181 



© 



Unlimited Budget and Salmon Enhancement Assumptiont Result in Unrealistic Salmon 

 Production and Employment Numbers 



How is it that even for the max timber benchmark, which would cut 780 million board feet of 

 timber each year in perpetuity, the Forest Service document shows no impact at all on salmon 

 production (see table on page 59), and no change whatsoever in timber employment (see table 

 on page 58)? 



Planners told FORPLAN it had unlimited money to spend to produce fish, so the model 

 scheduled all the possible fish enhancement projects in the first decade, assumed funds to 

 maintain and operate them forever, and assumed high levels of fish production. All 

 benchmarks showed salmon production of approximately 130 million pounds per year. This 

 number is closely related to the salmon enhancement projects and their assumed productivity. 

 It does not reflect the effects of logging on existing natural salmon habitat, even though 

 research and management experience document that such effects have, in fact, occurred. 

 The predicted fish production is the same for the max timber benchmark; the benchmarks 

 describe only the effects of full investment in salmon enhancement -- they do not show the 

 very real damage to fish production that would occur if logging were allowed along salmon 

 streams. 



Salmon enhancement projects, according to FORPLAN as configured, more than make up for 

 the assumed decline in salmon that would result under the max timber benchmark. In this 

 case, we have a management schedule where the taxpayers are asked to invest in enhancement 

 to compensate for the effects of logging. 



The benchmark employment graph shows no variation in salmon fishery employment. If the 

 computer says there will always be the same number of fish produced, and jobs are related to 

 pounds of fish, employment would not change. What has happened is this: Tongass planners 

 have set up their computer models so that they will calculate away the salmon-logging problem. 

 This may work in the hypothetical realm of the computer, but it doesn't wash in real life. 



Recreation and Tourism Analysis — the Great Coverup 



The AMS benchmarks suggest that recreation "capacity" will remain unchanged on the Tongass, 

 no matter how the forest is managed. Forest Service officials explain that recreation supply so 

 far exceeds demand that there is no problem with the effects of logging on recreation. This is 

 a false and misleading presentation. 



According to page 45 of the AMS, "most of the recreation use within the Forest occurs in 

 favorite recreation places along the extensive shorelines, lakes and rivers. . . . Because 

 recreation places tend to occur in areas associated with valleys, streams and beach fringes, they 

 also tend to have high values for other resources including wildlife and timber. Tourism . . . 

 is highly dependent on the diversity of scenery and wildlife provided by the National Forest. 

 The challenge is ... to ensure high quality recreation places, given competing timber values." 



How can this logical explanation be reconciled with the table on page 59 suggesting that even 

 the most extreme management benchmarks have no significant effects on recreation capacity? 

 How can it be reconciled with the table on page 58 that predicts tourism employment will 

 remain constant, no matter how the Tongass is managed? Does anyone really believe that the 

 max timber benchmark, which schedules 780 million board feet of timber for cutting each year 

 forever, would have no negative effect on tourism employment? 



One likely answer is that the Forest Service FORPLAN model is replacing hunting, fishing, 

 and hiking in the woods with campgrounds in clearcuts! 



