125 



pressure on populations, and will generally aean Hore 

 restrictive hunting and trapping regulations. 



Clearly, the cost of the roads should be charged each year against 

 the timber program since that is their primary use. Calling these roads 

 "investments" for multiple-use is misleading since virtually all the roads in 

 the Tongass are constructed for logging operations -- first and foremost. 

 Hiding the true cost of logging in the Tongass is only an encouragement to the 

 Forest Service to continue its policy of profligacy. 



A major reason for this huge waste of taxpayers' money is that Che 

 Forest Service assumed timber demand and prices would stay constant at 

 historic high levels. The 1979 Tongass Land Management Plan (TLMP) is founded 

 on this assumption and the agency became locked in by the "450" timber supply 

 goal language included in ANILCA Section 705(a). This assumption was a gross 

 error. For example, between 1980 and 1984 the Forest Service made available 

 491 million board feet on the average, far in excess of the "450" timber 

 supply goal. Because of mounting criticism the Forest Service reduced their 

 annual timber sale offering, but from 1980-1986 they still had an average 

 offering of 467 million board feet per year. According to the GAG, 47% of 

 this timber was not purchased. The cost to the government of preparing these 

 timber offerings that found no buyers was calculated by GAG at $131 million. 



The Tongass Land Management Plan allowed for the offering of an 

 average of 338 million board feet per year of "nonnal economic" timber, but 

 despite the lack of demand, the agency still offered an annual average of 411 

 million board feet of this kind of timber. The Forest Service has never 

 offered even close to the full amount of "marginal" timber it proposed to sell 

 in the Tongass Plan. The GAG commented: "In retrospect, the Forest Service 



97-13A 0-89-5 



