393 



magazine style "user friendly" AMS that contains virtually no 

 useful information, while its graphics and abstracts are highly 

 misleading. 



My statement addresses the major problems in the AMS, 

 focusing specifically on how: 



the methods used to determine the value of timber do 

 not reflect realistic future logging costs, 



important costs are excluded from the Tongass timber 

 values, 



the lack of site specific timber resource information 

 masks the uneconomic nature of the Tongass timber 

 program, and 



the revised structure of the Tongass planning process 

 makes it impossible to determine basic economic and 

 environmental tradeoffs between timber and non-timber 

 forest uses. 



Tonoass Tim ber Value* Are Inflated 



The most misleading information presented in the AMS is the 

 discussion of the Tongass timber program. Even the results of 

 the Forest Service's own Timber Sale Information Reporting 

 System show that timber revenues from the Tongass fall far short 

 of recovering the costs to prepare and administer timber sales. 

 However, the AMS indicates that current logging levels could be 

 increased by up to 50 percent and still provide revenues in 

 excess of costs. At the same time, the only way to increase 

 logging substantially over current levels is to increase the use 

 of uneconomic marginal timber lands. The AMS is simply a 

 contradiction of facts and logic. 



1 The AAS indicate* that positive ecoroalc return* ire achievable et lowing rite* thet ere 50 percent 



_.-.».... Am th. mumrmnm rmtm frem 1977 to 1989. 



greater then the tverage rate frc« 1977 to 1989 



