms of your fieldwork, the public involvement, and our own view, and spin it out in different parts of the country where the need for the decision is not quite so urgent.
I would not want to indicate that we would want to prolong it very much longer, but if a few more months would make a better job I would like to do that.
Mr. MAHONEY. It has been brought up. Senator Hatfield mentioned that we may need some immediately released areas from the inventory. We may need to make sure that that yellow category of released lands is exercised quickly, and you have spoken of a sunset provision of 4 years for possible wilderness studies.
We again go up against the manpower ceiling and how quickly decisions can be made adequately. It is not just a question of State by State, allowing the critical States to go by or critical regions to be decided more quickly, but also perhaps in terms of your sunset provision.
There are wilderness study areas which have an immediate need for determination and those which we can allow to sit while we make the decisions on the others. I think we need greater flexibility there, too.
Mr. KULOSA. Being familiar with the (olorado area sollewvhiat alnd the Southwest especially, I think the resolution of this problem is just as necessary in Colorado as anywhere else in the United States.
I would like to state that. growth potential in (olorado vis-a-vis other parts of the Nation is very nearly as great as those other parts.
It is true, maybe, that the coast does have larger trees due to the older growth and the past growth, but under management the Colorado lands have very similar growth abilities as the coast and I do not think that they should be written off.
Also, we are experiencing mill shutdowns. Mills are being threatened by the process. I do not feel it should receive any different treatment for that reason.
Mr. MAHONEY. If I may respond; I agree with what Mr. Kulosa is saying in large part. I think, however, we have to separate, in evaluating wilderness needs versus our tradeoffs, the question of where industry now exists and is actually threatened, and where we are only talking about a potential industry which may or may not exist, depending on how funding may be.
We oftentimes are brought into these meetings because of immediate needs where people may actually lose their jobs, and we are making
decisions where there are no immediate needs, where jobs have not even been created.
Certainly we have greater flexibility in the other instance, but one of the flaws of RARE I was that all such areas were treated exactly alike. I think that may be one of the subties within the tradeoff.
Mr. BLASING. I would like to echo what Herb said. The people in our area, particularly in Montana, are very seriously affected by this kind of process and we are in tough shape there.
In one case I can name specifically, the Forest Service has literally planned the economy of Philipsburg, Mont., out of existence. There were two sawmills there. There was a substantial cut available to those sawmills.
Because of an appeal, and further because of a, restriction in Government timber supplies, both of those mills have been shut down. The smallest one is going to try to start up again in the near future.
We need an immediate solution, and this is why we are here, one of the main reasons. We do not have the time to wait.
As Senator Wallop said, mills with only months or days to survive on their contract-for them we are going to have to come to some resolution of the land use planning thing and the wilderness thing if we are going to maintain our economy in Montana where the timber industry generates 50 percent of the income.
Therefore, it is of real concern to us, and I may be dropping back. I do not want to get away from productive discussion, but in your discussion of the public involvement-I am not sure if I heard you right, or I am not sure that what happened where I was is different than what you said-the public, when they were asked to comment on the criteria and the roadless area inventory in our area, were told very specifically by the Forest Service that that is all they wanted to hear about.
They were given no opportunity to say whether or Dot this area was good or this area was bad. Those of us who have been participating
with the public in this process have told those people that this is what you tell them because this is what they are asking for. There is no opportunity for the public to give that input until the alternatives are presented. This represents a serious concern to me because it has been my experience-and maybe the experience of some of the people on the far side of the table-that once the alternatives on the draft environmental impact statement come out it is very difficult to change them.
The Forest Service has usually made up a large portion of their mind.
Mr. SAUTHi. During the initial workshops in July and August, we did not get into the evaluation. As already pointed out, we had to start from someplace. We had to develop an inventory.
If we had leaped right into evaluating them, we feared we would not get a product which could later deal with the evaluation. We have a period of time in which we have to begin collecting some data so we know something about the existing system and the potential. We want to gyet ready to, begin.
You'll see the national level screen and the local tradeoff analysis. There is going to be a period during this winter where -we will, again, engage in an additional round of public involvement which can assist us in constructing the alternatives and actually applying the data to the areas.
That is one opportunity.
The next opportunity is going to be to issue a draft environmental statement. At this stage, the Forest Service will really have the benefit of some previous comment from the public, and they would present it in a, dIraft environmental statement, alternative by alternative, and explain the data in an understandable way.
This would deal with such things as potential jobs, economic potential, economic, urgency, community by community. Therefore,, we should be windingr up with two more kinds of formalized opportunities for public involvement on the evaluation of the areas.
Mr. SCOTT. If I mnay, I want to come back to that.
Ouir concern is that the evaluation be based on the information and not, go to the public to ask: Which of these 10 areas do youi like the most? Which (10 voni like the least? Or do you not want any of them? But. tell the public the real1 information.
Here is what it costs. You can go to the publlic with: Po voiu want to have 50 miles of OIRY trail open or closed? If there is nothing in that process that sets that in context, that miles of OPZV trail open throughout that forest, you are really asking the wrong question and creating controversy, rather than asking questions that help within that, context.
We are all for lots of public involvement. We are for asking the public, to blui us select the best areas for wilderness or timber harvest, bit somewhere let there be an exchange so it does not have to be either or.
Mr. EwART. I would not want to bnqv(- this mneetincr close without, offering for the record a book entitled "Wilderness Withidrawsls and Timber Simly." This book was juist prepared by the National Forest Association for purposes such as this. 'We. have -several copies which we offer for the record. [The publication referred to above follows:]
Ar 44r JIA A rVA TZ
Recommendations 4 Definition of Problem 5 Ten Facts Congress Should Consider 8 Existing Protection for Wilderness 8 RPA Goals vs. Accomplishments 9 Wilderness: How Much Is Needed? 11 Forest Service Roadless Area Review 12 National Forest Land Use Patterns 14 National Forest Timber Supply 15 National Forests: Economic and Employment Contributor Nationally 16
Private Forest Lands Are Only Part of the Answer 18
Demand for Timber Products to Double by Year 2020 20 Recreation Demand To Double by Year 2020 22 Wilderness: Who Are the Users? Wilderness: the Restrictions 2526
Withdrawal of productive resource lands for Wilderness
preservation is more than a local issue. It has serious economic and social impacts nationwide. Singly and cumulatively, Wilderness set asides require careful study and evaluation before land and resources are classified for non-development and limited use.
The concern here is not to argue for or against Wilderness. The forest industry has been, and remains, a firm supporter of Wilderness preservation. Lands with special ecological and aesthetic values should be preserved for their beauty and educational opportunities. But U.S. citizens also must have the timber and other resources public lands can yield within the framework of good resource and environmental management. The question is really one of using the growth capacity of our lands without waste.
This booklet presents facts about the effects of designating
productive federal timber-growing lands as Wilderness. Impacts can be catastrophic--to the nation's timber supply, housing programs, employment and community stability.
Many people confuse lands set aside for Wilderness preservation with recreational lands. They are not the same. Wilderness is defined by law as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammelled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain." It is the most restrictive singlepurpose use of federal land. Most land used for recreation is multiple-use land, serving many purposes. Impacts of land withdrawals on the most popular forms of outdoor recreation are also discussed.
America's forests are among the most bountiful in the world. But its productive forests-the public and private lands available, suitable or usable for timber growth and harvest-are declining.
The reasons for the decline vary, but a major cause is the withdrawal of federal land from timber production, mostly for Wilderness.
Congress is now considering a host of Wilderness proposals affecting productive federal timberland on a piecemeal basis. If adopted, they will further imperial the nation's timber supply, and with it homebuilding, and thousands of jobs in the forest products and related industries.
n In all, proposals for Wilderness designation and Wilderness study, together with land areas which may qualify for potential study, embrace some 350 million acres (548,750 square miles) of public lands -a land area three and a half times the size of California
--or more than the size of all the New England states and 13 other mid-Western and mid-Atlantic states.
0 Wilderness designations are, for all practical purposes, irreversible.
The 1974 Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources
Planning Act (RPA) and the 1976 National Forest Management Act (NFMA) are among basic laws enabling the govern ment to weigh carefully goals for both timber production and Wilderness, so that careful decisions can be made on land and resource management issues.
One Orderly Ass"sment Is Already In Progress
Through the RPA, and other processes Congress has established, Impacts of land management decisions on timber supply, housing goals and employment can be assessed
in an orderly way, as well as impacts on recreation, wildlife, water and range.
One such assessment was the Roadless; Area Review and
Evaluation (RARE 1) by the Forest Service, started in 1970, to review 56 million acres (87,500 square miles) of "roadless" or undeveloped areas in the 187-million-acre National Forest system. In 1977, this review was reestablished as RARE 11 and expanded to review some 67 million acres. The stated purpose of RARE 11 Is to speed up completion of the Wilderness system on the National Forests and to return lands not suitable for Wilderness to multiple use.
Din RARE 1, some 12 million acres of National Forest lands were selected as prime candidates for further Wilderness study. The remaining 44 million acres, because of a court agreement, required Environmental Impact Statements on management plans before these lands could be managed in a way that would alter their Wilderness character.
M The 67 million acres involved in RARE 11 are over and above the 12.8 million acres (20,000 square miles) of National Forest lands already In the Wilderness system and the 3.1 million acres of Primitive areas set aside for eventual addition to the Wilderness system.
0 All roadless areas are now, and will continue to be, treated as Wilderness, with no commodity activity permitted, until all appeals on proposed land management plans are exhausted. Thus, the Wilderness potential of roadless areas is not "endangered."
El When the Forest Service review process is completed, Congress can then evaluate recommendations within the framework of RPA goals to determine how much land is needed to meet demands for timber, Wilderness, recreation, and the other uses of these public lands.
The forest Industry urges Congress:
1 To assess carefully all of the social, economic and
employment impacts Wilderness designations will create when
productive timber-growing lands are withdrawn for the most
restrictive of all land use classifications.
2 To provide direction to the Forest Service, and sufficient
funding, for prompt completion of management plans and Environmental Impact Statements for the 67 million acres of roadless
areas. Timber growth In these lands is now unutilized-and
could be for years--until all issues over their use are resolved.
Deferral of timber harvesting In these areas is already impacting
Western mills dependent on National Forest timber--.36 mills
and plants have already closed; others are on the brink. Lumber
and plywood prices are at an all time high.
3 To fully evaluate Resources Planning Act goals for both
Wilderness and timber production before adopting new Wilderness
proposals. Legislating new Wilderness areas piecemeal, without evaluating the land base essential to meet timber supply needs,
Is imprudent. It short-circuits the orderly procedures now
underway and the processes mandated by the Resources -Planning
WILDERNESS IS MORE THAN A LOCAL ISSUE. DECISIONS HAVE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL IMPACTS NATIONWIDE-ON THE TIMBER SUPPLY AVAILABLE FOR HOUSING, PAPER AND WOOD PRODUCTS; ON JOBS; ON COMMUNITY STABILITY AND COUNTY TAX REVENUES, AND ON ALL CONSUMERS AND USERS OF WOOD-BASED PRODUCTS.
Definition of Problem
Lands available for the continuous growth and harvest of
repeated timber crops are shrinking because of competition from other land uses and Inadequate assessments of the impacts land withdrawals will have on timber supply nationwide.
1i For federal forest lands, the most serious competition Is withdrawal of productive forest lands for Wilderness preservation-the most restrictive of all land use classifications.
n For private forest lands, other land uses and diverse management objectives are reducing the land base usable for timber production.
Congress and federal agencies are now considering
proposals to consign millions of acres of productive federal timber lands to permanent nonproduction in Wilderness preserves.
Areas proposed or under study for Wilderness are locked up from all uses until final land use designations are made.
Inadequate consideration is being given to economic, social, and employment impacts of Wilderness withdrawals.
Wilderness proposals are now political footballs, considered piecemeal, without weighingt impacts on local, regional or national timber supply needs, homebuilding programs, employment, developed recreation or other resource values.
Ten Facts Congress
Congress should consider carefully 10 facts before designating productive federal timber-growing lands as Wilderness:
1. Existing laws prescribe orderly, efficient guidelines for designating use of National Forest lands-1960 Multiple UseSustained Yield Act, 1964 Wilderness Act, 1974 Resources Planning Act, and 1976 National Forest Management Act.
2. National Forests contain 52 percent of the total U.S. standing Inventory of softwood sawtimber-from which come products for housing and construction, pulp, paper and packaging and other wood products.
3. The National Forests supply 15 percent of all the timber consumed annually In the United States-the same dependency America had on Arab oil at the time of the 1973 embargoand 27 percent of all U.S. softwood sawtimber-the wood most used in homebuilding and other construction.
4. Any reduction In the timber base on which annual allowable harvest calculations are based will result In a reduced harvest and even more unutilized timber growth.
5. Forest industries are the major employers and the primary economic base In hundreds of rural communities. In the West, the National Forests are the major single source of timber supply; the Forest Service is a monopoly owner and seller of timber.
6. Private forest lands cannot make up for shortages caused by National Forest timber waste.
7. Ninety percent of all U.S. single-family housing is of woodframe construction. Wood is also the framing and sheathing for a substantial volume of townhouses and garden apartments.
8. Consumer demand for wood and paper products is
projected to double by the year 2020, the Forest Service estimates.
9. Recreational use of public lands is also expected to double by the year 2020, according to Forest Service projections.
10. Wilderness use, measured in visitor days, represents a very small portion of U.S. public recreational needs and is the least used of all categories on public lands.
Each of these points is discussed in the following pages.
Existing Protection for
With passage of the 1964 Wilderness Act, the United States became the first nation in the world to establish a national policy proclaiming a commitment to Wilderness preservation. This Act, adding to the 1960 Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act, specified Wilderness as one of the multiple uses of federal lands.
Since 1964, two major statutes established guidelines for
preserving Wilderness and ensuring wise use of all National Forest resources:
The 1974 Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources
Planning Act (RPA) mandates that the Forest Service
periodically assess and report to Congress what the nation's demand upon its renewable resource base will be, and what land uses are best to meet such needs.
E] Goals were established to meet the demands of six
resource systems, including timber production and Wilderness.
n Congress recognized the Forest Service's recommended RPA program goals in 1976.
2 The 1976 National Forest Management Act (NFMA)
requires that guidelines for forest management plans "insure consideration of economic and environmental
aspects of various systems of renewable resource management..."
El The primary goal of these laws is to ensure that federal lands are managed in the wisest and most productive manner to benefit all citizens.
RPA Goals vs. Accomplishments
It Is Important to look at the Resources Planning Act recommended goals
and accomplishments for 1977 for six resource systems on the National Forests: Wilderness, Timber, Recreation, Wildlife and Fish, and Range, Land and Water.
The only goal met, and surpassed, of the six resource systems, is Wilderness,
and is illustrated in the following charts.
National Forest Wildernes Timber Sales
(National Forests) 30 2
Fiscal 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Fiscal 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
--Possible Wlicierness -RPA Goals -- -Actual -RPA Goals
(1) 12.6 Existing
(2) 3.2 Primitive Areas
(3) 12.0 Study Areas (Congressional and Forest Service)
28.3 (As of 5/24/ 77)
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Range Use
Fiscal 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Fiscal 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
---- Actual RPA Goals ---- Actual RPA Goals
i Fiscal 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
--- Actual RPA Goals
Soil, Water, Land Rehabilitation
Fial. 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
----Actual RPA Goals
Wilderness: How Much, is Needed?
The Wilderness Act of 1964 legally defined Wilderness in narrow, restrictive terms-as an undeveloped area of at least 5,000 acres, where "man himself is a visitor who does not remain."
Since passage of the 1964 Act:
C] 14.7 million acres of federal land (22,969 square miles) have been designated by Congress for Wilderness preservation--more than the combined land area of New Hampshire, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Rhode Island.
 12.8 million of these acres (20,000 square miles) were taken from the
National Forests, with the remainder from National Parks and wildlife preserves.
El An additional 3.1 million acres of National Forest land (4,844 square
miles) were set aside in Primitive Areas for eventual Wilderness classification.
M Still another 67 million acres of National Forest roadless areas (104,688
square miles) may not be used for multiple use, pending completion of administrative or legislative action. The commercial timber areas of these lands support an annual timber harvest In excess of 2.7 billion board feetenough wood to build 270,000 new houses every year.
--4n all, some 351.2 million acres (S48,750 square miles) of federal land, In National Forests, National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges and Bureau of Land Management (OLM) lands are either already in the Wilderness system, are being considered by Congress, or are or will be studied by federal agencies.
STATUS OF WILDERNESS PRESERVATION (Miltions of acres) AddPJOM hvm
RARE 11 wW
ExWng I OLM SUM" Toull
National Wildlife Refuges
Unclassified Land in Alaska Bureau of Land Management
ToWs 14.6 189.6 147 351.2
'These 7.9 million acres represent only a small traction of National Forest lands being considered for
**The RARE 11 inventory encompasses 67 million acres of National Forest land that could be designated
-Includes 3.1 million acres of Primitive areas originally set aside for eventual Wilderness classification.
Forest Service Roadless Area Review
The Forest Service Is now reviewing 67 million acres of "roadless" or undeveloped areas in the National Forest system (RARE 11). This second inventory and review process has added substantially to the 56'million acres withheld from multiple-uie management pending completion of the RARE I process.
As required by the RPA and NFMA, the Forest Service must assess:
0 The environmental impact of any decision.
nI The socioeconomic impacts of Wilderness withdrawals.
13 Present and future timber and recreation demands.
Until this process is completed and appeals are exhausted, all activities altering the natural state of identified undeveloped areas are prohibited.
Prompt orderly completion of this study is essential. It Is Imperative that lands determined best suited for multiple use are returned to this use as soon as possible. The timber-growing Potential of these lands will determine the timber supply available from western National Forests.
The following chart shows the tremendous amount of timber tied up until the roadless; area review is completed.
Impacts on Allowable Harvest In the National Forest Roadless Area Reviews (RARE I and II)
Areas Total Annual Commercial Annual Allowable
Forest Allowable Harvest for
Total Land Harvest Whole Region
Forest Serice Regions Number Acres (Thousand (Billion (Billion
RARE I of Areas (Thousands) Acres) Bd. Ft.) Bd. FL)
Rocky Mountain .
Southwestern Intermountain California
Pacific Northwest 0
TOTAL 1,447 56,166 18,858 2.276 16.0
Projections 1,725 67,000* 22,476' 2.7* (unknown)
'NFPA Projection "* Forest Service Projection
National Forest Land Use Patterns
Of the 187 million acres of National Forests, only 90.1 million are classified
as commercial timber lands-land available or suitable for timber production. But this is only part of the story.
On about a quarter of the 90.1 million acres, timber harvesting is severely restricted for aesthetic reasons and buffer zones along roads and streams.
Timber harvesting actually may now occur on about 69.7 million acres, but Is restricted severely on 25 million of these acres. Thus, lands available to grow trees must be prudently and Intensively managed for timber production.
The remaining 117 million acres are unavailable, unsuitable or unusable for timber production.
82.7 million acres alone are presently treated as Wilderness.
National Forest Land Allocation Total = 187 Million Acres
Forest and Nonforest Lands
36.7 MM Acres
National Forest Timber Supply
National Forest commercial timber areas have the largest single concentration of U.S. softwood sawtlmber-trees of the type and size used to make lumber and plywood.
E052 percent of the nation's total Inventory of standing softwood sawtlmber Is In the National Forests.
E0 27 percent of all the softwood sawtimber, the wood used most In homebuilding, Is supplied by the Nationai Forests annuaiiy. El National Forests supply 15 percent of all the timber consumed annually In the United States-the same dependency America had on Arab oil at the time of the 1973 embargo.
El The production of timber on these lands Is vital to the nation's timber supply-now and Into the next century.
Any reduction In the land base on which allowable harvest calculations are figured will result In a reduction In the allowable harvest.
Where the wood b Where the wood
STANDING TIMBER INVENTORIES, czofm from
SOFTWOOD SAWTIMBER SOFTWOOD SAWTIMBER HARVEST
National Forests: Economic and
Employment Contributor Nationally
Nationally, the impacts of federal land withdrawals on the economy and employment can be devastating:
Nationwide, the forest Industry employs 1.2 million people.
[1180,000 of these people owe their jobs directly to the continuing availability of timber from National Forests.
E]Sale of National Forest timber returned $438 million to the national, Treasury in 1976, of which $110 million was returned to counties in which National Forests are located.
OThe House version of the Endangered American Wilderness Act of 1977, H.R. 3454, would designate 1,170,372 acres of National Forest land in nine western states as immediate Wilderness. As illustrated in the following table, the commercial timber areas of these lands have a potential timber yield of 112.6 million board feet annual ly---enough timber to build nearly 10,000 new homes a year. The table also reveals impacts on the local economy in terms of lost revenue, on employment and on other economic and social values by removing productive timber-producing lands from commodity use.
Endangered American Wilderness Act of 1977
(H.R. 3454)-Summary of Impacts on Timber Supply and Jobs*
Prpmod Instant Wderness MDesignation
Timber Timber Value of Other
Pole Sale Industry Annual Stumpae Ilpact o
Com- tn Amipts Sales Annual Cost to Fwene Local Mills,
mercdal Timber Foegone Foregone Funds to Economy Over Job Market
Stal/ Forest Yield to U.S. (FOB Counties In Trms Rotation In.
Name/ Gross Land (MMBF) Treasury Mill) Foregone*" GNP (100 Yrs) Direct direct
Natdal Farst mage Acreage (Yearly) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000oo) ($1,000) ($1,000) Jobs Jobs
CoronadoN.F. 56,430 0 0
Coronado N.F. 55,210 0
layer & Sequoia N.F. 179,625 23,150 14.2 2,059 4,260 515 41.180 205,900 85 355
Las Padres N.F. 21,250 0 0
Lo Padres N.F. 61,080 2,360 0
Hunter Frying Pan 67,000 NA* NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Lolo N.F. 28,440 15,060 1.7 115.6 408 29 2,312 11,560 10 40
Cibola N.F. 37,000 0 0
CIbola N.F. 30,930 5,360 .1
Chama River Canyon
Santa Fe and Carson N.F. 50,300 13,250 1.9 150 570 37.5 3,000 15,010
French Pete Creek
Willamette N.F. 45,400 32,749 24.0 5,208 8,400 1,302 104,160 520,800 120 600
Sisklyou N.F. 280,000 156,399 47.1 6,829.5 16,485 1,706 136,590 682,950 235 1,177
Siskyou N.F. 38,200 17,425 7.2 1,004 2,520 261 20,880 104,400 36 180
Wasatch and Uinta N.F. 29,567 5,479 0
Weshi-ngl (And Oregn)
Umatila N.F. 175,000 50,000 15.0 825 4,500 206 16,500 82,500 90 375
Medicine Bow N.F. 14,940 12,000 .IA 38 9.4 760 3,800 10 35
TOTAL 1,170,372 333,232 112.6 $16M,229.1 $37,152.4 $4,058.5 $325,382 $1,626,920 586 2,762
U.S. Forest Service figures adjusted by NFPA to reflect bill reported by House Interior Committee
Not Available As of 8/15/77
Because of unavailable data, this column doesn't reflect the impact of the Payments in Lieu of Taxes
Act of 1976.
Private Forest Lands are only
Part of the Answer
-- ----- --- ----- --- _ '
Many who urge increased Wilderness classification of federal forest lands claim shortfalls in timber supply from federal forests can be met by increased timber harvests from private lands. Facts refute this premise.
Only about a third of the private non-industrial woodlands have the potential for increased timber production.
EJ Industrial forest lands are now producing closer to potential than any other ownership category. Serious long-term damage could result if it became necessary to overcut industrial forests to compensate for federal timber shortfalls in the face of rising consumer demands.
F1 Private non-industrial woodlands, while productive, are generally either understocked or stocked with non-commercial species.
F-1 Private woodlands are being reduced by withdrawals for highways, airports, shopping centers, and agricultural uses, among others.
F] Private owners, in many cases, may not intend to use their lands for timber production, just as many public forest lands are not used for timber production.
Private woodlands contain predominantly hardwood timber, while public lands grow mostly softwood timber. The two groups are generally not substitutable for each other in most markets.
Private non-industrial woodlands will be called on to supply much of the increased wood fiber de mand in the future. They need substantially more silvicultural attention over the next 20 to 40 years to achieve their potential productivity. Increased harvesting now in young stands could jeopardize future timber supply.
Moreover, recent studies reveal that of the 296 million acres of commercial forest land in the hands of private non-industrial owners.
Much ot the land, some 21 million acres, is located in areas of high population density, such as Fairfax County, Va., or DeKalb County, Ga., where the
land Is most likely to be used for residential construction, rather than timber management.
. El A large portion of privately owned woodlands Is in small holdings: 52 million acres are in holdings of 1 to 50 acres, and 62 million acres are in holdings of 50 to 100 acres. If an initial crop of timber Is harvested from these lands, their small size makes economical timber management difficult. Additionally, once the Initial stand of timber is harvested, the land.may not be replanted bince Incentives for timber production are usually Inadequate.
El Another 78 million acres of land will not generally be available for increased timber production because of its low site quality for growing timber. M Although some overlap exists, such as land too small in acreage for economical timber management also being In an area of high population or of low site quality, It Is safe to say that only 100-120 million acres of the 296 million acres of private non-industrial land Is actually available for Increased Umber production.
100-120 million available acres
Demand for Timber Products to
Double by Year 2020
U.S. demand for wood-based products-and world demand-will double by the year 2020, according to projections by the Forest Service.
Here are some facts on consumer needs for wood and paper products:
El In 1900, Americans consumed 7,140 million cubic feet of wood and wood fiber products. In 1970, consumption was 12,725 million cubic feet, an increase of 78%.
C3 Total demand for paper, paperboard, and building board is projected to rise to 147 million tons (medium level) in 2000, and to 225 million tons in 2020
-some 3.4 times the consumption in 1974, according to the Resources Planning Act Assessment of 1975.
C] Over 5,000 products are derived from wood-many used daily.
El 90 percent of all U.S. single-family housing is of wood-frame construction. M Between one-third and one-half of U.S. softwood lumber and plywood, plus substantial volumes of hardwood plywood, particleboard and insulation board, are used for the production, upkeep and Improvement of housing.
F-1 Wood also provides the framing and sheathing for townhouses, garden apartments, churches, schools, shopping centers and agricultural buildings.
El Forecasts of housing demand reveal an Increasing trend in housing production through the end of the century, averaging 2.58 million units (figure includes mobile homes) annually through the year 2020, compared with the average of 2.02 million for the period 1967-76. (See chart) The 1968 Housing Act called for 26 million housing starts as the goal over a 10-year period, or 2.6 million a year.
Fl Energy consumption is a major national concern. Wood-frame construction, adequately insulated, is ideally suited for national energy conservation goals.
Total Housing Starts
(Includes Mobile Homes) 8O0 2800
2200 Z 0 00
r1400 0 1200
1968 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 1980's 1990's 2000's 2010's
Actual Starts --- Projected Average Starts per Decade
SOURCES: 1975 Resources Planning Act Assessment
U.S. Department of Commerce
Recreation Demand to Double
by Year 2020
-According to Forest Service forecasts, demand for recreation will double by the year 2020. Increases in recreational demand will be primarily for developed types of recreational opportunities, as opposed to Wilderness-type recreation.
Projected Index of Demand for Outdoor Recreation by Major Activity at Year 2020 (1975-100) 1951020300 400
Remote Camping Deloped Camping otrcycling Of-odDriving Photography Blrdwatching
Source: Resources Planning Act Recommended Program
Wilderness use, measured in visitor days, represents only a small portion of
U.S. recreational needs and is the least used of all categories on public lands.
The chart on visitor-day use of recreational facilities on National Forests
During 1976, the rate of visitor days to developed recreational areas was
27 times greater than visitor days to Wilderness areas.
1976 Recreation Use of the National Forests Million Visitor-Days SWkierness System 7.1
Winter Sports Site* 7.1
Other Developed S1te*, 11.5 1 Other Spel U. 17.4
I- ~Canproid 37.1
'Other Developed Sites includes observation sites, play/park/sport sites, boating, swimming,
picnic, Interpretive (VIS).
'Other Special Use includes hotels, lodges, resorts, organization sites, other concession sites,
Other Dispersed includes roads, trails, waters, general undeveloped areas.
Visitor Day=-1 person for 12 hours or 12 persons for 1 hour or the equivalent.
Source: USDA Forest Service
Wilderness represented the least used recreational activity available.
The chart on the growth in the uses of various recreational facilities shows
that Wilderness use has grown very little in proportion to other recreational
uses on National Forests.
MILLION Recreation Use of the National Forests
200 180 160
140 120 100
80 60 40
2. .....her Developed
1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976
Other Disperseds: Roads, Trails, Waters
Other Special2: Hotels, Lodges, Cabins, Concession Stands
Other Developed: Boatings, Swimming, Picnicking, Observation Sites, Playgrounds
Wilderness: Who are the Users?,-The Forest Service's RPA assessment and other studies reveal that Wilderness users are:
C] Have high educational levels. C3 Most are white-collar workers, primarily in social service and educational occupations.
0 Somewhat above average In Income.  Young adults are the most common users, although both children and older adults are fairly well represented. C] Most Wilderness trips are short, both in miles traveled and time spent. C:] In most Wilderness areas, use is heavily concentrated on only a few trails within the specific Wilderness area.
Wilderness: The Restrictions
ACTIVITIES PERMITTED IN ACTIVITIES NOT PERMITTED OR
A WILDERNESS AREA RESTRICTED IN A WILDERNESS AREA
Hiking* Human-made structures, even toilets
Mountain climbing* Campers
Backpacking* Ski lifts
Cross-country skiing Wildlife management-restricted
Canoeing Forest management-restricted
Swimming* Watershed management-restricted
Control of forest disease, insects and fire is severely lmited"
*All these activities are permitted and available on multiple-use public lands. In many Instances, recreationists enjoying such activities as cross-country skiing and backpacking prefer multiple-use areas because logging roads afford more accessibility.
Wilderness areas are especially susceptible to fire, insect and disease attacks.
Mr. EWART. For this purpose, they will be available from the National Forest Products Association.
I would further comment that we in the forest products industry do support what Mr. Scott just said. We favor maximum involvement in the process for wilderness and for timber production.
It is my feeling that the consumers of this country have never seen the full impact on them caused by excessive land withdrawal. When and if the national wilderness preservation system exceeds the RPA goals, the consumer must know what it is doing to him and his offspring in the future as it relates to their ability to acquire shelter.
We favor a maximum public involvement by not only the consuming public, but all other users of the national for-ests and certainly organized labor.
Mr. MCCOMB. I have heard a great deal of concern today and before this concerning economic hardship. I assume that this is"not the first time the Forest Service has heard that expressed.
I would not be surprised if there are limits for hardship cases, but I am curious whether that is the rule or the exception.
Mr. RESLER. I think it depends a little bit on how long it takes us to reach, some kind of reasonable conclusion on the blue'-o'r the yellow. Our objective will be to try to complete that first cut within a year's time. V
If we can do that, than we think we can minimize those impacts and keep within a tolerable level. We may have to make substantial changes in the allocation of resources-mainly money and manpower-to try to strengthen some of the areas where that impact will be the greatest, but we do not want to cause impact in any localized area if there is any way we can avoid it.
If it carries on for an extended period of time-for example like fiscal year 1979, before we can get some decisions made through this process because of appeals, litigation or otherwise-if we cannot come to some kind of conclusion, then you will see some serious impact and it will zet worse over the years.
I think it is to all of our advantage to do what we can to expedite this process, make the first cut so that we can make some decision on land allocation. These, decisions-in spite of all of the data we can put together-are going to finally be political decisions.
What we want to do is display those options so, we can reach some consensus, hopefully, on these important land allocation decisions. Believe it or not, we would like to get on with the business of managing the national forests like we know how to manage the national forests.
We would like to avoid any f tirther dissipation of our efforts in unproductive efforts. We will do the best we can. We want to focus our efforts, minimize the impacts, get the decisions made.
If the process bogs down beyond tl)at, I think you will see some decisions you do not like in the Halls of Congress.
11r. Ewi.N G. One of the things that bothers me-and I need your reaction-is that when there is a proposal for land withdrawal the first thing I have to say is, what can I find against it?
I have to start looking at those things because I feel that there is a never-ending desire for that. I am sure, from your standpoint, that you say, "Everytime they put in a road, they are going to log another area." I am sure they have the same reactions we do on either side.
That is one of the reasons I was trying to pursue, the other day, where are we going with these various goals. I think you want to know
where we are going on timber goals as well as we need to know what your ultimate goals are on wilderness preservation, and whatever else might be backing off the timber supply because I represent timber.
if I were a inner, I would be asking the same kind of questions of you people. I think if we knew those a little better, knew we were getting there, two things would happen. Let's go from the wilderness standpoint.
We said 30 million acres for a figure. I will not debate which was the right figure as we begin to arrive at 28, 29 million acres.
If I were proposing wilderness, I would become selective-which ones really qualify? By the same token, we should do this on the timber issue.
This is not an accusation, but these kinds of things bother me. Most of the areas I know quite well in western Oregon that have been selected generally for wilderness have pretty high timber values. There may be differences of opinion.
I am saying, most.
I use wilderness. A lot of people who know me know I do. The kind of things that I think are excellent timber-using areas are Mount Thielson. It bothers me that we are selecting those high timber value areas, and we get all those selected that come by natural attrition.
I think it is worthwhile that we sit down and talk about some of these things. Where are we going? How are we going to do these things?
Mr. FONTAINE. I would like to speak about the concern expressed today about the Forest Service and-use decisions. I am concerned about that, too.
I do not think it has been the intent of the wilderness advocates to delay these decisions. I think, in the past, we have felt there are a lot of areas that should be considered for wilderness evaluation really have not been given a fair shake.
We feel these wilderness values have not been given the same consideration as some of the other resource values.
As a result, I think it is only human reaction, when a person feels his ideas are not being given a fair chance, to feel cheated. I think that is what results in the appeals and litigation we are talking about.
It seems to me, from a personal point of view, that the RARE It process may give use a chance to see those wilderness values are given a fair consideration. I think, as a result, if we are to go through this in a fair process-and, I think, in a timely way, too-you will probably see fewer appeals and less litigation because people will feel that they have been given their day in court, even though they may have lost in some cases. They had a chance.
In some cases in the past, I think it has not been that way.
Mr. KU E I I -N E. I would offer one piece of advice.
As you go around the country talking to people and as you instruct the Forest Service. people, I hope you can ask them to try to do their best to convince the people who are. wilderness advocates that they are really sincere about giving all of those, wilderness areas.
People are concerned about a fair evaluation, whether it is real or not. I think you will all agree with me.
The wilderness advocates feel there is press against w1derness in many areas of the, forest. If they feel tbey are being given a fair chance, I think that all of us would be more willing 'z to cooperate in the process and see that we do arrive at a timely decision,
Mr. O'Do.NNELL. I am Jim O'Donnell from Spokane. I am an alternate to this roundtable.
Zane made his presentation earlier. 'We talked about the needs there. When he came to the wildlife, he talked about, the perceived needs of wildlife by the public.
I recently attended two workshops, one in Yakimna and one in Spokane. There was no explanation of the criteria, given out, no name put on the sheet that was turned back in. Theref ore, the Forest Service has nameless criteria sheets, and they are basing their needs on what people think certain wildlife, as an example, need.
As Mr. Hampton put it, it is an emotional thing rather than a biological thing. 1 hope the Forest Service consults with professionals in that field as well as with the other agencies who manage these resources.
If they do not., I am af raid -the emotion-as Mr. Davis explained at the meeting yesterday on the House side--of loons, grizzly bear, and wolf are going to unscientifically denote wilderness areas where they are not needed.
Dr. CUTLER. I do not think there is any danger of that. They have over 200 scientists involved in this team exercise. I do not know exactly what you are talking about with respect to the panther and grizzly bear.
We know that most animals respond to the diversity of habitat, so we will not, go down a primrose path on that.
Mr. MCCOMB1. I would like to talk a little bit on this idea of a goal.
1 agree with what you have in mind about how much timber we need to produce in the United States, knowing that is a very desirable thing. Without knowing much about the -timber industry, it seems that is something you could put a number on, a range of numbers, pretty readily. Z
I am not sure an acreage goal for wilderness is a desirable thing to have. I do not think anyone in the room would think we have had an adequate wilderness system of 30 million acres, or 30 million acres of timber.
I think one of the things we can move toward, by identifying those tradeoffs, is the thing Mr. Scott has outlined as having the best of both worlds, no matter what size that wilderness system is. Thir-ty million acres might be too much and unduly infringe on real demands for timber, but 50 million acres might not be too much if it did not do that and did not adversely impact other needs.
Dr. CUTLER. I think we could spend the next endless hours in endless argument,.
Let me say, in recessing this meeting, that I think this has been a very fruitful discussion. I know I have profited from it. I am sure the Forest Service has. I think the Senators learned a great deal from it. WVe learned from them.
I am going to proposed that the Department of Agriculture sponsor a get-togrether of everyone who is here today, plus the other interests identified as being interested and not being here, in our departmental conference room every 2 or 3 months during I-ie next year or so, so we can keep in touch with one another, keep fine-tuning this process, I hope to our mutual sat isf action.
On behalf of the committee, if I may, and on behalf of the Department, of Agricu lture, I thank you all for coming.
L Whereuplon, at 4 :47 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A DImONAL MATERIAL SUBMITFAD FOR THE RECOID
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTuRE FOREST SERVICE
FEDERAL BUILDING MISSOULA, MONTANA 59807
December 20, 1977
Attached for your information is a copy of "RARE II Wilderness Attribute Rating System: A User's Manual." This manual, recently developed by a team of Forest Service and university specialists, describes the system we will be using as one of several parts of the RARE II process of evaluating roadless areas for possible addition to the National Wilderness Preservation System. Other evaluations are being made of the resource
and economic tradeoffs and the social impacts, of possible wilderness classification of RARE II areas; results of these studies will form the basis for final selections of areas.
Results of our application of the nIderness Attribute Rating System can be reviewed in Forest Service offices after mid-FebruAry 1978. We will solicit a critique of these ratings during the public review period on the Draft EIS next sunner.
JAMES E. REID
Planning, Programming and Budgeting
21-945 0 78 7
RARE II WILDERNESS ATTRIBUTE RATING SYSTEM
A USER'S MANUAL
Developed by the Wilderness Attribute Rating
System Task Force, November-December 1977
George Stankey, Task Force Chairman, U.S. Forest Service Perry Brown, Colorado State University
Dick Buscher, U.S. Forest, Service Bev Driver, U.S. Forest Service Dick Gale, University of Oregon John Hendee, U.S. Forest Service Burt Litton, U.S. Forest Service, University of California Bob Muth, University of Washington
Dick Shafer, U.S. Forest Service Randy Washburne, Washington State University Paul Weingart, U.S. Forest Service Pete Wingle, U.S. Forest Service
RARE II Wilderness Attribute Rating System
Table of Contents
Executive Summary Pa
Improving on the Old Wilderness Quality Index 3
Developing a New Wilderness Attribute Rating System 4
Technical Review and Revision of the Attribute Rating 8
Important Considerations for Application 9
Requisite Attributes 1 and 2: 12
Natural Integrity and Apparent Naturalness
Requisite Attribute 3: Potential for Solitude 27
Requisite Attribute 4: Primitive Recreation Opportunity 41
Supplemental Attributes 41
Using the Wilderness Attribute Data 49
RARE II WILDERNESS ATTRIBUTE RATING SYSTEM
This report describes a Wilderness Attribute Rating System designed for application to the 1,920 roadless areas inventoried in the RARE II process. The system rates on a seven point scale the four requisite wilderness attributes described in the Wilderness Act. These four requisite attributes are: natural integrity apparent naturalness I outstanding opportunities for solitude, and primitive recreation. in addition, the system provides for rating four supplemental wilderness attributes*: outstanding ecological, geological, scenic, and historical features. They are supplementary because their presence is permissible but not required by the WildernessAct. The system also provides for ratings of adjusted natural integrity and adjusted apparent naturalness-ratings that reflect improvement in the natural integrity and apparent naturalness scores if boundaries of the area were adjusted, where possible, to remove serious intrusions.
Each of the wilderness attribute ratings is based on evaluations of pertinent component data. For example, natural integrity ratings are based on impacts of human activity in each area; solitude ratings are based on components such as presence of vegetative and topographic screening, size of area; and so forth. The underlying theory is that compiling as much objective and descriptive data on components of all the wilderness attributes will facilitate consistent ratings of the wilderness attributes by both resource professionals and the public. Professionals are urged to involve the public in applying the system.
The suggested application of the Wilderness Attribute Rating System requires: 1) component evaluations and overall ratings for wilderness attributes, 2) computer processing of wilderness attribute ratings, including a composite rating, to identify the most highly rated roadless
areas in terms of wilderness attributes.