155 





'/Xi^/S^^ 



1. 



%jfM V*T A//f/ r T/^ 



I 



- Forest Planning Support 



D«mr Editor: 1 am' fteponding to 

 recent letter from Tony Gasbairo, of 

 the AJaslu Gupcer of the Society of 

 American Foresten (SAF). The letter 

 urged citizens to support the planning 

 process for the Revision of the Ton- 

 gass Land Management Plan. Mr. Gas- 

 barro claimed that cunrent reform leg- 

 islation before Congress would inter- 

 fere with this planning process. He 

 also warned that such legislation was 

 dangerous since it would interfere with 

 the professional management of the 

 Tongass. as well as the endre National 

 Forest System. 



I support forest planning. I support 

 the Tongass Timber Reform Aa which 

 would return the funding of the Ton- 

 gass management to annual appropria- 

 tions and repeal the 4S0 million board 

 feet per year timber supply goaL I also 

 suppon the Alaskan Timber Contract 

 Mddification Act which would cancel 

 the 50 year contract with the two pulp 

 mills and return the timber program 

 back to a system of shon term compe- 

 titively bid sales. In short. I suppon 

 these reform measures for the very 

 reasons that SAF opposes them. 



I worked for die Tongass NationaL 

 Forest for over 20 years. I way the- 

 team leader for the Southeast Area 

 Guide, the Tint phase of the original 

 Tongass Land Management PlaiL I 

 know the Forest Service and I know 

 the planning pnxess. 



TTie Forest Service is burdened with 

 amber harvest levels dictated by the 

 two SO year contracts plus the manda- 

 ted 450 million board foot aimual 

 timber supply target writsn into the 

 Alaska Lands Act No other nanonal 

 forest has these types of limber man- 

 dates. The key to enlightened dmber 

 harvest of the Tongass is rather 

 straight forward — cut dmber only to 

 the extent that the other values or 

 resources of the forest are not damaged 

 or destroyed, but. sad to say, that's not 

 what is happening on the Tongass. 



Tongass Forest planning can only 

 work when decisions on timber harvest 

 levels are based on the capability of 

 the land — not on the economic and 

 political dictatts of man. SAF urges us 

 to wait until the "new" Tongass Plan 

 is completed (most likely m 1994) 

 before we push for any major refomu 



in Tongass mangement; that course of 

 inaction assures there will be precious 

 little left to reform. 



I recently testified before members 

 of the U.S. Senate. I made it clear that 

 proponents of the Tongass Timber 

 Reform Act are not trying to stop the 

 revision of the Tongass Plan. The fact 

 is that the Tongass Timber Reform Act 

 will assist the cotnpleaon of the revi- 

 sion and help the Forest Service plan- 

 ning effort Removal of the inflexible 

 "450" million board feet per year 

 timber supply goal will untie the hands 

 of die agency professionals. The revi- 

 sion will be a better prtxlua as a result. 



As thmgs stand nght now, no matter 

 how much effon the Forest Serv-ice 

 puts into this revision, no matter how 

 much money it takes, no matter how 

 much public involvement is solicited, 

 the answers will still be the same — 

 the 450 is viewed as a mandate, the 50 

 year contraca are viewed as a man- 

 date, the mission to cut dmber is 

 viewed as a mandate. Unless die law 

 and the contracts are changed, die 

 revision will bring no real chuge and 

 wiUfaiL 



. The SAF fails to mendon the posi- 

 dtxi of die American Forestry Associa- 

 don. whose roemben included agency 

 professionals, college professors and 

 even a former chief of die Forest 

 Service. In 1987, the American Fore- 

 stry Association made an important 

 statement in Congress concerning the 

 Tongass Timber Reform Act While 

 supporting the proposed legislation as 

 a "start towards more radonai man- 

 agement" diey said die following: 



"...when a forest's direction has 

 been set by legislation it is far too 

 inflexible to be pracdcaL If oodiing 

 else, the furor of die Tongass debate 

 proves diat We think it also proves a 

 principle — dictating die maaagement 

 details oif any nadonal forest by federal 

 legislation is doomed to failure. 



"The American Forestry Associa- 

 don believes the dmber management 

 program on the Tongass should be 

 developed on the basis of the resource 

 capacity of die fotest..The Tongass 

 tiinber progi am should not be directed 

 by Congressional mandate, any more 

 dian any other nanonal forest should 

 be." 



I believe that passage of the Tongass 

 Timber Reform Act would make the 

 basic changes needed to begm bring- 

 ing Tongass forest planning more in 

 line with the plaiming programs of the 

 odier 155 nanonal forests in our coun- 

 try. Rather than setting some kind of 

 "undesirable precedent" as claimed 

 by SAF. the Tongass Timber Reform 

 Act would truly benefit the planning 

 prtx:ess for our largest nadonal forest. 



One final point should be made. The 

 Alaska Chapter of the Society of 

 American Foresters is made up prima- 

 rily of Forest Service employees. The 

 Forest Service has been stonewalling 

 efforts to reform the management of 

 the Tongass Nadonal Forest It is the 

 Forest Service dut for the last five 

 yean, has stated in print and in Con- 

 gressional testimony that there are no 

 problems on die Tongass I 



K J. Metcalf 

 Angoon 



