401 



I am sure all this justification was accomplished with the blessing of 

 the Alaska Delegation who continue to stress the need to maintain the 

 harvest offer level. They have also suggested that the Forest Service 

 should not implement or promote any other programs that may serve to 

 reduce the Congressional mandated timber harvest level in the future. 

 Those who promote continuing the 50-year contracts, $40 million 

 guarantee, and the 4.5 billion board feet per decade as the salvation 

 of the economy of S.E. Alaska state that any other harvest level or 

 mix of management programs would result in economic disaster for the 

 Region. As a result of this dialog among some of the special interest 

 groups and the Delegation, there is a tendency for "Top Management" to 

 be preoccupied with tunnel vision that allows only for thinking, 

 planing, justifying, and providing direction in terms of single or 

 dominant use of the Tongass National Forest. 



This situation detracts from objective Forest Land Management Planning 

 with full public involvement and in keeping with other laws and 

 regulations pertaining to the National Forest System. As a matter of 

 fact, I understand some Forest Officers find it difficult to deal with 

 a wide variety of public interests. They seem to be able to work with 

 and trust those people that represent the timber industry, but they 

 have difficultly working with interests that represent fishing, 

 recreation, tourism, wilderness, outfitting and guiding, hunting, and 

 other legitimate uses of the Tongass National Forest. At times, 

 public involvement seems to take the form of "driving wedges " between 

 interest groups rather than working with the various interest groups 

 to achieve consensus. (The recent effort to reach consensus on the 

 Tongass by The S.E. Council is a noted exception to the rule and 

 should be encouraged.) 



The mandates contained in ANILCA regarding the 4.5 billion bd. ft., 

 $40 mm, and the long term contracts could stand in the way of 

 objective forest planning currently underway. With time, the 

 situation in S.E. Alaska has changed. There are new demands on the 

 resources of the Tongass. There are ways to maintain economic 

 stability without depending on a single industry that is slow to 

 embrace new technology or finished product enhancement on a wide 

 scale. The resources of Tongass National Forest should be available 

 to a wide variety of interests (extractive & non-extractive) that 

 would result in "the greatest good to the greatest number in the long 

 run". There can be a continual flow of wood fiber utilized in making 

 competitive products that command the best high price on the world 

 markets as well as maintenance of fish and wildlife habitat, minerals, 

 recreation, and wilderness opportunities. This can only be 

 accomplished if the planners and decision makers are given the same 

 support and encouragement to practice multiple use management as those 

 responsible for other National Forests. Therefore, I support your 

 proposed legislation. 



Sincerely, 



^-/ u.j^:^M. 



William J. Holman 

 PO BOX 5972 

 Ketchikan, AK 99901 



CC Sens. Murkowski and Stevens, Reps. Young and Mrazek 



