377 



The maior concern of many of the people of Southeast is of course 

 that a threat to the financial statility of the mills corresponds to 

 a potential loss of ]ot>s and ultimately places families in crisis! 



Further, irrespective of changes to the status quo, it is obvious 

 that the limitations of Tongass National Forest designations will 

 cause some drop in employment due to the decline in production on 

 private land and the unavailable timber for open sale. The total 

 employment currently cannot be absorbed in the Tongass. Perhaps 

 diversification is the only long term opportunity for those that will 

 ultimately be displaced. 



The current level of harvest of 400 mbf and the resultant lobs within 

 the Tongass (i.e. existing employment that is a function of the 

 harvest within the Tongass National Forest) may be sustainable. 

 However, the Forest Service as well as others have shown us in 

 gruesome detail that the current total Southeast harvest is 

 definitely not sustainable under any circumstances. This poignant 

 reality is d.;e to harvest levels or. private land that are not'on a 

 sustained yield tasis. This harvest level which is not bound by 

 primary man»-ract ur i ng restrictions, allowing round log exports, 

 brings the total harvest m Southeast to almost 800 mbf this year. 

 There is a contraction coming irrespective of chanaes to 705. The 

 focus of the Southeast Conference has teen tc balance this reality 

 with other community interests. 



Another critical point raised withm the Committee iebate .s the 

 question of the twelve special areas that communities have requested 

 be removed from commercial harvest designation. The Southeast 

 Conference Tongass Committee spent hours reviewing and discussing 

 these areas. There is no question that they have high quality 

 unique intrinsic values. The Southeast Conference worked with the 

 Forest Service, the Department of Fish and Game, and others in 

 narrowing the scope of these requests. But they are real and the 

 consequences of the withdrawals mean a loss of a little more than 23 

 million board feet. 



Further, the Forest Service indicates that this will increase the 

 pressure for intensive management and questions of sustaining a 4.5 

 billion board foot harvest level. The opponents of status quo also 

 mention this may further skew the mission. 



This issue received further i nvest.igat ion and consideration because 

 the timber industry and the Forest Service maintain that the 

 proposals for withdrawal would cause a commensurate loss of jobs. 

 (The GAG estimates that the loss would be 4.2 Tobs per million board 

 feet.) This is further complicated by an argument that these are 

 potential nobs, since the 24 million board feet is far short of 

 impacting the 400 million board feet currently harvested from the 

 Tongass, not existing lobs. But again the industry counters that 

 these are potential nobs for those who may ultimately lose employment 

 from the private harvest that will be shut down (within the next 5 to 

 10 years) since it is not a sustainable harvest. 



