182 



Q 



Here's how it works. The Forest Service measures recreation is terms of "total recreation 

 visitor days", or "RVDs." If FORPLAN counts up a lot of "RVDs" the computer is happy -- 

 "no problem, boss." 



Now think about it. In any given river valley, say ten people are hunting, some kayakers are 

 camping, and two families are taking a hike. That's about 25 RVDs. Well, with its unlimited 

 investment budget FORPLAN can build a campground in that valley that will hold 30 people - 

 - 30 RVDs. At the same time, it can schedule the entire area for timber harvest, generating 

 board feet. Well, the recreation capacity for hunting, hiking, and wilderness camping has 

 dropped to zero, but the total number of RVDs available is higher! 



That seems to be part of the benchmark recreation story: replace backcountry recreation with 

 logging and campgrounds. This is a poor way to "ensure high quality recreation places, given 

 competing timber values." 



Another aspect of the recreation benchmark coverup was explained to me by Forest Service 

 planners. The FORPLAN model schedules harvest in identified "recreation places" late in the 

 ISO year planning schedule. By doing so the present net value is kept high and the resource 

 opportunity costs are incurred in the distant future, when they can be reduced by discounting 

 at 4%. In addition, the recreation visitor day values associated with the recreation places are 

 assumed to drop when the place is logged, then increase as the second growth timber grows. 

 As a result, the FORPLAN model displays the effects of logging on recreation only for certain 

 windows in time; throughout the rest of the 150 year schedule the recreation sites are either 

 uncut or filled in with second growth. By choosing to display recreation capacity at the ten 

 year and 50 year marks only, the Forest Service avoided presentation of those windows in time 

 when FORPLAN shows the impacts of logging. Was this deliberate? Probably. Regardless, 

 the planners I talked to thought this was the main reason recreation effects did not show up. 

 However, they did not rule out the "campgrounds in clearcuts" problem I explain above. 



Recreation Demand Cutoff Adds to the Coverup 



Whereas timber demand was never "cut off" by the planners (all timber supply was assumed 

 sellable), recreation demand was limited by a cutoff point. This means that recreation 

 opportunities above a certain supply level were accorded no value at all. Just why do Forest 

 Service planners assume that all Tongass timber harvest is valuable "no matter what", but 

 recreation is only valuable "up to a point?" 



Forest Service's TLMP Revision Wildlife Analysis Is in Shambles 



On page 55 of the "user friendly" AMS the Forest Service presents a graph entitled "Wildlife 

 Habitat Capability by Benchmark. As I explained earlier, the implication that all wildlife 

 species' habitat requirements can be expressed by one number is biologically and logically 

 absurd. Furthermore, there is serious disagreement among the planning team members as to 

 how this graph was derived and what it represents. There is no documentation available to 

 support any of the planners' accounts. 



One planner says the graph shows only the total amount of commercial forest land that will 

 remain uncut in each benchmark. The 24% "viable population" figure was based on his 

 personal quasi-subjective estimate of what it would take to sustain a viable population of pine 

 martens somewhere on the Tongass. 



Another planner asserts that the Forest Service actually calculated the carrying capacity for 

 each management indicator species (there are over a dozen!) for each forest "geozone" 

 (analogous to, but different than, "management areas" in the first TLMP), then somehow added 



