398 



Highgrading has severe impacts on critical on fish and 

 wildlife habitat that is important to the well being of 

 commercial fisherman, subsistence users, and sportsmen. Taking 

 all the best timber now also jeopardizes the long-term economic 

 future of the timber industry. By portraying marginal lands as 

 feasible for harvest, even with massive public subsidies, the AMS 

 presents a dangerously misleading picture. 



The Forest Service recently spent more than $750,000 on the 

 Alaska Timber Marketing Studies to collect data on the demand for 

 Tongass timber in the Pacific Rim countries. The demand forecast 

 for Tongass timber in these studies was 400 mmbf annually, an 

 exaggerated amount in our opinion 12 but nevertheless far below 

 the level proposed in the AMS of 580 mmbf to 780 mmbf per year. 13 

 While the AMS acknowledges no restraints for demand of Tongass 

 timber, it does set demand cutoffs for all other forest resource 

 industries such as commercial fishing and tourism. 



Unrealistic assumptions concerning second-growth timber 

 yields also affect the size of the Tongass timber base. Tongass 

 planning assumes that second growth regenerated from most mar- 

 ginal old-growth timber lands will yield more timber than even 

 the most productive stands of old growth. In some cases, the 

 assumed yields for second growth are estimated to range from 4 00 

 to 600 percent more than the original old-growth stands. 14 While 

 it is generally accepted that second-growth stands are more 

 productive, the assumptions for the Tongass are completely 

 unrealistic. 



12 



The Wilderness Society was invited by the Forest Service to serve on an oversight committee for the 



Alaska Timber Marketing Studies (ATMS). One of the principle responsibilities of the committee was to 

 insure that the ATMS results would be specific to the conditions facing timber operators on the Tongass 

 National Forest. The ATMS failed to meet this objective, partly because the studies were accelerated in 

 response to anticipated congressional action on the Tongass Timber Reform Act. Rather than using new or 

 primary information, the final ATMS report largely relied on information existing prior to the ATMS 

 effort. This information was not specific to southeast Alaska. Thus, the final ATMS report is primarily 

 a series of assumptions that justify the status quo of logging on the Tongass National Forest. 



13 



The 400 mmbf forecast appears plausible only if the Alaska timber suppliers continue to respond to 



market forces as they have in the past. This assumes that the quality of Tongass timber will remain the 



same and ignores the fact that past logging has been concentrated in the areas of high volume, high 



quality old growth. Recognition that this practice cannot be sustained is well documented in a Forest 



Service memo to Congressmen Young during the debate over the Alaska National Interest Lands and 



Conservation Act. The Forest Service stated that past levels of timber harvest could not be sustained 



without substantial use of lower volume, marginal timber stands. The average annual timber harvest yield 



from 1954 to today has been about 40 thousand board feet (mbf) per acre. Yet, the existing Tongass timber 



base averages only 26 mbf per acre for the first decade (1981-1990) and only 18 to 22 mbf acre over the 



next 60 years. Clearly, the preponderance of lower quality timber in the future timber supplies has major 



implications on the viability of the Tongass timber industry. 



According to Tongass planning assumptions, old-growth stands that yield only 14 mbf per acre (net 

 sawlog basis) will yield 81 mbf per acre when cut again as a second-growth stands. The average yield for 

 the highest and most productive old-growth timber (volume class 7) is 49.2 mbf per acre. 



