Problems with Federal Land Management Issues


Testimony of the Alaska Forest Association
Before the Committee of Natural Resources,
U.S. House of Representatives
June 18, 1996

Mr. Chairman:

My name is Jack Phelps. I am the Executive Director of the Alaska Forest Association (AFA). The Association was established in 1957, and now has more than 250 regular and associate member companies statewide. Thank you for the opportunity to address you today.

Federal land management is a highly visible and important issue to Alaskans. Fully two-thirds of our vast state is under federal ownership. Since this includes two huge national forests, one of which, the Tongass, covers a territory the size of the state of Maine, no industry in Alaska is more affected by federal management decisions than the forest products industry. Unfortunately, the Forest Service seems determined to manage federal timber lands according to the dictates of the national preservation movement, rather than acting on the basis of sound silvicultural science and proven forest management strategies.

On the Chugach National Forest we have a severe forest health crisis. On the Kenai Peninsula we are looking at about an 80% mortality rate on white spruce due to the spruce bark beetle infestation. Now the beetle damage has moved heavily into the Lutz spruce in the transition zones and is beginning to take a toil on the Sitka spruce along the peninsula's eastern coast.

The emergency salvage law which Congress enacted last year has helped. Timber sales are planned at Moose Pass, Sixmile Creek and others. But due to intense pressure by the anti-development crowd, the Forest Service has pared those sales back to a size much smaller than is needed to aggressively attack the problem faced by the forest.

One key reason given for a smaller than necessary harvest was the alleged impact on tourism and the affect of logging on viewsheds. Apparently these folks believe that tourists would rather see dead standing trees for the next dozen years, wind thrown dead trees on the ground for a decade or so beyond that--if we don't have a massive, destructive fire like the one suffered by the Umatilla Forest--and grasslands for much of the next century.

What the Forest Service should do is manage the forest as a forest, not as if it were a park. That means timber sales where they are appropriate. We should acknowledge that the public in general, and the touring public specifically, may need help in understanding the beetle kill situation and the forest management response. I suggest the forest service develop some educational signs to place along the roads. This would enable the public to see the proper role of human management in maintaining our forests in a healthy state.

All this points to the need for a commitment to active forest management by the Forest Service, including a vigorous timber sale program, and I urge you to work for passage of a forest health initiative in the 104th Congress.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to point out to the committee that the present Tongass Land Management Plan proposal is seriously flawed. It applies a new habitat conservation strategy to the Tongass without any scientific justification, it imposes unauthorized PACFISH standards to Alaska lands, and it fails to provide sufficient social and economic analysis of the proposed alternatives on a community by community and industry by industry basis. To implement this plan now will do irreparable and unjustified harm to the forest products industry of Alaska. I urge you to do all that is in your power to get implementation of this plan delayed.

Thank you very much.