219 



Forest Service processing of timber sales, it happened early 

 on, when the Forest Service (F,S.) withdrew several appealed 

 decisions and delayed scheduled release of other decisions. 



Subsequent to the first spate of environmentalists appeals, 

 I think the F.S. realized their timber E.A.s and decisions were 

 not "up to speed" legally, and they temporarily slowed things 

 down while they rewrote many E.A.s, yet to be released. They 

 will, however not admit this as this would result in bad P.R. 



If the timber industry believes environmentalist appeals are 

 "frivolous", why are they so afraid of them? A "frivolous" 

 appeal would not get upper level review and is certain to be 

 denied. The few months it would take to process a "frivolous" 

 appeal, is minor detour given the length of time it takes to 

 develop and process a timber sale. 



As I understand it, the Sierra Club has statistics it got from 

 the Forest Service this spring, which prove that there had been 

 no statistical increase in the net time it takes to process 

 timber sales on the Black Hills National Forest, since the many 

 timber appeals started. Timber advocates, when blaming 

 environmentalists for creating an unreliable or unavailable 

 timber supply, should be ask to document their assertions. 



Industry propaganda about appeals driving up the cost of timber, 

 has never made any sense to me - I think much of it is lies. 

 Scapegoati ng, prevents the public, the timber industry and this 

 Committee from really looking at what is happening and from 

 making any policy decisions that might help resolve complex 

 issues. 



Costs to taxpayers 



Stan Silva said that processing the appeals by the Black Hills 

 National Forest cost the taxpayers $84,000. What he didn't 

 say, was that the minor delays in timber sales, are also alleged 

 by timber industry, to drive up timber sale fees, thus allegedly 

 gaining taxpayer's money. In reality, given that national timber 

 prices have been rising most of this year, delays in sales would 

 have resulted in substantial extra earning for the treasury. 

 The taxpayer cost argument is a double edged sword for timber 

 industry advocates. 



"Where's the beef?" 



The real problem with timber supply for the timber companies 

 will come after the Forest Plan Revision. After the revision 

 there will be a lower Allowable Sale Quantity. The real issue 

 here is not wilderness or even current Forest implementation 

 appeals. I believe, the real issue is that the Forest can't 

 meet the current ASQ and comply with the National Forest 

 Management Act. The Forest Service knows it. The 

 environmentalists know it and they know they can appeal and 



