:m 



A: The Tongass has been guided by one political decision after the other including: the 

 Tongass Timber Act of 1947, signing of the two 50-year contracts, the Alaska Native 

 Settlement Act transferring close to 500,000 acres of the national forest into private ownership, 

 and AN1LCA. 



The planning process is currently pre-empted and driven by the contracts and the 4.5 billion 

 board foot per decade timber supply goal. Because the contracts and the supply goal pre-empt 

 the planning process, timber must always come first in all "planning" decisions, regardless of 

 the effects on other resources, and regardless of the wishes of the nontimber communities 

 dependent on the Tongass. 



Removal of long-term contract and 4.5 constraints is absolutely necessary before a true 

 multiple resource planning process can be successful. Removal of contractual and timber 

 supply constraints will take another political decision which is why we support H.R. 987. 

 Quite simply, Congress must act to untie the contractual and political knots that bind Tongass 

 management before any meaningful land planning process can become a reality. History shows 

 that protection of important fish and wildlife habitat has always had to be a political decision, 

 too, because the Forest Service has always refused to support Wilderness protection for areas 

 that could be logged. 



It is clear that the Forest Service's planning process can not work without a comprehensive 

 political reform to allow multiple- use management on the Tongass. 



ie. You worked for Mr. Barton. Please give examples of limes he refused to honor Forest 

 Service commitments on the Tongass. If you weren't referring to Mr. Barton, who in the Forest 

 Service were you charging? 



A: Again, I did not work for Mr. Barton. However, he committed to certain promises when 

 he signed the July 1987 Tongass Land Management Plan Revision Work Plan. These promises 

 have been broken as detailed in Attachment M entitled Broken Promises -- the Tongass Land 

 Management Plan Revision. 



Additionally, Mr. Barton and his staff have failed to meet commitments to the Alaska 

 Department of Fish and Game, the state agency working with the Forest Service on the 

 wildlife, fisheries, and subsistence aspects of the TLMP Revision. See Attachment O. 



I did work for the four Regional Foresters that preceded Mr. Barton. There have been a 

 number of broken promises over the years. See my article on page 1 of Attachment N, the 

 Winter 1990 Inner Voice, a newsletter of the Association of Forest Service Employees for 

 Environmental Ethics. My article and others in the newsletter detail some of the illegal acts 

 and broken promises through the years. The fact that the Forest Service no longer has the 

 trust of the public has created much of the controversy over the planning process. However, 

 the fact that the Forest Service can NOT now deliver a plan that addresse s issues on a site- 

 specific and community level is the single biggest broken promise we face. (See pages 9-13 of 

 our full statement.) 



if. Wouldn't a better characterization of your position be that decisions you don't like are 

 political while those you endorse are not? Enactment of SEACC's proposals is statesmanship 

 while maintaining current law is base politics? 



A: ANILCA Section VIII, NEPA, and NFMA are Congressional laws not being honored 

 because they conflict with ANILCA Section 705 and the 50-year contracts. Because these are 

 laws passed by Congress, only Congress can correct the conflicts with legislation balancing 

 multiple-use for the Tongass. 



