212 



Americcin Forestry Association 

 Page 3 



Ihe Amarican Forestry AssociatiOTi believes the tinter management program on 

 the Tongass should be developed on the basis of the resource capacity of the 

 Forest, as outlined in a modem forest plan, ccnpleted and periodiccilly updated 

 in response to the National Forest Managanent Act of 1976. Annual timber sales 

 volumes, and road construction progress, should be shaped in the short term by 

 signals fron the narket place. "Hie Itongass timber program should not be directed 

 by Congressional nandate, any more than any other National Forest should be. 



Our suppDrt of S. 346 does carry a coi^le of caveats. Ihe first involves 

 the issue of fairness to the people and contnunities of Southeast Alaska. 

 Although the bill repeals the $40 million annual appropriation for timber 

 nanagement, we believe that an annual allocation of econcmic development funds 

 nay be justified in light of the history of land nanagement decisions dating back 

 to ANILCA. Should Congress feel that Southeast Alaska is still deserving of 

 special financial assistance in view of MULCA's significant wilderness set- 

 asides, we would urge that such funds be used in a much-broadened program, to 

 strengthen and diversify the region's natural resource-based economy, and to 

 naintain and inprove env ir onmental resources. IJiis fund could, for example, be 

 used to iitprove fish and wildlife habitat, develop better facilities, management 

 and interpretation programs to increase recreational revenues, or initiate a 

 system of irarine nanagement areas, in addition to helping foster a rational 

 program of timber development. Such a fund vrould buffer the econcmy of Southeast 

 Alaska against the wide swings that characterize a region dependent upon one 

 najor resource-based camcdity such as timber. 



The other caveat has to do with Section 202 of the bill vrfiich directs the 

 Forest Service to fully revise the Itangass land Management Plan of 1979 to be 

 consistent with the bill's provisions, and in doing so, to significantly increase 

 the protection of fish, wildlife, watershed, recreation, cultural resources, 

 biological diversity, old growth, and subsistence values. Ihe language in this 

 section is open to various interpretations, but we feel it canes dangerously 

 close to "nanagement by statute, " especially v^en it requires that specific 

 attention be given to high volume old growth. We urge that this type of 

 prescriptive language be changed to allow the Forest Service to pursue its 

 planning process with greater flexibility and less bias, as it does on other 

 national forests. 



We are also concerned about the statement in Section 202 that the new plan 

 revision "shall supersede the forest plan revision currently undervray. " A 

 tremendous amount of time and resources have been invested by the Forest Service 

 in developing the current plan revision. Though the current draft plan vrould 

 certainly have to be revised to incorporate the provisions of this bill, if it 

 were enacted, we believe that much of the underlying effort would still be 

 relevant and could be retained. Vfe would not want to see the current planning 

 effort essentially scr^^ied, with a directive to the Forest Service to start 

 planning anew. 



