211 



Americcin Forestry Association 

 Page 2 



Our testimony today will focus on S. 346, the Tongass Timber Reform Act, 

 v^ch we believe provides the basic reforms necessary to achieve rational 

 managoient. We cannot suj^ort S. 237, vihich repeals only the $40 million annual 

 appropriation for timber management, because it naintains the prescriptive timber 

 supply goal of 4.5 billion board feet per decade, restricting the flexibility of 

 the current forest planning process to set its cwn targets. It also maintains 

 the exemption from the requirement in the National Forest Management Act of 1976 

 to identify lands not suitable for timber managenent. "fliis, we believe, could 

 result in timber management on marginal lands, and exacerbate the already bad 

 econcmics of the timber program. 



Forest Management and Planning 



Although the timber industry has recovered in the past couple years due to 

 increased wood product denend and favorable exchange rates, and the regional 

 economy has rebounded as well. Southeast Alaska is still an area of intense 

 conflict over cotplex social, econcmic, and environmental issues related to the 

 managenent of the Ttmgass National Forest. These issues have pitted Alaskans 

 against Alaskans, against "outsiders" from the lovrer 48, vAiile the Forest Service 

 and the timber industry are lined up against just about everybody else in a 

 controversy that no one can win. 



The Forest Service receives most of the public blame for the current 

 mismanagement in the Tongass, but it is our feeling that this is a bum rap. The 

 causes are several, diverse, and cortplex, but the American Forestry Association 

 believes a principal culprit is a practice that might be called "management by 

 statute." The Tongass has been, and continues to be, managed under prescriptive 

 legislation that preenpts rational nanagement decisions by the Forest Service. 



Section 705(a) of ANHJCA has been interpreted as directing the Forest 

 Service to offer for sale, regardless of nHri<Et conditions, 4.5 billion board 

 feet of timber per decade, and to spend at least $40 million annually to maintain 

 the timber supply to dependent industry, largely through the construction of 

 timber access roads. The timber must be offered for sale regardless of the 

 narket's econcmic climate, and the roads are to be built regardless of actual 

 need. In other words, this is a provision viiich lets the timber industry harvest 

 logs \A\en the market is ri^t and turn into road construction firms vihen the 

 market is down. During the recessicai of the early 1980' s, millions of dollars 

 were spent each year to construct roads though they had little premise of 

 economic return and caused ecological disruption .v 



A major problem with this 1980 deal is that it locks spending into one 

 aspect of the sit\iation on the Tongass — timber supply and roads — without 

 really deeding with seme basic issues of forest integrity and economic stability. 

 But laws are not easy to change, and v*ien a Forest's direction has been set by 

 legislation, it is far too inflexible to be practical. If nothing else, the 

 furor of the Tongass debate proves that. We think it cLLso proves a principle — 

 dictating the management details of any National Forest by federal legislation is 

 docmed to failure. 



