Segment 2 Of 2 Previous Hearing Segment(1)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 207 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
TONGASS LAND MANAGEMENT
THURSDAY, JULY 10, 1997
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
and U.S. House Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC.
The committees met jointly, pursuant to notice, at 9:36 a.m., in room SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Frank H. Murkowski, chairman, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
The CHAIRMAN. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. We will call the hearing to order, and we will proceed where we left off yesterday. You all know your seats. We have got some fresh water for you and let us know if the chairs do not fit.
The good news is we are starting a little earlier this morning. Instead of 11 o'clock and going until 4:30 or thereabouts, why, we will start at 9:30 and hopefully finish a little earlier today.
Mr. Janik, we are going to start on some of the analysis that may involve Mr. Brooks, if you are so inclined. I see you have got an extra seat up there. What I propose to do is to direct the inquiries to you and you can field them as you see fit, Phil. Is that fair enough?
Page 208 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
STATEMENT OF PHIL JANIK, REGIONAL FORESTER, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, JUNEAU, AK; ACCOMPANIED BY DR. TOM MILLS, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, PORTLAND, OR; DR. FRED EVEREST, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, JUNEAU, AK; BRAD POWELL, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, KETCHIKAN, AK; FRED NORBURY, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, JUNEAU, AK; BETH PENDLETON, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, JUNEAU, AK; AND DR. DAVID BROOKS, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, PORTLAND, OR
Mr. JANIK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. With regard to some of the projections on Alaska's export of manufactured residue and utility logs, recently the Louisiana Pacific announced their interest to pursue a veneer mill in Ketchikan that would utilize low grade logs. In light of this development, how might your demand projections change?
Mr. JANIK. I do think this line of questioning probably will focus on Dr. Mills and David Brooks. I am just going to ask them to take some of these.
Dr. MILLS. Let me comment first and then ask Dr. Brooks to elaborate.
The projections that were prepared by Dr. Brooks and Dr. Haynes to project demand for timber from the Tongass in the future were strongly based on the competitiveness of the Alaska producers in the world markets that they need to serve. That was based predominantly on the sawmills that are currently there, sawmills which would produce considerable mill residues in the form of chips as well as utility logs.
Page 209 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The assumption was made that either those chips and utility logs would be exported profitably into the export market or that some of the utility logs would be left, depending upon the scenario that was generated, as logging residue. To the extent that our understanding, which I am sure is far from complete, is that the veneer mill would utilize utility logs, the lower end of the grade spectrum rather than the high end, then there is certainly an opportunity for that veneer mill to utilize some of those utility logs that otherwise in the projection were assumed to be exportable, and therefore would enhance the profitability of the sawmill industry, but would not necessarily lead to any significant increase, if at all, in the total demand on standing timber that was projected in the Brooks and Haynes study.
David, could you elaborate on that?
Dr. BROOKS. Actually, not at all, except to say that that would be my answer to the question as well, with the exception that if we were to receive additional data that suggested that we needed to re-examine the assumptions that we made, that is something that we certainly would do. But given the information that we have now, that is the answer to the question.
The CHAIRMAN. What in your opinion would be the offhand percentage of volume that would come out of the forest relative to utility?
Dr. MILLS. It varies considerably by scenario in the projections.
Page 210 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The CHAIRMAN. Well, I know. The further north you go, the more utility you get; the further south you go, the better quality you have for saw logs. But generally speaking.
Dr. MILLS. The scenarios that I was describing were scenarios about competitiveness of market demand, especially in Japan.
The CHAIRMAN. I am talking about supply.
Dr. MILLS. Yes, I have got that. I am sure I am not getting at this fast enough, but let me give it a shot.
The different scenarios about the competitiveness of the Alaskan industry and the extent of demand in Japan led to three different scenarios that had associated different levels of demand for timber from the Tongass. Likewise, in each of those scenarios, a low, a moderate, and a high, there were different percentages of the utility volume that were assumed to be economically viable and utilized. So the amount of utility volume that was utilized depended upon the degree of optimism or pessimism about the ability of southeastern Alaska to produce.
The actual numbers ranged as low as approximately 50 percent in the lowest scenario and then the highest scenario was——
Dr. BROOKS. 80 percent.
The CHAIRMAN. That interprets into 50 percent and 80 percent?
Page 211 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Dr. MILLS. Of the utility volume would be utilized and not left as logging residues.
Dr. BROOKS. I am sorry.
The CHAIRMAN. I would assume that you were comparing utility with previously what went in for the most part, in the pulp process.
Dr. MILLS. Dr. Brooks has a better handle on the specific numbers in the assumptions. Let me turn to him.
Dr. BROOKS. What we tried to do was to incorporate in our projections estimates of the volume of both utility and lower grade saw logs that would not have currently identified local manufacturing use.
The CHAIRMAN. Right.
Dr. BROOKS. And that does range. It does change by the scenario.
The CHAIRMAN. What I am looking for here in this conversation is—maybe I can express it as the pie theory. You have got a stand that X percentage is utility, X percentage is low grade saw logs, X percent is, and it depends on where you are at. But I am just looking for your general application of the percentile.
Page 212 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Dr. BROOKS. In the median scenario we assumed that roughly two-thirds, 67 percent, of the volume of spruce and hemlock was used in saw milling in Alaska. That is, 67 percent of the volume we project to be demanded of the Tongass.
The CHAIRMAN. That is throughout the Tongass, of course?
Dr. BROOKS. That is correct.
The CHAIRMAN. An average between the north and south.
Dr. BROOKS. That is correct.
The CHAIRMAN. Okay.
Dr. BROOKS. In the low scenario, the figure is 47 percent, and in the high scenario the figure is 80 percent.
The CHAIRMAN. And the difference would be the utility that would be used or available for pulp or chips?
Dr. BROOKS. Both utility and lower grade saw logs. One of the differences across the scenarios is the assumption we make about the both efficiency and competitiveness of Alaska mills, and we assume that in the scenario that tries to describe a future in which those mills are not very competitive or efficient that they would be using only the higher log grades in the spectrum of the inventory.
Page 213 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The CHAIRMAN. Now, when you talk about ''those mills'' what are you talking about specifically in the current mills?
Dr. BROOKS. We are basing, we based our projection on what we have as data for the current mill structure of Alaska.
The CHAIRMAN. Which are what? Tell us what they are, the current mill structure?
Dr. BROOKS. We can provide that data for the record if you want.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, surely you know.
Dr. BROOKS. Well, the saw mill in Ketchikan.
The CHAIRMAN. Which one?
Dr. BROOKS. The KPC saw mill.
The CHAIRMAN. The one associated with the pulp mill?
Dr. BROOKS. That is correct.
Page 214 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The CHAIRMAN. Okay, that is one mill.
Dr. BROOKS. The Hemlock Mill.
The CHAIRMAN. That primarily cuts the larger logs.
Dr. BROOKS. That is correct.
The CHAIRMAN. That is two mills.
Dr. BROOKS. I would have to refer to paper that I could find in my files for the list of mills that are recorded as currently having equipment, whether or not that equipment is operating. There are three or four larger mills and of course, as you know, a large number of small mills in Alaska.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, you know, we have identified two mills in the Tongass that are operational, that are not necessarily large, but I guess by Alaska standards they are two operating saw mills. Is that it?
Dr. BROOKS. Well, no, of course not, Mr. Chairman. But the——
The CHAIRMAN. Are there others of that size?
Dr. BROOKS. Well, I should say that our methodology is not mill-specific. I am using, I am referring to this information about individual mills to indicate my familiarity or some of my familiarity with the conditions in Alaska. But the method that we use to do this projection is not mill-specific and was not intended to be tied to or in reference to specific mills.
Page 215 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The CHAIRMAN. No, but you are talking about a volume that comes out of a primary manufacturing process, and you have identified two relatively small mills, one of which I think is operating—I think both are operating one shift, simply because of lack of timber supply. My observation obviously is, while there is a great deal of sophistication in the process, that there is not much coming out of the other end in the sense of production, simply because of a number of excuses or reasons that basically are as a consequence ultimately of a lack of timber available to the mills, whether it be with the current situation where we are today, not knowing what the TLMP is actually going to provide in real terms relative to available saw logs vis a vis utility, what we are going to do with the utility since we do not currently have a use for it other than exporting or making chips out of it.
Another thing that caught my mind in your comments was the generalization that you made of looking towards the Japanese market. I think if you look at the last couple of years of production of the major timber operations in the State, you are seeing a shift from the Japanese market to the domestic market. I wondered if you had included that in your analysis of future market demand?
Dr. MILLS. The answer to that, Mr. Chairman, is yes. In fact, that helps highlight the basic approach that was taken to estimate demand, which was based on the ability of the southeastern Alaska industry to compete in the markets that it supplies to. And you are certainly correct, it has increasingly sent a larger share of its supply to the domestic U.S. market, in part in response to some of the cost differences between the total cost, given the increased stumpage prices in the Pacific Northwest.
Page 216 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The CHAIRMAN. Well, there is also the application of the metric system in the export market as opposed to the domestic market. It is my understanding the export market, the cuts are in the metric cut. Is that not correct?
Dr. MILLS. I believe that is correct. I am not certain on the metric.
The CHAIRMAN. Some of the mills had converted some of their head rigs over to the standard.
Mr. Vento, good morning.
Representative VENTO. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. I am going through an extensive list of questions. Any time you want to ask any, why, just pipe in. Do you have any statement?
Representative VENTO. Not this morning. Thank you.
The CHAIRMAN. It is my understanding that fair market prices are being offered for cants and dimensional ungraded lumber from the interior part of the State, most of that probably private Native land and some State land. I am wondering if this does not suggest that it would be possible to sell significantly more timber from Alaska's national forest?
Dr. MILLS. If the question, Mr. Chairman, is is there a market for additional volume, then the answer to that is yes, there is. It depends upon the competitiveness of that volume in the markets it serves. Perhaps one indicator of the competitiveness is what currently happens to timber that is harvested on Native corporation lands, the vast, vast majority of which goes into the export market as logs, which is some indication at least of the challenges that the southeast market has in a cost sense with some of its competitors in the markets it serves.
Page 217 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The CHAIRMAN. Well, of course that has been assisted by the Forest Service policy which prohibits round log export from Federal land, because I am sure we would all agree that if the Forest Service allowed the export we would not have any saw mills.
Dr. MILLS. There certainly is evidence to indicate that the round log exports are more profitable than the local processing, by observing what the Native corporations have done, yes.
The CHAIRMAN. But on the other hand, it is fair to say that the Native corporations also had a problem of disposing of their utility logs, and a number of that volume went in the pulp mills when there was a market for utility.
Dr. MILLS. It is my understanding that, yes, occasionally some utility volume was used in the pulp mills, and it at other times goes as export or is left as logging residues and cannot pay its way out of the woods in an economic sense.
The CHAIRMAN. And of course, as you recognize, there is a significant difference between the interior timber, the quality of that timber, and the timber quality of the southeast, which generally speaking is much higher, because you have the white spruce in the interior. So the point is it is even harder to market the interior timber because it does not meet the dimensional and oftentimes it is white spruce, vis a vis Sitka spruce and western hemlock, and it is smaller and limbier and it is more pole-type timber.
The point is, and I think it is a significant one, that if we are able to market the interior timber, which is you might say of an inferior comparison to the timber that dominates southeastern Alaska, it certainly suggests that there is a potential market for more southeast timber if it were available. Is that a fair statement?
Page 218 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Dr. MILLS. Well, it is certainly a fair statement, Mr. Chairman, that the amount of supply and the cost of that supply influences the ability of the industry in southeastern Alaska to compete. But I also suggest that another factor is that the cost structure of the southeastern Alaska industry in relationship to the other competitors that it faces, and in spite of some extensive efforts on the part of the industry, there is some inherent difficulties at bringing their costs down to what some of their key competitors' are.
In fact, some of the information we have got indicates that the labor component, at least of the logging cost, in southeastern Alaska over the last 10 years has been some 65 percent higher than comparable costs in the Pacific Northwest, and that likewise the labor costs in the saw mill production are almost 50 percent higher. So there are some cost differences that are inherent in southeastern Alaska that do play into the eventual profitability of the industry and its ability to compete.
I sure would agree, as you said, that the amount of supply, the value of that timber, is certainly one of the factors, but there are a number of other factors as well.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, let us consider this. This is not, obviously, a debate society, but I think it is fair to point out that you have identified a significant amount of volume that is perhaps left in the woods because it is utility or less and has little market demand. That will increase unless there is a facility to utilize that, such as a pulp mill or a veneer plant. As a consequence, that, coupled with your increased costs, which we decided yesterday were double, the Forest Service cost of preparation, double what it was—how many years ago—5 years ago, you by the very nature of the process have created a curb against competitiveness vis a vis interior timber, which is of lesser quality. It has to be taken out of the woods far, far in many cases from any water transportation. Most of it is trucked into Nanana, loaded on rail cars, goes 200 miles or so to Seward, is cold decked, moved out of Seward.
Page 219 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
So to suggest, if you will, that this can now compete in an export market with southeast timber, which is of a higher quality, clearly suggests a factor is the cost of the southeast timber as a consequence of the increased cost of the Forest Service in the manner in which their costs have increased and been added onto and-or utilization.
I think we have made that comparison. It is evident because we are seeing timber come out of interior Alaska that previously was not marketable, but it has become marketable because of the increased cost of the southeast timber. I think we owe it to good forest management practice to get busy and create a market, a real market for that residue that is either going to stay in the woods or has no other utilization because it is so marginally profitable. But if you had a veneer plant, it might be.
You know, when you say whose responsibility is it, remember it was through the Forest Service that the two pulp mills were created to utilize this volume that otherwise would be exported out of the State or left in the woods, because previously most of the logging was very selective, for the saw mills only, and there was only one saw mill, one in Ketchikan, Ketchikan Spruce Mill, and Columbia Lumber in Juneau. That is virtually all we had after the war, and we are almost to that point now.
In any event, British Columbia is expected to drastically curtail lumber harvesting as we understand it. British Columbia produces a significant volume quite close to Alaska, south in Prince Rupert. They are exporting much of their spruce, their pine, their fir to the Pacific Rim. Is it not possible that Alaska can fill in a portion of the niche as British Columbia producers cut back production?
Page 220 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Dr. MILLS. Well, there is a couple points there and then I would ask Dr. Brooks to elaborate.
First of all, there is the issue of British Columbia's future harvest levels, which is an item on which different people have different opinions. I think the preponderance of the opinion is not in support of a drastic curtailment of harvesting in British Columbia, although I acknowledge that there are different opinions on that subject. Some evidence in the past of the ability, the relative competitiveness of southeastern Alaska and British Columbia, is apparent from what happened when the prices went up materially on stumpage in the Pacific Northwest as a result of reduced harvest level on Federal lands.
What happened at that time was that, rather than southeast Alaska picking up some of the slack or any significant piece of the slack that was left by the reduced production in the Pacific Northwest, instead British Columbia did, in part because of a cost advantage that British Columbia has relative to southeast Alaska, according to the information we have.
The CHAIRMAN. That cost is associated with what?
Dr. MILLS. With logging, that some of the logging, the processing and the stumpage prices that British Columbia has marginally lower costs in total for the products they produce than southeast Alaska does.
The CHAIRMAN. In the letter that we sent you, one of the author's most important assumptions was that British Columbia's current historical high timber production levels will continue for the next decade is challenged by I think four specific experts. One was Mike Aspy, and Les Reid, entitled ''World Timber Resource Outlook: Current Perceptions,'' a discussion paper that forecast the production would drop to 63 billion in 2010. That would be a 20 percent reduction.
Page 221 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
A 1996 analysis by Taylor noted in the Robert Flynn and Associates reports, ''Timber Supply from the Tongass National Forest: Meeting Market Demand,'' predicted a British Columbia harvest of 65 in the year 2000.
A 1995 study by Price Waterhouse entitled ''An Analysis of Recent Forest Product and Land Use Initiatives in B.C. and Implications for Timber Supply Jobs'' estimated the harvest would drop to 59 over the next 5 to 10 years.
In other words, four experts here are suggesting something contrary to what your opinion is. Would you explain the discrepancy?
Dr. MILLS. I would go back to what I acknowledged in the beginning, that these projections of the future can have different scenarios.
I would ask Dr. Brooks to explain the rationale behind the assumption of continued production from British Columbia which continues the trend that we have observed in the past in spite of earlier suggestions by others, including some of those authors, that there would be precipitous reductions.
Dr. BROOKS. Yes. Mr. Chairman, we are familiar with almost all of the studies that were cited and certainly with the authors and have had the opportunity to speak with some of them directly, and particularly Mike Aspy and Les Reid, as well as other colleagues in Canada who have different views as to the future of British Columbia.
Page 222 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
For those specific studies, at least two or three of them, they were done as analyses of the early 1990's British Columbia forest practice and policy revisions that had been proposed or put in place, and those studies were projections of what would happen to British Columbia timber production if those policies were fully implemented. In the ensuing 5 or 6 years or 4 or 5 years, a number of those policies and practices have in fact changed. It is based on the decision of the British Columbia ministry to not implement some of the practices and some of the revisions to their management that leads us to conclude that the scientists who suggest that British Columbia will continue to harvest timber at its current level is a more credible projection than those who suggest that it will fall precipitously.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, Dr. Con Schalau, you have read his statement, and if you have not I will summarize it. He says: ''We do not share this pessimistic assessment by Brooks and Haynes of the stiff competition from producers in Canada. They neglect to point out that production from British Columbia will decrease significantly in the very near future.''
Now, you have taken another posture perhaps to support your contention or the current TLMP. But it says further, and it is the position of Dr. Schalau, that: ''There is nothing to prevent Alaska from filling the niche vacated by the B.C. producers, provided there is a reliable national forest timber supply. If there is low-cost material base and economic transportation,'' which there certainly is, ''Alaska lumber could compete very well in Pacific Rim markets in certain niches.''
The fact of the matter is that B.C. is exporting heavily to Asia. Alaska is right next door, just across the border. There are three Canadian mills just over the border where most of the—I do not know what ''SPF''—spruce, pine, and fir, I guess, production went to Japan. One mill is located less than 75 miles from the Alaska border.
Page 223 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I rest my case.
An important assumption behind the Brooks-Haynes calculation of reduced demand for Tongass timber is increased Russian timber production in the near future. Your report stated that the Russian timber production, in combination with other considerations, simply weakens the case for seeing this decade as a time when lumber production in Alaska can expand rapidly and find markets at any price.
I mean, your report is almost a defeatism: at a time when the market for Alaska lumber was expanding into a domestic market from a pretty much dependent on export market to a projection or pronouncement that the market is relatively in a potential future decline because of Canadian competition and Russian competition, and so forth.
Let me go on. But many forest economists agree with the statement that the Russian timber production simply weakens the case for seeing Alaska production to be competitive. The economists disagree. The considerable political and economic difficulties, the instability in Russia, along with its huge infrastructure problems, have made it very difficult to have confidence that the country will become a major consistent supplier any time soon.
Now, apparently we have differences of agreement, but some facts bear this out. In the 1996 report by Robert Flynn and Associates, the notation is: ''A considerable number of U.S. companies have explored the possibility of developing log and-or lumber export projects in Siberia and the Russian Far East, but, with few exceptions, these projects have all ground to a halt. Weyerhaeuser's failure in this region is perhaps the best known example.''
Page 224 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I have been over there. I have seen the volume of timber. It is certainly there. They are using Korean loggers. They are bringing them in from Korea because the Russians have such a poor work ethic that they cannot get them to work in the woods. It is an incredible situation.
But I wonder if you could explain why, against the weight of much expert opinion and actual experience, you would assume that Russia will soon become a significant timber supplier? I cannot help but note that you have built a case here for Alaska being less competitive and it seems that it is one that is structured to support your contention of less market demand and less production, less responsibility by the Forest Service to provide timber by coming up with scenarios that, while they are contrary in the sense of expert opinions, simply suggest that we cannot be competitive.
Your increased costs substantiate that. But go ahead and tell me why, in the weight of opinion, you would assume that Russia will soon be a significant supplier in the Asian market?
Dr. MILLS. Mr. Chairman, I will leave it to Mr. Norbury to comment on the issue of whether the increased costs of preparing the timber effectively influences the stumpage price paid for by the industry. But the two principal competitors that southeast Alaska has faced and the authors project would continue to face are British Columbia and in Europe, and that the European suppliers in the sawn wood products have penetrated the Japanese market from less than 1 percent to about 10 percent in a decade.
Page 225 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Those are the two most important sources of competition that the southeastern Alaska producers face.
I would ask Dr. Brooks to describe how other potential sources of supply and competitors were faced, and in particular whether that is a fair representation of their consideration of supply from Russia.
Dr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, the description in our report about Russia or the reference to Russia was not intended to or does not suggest that we believe that production from Russia will increase substantially or change from its current position. We do project, however, that in some scenarios that production from regions other than North America or, more accurately, shipments from other regions other than North America to the Japanese market will increase.
In the median projection, however, we do not project an increase over the current volume. There is, of course, considerable disagreement, as you point out, about the future for Russia. The only additional piece of information that I think is worth considering is that in fact in the period since roughly 1990 Russian shipments into the Japanese market have increased from their long-term—or they stopped declining and they in fact increased slightly.
Part of the explanation for that is that the export market is the most attractive market, given the collapse of the domestic economy in Russia and the desire to earn hard currency.
But we fully agree with the analysis that suggests that there are considerable difficulties and that the prospects for Russia are not that great. But we try to point out Russia is—the potential for Russia is an example of the challenges faced by Alaska in trying to produce and deliver to market lower grade products.
Page 226 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The CHAIRMAN. Robert Flynn's study or report notes, and this is with regard to Scandinavian, European timber going to Japan: ''The potential to expand timber production in the region is relatively insignificant in comparison with the reductions in timber harvest in western North America in the first half. The estimated timber harvest in Finland may increase. In Sweden softwood harvests are expected to increase. But the potential increase pales in comparison to the anticipated drop in timber supply in other regions.''
Is the Forest Service doing anything to help the Russians in their timber development?
Dr. MILLS. We do have some assistance programs that deal predominantly with reforestation and aforestation. I am not familiar with any direct assistance associated with processing and harvesting.
The CHAIRMAN. How about technical assistance?
Dr. MILLS. Technical assistance for reforestation and regeneration I am aware of. I am not aware of any technical assistance associated with harvesting or processing.
The CHAIRMAN. Anybody else on the panel?
Mr. JANIK. I would add fire prescriptions to that list. We are very active as a region in our international program, Mr. Chairman, with Russia, and on any particular trip that is made by our specialists, particularly through the State and private forestry program, we are confronted with quite an array of requests with regard to providing assistance. I am sure that during some of these visits we have talked about processing, but the targeted areas are the ones that Dr. Mills mentioned.
Page 227 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The CHAIRMAN. When you talk about reforestation, you are talking about your technical expertise that has been developed in the manner in which you what, leave fringes for natural receding on hillsides?
Mr. JANIK. Establishment of nurseries, those kinds of things.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, you do not have nurseries in Alaska?
Mr. JANIK. No, but we have experienced individuals in that subject area that are assisting the Russians.
The CHAIRMAN. So I guess it would follow that, while it is good to assist the Russians, the old theory of charity beginning at home occasionally—you cannot do the thinning that is necessary in the Tongass National Forest. You have acknowledged that in other meetings we have had, because of limited funding; is that right?
Mr. JANIK. That is correct. There are opportunities for thinnings that are not being realized because of funding restrictions.
The CHAIRMAN. But you go over and help the Russians.
Mr. JANIK. As part of the funding that is provided through the international program, yes.
Page 228 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Dr. MILLS. And if I could comment, Mr. Chairman, about some ongoing research work to provide information about opportunities that might exist in southeast Alaska to utilize the material that is there, including a subject that I know you are interested in, the second growth timber, some studies are currently under way working with some of the Native corporations in southeastern Alaska to determine the yields that can be achieved, the lumber yields that can be achieved from second growth timber, so that they can do a better job of assessing the profitability of opportunities.
So clearly the technical assistance is not only technical assistance that is given to the Russians, but a very active program of technical assistance to landowners in Alaska as well.
The CHAIRMAN. You assert that the Japanese Government may intervene to protect its domestic lumber producers. How do you reconcile this belief with the fact that the Japanese have been shifting increasingly to finished lumber from logs and with that outcome of the recent negotiations that have led to less, rather than more, protection of Japan's small inefficient producers?
Dr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, that comment about Alaska was perhaps—about Japan, excuse me—was a speculative comment. I think, however, there is more information, more contemporary information About the Japanese market that we conclude provides evidence of the competitiveness of that market and the challenges faced by all competitors in that market, not just Alaska.
We do not single out Alaska as particularly ill suited to compete in that market. We are simply trying to describe the conditions in that market and the realities of what is going on as part of the information base that is necessary to assess what likely market developments might be.
Page 229 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The CHAIRMAN. You know, what I fail to understand is why the Forest Service is not more inclined to let industry establish what market demand is, rather than come down with your proposed ASQ and have you substantiate what you think it is based on your ASQ, which is what you have done here. And virtually all of the projections that we have noted here have been subject to different points of view.
In a free market system, why, the market demand is set by the basic opportunity to market, as we traditionally look at the saw mill industry or the wood products industry in a world market. They either compete in the world market on a prevailing price or they shut down. There is no magic to it.
But what we are doing in this sophisticated analysis is something entirely different. We are setting an ASQ and backing it up with projections that are arbitrary relative to what the future market demand may be. When we started this process 15, 20, 25 years ago, this kind of sophistication was not part of the process. Capital went in, made an investment, and they either competed or they did not.
Dr. MILLS. I would certainly agree, Mr. Chairman, that in the end demand is the demand that is realized and it is a function of industry's decisions and ability to effectively compete or not compete. We have acknowledged very clearly that there is a great deal of uncertainty associated with the demand that will occur in the future, and that is clearly represented by at least three scenarios that are provided, which vary considerably in terms of what that demand is.
Page 230 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Nonetheless, for timber as well as for other resources provided from the national forest, it was relevant information to consider when the decision was made, and I would certainly leave it to Phil Janik to describe how that demand information was considered and what weight it had in the determination of the ASQ. But I am fairly confident it was not the only consideration in setting the ASQ.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, no, but if the Forest Service had approved Alaska Lumber and Pulp's request for a 10-year contract and they had converted the pulp mill into fiberboard, which is what they wanted to do, that would have from their standpoint met what they assumed would be a demand for that new product, which would create obviously a market demand on the Forest Service to provide the timber. But the Forest Service chose not to consider the merits and grant that 10-year extension.
If the Ketchikan Pulp Company had been given their 15-year extension, they would have expended over $200 million in a state of the art, chlorine-free pulp mill to utilize the utility grade and established a market demand, obviously, at a significantly higher level than exists now.
So as you subjectively apply your market demand on the basis of what you assume after you have taken away these two major users of utility volume, you have arbitrarily drafted a scenario for the future that you have basically controlled by the inability to allow the private sector to come in with new technology and amortize the investment with an assured supply of timber, since there is no other source other than the Native timber. There is no State timber, there is no private timber.
Page 231 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
When you have a situation where you allow the export from the private land, which you do not allow that—that is just a reality. Maybe we should have put a restriction. In fact, had I have been here I think I would have insisted that the Native private land be subject to the same restrictions as the Forest Service, because that is the only way we are going to have any primary industry in southeastern Alaska or any jobs associated with the timber industry, because otherwise it would be subject to export because that is the most immediate return and the highest profitability.
That still leaves the dilemma of what to do with the utility, because much of that cannot stand being exported out.
But I guess my frustration is that you were the godsend in the sense of providing a market for utility. You have abandoned that obligation and left us with no alternative of what to do with the utility. I think you bear a responsibility, and it is not part of your walking papers, so to speak, as you put together your TLMP.
But anyway——
Representative VENTO. Mr. Chairman, let me——
The CHAIRMAN. Sure, go ahead.
Representative VENTO. On this point on the demand issue, I guess the numbers I had seen for 1996 were like 120 million board feet. This report, of course, provides for, the plan provides for up to 267. Can you explain the differential in terms of the existing demand? That was with one pulp mill running, which is not now running. What is your response? Obviously, we are very concerned about going to that number.
Page 232 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I think, frankly, the whole issue of demand here—the United States is making, we made the market in this area, and it is a question of whether or not we want to continue the type of program that will sustain that market in terms of costs, because this becomes a very high cost type of program. Admittedly, in a mixed economy one might argue that there is a responsibility, an ongoing responsibility, a thing that the Senator, the chairman, would argue.
But would you respond to my question in terms of the 120 versus the 267 for the projected implementation of the plan?
Mr. JANIK. Mr. Vento, if I may start the answer to that and then maybe Dr. Mills would have a follow-up. But if I may try to clarify those numbers as you asked, the calculated allowable sale quantity in the revision is, as you state, 267 million board feet. I quickly point out, that is an average per year figure. You are familiar with those provisions, I know.
That is not a timber target. We are very careful not to describe it as such because funding and many other things affect what we actually offer per year.
The 120 figure that you quote was in fact what was harvested off the Tongass last year. However, the last 17 year average of what was harvested exceeds 300 million board feet off the Tongass. So that was kind of a blip in a long series of harvest statistics that were much higher, over 300 million board feet.
When you compare the 267 allowable sale quantity calculation with the old plan, the number is 520 million board feet. That was the calculation. So we have many that have pointed to this as a dramatic, substantial reduction in timber potential in terms of yield, and we have to acknowledge by the statistics that it is. It is about a 50 percent reduction in terms of potential, meaning the allowable sale quantity limit.
Page 233 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Now, next year, for instance, just as another example, we are projecting about 170 million board feet in terms of our timber offering, not 267. That is just based on anticipated budget restrictions and so on.
So we have been very careful trying to explain that the that 267 is a planning calculation, but a lot more comes into play when we actually deal with what we offer every year. The new revision does represent a substantial reduction in timber projection.
Representative VENTO. I know Dr. Mills wants to respond further, but there have been a significant number of changes in terms of land use in the area. So that issue—I mean, I do not know that the private lands, in this case the Native American lands, should be discounted as not providing jobs and so forth, because I think it is very important. That is the impression I had in listening.
But with regards to that, of course, I think it is appropriate to try to go to demand. It is a question of what gets factored into demand. If we are looking at the absence of these mills or the limited competitive ability of mills or other products, I thought the view was from the standpoint that we were trying to in fact sell a processed product rather than being a raw material supplier for the Pacific Rim. Of course, pulp was one of them, chipboard could have been another, plywood would be another, I guess. But that is not realistic with the quality.
There have been a lot of changes in terms of these particular products. I know, for instance in my State, we have built up the number of chip plants to actually use the entire production in the State and in fact are utilizing a lot of hardwoods that were not formerly used in terms of pulp and paper. Of course, 20 years ago we thought of long fibers as being necessary to paper production. Today of course that is a much changed environment in terms of the technology. Because principally the woods produced in southeast Alaska are long fibers, the type of advantages that they had are not as apparent as they were 17 years ago when you had a cut.
Page 234 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
But I think it is appropriate to look at where the demand is and what the costs are, and this is relatively high cost timber in terms of sale preparation, in terms of harvest, and so forth. So as a result we get a lower—it is something that we need to look at in terms of where the demand would be in terms of where the Forest Service and how we ought to function.
Of course, I think there are some other issues besides, that come in besides just the harvest, that come into consideration with regards to the forests in the southeastern Alaska and generally with regards to the American public.
Let me yield to Dr. Mills to respond to this ongoing dialogue and question.
Dr. MILLS. Well, I certainly agree with what I said earlier about the degree of uncertainty. I would also agree that the presence or absence of the pulp mills clearly affects what the effective demand for timber is in southeastern Alaska, and that there is a number of things that influences the industry's decisions to establish or to close individual facilities, and that those conditions can change over time. I would certainly agree that decisions by the U.S. Government can influence that cost structure, which simply adds to the uncertainty about projecting future demands.
The comparison—the only additional question I would raise is that the comparison between ASQ and the projection of demand—the ASQ is an estimate of technical and biological sustainability of the timber harvest over time, given the land allocations and the standards and guidelines for management of those various pieces of land, rather than some sort of calculation of the timber demand, and that some estimate of likely future demand levels is simply something considered in the setting of those land allocations and standards and guides, along with demands for all sorts of other resources and considerations, be they habitat for species or recreation opportunities.
Page 235 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
So I want to caution on some direct comparison between allowable sale quantity and demand if they were intended to be the same thing.
Representative VENTO. They are of course not, not the same. I understand that, of course. But we look at these averages. As was pointed out, I pointed out in my statement, that neither of the pulp mills now are functioning. So in looking at demand, I think this is an unusual approach in terms of the Forest Service, to actually look at demand; is it not, Mr. Janik?
Mr. JANIK. As I said yesterday—I believe you had already left, Mr. Vento—we are developing procedures right now so as to become more definitive in how we are treating demand than we certainly have in the past. References like the Brooks and Haynes study will be just one reference in that regard.
If I may ask Mr. Norbury to just cover some of the other variables that we do and have considered in the past and will be considering as we develop these new procedures, I think that would help understand how we are seeing the total demand function.
Mr. NORBURY. Mr. Vento, let me comment on an earlier statement of yours. All the national forests as part of their National Forest Management Act planning cycle do consider demand for timber. In the analysis of the situation, demand for timber and demand for all the resources of the forest is considered.
It is the Tongass Timber Reform Act that has put particular emphasis on the treatment of timber in the Tongass plan. For that reason, I think we are going further in our analysis of demand here than perhaps has been customary in the past. As Mr. Janik said, we are going to try to carry that further and be a little bit more definitive in our treatment of it in the future.
Page 236 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
One of the things that we are looking at is, in the Tongass Timber Reform Act demand is actually treated in two time frames. One of them is a planning cycle time frame, the other is an annual time frame. The study that has been the subject of dialogue here this morning has primarily addressed the planning cycle time frame, which is appropriate because what we are talking about today is the plan.
What Mr. Janik is talking about is how do we get from the plan level consideration, which has the—we have a demand forecast for and we also have an ASQ—to the annual timber offerings that we do? Now, the demand information coming to us from the planning cycle analysis is critical in beginning to figure out what we are going to do year by year. But there is other information that we have to consider as well when we make a decision on a year by year basis. There are other indicators of demand that are available to us year by year, that are not available to us when we are doing the planning cycle level analysis.
There are things like what is the volume under contract and what is happening to the volume under contract, what is happening to the ratio of our sale offerings to actual sales, how many of our sales go unsold, what is the ratio of the bids to appraised price? When bids run well ahead of our appraised price, that is an indicator of market scarcity; it is another indicator of demand. When we have sales that go unsold, that may be an indication that our actual sale offerings are running ahead of demand.
So our intention is to try to take all of this information into account in addition to the demand forecast done by the Pacific Northwest Station in setting our annual sale program.
Page 237 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Representative VENTO. Or what is in the package that is being offered for sale? For instance, so often I think the problems that I encountered in reviewing some of the issues in southeast Alaska, Mr. Chairman, is that there was interest in a certain type of Sitka spruce or old growth and there was not as much interest in some of the interior, more expensive type and less valued timber, which might have served the Forest Service's purpose in terms of the totality of management of that particular forest.
But the issue with regards to timber under contract that has not been harvested in Alaska, what is the number of board feet that are under contract or have been sold but not harvested at this point?
The CHAIRMAN. I think, Bruce, you also have to ask at the same time how much of it is tied up in litigation.
Representative VENTO. Well, that is fine. I think that would be appropriate. Percentage numbers, and I think you may want to give a more definitive answer or a more precise answer for the record if you do not have that with you. But I think, in other words, this would be an indication.
I expect there is a problem now with two mills going down in anticipation. What is needed and what is your estimation in terms of what is needed if in fact—so we are trying to respond. I think this is a case where Milton Friedman does not have a chair at the table, Mr. Chairman.
Page 238 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The CHAIRMAN. But my point is, Bruce, that there is an assumption that you have got timber in the pipeline that ought to be available. But what happens more often than not is you get a timber sale and there is a challenge to the EIS.
Representative VENTO. That is fair.
The CHAIRMAN. So you have got it out there, but you do not have it.
Representative VENTO. Can we get any response to this now, or would you rather——
Mr. NORBURY. I think we would rather provide the information for the record.
Representative VENTO. There may be more correspondence on this, I think, and the nature of the question.
[The information requested was not received at the time the hearing went to press.]
Representative VENTO. It is important, I think, if we have to make a decision from a public policy standpoint in terms of what the responsibility is for the Congress, the Government in terms of monitoring, and the effect on the economy in southeast Alaska. I have some concern with that and with some of the other values, obviously, outside of simply the harvesting of the timber.
Page 239 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
For instance, there is a suggestion that with longer contracts, of course, which is bidding on the hope that there would be jobs available—that is what they were doing with the 50-year contracts with the 2 mills, and that turned out to be a problem in my view.
But in fact, do we have any answers on possible scenarios that might play out in the future in terms of the competitive ability of southeast Alaskan mills to produce processed products other than pulp, like a veneer plant or some other types of alternatives? Was that part of the study here? Did we look at that in terms of what the jobs would be to be produced?
Dr. MILLS. We did not in the study incorporate some of the more recent proposals—the veneer mill is one, an ethanol plant is another; another has been described as a medium-density fiberboard plant—predominantly because we do not have sufficient information to fully evaluate their competitiveness and only have estimates of what they state their utilization capability or capacity would be.
To the extent, though, that the veneer mill would actually utilize some of the lower grade utility logs to produce veneer, which is our understanding at least of what is proposed here, if they could do it with a cost structure that would permit them to compete, in fact it would complement quite nicely the saw mill industry that is there, which cannot utilize some of those utility logs and right now would have to try and sell them into the export market, and in fact if they could not sell them into the export market it begins to affect the profitability of the saw mill.
Page 240 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
But we did not include those in the demand projections for want of sufficient information to evaluate their effective competitiveness.
Mr. JANIK. May I just add to that, Mr. Vento. The chairman is certainly aware of this. He has been partially responsible for getting our representatives from our Wisconsin Forest Products Lab to southeast Alaska.
Representative VENTO. From Madison.
Mr. JANIK. Yes, from Madison. What did you say?
Representative VENTO. No, no, you said Wisconsin.
Mr. JANIK. Okay, yes, at Madison. Thank you.
They have been out several times. Not only are they interacting with the Governor's Timber Task Force, but they have also held several workshops throughout southeast Alaska, and the very purpose of their visits is to help potential investors understand what opportunities might exist for the products at hand and maybe open some awareness, because of the changes that have taken place, as to what those new opportunities might be.
Representative VENTO. Well, I am sure the chairman would remind me that they want certainty and predictability. There is less flexibility for any entity that establishes a business in southeast Alaska based on a product from the Federal Government. So they need a reliable partner in the process, but I think it has to match what the forest plan is for the use driving the wood products.
Page 241 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I was listening to the discussion about the technical assistance, Mr. Chairman, with interest because up to a point most of the technical assistance in terms of forestry only went to countries that were subject to Agency for International Development funding, and we made some changes, for instance, in that at one point. You may have been involved. I was involved in the House side in providing some assistance to Brazil and other countries that were not AID countries.
So I am pleased to hear that they are providing technical assistance, I think in the broad sense. I do not know that it is appropriate to set up a platform for competition with southeast Alaska in Russia. I do not think that that was the intent. But it is—I think it should be a source of strength and I suppose a degree of pride that Forest Service research work and the technical expertise that they have developed is sought out and utilized by other nations.
In that vein, of course, looking at what might happen, of course, Siberia and Russia do possess a tremendous amount of timber, and it is not unlikely that, as in other cases, nations like Japan, perhaps Korea, would in fact set up entities that would in fact have a contract to harvest, ship, do the entire. So that is, I think, a valid point.
However, I do not know how much it fits into your study, Dr. Brooks, but I was surprised to read the sudden increase in timber supply from Scandinavia in 10 years, going from less than 1 percent to 10 percent. What is the difference in terms of the cost of timber harvest in Alaska? You pointed out labor, but I am certain—I was sort of rankled by that. I came out of sort of a labor background, so I know it is not all going to the workers, but it is the cost of living in southeast Alaska compared to the difference in terms of Canadian dollar value and other factors as well, is it not?
Page 242 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
But what is the differential in terms of is Alaskan timber, with or without the type of government support that is provided for it in terms of the Forest Service and other subsidies, what is the differential in terms of prices that we are facing?
It is lower grade, I heard you say that. Do you want to comment on that? Can you give that to me in sort of layman's language in terms of what we are facing in terms of a differential?
Dr. BROOKS. Well, if I may, Mr. Vento, avoid providing the details of prices, part of how I understand your question is the comparison of southeast Alaska to some of its competitors, including Canada and Europe or Scandinavia in this case. The explanation for the rapid increase in European shipments to the Japanese market is partly a consequence of cost differentials and partly a consequence of the products that they are able to provide to the Japanese market and the way in which the Japanese market is changing.
For nearly 20 years the Japanese market has been learning to do with less and less old growth timber and to adapt to use second growth and smaller diameter timber, and especially the products of smaller diameter timber. What Scandinavia and Austria are supplying to the Japanese market is small dimension, kiln-dried lumber that is used to be laminated into the posts that they use in traditional Japanese houses. That is the primary product.
There are a number of factors that have contributed to the attractiveness of that semiprocessed or final product in the Japanese market. That has been able to substitute for some of the old growth hemlock that has been used to manufacture that same product. It is partly a consequence of prices of the delivered product to the market and the cost structure of the producers and changing tastes and preferences in the marketplace.
Page 243 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Those are the kinds of factors that we have tried to bring to the forefront in our analysis of changes in market conditions and prospective future market conditions.
Representative VENTO. In your response to me it sounds as though they are using less old growth or that they are adapting to use less, that some of our products from Alaska would in fact be as desirable. But they are obviously also looking for raw logs, which obviously there is a limitation in terms of the export from Alaska or from other Federal lands, or should I say national lands. Get my semantics right.
But that, of course, I think is the concern, that we not end up being a source for raw materials as such, that we try to add value to the product.
Let me just skip over. Mr. Chairman, I have to leave here. There are a couple other hearings going on. But one of the issues, of course, is that you find out the wolf in southeast Alaska and the goshawk is species that are under consideration. I know that the chairman raised those and probably may have discussed it in more detail, and I hope I am not going over something that——
The CHAIRMAN. Great detail yesterday.
Representative VENTO. But the thing I want to talk to, I just want to get some idea, because I had not examined or studied the whole report, but do you consider these symbolic—or not symbolic, but keystone species in some way, that they are indicative of what is going on in the total ecosystem? What is the response here? I know that there is someone from the Fish and Wildlife Service here to answer questions concerning that as well.
Page 244 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Dr. EVEREST. I will take a shot at that, Mr. Vento. The wolf and goshawk are old growth-associated species, but they are just two of many old growth-associated species. The strategies for meeting the needs of the old growth species have addressed all of the species, not just those two.
Representative VENTO. We have addressed all of them, but they are highlighted in the report, or at least in the debate that is going on here. I would suggest that when you were dealing with the northern spotted owl that there was sort of a forest full of problems under that owl. What I am asking you here is, are these species, are they indicator species or keystone species, in the words of the ecologists?
Dr. EVEREST. I think you could reasonably call them indicator species. I would not call them keystone species.
Representative VENTO. Pardon me?
Dr. EVEREST. I say you could reasonably call them indicator species.
Representative VENTO. Well, you could call them keystone species. Jack Ward Thomas sort of schooled us a little bit on this. So they are keystone species. So when we start talking about them, they are old growth indicators. I think it is always a mistake to pick out, look at a bird, look at an individual species. It is kind of hard to defend a banana slug, but some of the others are working a little better when we are talking about the bald eagle or something.
Page 245 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
It is important, I think, to recognize that this is the total ecosystem that we are probably talking about in this case; is that right?
Dr. EVEREST. Yes, that is right.
Mr. JANIK. If I may add to that, Mr. Vento. As the decisionmaker of the revision, the old growth habitat component is what the focus was, as Dr. Everest said. And that is that whole host and community of wildlife to depend upon that.
Representative VENTO. So we could isolate out the goshawk or the wolf and take care of those, raise them in zoos or whatever the Speaker has recently proposed, or lately—or not lately proposed, but some time ago—and it would not really satisfy and it sort of begs the question, is what my point is. The issue is that you make a decision about it, that these are helpful in terms of giving you some guidance as to what the status is in the health of the old growth system.
Dr. EVEREST. That is correct.
Representative VENTO. And I do not know if anyone is debating that, but I just think that it sort of begs the question. You can have a disagreement about how much of that you would like to have available, that low elevation old growth in this sort of 6 1/2 million acres that exists out of the 17 million in this area, if it is even that much that has not been harvested.
Page 246 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
But that is what the debate is about and that is of course what many of us will be focusing on.
Mr. Chairman, I have been buzzed to come back and have my presence in the House recorded, so I am going to yield and thank you for your patience and courtesy to me in asking questions.
The CHAIRMAN. Happy to respond, my friend. Let me just remind you that it is estimated that the Tongass, of the old growth, about 30 percent is dead or dying. That is just the natural phenomenon of the recycle. Under our current proposal, 92 percent of the forest would remain untouched for the next 10 years, I think, 84 percent for 100 years.
I do not know how many saw mills or wood manufacturing facilities you have in your State, but I know you are traditionally a producer, a large producer. I think it is important to note here that we have three saw mills left that are considered large operators—one in Metlakatla, one in Ketchikan, one in Klawak—that would require about 155 million board feet a year.
There is a group of small mills that are very, very small. They cut between 5 and 10 a year. If you add them all up, there is two, four, six, eight of them. They cut about 75 million a year. So if you take the 3 mills that we have and the small ones that operate infrequently, you are looking at about 230 million a year.
The problem with this is that the Forest Service has not seen fit in its ASQ to consider the potential of the Sealey mill, which may or may not become a reality in Ketchikan. It formerly was an operating mill, so the Forest Service provided timber. The Wrangell mill which sits there has been shut down for the last 3 years. In a community of 2,200, it is the only job base year-round—down, no timber. Then the potential ethanol or veneer plant, which would utilize utility timber.
Page 247 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
That is the problem we have got, Bruce. When the Forest Service lab comes up and presents me with an analysis that they have studied the utilization of marketing the dead yellow cedar, well, that is such a fraction, and the Japanese will not buy dead wood. I am a little perplexed.
We need their expertise, but you and I know the sophistication of capital. And with the example that capital has had in the wood manufacturing products in Alaska, banks are not anxious to lend and entrepreneurs are not anxious to invest because of the continual problems associated with the ability of the Forest Service to provide and, if they can provide, the ability to deliver, because more often than not there are continuing lawsuits brought to bear.
You are in for—your frustration as you put up timber sales and do the best you can on the EIS' and have them challenged. As a consequence, Bruce, we have got 67 environmental groups in Alaska now, all with young attorneys in Anchorage where they have their offices, and they come from Brown, they come from Harvard. They do their missionary work in Alaska, and they have to have a cause. So the cause is any environmental.
You do not quite have that in your State because you have private land, you have a developed resource. We are the new kids on the block, and we are a public land State. Sometimes, Bruce, it is like rowing uphill. And it is important that you come over and expose yourself to some of these problems, because they are a little unique.
Representative VENTO. It has been some time, Mr. Chairman, since I have been to southeast Alaska. Perhaps in the near future we will find an opportunity to visit.
Page 248 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We do have a lot, of course, of State and national land in Minnesota, a couple national forests, as you know, that have their own issues, and they do add to it.
The CHAIRMAN. I am aware of your Boundary Waters. But keep one thing. What has happened to us in the last 5 years is the Forest Service's cost of preparation of timber has doubled. It has gone from $50 to $100. As you look at the generalization that, well, you know, this is a subsidized forest, that is part of the problem.
Representative VENTO. Part of the problem might be treating plans like rules, Mr. Chairman. You know, it is expensive to prepare those plans, and if you do not want to go through the expense of preparing the plans and doing the work, the preparatory work that is necessary to integrate with the other laws that we have on the environment, and then to add to that now something that is going to—I mean, I understand the concern, but this obviously is a two-way street. All of a sudden it is every lease we do, every sale we do that is going to be subjected to the type of rule.
Basically, I voted for that and most of us voted for it, but I do not think we anticipated necessarily—and hopefully we can get this issue resolved in a way that will provide for some predictability and certainty.
I will have to excuse myself, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you again.
Page 249 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I think we have to call a spade a spade, and if the costs go up then it is a subsidy and we are going to have to live with it.
Phil, you said in your testimony yesterday that it is your belief that the Forest Service is under no legal obligation to meet the demand for the Tongass timber. I found this statement disturbing yesterday. I find it disturbing today, in light of the fact that the Tongass Timber Reform Act declares that the Forest Service ''seeks to meet the demand'' for timber from the Tongass.
I wonder if you could give us a little further explanation of your statement?
Mr. JANIK. I will try to do that, Mr. Chairman. What I tried to express yesterday was that, although we very much have an obligation to try, to try to do the best we can to meet demand, because the law says that we ought to do just that, there is no legal obligation as we interpret it that we have to achieve a precise level that may be estimated or observed.
That does not mean we are less committed to trying to achieve that level. But there is no absolute legal obligation.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, would it not seem to you if the forest management provision—and I am going to read it to you: ''The Secretary shall, to the extent consistent with providing for the multiple use and sustained yield of the renewable forest resources, seek to provide a supply of timber from the Tongass National Forest which: meets the annual market demand for timber from such forest and meets the market demand from such forest for each planning cycle.''
Page 250 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Now, that to me says you seek to meet market demand.
Mr. JANIK. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. And it is part of the statute.
Mr. JANIK. That is exactly what I am trying to explain in terms of how we interpret that. That is that that second part of that phrase is very important. We have tried to address all our other obligations with regard to multiple use on the Tongass. That is what the revision represents and the best we can do with regard to that in combination with the timber projection is to calculate a 267 ASQ.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, notwithstanding the 1990 Tongass Timber Reform Act ''seek to meet market demand'' language, did you calculate the ASQ in basically the same way that it is derived on other national forests?
Mr. JANIK. I cannot honestly say I know how demand is calculated on other national forests. As Mr. Norbury said earlier, we have the additional——
The CHAIRMAN. I am not talking about the demand. I am talking about the ASQ.
Mr. JANIK. The ASQ is a function, as was said by someone here earlier, and I agree, of the total land base, the land allocations, and the prescriptions that were decided in the revision. And from that comes the calculation——
Page 251 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The CHAIRMAN. My question is is it calculated in the Tongass the same way it is calculated in other national forests?
Mr. JANIK. In that sense I would say yes.
The CHAIRMAN. You would all agree to that?
Dr. MILLS. In general, yes.
The CHAIRMAN. What do you mean, ''in general''? It is or it is not. Is it calculated as the same basic concept or way? Are there different regulations or different laws?
Dr. MILLS. Using your terms, conceptually in the same way, based upon the requirements of law and land allocations and standards and guidelines, I would answer yes. In terms of any particular computational method that is used, it varies considerably from forest to forest, or computation to computation.
The CHAIRMAN. So it varies considerably from computation to computation?
Dr. MILLS. It varies in the details of the computational procedure, not in terms of the concepts that underlie the calculation.
Page 252 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The CHAIRMAN. In terms of laws that are applicable, you are telling me it is identical to your other national forests? Is that what you are telling me?
Mr. JANIK. No.
The CHAIRMAN. Okay. Well, let us start again.
Mr. JANIK. Let us start again. I thank you for that.
The CHAIRMAN. I just noticed you were briefed there a little bit, so go ahead.
Mr. JANIK. Well, yes, my legal adviser wanted to make sure that I was clear on this.
The CHAIRMAN. I thought we would catch a little attention on this one.
Mr. JANIK. What I was trying to explain earlier is the actual calculation of ASQ, the mechanical computation is very similar.
The CHAIRMAN. Very similar.
Mr. JANIK. Right, to the rest of the forests.
Page 253 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The CHAIRMAN. But it is not the same?
Mr. JANIK. What is considered——
The CHAIRMAN. It is not the same?
Mr. JANIK. What is considered in that process is——
The CHAIRMAN. It is not the same or is it the same?
Mr. JANIK. I would say the actual process and methodology of calculation is very similar.
The CHAIRMAN. But not the same?
Mr. JANIK. I cannot say how each forest does this, Mr. Chairman. But I believe our procedures are in line with the rest of the national forest system direction that comes out of NFMA.
However, in terms of the existence of the Tongass Timber Reform Act—and I want to be clear on this point—we certainly have an additional emphasis put on demand, and we are very serious about that and pay very close attention to that. But the second part of that phrase is what in fact has limited our ability to go any higher with the allowable sale quantity, and that is all the obligations that we have in the multiple use setting.
Page 254 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The CHAIRMAN. When you say with regard to demand, and we have gone through the demand and it is so hypothetical relative to what the demand really is.
Mr. JANIK. I do not argue that point. That is a very difficult situation to deal with and to say here is what the number is. I do not argue that point.
The CHAIRMAN. So you would say then that you do calculate the ASQ in basically the same way that it is derived on other national forests?
Mr. JANIK. We consider different things and we put more emphasis on observing demand because of TTRA. The actual computation based on features that control and limit the ASQ, I would say that is similar, meaning land allocation, size of the forest, and standards and guidelines that cause restrictions in our ability to realize more timber yield.
The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Brooks, I wonder if you could comment on your analysis of demand that suggests that your estimate of demand should be a hard cap on timber sale offerings?
Dr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I have never said that.
The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead. The point is does your analysis suggest that there should be a hard cap?
Dr. BROOKS. No, it does not. Our analysis suggests that this information that we provide is among the information that should be considered in establishing the annual sale quantity. But we also try to point out in our analysis that there is considerable uncertainty associated with our projections of demand, and we have tried to display that as explicitly as possible, not only the range of uncertainty through the three scenarios, but to describe some of the other factors that would contribute to additional uncertainty around the trends that we project.
Page 255 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The CHAIRMAN. Well, we have acknowledged the uncertainty. Yet the uncertainty has resulted in the conclusion of an ASQ. So you have pulled down a scenario to fit, if you will, recognizing the uncertainty. Is that a fair statement?
Dr. BROOKS. Our analysis simply focuses on projected demand in markets, and we have provided information and this analysis to the region. There is no science component or no science responsibility in setting the ASQ.
The CHAIRMAN. I am going to go back to my discussion with Mr. Vento very briefly relative to—and I am sure you are familiar with—the material that consists of the recognition of, here we have the largest of all our national forests and we can identify an industry that is left with three modest sized mills, that would be modest in comparison to what California, Oregon. Modest; they are not large.
I see Mr. Powell nodding his head. The rest of you are refraining, but I will just generalize by suggesting these are modest, 3 modest sized saw mills that probably employ, what, 50, 75 people? Mr. Powell, you know what Ketchikan employs?
Mr. POWELL. I do not have those numbers with me. They actually employ a few more than that. I think the 2 saw mills that Ketchikan Pulp Company is running, they are estimating they employ somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 people. It is a little hard, though.
The CHAIRMAN. Is that in the saw mill, though, or in the woods?
Page 256 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. POWELL. I was going to say, they also have their woods operation people and their loggers and their administrative people that are tied into those numbers.
The CHAIRMAN. We have the personnel numbers here and I will get them.
Then we have the Viking Lumber Company in Kawak and that is really the state of the industry as it exists. We have seen the saw mills being built in Seward on two occasions, saw the impact of logging in Chugach, relatively limited as far as anything compared to southeastern is concerned; is that not right? Not much going on up there.
Mr. JANIK. Not much going on up there.
The CHAIRMAN. And there has not been for a long time. Costs are too high and just it is a tough, tough operation, barging off Montague and Hitchinbrook and other areas. So it is fair to say that the opportunities, limited as they are, are located in the southern part of the State. So the industry consists of 3 saw mills left, and the estimated requirements are 155 million board feet a year. Is that right?
Does anybody know?
Mr. POWELL. I could comment on that. That is I think approximately the capacity of those mills. Now, the requirements may be substantially different. As you mentioned, those mills can operate on one shift or they can operate on two shifts, and in reality they generally operate somewhere between that depending on the economic conditions.
Page 257 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The CHAIRMAN. Or the availability of logs.
Mr. POWELL. That is certainly one of the factors.
The CHAIRMAN. You cannot run a saw mill if you do not have any logs.
Mr. POWELL. I would say that is accurate.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, we have established that.
If you take their requirements of 70 million in Metlakatla and I believe it is 50 million in Ketchikan and 35 in Kawak, I think that is 155 million. Then there is a small mill in Petersburg, 10 million, that operates once in a while. There is Pacific Rim Cedar in Wrangell that I think takes, I do not know, 10 million. There is a Metlakatla tribal mill that is at the old airport at Annette Island that tries to take 10. There is the Kensley mill which I am not aware, that takes 10. Herring Bay takes 5. Icy Straits Lumber in Hoonah is 10. Then there is a shake mill at Thorn Bay that takes 10, and there is something up at Chatham.
These little guys, 75 million if they are all operating. Now, that gives us 230 million. And your ASQ is 267, and that includes utility, right? And how much utility is in that 267?
Mr. JANIK. About 18 percent, as I understand it.
Page 258 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The CHAIRMAN. Give me a figure.
Mr. JANIK. 18 percent.
The CHAIRMAN. I will have to figure the percent out?
Mr. JANIK. That comes out to nearly, I think——
The CHAIRMAN. About 50 million?
Mr. POWELL. About 50 million.
Mr. JANIK. About 50 million.
The CHAIRMAN. And you are pretty satisfied that you will stand behind your statement that there is a real, a real 210, 215, 217 commercial saw log availability?
Mr. JANIK. With the caveats you mentioned to Mr. Vento. That is, our ability to deliver that depends very much on appeals, litigation, that kind of thing.
The CHAIRMAN. And how much of that do you have in the pipeline now?
Mr. JANIK. If I reference this year, Mr. Chairman, and next year as an example——
Page 259 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The CHAIRMAN. No, this year right now.
Mr. JANIK. 220 million board feet, although 50 of that was part of the KPC settlement. So 150 to 170 million board feet is what we anticipate offering this fiscal year.
The CHAIRMAN. How much of that is tied up in litigation?
Mr. JANIK. Fred, do you happen to know that?
Mr. NORBURY. We have several lawsuits right now, but we do not have any significant amount that is actually under injunction.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, is 150 available, then? No lawsuits against it until tomorrow?
Mr. POWELL. One thing I would add to that, there is about 500 million currently under contract, sold timber. So that is what the industry is currently operating on, in addition to the timber that Mr. Janik has just mentioned that is being prepared and offered this year.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, I am talking about the 150 that Mr. Janik mentioned, 220 less 50.
Page 260 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. JANIK. That is what we are shooting for this fiscal year.
The CHAIRMAN. You are shooting for, but it is not available now? It is not under contract?
Mr. JANIK. Unless interfered with, it will be available.
The CHAIRMAN. By when?
Mr. JANIK. By the end of the fiscal year.
The CHAIRMAN. By the end of September?
Mr. JANIK. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, in addition, since we have spent so much time on the issue of utility, if we look at the potential of a veneer mill in Ketchikan, I am told that is going to require, what is this, 30 to 80 million board feet? 50 to 80 million board feet. And the Wrangell saw mill would require 100 million board feet, and Sealey's mill 20 million board feet, and an ethanol, which I assume would use pretty much hog fuel, you are looking at another 190 million board feet.
If you add 190 to what you have got, the large mills needing 155, the small mills needing 75, that is 230. You add 190, you are up to 420, which is far in excess of your ASQ, right?
Page 261 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. JANIK. That is correct.
The CHAIRMAN. So you have disregarded how you are going to meet your obligation to fully utilize the product of the forest, the significant portion being the utility, then you have just not addressed in your ASQ as to how we utilize that.
Mr. JANIK. I think that is the basic disagreement we have, Senator.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, let us talk about it.
Mr. JANIK. We have set our contribution to satisfying whatever need——
The CHAIRMAN. Well, just a minute. Now, the last time you gave a 50-year contract to address utility timber, right? That is what you did. Is there a reluctance to acknowledge that?
Mr. JANIK. To stimulate the markets in southeast Alaska.
The CHAIRMAN. Stimulate—to create the market.
Mr. JANIK. Yes.
Page 262 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The CHAIRMAN. There was not any market before.
Mr. JANIK. I believe that was the justification for doing it by the Government.
The CHAIRMAN. And the rationale is we would ship those utility logs down to Bellingham or Everett as opposed to manufacturing them in southeastern Alaska. That was the justification for the contract, because that is what would have happened. And that was the whole rationale that the Government had.
Now, 50 years later, we are left with the utility, which is 30 percent or whatever. What is the utility?
Mr. POWELL. About 18 percent. Mr. Chairman, one clarification on what you were saying, though, when you added those numbers, particularly with the ethanol plant, particularly with the veneer plant. Those numbers that do utilize primarily the utility grade would not be additive onto that total, because they are really looking at using that portion of that that is not going to the saw mills. So those numbers would be discounted somewhat.
We do anticipate if those types of mills were brought on line that they could fit.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, the Sealey mill would not be part of that.
Mr. POWELL. No, just the veneer plant, just the ethanol plant. In fact, the Ketchikan proposal would see Alaska really looking at trying to use that material that we have talked about as utility, that has been talked about being exported, and could be encompassed within this ASQ figure that we are talking about.
Page 263 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The CHAIRMAN. Yes, but what you fail to in my opinion address is any responsibility to try and accommodate and encourage investment to utilize this resource, because, as you stated yesterday, Phil, you prepared—you have allowed the export based on, I assume, the circumstances as you see them.
Mr. JANIK. There is no available market for utility and some of these smaller companies are about at their limits.
The CHAIRMAN. My question to you is, I think you have an obligation to substantially assist in some manner or form the creation of a utility utilization, as you did 50 years ago. Now, it is not going to be the same kind of a contract, but clearly forest management practice dictates you are going to leave more wood in the woods if you do not have that utilization.
Your business is the best forest monitoring practice, and that suggests you get the greatest utilization out of the resource that you can. I am disappointed that you are not putting more emphasis on that, because that I think is the significant void that we face. I am going to continue to keep preaching that until we get something done about it.
We are going to have a vote in a few minutes, so I am going to continue the questioning, because we have got probably, we have got two or three, three more areas of questioning that I want to pursue.
This is on general timber sale economics and the final TLMP. Historically, only about two-thirds of the ASQ has actually been harvested and processed by the mills, due to losses from appeals, litigation, and non-economic sales. If this trend continues under the new plan—and I see little reason to suggest it will change—the actual harvest we can expect to see from the Tongass would drop to around 150 million board feet or less.
Page 264 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Is that a realistic assessment based on the history?
Mr. JANIK. I personally would not translate that to the revision. What we have tried to do in the revision is improve our ability to successfully defend sales if they should be litigated, based on the provisions and the compliance with the law.
The CHAIRMAN. Would you say that is an unrealistic assessment?
Mr. JANIK. I would hope we would do better than that.
The CHAIRMAN. What would you hope you would do?
Mr. JANIK. I have no idea, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, that is why I posed this question, because if the trend continues, and there is no reason to suggest that you will not have as many suits as you had before, then the new plan will harvest about 150 million board feet. Now, what do you see as you doing that would change that?
Mr. JANIK. As I have said, I believe the revision is now better prepared to not keep us out of the courtroom, but to have us be successful in the courtroom. Certainly we are going to experience delays, as we have in the past, and that does deal with the subject area reliability, which we all want to see improved upon, and we are going to do our best in that regard.
Page 265 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The CHAIRMAN. The reaction to the new plan from both environmental interests and commodity users suggests a continuation of the existing tension between the various interests. Now, both sides, for decidedly different reasons, appear less happy with your decisions. Is that a fair statement?
Mr. JANIK. I think that is a judgment that can be reflected by some of the reaction we have gotten, yes.
The CHAIRMAN. At the harvest level of 150 million board feet, which we can or cannot assume, but is historically at least possible, a not unlikely outcome given, as I suggested, the past decade history, only about 75 million board feet would be saw log quality; is that correct?
Mr. JANIK. I could use some help on that.
Mr. POWELL. I do not think that is correct.
The CHAIRMAN. What do you think is?
Mr. POWELL. Well, again, if we use the utility figures that we have talked about, you would discount about 20 percent of that. I think what you may be referring to is again another 10 percent or so of that would be cedar products, and then again you have got low quality saw logs that typically have gone to a pulp mill, but now we would be looking at a higher percentage of that actually going to a saw mill.
Page 266 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The CHAIRMAN. Well, what do you figure, then, would be saw log, saw timber quality out of 150?
Mr. POWELL. Well, a simple calculation again would be taking about 18 percent off for utility. So you are going to end up around 80 percent is of a saw log grade, and then discount 10 percent of cedar if you assume that that is not a part of what you are talking about and you are around 70 percent is of the saw log grade. Granted, some of that would be lower grade.
The CHAIRMAN. So you are looking at roughly, you would suggest, 100 million?
Mr. POWELL. I think with your 150——
The CHAIRMAN. Well, it is important, you know, that we have some degree of accuracy. I might suggest we are going to hold you to these figures to some extent, because this is what the industry has to depend on. It is all they have got.
Mr. POWELL. With your scenario of 150, 70 percent of that would be close to 100, 105 or so.
One other point to remember, though. The cedar part of this, as Mr. Janik mentioned, we are also looking at how that would be handled in the future in terms of export. In fact, Mr. Sealey's mill that you mentioned earlier, Mr. Sealey is actually looking at his mill processing cedar. So if in fact there were cedar mills, then you would have to add that cedar.
Page 267 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The CHAIRMAN. Well, would the Forest Service stop the export of cedar if Mr. Sealey's mill got on line?
Mr. POWELL. I would say that very issue about export of cedar is one of the things that we are reviewing currently.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes, but gentlemen, no one in his right mind is going to build a cedar mill if you are going to allow the export of cedar. You are either not going to allow it if somebody builds a mill and they have the assurance that they will have a market, because the stupidest thing that they could do would be to build a mill and not have the assurance that you are going to prohibit the export of cedar.
Mr. JANIK. Mr. Chairman, I said yesterday—I believe it was me that said this, and I will say that again with emphasis—the very reason we are looking at the export policy is because we think we do need to be more restrictive with the policy. What you are asking for here is you are asking for some predeterminations.
The CHAIRMAN. On the other hand, you are indicating you are going to approve specific requests for export of raw log utility because you have no use for them.
Mr. JANIK. The final policy will determine exactly what we will be doing. We would expect it to be more restrictive.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, let me tell you. Nobody is going to go in and invest a nickel unless there is some assurance from the Forest Service on continuity and a guarantee of a supply of timber. Now, one of the things that I am interested in Mr. Powell's statement, and I have got to run, but I will just leave you with this thought. You have just given us an indication that we are going to have roughly 100 million board feet, assuming the 150 million is correct relative to your ASQ deliverability.
Page 268 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
So we are going to have 100 million board feet of saw logs. And yet our large operators' consumption requirements is 155 million board feet, and we have not taken care of the small operators, which are 75 million board feet, for a total of 230. So already we are 130 million under the capacity, if you will, of the industry, which is relatively insignificant in comparison with other States and operating in other forests. And we have not addressed the Wrangell mill, which is another 100 million.
So this ASQ that you have come up with as far as saw log availability in relationship to installed capacity is 130 million short. That is what you have left us with in your ASQ today, and I think that is unconscionable, if you will, relative to the obligation that you have and the volumes that we were cutting before, which was 450 with the 2 pulp mills.
I am going to have to go. I leave you with the questions, but you can answer that if you want or make any comments you would care to. You can keep going.
Mr. REY. Let me just continue and see if we can close out this area, and then maybe we will just take a break.
Generally speaking, notwithstanding the difference between the ASQ and actual production, it is your view that you still have met the ''seek to meet market demand'' language in TTRA, even though you may not deliver what is actually in the ASQ; is that correct?
Mr. JANIK. Let me make sure I understand the question. Even though we may not achieve the ASQ level of 267 in any particular year?
Page 269 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. REY. Right.
Mr. JANIK. We would judge that we are still meeting the obligation of TTRA?
Mr. REY. Right.
Mr. JANIK. Let me answer that again this way. The direction in the law, TTRA, does say ''seek to meet timber demand.'' But it also says within the context of the other multiple use objectives. That brings a whole new dimension and array of obligations that we have tried to address in the revision and we judge we have.
267 is the calculation that has come from that. We have tried to pay attention to the demand function as best we can in fulfilling that obligation. But yes, in the context of not achieving the ASQ and given all the other obligations that we judge we would have met, we would consider ourselves in compliance with the law.
Mr. REY. In your record of decision you precluded timber harvested on forested wetlands. How many acres of timber was scheduled to come from such lands and what was the ASQ effect of that measure?
Mr. JANIK. Mark, if I may get some help here, because we have some definite numbers on that that we can provide and I do not want to misquote those.
Page 270 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Fred, can you handle that?
Mr. NORBURY. Yes. There were 2,500 acres of forested wetlands of the 4 specified types scheduled for harvest over the next 100 years, approximately 70 acres in the first decade.
Mr. REY. The amount of economic timber in the new plan, or the NIC 1 lands as the plan calls them, is about 219 million board feet. Logging costs obviously have a big effect on whether or not timber is economic. As I understand it, you recently issued an interim directive to your timber sale appraisal handbook which shows logging costs—we are talking about logging costs rather than preparation costs now—logging costs had increased by some 34 percent.
What effect will this have on whether or not the 219 million board feet of economic timber can be achieved?
Mr. JANIK. If I may, Mr. Norbury.
Mr. NORBURY. The NIC 1 component is not based on logging costs directly. It is based on offerability, as you probably read. It is what is considered normal offerability, harvestable with normal equipment. We actually have done a recent comparison of appraisals in the 1994–97 period of the sales offered in 1994 to 1997 with what we used in the model, the FORPLAN model, for estimating the ASQ.
What we found was that the costs were actually very comparable. So we are fairly comfortable that numbers that were used in the model for calculating ASQ are comparable to the appraisal allowances that have actually occurred in recent years.
Page 271 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. REY. So the increased costs would not in your expectation make the NIC 1 component substantially smaller as you move to plan implementation?
Mr. NORBURY. The costs themselves will not change the NIC 1, NIC 2 component. That distinction is based on the offerability layer. The standards and guidelines can have some effect on offerability, which would change the NIC 1, NIC 2 component. Increased logging costs, if they occur, could have the effect of making some more of the NIC 1 uneconomic. But we do not have a separate estimate of that.
Mr. REY. Do you have any sense of that at this time?
Mr. NORBURY. It depends critically on what you think is going to happen to prices. If you accept—the price projections done by the Pacific Northwest Station show that prices will increase in the coming years. If prices increase the way we expect them to, all of the NIC 1 will be economic. In fact, all the NIC 2 will become economic as well.
Mr. REY. But that is based on price assumptions as well?
Mr. NORBURY. That is based on price assumptions, yes. Currently our harvest comes about—some portion of the NIC 2 is also economic. About 8 percent of our current harvest comes off lands that we would now categorize as NIC 2.
Mr. REY. In appendix B of the FEIS, you indicate costs relating to timber harvests had been calculated using actual cost expenditure reports, so in other words these are historical costs for harvesting under the old TLMP, is that right?
Page 272 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. NORBURY. It is based on harvests under the old TLMP since that is the plan in fact that is still in effect. So all the appraisals have been done under the old TLMP.
Mr. REY. In your ROD you say that 35 percent of the harvesting will be by methods other than clearcutting. Is it not true that it costs substantially more to log using these other methods?
Mr. NORBURY. It certainly does. The costs are much higher with the alternative logging methods. The FORPLAN model explicitly recognized different logging costs with different harvest methods and also with different volume classes. So that the costs for the low volume partial cut harvests as shown in the model is much higher than the clearcut, easy to access ground.
Mr. REY. One element from your timber model that will have a direct effect on the amount of economic timber is road construction costs. As I understand it, for at least the first decade you used an historic average of a mile of road for each 2 million board feet of timber; is that correct?
Mr. NORBURY. The FORPLAN model actually has .4 mile of road per million board feet harvested.
Mr. REY. That is close to what I calculated. Given that the road construction history was developed under the old plan, including nearly exclusive use of clearcut logging, fewer stream buffers, no 1,000 foot shoreline setbacks, and no additional standards for martens, wolves, goshawks, fewer visual constraints on harvesting, would you not expect the amount of timber harvested per mile of road to decline under the new plan?
Page 273 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. NORBURY. It is generally true that with partial cut harvests and considering the facts that you have laid out that the miles of road constructed per unit of volume harvested are going to go up, and they have been going up on the Tongass for some time. We believe, though, we have modeled them accurately. We think this .41 estimate is what we expect to occur.
Mr. REY. So you would not expect a decrease in volume per mile to have any effect on the NIC 1 size?
Mr. NORBURY. Again, it will not affect our categorization of NIC 1 and NIC 2. It could—if the miles of road requirement goes up more than we expect, then what that could do is render some of the NIC 1 uneconomic, that is correct.
Mr. REY. I understand that the forest is nearing completion of a sale called the Indian River sale, and I believe that that sale largely incorporates the new standards and guidelines from this new TLMP. Is that correct? Anybody know?
Mr. NORBURY. All the sales that are about to be decided are incorporating the standards and guidelines of the new TLMP, with some room for interpretation of the mitigation measures that we discussed yesterday for goshawk and marten.
Mr. REY. As I understand it, the completed appraisal on the Indian River sale shows all of the alternatives that you are considering in the sale package turning up deficit. Is that correct? Does anybody know?
Page 274 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. NORBURY. I am not familiar with the details of the Indian River sale.
Mr. JANIK. I am not, either.
Mr. REY. Why do you not submit that for the record.
[The information requested was not received at the time the hearing went to press.]
Mr. REY. The point of the questions was to look at Indian River as an example of a sale that incorporates the new standards and guidelines and evaluate whether the alternatives do turn up uniformly deficit or whether our information is wrong on that.
Mr. NORBURY. I would comment, however, that many of our existing sales have all the alternatives appraised at a deficit in the stage two stage, at the EIS preparation stage, and still sell positively. It is critical upon the state of the market when you offer the sale.
Mr. REY. I see.
In the record of decision you say that some of the measures added in alternative 11 have not been explicitly modeled, but were judged to be relatively small. Can you elaborate on which things were not modeled?
Page 275 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. NORBURY. Are you speaking of the mitigation measures for goshawk and marten connectivity?
Mr. REY. Right.
Mr. NORBURY. We did not explicitly model any of those mitigation measures. The fundamental reason was that—actually there was several reasons that were prominent. One of them is that there is some suitable land that is not scheduled that is available to make up any slack that is created.
Part of it, though—and this is probably the major reason—was that our conclusion was we probably would be double counting if we tried to model it. There is two kinds of double counting that occur. The marten and goshawk mitigation measures basically force you to use something other than clearcutting, some sort of partial cutting regime. We already expected to do something other than clearcutting on about a third of the lands harvested anyway.
In addition, the FORPLAN model includes some constraints to meet visual quality objectives, and our estimate, based on some preliminary analysis, was that the restrictions on harvest that were already forced in order to meet visual quality objectives would account for any reduction in harvest for the marten and the goshawk.
The way that would work out, what we would do, if we had come back—we thought if we had gone back and explicitly modeled for the marten and goshawk, that would in turn allow us to relax the visual quality constraints and that would compensate for the harvest reduction that was caused by the marten and goshawk standards and guidelines.
Page 276 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. REY. I am reading from a January 21, 1997, memorandum to ''Fred'' from Kent Julan. The subject of it is ''NIC 1 consistency issue.'' At the beginning of it he states: ''NIC 1 is overestimated in the preferred alternative, alternative 11, by about 12 percent based upon a proposed refinement of the operability layer developed by Don Gulnak and Gary Fisher during revision of the forest plan. The approach, which was not used in the final plan, consisted of reclassifying lands originally designated as having normal operability as difficult operability based upon their proximity to other areas designated as normal and distance from existing roads.''
Can you tell me whether that difficulty has been corrected or is there still a problem in the model in terms of overestimating NIC 1?
Mr. NORBURY. I am aware of the memo and I can get into that topic quite deeply. John and Dave actually did the analytical work and if you want to get into that we can have John address some of the particulars.
My recollection of what John reported to me was that there was an error in the analysis that that memo rests on. It was an inadvertent error that was actually, they were running an algorithm that had originally been written to test the capabilities of a new work station that they had and it was not intended for production work. The fault of the algorithm was that it tended to find some areas to be NIC 2—it found NIC 2 within NIC 1, but did not find NIC 1 within NIC 2. So it had a bias in it.
Once we worked through that, we remained convinced that the original classification was correct. Now, we have acknowledged that NIC 1, NIC 2 distinction that is in the plan is based upon the existing operability layer, and that operability layer will be updated over the course of the plan implementation so that the NIC 1, NIC 2 balance may change.
Page 277 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The CHAIRMAN. To go back, Mr. Powell and Mr. Janik, relative to what we were looking at, you did not concede that, based on the historical experience, that the ASQ would actually drop down to 150 as I cited. Historically, only about two-thirds of the ASQ has actually been harvested and processed by the mills due to loss from appeals, litigation, and non-economic sales. You indicated that you thought you could do better than that as a consequence of your current commitment and structure.
So I want to go back and try and pin you down on what you think you can do.
Mr. JANIK. I have no idea, Mr. Chairman. You are asking me to predict the outcomes and frequency of appeals and litigation.
The CHAIRMAN. Well then, will you agree——
Mr. JANIK. I have no way of determining that.
The CHAIRMAN. Will you agree that, based on the historical harvest and the actual challenges that have been made, that we historically would see somewhere around 150 million or less?
Mr. JANIK. If you apply the historic statistics? I suppose if you just do that simple mathematics, that is what you would get. But what I am saying is there is no way to predict if that is going to be the reality.
Page 278 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The CHAIRMAN. Is it going to be less or more?
Mr. JANIK. I do not know.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, I know. But how does the—you have got 3 saw mills out there that are going to require about 150 million board feet of saw logs. We have already conceded if we apply the 150 as being somewhat in the ballpark that 50 of it will be utility. So as far as the ability of the Forest Service to provide for the Metlakatla, the Ketchikan, and the Kawak mill, we are already 50 million board feet short of what they would require.
Mr. JANIK. Mr. Chairman, these are the very kinds of discussions we are having in the Governor's Timber Task Force and looking at all ownerships and what kind of contribution can come in trying to meet whatever demand or request for timber might emerge from the timber industry. We are doing the best we can to identify our contribution to that and we think we have, and we will do our best to try to——
The CHAIRMAN. Well, what do you think your contribution is going to be?
Mr. JANIK. I believe we will be able to produce 150, as I said, for this fiscal year.
The CHAIRMAN. 150, of which 100 will be saw log approximately, high quality saw log. That is what we have ascertained here in our general discussion; is that not correct?
Page 279 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. POWELL. Again, I think that is relatively close.
The CHAIRMAN. Okay.
Mr. POWELL. Again, around 18 percent utility.
The CHAIRMAN. 150 is relatively close.
Mr. POWELL. About 25 percent of the material would not go to the saw mill.
The CHAIRMAN. We have gone through that and agreed you roll out about 50, so you have got 100 million board feet. And you have got in the 3 modest sized mills you have got a requirement of 155. So you are roughly 55 short of meeting that. Is my arithmetic haywire or something? These are all hypothetical.
Mr. JANIK. There may be requests for timber out there that we will not be able to satisfy with what comes off the national forests, so we acknowledge that.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, I am glad you acknowledge that because that is clearly the case. If I have got 3 saw mills and they have got a capacity of 155 million and the market is out there and I can sell the lumber, the question is can you supply it. And we are already 50 short going in, and we have not taken care of the small mills, which are only 8, that require 75 million, and we have not taken care of the Wrangell mill.
Page 280 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
What we have done is we have a surplus of something in the area of 50 or so million board feet of utility to hopefully plug into perhaps veneer. But I think we have made the point that in your ASQ you have not addressed the installed capacity. As a matter of fact, you are, well 125 million under it in your ASQ, which is I think an unfortunate economic reality for southeastern Alaska.
That is why we are so interested in the manner in which you came up with this process.
Now, with regard to the socioeconomic impact of the TLMP, we identified several of the shortcomings last May. What I would like to do is focus on some specific questions. There is always a good deal of rhetoric that continued timber harvesting in the Tongass will diminish Alaska's tourism industry, but I think it is true that tourism in Alaska has grown tremendously in the past 2 decades during the Tongass timber harvesting at much greater levels than proposed in the TLMP revision. Is that true?
Dr. MILLS. If I could provide, Mr. Chairman, a little bit of information, and then I am sure Mr. Norbury has got what is in the plan in terms of projections.
The recreation and tourism industry is, as you point out, the fastest growing resource-dependent——
The CHAIRMAN. Yes, but you have to qualify: seasonal.
Page 281 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Dr. MILLS. It is certainly true that many of those are not full-time jobs.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, let us face it now, gentlemen. It runs from Memorial Day to Labor Day.
Dr. MILLS. They certainly are not full-time jobs. Your average wage likewise——
The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you. Why when you identify tourism do you not qualify it like you do everything else and say it like it really is? You would have the reader believe that the tourism industry operates 365 days a year coming to Alaska.
Dr. MILLS. Mr. Chairman, I am not suggesting they operate 365 days a year, and I am trying to respond with the information I do have, that probably is as relevant as how many days they work, which is what their average wage is, which is $32,000 a year according to the information I have here, which is roughly a quarter less than the annual average earnings in the wood products sector, which is closer to $45,000 per year.
It is the fastest growing at some 22 percent over the last 10 years, to a level now of approximately 3,000 jobs in southeast Alaska.
The CHAIRMAN. You are saying the average tourism business person is generating $31,000 in 4 months?
Page 282 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Dr. MILLS. The information I have is that the average annual earnings in 1995 from those engaged in recreation and tourism is $32,000 a year.
The CHAIRMAN. And your source for that?
Dr. MILLS. I do not have the source here, but I believe it comes from State employment data which was released last summer. But we would happy to provide for the record the source.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes, I think we need to. That seems a little high for 4 months work. I cannot think of anybody in the tourism industry that is working on a salary that is making that kind of money for 4 months. You know, that is 120 grand a year.
[The information requested was not received at the time the hearing went to press.]
Dr. MILLS. No, it is $32,000 a year.
The CHAIRMAN. No, you are saying $32,000 for 4 months.
Dr. MILLS. No, I am saying $32,000 for the average annual earnings for recreation and tourism, and your calculation is they work 4 months and then translating that into some annual equivalent. All I am trying to say is my information says it is $32,000 for their average annual earnings.
Page 283 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The CHAIRMAN. Well, can you annualize that with what you make in 4 months?
Dr. MILLS. We will provide the source for where the 32 comes from.
The CHAIRMAN. It is 8,000-plus a month. I think it is fair to say that somebody working in a curio shop or peddling tee shirts is hardly making $8,000 a month during the 4-month tourism season, and that is what they are working because they are not employed those other months.
This is page 3490: ''The estimate represents total net jobs''—''due to recreation and tourism actively under such alternative. Income''—now this is where we part, gentlemen. ''Income was estimated using the IMPLAN-derived estimate of $31,773 per employee. While this estimate may seem high, it is important to remember that much of the income from recreation and tourism employment is concentrated in a short period of time and will thus lead to higher estimates when extended to a whole year on an average annual employment basis.''
Now, that is what you have done. You have taken the 4 months' salary and extended it out to a whole year, which is hardly accurate. Is that not correct?
Dr. MILLS. I am not as familiar as I might be with the table you are reading from.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, it is your stuff.
Page 284 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Dr. MILLS. The information that I have got has an estimate of average annual earnings in 1995 of $32,000, and we will be happy to provide an explanation of that.
The CHAIRMAN. Can you, Mr. Janik, clarify this apparent inconsistency?
Mr. JANIK. I think Mr. Norbury has the table in hand. Go ahead, Fred.
And if we cannot explain the discrepancy here, we will, as Dr. Mills just mentioned, do so for the record later.
Mr. NORBURY. I think we should provide it for the record.
Mr. JANIK. He would prefer to provide it for the record.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, what you have done is you have taken and projected this for a whole year.
Dr. MILLS. Mr. Chairman, as I said, that is exactly what we will look into and clarify.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, I know, but does this not——
Page 285 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Dr. MILLS. If that is what we have done, we apologize.
The CHAIRMAN [continuing]. Skew your figures relative to the contribution of the industry, which is significant? I am not belaboring that point. But it is a pretty significant inconsistency. It is about a 400 percent error.
Mr. JANIK. We would like an opportunity to examine that, if you will, and then report for the record.
The CHAIRMAN. This is what you have got, and I am reading from it. And you have got the same page I have, right, Mr. Norbury?
Mr. NORBURY. Yes, sir, I do, and it is not clear to me yet what the discrepancy is.
The CHAIRMAN. Income was estimated, derived at $31,773 per employee. Then it goes on further and it says ''concentrated in a short period of time and will thus lead to higher estimates when extended to a whole year on an average annual employment basis. Total income and nonresident supported income was derived in the same fashion in the case of employment.''
One can only reach the conclusion that this was extended for a whole year, while the employment season is, what, 4, 5 months?
Page 286 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. NORBURY. Mr. Chairman, I do not think that is what the analyst did at this point, but I would like an opportunity to double check that.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, relative to the time spent by visitors and southeastern Alaska, I assume you would agree that little time is spent in the remote areas, including most of the Tongass, as far as most of the visitors that come up there? They do not spend much time in the remote areas. You have got no facilities. You have got a few cabins out there. You know, you have got a couple hundred thousand coming up by tour vessels, is that right?
Mr. NORBURY. Yes, sir. The tourism, particularly the out of State tourism, falls predominantly on developed areas, like Juneau, Ketchikan, Skagway, Sitka, in terms of numbers of visitors.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, we had a little conversation yesterday about the editorial policy of the various media on their presumption and attitude toward the Tongass, and I think it is fair to say that a lot of misinformation about tourism is sponsored by environmental groups, and the media have repeatedly said that timber harvesting poses great threats to salmon harvesting. But is it not true that salmon harvesting employment is not generally affected, if at all, by the differences in the 12—excuse me—the 11 alternatives considered by the Forest Service, including an alternative that called for no further timber harvesting?
Mr. JANIK. This is with respect to the fishing industry per se?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Page 287 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Dr. MILLS. It is true that over the next 10 years, which is the time period for which the plan projected employment effects, that the difference amongst the alternatives would not likely have any significant effect on salmon harvesting and seafood processing employment. However, the effect over the long term could be considerably different.
The CHAIRMAN. Why?
Dr. MILLS. Because of the eventual effect of different management scenarios on protection of the fisheries' productivity and the resulting impact on fish population levels in combination with the other factors that affect fish population levels.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes, but those have all been taken into account in your TLMP.
Dr. MILLS. They have been taken into account and considered in the first 10 years, and in the first 10 years, no, there is not projected to be a significant change in fish productivity and in turn the associated employment.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, of course, you would change the plan. Theoretically the plan would be subject to change in 10 years, and you would be as prudent as you are now, one would have to assume, only you would have probably more and better science in 10 years than you have got now.
Dr. MILLS. I acknowledge that. I am sure I am not doing a very good job of touching on the point you are trying to touch on.
Page 288 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. JANIK. Having been involved in some of these discussions personally, Mr. Chairman, if one were to choose an alternative which carries a high risk for fisheries, fisheries habitat that is, the incremental change occurring from year to year, what I believe Dr. Mills is trying to say and certainly what I have been exposed to, the incremental change that occurs from year to year in the sense of deterioration does not start revealing itself until after the 10-year period, but nevertheless is significant. That is why important action is being taken now to provide additional protective measures.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you have any figures relative or are you conversant in figures that show the southeast anadromous return runs at an all-time high, as a general statement? Because I have got the specifics here if you want.
Dr. EVEREST. They are at an all-time high now, have been for the last several years.
The CHAIRMAN. And I assume that the rationale for that is a combination of things, probably the termination of interception on the high seas by the driftnet fisheries, reasonable water levels, probably good fisheries, and forest habitat management with the buffers around the streams and so forth?
Dr. EVEREST. Certainly a combination of things, all of the things you named: good fish management, relatively good fresh water habitats, and extremely high ocean productivity, as we have discussed previously.
Page 289 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Janik, you and Mr. Powell and others are professional foresters here. Was it not a policy 15 years ago or some time frame that the considered technology was that you cleared the streams, the fish, the anadromous streams, of deadfalls that blew down and so forth, tried to keep them as clean as you could?
Mr. JANIK. In fact, you referenced the portion of my career which was back in Oregon, Mr. Chairman. It is true back in the sixties, for instance, with the knowledge level that existed then, the understanding was that that accumulation of woody debris in streams was detrimental to fish.
Since then, research has shown that large woody debris has substantial value to fishery productivity, and no longer is that so-called stream cleanout occurring.
The CHAIRMAN. And you were an ardent, I assume, supporter of that scientific process that led to changes?
Mr. JANIK. That level of understanding led to management policies that involved stream cleanout, yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. I assume it is true that wood products jobs are being lost at a much higher percentage of residential employment than recreation and tourism or seafood processing?
Dr. MILLS. Mr. Chairman, if the question is whether the number of jobs in the wood products industry are dropping faster than others are increasing, the information I have here confirms that, yes.
Page 290 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.
Does the final environmental impact statement analyze how communities will be affected by decreasing tax revenues, decreasing real estate prices, utility prices, increasing costs per child in school, decreased school funding based on fewer students?
Mr. JANIK. Fred, can you help us with that one?
Mr. NORBURY. The list of factors that you describe, Mr. Chairman, are not addressed explicitly in the community by community analysis. But they are included under the general headings of the quality of life that was addressed by the panel that the station convened to evaluate the effects of the alternatives on the communities.
The CHAIRMAN. Why were they not on the affected communities? You have got so few of them. Community by community? I mean, no big deal.
Mr. NORBURY. The larger issue, the analytical issue that is raised here, is trying to figure out exactly which community is going to be affected by a reduction in timber harvest, and to a considerable degree that cannot be predicted by the Forest Service because we cannot predict who is going to continue to operate and who is going to close. If we knew that, we would know which communities were going to be affected and a lot more detailed analysis would be possible.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, you knew that Sitka was going to be affected. You knew Ketchikan was going to be affected. Pretty obvious. So why could you not do an analysis of the two most affected communities? Probably Wrangell, because the only thing they had was one saw mill.
Page 291 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. NORBURY. There is a section in the EIS that goes into the effects of mill closing, that gets into some of the dimensions.
The CHAIRMAN. Why would you not take each of the three major communities that are affected and tell them? Is this not part of your obligation under the TLMP, to communicate this as part, as opposed to generalizing it?
Mr. NORBURY. As I was starting to say, Mr. Chairman, there is a section that addresses mill closings. It does not get down into the level of detail that you talked about in terms of some of the social effects.
The CHAIRMAN. Well then, why does it not? Why did it not?
Mr. NORBURY. We do not have the analytical capability of talking about——
The CHAIRMAN. You can contract for it. You have got all kinds of analytical capability.
Mr. NORBURY. It is not a question of personnel, sir. It is a question of methods. A lot of the discussions that you are talking about can be, with state of the art, in my opinion can only be discussed qualitatively. To the extent that that was possible, I believe we did that.
Page 292 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. JANIK. I believe part of what we also did, in addition to the panel that Mr. Norbury mentioned, is I believe in those 32 visits to the communities that occurred, the face to face by the planning team, there was a basic survey of sorts held during those stops and that was included in the writeup in terms of the community profile. So that was generated by the community members themselves.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, you both were on the planning team, Dr. Everest and Mr. Norbury, right?
Mr. NORBURY. I was not a member of the planning team, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. You went into these communities, Mr. Everest, Dr. Everest?
Dr. EVEREST. Some of our staff folks did, yes.
The CHAIRMAN. Some of them did. Where did they go?
Dr. EVEREST. I think basically all of the communities were visited.
The CHAIRMAN. Which ones?
Mr. JANIK. Mr. Chairman, may I suggest, if I may, we call up Beth Pendleton, who was a co-leader of the team and participated extensively in those visits.
Page 293 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The CHAIRMAN. Sure.
Dr. EVEREST. All 32 of those communities were visited twice, I believe.
The CHAIRMAN. On the specific issue of the impact that would take place?
Dr. EVEREST. I will pass that over to Beth.
The CHAIRMAN. Please proceed.
Ms. PENDLETON. The communities that we visited were approximately 30 communities. We visited all the communities on Prince of Wales. We also visited Metlakatla, Ketchikan, Saxman, Meyers Chuck, communities to the north including Yakatat and Sitka, Juneau, and many other communities.
The CHAIRMAN. Wrangell?
Ms. PENDLETON. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. Petersburg?
Ms. PENDLETON. Mm-hmm.
Page 294 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The CHAIRMAN. And what was the discussion?
Ms. PENDLETON. At each community we had various displays on all aspects of the plan, including socioeconomics, looking at employment trends. We also had a questionnaire that was provided to folks that they could fill out and provide information on related to quality of life.
The CHAIRMAN. Was that input from those people communicated and made a part of your plan?
Ms. PENDLETON. It is part of the planning record.
The CHAIRMAN. By community?
Ms. PENDLETON. That is correct.
The CHAIRMAN. What was the community response?
Ms. PENDLETON. We had actually very few actual responses. It was not a mandatory. It was something voluntary and we did not receive a great number of responses.
The CHAIRMAN. To what extent did the socioeconomic impact of providing timber, say to restart the Wrangell mill, impact the formulation of the final TLMP ASQ?
Page 295 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. JANIK. Perhaps I could try to respond to that.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. JANIK. The emphasis and the concentration was on what was the feasibility of producing timber off the Tongass, again given the other obligations that we had. There was not a specific targeted ''keep the Wrangell mill open'' or such a kind of reference in the assessment, given that we see that as personal investment decisions made by the industry as such.
The obligation we judged that we are responsible for is providing what we believe we can produce off the national forest and then let the private sector sort that out.
The CHAIRMAN. You recognize that is contrary to what Jack Ward Thomas, who sat roughly where you are, stated that there would be enough in whatever the final resolve of this is for the Wrangell saw mill specifically? You were aware of that?
Mr. JANIK. I stand on my statement. I would suspect whatever the ex-Chief said at the time might have had to do with the context of those current conditions and maybe what was being delivered then——
The CHAIRMAN. I do not know. The current conditions then were you were still working on the TLMP.
Page 296 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. JANIK. Well, and we did not have an idea of what the ASQ was going to be at that time.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, he obviously said there would be enough timber for the Wrangell mill, and you have left it out.
Mr. JANIK. I believe that was in reference to the draft EIS at the time. Is that correct? Was that the subject of the hearing?
The CHAIRMAN. It was part of the discussion of the calamity associated with the closure of the Sitka mill and the impending closure of the Wrangell mill, which came about I think in October. He went up to Wrangell. You were there.
Mr. JANIK. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. And said that there would be enough timber for the reopening of the mill. And I do not know whether we hold people to a committed promise, but that was certainly the statement of the highest authority in the land on the topic.
Mr. JANIK. All I can say, Mr. Chairman, to that is that we do not see that the revision result would prevent the Wrangell mill from opening. That very well may happen.
The CHAIRMAN. But certainly, according to the figures we have here, it is not even on the list. There is 155 million board feet that are committed to the 3 existing mills and the Wrangell mill needs 100. So I mean, let us not kid ourselves. It is simply not there.
Page 297 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
So whatever the Chief said is whatever the Chief said, but it certainly did not carry through to the end.
Did the Forest Service socioeconomic responsibility, say to the community of Wrangell, have a measurable impact on the final ASQ number?
Mr. JANIK. The ASQ again was determined on the features I mentioned earlier.
The CHAIRMAN. So the answer is no?
Mr. JANIK. Not specifically, but it was considered in the total context.
The CHAIRMAN. It is quite fair to say the only way the Wrangell mill could even consider being partially open is if the others scaled back their installed capacity, is that not right?
Mr. JANIK. I am not sure that calculation is right, depending on what you are looking at. But we do view it as a competitive situation, Mr. Chairman, yes. That is how we see that.
The CHAIRMAN. That is too bad, is it not? And the Forest Service bears no responsibility, because you are all able to make your mortgage payments and you all still have your homes and your schools and so forth. And here you have got a little town.
Page 298 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The thing that is so frustrating in this whole process is this is the largest of all the national forests. It has the smallest of any significant commercial activity currently. The likelihood of any occurring is minimal. You have got 30 percent of the timber that is dead or dying. And we have got a TLMP here, a Tongass Land Management Plan, that clearly leaves out the small communities, is inadequate to address even the reduced installed capacity. And outside of the hard-nosed Government ''well, that is the way it is,'' the hardships are not part of this socioeconomic impact on the communities. The promises that have been made are simply overlooked and we are down to where we are today, which is to examine the completed product.
I certainly would not be very proud of it, but I do not bear that responsibility of putting this thing together. When I look at the hypothetical evaluations based on the archipelago wolf and the marten, my immediate reaction is to tell the State to stop trapping and stop hunting the wolf and stop trapping the marten, and I certainly do not know of anybody that is taking the other species of any consequence, the goshawk.
We are told that we are ready to go to panel number three, and that would be, I gather, just Mr. Allen and Mr. Janik. So I would excuse the rest of you. We will have questions for the record, and wish you a good day. Hopefully, we can come back and see ourselves again in a few years and see where we have gone with our responsibilities collectively and individually.
[Pause.]
The CHAIRMAN. While we are waiting for a couple of people to come in, I wonder, Mr. Janik, do you have any comment on the release, the draft of Barry Hill, lack of accountability for time and costs on the forest plan revision? I am sure you have a copy of it.
Page 299 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. JANIK. You are speaking of the GAO report?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. JANIK. Yes, I will say this about the report. I would agree that 10 years is a long time for a revision to be under development, and I certainly would conclude that there should have been a more efficient way to do that. At the same time, I have to appreciate the history of what has gone on with the attempts with the revision in terms of the several interruptions that have occurred.
So I am a little hesitant to pass judgment on the historic events of that kind. I will repeat what I did yesterday: I do think that, given the nature of the Tongass, the large land base of 17 million acres, the complexity of the issues, the profile, often the polarized views that need to be dealt with, that it is not surprising that it was a cumbersome process. But the specific criticisms of the Forest Service on lack of monitoring, the lack of the ability to make decisions?
Mr. JANIK. Let me speak to monitoring first. I think that in a relative sense we have a good record on the Tongass of monitoring. Some of the things that we have generated have been used by the forests in the lower 48. That does not mean, however, that we do not have room for substantial improvement.
The CHAIRMAN. I think the focus here and the criticism specifically was that monitoring was not used in the absence of the ability to make a decision, because of the questionable science. Do you take issue with that?
Page 300 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. JANIK. I take some issue with that. I think the importance of the science, introduced especially over the past 3 years in a more intensive way than it has been in the past, and in terms of the anticipated reaction by the courts to a number of challenges these days that we often face, whether it be on viability of wildlife species or whatever—I do think that one needs to have a plan that is legally defensible. That was one of our principal focuses as we proceeded for the past 3 years.
The CHAIRMAN. Of course, that is non-guaranteed. Legally defensible is in the eyes of the beholder.
I am kind of curious relative to your comments yesterday where you indicated that, if indeed some of the species in the habitats you were concerned about showed an increase or the science showed more promise, that the ASQ would be increased.
Mr. JANIK. Yes, I was referring to the regular process of forest plan implementation, that through monitoring you observe how reality is shaking out as compared to projections in your plan. And if you find out over time that there is an accumulation of a difference, then you are obligated to amend the plan, make changes to it.
The CHAIRMAN. I noted on page 13 when they were commenting on the Forest Service not being accountable for time and costs of its decisionmaking process, the specific statement that the Forest Service is held accountable for developing a plan, and the plan may be scientifically credible and legally defensible, but it is not accountable for making timely, orderly, and cost effective decisions. While the agency incurs the time and costs associated with legal challenges to the scientific credibility and the legal defensibility of its decision, the costs of the Forest Service indecision and delay are borne by others, namely the taxpayer, while the costs associated with the uncertainty of not having an approved forest plan are borne by members of the public who are concerned about maintaining diversity.
Page 301 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
So indeed there is a good deal of criticism over what the OMB suggests is the ability to use monitoring in lieu of scientific decisionmaking, which is less than totally supported because of the various exposures associated with coming up with a scientific decision.
So is it not conceivable that you can be as legally—have as legally defensible a position by simply saying, we are going to monitor this, and by monitoring if it is indeed a question of the science leaving questions unanswered, by monitoring it we can indeed determine what action would be taken? Is your legal position any less defensible by that conceptual process?
Mr. JANIK. Our judgment, Mr. Chairman, is that we have taken the revision to the point of adequacy on the three points that I have stated a number of times, and we consider that absolutely required to sustain the implementation of the plan.
The CHAIRMAN. I think what you have done is debatable in that regard, but clearly the cost and the time are excessive. I cannot help but note the comment here: ''The inefficiency that is occurring in the process to revise the Tongass plan is occurring at every single decisionmaking level within the Forest Service.'' You, sir, bear a portion of that responsibility.
It further states: ''An internal Forest Service report estimates''—and this is an internal Forest Service report that you have access to—''estimates that inefficiencies within the agency's decisionmaking process cost up to $100 million a year in the project level alone.'' Do you dispute that?
Page 302 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. JANIK. I am not prepared to answer that national statistic, but I would like to say there on that point again, I would disagree. I think the effort that has occurred over the past 3 years that I have been familiar with the revision has been a very efficient one. As I said yesterday, if you equate this land base and the complexity to other situations in the country, you would be seeing anywhere from 60 to 20 different forest planning efforts, and we were producing one revision. I think that has to be kept in context.
The CHAIRMAN. I believe that you gentlemen have opening statements, Mr. Allen and Mr. Janik. Go ahead.
STATEMENT OF DAVID B. ALLEN, ALASKA REGIONAL DIRECTOR, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, ANCHORAGE, AK
Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What I would like to do is submit my formal statement for the record, and I have some additional comments I would like to make just to highlight the important points in the statement.
The CHAIRMAN. Please proceed.
Mr. ALLEN. It is my pleasure to be here today to discuss U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's involvement in the TLMP planning process. The involvement by the Service in the Forest Service planning process effectively began with the enactment of the National Environmental Policy Act in 1969. The thrust of our involvement has been to provide technical review for fish and wildlife conservation as part of the overall forest management planning process.
Page 303 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Beginning in the late 1980's, the Service provided technical advice on the Tongass plan through inter-agency committees and work groups. Examples include the Forestry-Fisheries Work Group, Viability Populations Committee, and the development of conservation assessments for the Alexander archipelago wolf, the Queen Charlotte's goshawk, and the marbled murrelet.
The goal of the Service's involvement in the TLMP planning process has been to work in partnership with the Forest Service to ensure adequate protection of fish and wildlife resources. In 1994 we accepted the Forest Service's invitation to be a full participant on the interdisciplinary team preparing the new TLMP plan. EPA, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Biological Research Division of the U.S. Geological Survey, the State of Alaska and academia joined in this effort as well.
In January 1994 the Departments of Agriculture, Interior, and Commerce entered into a memorandum of understanding establishing a framework for cooperation in the conservation of species tending toward listing. In December of that same year, the Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game entered into a similar MOU to establish a cooperative program consistent with the directive of the national MOU. This memorandum of understanding was the impetus for the conservation assessments I mentioned earlier prepared for the wolf, the goshawk, and the murrelet.
In April 1996 the Forest Service published the revised supplement to the draft TLMP EIS. In August 1996 the Service responded to that draft with detailed comments.
Page 304 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
In the 11-month interval between the draft and the final NEPA document publication, numerous meetings were held between the Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service technical staff and policy level managers to further overall inter-agency coordination. This was done in the interest of providing for fish and wildlife conservation in the Tongass.
For the future, the Service strongly endorses the Forest Service's commitment to establishing an inter-agency team to develop and implement a biological monitoring program for the new TLMP. A monitoring program is crucial to evaluating the overall effectiveness of the plan in terms of fish and wildlife conservation. With the Forest Service in the lead, the Service has already expressed it willingness to be a partner in this effort.
Thank you. That concludes my oral comments and I will be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Allen follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID B. ALLEN, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, ALASKA REGION, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am David B. Allen, Regional Director of the Alaska Region of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It is my pleasure to be here today to testify on the collaborative process between the Service and the U.S. Forest Service during the development of the new Tongass Land Management Plan (TLMP).
Eighty percent of the land area in Southeast Alaska is managed by the U.S. Forest Service. Thus, the fate of fish and wildlife resources therein, many of which are species for which the Fish and Wildlife Service has statutory responsibilities, are inextricably tied to management of the Tongass National Forest.
Page 305 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The involvement of the Service with Forest Service planning processes began, in earnest, with enactment of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The two agencies have since agreed that the Service should provide input to overall forest management planning at the inception of the process in order to facilitate fish and wildlife conservation in any subsequent decision-making. Closer and earlier coordination promotes the concept of resource conservation as an overall management goal in all aspects of forest management.
Prior to the May 1997 completion of the new TLMP, the Forest Service was operating under the 1979 Plan, as amended in 1986 and 1991. All of these had received Service review and comment during their development. However, the working relationship between the Service and the Forest Service has evolved enormously over the last 7 years.
Beginning in the late 1980s, the Service provided technical guidance through staff-to-staff contacts as members of various interagency committees, work groups, teams, and panels that developed resource conservation information for incorporation into the Plan. Examples of these groups and their output included, the Forestry-Fisheries work Group; Viable Populations Committee; the development of conservation assessments for the Alexander Archipelago wolf, Queen Charlotte goshawk and marbled murrelet; watershed analysis review; interim project review; and the deer model review.
The Service had a single goal for its involvement in these activities: to support Forest Service efforts to manage habitat to assure that viable populations of fish and wildlife would remain well distributed throughout the Tongass National Forest. This involvement not only furthers the Service's mandate to protect and conserve trust resources, but also helps fulfill the Forest Service's responsibilities to the American public under Forest Service regulations associated with the National Forest Management Act.
Page 306 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
In 1994, at the invitation of the Forest Service, the Service assigned a biologist to be a full member of the interdisciplinary team preparing the new Tongass Land Management Plan. This invitation meant that in addition to Service participation in the various teams ancillary to the planning process, the Service was now involved with the actual development of TLMP. The Service was joined by other agencies in this effort when the Forest Service also involved the Environmental Protection Agency, National Marine Fisheries Service, the Forest Service Laboratory, USGS Biological Resources Division, State of Alaska, and academia in TLMP development. Subsequently, the Service's Assistant Regional Director-Ecological Services was invited to become a member of the TLMP policy team, a group comprising Forest Service, FWS, EPA, NMFS, and State of Alaska policy-level representatives that met periodically to review TLMP Team work.
In January 1994, the Departments of Agriculture, Interior, and Commerce entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that established a framework for cooperation and participation among the agencies in the conservation of imperiled species in the Tongass National Forest. In April 1996, the Forest Service published the Revised Supplement to the Draft Tongass Land Management Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Forest Management Plan for public review and comment, in accordance with NEPA requirements. On August 24, 1996, the Department of the Interior submitted comprehensive comments and recommendations for improvement of these documents. During the 11-month interval between draft and final NEPA document publication, numerous meetings were held between agency technical staffs and policy level managers as part of our overall interagency coordination. Much of this interaction occurred from November through December 1996. Again, the objective of our efforts was to assist the Forest Service in their efforts to assure that the TLMP would provide for species viability throughout the Tongass, a responsibility of the Forest Service as required by Forest Service planning regulations under the National Forest Management Act.
Page 307 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Our interaction in the TLMP from January to the present has principally occurred at the staff level, dealing with technical issues only. Such issues include reviews of TLMP supporting documents, standards and guidelines, and NEPA projects in transition.
For the future, it is the Service's view that as the new TLMP is implemented, it must be carefully monitored. We believe that monitoring is critical to the TLMP's success because it is the only available mechanism by which the Forest Service can determine the effectiveness of the plan in terms of the conservation of fish and wildlife resources on the Tongass. The U.S. Forest Service has committed to establishing an interagency team to develop and implement a monitoring program. The Service has expressed a willingness to participate in the monitoring program as a full partner.
This concludes my testimony on the collaborative process between the Service and the U.S. Forest Service during the development of the new TLMP. Thank you for your interest in the TLMP. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have in regards to our collaborative efforts on the TLMP with the U.S. Forest Service.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Allen.
Mr. Janik.
Mr. JANIK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify twice in 2 days. Thank you for this opportunity, and to accompany Mr. Allen with regard to our cooperation with the Fish and Wildlife Service during the revision of the plan.
Page 308 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Let me start by saying that preventing the need to list species under the Endangered Species Act is the current Federal Government policy both that the Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Service are dedicated to. That is described in the Federal national memorandum of understanding signed in January 1994 by the Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, and the National Marine Fisheries Service. In fact, in December 1994 we localized that commitment. The Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Alaska Department of Fish and Game signed a complementary memorandum of understanding to establish a cooperative program to promote conservation of species tending toward listing under the ESA.
Moreover, the Department of Agriculture Regulation 9500-4 directs the Forest Service to avoid actions which may cause a species to become threatened or endangered.
The CHAIRMAN. Avoid actions?
Mr. JANIK. Yes. It reads verbatim ''to avoid actions which may cause a species to become threatened or endangered.''
More detailed direction is provided in chapter 2670 of the Forest Service Manual, and managing habitats to maintain viable populations of wildlife as required under the regulations implementing the National Forest Management Act is one of the most important tools we have for maintaining healthy populations of species and preventing the need to list them under ESA.
The agencies have been actively cooperating for a long time, certainly since 1988 regarding wildlife habitat management and wildlife conservation planning on the Tongass National Forest. We have collaborated on wildlife field studies certainly since 1990 in a very obvious way, and the Fish and Wildlife Service was a member of the inter-agency viability population committee that has received quite a bit of notoriety. This committee was formed in 1990 by the Forest Service to help revise the Tongass plan by addressing wildlife viability. The committee continued its work until May 1994.
Page 309 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
At the same time that I expanded membership in the Tongass planning team to include research scientists, I also asked each of the Federal agencies and the State of Alaska for assistance. The Environmental Protection Agency and the Fish and Wildlife Service had full-time members on the Tongass revision interdisciplinary team. That was over a 2 1/2 year period.
We also received substantial assistance from representatives of several State agencies, as I mentioned yesterday, and the National Marine Fisheries Service. We received valuable information from all these contributors.
The representation from the Fish and Wildlife Service did bring additional experience and expertise and the Department of the Interior perspective to the Tongass plan revision. The personnel on the team helped write the standards and guidelines, mitigation measures, land allocation determinations, and were involved in those deliberations as the team put together their proposals and analysis.
Fish and Wildlife Service also had a senior person represented on the Tongass plan revision policy advisory group. This group helped guide the revision process and identify policy issues critical to the revision. The two agencies, just as one example of cooperation, also jointly conducted a public information meeting in Ketchikan regarding wildlife conservation planning.
Fish and Wildlife Service staff was briefed on the plan alternatives and was asked for suggestions and concerns. I did carefully consider those recommendations in developing the final plan. Their recommendations included additions to old growth reserves, modifications of standards and guidelines. Also, as required by law, we did consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service under provisions of the ESA concerning the few threatened and endangered species that do exist on the Tongass currently. Those do not have many management implications, by the way, but we did go through the formal process before making the decision in the ROD.
Page 310 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I have briefly described the professional relationship that the Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Service enjoy in Alaska and the years of cooperation for the purpose of wildlife and habitat conservation. I am confident that the habitat strategies developed and implemented through the Tongass plan will provide adequate protection for fish and wildlife habitat to assure the viability of the species we are concerned about on the Tongass.
I look forward to continuing our work together with the Fish and Wildlife Service to assure wildlife and fish species and their welfare on the Tongass, and I appreciate being able to accompany Mr. Allen today.
The CHAIRMAN. In your statement, Mr. Janik, you used the word, and I interrupted you, ''avoiding'' actions that would be detrimental to any of the concerned creatures that habitat the forest or potentially could be identified to avoid listing; is that correct?
Mr. JANIK. That could lead to a listing, yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. And two of those creatures are hunted and trapped. The wolf is hunted and trapped, the marten is trapped, right?
Mr. JANIK. That is correct.
The CHAIRMAN. Your statement was: ''Moreover, the Department of Agriculture directs the Forest Service to avoid actions which may cause a species to become threatened or endangered.''
Page 311 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Why is it not within your purview to make a recommendation to the State, who manages fish and game, to terminate hunting and trapping of these species as a contributor to ensure that they are not listed?
Mr. JANIK. I believe the MOU that I mentioned in the testimony, Mr. Chairman, that we signed together in December 1994 provides a forum for doing just that kind of thing should that kind of action be observed as being necessary under the prerogative of the agency having the jurisdiction.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, why do you not do it?
Mr. JANIK. We constantly are talking about the needs of these species. The revision—my responsibility——
The CHAIRMAN. We have a species that is threatened potentially.
Mr. JANIK. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. Why would it not be prudent to simply take that action? You have an interest. You are a landowner. You can close that land. If this were a recreation leaseholder, you could dictate terms and conditions to protect your land.
Mr. JANIK. There is no problem in doing that, Mr. Chairman, after one determines it is necessary.
Page 312 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The CHAIRMAN. Well, even the thought of it being—I can read you the process that we have gone through already with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service relative to the last time around. Why would it not simply be prudent? Just a minute now. You are basing a good deal of your ASQ on habitat concern associated with two or three species.
Mr. JANIK. Yes, a whole host of species.
The CHAIRMAN. No, just a minute. Specifically the archipelago wolf because it was potentially on the list for threatened species, the goshawk, the marten. Those are the ones that we're specific about, right?
Mr. JANIK. Those were given particular attention, but the strategy that has been developed has been for all of the old growth associated species.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, I know, but that answer circles the question relative to the court case that we had, the mandate to have the new TLMP down prior to a certain date before the court ruled and would rule on the existing TLMP, which potentially would threaten the likelihood of a listing as a consequence of not having a current plan.
Now, we all know this. We have gone through this. It is a charade to suggest otherwise. The point is your TLMP came down. We have still the exposure from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife or from the court relative to a listing. But my question to you is, do you not think it would ensure a more prudent response to the concern that you have as a landowner to simply make a recommendation to the State Department of Fish and Game that they terminate hunting and trapping for these species?
Page 313 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. JANIK. The revision addresses habitat and I know you understand that, Mr. Chairman, that that is the responsibility of the revision. Mr. Allen has to consider other factors and he will raise those as he sees fit, I am sure, in the forum that we have established. If that observation is such to generate a recommendation to the Department of Fish and Game or whomever, I am sure that is where that discussion would lead.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, as we are all aware, the court decision, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the negotiations that began with the Forest Service in an attempt to ensure that the final forest plan would prevent the need to list the goshawk or the wolf as endangered—so to suggest that they are not a part of this process specifically I think is misleading.
The Fish and Wildlife Service had until May 1997 to reach a decision, and then of course we know the rest. There was a question of a criticism for not having the proposal done and the exposure associated with not having that done relative to the court's ultimate decision.
So on the one hand we potentially have expedited a process to ensure that we would have a plan, and on the other we have not taken all the steps that could have been taken as a prudent landholder to ensure that there were no further threats to these particular species that have been identified, that could very easily have been taken.
Now let me ask you, Mr. Allen and Mr. JANIK. Had the State 5 years ago or last year even taken the initiative to ban trapping and hunting on these species, would that have been taken into consideration, that actual fact, in your evaluation of the TLMP?
Page 314 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I will try to answer that issue with regard to wolf conservation. I think that obviously had the State taken such action that would have been very significant in evaluating the overall issue of conservation of the wolf. They have not.
One thing I would like to add, though——
The CHAIRMAN. Just do not leave me there, they had not. But it would have made a difference had they?
Mr. ALLEN. Well, certainly. I mean, obviously any direct impact on the take of wolves certainly would have had some significance.
The CHAIRMAN. It might have had a detrimental effect on the deer.
Mr. ALLEN. That is also possible, Mr. Chairman. In fact, it is also likely.
The CHAIRMAN. Very likely, because, what, one wolf takes how many deer a week?
Mr. ALLEN. I am not exactly sure.
Page 315 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The CHAIRMAN. You are a wolf expert.
Mr. ALLEN. No, I am not a wolf expert.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, it says here you are.
Mr. ALLEN. I have wolf experts that work for me, but I am not.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, what do they tell you? How many?
Mr. ALLEN. What do they tell me, how many they take a week?
The CHAIRMAN. A week or a month. I do not care.
Mr. ALLEN. I do not have that information.
The CHAIRMAN. You do not know?
Mr. ALLEN. No, I do not know.
The CHAIRMAN. Would you provide it for the record?
Mr. ALLEN. I certainly can.
[The information requested was not received at the time the hearing went to press.]
Page 316 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. JANIK. Mr. Chairman, my part of that answer is, our obligation is to the National Forest Management Act, the provision of wildlife viability deals with habitat. We have to look at the long-haul implications of the effects of habitat. Our standard is looking at the viability provision. How that relates to requirements of the Endangered Species Act is a relationship, but one that falls under the jurisdiction of the Fish and Wildlife Service.
The CHAIRMAN. I do not buy that, Phil, because you are a landholder.
Mr. JANIK. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. And if I am in your area on a lease for recreation you can tell me to do anything, and I have to do it or get out. You can do the same thing with your concern over the species associated with the habitat you are trying to maintain, if you want to do it. If you do not want to do it, that is something else.
Mr. JANIK. Mr. Chairman, we have provisions in the plan that deal with access, and that has to do with actual mortality of animals. So it is not as if we have not addressed some of these things. But when it comes to alteration of regulations, the provision for viability over the long haul calls on us to look at the habitat provisions.
The CHAIRMAN. The U.S. Department of Agriculture regs are clear: avoid actions which may cause a species to become endangered. The Forest Service has had two alternatives: change the TLMP or close lands to hunting and trapping. So do not tell me you do not have the flexibility. You do. You did not choose to do it. That is your own business and you are held accountable for it.
Page 317 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. Allen, we would appreciate you briefly recounting for us the nature and extent of the Fish and Wildlife Service's involvement in the Tongass land managing process. Specifically, could you indicate at what date the Service was brought into the TLMP planning?
Mr. ALLEN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. As I indicated, we became involved I think significantly in the late eighties, as I suggested in my testimony, in a variety of committees and work groups that were formed. That relationship became formal in 1994 when we actually placed an employee of the Fish and Wildlife Service on the TLMP planning group itself.
The CHAIRMAN. Based upon the Service's involvement with the TLMP planning effort as part of the interdisciplinary team, as well as its role in providing technical assistance to the viability analysis, do you concur with Mr. Janik that the TLMP will meet the National Marine Fisheries viability requirement?
Mr. ALLEN. The Forest Service's viability requirement?
The CHAIRMAN. The National Forest Management Act, I am sorry.
Mr. ALLEN. Thank you. I nor my staff have made no determination on the Forest Service standard with regard to the viability.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you anticipate doing so?
Mr. ALLEN. No, we do not, sir.
Page 318 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The CHAIRMAN. Why?
Mr. ALLEN. It is a Forest Service decision. The way we have addressed the issue of fish and wildlife conservation on the forest is in the broader context of measures that we think will be important to their long-term conservation. The viability standard is a Forest Service standard. It is their decision and we do not make any independent judgment.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, if you are not going to provide them any advice, then what was the point of your involvement?
Mr. ALLEN. Well, sir, our advice has—as I said, we look at what the prescriptions are for harvest. We look at what the protection measures that are laid out over the landscape. I can say this much: that what we have been able to examine with regard to the new plan versus the old plan, the changes significantly benefit wildlife.
But to answer your question directly, do I agree or concur that the Forest Service's viability standard has been met, I have not made that determination nor have I asked my staff to.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, I guess the question would be do you intend to?
Mr. ALLEN. No, sir.
Page 319 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The CHAIRMAN. The reason for that is?
Mr. ALLEN. It is a Forest Service decision.
The CHAIRMAN. But you have an involvement in the process and have had since the eighties.
Mr. ALLEN. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. And formally since 1994.
Mr. ALLEN. And we continue to make recommendations and give advice on what we think is good for fish and wildlife. How they determine whether or not—how they use that information to determine whether or not they have met their viability standard is their decision, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, are you not in a position where you are going to have to tell the court your opinion on the viability of the two species in question?
Mr. ALLEN. No, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Who is?
Mr. ALLEN. What we have to tell the court is whether or not these two species are eligible for listing either as threatened or endangered—an entirely different standard, a different law.
Page 320 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The CHAIRMAN. Does that not require you to make some decisions regarding the viability——
Mr. ALLEN. No, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. What is going to provide you with that decisionmaking process?
Mr. ALLEN. Not in terms of the standard of viability that is required by the Forest Service. We have a set of standards that we use to determine whether or not a species should be listed under the Endangered Species Act.
The CHAIRMAN. That is outside the——
Mr. ALLEN. A different set of standards, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Outside that covered within this National Forest Management Act viability studies, outside of that?
Mr. ALLEN. Correct, totally outside.
The CHAIRMAN. Are they tighter or looser?
Mr. ALLEN. My personal opinion?
Page 321 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The CHAIRMAN. Sure. That is all we have got.
Mr. ALLEN. I think the law is a bit more prescriptive under the act on how we address and determine whether or not a species is endangered or threatened than the language that is in the, I guess it is, the Forest Management Act.
The CHAIRMAN. So in other words, you are telling me that your process is independent of your association with the Forest Service on their development of the TLMP and under the structure that the Forest Service had to follow?
Mr. ALLEN. Yes, our process for making a listing determination is, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Which is the higher threshold?
Mr. ALLEN. I am not sure that I could answer that directly, which is the higher threshold.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, we assume that the higher threshold would prevail.
Mr. ALLEN. If we assume the higher threshold would prevail, if the issue—if you are trying to draw a connection between the viability standard and an endangered species determination, that has never been done, sir. Conceptually, it would be nice to be able to say that if you have a viable population for which the Forest Service in the actions that they take would have a significant effect to all or a significant portion of their range and you had a viable population, then conceptually you should be able to say that that species does not warrant listing.
Page 322 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The CHAIRMAN. Well, it sounds to me like, independent of your cooperative effort with the Forest Service, whatever you are going to do on the listing issue is not associated with what you have been involved in.
Mr. ALLEN. Not directly, sir, no.
The CHAIRMAN. So I assume you are in a position at any time to make your evaluation based on other considerations.
Mr. ALLEN. The basic connection between the TLMP process and the issues relevant to fish and wildlife conservation and the viability issue and the listing actions is the science that is available to make those decisions. The science base is the same for both of us.
The CHAIRMAN. How do you handle a situation where you go to court and there may be a difference of opinion with regard to the Forest Service position and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife's position relative to the viability issue?
Mr. ALLEN. On the viability issue? We would not go to court enjoining the Forest Service over a viability question. The Fish and Wildlife Service would not.
The CHAIRMAN. Well then, are we in agreement?
Mr. ALLEN. Are we in agreement?
Page 323 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The CHAIRMAN. Yes, would you be in agreement on the viability? You would not take them to court, would not go to court. But if the court came down and said, okay, there is a difference of opinion here between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Forest Service with regard to the analysis concerned with the species?
Mr. ALLEN. I think if the U.S. Government went to court over the issue of viability, a question that really is in the domain of the Forest Service, if there were any differences or concerns over that issue, they would be resolved as a matter of—as technical matters and science matters within the administration. They would not be issues that would be contested legally in court between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Forest Service.
The CHAIRMAN. When we get to court—what is it, 60 days or so—are you going to be together?
Mr. ALLEN. On the issue of the remands to the petitions?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. ALLEN. Are we going to be together?
The CHAIRMAN. Are you going to have the same position?
Mr. ALLEN. The action agency here, sir, is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and whether or not—I will let Phil answer that question, but we are the action agency by law with regard to the listing decision, and that will be the position of the Government.
Page 324 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The CHAIRMAN. Why are you giving the question to Phil then?
Mr. ALLEN. Pardon me?
The CHAIRMAN. Then why do you give the question to Phil?
Mr. ALLEN. Why do I give——
The CHAIRMAN. You got a note there from your staff.
Mr. ALLEN. Oh, I do.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Go ahead and read it. I read mine.
Mr. ALLEN. It says I have no answer; we are in litigation, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. That is an honest answer.
Well, the next question is, when we are in court on the TLMP are you going to be together?
Mr. ALLEN. We will not be there, in all probability.
The CHAIRMAN. You do not think so?
Page 325 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. ALLEN. No. No, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you agree with that, Phil?
Mr. JANIK. I do not know who is going to be asked to be in the court should we end up there with TLMP.
The CHAIRMAN. Sure you will be in there. So you are not going to answer that one, either?
We are trying to, obviously, make the point of whether you have come together on your conclusions in the TLMP or you are independent. Are you saying that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service could list a species that is viable today and that the Forest Service has undertaken actions to maintain viability pursuant to its responsibility?
Mr. ALLEN. I could give you an example, sir, where indeed that could happen: where in fact the actions taken by the Forest Service, because of the range of the species, no matter how much they do, could in fact prevent a listing action because of actions outside of the control of the Forest Service.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Allen, looking at the development of habitat reserves and meeting the viability requirement, yesterday we discussed with the Forest Service whether they took into account activities on non-Federal lands and they indicated that to some extent non-Federal lands were evaluated. We note that in an October 3 letter to the Forest Service from Janet Hohn, the Assistant Regional Director for Ecological Service of the Fish and Wildlife Service, she said that:
Page 326 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
''The habitat reserve analysis also suggests that where past and ongoing timber cutting have eliminated or precluded the opportunity for use of the 300-year rotation and even-aged harvest techniques, approximately 900,000 acres since 1954, adequately sized, appropriately placed strategic habitat conservation areas are going to be needed in combination with other silvicultural management. The HCA designation will also need to take into account logging on adjacent private lands, Native lands, that has occurred or is planned if maintaining regional goshawk populations is part of the conservation strategy.''
So it would appear that the Fish and Wildlife Service did look hard at private lands. Is that correct?
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I believe basically all we did was look at the statistics that were made available to us by the Forest Service on how much of the private lands adjacent to Forest Service lands had been harvested.
The CHAIRMAN. So you did not look on private lands?
Mr. ALLEN. No, we did not look on private lands.
The CHAIRMAN. You did look on Forest Service lands?
Mr. ALLEN. In what?
The CHAIRMAN. For goshawks.
Page 327 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. ALLEN. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. And how much Forest Service land did you feel you covered?
Mr. ALLEN. A small fraction of that forest.
The CHAIRMAN. A small fraction. How much is a small fraction?
Mr. ALLEN. Well, I believe that we were able to do a study 2 years ago that involved about 25 square miles of forest in wilderness and unroaded areas that were not currently scheduled for timber harvest.
The CHAIRMAN. You know, there is a representation here of ongoing harvesting taking place under the supposition. How do they know whether it is going to be on private or Forest Service lands, which private land is going to be developed vis a vis which will not?
Mr. ALLEN. That really was not—I think the context of—I think the comment that we were providing at the time was that we noted that the amount of harvest, total harvest in aggregate on private lands, was significant. As the Forest Service proceeded with laying out on the forest their plan for habitat conservation areas, that in order to assure a good distribution of those that it simply would be prudent to take into account adjacent lands which may be entirely cut or not.
Page 328 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The CHAIRMAN. You know, 25 miles seems pretty insignificant in a 17 million acre forest, recognizing that a significant portion of the 17 million is not goshawk habitat. Yet there could be an infrequent intermingling there, so I guess one can just question the reliability of that kind of a sample being accurate.
Mr. ALLEN. As I indicated to you, it represents a very small area. Certainly we are not trying to represent it as something that is representative of the whole forest.
The CHAIRMAN. No, but you are going to make your recommendation on that information.
Mr. ALLEN. That is just one very small piece of information that will be used.
The CHAIRMAN. Is that not fairly significant, an actual sampling of the forest as to what is there relative to the threatening of the species?
Mr. ALLEN. Sir, we made an effort to look in a very small area. We used methodology that is the current state of the art, which has many flaws in terms of its reliability.
The CHAIRMAN. That even substantiates my questionable concerns relative to how in the world you are going to have confidence in whatever your decision is.
Page 329 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. ALLEN. Well, as I said, we do have other information about goshawks.
The CHAIRMAN. Other information that is as significant as an actual sampling? Such as what? What is more significant than an actual sampling?
Mr. ALLEN. Well, probably the most significant information we have about goshawks in the forest, of course, are those goshawks that have been located primarily as a result of the areas that have been surveyed for production, as well as some located in other areas of the forest. There has been considerable work done by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes, but you are saying you took a sample. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game says they are not threatened.
Mr. ALLEN. We looked at one very small area, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, that is fine.
Mr. ALLEN. We did not have enough resources to do any more.
The CHAIRMAN. But yet you are going to come down with a decision based on whatever you have been able to generate.
Page 330 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. ALLEN. Yes, the law does require——
The CHAIRMAN. 25 miles.
Mr. ALLEN. The law does require us to use the best scientific and commercial information available, and we will address it in that context.
The CHAIRMAN. I note further in a November 19 letter to Beth Pendleton of the Forest Service Nevil Holmberg, the Fish and Wildlife Service's field supervisor for southeastern Alaska, noted in discussing the matrix management that: ''The matrix is the body of the Tongass between old growth reserves, including those areas that will actively be managed for timber production. The current preferred alternative results in the additional harvest of 502,000 acres of old growth by the year 2025. When added to acres already harvested, the 387,000, and the 600,000 acres of private or State-owned lands, well over a million acres of old growth forest will be converted to younger serial stages. These factors require a careful long-term approach to avoid adverse consequences that will not be corrected for generations to come.''
So here again it appears that Mr. Holmberg was looking at all ownership in assessing the Forest Service's responsibilities under the National Forest Management Act to meet the viability rule. Is it generally speaking the Fish and Wildlife Service's view in participating in the development of national forest plans that private and non-Federal land activities are relevant in advising the Forest Service as to what the Fish and Wildlife Service believes the Forest Service's statutory obligations are under the National Forest Management Act?
Mr. ALLEN. The way I would address that question is, again, when we looked at fish and wildlife conservation issues on the Tongass National Forest and in southeast Alaska as a whole we thought it was important that the Forest Service does take into consideration what is occurring on adjacent lands. But that in no way was meant to imply that they either somehow exercise some control over that activity or that whatever occurred outside of their control necessarily was something that had to be accounted for with regard to their statutory requirements for maintaining viable populations.
Page 331 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The CHAIRMAN. In the same letter, Mr. Holmberg notes that: ''Throughout the planning process, now nearing closure, the Regional Forester, Mr. Janik, has steadfastly maintained that the Tongass must be science-based first. The Fish and Wildlife Service involvement, thus grounded, has sought to assure the fulfillment of this goal. The question before us is where do we go from here? The Fish and Wildlife Service believes that the cooperative working relationship exhibited over the last 2 years is but a flawed, pale shadow of that which will evolve as we enter the twenty-first century.''
Well, I am a bit confused. Both of you appear to have had an epiphany over your ability to forge a cooperative relationship that sounded almost of a moving nature, and I would expect that you would both retire to a cottage at the sea if that were the issue. But Mr. Holmberg believes that your relationship is a flawed, pale shadow of something that has not yet to evolve.
What does Mr. Holmberg hope will evolve, Mr. Allen?
Mr. ALLEN. Well, sir, I cannot directly speak for Mr. Holmberg. As you might well surmise, through the whole course of interaction with the Forest Service we have had a number of very vigorous debates on the issues of fish and wildlife conservation and we have all had our ups and downs. I would have to say overall, on the whole, we have made very substantial, significant progress in our relationship working together on these kinds of issues.
What does Mr. Holmberg hope will evolve? I believe he would agree with me completely with the statement I made in my testimony, that what the next step is that is very important in this overall process is that the implementation of TLMP be accompanied by a good biological monitoring plan so we can learn from what we have laid out in this very complex comprehensive approach to land management.
Page 332 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The CHAIRMAN. Well, I am going to hazard a guess on one of the things I think Mr. Holmberg may have meant. On October 21, 1996, in a letter to Beth Pendleton, Mr. Holmberg states: ''Finally, there remains an unaddressed issue of critical importance: the relationship of the revised TLMP to the NEPA completed timber sales through the Tongass National Forest. Given the number of such actions and the significant amount of forest they affect, failure to revise all unsold sales to conform with the new TLMP, regardless of their place in the NEPA process, would result in a de facto prolongation of forest management in accordance with the 1997 TLMP as amended. We find this prospect unacceptable.''
I want both of you to respond to Mr. Holmberg's assertion and describe to me whether we are going to see you redoing sales where the preponderance of the NEPA compliance work has been completed. I also want you to provide me with cost breakdowns on what it would take to do this if that is where the two agencies are headed. If they are not, then let us say so.
The proposition that this is even being considered, after spending taxpayers' money, $13 million, for the past, well, the total number of years that we have been in this process while your two agencies have been cooperating, suggests that this is perhaps a bit misleading relative to the exposure suggested by Mr. Holmberg.
Mr. ALLEN. That was a concern, sir, that we raised with the Forest Service. We expressed our desire to have an opportunity to advise and have them consider reviewing some of the projects that were in the planning, various stages of planning. That activity in fact began and is probably not as onerous as might have been portrayed. I cannot give you any specifics as to how far that has gone. Perhaps Mr. Janik has some more specific information.
Page 333 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The CHAIRMAN. You can give no assessment of the risk here?
Mr. ALLEN. Pardon me?
The CHAIRMAN. No assessment in your opinion of the risk associated with going back and doing these again?
Mr. ALLEN. The risk of?
The CHAIRMAN. Subjecting them to a new round.
Mr. ALLEN. No. I think again the process that was brought about was not viewed as being onerous or a complete redoing of the planning process. It was more an examination of where there might be aspects of current projects that are significantly out of line with the new plan, and that did not require a great deal of time and effort.
The CHAIRMAN. So you dismiss Mr. Holmberg's assertion?
Mr. ALLEN. His assertion? It was an area of concern for us, yes. So no, I do not entirely dismiss his assertion.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, I mean, where would we be if we have to go back? We would look pretty foolish, would we not, as a consequence of the caution that he expresses?
Page 334 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. ALLEN. Again, I think that the cautions that were being expressed there, sir, first and foremost, we had hoped that many of these projects, again where possible, could be brought in compliance with the standards that were going to be part of the new plan. Anything that was done in our view that improved the opportunities for fish and wildlife conservation were in our view valuable and important to any future decisions we might have to make.
Mr. JANIK. Mr. Chairman, if I may add to that.
The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead.
Mr. JANIK. On page 40 and 41 of the record of decision, just as an example, we address a subject area that is always very awkward when you come out with a revised document of this kind, and that is called transition language: What do you do with existing projects that have already been under preparation and are in some degree of completion in terms of NEPA, or maybe even completed?
We have tried to take in full account the concern you expressed in one of your questions, and that is there is a great deal of investment in these projects, and that is why there are four categories. What is being looked for here are the kind of fatal flaw types of things in the screening of projects, whether they be in category 1, and as you get through to 3 and 4 they are less under degree of preparation, so there is more opportunity to modify them in full compliance with the plan.
Page 335 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Back in whatever date Mr. Holmberg wrote that note—when was that, October?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes, it was October 21, 1996.
Mr. JANIK. We actually did have a screening of projects with the Fish and Wildlife Service involved. I am not sure if Fred Norbury is still in the room, but he was part of that with one of Dave's staff locally in Juneau. As Mr. Allen pointed out, it was not quite as rigorous as Mr. Holmberg might have anticipated when he wrote that note. It was done in just a few weeks. There were a few minor modifications made to some projects that did not involve a great deal of expense or retrofitting.
We intend to do the same kind of cooperative screening now that we are 6 months hence or so, with regard to all the projects currently on the table.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, obviously we are all looking for output at the end of the process. I am just wondering if we do not have the problem already before us and are just not relating to it and facing up to it. It is not something that the two of your agencies are going to simply work out in a collegial fashion without hitting the taxpayers with a big, big chunk of money.
I refer you to a January 3, 1997, memorandum to Mr. Janik from Mr. Gary Morrison, the Forest Service supervisor in the Chatham area. In this memorandum he withdraws the In-Between timber sale, withdraws them. He states: ''As I am to understand, the reason for the withdrawal of this sale is based on direction from the Department of Justice,'' no less. He note further that: ''My understanding is that I am directed to either (a) forge a new decision document for the 4.4 million board feet of In-Between volume, as well as the yet unadvertised 9 million board feet of Crab Bay volume, both of which were cleared for immediate sale in the AWRTA settlement, or (b) reanalyze the sale areas along with the remainder of the southeast Chichagof project area volume that was not released on the AWRTA settlement and a new environmental impact statement''—a new one—''in full compliance with the direction of the new Tongass forest plan.''
Page 336 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I also refer you to the TG message delivered to Gary Morrison on June 30 from Tim Obst. In this computer message, Mr. Obst indicates: ''I hate to tread on a sore subject, but the Department of Justice has been calling me to find out whether we have cancelled the advertisement for the In-Between and taken Crab Bay off the sale schedule. I know the message has come down the pike without leaving a trail and that Fred would like to get something in writing. But whatever we do to effectuate the direction, we need to do it this week so that it does not get closer to the bid opening date and there is no more effort wasted on the issue.''
I have a concern with the effort that has already been wasted, already been wasted with this issue. I am further concerned that this seems to be an example of redoing sales that were already completed. I am most of all concerned that the Department of Justice is now intervening directly, for the first time, into timber sales decisions. It further states: Mr. Janik, please respond to my concerns.
Mr. JANIK. Certainly, Mr. Chairman. I am familiar with the situation of Crab Bay and In-Between. Frankly, those two sales are more related to the settlement that occurred with the Alaska Wilderness and Tourism lawsuit and the settlement that followed. Those sales were then identified as going to the Ketchikan Pulp Company, and during the Ketchikan Pulp Company settlement those sales were not encompassed in the 300-plus million that was involved in that settlement, but were taken out of that package through the settlement process under agreement with KPC and once again were then having to be prepared for independent offerings.
What is involved here, as you see in the memos, is a lot of frustration. These sales have been bouncing around for a bit.
Page 337 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The CHAIRMAN. It is pretty costly.
Mr. JANIK. And even though it is low volume, it is very frustrating. However, what is being dealt with here is an examination because it is the very thing that got us into a problem with the court in the AWRTA situation, that the NEPA documents and the NEPA sufficiency has to be evaluated at this point because now they are going to independent offering as compared to going to the long-term contract, which they were set up to do.
So there is no way currently to predict just what the outcome of this evaluation will be. We are going to look at both those sales.
The CHAIRMAN. So it is an exposure?
Mr. JANIK. Sir?
The CHAIRMAN. It is an exposure.
Mr. JANIK. What do you mean by ''exposure''?
The CHAIRMAN. Well, you say you do not know yet what it may lead to.
Mr. JANIK. Our evaluation. I am not sure what you mean by the term ''exposure.'' We are going to evaluate the two sales and the NEPA documents for adequacy.
Page 338 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The CHAIRMAN. Well, were you not allowed to have them go somewhere else? I thought that was the point of the AWRTA sale, the settlement, to allow those.
Mr. JANIK. Yes, but then they were identified to go to the Ketchikan Pulp Company and for a while they were identified as having been transferred as part of the long-term contract obligation. Then when the settlement for the Ketchikan Pulp Company occurred those two sales were rejected during the settlement, and they now have to be prepared for independent offering.
So we are going to examine whether the NEPA documents are sufficient for that new offering. It is the very thing that the court ruled on in the AWRTA case that bound up all of that volume for over a year, is that the purpose and needs statement and so on and so on in the NEPA documents were not targeted towards an independent offering. It was all that volume that went from the Alaska Pulp Corporation and was then offered for independent, and the court disagreed with our modifications and said we had to go back and do more work on the NEPA documents.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, I do not know. Did you make the same mistake twice? These sales have been, what, through three lawsuits and two settlements, and I cannot believe——
Mr. JANIK. These sales have been through two settlements.
The CHAIRMAN. Two settlements and three lawsuits.
Page 339 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. JANIK. I am not sure how many lawsuits. I think two events associated with this problem have been the AWRTA settlement and the KPC settlement.
The CHAIRMAN. I cannot imagine why there was a restriction on where they would go after the last settlement.
Mr. JANIK. Well, they obviously were not going to go to another long-term contract because none existed. So they are up for independent offering.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Allen, yesterday we asked Mr. Janik what appropriations would be required to fully implement the Tongass plan. I would like to ask you, given the role that you have described in the forest plan implementation for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, what additional resources will be required for your Service to play that role fully? I would also like to know what will happen if those resources are not fully forthcoming.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I cannot answer what the total costs of the monitoring program might be for TLMP. We have made an estimate. In fact, I have made a recommendation, the Service has, to the Secretary for funding in fiscal year 1999. My estimate at this point of what I think would be sufficient involvement by the Fish and Wildlife Service just as one player, because we view the State of Alaska also has a major role to play, would be approximately somewhere in the neighborhood of $500,000 to $600,000.
The CHAIRMAN. Your Service seems intimately involved in all aspects of the TLMP implementation. What is your assessment on whether this is a wise investment of taxpayers' dollars as compared to using the funds on a recovery plan development for the species that are already on the list?
Page 340 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I think that the efforts that we have focused on in recent years, that is the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Forest Service, have all been preventative in nature. When we entered into an agreement in December 1994 to look at species that may be tending toward listing, we all agreed that anything that we could do of a preventative nature really was far less costly than ultimately what might be involved in taking remedial action if in fact it became necessary to list a species on the forest. It is like an insurance policy, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Hypothetically, with regard to the listing of the goshawk and the wolf, suppose that a new species were considered for listing. How would you and the Forest Service interact and how would the implementation of the TLMP be affected?
Mr. ALLEN. Again, if for example, hypothetically, we were to receive a petition to examine another species on the forest, we would do essentially the same thing we did with the wolf and the goshawk. We would engage immediately with the Forest Service if we thought they were a major player, as well as with the State of Alaska. We would request additional public input for any other information relative to that. We would continue to consult and seek the advice of the Forest Service relative to that particular species.
Under the terms of our memorandum of understanding with the Forest Service and the State of Alaska, where we have agreed to exercise conservation measures on species tending toward listing, this could also apply to a species that someone may have petitioned, whether the ultimate action is a listing one or not. It gives us an opportunity to examine more closely what the environmental requirements are of that species and, if it is determined necessary, to enter into a conservation agreement taking conservation measures which might amount to management practices. In the case of the State of Alaska if it is a game species, it could involve some regulatory actions.
Page 341 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
But these would be done, again, as measures that would prevent the need to invoke the Endangered Species Act.
The CHAIRMAN. I am reading from the AWRTA settlement, appendix 2: ''The United States and AWRTA stipulate that, without further procedures under NEPA or ANILCA, the United States may prepare, advertise, offer, release, award, and allow operations to be completed for the following timber sales or offerings or portions thereof that are subject to a temporary injunction.''
The specifics are Crab Bay, and it says ''In-Between, approximately 4.4 million board feet.'' Is that not adequate?
Mr. JANIK. That is part of what I was trying to explain earlier, Mr. Chairman, that these projects then went to the KPC allotment under the obligation of the long-term contract. They were then rejected, and at this point we are making sure that they are suitable for independent offering.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, it says here you do not need to do that.
Mr. JANIK. Current discussion with a number of parties, including Department of Justice, indicates we need to take a look at this.
The CHAIRMAN. It says here—and this is an order, is it not? It says ''court order'' at the bottom of it.
Page 342 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. JANIK. And this homework may need to immediate re-advertisement. I have no idea at this time.
The CHAIRMAN. ''The United States stipulates that, without further procedures.'' Now, that is as clear as——
Mr. JANIK. I think the complication is the transfer over to the KPC and now the reversal into independent offering, what happened subsequent to that. And as I said earlier——
The CHAIRMAN. That is not what it says, is it?
Mr. JANIK. There are some remaining questions that need to be answered.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, you can have all the questions you want, but it says here ''The United States and AWRTA stipulate, without further procedure under NEPA or ANILCA, the United States may prepare, advertise, offer, release, award, and allow operations to be completed on'' the Crab Bay timber site.
Mr. JANIK. I agree, that language is quite clear.
The CHAIRMAN. Well then, why did you not do it?
Page 343 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. JANIK. Because in subsequent discussion, with the complication of the KPC settlement——
The CHAIRMAN. Who did you discuss it with?
Mr. JANIK. A number of people: our own people, the Department of Justice, who was heavily involved in both these settlements, and our Office of General Counsel.
The CHAIRMAN. Why do you not just make a decision? You have got the Department of Justice. You have got a court order to back you up. What more do you need?
Mr. JANIK. I am not sure there is anything more needed. We are looking into it.
The CHAIRMAN. You know, Jack Ward Thomas made the statement in his opinion relative to the heart of the debate over public land management, and he said: ''The simple fact has arisen from a series of events and the interaction of the ESA and the regulations issued pursuant to the National Forest Management Act, specifically that diversity regulations and executive orders to take the brunt of the consequences of law and regulation on forest land where possible''—''Federal land where possible. This has a profound impact on the capability of the managers of the public lands to carry out their multiple use mission in a manner that solidifies the evolved policy of biodiversity retention and meets the expectations of many western members of Congress for community stability and higher levels of resource extraction.''
Do you concur with that in general?
Page 344 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. JANIK. That was the personal view of the Chief, Jack Ward Thomas. I judge his opinion very highly. The questioning related to the TLMP revision, sir, is we deal with the laws that are on the table and what we are instructed to do by those. That is what we attempted to do.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, the way this thing reads is basically the Forest Service is going to make a decision and take the consequences, with the presumption that all Native land is harvested. That is the way it comes down on the application in your TLMP, and that is hardly true because it is not all harvested.
Mr. JANIK. Would you please put that in the form of—rephrase that question, Senator? I am not sure I am exactly reading——
The CHAIRMAN. The assumption is that the way you have come down and the application of this is that all Native timber is in fact assumed to have been harvested.
Mr. JANIK. I do not concur that that is the assumption we have made in the revision.
The CHAIRMAN. What is the assumption you made in the revision on Native timber?
Mr. JANIK. What I believe has happened here through the panel assessments that we discussed and all else is that the context of the Tongass setting was taken into account when the folks that we asked to give their opinions and judgments on what was needed in terms of habitat strategies and the risks associated with those on the Tongass, on the Federal land, what was needed.
Page 345 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
So I would concur there was some consideration given to conditions on other lands. At the same time, the focus was what is needed on public land, the Tongass.
The CHAIRMAN. I am going to wind this up in about 5 minutes.
There was a question yesterday relative to a point on the timeliness of changes in the planning process that went into the development of the TLMP, and I want to go back to these two charts. Do I have my narrative in front of me? I cannot read it from here, that is my problem. You have got it somewhere? We will find it.
I am sure you figured I would get back to it, so you have probably got it memorized. Or maybe you can read it from there. It is dated——
VOICE. It is dated May 14, 1997.
The CHAIRMAN. And read the reference. It says at the bottom—I have got it here. This is ''For your review.'' It is from the TLMP team to Gary Morrison, Gail Kimball, Brad Powell, Phil Janik, Fred Norbury, and Tim Obst, I believe.
Mr. JANIK. Tim Obst.
The CHAIRMAN. And it says: ''For your review, enclosed are the additional proposed standards and guidelines,'' et cetera, et cetera, ''additional measures for landscape collectively, modifications.'' ''Enclosed are the proposals as they modify the December 1996 version of the forest plan.''
Page 346 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
It says then: ''Please look at these changes,''—and these are underlined in yellow—''Look them over and give us any comments no later than close of business on Thursday, May 15, if at all possible.'' That is the next day.
Then the next chart, and I think it is significant because it says at the top this is a ''working document,'' marked ''confidential'': ''Region X forest management has had an opportunity to review the most recent draft of the proposed TLMP forest-wide standards and guidelines for the marten, drafted 5-5-97 at 11 o'clock.'' That is getting pretty close, too.
''The initial reaction of forest management was that the revised standards and guidelines would result in a significant reduction in the amount of viable timber available for planned harvest.''
Then down at the bottom it says: ''We believe that the impacts of timber harvest are so great that the current allowable sales quantity is unobtainable. In order to adhere to forest policy and applicable laws and regulations, changes of the magnitude reflected in the revised S and G's must be supported by the recalculation of the ASQ. We fear that to do otherwise would open the Forest Service to allegations of 'deceiving the public.' ''
Would you care to comment on that?
Mr. JANIK. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. Some pretty strong stuff coming at the end of the process.
Page 347 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. JANIK. I am familiar with the memo, and let me give a little backdrop to this so we all understand the setting.
The CHAIRMAN. The last minute, is it not?
Mr. JANIK. Very close. It was within the month that I signed the record of decision, yes.
The CHAIRMAN. A few days.
Mr. JANIK. About 2 weeks, yes.
There were many such things going on during the last 2 months. As you know, the panels were reconvened and we got some risk ratings on the previously unpaneled alternatives, as well as doing a final legal check and substantive check as we were driving towards finishing the process and preparing to sign the record of decision.
The subject of recalculating the ASQ, given some of the new stipulations that were being looked at that have come to be called mitigation measures, that are contained in appendix N that we discussed earlier, that was certainly a subject of discussion. We touched on that a little bit yesterday.
I would like to refer to that last paragraph of Fred Walk's note, which is important. It says: ''If these requirements were characterized as mitigation measures to be used at the discretion of the land manager upon demonstrated and documented evidence that such measures are warranted to meet site-specific needs, then the current calculation could be used.''
Page 348 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I point that sentence out because it is essential to the evaluation that took place, and that was the flexibility that we have written into the document, into the Tongass plan, that the ID team at the field level will examine whether these mitigation measures are truly needed or not, and some of the incidentals that Mr. Norbury and Mr. Day talked about in evaluating whether a recalculation was needed led to a conclusion that one was not.
That is the kind of thing that transpired on that subject, Mr. Chairman. We have left the flexibility for implementation of mitigation measures to the field.
The CHAIRMAN. I think it is a whole new area the public will really never know. They will not have had the opportunity to have had any input into this particular forest plan in the sense of these later developments, and that is certainly reality. They had it in the previous material, but not this.
Mr. JANIK. We did not see that as a need, to go out to the public again with this.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, that obviously was your decision and one that I respect, but you have to be held accountable for it.
Mr. JANIK. I understand that, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. I do not have any further questions, other than to thank the panel. You have been very gracious with your time, Phil.
Page 349 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I am disappointed, obviously, in a number of facets that we have discussed at length here. I think we have done one thing and established a record and certainly gotten to some of the questions that I think will bear later examination. But I think that there is a notable lack of sensitivity by you and the Forest Service in general on the socioeconomic impact of this action on the communities that are affected, and that gives me great concern.
I think that the input from the Forest Service technical experts in Madison, Wisconsin, are significantly lacking in the practicalities of what is possible to bring into the scene to replace the demise of the pulp mills, and utilizing specifically the utility timber. I think they need much more encouragement by you professionals, who recognize what it takes to attract industry into the Tongass of a nature that can meet the changing availability of wood fiber in the Tongass.
The reality that this particular management group within the Forest Service is such a significant departure from that of years previous, when the interest of the Forest Service was truly multiple use, stimulate the economy and jobs, has moved into more of a habitat concern. I really question much of the science based on the inability to resolve between experts opinions that are out there and small samplings that have taken place.
Nevertheless, we have got a legal process to pursue with regard to the question of listing, and that is going to be decided by a group other than this.
Little attention was given to the second growth, the renewability of the forest, and I think that was unfortunate. I think the Forest Service should be charged with the task of trying to respond a little more timely to some of the misconceptions that are associated with the Tongass, that only experts can respond to, relative to presumptions that it is being clearcut adversely, that there is little consideration for habitat, that the fish runs are in danger, and so forth. Clearly those are not the case.
Page 350 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I think that the combination of State and Forest Service management has probably been second to none in any forest. I think the Forest Service has exceeded the State's capability and I commend you for that. We have had, I think—the State has had an opportunity, from the standpoint of forest management practice, to see Federal managers leading the way, and that is as it should be.
I am not convinced, however, that the State, given an opportunity, will not be able to develop second growth management a little faster if given the opportunity and with the incentive of the Native corporations to want to see that cash flow reoccurring by investing in thinning and so forth, doing things that you cannot do.
I guess I am going to close again by referring to the GAO draft in testimony, because I think it is the crux of this whole issue and the manner in which the Forest Service has responded. It is referenced on page 12, and it is entitled ''The Forest Service has not adequately monitored the effects of its decision.'' I think it is a legitimate criticism and I submit it to you in a constructive sense. It says:
''An option to the endless delays and increasing costs incurred attempting to ensure that a decision is scientifically credible and legally defensible would be to move forward with a decision using the best information available, the best science available.''
It further states that: ''According to the inter-agency task force chaired by the Council on Environmental Quality''-and I do not know what better source you can go to—''an agency can condition a decision the effects of which may be difficult to determine in advance because of uncertainty or costs on the monitoring of those uncertainties, indicate how the decision will be modified with the new information as it is uncovered or when preexisting monitoring thresholds are crossed, and re-examine the decision in light of its results or when a threshold is crossed.''
Page 351 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
''However, the Forest Service: one, has historically given a low priority to monitoring; two, continues to approve projects without an adequate monitoring component; and three, has not generally performed the monitoring of forest plan implementation required by its own current regulations. As a result, Federal regulatory agencies and other stakeholders may continue to insist that the Forest Service prepare the detailed environmental analysis and documentation which have become increasingly costly and timely consuming before making decisions, rather than support what many Forest Service officials believe to be a more efficient and effective option of monitoring and evaluation.''
I think it is fair to say that within your TLMP there is not enough attention given to the monitoring aspects associated with the decisionmaking process.
You may feel free to respond and we will call it a day.
Mr. JANIK. First of all, thank you, Senator, for the opportunity to have all of us testify before you.
In reference again to the GAO report, from the revision documentation we feel we do have a strong monitoring plan in terms of actual implementation of the plan. I believe I am already on the record with judgments about the process leading up to the record of decision, so I will not be redundant here. Thank you, again.
The CHAIRMAN. See, my point is that the monitoring, which you may or may not do, with regard to say the marten or the goshawk will not affect the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determination of whether they are going to list or not, for the goshawk at least, for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Page 352 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. ALLEN. The question is will our determination be based on whether or not——
The CHAIRMAN. The fact that they are monitoring it, you are going to make a decision regardless of the monitoring?
Mr. ALLEN. Yes, sir, based on the existing conditions, correct.
The CHAIRMAN. And I think that is unfortunate, because that hardly addresses the real application of your monitoring. But we have gone over that and there is not much point in repeating it.
There will be a period of probably 10 days for additional materials. We will probably have some questions for you, and I will have additional materials that we will be putting into the record. Hopefully, as a consequence of this 2-day exposure, Alaskans will have a better understanding of what degree of certainty they might expect as far as timber availability is concerned and the complexities associated with the bounds under which the Forest Service is currently compelled to operate, which are very constrictive.
I just wonder how far we are going to have to go before things come to a halt and we have to revisit the oversight process. But in any event, that is another story for another day.
The hearing is concluded. I want to thank those that have been involved, and the recorder as well, and I wish you all a good day.
Page 353 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
[Whereupon, at 1:35 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Subsequent to the hearing the following letter was received for the record:]
| Friends of Southeast's Future, |
| Sitka, AK, July 5, 1997. |
Senator FRANK MURKOWSKI,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Subject: Concerning the joint congressional hearing to review the new TLMP Revision, July 9 & 10. To be submitted in the Congressional Record: A request for Sitka, Alaska—an Alaskan ex-mill town request less logging not more.
DEAR SENATOR MURKOWSKI: We are requesting that you place this important brief in the Congressional Record as testimony submitted to the joint congressional hearing to review the new TLMP Revision.
In just three years Sitka has gone from being a mill town to a town calling for greater protection for our remaining high quality forest. Sitka needs your help to protect its subsistence, its heritage, and its way of life. We ask that currently approved projects near Sitka be canceled in the new TLMP. We also ask that the new TLMP Revision assures that future timber projects will respect the views of the Sitka public and the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), as explained and documented herein.
Page 354 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
On February 4, 1997, Sitka had a special election to determine City and Borough policy concerning logging. Significantly, in one of the largest election turnouts in Sitka history, 98 percent of the voters cast ballots in favor of one or the other of two propositions that asked for either firm restrictions on the clearcutting of old growth forest near Sitka (52% yes), or the total avoidance of such logging (46% yes). The way to vote in favor of logging as currently planned by the Forest Service was simply to vote ''No'' on both propositions. Yet, 98 percent of the voters cast ballots in favor of tighter restrictions on logging in the Sitka Borough.
We believe that both propositions were consistent with the TTRA sec. 705, which states: ''. . . the Secretary shall, to the extent consistent with providing for the multiple use and sustained yield of all renewable forest resources, seek to provide a supply of timber from the Tongass National Forest. . . .'' [Note: ''seek'' is not a synonym for guarantee.]
It is the concern of the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) [Tab 7]* Friends of Southeast's Future that the new TLMP does not go far enough to provide for multiple use and sustained yield of all renewable forest resources.
*Additional material submitted with this letter has been retained in committee files.
The election makes it clear that Sitkans do not want the Forest Service to continue logging near Sitka in the way that has been decide for the recent Poison Cove-Ushk Bay and NW Baranof Projects and under the new TLMP.
Page 355 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The ordinance placed in the Sitka General Code by this election states in part: ''It is further the policy of the City and Borough of Sitka to oppose all clearcut harvest which is not located so as to minimize negative impacts to critical fish and wildlife habitat, subsistence resources and scenic quality.'' [see proposition 2, under Tab 1.] According to the ADF&G, neither the Poison Cove-Ushk Bay and NW Baranof Projects, nor the new TLMP meet these criteria [Tabs 4,5, & 7].
For example, the most recently decided project in the Sitka area is the NW Baranof project. It will take nearly all of its timber by clearcutting (or closely related methods) and will remove 80-95% of the timber from the overwhelming majority of the cutting units [see graph under Tab 3]. Because of its conflict with subsistence such logging is therefore contrary to the vote of the people of Sitka, as well as the TTRA.
Sitka is the largest subsistence community in Alaska, and over 80% of Sitka households engage in subsistence. Deer is an important and vital subsistence resource for us, and the serious negative effects of the Poison Cove-Ushk Bay, NW Baranof projects, and the new TLMP are of major concern to both ADF&G and the commuhity of Sitka.
The result of past Forest Service logging (mostly by 1970 unacceptable clearcut methods) is that 87% of the high volume (VC 6 & VC 7) old-growth forest in the Sitka Cal Use Area has already been lost. Most of this was prime deer winter habitat [see Tab 5, p 14]. The Forest Service finally admitted to the 87% loss earlier this year, January 29, 1997 [Tab 6], and this figure is not disclosed in the Projects EIS's nor the new TLMP.
Page 356 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The Forest Service has ignored what is obvious to everyone else. The Sitka Fish & Game Advisory committee voted unanimously to ask the Forest Service to adopt the No Action Alternative when commenting on the NW Baranof DEIS [Tab 8]. In addition, 85 percent of the public comments on the DEIS also favored the No Action Alternative.
ADF&G comments such as those below should be viewed with heightened significance in light of overwhelming objection to the FS timber program in the Sitka area, as indicated by the planning record and the mandate from Sitka's recent special election:
''The ADF&G review and analysis [of the new TLMP] leads to several conclusions: 1) Significant loss of deer habitat capability has already taken place in the 1995 time period and additional loss of deer habitat capability will occur under the preferred alternative in the 1995-2095 time period. 2) The deer population in many areas of the Tongass National Forest is now being harvested at the maximum rate that can be sustained. The number of deer needed to meet future subsistence and non-subsistence needs will increase with projected population growth. 3) The preferred alternative proposes further logging with attendant reductions in the deer population for areas where: a) the deer population is presently harvested at a maximum sustainable rate and b) previous logging has already reduced deer habitat capability. 4) The preferred alternative proposes further timber harvest in areas rated of highest value to subsistence.'' [ADF&G Comments on Tongass Plan Revision, August 26, 1996; Tab 7, p 5]
''None of the NW Baranof alternatives adequately maintain subsistence resources and lifestyles. The FS has failed to demonstrate that the project is necessary and consistent with sound management principles for the utilization of public lands, or meeting the FS responsibilities to maintain subsistence values and uses.'' [Oct. 1995 ADF&G comments on the NW Baranof Draft EIS. See Tab 5, p18]
Page 357 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
''From our perspective one of the most critical elements of the Northwest Baranof sales is it's potential impacts on subsistence, particularly deer harvest. The preferred alternative proposes harvesting a large volume of timber in close proximity to the region's largest subsistence community, in an area where every major drainage has been clearcut logged in the past using logging methods which are no longer acceptable. We fear that this sale may be the most deleterious of any sales that have taken place in the Chatham Area to date in terms of its impacts on subsistence.'' [Ibid. p 14]
Thank You For Your Considerations,
45–244 CC 1997
S. Hrg. 105–252
TONGASS LAND MANAGEMENT
JOINT HEARINGS
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
Page 358 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
and the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
THE TONGASS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN
JULY 9, 1997
JULY 10, 1997
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Page 359 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
DON NICKLES, Oklahoma
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming
JON KYL, Arizona
ROD GRAMS, Minnesota
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon
SLADE GORTON, Washington
CONRAD BURNS, Montana
DALE BUMPERS, Arkansas
WENDELL H. FORD, Kentucky
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
BOB GRAHAM, Florida
RON WYDEN, Oregon
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
GREGG D. RENKES, Staff Director
GARY G. ELLSWORTH, Chief Counsel
THOMAS B. WILLIAMS, Staff Director for the Minority
Page 360 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
SAM E. FOWLER, Chief Counsel for the Minority
MARK REY, Professional Staff Member
KIRA FINKLER, Counsel, Minority
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
KEN CALVERT, California
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho
LINDA SMITH, Washington
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Carolina
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas
JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona
Page 361 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
KEVIN BRADY, Texas
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania
RICK HILL, Montana
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
GEORGE MILLER, California
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELÓ, Puerto Rico
MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
Page 362 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
SAM FARR, California
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ADAM SMITH, Washington
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin Islands
RON KIND, Wisconsin
LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff
ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel
CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator
JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
Hearings:
July 9, 1997
July 10, 1997
STATEMENTS
July 9, 1997
Bumpers, Hon. Dale, U.S. Senator from Arkansas
Page 363 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from Idaho
Katzen, Sally, Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget
Murphy, Robert P., General Counsel, General Accounting Office
Vento, Hon. Bruce, U.S. Representative from Minnesota
Allen, David B., Alaska Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, AK
Murkowski, Hon. Frank H., U.S. Senator from Alaska