20 



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

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

 a potential loss of ]obs 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 jobs 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 due to harvest levels on private land that are not on a 

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

 primary manufacturing restrictions, allowing round log exports, 

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

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

 focus of the Southeast Conference has been to balance this reality 

 with other community interests. 



Another critical point raised within the Committee debate is 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 investigation and consideration because 

 the timber industry and the Forest Service maintain that the 

 proposals for withdrawal would cause a commensurate loss of lobs. 

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

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

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

 impacting the 400 million board feet currently harvested from the 

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

 these are potential jobs 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. 



-4- 



