Laserfiche WebLink
<br />,Nevertheless, the selected alternatives for both ~ional forests would permit' <br />an increase in t~r sales from recently experie~ levels if adequate fund~ ~ <br />ing levels are pr~ided, and therefore, the planning documents must discuss <br />and rationalize this possibility. <br /> <br />For both forest plans, the estimated costs associated with every alternative <br />examined substantially exceed projected revenues for the entire planning ;:. <br />horizon. The general pattern for both forest plans is for the present net <br />value for timber alone to decrease and for the excess of costs over revenues <br />to increase as goals for timber sales volume are increased. The record es- <br />tablishes that, the direct costs associated with increasing timber sales above <br />recent sale levels will exceed expected revenues over the entire planning <br />horizon. The benchmark analyses indicate that at current costs and prices, <br />the timber sale level that is economically efficient if timber values and <br />:osts alone are considered is 7-9 MMBF per year on the San Juan and 4-9 ~~F <br />per year on the Gl'-tUG. ~ ._~- . <br /> <br />A distinction must be made between economic efficiency as defined in the cur- <br />rent forest planning guidelines and the generation of revenues from the sale <br />or lease of commodities from the national forests. The selected alternative <br />for the San Juan Ilational Forest has the second highest PNV of the ten alter- <br />natives examined ($307 million); whereas for the GMUG, the PNV of the selected <br />alternative was the second lowest, yet was still significantly positive ($146 <br />million). Even though the relationship of program costs to anticipated <br />revenues was projected to be very unfavorable for the entire planning horizon, <br />the PNVs for the selected alternatives were relatively high. The reason PNV <br />was relatively high while the ratio of revenues to costs was low for both <br />forests is due to Forest Service projections that resource outputs which are <br />assigned a dollar value but for which revenues are not received, such as out- <br />door recreation, would be produced at high levels under the preferred alterna- <br />tives for both forests.. <br /> <br />The timber and associated road programs on both the San Juan and the G~lUG ac- <br />count for the bulk of both costs and revenues, yet non-timber benefits account <br />for the bulk of the beneEi ts that make up PNV. These facts should lead to c;'\ <br />exoloration of the question of whether it is possible to achieve the non- (l; <br />timber benefits more cost effectively through a management program of a dif- <br />ferent nature than presently proposed. The primary rationale cited in the <br />planning documents to support the selected alternative seems to be that a <br />healthy forest is necessary to achieve a high level of non-timber and amenity <br />objectives; that veoetation manaoemen~ designed to achieve a forest having a <br />more even distribution of age classes is necessary to provide a healthy <br />forest; and that a timber sale program is the most approoriate way to accom- t:::\ <br />plish such vegetation management. In view of the large net cost of vegetation ~ <br />management accomplished through the timber program, each of these assumptions <br />needs to be explored and ~y ratinn~';-nj and documented. <br /> <br />" <br />The following are examples of questions that should be addressed: ~the tim-CoW <br />ber program as currently proposed actually the most cost effective way to <br />achie~e the non-timber multiple use objectives of the plan? ~ what extent (~ <br />can Umber program costs be cut and/or revenues be enhanced while still pro- <br />viding an appropriate level of non-timber multiple use objectives? ~ there(~' <br />, other ways to accomplish vegetation management more cost effectively than. ' <br />through a timber program as currently proposed? ~The Forest Service has been GD <br />' exploring the use of prescribed fire for this purpose in Colorado.) Q2s.s this <br /> <br />- 8 - <br /> <br />...-. - <br /> <br />v._. <br /> <br />.... <br /> <br />'0. ,.. <br /> <br />,.':'".. <br /> <br />. .... -, <br /> <br />.-. <br />