[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Salvage Logging Background
Distributed to TAP-RESOURCES, a free Internet Distribution List
(subscription requests to listproc@tap.org)
TAXPAYER ASSETS PROJECT - NATURAL RESOURCES POLICY ADVISORY
(please distribute freely)
TAP-RESOURCES
March 20, 1996
Recently, Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) introduced legislation and
offered as an amendment language that would first repeal the "logging
without laws" salvage logging rider and then replace it with a new
salvage program. Unfortunately, Sen. Murray's salvage language, like its
predecessor, is not in the public's interest.
Many environmentalists have felt a need to support the Murray
language because it is an improvement over the Hatfield salvage
language, which the Murray amendment attempted to strike, as well as an
improvement over the Emergency Timber Salvage program now in place. But
like the lesser of any two (or three) evils, it is still an evil. The
bill's restrictive appeals process and the continuation and expediting of
the federal salvage logging program puts the interests of timber
companies above those of citizens.
The quick fix approach to "improving" the federal salvage timber
program cannot adequately adress all the problems with the salvage
program. Congress must repeal the "Logging without Laws" rider and only
then should Congress attempt, through the proper authorizing process, to
reform the wasteful salvage logging program.
The following report provides a brief background on federal
salvage logging program and where it and the interest of taxpayers
conflict.
Ned Daly
* * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * *
SALVAGE TIMBER SALES
Taxpayer Assets Project
February 1996
The Forest Service assigns timber sales to one of three
categories: (1) the timber commodity component, which includes
sales that primarily help meet the needs of U.S. citizens for wood
products, (2) the stewardship component (salvage), which includes
sales that ostensively help achieve desired ecological conditions
and non-timber objectives outlined in forest plans, and (3) the
personal use component, which includes sales of forest products
such as firewood and Christmas trees to individuals for personal
use. Only one of the 121 Forest Service forests generated positive
net revenues in all three components during fiscal year 1994, the
most recent year for which public data are available, and more than
half reported net losses on salvage sales alone.
"CALL ALL SALES `SALVAGE SALES'," RECOMMENDS FOREST SERVICE.
The objective of timber salvage sales (the stewardship
component) is "to provide the timely recovery of trees which are
dead; insect or disease infested; windthrown; or imminently
susceptible to insect attack because of drought stress, and to
remove associated trees for ecosystem improvement or rehabilitation
necessary to maintain a healthy and viable ecosystem," according to
the Forest Service's fiscal year 1996 budget request.
Revenue from salvage sales need not cover the cost of
reforestation of the site logged or even the costs incurred to
arrange the sale and is not remitted to the federal treasury. Not
surprisingly then, a December 17, 1992 Forest Service manager's
memo, which the Associated Press obtained, stated, "We were told
[at a meeting] that virtually every sale should include `salvage'
in the name.... Even if a sale is totally green [non-salvage], as
long as one board comes off that would qualify as salvage on the
Salvage Sale Fund Plan, it should be called salvage."
Consistent with the memo, the Forest Service's 1993 Timber
Sale Program Annual Report declared that "in the future, the
proportion of timber commodity harvest is expected to decline while
the forest stewardship [salvage] proportion increases." Salvage
sales accounted for 26 percent of the timber harvest in 1994,
compared to 24 percent in 1993. The green volume associated with
salvage sales was 23 percent in 1995 and is expected to increase to
27 percent in 1996.
REPORTING "NET SALVAGE SALES" DISGUISES LOSSES
In fiscal year 1994, 63 (52 percent) of the 121 Forest Service
forests generated negative net revenues in the stewardship
(salvage) component; the negative net revenues reported by these
forests totalled $19,306,000, an increase from losses of
$18,385,000 in 1993. The two years' negative revenues excluded the
stewardship component's allocation of Washington and regional
office costs, which totalled $24,303,000 in 1994.
When Washington and regional costs are allocated to forests
based on harvest volume, losses from salvage sales in negative net
revenue forests jump to $28,687,000 in 1994. (See attached table.)
States with federal forests reporting at least $1 million in net
losses from salvage sales include Oregon, California, New Mexico,
Montana, Washington, Michigan, Virginia and South Carolina.
These losses understate the total dollar amount of below-cost sales
because net revenues combine both profitable and below-cost sales. For
example, in one forest a sale that generates a profit of $80 is added to a
sale that incurs a loss of $100, resulting in reported negative net
revenue of $20 [$80 - $100]. However, below-cost sales total $100. The
losses also exclude below-cost sales in positive net revenue forests
because profitable and losing sales there also are netted. For example,
in another forest a sale that generates a profit of $140 is added to a
sale that incurs a loss of $90, resulting in net revenue of $50 [$140 -
$90]; below-cost sales, though, total $90. Combining the examples, the
Forest Service would report overall profits for the two forests of $30
[-$20 + $50], but fail to disclose that losses of $190 [$100 + 90] could
have been avoided if the below-cost sales had not occurred.
SALVAGE SALES DON'T REDUCE THE FEDERAL DEFICIT
According to March 22, 1995 testimony provided by Jack Ward Thomas,
Chief of the Forest Service, in budget hearings before the House
Subcommittee on the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies,
revenues from salvage sales are divided according to the following
formula: 25 percent of the revenue is distributed to the States and
benefits public schools and public roads in counties within the national
forests, 25 percent goes to the Knutson-Vandenberg (K-V) Reforestation
Fund and the remaining 50 percent is added to the Salvage Sales Fund.
Money is deposited into the K-V Fund by timber purchasers and
is used primarily to reforest areas cut due to timber sales and to
improve the future productivity of timber stands. According to the
Forest Service, reforestation activities include site preparation,
planting, fertilizing, precommercial thinning, release from
competing vegetation and pruning. However, only about 78 percent
of the total reforestation work is expected to be financed from the
K-V Fund during fiscal year 1996.
Receipts from timber salvage sales are deposited into the
Salvage Sales Fund and used to cover the costs to prepare and
administer future salvage sales on any national forest and for the
design, engineering and supervision of associated roads. The Fund
appropriation increased 670 percent in nine years, from $17 million
in 1987 to $131 million in 1995. The 1996 budget proposes a $2.5
million increase from the 1996 base of $136.8 million.
When asked, during budget hearings before the House
Subcommittee on the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
on March 22, 1995, whether any revenues (from salvage sales) would
go toward reducing the federal deficit, Gray Reynolds, Deputy Chief
of the National Forest System, answered, "It would reforest those
lands and get them back in a productive state, which in the long
term has a positive effect on the budget." In response to a
follow-up question about how long that would take, Mr. Reynolds
replied, "Well, it depends on where we're harvesting. In the
South, it may be 20 years. In the West, it may be 80 years."
IF SALVAGE LOGGING IS NEEDED TO IMPROVE FOREST HEALTH, WHY ARE
SALVAGE SALES EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS?
The Forest Service sets three priorities for conducting
salvage sales, according to testimony provided by the Forest
Service in budget hearings before the House Subcommittee on the
Department of the Interior and Related Agencies on March 22, 1995.
The first two place more weight on generating salvage sales, even
though the costs of these sales often exceed revenues, than on the
negative environmental impact of salvage sales. First, the Forest
Service looks at those areas where there is a high risk of losing
substantial volumes of available and merchantable volume and where
there is high risk to life, property or ecosystem health if some of
the dead or dying trees are not removed. Second, the Forest
Service gives high priority to removing economically valuable
material before the material deteriorates and to providing material
needed to meet local mill requirements. Finally, the Forest
Service looks at areas which may not yet be high risk but where
treatment is needed to promote reforestation and ecosystem
restoration, to prevent deterioration of forest health and to
accomplish other objectives established in the Forest Service's
land management plans. [Emphasis added.]
Legal exemptions also may encourage environmental abuse.
Salvage sales that are less than one million board feet in size
have been excluded from National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
review, can be exempted from administrative appeal, and are
exempted from the anti-clearcutting policy. In a 1993 case
[Foundation for Global Sustainability v. McConnell (24 ELR 20340
(W.D.N.C. 6-2-93)], the Foundation for Global Sustainability
accused the Forest Service of segmenting a timber salvage project
to avoid filing an Environmental Impact Statement. However, Judge
Richard L. Voorhees ruled that the Foundation had failed to prove
intent, i.e., failed to prove that the agency had acted in an
arbitrary, capricious or unlawful manner and abused its discretion.
The Emergency Salvage Timber Sale Program, established in July
1995 by Congress, provides expedited procedures for salvage timber
sales by suspending applicable environmental laws. The program
allows the removal of trees that are only "associated" with salvage
timber, permits the use of previously-prepared (v. new)
environmental documents, whose scope and contents are solely the
discretion of the appropriate Secretary, and does not preclude
sales even though Forest Service costs may exceed the revenue
generated. According to Charles Gauvin, President of Trout
Unlimited, "What Congress passed and the President signed is
probably the worst environmental law of the century."
"SALVAGE AND FOREST HEALTH ARE NOT THE SAME," SAYS FOREST SERVICE.
Even the Forest Service admits that salvaging timber may not enhance
forest health. According to responses by the Forest Service to written
questions from Representative Jerry Lewis (R-CA), "Salvage and forest
health are not the same." In his budget testimony, Jack Ward Thomas
agreed that dead trees are necessary for the health of habitat, that
animals and plants benefit from the presence of dead trees and that
cleaning a site out may harm the habitat in those areas. He further
contended that the removal of material makes the site hotter in the sense
that there is less shading. The Forest Service also reported that if
salvage sales were increased, road construction in currently inventoried
roadless areas would be required a costly and destructive undertaking.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Expanding salvage sales on federal lands will generate more
taxpayer costs than revenues, thus frustrating efforts to balance
the budget. At the same time, increased salvage operations are
likely to harm not enhance forest health.
Proposed bills to repeal the July 1995 lawless logging
provisions would reverse the potential economic and environmental
ills created by the Emergency Salvage Timber Program.
-----------------------
Taxpayer Assets Project
P.O. Box 19367
Washington, DC 20036
----------------------
Losses from Negative Net Revenue Forests: 1994
STATE Losses from Negative Net
Revenue Forests
Alabama $222,000
Alaska 68,000
Arizona 505,000
Arkansas 10,000
California 3,187,000
Colorado 589,000
Florida 13,000
Georgia 284,000
Idaho 733,000
Illinois 411,000
Indiana 91,000
Kentucky 407,000
Michigan 1,495,000
Minnesota 811,000
Missouri 1,000
Montana 2,683,000
Nevada 25,000
New Hampshire 589,000
New Mexico 2,958,000
North Carolina 720,000
Ohio 146,000
Oregon 5,669,000
Puerto Rico 80,000
South Carolina 1,096,000
Tennessee 530,000
Utah 251,000
Vermont 253,000
Virginia 1,277,000
Washington 2,492,000
Wisconsin 753,000
Wyoming 338,000
TOTAL $28,687,000.00
Source: U.S. Forest Service data
--------------------------------------------------------------
TAP-RESOURCES is an Internet Distribution List provided by the
Taxpayer Assets Project (TAP). TAP was founded by Ralph Nader to
monitor the management of government property, including
information systems and data, government funded R&D, spectrum,
allocation, public lands and mineral resources, and other
government assets. TAP-RESOURCES reports on TAP activities
relating to natural resources policy. To obtain further
information about TAP send a note to tap@tap.org.
Subscription requests to: listproc@tap.org with the
message: subscribe tap-resources yourfirstname yourlastname
---------------------------------------------------------------
Taxpayer Assets Project; P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036
v. 202/387-8030; f. 202/234-5176; internet: tap@tap.org