72 



• Seek to have a diverse Forest Service work force that represents a full spectrum 

 of views on resource questions. 



• Take an ecological approach to management that fully considers the inter- 

 relatedness of the physical, biological, and human elements both on national forest 

 lands and on other land ownerships. 



The management of the National Forests is increasingly complex and difficult. 

 There are no easy answers. But, hopefully, by applying the elements listed above, 

 we can both build public confidence and arrive at decisions that are in the broad 

 public interest. 



CHANGES IN ALLOWABLE SALE QUANTITIES (ASQ) 



Every National Forest in the country has a forest plan which indicates a certain 

 amount of timber that is considered an appropriate harvest level based on sus- 

 tained-yield principles. 



Industries often depend on the forest plans to manage their mills' financing, in- 

 vestment, and general operation. It would be impossible to have a mill in an area if 

 there is no certainty of a wood supply for that mill. 



On the other hand, the forest plan is not a legal contract with a mill for a specific 

 amount of timber. Timber sale contracts are legal contracts, and they are something 

 different altogether. The plan is a projected estimate that is constantly subject to 

 management decisions and amendment. 



We are finding now that some of our plans are inappropriate. Sometimes if we 

 follow our plans, we can end up in court, as in the Pacific Northwest. 



Consider the possibility that we choose to alter a forest plan. Legally this is OK. 

 Our plans are not contracts, and there is a mechanism for amending plans. Politi- 

 cally and socially, it appears that changing a plan is very difficult, as evidenced 

 again in the Pacific Northwest. 



Question 3. Can you comment on the responsibilities of the Forest Service to pro- 

 vide some standard of consistency in timber management, and on the limitations of 

 those responsibilities? 



Answer. In the introduction to this question, it is clear that its focus is on the 

 sometimes substantial differences in the allowable sale quantities (ASQ's) of some 

 approved national forest plans and the sale levels which those national forests are 

 experiencing today. Reasons for those differences vary from forest to forest, but 

 some common examples include: forest plan standards and guidelines which cannot 

 be met while producing the full ASQ; administrative appeals and litigation; chang- 

 ing resource protection measures required to address evolving issues, such as endan- 

 gered or sensitive species; increasing planning costs; requirements for reducing 

 clearcutting; ecosystem management; and reducing below cost sales. 



Forest planning is faced with somewhat conflicting objectives. On one hand, plan- 

 ning should be flexible enough to be able to respond to changing conditions and 

 evolving issues. On the other, it should be stable enough to provide certainty for 

 business investments made based on its projections. 



A significant number of national forests have already amended their plans to re- 

 spond to changing situations. Many more are planning to do so in the future. Some 

 of the amendments will be major, requiring the preparation of an Environmental 

 Impact Statement and full public participation. 



MECHANISMS FOR CHANGE 



There are established mechanisms for renewing and amending forest plans that 

 we should consider in our efforts to address below-cost timber sales on National For- 

 ests. These established mechanisms guarantee public involvement and provide some 

 stability to forest management. 



Question 4- Can you comment on the role of forest plan revision and amendment 

 procedures as they pertain to the possibility of reducing below-cost timber sales? 



Answer. There are a number of things that can be done as forest plans are revised 

 to address the below-cost issue. For example, forest planning documents can make 

 explicit the nontimber forest plan objectives, such as wildlife habitat improvement 

 or forest health objectives, that can be cost effectively achieved through timber ac- 

 tivities. Often this was not done well in previous planning efforts. The planning doc- 

 uments can also make more explicit for the public which elements of a forest's 

 timber program are below cost and why. If the forest proposes to continue such 

 sales, the planning documents should describe the multiple use and other objectives 

 which are felt to warrant continuing to sell timber at below cost. 



