[Joint House and Senate Hearing, 105 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 105-252
TONGASS LAND MANAGEMENT
=======================================================================
JOINT HEARINGS
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
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 and
the House Committee on Resources
------------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
45-244 cc WASHINGTON : 1997
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC
20402
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico DALE BUMPERS, Arkansas
DON NICKLES, Oklahoma WENDELL H. FORD, Kentucky
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
JON KYL, Arizona BOB GRAHAM, Florida
ROD GRAMS, Minnesota RON WYDEN, Oregon
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
SLADE GORTON, Washington MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
CONRAD BURNS, Montana
Gregg D. Renkes, Staff Director
Gary G. Ellsworth, Chief Counsel
Thomas B. Williams, Staff Director for the Minority
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 GEORGE MILLER, California
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland Samoa
KEN CALVERT, California NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
RICHARD W. POMBO, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
LINDA SMITH, Washington CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona SAM FARR, California
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon ADAM SMITH, Washington
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
KEVIN BRADY, Texas CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
RICK HILL, Montana Islands
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado RON KIND, Wisconsin
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
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
__________
Page
Hearings:
July 9, 1997................................................. 1
July 10, 1997................................................ 95
STATEMENTS
July 9, 1997
Bumpers, Hon. Dale, U.S. Senator from Arkansas................... 5
Campbell, Hon. Ben Nighthorse, U.S. Senator from Colorado........ 8
Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from Idaho.................... 6
Janik, Phil, 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; John Day, U.S. Forest Service,
Juneau, AK; Kimberly Brown, U.S. Forest Service, Juneau, AK;
and Chris Iverson, U.S. Forest Service, Juneau, AK............. 29
Katzen, Sally, Administrator, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget............ 16
Murkowski, Hon. Frank H., U.S. Senator from Alaska............... 1
Murphy, Robert P., General Counsel, General Accounting Office.... 12
Pickett, Hon. Owen, U.S. Representative from Virginia............ 8
Vento, Hon. Bruce, U.S. Representative from Minnesota............ 8
July 10, 1997
Allen, David B., Alaska Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Anchorage, AK......................................... 138
Janik, Phil, 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................................................... 95
Murkowski, Hon. Frank H., U.S. Senator from Alaska............... 95
(iii)
TONGASS LAND MANAGEMENT
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 9, 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 11:11
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. We will call the joint Senate-
House hearing to order, and let me introduce Owen Pickett.
Representative Pickett. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Who is with us this morning from Virginia
from the House. I think everybody else is recognizable from
past hearings and performances. How is that?
What we are here for today is a joint oversight hearing on
the final Tongass Land Management Plan. This is the first of
two scheduled hearings, and I want to welcome everyone to what
is the next stage, if you will, of the Tongass land management
planning process. This is a process as interminable and perhaps
conflict-borne as, as somebody suggested, the Mideast peace
process. Indeed, for newcomers to the debate, I believe you can
gain a quick understanding of the conflicts in southeastern
Alaska only if you are already well versed in the politics of
the Middle East--a good comparison.
Nevertheless, today and tomorrow we will commence the first
Congressional review of the Forest Service's final Tongass Land
Management Plan. This is an effort that has been a considerable
time commitment in the making. I believe it was roughly 11
years and a cost of some $13 million or thereabouts.
As we pursue this inquiry, we are going to be focusing on
two basic questions. The first one is the final Tongass Land
Management Plan: Is it a balanced plan for future environmental
and economic well-being of southeastern Alaska and will it work
on its own terms, or is the final TLMP, as it is known, little
more than a batch of partially baked prescriptions and untested
theories that cater to some perhaps elite, post-modern version
of a new age rural lifestyle?
Second, does the final TLMP properly reflect the
compromises that were struck in past Congressional efforts to
resolve conflicts in the Tongass? I think the second question
is important because, with the public's intense interest in
Alaska generally and the Tongass National Forest specifically,
Congress for the last 20 years has been an active participant
in the management of the Tongass, for better or for worse.
Congress has intervened in the management of the Tongass and
directed many of the land use decisions.
I think it is fair to say that the Tongass is perhaps the
only national forest subject to its own authorizing statutes--
the 1980 Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act and
the 1990 Tongass Timber Reform Act. In these Congressional
debates, many promises were made, promises about the protection
of special areas, as well as the protection of the economic
well-being of the communities of southeastern Alaska. As we
continue our active Congressional role in the process, we will
be listening closely to whether and which of these promises the
administration has honored in the final Land Management Plan.
So today I plan to focus closely on how this plan differs
from the draft released last year. On April 18 and on May 28
and 29, 1996, we held extended oversight hearings on the draft
plan. Then as now, I was concerned that the proposed plan may
unnecessarily limit economic activity on the Tongass on the
basis of unsubstantiated scientific hypotheses. But I was
assured that was not the case. Then-Chief Jack Ward Thomas told
us that
``When I became Chief of the Forest Service I promised that
the use of science would be balanced in decisionmaking. The
document is an example of that commitment becoming a reality. I
believe that this draft is scientifically sound, and the most
responsive to public input of any plan yet produced by the
Forest Service. I believe that the analysis in this draft will
provide a superior step toward guiding resource decisions in
the future.''
Mr. Phil Janik, who is with us today, added the following
comments to increase our understanding of the draft by stating:
``In refocusing the Tongass planning effort, I followed two
principles. First, I wanted to make better use of scientific
information in the planning process. Second, I wanted to
improve our cooperation, consultation, and coordination with
other Federal and State agencies that had special expertise or
statutory jurisdiction in the issues we were facing. I was and
am convinced that early and constant consultation was and is
the best way to avoid late inning surprises that can overturn
even the best of planning efforts.''
Both today and tomorrow, with both the Forest Service and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, we will have an opportunity
to assess whether that early and continual consultation
actually did produce a scientifically sound plan.
Dr. Mills, as head of the agency's Pacific Northwest
Research Station, you told us last April that:
``As the Station Director I am familiar with the issues
surrounding the management of the Tongass National Forest and
the intensity of the debate. I believe the efforts of the
scientists of the Pacific Northwest Station, in concert with
the other team members, has assured that the alternatives and
their estimated consequences that are displayed in this
planning document are based on the best scientific information
available.''
Finally, Abigail Kimball, the lead Forest Supervisor
involved in the development of the draft, assured us in April
1996 that:
``We wanted an alternative that would meet the requirements
of all laws governing the management of the Tongass, maintain
future options, and allow for changes based on new information,
and be implementable.''
Well, for her part, Abigail Kimball has solved the Tongass
crisis in the only way so far discovered. She has found another
job. We wish her well in her new endeavors as Supervisor of the
Big Horn National Forest in Wyoming.
I read these quotes from testimony last year because I
think there are significant changes between the draft that we
reviewed then and the final that we will review today. And in
each case I want to understand: one, why; two, what rational or
information was used to make and justify the changes; and
three, when this information was first discovered; and four,
who had the opportunity to review and comment on these changes.
As I indicated in my letter of invitation to the Forest
Service, we view this hearing to be the initiation of our
Regulatory Flexibility Act review. We will also be using the
information that we glean from your testimony to decide how
best to proceed.
[The prepared statement of Senator Murkowski follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank H. Murkowski, U.S. Senator From Alaska
Good Morning. I would like to welcome everyone to the next stage of
the Tongass Land Management Planning process--a process as interminable
and conflict-prone as the Mideast peace process. Indeed, for new-comers
to this debate I believe you can gain a quick understanding of the
conflicts in southeast Alaska, only if you are already well versed in
the politics of the Middle East.
Nevertheless, today and tomorrow we will commence the first
congressional review of the Forest Service's final Tongass Land
Management Plan--an effort that has been a considerable time in the
making. As we pursue this inquiry, we will focus on two basic
questions. First, is the final Tongass Land Management Plan a balanced
plan for the future environmental and economic wellbeing of southeast
Alaska that will work on its own terms. Or, is the final TLMP little
more than a batch of half-baked prescriptions and untested theories
that cater to some elite, post-modem vision of a new-age rural life
style. Second, does the final TLMP properly reflect the compromises
that were struck in past congressional efforts to resolve conflicts on
the Tongass.
This second question is important because, with the public's
intense interest in Alaska generally, and the Tongass National Forest
specifically, Congress has--for the last twenty years--been an active
participant in the management of the Tongass. For better or worse,
Congress has intervened in the management of the Tongass and directed
many of the land use decisions. The Tongass is perhaps the only
national forest subject to its own authorizing statutes--1980 Alaska
National Interest Lands Conservation Act and 1990 Tongass Timber Reform
Act.
In these congressional debates many promises were made--promises
about the protection of special areas, as well as the protection of the
economic wellbeing of the communities of southeast Alaska. As we
continue our active congressional role in this process, we will be
listening closely to see whether and which of these promises the
Administration has honored in this final land management plan.
I also plan to focus very closely on how this final plan differs
from the draft released last year. On April 18, and May 28 and 29, 1996
we held extended oversight hearings on the draft plan. Then, as now, I
was concerned that the proposed plan would unnecessarily limit economic
activity on the Tongass on the basis of unsubstantiated scientific
hypotheses.
But I was assured that this was not the case. Then-Chief, Jack Ward
Thomas, told me that:
When I became Chief of the Forest Service I promised that the
use of science would be balanced in decision-making. The
document is an example of that commitment becoming reality. I
believe that this draft is scientifically sound, and the most
responsive to public input of any plan yet produced by the
Forest Service. I believe that the analysis in this draft will
provide a superior step toward guiding resource decisions in
the future.
Phil, you added the following comments to increase our
understanding of the draft. You stated:
In refocusing the Tongass planning effort I followed two
principles. First, I wanted to make better use of scientific
information in the planning process. Second, I wanted to
improve our cooperation, consultation, and coordination with
other Federal and State agencies that had special expertise or
statutory jurisdiction in the issues we were facing. I was and
am convinced that early and constant consultation was and is
the best way to avoid late inning surprises that can overturn
even the best of planning efforts.
Both today and tomorrow, with both the Forest Service and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, we will assess whether that early and
continual consultation actually did produce a scientifically sound
plan.
Dr. Mills, as the head of the Agency's Pacific Northwest Research
Station, you told us last April that:
As the station Director I am familiar with the issues
surrounding the management of the Tongass National Forest and
the intensity of the debate. I believe the efforts of the
scientists of the Pacific Northwest Station, in concert with
the other team members, has assured that the alternatives and
their estimated consequences that are displayed in this
planning document are based on the best scientific information
available.
Finally, Abigail Kimball, the lead Forest Supervisor involved in
the development of the draft assured us in April 1996 that:
We wanted an alternative that would meet the requirements of
all laws governing the management of the Tongass, maintain
future options, and allow for changes based on new information,
and be implementable.
For her part, Abigail Kimball has solved the Tongass crisis in the
only way so far discovered--She has found another job. We wish her well
in her new endeavors as Supervisor of the Big Horn National Forest in
Wyoming.
I have read these quotes from testimony last year because there are
significant changes between the draft that we reviewed then, and the
final that we will review today. And in each case, I will want to
understand: (1) why; (2) what rationale or information was used to make
and justify the change; (3) when this information was first discovered;
and (4) who had the opportunity to review and comment on these changes.
As I indicated in my letter of invitation to the Forest Service, we
view this hearing to be the initiation of our Regulatory Flexibility
Act review. We will also be using the information that we glean from
your testimony to decide how best to proceed.
______
Additional Statement of Senator Murkowski
One of our longest and possibly most abstruse areas of discussion
yesterday was on the question of what was required to comply with the
National Forest Management Act, species diversity requirements. This
section of the act gave rise to the Forest Service's population
viability regulations. This, in turn, has been the subject of a
considerable amount of biological debate, as well as erudite review by
various lawyers and judges. One would assume that as a result of this
level of scrutiny the meaning of the basic terms of debate would be
better known. Unfortunately, this does not appear to be the case. That
was in retrospect abundantly clear to me last night after I reflected
upon an almost Talmudic exchange that I had with Chris Iverson over the
difference between a viable population and a sustainable population.
Quite honestly we could have been debating about how many angels could
dance on the head of a pin. And frankly, we were.
The question here is relatively straight forward, if not very
simple. It is: what does the Forest Service have to do to assure that
for planning purposes a viable population will be maintained? The
definition says that ``a viable population should be regarded as one
which has the estimated numbers and distribution of reproductive
individuals to ensure its continued existence as well distributed in
the planning area. In order to ensure that viable populations will be
maintained, habitat must be provided to support, at least a minimum
number of reproductive individuals and that habitat must be well
distributed so that those individuals can interact with others in the
planning Complications arise because there is no definition of a
planning area to begin with. There is also no definition of what a
minimum reproductive number of individuals involves. Finally and most
importantly, for most species we have no idea of what the numbers and
distribution of reproductive individuals are needed to ensure the
continued existence in a well distributed fashion. This is as true for
old-growth dependent species as it is for species that are dependent
upon disturbance ecosystems.
The courts have not been very helpful in assisting us in this
regard. The Ninth Circuit has decided to keep asking the same questions
that I am asking today until they are satisfied with the answer. But
they chose not to provide any guidance as to the precedential value or
nature of that answer. By contrast, the Fifth Circuit has suggested
that the Ninth Circuit is all wet. That's not surprising. In the last
Supreme Court session the Supreme Court heard 20 cases on appeal from
the Ninth Circuit and reversed the Circuit on 19. I would be careful
before I would pattern a management program on the basis of Ninth
Circuit dicta. They have a poorer track record in the Supreme Court
relevant to the Forest Service has had in the courts generally over the
last 20 years.
I must say I am dumbfounded that one of the most sweeping and
important aspects of federal land management of this half-century is
still subject to this much confusion. I agree with Senator Craig that
this, more than anything, suggests an overarching need for Congress to
intervene. In testimony before the Committee last April the former
Chief, Dr. Jack Ward Thomas, agreed. He said that, and I am
paraphrasing now, federal land policy has evolved to where we are
absorbing all of the costs and impacts associated with the protection
wildlife species on federal lands. Now with that let's review a bit of
yesterday's testimony.
We touched briefly on the VIPOP strategy for assessing viability in
1994. Chris Iverson wrote a critique of that strategy in July 1994 and
a critique of the peer review of that strategy where in he noted that
the limitations expressed by the peer reviewers was ``made without the
reviewers having any of the TLMP revision SDEIS documents or maps
available for the review and, therefore, the peer review did not
include any actual analysis of viability in relation to the
alternatives proposed for the TLMP revision. There was no time scale
discussed.'' Nevertheless, we went well beyond the VIPOP analysis in
developing the final TLMP. In a January 29, 1997 memorandum describing
the old-growth forest conservation strategy and the Alexander
Archipelago Wolf and Queen Charlotte Goshawk analyses, Chris Iverson
notes further that ``the revised TLMP is more than a minimum strategy
relative sustaining viable wildlife populations. While fully
integrating the large and medium VIPOP HCAs and the mapping of the
smaller reserves, the revised TLMP has protected substantial additional
productive oldgrowth forests to further risks to wildlife viability and
enhance protection of biological diversity. For comparison, reserves
allocated in the revised TLMP exceed the amount recommended by VIPOP by
147%. Old-growth allocated in the revised TLMP exceeds the amount
recommended by VIPOP in 20 of 21 biogeographic provinces, ranging from
9% to 460% over VIPOP recommendations.''
Yesterday we agonized over whether the TLMP was a population
viability strategy or a hunter viability strategy as far as the Sitka
blacktail deer was concerned. There was no need for agonizing over this
because on page 16 of the same Iverson analysis he states that'' the
revised TLMP provides for maintaining deer habitat capability
sufficient to sustain both wolf populations and current levels of human
deer use.'' The regulatory (not statutory) requirement to maintain
population viability has been enhanced by an assumed responsibility to
maintain population viability and hunter use. The question is, where
was that assumed responsibility imposed. Was it imposed in the review
the scientists did in defining viability, or was it a decision that the
policy makers made during the development of the TLMP? I will tell you
frankly, that given that we could not together come to a common
understanding (even among you, let alone with me) about what
constitutes a viable population, I have to assume it was the former,
not the latter. I will close this opening statement by suggesting that
I hope your interpretation is challenged all the way tot he Supreme
Court because I do not believe that you: (a) understand what you are
doing; (b) have applied whatever it is you are doing whether you
understand it or not in a scientifically sound fashion; or (c) care
whether it is being applied in a way that balances the equities between
people and animals.
The Chairman. Senator Bumpers.
STATEMENT OF HON. DALE BUMPERS, U.S. SENATOR
FROM ARKANSAS
Senator Bumpers. Mr. Chairman, I do not have a formal
opening statement. I would just like to make a few comments.
First, all of us on this committee are completely familiar
with the uniqueness of the Tongass and the uniqueness of the
economic opportunities that it affords to the people of Alaska.
And of course, the chairman has labored in this vineyard for a
very long time, and I want him to understand that, so far as
this Senator is concerned, I am not unmindful of how important
this forest is to both the chairman and the people of Alaska.
Having said that, I also want to say that, as much respect
as I have for the GAO--I have a lot of respect for them; the
General Counsel is here with us this morning--I have a little
difficulty with the decision that a forest management plan is
actually a rule. I think it would be good to have that
clarified.
Secondly, we should all bear in mind during this hearing
that the Tongass Timber Reform Act of 1990, specifically stated
that the Secretary was directed to ``seek to meet'' market
demand for timber, but only to the extent consistent with
providing for the multiple use and sustained yield of all
renewable forest resources.
Now, the revised Tongass plan calls for a maximum of 267
million board feet. I understand that this level is
considerably less than it used to be under previous plans. The
original plan contained an ASQ of 520 million board feet.
The Governor, Governor Knowles of Alaska, sees this plan as
an opportunity to promote opportunities for smaller operators
and value added operators. I know that his concern for the
economic opportunities of the people of Alaska is certainly no
greater than the chairman of the committee. But I certainly, as
a former chairman of the Small Business Committee and one who
has always for 22 years now been active in the Small Business
Committee and its activities to protect and promote small
business, I have a tendency to agree with Governor Knowles'
position on this.
Mr. Chairman, I am happy to be here and will do my best to
contribute in the hearing as time permits. I am going to have
to be in and out. I thank the chairman for calling this hearing
and I think it will give all of us a chance to clarify some of
these questions.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Bumpers.
Let me welcome additional House members: Donna Christian-
Green from the Virgin Islands, welcome to the committee; and
Bruce Vento from Minnesota. Bruce, nice to have you here.
Let me call on Senator Craig and then I would go back and
forth for the opening statements.
Senator Craig.
STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG, U.S. SENATOR
FROM IDAHO
Senator Craig. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
In fact, it is almost reminiscent to have Congressman Vento
here this morning, because he was serving as one of the ranking
majority members of the Interior Committee when I first started
serving in the House in 1981. It was interesting to me that
that committee and this committee had in the late seventies
just finished the Tongass Land Management Plan, and I got to
Congress in 1980, started serving in 1981, only to find out
that we are going to redo it again.
I will never forget, Mr. Chairman, asking some of the
witnesses, in this case an environmental witness, why we were
redoing this again. We had just done it. It had been finished
in 1979. And he said: Well, but that was my predecessor. We
have changed our mind. We have a new position.
I guess I can tell you that the only thing that has changed
about this issue is the name of the Interior Committee over in
the House. It is now called what, Bruce?
Representative Vento. Resources.
Senator Craig. Resources Committee.
Representative Vento. Not Natural Resources, just
Resources.
Senator Craig. But the issue is the same.
And I can also tell you, Mr. Chairman, that I am glad that
the Tongass is not in Idaho. I have a tough enough time trying
to balance the interests of the citizens of my State as it
relates to our forests and the resources of those forests, and
I am glad the Tongass is not in the mix of all of that because,
while mine are tough, yours is tougher.
In fact, I would suggest that maybe the Tongass should be
referred to as the ``Velcro Forest,'' where all issues stick,
or at least come to play at some point in time, because it
appears that in my few years here in the Senate and a few in
the House that this has always been front and center on the
burner of almost everyone's agenda, that somehow we ought to
redo and rewrite a forest plan or a management plan or an
approach because it is not the way we want it, of the Tongass.
I think the New York Times accurately described the Tongass
as the ``talismanic forest,'' and they mean that primarily to
the environmental community, because for some reason it has a
rather mythical place in most people's minds, and as a result
of that we have wanted to change its character or its
management systems or its plan.
I have had the privilege of visiting Alaska over the years.
I will tell you, the whole State is talismanic in that respect.
But in my belief to multiple use management, I think you can
balance resource use and you should. In this instance I hope we
can get there, and I hope that this plan might stick like
velcro to the forest if it is the right plan.
Most importantly, though, I think, Mr. Chairman, is the
dedication you take to oversight. I think Congresses of the
past have been negligent in doing so and I think it is
critically important that we exercise the appropriate oversight
as our responsibility when the Executive Branch passes or moves
regulations into their full force and effect of law.
However, as we deal with the Regulatory Flexibility Act and
bring all of that into context, I think it even exercises more
our responsibility. And you are taking that well today. I will
stay and listen with interest. I have come to know this forest
in a rather intimate way by not so much being there, but by
simply knowing it on paper and by the image or sometimes the
illusion that some people hold of this forest in their own
mind.
I hope we can get at the business of keeping consistency
and responsibility and having a balanced plan that protects the
environment and allows responsible multiple use and allows a
few people to provide for themselves a livelihood of the
resources of the State of Alaska.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Craig.
Congressman Pickett.
STATEMENT OF HON. OWEN PICKETT, U.S. REPRESENTATIVES FROM
VIRGINIA
Representative Pickett. Mr. Chairman, I do not have an
opening statement. I want to commend you for calling this
hearing, though. I think this is an issue that very
definitively needs to be resolved, and I look forward to the
testimony of our witnesses.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator Campbell.
STATEMENT OF HON. BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, U.S. SENATOR FROM
COLORADO
Senator Campbell. Thank you very much. I do not have an
opening statement, but I am very interested in this issue.
The Chairman. All right.
Congressman Christian-Green.
STATEMENT OF HON. DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, U.S. REPRESENTATIVES
FROM THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
Representative Christian-Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
do not have an opening statement. I just do want to say I am
pleased to be here to join with members of my committee and
your committee and you, Mr. Chairman, to look at the issues in
the Tongass management plan.
As you said in your opening statement, it does not take
long for one to be here to realize that it is a difficult
issue. But I look forward to working with members of both
committees and you, Mr. Chairman, and my chairman, Don Young,
to find a balanced approach and resolve some of the issues
involved.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Congressman Vento.
STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE VENTO, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
MINNESOTA
Representative Vento. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have an
opening statement. I might add that we are on the House floor
considering a forest bill, the Quincy Library bill, and that is
the reason for the absence of, I am sure, Chairman Young and
ranking member Miller, who of course has a strong interest in
this matter, and I will be in and out because of that.
I want to concur with the comments of Senator Bumpers with
regards to the applicability of this new ruling in terms of the
60-day issue, Mr. Chairman. I am concerned about and have been
concerned about these efforts to go over rules again because
they frustrate the implementation of policy very often. We need
to look at forest management plans and the outreach process
that occurs before them, I think, in some of these areas.
In this particular instance, I am sure those who are
pursuing this have legitimate concerns about the 60 days for
small business to be able to react to a plan or rule, but in
other instances it may be a different view in terms of
implementing the sort of activity that puts these types of
limits on the implementation rules. No one has been better at
that, I think, than those of us who are working on land
management policies to put the limits on the land managers. We
make it more difficult and adding in some cases to the problems
we are so concerned about.
Overall, Mr. Chairman, I note that, with regards to the
plan, I am disappointed with it for probably different reasons
than others on the committee. The Tongass certainly is one of
the most significant fragments of an old North American
temperate rain forest. It is really a jewel of the National
Forest System. But it needs to be soundly managed and
conserved.
I do not think, in reference to my colleague from Idaho and
friend, with regards to changing policies with regards to land
management, I do not think any of us--I think it is a pretty
dynamic process in terms of information and needs, and I think
that all of us want to--and if Congress wants to stay involved,
we are going to have to obviously be ready to accept and make
modifications based on the information that is coming to us.
I have been, frankly, very surprised and sometimes
disappointed about all the information with regards to the
Pacific Northwest and the fact that we have constantly had to
monitor and change policies there. Most of the information did
not make the issues more easy to resolve, and that sometimes--
and that is the case with the Tongass as well.
The Forest Service' new management plan, however, here is
controversial and continues, I think, an environmentally
unsound policy path characterized by timber-driven
decisionmaking and clearcutting on the Tongass National Forest.
It doubles the current levels of logging, from 120 million
board feet to 267.
Of course, we know that for decades under the contracts
that there was a mandate to cut 450 million board feet a year,
and that was not sustainable. The increase will prove, I think,
environmentally and economically unsustainable. Indications are
that the demand for timber, Tongass timber, over the next 10
years will just be over 100 million board feet, which is
supposed to be one of the prerequisites in the 1990 law, what
leads this as to what will be the demand, what part of the
demand we could meet.
Based on the land being harvested, demand, and the U.S.
Federal taxpayers' continued subsidies, this of course is very
high cost timber in North America.
The new plan appears to ignore the counsel and peer review
advice of some of the best objective and independent scientists
who reviewed the impact of the Tongass harvest on wildlife
issues, such that scientists from many disciplines recently
concluded that wildlife in unroaded portions of the Tongass
will significantly be harmed by clearcutting and timber
harvesting in such areas.
The new plan does not consider all the public comments. 70
percent of those who had written and commented to the Forest
Service called for lower logging levels and greater
protections. I suppose in light of this maybe the 60 days will
help.
Surely this plan merits significant questioning in the
hearing. Perhaps those most interested and present today will
not be assailing the Tongass plan from the same perspective
that I am pointing out.
Frankly, the Forest Service should return to the drafting
table and write a management plan that represents the
priorities of all Americans, not just cut the baby in half to
satisfy the various interests. The magnificent Tongass resource
of wildlife and fisheries has an outstanding long-term
sustainable and tourism potential. It should not be sacrificed
for short-term gratification.
This administration, the Clinton administration, has bitten
the bullet on this issue concerning the Tongass contracts. It
has paid compensation, and I believe that this halfway measure
will lead the U.S. Forest Service Tongass policy write back to
where we began. If I look at what the goal is here, the goal is
to get this back up close to a half billion board feet a year.
We owe the natural legacy of the Tongass to our children
and grandchildren, not to the special interests' bottom line.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Congressman Vento.
Before we call on the witnesses, let me just make a couple
of comments relative to points that are important to consider
as we reflect on the disposition of the Tongass and the
completeness of the TLMP that we have before us. Two particular
species were of concern relative to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife.
One was the archipelago wolf and the other was the goshawk.
It was interesting to note that the evaluation done by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife on the goshawk was limited to proposed
timber sales. There was no effort, because of lack of funds,
for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife or the Forest Service to go out
in the rest of the forest and try and determine the abundance
or shortage of the goshawks. So a questionable point of what
kind of science we have on the true nature of the potential
listing of the goshawk is still up in the air because of the
inability to go out and make a determination.
The other issue is rather interesting, and that was the
archipelago wolf, which there is a legitimate question as to
whether there indeed is a sub-species, because those that are
familiar with southeastern Alaska know the wolves swim from
island to island, with the exception of Admiralty, Baranof, and
Chichagof, where there are no wolves but there are the brown
bear. So the reality of whether or not there is a potential
listing justification for the wolf is rather inconsistent with
the State Department of Fish and Game, who manages trapping and
hunting, and in either case has not put any limitation on the
hunting or trapping of the wolf, and one would assume that if
indeed there was a potential concern over listing that the
State Department of Fish and Game would alert the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service to take appropriate action.
These are inconsistencies that will be brought out during
the 2 days of the hearing.
Another point that I would like to bring up before we get
into the witnesses is the question of drawing attention to two
documents that dramatize how late, how late some changes were
made to the May 25 record of decision. This is important to
reflect on because it shows an inconsistency within the TLMP
group to reach an accord in advance of the final action on the
25th.
I am referring to a May 24 statement from the TLMP team,
and it is initialed and it is to Gary Morrison, Gail Kimball,
Brad Powell, Phil Janik, and Fred--it is a little hard to
read--Norbury. The appropriate portion is the next to the last
paragraph, which says:
``Please look these changes over and give us any comments
no later than close of business on Thursday, May 15, if at all
possible.'' That would be the next day after the document was
prepared. ``It covers, for your review, additional measures for
proposed standards and guidelines and lists some additional
measures for landscape connectivity, et cetera, modifications
to the bear and wolf standards. Enclosed are the proposals as
they modify the December 1996 version.''
So here we have on May 14 this memorandum from the TLMP
team to the specific Forest Service personnel requesting that
they look over changes and give comments the next day. And this
will be entered into the record.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then on the next chart we have a response dated May 12.
That is not the next day. That was the day before. This says:
``Region X forest management has had an opportunity to review
the most recent draft of the proposed TLMP forest-wide standard
and guidelines drafted on 5-5 at 11 o'clock. The initial
reaction of forest management was that the revised standard and
guidelines would result in a significant reduction in the
amount of viable timber available for planned harvest.''
It goes on in the last paragraph to state the following:
``We believe that the impacts on timber harvest are so great
that the current allowable sale quantity is unobtainable,'' and
this is the presumption of the 267 million. In order to adhere
to Forest Service policy and applicable laws and regulations,
changes of the magnitude reflected in the reviewed and revised
S and G's must be supported by a recalculation of the ASQ. We
fear that to do otherwise would open the Forest Service to
allegations of deceiving the public.''
So I think that sets the stage where we surely have
questions, because the first is to dramatize how late some
changes were made and the second is the May 14 memorandum
asking for comments by May 15, and the second is the May 12
memorandum from the director of the forest management which
states that the ASQ is not achievable, and the ASQ was not
recalculated. So for whatever consistencies we might have
anticipated, we certainly have changes at the last minute and a
legitimate question as to whether or not what was recommended
by the Forest Service is achievable.
That kind of leaves some questions in the minds of many in
southeastern Alaska as to what the true allowable cut may be in
relationship to the discrepancies within the memorandums that
have been presented to the committee.
Let me proceed with panel one: Mr. Robert P. Murphy,
General Counsel for the U.S. General Accounting Office in
Washington, D.C., accompanied by Ms. Sally Katzen, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Washington, D.C. We look forward to your statement and
testimony and ask that you proceed as you see fit.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT P. MURPHY, GENERAL COUNSEL, GENERAL
ACCOUNTING OFFICE
Mr. Murphy. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Senator Bumpers,
members of the committees: I am pleased to appear before you
today to discuss whether the Tongass plan is subject to a
statute which was enacted last year which provides for
Congressional review of agency rulemaking. With your
permission, I will provide an abbreviated statement and ask
that my full statement be included in the record, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Your entire statement will be entered in the
record.
Mr. Murphy. The statute in question which was enacted last
year goes by a number of names. The actual title of it is the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, which I
will refer to as ``SBREFA.'' It was enacted on March 29 last
year and was intended to balance the respective authorities of
the Congress and the Executive Branch in rulemaking.
Over the years the Congress has delegated a lot of
legislative authority to Executive Branch agencies and there
was a concern that that delegation had deprived the Congress of
much of its policymaking responsibilities. We at GAO believe
that Congressional oversight of agency rulemaking can be
positive, that it is important to balance the concerns of
American citizens and American businesses with Federal agency
rulemaking. We believe that Executive Branch agencies should be
responsive to citizens and businesses about the reach, cost,
and impact of regulations without compromising their statutory
mission.
As of July 3 of this year, under the terms of SBREFA there
have been almost 5,000 rules filed with the Congress and with
the General Accounting Office. 79 of those are major rules.
Typically, major rules are rules that have more than a $100
million impact on the economy. About 5,000 of them were non-
major rules. These range from the Federal Aviation
Administration's airworthiness certifications to changes in
bridge opening and closing schedules, a wide variety of rules
that executive agencies promulgate. They file them with the
Congress and they file them with GAO.
On June 18 of this year the Chief of the Forest Service
forwarded copies of the Tongass plan to the Congress and to GAO
under the procedures that are applicable in SBREFA. At the same
time, he said that it was the view of the Forest Service that
the Tongass plan was not a rule under SBREFA and that it was
not a major rule in any event.
We disagree. SBREFA provides that before a rule may become
effective it must be filed with the Congress and with GAO. A
major rule may not be effective until 60 calendar days after it
is filed. Once a rule--whether it is determined to be major or
not, is filed with Congress and with GAO there are expedited
procedures for Congressional review and passage of a joint
resolution of disapproval.
The definition of a rule in SBREFA is extraordinarily
broad. Without reading the entire definition, the applicable
excerpt is ``an agency statement of general applicability and
future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe
law or policy.'' It is the breath of that rule definition that
causes agencies to send us 5,000 of them every year.
The Tongass plan in our view clearly meets this definition
of ``rule.'' It implements the requirements of the National
Forest Management Act that the Secretary of Agriculture
develop, maintain, and revise land resource management plans
and assure compliance with the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act
of 1960 in setting forest management direction and harvesting
levels. It prescribes the manner or the policy of the Forest
Service for managing the Tongass National Forest for the
future, 10 to 15 years. The various management prescriptions
and land use designations when read together set out what types
of activities may occur in various sections of the national
forest.
Thus it meets the elements of a rule. It is of general
applicability, it has future effect, and it implements,
interprets, and prescribes law and policy.
Now, there are some exceptions in the statute to this
definition of a rule. They are crafted quite narrowly. The one
that we thought was the only one that might be arguably
applicable in this case is an exception for an agency rule of
procedure that does not substantially affect the rights or
obligations of non-agency parties.
I ought to say that, while the Forest Service has taken the
position that the Tongass plan is not a rule, they have not
provided us the background or their analysis. So what we have
been doing is hypothesizing what their point of view might be.
In our view the plan is not procedural. It does not meet
the requirements of the exception to the rule. And it does have
a substantial effect on non-agency parties. It allocates areas
of the forest to land use designations and describes the uses
to which the land may be put and the activities which may occur
there. This management prescription gives general direction on
what may occur within an area allocated to a particular
designation, the minimum standards for accomplishing each
activity, and guidelines on how to go about accomplishing the
standards.
Many of the standards and guidelines are quite specific and
they provide no discretion for the Forest Service in management
of the forest. For example, if you look at the wilderness
designation you find that managers may permit special use
cabins only if, among other things, the permit is non-
transferable, limited to a 5-year term, and provides no
motorized equipment that may be used without specific approval
of the regional forester.
One of the specific provisions of the plan is found in the
area of timber harvesting. In an effort to comply with the
Clean Air Act, the Forest Service has provided for a 1,000 foot
buffer around beach and estuary areas. It has provided a number
of standards that relate to the survival of wildlife in the
Tongass plan.
I may say that those provisions of the plan cannot be
amended without notice and comment procedures that the National
Forest Management Act requires. In other words, they are
binding on the Forest Service in its management of the forest.
That briefly summarizes our view that the Tongass plan is a
rule that is subject to review by the Congress in accordance
with the procedures of the act. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will
be happy to respond to any questions that the committees may
have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Murphy follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert P. Murphy, General Counsel, General
Accounting Office
Chairman Murkowski, Chairman Young, and Members of the Committees:
I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the General
Accounting Office's views on whether the Tongass National Forest Land
and Resource Management Plan, issued by the United States Forest
Service on May 23, 1997, is a ``rule'' under the provisions of the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA). Attached
to this statement is a detailed legal opinion we recently issued on the
question.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The legal opinion has been retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SBREFA was enacted on March 29, 1996, establishing a government-
wide congressional review mechanism of new rules, including the
availability of expedited procedures to act joint resolutions of
disapproval to overrule federal rulemaking actions. As the joint
statement on the new law by Senators Stevens, Nickles, and Reid
explained, the purpose of the legislation was to restore balance
between the enactment of laws by Congress and their implementation by
the Executive branch. The Congress sought to reclaim some of the
policymaking authority that had been assumed by regulatory agencies
with increased delegation of legislative functions from the Congress to
these agencies.
Congressional oversight of rulemaking as contemplated by SBREFA can
be an important and useful tool for balancing and accommodating the
concerns of American citizens and businesses with federal agency
rulemaking. It is important to assure that Executive branch agencies
are responsive to citizens and businesses about the reach, cost, and
impact of regulations without compromising the statutory mission given
to those agencies. SBREFA seeks to accomplish this by giving the
Congress an opportunity to review rules before they take effect and to
disapprove those found to be too burdensome, excessive, inappropriate,
duplicative, or otherwise objectionable. As of July 3, 1997 (about 15
months following enactment), 79 moor rules and 4,833 non-moor rules
have been submitted under SBREFA.
On June 18, 1997, the Chief of the Forest Service forwarded copies
of the Tongass Plan to both Houses of Congress and our Office following
the procedures outlined in SBREFA, while stating at the same time that
land and resource management plans are not subject to the statute. An
attachment to the transmittal letter states that the Plan is not a moor
rule.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A ``moor rule'' is one found by the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), to meet
certain criteria, such as whether the rule will have an annual effect
on the economy of $100 million or more. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 804(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We conclude that the Tongass Plan constitutes a ``rule'' under
SBREFA. Therefore, submittal of a report to each House of Congress and
the General Accounting Office was necessary in order for the rule to
become effective. If the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
determines the rule to be major, it is not effective until 60 days
after the submission of the report to the Congress or publication in
the Federal Register, whichever is later. This would result in an
effective date of August 17, 1997, 60 days after submission to the
Congress.
SBREFA provides that before a rule becomes effective, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit to each House of Congress and to the
Comptroller General a report containing: ``(i) a copy of the rule; (ii)
a concise general statement relating to the rule, including whether it
is a moor rule; and (iii) the proposed effective date of the rule.''
On the date the report is submitted, the agency also must submit to
the Comptroller General and make available to each House of Congress
certain other documents, including a cost-benefit analysis, if any, and
agency actions relevant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, and any other relevant
information or requirements under any other legislation or any relevant
executive orders.
Once a rule, whether determined to be a major rule or not, is
submitted, special procedures are available for a period of 60 session
days in the Senate or 60 legislative days in the House for Congress to
pass a joint resolution of disapproval. These time periods can be
extended upon a congressional adjournment. SBREFA provides that a major
rule may not become effective until 60 days after it is submitted to
Congress or published in the Federal Register, whichever is later.
There are two questions concerning whether SBREFA procedures are
applicable to the Tongass Plan. The first is whether the Tongass Plan
is a ``rule'' under SBREFA, that is, an ``agency statement of general .
. . applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret,
or prescribe law or policy.'' The second is whether any of the
statutory exceptions in SBREFA are applicable. If the Tongass Plan is a
rule, which we conclude it is, there is a third question--is it a
``major'' rule, which cannot be effective for 60 days after
presentation to the Congress and GAO. This determination is reserved to
OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
A summary description of the Plan shows clearly that it meets the
definition of a ``rule.'' The Plan implements the requirement of the
National Forest Management Act that the Secretary of Agriculture
develop, maintain, and revise land resource management plans and assure
compliance with the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 in setting
forest management direction and harvesting levels. It prescribes the
manner or the policy of the best Service for managing the Tongass
National Forest for the future (10-15 years). The various management
prescriptions and land use designations, when read together, set out
what type of activities may occur in various sections of the National
Forest. Thus, it meets the elements of a ``rule'': it is of general
applicability (it affects many parties, private and governmental,
concerning the National Forest) and future effect (10 to 15 years in
duration), and it implements, interprets, and prescribes law and
policy.
SBREFA sets forth several exceptions to the definition of rules
subject to congressional review. The only one arguably applicable here
is ``any rule of agency organization, procedure, or practice that does
not substantially affect the rights or obligations of nonagency
parties.''
In our view, the Plan has a substantial effect on non-agency
parties. It allocates areas of the Forest to Land Use Designations and
describes the uses to which the land may be put and the activities
which may occur there. This ``management prescription'' gives general
direction on what may occur within an area allocated to a particular
designation, the minimum standards for accomplishing each activity, and
guidelines on how to go about accomplishing the standards.
Some minimum standards and guidelines provide considerable
discretion to forest managers. For example, for the Karst and Caves
Resource in areas of the Wilderness Designation, managers are to:
``Identify opportunities for interpretation of caves for public
education and enjoyment. Interpretation will generally occur outside
this Land Use Designation.'' Other standards and guidelines are more
specific. For example, for the Lands Resource in areas of the
Wilderness Designation, managers may permit new special use cabins only
if, among other things, the permit is nontransferable, limited to a 5
year term, and provides that no motorized equipment may be used unless
specifically approved by the Regional Forester.
Among the more specific standards are those applicable to timber
harvesting. Timber may not be harvested within the 1,000 foot beach and
estuary fringe or buffer zone. in the Wildlife standards and
guidelines, forest stand structural characteristics are listed which
must be maintained after harvesting. For example, in the American
Marten habitat (1) 10-20 percent of the original stand, (2) four large
trees (20-30 inches in diameter) per acre, (3) three large dead or
dying trees (230 inches in diameter) per acre, and (4) an average of
three large pieces of down material per acre must remain.
The specific restrictions and prohibitions are binding unless a
land resource plan is amended in accordance with the requirements of
the National Forest Management Plan Act, which provides that a plan may
be amended after adoption following public notice. If the amendment is
a significant change, the revision must be made available to the public
in the vicinity of the affected area at least 3 months before amendment
and the agency must hold public meetings or comparable processes that
foster public participation. We note that the predecessor Tongass Plan
was only amended through this process twice in over 15 years and both
amendments resulted from congressional action.
In concluding that decisions made in the Plan substantially effect
non-agency parties and are, therefore, not ``agency procedures,'' we
also recognize that the regulatory scheme includes a second stage of
decisionmaking in managing the Forest. That stage occurs when Forest
Service officials implement the Plan with respect to a particular area
of the Forest. Clearly the Tongass Plan as a whole has itself a
substantial effect on non-agency parties--it is not in that sense
``procedural''--even though Plan restrictions will ultimately be
embodied in site-specific decisions. We note that to conclude otherwise
would effectively frustrate the SBREFA congressional review mechanism.
The vast majority of site-specific actions concern individual use of
particular areas of the Forest. They would in many cases be rules of
``particular applicability'' and thereby be excluded from congressional
review. If only site-specific actions were considered ``rules,'' a
regulatory scheme in preparation for 10 years at a cost of over $13
million, with substantial impact during the next 15 years on all those
who use the Forest, would be insulated from congressional review.
For the foregoing reasons, it is our opinion that the Tongass Plan
constitutes a ``rule'' under SBREFA; it is subject to review by the
Congress in accordance with the procedures set forth therein.
Thank you Mr. Chairmen. This concludes my prepared remarks. I would
be happy to answer any questions you may have.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Murphy.
Ms. Katzen.
STATEMENT OF SALLY KATZEN, ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF INFORMATION
AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Ms. Katzen. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Bumpers,
members of the committee. It is a pleasure to be here today to
discuss the applicability of the ``Congressional Review of
Agency Rulemaking'' statute to the final draft of the Tongass
Land Management Plan. SBREFA generally, and the congressional
review provisions in particular, have the strong support of
President Clinton. He signed the law over a year ago with a
supportive signing statement. The Federal agencies began
complying with the law immediately, since the law took effect
upon signing. And based on what I hear, they are doing an
excellent job.
As Mr. Murphy has reported, as of the beginning of this
month, Federal agencies have submitted 4,912 final rules,
including 79 that were designated as major rules within the
meaning of these provisions, to both houses of Congress and to
the GAO.
In general terms, under the congressional review statute,
agencies are to send a copy of each new final rule, along with
certain analyses that they may undertake related to the rule,
to both houses of Congress and to the GAO before the rule is to
take effect. When an agency sends a final rule to the Congress
and GAO, it is to indicate whether the rule is major or not.
The statute directs OMB's Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs to indicate whether a rule meets the
statutory definition of ``major,'' that is, whether a rule is
likely to result in an annual effect on the economy of over
$100 million, a major increase in costs or prices, or
significant adverse effect on competition, employment,
investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of
American companies to compete.
In a June 5, 1997, letter, the Chairmen of the Senate
Committee on Appropriations, the Senate Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, and the House Committee on Resources wrote
to me regarding the applicability of the Congressional review
provisions to the Tongass Land Management Plan. Specifically,
they wished to apprise me of their view that ``this massive and
long-awaited proposed policy revision must rightfully be
considered both a `rule' and a `major rule' '' under the
congressional review statute.
In your July 2, 1997, letter of invitation for me to appear
at this hearing, you indicated you would be looking into the
question of whether the Tongass Land Management Plan was a rule
and whether or not it was major under these provisions.
With respect to the first question--whether the Tongass
Land Management Plan is a ``rule''--the provisions of the
statute at issue state that before a ``rule'' can take effect,
the Federal agency promulgating such ``rule'' shall submit it
to both houses of Congress and GAO. The plain implication of
this provision is that it is the agency promulgating the
regulation that has the responsibility for deciding whether a
particular issuance is or is not a ``rule'' under the relevant
provisions.
As I explain in my written testimony, this allocation of
responsibility to the issuing agency makes eminently good sense
as a policy matter, given the different statutory authorities,
practices, program needs, and basic institutional cultures of
different agencies. Moreover, it is fully consistent with
agency administration of the Administrative Procedure Act,
which has been in effect since 1946, and it is from that act
that the definition of ``rule'' was taken for the congressional
review provisions.
Upon receipt of your letter of invitation, in preparation
for this testimony, I asked whether the Forest Service has
decided whether the management plan is or is not a ``rule'' as
defined in the congressional review statute. I was advised that
the Forest Service does not consider this Land Management Plan
a ``rule'' within the meaning of the statute. I was also
advised that, since the statute was signed by President Clinton
on March 29, 1996, the Forest Service has issued six revisions
to land management plans, none of which was treated as a
``rule'' under the congressional review statute. At the same
time, there were three other ``rules'' that they had worked on
that were submitted to the Congress under that provision.
I also should note that the Forest Service has so far as I
know never treated land management plans as ``rules'' subject
to the notice and comment provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553, and that
is the ``rulemaking'' provision of the APA.
I would also note in this connection that under President
Clinton's Executive Order 12866 and its predecessors--the
Reagan and Bush Executive Order 12291, and its predecessor,
President Carter's Executive Order 12044--OIRA or its
predecessor has had the responsibility of reviewing agency
rules. I have been advised that at no time has OIRA or any of
its predecessors ever reviewed a land management plan under any
of the applicable executive orders. During my tenure, the last
4 years at OIRA, we have not reviewed any Forest Service land
management plans. In short, based on agency practice and our
own experience, we have no basis to disagree with the Forest
Service's decision that these plans do not constitute
``rules.''
Now, as I mentioned earlier, the congressional review
statute gives me the responsibility of determining whether or
not, if it were a ``rule,'' it would or would not be a
``major'' rule. The definition that I am to use in that regard
is taken not from the current Executive Order, but from the
predecessor Reagan-Bush Executive Order 12291. That was the
definition of ``major'' in that Executive Order.
I have instructed OIRA staff, who are career civil servants
and many of whom have been in OIRA for a number of years and
therefore were responsible for carrying out the regulatory
reviews under the Reagan-Bush Executive Order with its
definition of ``major,'' to use the same definition of
``major'' that they used in carrying out their responsibilities
in the previous administration in advising me as to whether or
not a rule is major under the congressional review provisions.
To the best of my recollection, I have always deferred and
never overruled the staff on a recommendation as to whether or
not a rule is ``major'' under the act. Again, upon receipt of
your letter of invitation, Mr. Chairman, and in preparation for
this testimony, I asked OIRA staff whether, assuming arguendo
that the plan is a ``rule,'' would they recommend that it be
considered ``major'' under the congressional review statute.
There is obviously one obstacle in that we do not have the
plan to review, and so we did not have much information
available. But your June 5, 1997, letter provided certain facts
that I asked the staff to consider to give me, in effect, an
advisory opinion. That letter suggests that the Tongass Land
Management Plan would call for a drop from a harvest of about
320 million board feet annually to a harvest of approximately
220 million board feet a year.
Staff responded that, assuming that the Tongass Land
Management Plan can properly be interpreted as causing a drop
in the timber harvest of 100 million board feet a year, they
would then interpret the plan as being ``major'' if in fact it
were a rule.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify and welcome any
questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Katzen follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sally Katzen, Administrator, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget
Good morning, Mr. Chairmen, and members of these Committees. It is
a pleasure to be here today to discuss the applicability of the
``Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking'' (Congressional Review)
statute \1\ to the Final Draft of the Tongass Land Management Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 5 U.S.C. chapter 8, ``Congressional Review of Agency
Rulemaking,'' passed in Title II, Subtitle E, of P.L. 104-121, March
29, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
legislative and congressional background
The Congressional Review statute had the strong support of the
President. He signed the law over a year ago. The Federal agencies
began complying with this law promptly and, based on what I hear, are
doing an excellent job. As of July 3, 1997, Federal agencies had
submitted 4,912 final rules, including 79 designated as ``major'' rules
within the meaning of the Congressional Review statute, to both House
of Congress and to the General Accounting Office (GAO).
In general terms, under the Congressional Review statute, agencies
are to send a copy of each new final ``rule'' \2\ (and certain analyses
that they may undertake related to the rule) to both Houses of Congress
and to the GAO before the rule can take effect. When an agency sends a
final ``rule'' to Congress and GAO, the agency is to indicate whether
the rule is ``major'' or not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 5 U.S.C. 804(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The statute directs OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (OIRA) to indicate whether a ``rule'' meets the statutory
definition of ``major''--that is, whether the rule is likely to result
in an annual effect on the economy of over $100,000,000; a major
increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on
the ability of United States used enterprises to compete with foreign-
based enterprises.
In a June 5, 1997, letter, the Chairmen of the Senate Committee on
Appropriations, the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
and the House Committee on Resources wrote to me regarding the
applicability of the Congressional Review statute to the Tongass Land
Management Plan. Specifically, they wished to apprise me ``of [their]
view that this massive and long-awaited proposed policy revision [to
the Tongass Land Management Plan] must rightfully be considered both a
`rule' and a `major rule' '' under the Congressional Review statute. In
your July 2, 1997, letter of invitation to this hearing, you indicated
that you would be looking into the question of whether the Tongass Land
Management Plan is both a ``rule'' and a ``major rule'' under this
legislation.
is the tongass land management plan a ``rule''?
The Congressional Review statute states that ``[b]efore a rule can
take effect, the Federal agency promulgating such rule shall submit''
it to both Houses of Congress and the GAO.\3\ The plain implication of
this provision is that it is the agency promulgating the regulation
that has the responsibility for determining whether a particular
issuance is a ``rule'' under the Congressional Review statute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This allocation of responsibility to the promulgating agency makes
sense as a policy matter, given the different statutory authorities,
practices, program needs, and sic institutional culture of each agency.
Moreover, it is fully consistent with agency administration of the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Since the term ``rule'' was used in
the APA in 1946, each agency has determined, for its own issuances,
what is and what is not a ``rule'' subject to the APA's informal
rulemaking procedures. Indeed, I would note that the definition of
``rule'' in the Congressional Review statute explicitly incorporates
the definition of ``rule'' adopted in the APA, and then makes certain
exceptions to that definition. In so doing, it appears to us that the
Congress intended to incorporate agency (and any related court)
interpretations of what is meant by a ``rule'' under the APA into the
definition of ``rule'' adopted in the Congressional Review statute.
Upon receipt of your letter of invitation, and in preparation for
this testimony, I sought to ascertain whether the Forest Service has
decided that the Tongass Land Management Plan is or is not a ``rule''
as defined in the Congressional Review statute. I was advised that the
Forest Service does not consider this Land Management Plan a ``rule''
within the meaning of the Congressional Review statute. Since that
statute passed on March 29, 1996, the Forest Service has issued six
revisions of Land Management Plans, none of which was treated as a
``rule'' under the Congressional Review statute.\4\ Nor, I understand,
has the Forest Service ever treated its Land Management Plans as
``rules'' subject to the APA's informal rulemaking procedures under 5
U.S.C. 553.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ In contrast, I am advised that, after the Congressional Review
statute passed, the Forest Service published three notice-and-comment
final rules which were sent to both Houses of Congress and the GAO
under that statute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would note that under Executive Order No. 12866,\5\ and its
predecessor Orders, Nos. 12291 \6\ and 12044,\7\ OIRA (or its
predecessor) has been given the responsibility to review agency
rulemakings. I am advised that OIRA has never reviewed Forest Service
Land Management Plans under these Orders. During my tenure, OIRA has
not reviewed any Forest Service Land Management Plans, nor do we
disagree with the Forest Service's inclusion that these Plans do not
constitute ``rules.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' 58 Fed. Reg.
51735 (October 4, 1993), Sec. 3(d) & (e), issued by President Clinton
on September 30, 1993.
\6\ E.O. 12291, ``Federal Regulation,'' 46 Fed. Reg. 12193
(February 19, 1981), Sec. 1(a), issued by President Reagan on February
17, 1981.
\7\ E.O. 12044, ``Improving Government Regulations,'' 43 Fed. Reg.
12661 (March 24, 1978), Sec. 6(a), issued by President Carter on March
23, 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
is the tongass land management plan a ``major rule''?
As noted above, the Congressional Review statute gives me the
responsibility of determining whether a ``rule'' is or is not
``major.'' \8\ The definition of ``major'' that I am to use is taken
from Executive Order No. 12291, the Executive Order preceding Executive
Order No. 12866, currently in effect. I have instructed OIRA staff to
use the same interpretation of ``major'' that they relied upon in
carrying out their regulatory reviews under Executive Order No. 12291.
To the best of my recollection, I have consistently deferred to OIRA
staff in determining whether a ``rule'' is ``major'' for purposes of
the Congressional Review statute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upon receipt of your letter of invitation, and in preparation for
this testimony, I asked OIRA staff whether, assuming that the Tongass
Land Management Plan was a ``rule,'' they would recommend that it be
considered ``major'' under the Congressional Review statute.
Your June 5, 1997, letter suggests that the Tongass Land Management
Plan would call for a drop from a harvest of about 320 million board
feet annually, to a harvest of about 220 million board feet a year.
Assuming that the Tongass Land Management Plan can be properly
interpreted as causing a drop in timber harvest of 100 million board
feet a year, OIRA staff would interpret the Tongass Land Management
Plan as being ``major,'' if it were a rule.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify, and welcome any questions
that you may have.
The Chairman. I am going to defer to Senator Craig, who is
on a tight schedule, and I have got some people that I have got
to visit with very briefly. So please proceed with your
questions, and then Senator Bumpers.
Senator Craig [presiding]. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And to
both of you, thank you very much for those opinions,
interpretations.
Let me go to you, Mr. Murphy, and the General Accounting
Office. Now, the Forest Service apparently disagrees with your
assessment about the TLMP revision being a rule. The Forest
Service claims that the TLMP is not a rule. First of all, let
me ask, does the Forest Service's opinion that the TLMP is not
a rule at all affect your own finding that it is a rule?
Mr. Murphy. Well, I have to say, Senator Craig, that we
took it very seriously, because agencies that promulgate rules
are given some level of deference by the courts in how they
characterize rules, whether they are subject to the
Administrative Procedures Act or not. The result is that we
have scrutinized the issue probably a lot closer than we would
have otherwise. We really dug into it, although we did not have
the benefit of the Forest Service's rationale.
Now, the courts in the District of Columbia Circuit, which
I know better than others in the country, would say that they
would give some weight to that determination, but it is not
decisive. And we found that we could not support the Forest
Service's conclusions, so we did not go with it.
Senator Craig. It is our understanding of your testimony
and our own reading of the Regulatory Flexibility Act that the
General Accounting Office has been given the role of advising
Congress and perhaps agencies on whether their policy decisions
constitute rules. It is our understanding that the GAO's
independent opinion is generally given considerable weight by
the agencies. Is this also the GAO's understanding of its role?
Mr. Murphy. SBREFA does not provide any identification of
who is to decide what a rule is, unlike the issue of whether a
rule is a major rule or not, which, as Ms. Katzen pointed out,
has been assigned to her. So in that sense, I cannot say that
GAO has a special role under the statute for making that
determination.
The decision, the opinion, that we issued last week on the
question was done in our role as adviser to the Congress in
response to the request of three chairmen of congressional
committees.
Senator Craig. So notwithstanding your advice, clearly
there is a disagreement between the GAO and the Forest Service
over whether the TLMP revision is a rule. This then brings us
to the question of who is the final arbiter of whether an
agency action is a rule or not. Now, OMB apparently believes
that the agency promulgating the regulation, in this case the
Forest Service, has the final authority over whether it will be
considered a rule.
We have copious case law on this matter, however, that
clearly demonstrates that OMB is wrong. According to the case
law, when there is a dispute over whether an agency regulation
is a rule, the question is settled by the courts, which have
developed and will apply well-defined criteria that determine
what constitutes a rule.
All of this makes perfect sense because laws designed to
check administrative abuse by Federal agencies would most
likely not want to put the fox in charge of guarding the
henhouse.
As we have stated, the courts have clearly laid out the
criteria of a rule and the TLMP revision we believe meets that
criteria. In I believe it is Mada Luna v. Fitzpatrick, the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stated that a regulation is a
rule where it narrowly limits administrative discretion or
establishes a binding norm that so fills out the statutory
scheme that, upon application, one need only determine whether
a given case is within the rule's discretion.
Well, is the Forest Service required to follow the Tongass
forest plan once it goes into effect? Yes. That is, is TLMP
establishing a binding norm for the Forest Service? I think the
answer is yes. Would you agree with that, Mr. Murphy?
Mr. Murphy. Yes, Senator Craig.
Senator Craig. Of course, the TLMP will be a binding form
for the Forest Service. That is the very purpose of TLMP.
Another Federal court has defined a rule in a similar
manner. In the case of McLouth Steel Products Corporation v.
Thomas, the court stated that if the policy in question is in
purpose or likely effect on the narrow limits or is of a kind
calculated to have a substantial effect on ultimate agency
decisions, it will be viewed as a legislative rule and thus
subject to notice and comment requirements.
Does the plan limit the discretion of the Forest Service
once it goes into effect?
Mr. Murphy. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Yes, the answer is, and we agree it certainly
does. Again, that is the purpose of TLMP.
Finally, the Eighth Circuit Court has also weighed in on
the issue and has found that a forest plan in general is a
rule. In the 1994 case of Sierra Club v. Robertson, the court
cited a previous Supreme Court ruling that a BLM land
management plan was a rule and stated that the Forest Service
plan is analogous. It noted that the BLM plan and by
implication a forest plan can be regarded as rules of general
applicability announcing with respect to vast expanses of
territory that they cover the agency's intent to grant
requisite permission for certain activities, to decline to
interfere with other activities, and to take other particular
actions if requested.
It appears to be well settled, therefore, that: first, the
courts are the final arbiter of whether a policy is a rule; and
second, the forest plan is a rule.
We first ask then whether the GAO shares our understanding
that the question of what constitutes a rule is not decided by
the promulgating agency, but rather it is decided by the courts
according to well settled principles of administrative law?
Would you agree with that, Mr. Murphy?
Mr. Murphy. In the end, Senator Craig, this judgment will
be made by the Judicial Branch, yes.
Senator Craig. We would then like to ask whether GAO agrees
that, according to the precedent mentioned above, that the TLMP
revision would be considered a rule? Do you still hold that?
Mr. Murphy. Yes, we do.
Senator Craig. Thank you.
Ms. Katzen. Senator Craig, may I just respond to one
comment that you made? I thought my testimony quite clearly
stated that the responsibility for determining whether or not
an issuance was a ``rule'' was made by the agency in the first
instance. That was not a final determination. We believe in the
rule of law, and the field of administrative law is rife with
cases in which the courts clearly are the ultimate arbiters.
But, as Mr. Murphy had mentioned, it is the responsibility for
the agencies to make the decision in the first instance, and
the courts do, under the Chevron line of cases, provide great
weight to those decisions.
Is the agency decision ultimately dispositive? No. The
courts have an independent base for review and some of the
cases you mentioned have gone specifically to that point.
I did not want the record to appear that we had in any way
implied that the agencies were above the law or were not
subject to the judiciary. I join Mr. Murphy in his statement
that it will be the courts that will be ultimate arbiters of
whether or not the TLMP is a rule. But in the first instance it
is for the agency to decide.
Senator Craig. Well, thank you. I am not in dispute with
you on that and I am glad you have underlined it.
Let me ask this question then. Is the U.S. Forest Service
unusual in terms of agency compliance with the 1996 act?
Ms. Katzen. No. I believe, as I indicated, there were three
rules that they had issued that were subject to the APA's
definition, which they sent to both Houses of Congress and to
GAO in compliance with that act. To the best of my knowledge,
all agencies have been fully responsive to the congressional
review provisions of the statute.
Senator Craig. Both Agriculture and Department of the
Interior, you mean?
Ms. Katzen. Yes, sir.
Senator Craig. Could we then receive from your office a
list of all U.S. Forest Service and Department of the Interior
actions since passage that have been sent and analysis and a
list of those that were not?
Ms. Katzen. We would be aware only of those that are
``major,'' because that is where our statutory responsibility
rests. If they were to have issued a regulation that was not
``major'' and was sent to the Hill, we would not know. But GAO
would have that information.
Senator Craig. You have answered it. Please send us the
list of that which you have.
Ms. Katzen. Certainly.
[The information referred to follows:]
DOI/Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird Hunting;
Final Frameworks for Early-Season Migratory Bird Hunting
Regulations, RIN 1018-AD69, published in the Federal Register,
8/29/1996.
DOI/Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird Hunting;
Final Frameworks for Late-Season Migratory Bird Hunting
Regulations, RIN 1018-AD69, published in the Federal Register,
9/26/1996.
Senator Craig. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
The Chairman [presiding]. Thank you very much, Senator
Craig.
Senator Bumpers.
Senator Bumpers. Mr. Chairman, this makes me think I am
back in law school, and in that connection, on the
congressional disapproval procedure of the Contract With
America Act, section 802--both of you please listen carefully:
``For purposes of this section, the term 'joint resolution'``--
that is, a joint resolution of disapproval--``joint resolution'
means only a joint resolution introduced in the period
beginning on the date on which the report referred to in
section''--et cetera--``is received by Congress and ending 60
days thereafter, excluding days either house of Congress is
adjourned for more than 3 days during a session of Congress,''
et cetera.
Then over here it says: ``After the expiration of the 60
session days beginning with the applicable submission or
publication date''--now that is the day we get it. Then it says
you have 60 session days after that, I assume, to pass a joint
resolution of disapproval.
Now, I want you to tell me, what is a ``session day''?
Ms. Katzen. My understanding of the concept underlying
these provisions is that after a rule has been issued by the
agency, it should be sent to the Hill and to the Federal
Register, and whichever occurs later starts 60 calendar days
(excluding days of adjournment for more than three days) during
which a Member could introduce a motion to disapprove. If a
motion to disapprove is not introduced during that period of
time, the time would have expired for introducing the motion to
disapprove.
Once a motion for disapproval has been timely filed, then,
going back to the date the rule is sent to the Hill, there is a
total of 60 session days in which the Congress can utilize the
expedited procedures for disapproval. There were two terms for
that period--60 legislative days and 60 session days. The House
used one term, the Senate used the other term. But the concept
was days in which legislative action is taken during a session
of Congress.
We testified at the time, and have been on record since
then, that that could result in as much as a year to a year and
a half following the submission of the rule to Congress during
which Congress may follow its review procedures.
Senator Bumpers. And do a joint disapproval if they are
going to.
Ms. Katzen. And do a joint disapproval, so long as it is
introduced in the first 60 calendar days, excluding days of
adjournment for more than three days.
Senator Bumpers. Say that again?
Ms. Katzen. The actual motion--I feel like I am back in law
school, too, somehow. It is very uncomfortable.
The concept is that there are 60 calendar days--excluding
days of adjournment for more than three days--during which a
motion to disapprove would be introduced. That is a threshold.
Senator Bumpers. Where are you getting that?
Ms. Katzen. That is the 802(a) that you were beginning to
read from. For purpose of this section, this has to be
introduced within 60 days, excluding days on which they are
adjourned for more than three days. Later, if it happens that
on the forty-fifth calendar day or the fifty-fifth calendar
day, a motion for disapproval is introduced, then you go back
to the date that it was submitted and you have 60 session or
legislative days on which to follow through on the motion to
disapprove in both houses.
This is all separate from whether or not the rule will be
in effect during this time, because the effective date is
triggered by a different provision. This is a very carefully
drafted----
Senator Bumpers. Let me frame the question a little
differently, because you just hit on what I was driving at.
Senator Murkowski, if he wants to introduce a joint resolution
of disapproval, must do so within 60 legislative days.
Ms. Katzen. No, within 60 days----
Senator Bumpers. Sixty calendar days, but there are certain
exclusions to that. That is not necessarily 60 days.
Ms. Katzen. Right.
Mr. Murphy. Right.
Senator Bumpers. Is that not correct?
Ms. Katzen. Yes.
Senator Bumpers. So we have to introduce that, and then
Congress has 60 session days in which to deal with it. Now that
can run up to 18 months according to most definitions I have
seen of a session day. What happens to the rule during that 18-
month period?
Ms. Katzen. The way we have interpreted the statute is that
if the rule is a non-major rule it goes into effect the day it
is sent to the Hill, and it would be in effect during that
entire period. Should the joint resolution for disapproval be
passed by both Houses and signed by the President--because you
have bicameral passage and presentment to the President, and
there not be an effective override of any presidential veto--
then the rule would have been in effect up until that point,
but once the joint resolution is signed by the President the
rule would not be in effect.
If the rule is a major rule, then it would not take effect
for 60 calendar days following the receipt by Congress. At the
end of the 60 calendar days and without regard to the weekends,
the rule would then take effect and would be in effect.
Senator Bumpers. And assuming that Congress has not acted
on the----
Ms. Katzen. Assuming it has not passed in both Houses the
joint resolution to disapprove.
Mr. Murphy. Senator Bumpers, the legislative history of the
statute evidences some concern on the part of Congress that
that may present a difficulty for American citizens who are
relying upon the rule. As I recall the legislative history, it
says that the reason the statute was drafted to provide that
major rules do not go into effect for 60 days is to provide an
opportunity for the Congress, if it wants to act on a joint
resolution disapproving that rule, to do it quickly, so that
you do not have what Ms. Katzen has just described, a rule that
is in effect for a year before it is disapproved by the
Congress.
Senator Bumpers. Let me ask you this question. How does the
so-called Reg Flex Bill that we also passed last year, which
was designed to help small businesses, how does the Reg Flex
Bill on joint resolutions of disapproval compare with this
Contract With America Act? Do you know the answer to that?
There is a 60-day period in the Reg Flex Bill, too.
Ms. Katzen. It was combined in the same bill. What was
ultimately passed, as part of the debt limitation bill, in
March of last year had two pieces. SBREFA was the first piece
that went through both the House and Senate Small Business
Committees. It provided for guidance to small businesses in
regulatory compliance, assistance to small businesses, and
judicial review of the Reg Flex Act, which was the key
ingredient of that particular piece of legislation.
In addition, Senators Nickles and Reid had introduced
congressional review provisions, which were originally free-
standing and were thought to be the response to the House-
passed moratorium on all regulations, that had been passed by
the House as part of the Contract With America.
In the Senate version, it was congressional review, not a
moratorium. It was to provide Congress an opportunity to review
regulations, as Mr. Murphy said, so that both the Legislative
and Executive Branch would be co-partners in the regulatory
regime.
It was passed by the Senate, I believe, 99 to nothing. When
the debt limitation was to be extended, Congress took the
SBREFA piece and the congressional review piece, put them
together, and they were attached to a bill which the President
signed on March 29, 1996. The Congressional review piece is now
part of SBREFA and, since SBREFA included an amendment to the
Reg Flex Act, congressional review is often referred to as part
of the Reg Flex Act even though it was originally free-standing
and does stand on its own.
Senator Bumpers. Mr. Chairman, these provisions are very
complex.
The Chairman. You got more out of that law school class
than you bargained for.
Senator Bumpers. I did indeed.
The Chairman. We have been joined by Congressman Romero.
Nice to have you with us, Congressman.
Representative Romero-Barcelo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Nice to be here.
The Chairman. Mr. Vento.
Representative Vento. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I listened with interest to the discussion of our
distinguished colleague from Arkansas as he went through this
procedure. And of course, the court will ultimately have to
make the decisions. But it did make one on the legislative
veto, as I recall, and this sounds as though the operable
effect of this, that we all apparently voted for, I guess 99 to
something in the Senate and big time in the House, too, is
going to basically end up being, in terms of these instances, a
legislative veto if it has the type of operation in the context
that I hear here.
I think there would be some judicial questions or some
questions about the constitutionality of this provision based
on that infringement on the ability.
Now, Mr. Murphy, have you had other land management plans
from the Park Service, the management plan for parks, from BLM
or anyone else submitted to GAO and to Congress? We have got
4700 of these. Any of them contain other land management plans?
Mr. Murphy. We do not have any land management plans, sir.
I think there have been six that have been promulgated in the
last year.
Representative Vento. Well, the Forest Service--I do not
know how many the Park Service had. We do not know how many the
BLM had, do we?
Mr. Murphy. No, we do not. Some of the--some of the plans
which are single resource plans, for example, would not be
rules and would not be major rules, either.
Representative Vento. Well, I know, they would not be
submitted because they may not be major. Is that your point?
Mr. Murphy. No, they would not be rules at all. Some of
them might not be rules at all.
Representative Vento. Would not be rules at all? Some are
rules and some are not. None of them are listed as rules, are
they? None of them use the Administrative Procedures Act, to my
knowledge, in terms of the way that they go through the
development of the plans. Are you aware of procedures in these
different agencies----
Mr. Murphy. No, I agree with you. I agree with you, they
would not use the Administrative Procedures Act.
Representative Vento. And they are not listed as rules.
Mr. Murphy. No.
Representative Vento. I guess I think the issue in terms of
``major'' is a kind of a separate question here. But I mean, it
does mean--do you have any idea--we would have a volume of
these. Obviously we have other plans that may come forth from
the Department of Defense or other instances where they have
plans. Are they submitting their plans for the use of their
public lands to the GAO and to the Congress?
Mr. Murphy. I cannot tell you that they are.
Representative Vento. Ms. Katzen.
Ms. Katzen. I am not aware of that.
Representative Vento. Well, I think that I am concerned. I
disagree actually with this rule for different reasons than my
distinguished colleague from Alaska. But I am concerned about
the effectiveness of any type of procedure.
Mr. Chairman, I see your bells are going off, but I just
have another question. Does this mean you have a vote, Senator?
The Chairman. Go ahead.
Representative Vento. The issue of a major rule--my
information is--I do not know; in other words, you are not
taking the argument, setting aside the argument for whether it
is a rule or a plan. Is that based on the information in
Senator Stevens' letter?
Ms. Katzen. That is correct.
Representative Vento. And of course, my information is
somewhat different. I do not know whether they are looking at
in fact the plan that was in effect and what it meant, but in
terms of the amount of timber harvested last year, it was 120
million board feet is what I have, and that was with the pulp
mill running, and now of course the pulp mill is not running.
So the difference would come from the other end, where they
would be increasing the harvest. It would still be a 100
million board feet increase.
But if we are both wrong in terms of that--but it would be
close to--the dollar amount also may be different. So that this
may be--but obviously you accepted this information as such and
I understand that.
Ms. Katzen. Simply for the purpose of giving an advisory
opinion, as I was requested to do. The facts are obviously key,
and if the facts are as you state, then we may have a different
interpretation.
Representative Vento. Well, I do not know how you are using
it in terms of the baseline data, whether you are taking
something out of a previous plan or you are taking something
out of reality.
Ms. Katzen. I was basing the advisory opinion on the letter
in which I was presented with the statement that the plan was
responsible for a decrease in the amount of board feet in the
amount specified in the letter.
Representative Vento. Mr. Chairman, I think that the
submission of this, of resource land plans, to this--what I
would think is that if we have concerns about the procedures in
terms of participation--have you made any type of evaluation,
Mr. Murphy, about the participation nature of the land use
management plans versus the APA procedure for rules?
Mr. Murphy. They have their own--the National Forest
Management Act provides explicit notice and comment procedures
for these plans and those are implemented in regulations, and
if I may say they go much beyond the APA in terms of their
requirements on the agency.
Representative Vento. Well, that is my judgment. My concern
is that if you are going to address this you have something
already that goes beyond it. I think that Senator Murkowski's
concerns about the last minute modifications that then were
brought about without, perhaps without comment, or the
decisionmaking process after this came in is all very
interesting. It obviously is not--to my knowledge, it does not
in any way violate what the law is with regards to that.
I do not know, Senator, if you were suggesting that. I
think it is desirable to have as much as discussion in terms of
what the solid proposals are from the Forest Service with
regards to the Tongass. I can appreciate that fact. But these
land management plans go beyond that.
So I think the question for all of us, those working on
issues of this nature, is whether or not we want to--if this is
the procedure, if you want to treat these as rules and you want
to condense the other side of the process in terms of land
management plans, you may end up with something less in terms
of public participation rather than more.
I do not think that anyone is served by the goal of
frustrating the implementation of the law by selectively--or
sending plans, because almost any decision that is made, even a
listing under the Endangered Species Act, if that is considered
an action or a plan that is submitted, that very well could
lead us into this same quagmire where we never end up
implementing the policy acts. It frustrates the action of a law
that is passed by Congress and signed by the President. it is
frustrated by virtue of this type of procedure.
Quite frankly, I think many of us had misgivings about the
broader rule and regulation issues in terms of review, that
they were ways to frustrate the implementation of law, and that
this was a simplified version that would work. But as Senator
Bumpers unfolded this concern, it appears to be much more
serious.
Now, I thought I was coming today to talk about the
substance to some extent of this plan, but I do think that this
procedure does not, and this recommendation that these be
reviewed in this process, is not realistic nor helpful,
whatever your viewpoint is with regards to land management. I
think it would lead to even less input on the part of Congress,
not more.
The Chairman. Well, I think we have to deal with the facts,
and this procedure is law and it was signed by the President.
And the question of whether or not the Forest Service is in
concurrence with the law will probably be determined by someone
other than those of us sitting on this committee or those two
witnesses that we have had.
I think it is fair to note that under the statements made,
in addition to the realization that the Tongass Land Management
Plan is a major rule, the TLMP is also in that concept
obviously synonymous under the terms set by the 1996 act and
would therefore trigger other requirements and conditions
before the rule can take effect. According to the 1996 act, 5
U.S.C. 804, a major rule, as stated, is any rule that the
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget finds has
resulted or is likely to result in, and that is: an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase
in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries,
Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic
regions; or, three, significant adverse effects on competition,
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the
ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with
foreign-based enterprises, et cetera.
So as a consequence of that, I think that we simply will
have to wait until the court determines the eventual outlook
and whether the Forest Service has been in compliance or acting
outside of compliance with the law.
Yes?
Representative Vento. I do not disagree with that. I was
just talking about what the practical implication of it is in
terms of if it is going to be applied to all land management
plan decisions by agencies with regards to--I think we
obviously would, especially given the description of this--and
I do not think there is any disagreement about it, about what
the practical effect of it is.
I would also suggest that there is this whole question of,
beyond that, in terms of judicial review, and I am sure you
would agree, whether or not this constitutes in essence a
legislative veto.
The Chairman. Well, obviously the question of compliance
within the law and the ruling as to whether it is a major rule
or not is going to be determined by a process that is beyond
the scope of those of us on the committee. But I think it is
fair to say that, with Mr. Murphy's statement and Ms. Katzen as
well relative to what they would have done had it been
determined to be a rule by the appropriate agency, was, that if
indeed it met the parameters that were suggested within the
scope of Senator Stevens' letter, it probably would be a major
rule, and Mr. Murphy's determination that it would have been a
major rule had the Forest Service submitted it for a ruling.
Mr. Murphy, you said it would be a rule. So that is
basically, I think, what we attempted to determine here, is the
statements definitive relative to that, and the ambiguity
associated with the fact that the Forest Service chose not to
have the matter addressed. And the question is did they have
the obligation to submit it under the rule theory or not? And I
think the record will indicate the experience level and the
authority associated with the General Counsel to the GAO as
well as Ms. Katzen on Office of Management and Budget.
We thank you for your statement this morning and look
forward to the next panel.
Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The next panel will be: Mr. Phil Janik,
Regional Forester, Juneau; followed by Mr. Tom Mills, U.S.
Forest Service, Portland, Oregon; Dr. Fred Everest, U.S. Forest
Service, Juneau; Mr. Brad Powell, U.S. Forest Service,
Ketchikan; and Mr. Fred Norbury, U.S. Forest Service, Juneau.
Good morning, Phil. Good morning, Tom. I would ask that you
proceed in any manner that you desire, and we would appreciate
it if you would care to address or help clarify some of the
lasting questions that perhaps were left by the previous panel
or comment on any of the communications that have been
addressed relative to the procedure so far.
Please proceed, Mr. Janik.
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; JOHN DAY, U.S.
FOREST SERVICE, JUNEAU, AK; KIMBERLY BOWN, U.S. FOREST SERVICE,
JUNEAU, AK; AND CHRIS IVERSON, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, JUNEAU, AK
Mr. Janik. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before the committee to supply
information in regard to the Tongass Land Management Plan
Revision. With me today are: Dr. Tom Mills, Director of the
Pacific Northwest Research Station; Fred Norbury, Alaska Region
Director of Ecosystem Planning and Budgeting; Brad Powell,
Ketchikan Area Forest Supervisor of the Tongass National
Forest; and Dr. Fred Everest, Project Manager of the Pacific
Northwest Research Station. Those are the folks that are at the
table with me.
Also present in the room are: Beth Pendleton, Co-Leader of
the Tongass Planning Team; Dr. Terry Shaw of the Pacific
Northwest Station, also a member of the team; Chris Iverson and
John Day, other members of the Tongass team; and Kimberly Bown,
my Staff Director in Alaska for Public Services. In response to
staff input regarding possible questioning on tourism and
recreation, Kimberly has joined us to respond to any line of
questioning that might lead in that direction.
Regarding the Tongass revision per se, on May 23, just a
few short weeks ago, I signed the record of decision for the
Tongass National Forest plan revision, and that decision
culminated a long, 10 year effort to come to that point in
time. The original Tongass plan was the first of its kind,
approved in 1979 under the National Forest Management Act of
1976.
As you know, a forest plan is intended to guide the
management of a forest for 10 to 15 years, so the Tongass plan
was ripe for revision. In 1987 the forest plan revision was
initiated, beginning with the public scoping process.
Throughout the 10-year planning effort, three draft
environmental impact statements and draft plans were developed
and released for public review: one in 1990, the second in 1991
just after the passage of the Tongass Timber Reform Act, and
then the third in April 1996, the most recent public review.
In 1994, under my jurisdiction as Regional Forester, the
Forest Service entered the final phase of the plan revision.
Six research scientists from the Pacific Northwest Research
Station, a specialist from the Environmental Protection Agency,
and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service were added to the planning
team. We also received substantial assistance from the State of
Alaska through the willingness of Governor Tony Knowles to
provide representatives from several State agencies to
participate in the process. The National Marine Fisheries
Service also contributed to the effort.
The charter of the planning team, the instructions I gave
them, was to develop a plan that was scientifically credible,
that would ensure the sustainability of all forest resources
over the long haul, and that would meet legal requirements. The
final phases of the revision effort focused on a broad spectrum
of issues, including local and regional economies and social
concerns, wildlife and fish viability issues, habitat
management, alternative timber harvest systems to clearcutting,
tourism and recreation, and protection of karsts and cave
management.
I believe that the comprehensive revision effort produced a
solid and balanced plan for the Tongass National Forest. The
revised plan provides for conserving 92 percent of the old
growth forest that was present in 1950. That prediction is for
the next 10-year implementation of the plan; 92 percent of the
old growth that existed in 1950 will still be standing. Over a
100-year plan horizon, 84 percent of the old growth that stood
in 1950 will remain standing.
The plan provides high levels of protection for fish and
wildlife and enhances the opportunity for growth in tourism.
The plan includes guidelines for all resources, such as timber
and mining activities.
I believe that the revised plan will support the continued
economic growth and development of southeastern Alaska
communities. It provides support for the tourism industry,
which is experiencing dramatic growth and becoming steadily
more important to many communities in southeastern Alaska.
The plan assigns areas of key importance to the tourism
industry for recreation, provides for subsistence uses, and
protects important scenic vistas. The plan provides support for
the continued health of the fishing industry and also for sport
and subsistence uses of that resource. It contains riparian
standards and guidelines and requirements for watershed
analysis, to ensure the protection of spawning and rearing
habitat for anadromous fish on the Tongass.
The plan also provides support to the timber industry,
going through a very significant transition currently, as we
all know. The owners of both of the pulp mills have closed them
in response to changes in international and national markets in
recent years. These closures have had enormous consequences for
timber-dependent communities in southeastern Alaska because
there are no other manufacturing operations in southeast
currently that are capable of using the lower grade timber and
sawmill residues that were once used by the pulp mills.
We are assisting local communities in a number of
scientific, technical, and financial efforts. Scientists from
the Forest Products Lab in Madison, Wisconsin, in part to your
invitation, Mr. Chairman, are helping to identify new products
and new uses for Tongass timber. Technical and financial
assistance are offered through our State and private forestry
programs on an ongoing basis, including participation in the
emerging Southeast Alaska Economic Revitalization Team, which
is a multi-agency effort that is currently under way and
complements the activities undertaken by the communities
themselves, much of that using as its base the economic
assistance funds that were made available by Congress last
year.
Finally, the biologically based allowable sale quantity for
the Tongass is significantly above the current projected timber
demand levels, based on the Brooks-Haynes study. Should private
sector investments and efforts to promote new wood-based
industries come to fruition in the next few years, there may
very well be additional available timber supply from the
Tongass as a contribution to that effort within the context of
assuring sustainability of all the other resources.
I would like to spend a little time talking about the
unique partnership that was developed between research and
management in the Tongass revision. The Tongass National
Forest, as you know, is the largest national forest in the
Nation, encompassing about 17 million acres. The resources of
the forest are vast, interactions very complex.
We owe it to the people of the future and the people who
depend upon the resources today to manage the forest based on
credible scientific information. In 1994, with the Pacific
Northwest Research Station, I forged a partnership between
research and management in the Alaska region to assure that the
revised plan was based on the latest available science and
information.
The Forest Service has always relied on the knowledge,
expertise, and experience of scientifically trained personnel
in the development of land and resource management plans, but
the newness here was actually assigning people to the planning
team. As I mentioned earlier, there were about six individuals
what were so assigned from the Pacific Northwest Station.
They in turn saw to it that some 50 other scientists from
other agencies, universities, private industry, were part of
completing scientific assessments on key resources of the
Tongass. They also assembled new information and published some
six research documents, including two papers on the northern
goshawk and the Alexander archipelago wolf, and drew heavily on
more than 160 scientific papers in doing so.
The research science efforts for the Tongass revision also
generated new information as a result of convening panels of
experts to assess the risks associated with alternative
resource management scenarios that were considered in the
revision process. The assembled information was of sufficient
breadth and depth to allow managers, such as the forest
supervisors and myself, to make informed and reasoned decisions
regarding the future management of the Tongass.
Scientists also evaluated how managers used the information
in developing the plan. The scientists concluded that we
considered the science information in all of its thoroughness,
interpreted it appropriately, and were aware of the identified
risks as identified by them.
It is important to note that the scientists did not make
management recommendations, nor did they make management
decisions. The research scientists provided decisionmakers with
objective scientific information, rather than management
recommendations.
There is great interest in the Tongass, both locally and
nationally. In total we received over 30,000 comments over that
10-year period, from every community in southeastern Alaska and
every State in the Union. In fact, of that 30,000, 22,000 were
generated with that last April 1996 public review opportunity.
The people that we heard from care passionately about how
the Tongass will be managed in the future, and it was obvious
that many of them had different ideas among themselves about
the best way to achieve that. We worked hard to find out what
local citizens wanted from the National Forest, as well as
citizens across the country, and I believe that the plan does
strike a balance between local and national needs and responds
well to public concerns.
The planning effort ended with the record of decision May
23, and we are now starting to focus on implementation in a big
way. A very important feature of that is collaborative
stewardship. The Alaska region is committed to continuing to
build our working relationships with the local communities of
southeastern Alaska and to continue to work with other Federal
and State agencies, members of interest groups and the public
throughout the country. I believe that our continued efforts to
involve the public at the front end of decisionmaking through
collaborative stewardship and improvement in that regard will
result in better decisions, with greater public support, and
hopefully in turn will lessen the potential delays in plan
implementation in doing so.
A little bit on process. The notice of availability of the
Tongass plan was printed in the Federal Register on June 27.
The National Forest Management Act provides that the plan
becomes effective 30 days after the notice of availability.
Therefore it would become effective July 27. The legal notice
of the decision on the Tongass plan was printed in the Juneau
Empire on June 27, therefore generating a 90-day appeal period
under the Forest Service Administrative Appeals Regulations
beginning the day after publication of that legal notice.
The decision I have made and the record of decision, those
decisions are appealable through the Forest Service
Administrative Appeals Process, with the provisions indicating
that filing such notice before September 26 would be the
deadline, of this year.
The Tongass revision strikes a balance that protects the
health, diversity, and productivity of Tongass ecosystems while
it provides for resource uses well into the next century. It
provides an ecosystem conservation plan that I believe will
work. The plan provides for commercial and sport uses of the
forest that support southeastern Alaska communities, including
fishing, mining, logging, recreation, tourism, and other uses.
And it provides resource for subsistence harvests and helps
sustain Alaska's cultural values.
I believe that this plan is scientifically credible,
legally defensible, and provides the basis to ensure
sustainability of all forest uses over the long haul.
This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. We at the table
or others we may call upon are available and very willing to
answer any questions you may have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Janik follows:]
Prepared Statement of Phil Janik, Regional Forester, Forest Service,
Department of Agriculture
Messrs. Chairmen and members of the committees, thank you for the
Opportunity to address the committees concerning cooperation between
the Fish and Wildlife Service (F&WS) and Forest Service (FS) on the
Tongass Land Management Plan Revision and other issues of concern to
both agencies.
Preventing the need to list species under the Endangered Species
Act (ESA) is the current federal government policy; both the FS and the
F&WS are dedicated to this policy, which is described in a federal
national Memorandum of Understanding signed in January, 1994, by the
FS, F&WS, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, and
National Marine Fisheries Service. In December, 1994, the FS, the F&WS
and the 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, Department of Agriculture Regulation 9500-4 directs the
FS 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. Managing habitat 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 species under ESA.
The agencies have been actively cooperating since 1988 regarding
wildlife habitat management and wildlife conservation planning on the
Tongass National Forest. We have collaborated on wildlife field studies
since 1990, and the F&WS was a member of the interagency Viable
Population Committee. This committee was formed in 1990 by the FS to
help revise the Tongass plan by addressing wildlife viability. The
committee continued its work until May 1994.
At the same time that I expanded membership in the Tongass planning
team to include research scientists, I also asked other federal
agencies and the State of Alaska for assistance. The Environmental
Protection Agency and the F&WS had full time members on the Tongass
revision inter-disciplinary team. We also received substantial
assistance from representatives of several state agencies and the
National Marine Fisheries Service. We received valuable information
from all of the contributors. The representative from the F&WS brought
additional experience and expertise and the Department of the Interior
perspective to the Tongass Plan revision. He helped the
interdisciplinary team to write standards and guidelines, mitigation
measures, and land allocations, and to determine effects of
alternatives.
The F&WS also had a full time senior line officer 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 jointly conducted a public information meeting in
Ketchikan regarding wildlife conservation planning.
The F&WS senior staff was briefed on the plan alternatives and was
asked for suggestions and concerns. I carefully considered these
changes before I signed the final plan. These changes included
additions to old growth reserves and modifications of standards and
guidelines. As required by law, we consulted with the F&WS under
provisions of the ESA concerning the few threatened or endangered
species that exist in the Tongass before I made my decision.
I have briefly described the professional relationship that the FS
and the F&WS enjoy in Alaska and the years of cooperation for the
purpose of wildlife and wildlife habitat conservation. I am confident
that the habitat strategies developed and implemented through the
Tongass Plan Revision will provide adequate protection for fish and
wildlife habitat to assure the viability of the species that we are
concerned about on the Tongass National Forest.
I look forward to continuing to work closely with the F&WS to
assure wildlife and fish species thrive on the Tongass.
This concludes my testimony. I would be happy to address any
questions you may have.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Janik.
As we reflect today on some, what, 11 years in the process
to come up with a 10-year plan which you have achieved--and I
commend you--the realization that we have spent some $13
million in the process. It seems a bit ironic, but I assume
that those are the conditions under which you folks have to
function and perform.
Have you got any comment relative to the apparent
inconsistency of a process that takes you 11 years to develop a
10-year plan at the extraordinary cost? In other words, is the
system so constricted to simply dictate that in the future we
are going to be subjected to this extraordinary process of time
and money?
Mr. Janik. In looking at that number of $13 million, Mr.
Chairman, I try to keep that in perspective in terms of what
has occurred over that 10-year period. The planning process, in
credit to my predecessors, had been interrupted a number of
times for a number of reasons that I am sure can be explained,
including legislation and so on. And to the frustration of
everyone, I am sure, at those times they had to go back to the
drawing board and start reconstructing some things because of
that new direction.
I am very proud of what has happened over the past 3 years,
the time period that I was responsible for the revision portion
of the 10-year period, and I believe that the folks both in the
agency and those who helped us from other agencies and the
responsiveness of the public--frankly, my opinion is that
things came together quite well. We spent over the last 3 years
I would say, if I remember the figures, about $2.5 million per
year, and that was the cost of the last 3-year surge, which was
very intensive.
The other factor I try to consider is that we are covering
a landscape of 17 million acres, the size of most other regions
of the Forest Service, where 20 such efforts would be taking
place in 20 separate national forest revisions.
So in looking at that figure, Senator, I try to find it
``acceptable,'' given the complexity of the issue, the national
interest, the scrutiny, the landscape, the complexity of the
issues. But frankly, I consider the last 3 years--that is all I
can speak to with experience--as being done in a very efficient
manner.
The Chairman. Well, quickly adding that up, there is about
$7.5 million then of the $13 million that was expended over the
last 3 years.
Mr. Janik. That is correct.
The Chairman. The East Coast media editorial writers have
not been very kind to the Forest Service in their
characterization of the final TLMP. You and I both know that
they evidently know a lot more about Alaska matters than you or
I or your staff. Nevertheless, I feel compelled to review some
of this material with you to see if in your opinion it is
accurate to any degree at all. I think Mario Cuomo said it best
when he said the difference between reporters and young
children is that if you say it often enough children eventually
get it right.
Let us turn to the forestry experts at the Kansas City Star
out in Kansas, where they have got as many trees as they have
wheat. I do not know if you have read this quote, but it is as
follows: ``Unfortunately, the Forest Service seems to be on the
side of the robber barons, who would rape this forest for
short-term gain with long-lasting consequences. For some of the
wildlife in that forest, the end is drawing near unless there
is a stop to the attacks on the Tongass. The Tongass plan
appears to be inadequate for the protection of these species.
They need to be protected by placing them in a Federal listing
of threatened species.'' They do not say which ones. ``The
administration needs to take steps to halt the Forest Service's
management plan on the Tongass or to modify it considerably.
The plan is abominable public policy.''
What do you think of that, Phil?
Mr. Janik. I strongly disagree with that conclusion. In
fact, we have worked very hard over the past 3 years. One of
the principal reasons we brought the scientists on board and
went to the extent we did to get the scientific information
that has been used as the underpinning for this plan and the
interaction with the other agencies was in fact to make sure
that we met our environmental requirements and, given the
importance of those resources on the Tongass with regard to
commercial, sport, as well as subsistence use.
We have, I believe as the ultimate decisionmaker--with
confidence I can say that we have met those requirements and
then some.
The Chairman. Well, let us turn to the forestry experts at
the New York Times. I think they have done a good job of
maintaining the pristine quality of the environment in New York
City and they must feel compelled to provide a little advice
for Alaskans. It seems that we get an editorial about once a
month from them on the Tongass. They indicate:
``The Service recently issued the broad outlines of its
long-awaited management plan for the Tongass in southeastern.
The plan is not reassuring. It calls for too much logging in a
forest that is already heavily cut''--that is contrary, I
think, to your statement earlier--``and, worse, would threaten
watersheds vital to the Tongass' biological future and the
livelihoods of commercial fishermen.''
I wonder what gives here, Phil. Are we threatening the
Tongass' biological future and the livelihoods of commercial
fishermen?
Mr. Janik. I do not believe that, Senator. Again, based on
the direction in the revision, I am very confident that we are
going to sustain those uses over time and we are going to
protect the resources that enable that kind of use.
There obviously have been some very different kinds of
opinions stated, both in the media and elsewhere. Those two
articles you have just referred to I am familiar with. There
have also been many articles that I have read that I believe
strike a pretty objective description of what has come out of
the Tongass revision in terms of all the features that we have
provided for.
Again, just quoting from some of the numbers I just
presented in my testimony, when one considers that 94 percent
of the old growth that existed----
The Chairman. 92 percent I think is what you said.
Mr. Janik. Excuse me. 92, that existed in the fifties will
remain after 10 years of implementation of this plan; and 84
percent over a 100-year period. And when you look at the beach
and estuary protection and the riparian standards that we have
established and the responsiveness to community protection
areas--I guess I would like to sit down with one of these folks
or all of them and discuss the perspective they have, because
we have tried to be very responsive to those needs.
The Chairman. When you go back and refer to 92 percent of
the old growth that was present in 1950's, it is assumed that
that is when large-scale logging basically began.
Mr. Janik. That is correct.
The Chairman. So there was virtually little large-scale
logging prior to 1950.
Mr. Janik. That is correct.
The Chairman. And one wonders why we have not been able to
get our story across relative to the factual information. You
have indicated that 92 percent of the old growth forest is
still there and this plan provides for its continuation.
We heard from the Houston Chronicle in Texas, where they
have always had a problem with Alaska, with the arithmetic, and
the fact that there is somebody bigger than them. But their
view of Alaska, of course, is that I guess Texas has never
gotten over the fact that it used to be the largest State.
I note that, a quote from the Houston Chronicle: ``Half of
the Tongass old growth trees have already been logged,'' quote,
unquote. ``The increased logging in the new TLMP not only means
more old growth trees lost, but more roads through virgin
areas, built at taxpayers' expense by the way, more runoff and
more fouled streams, to the detriment of salmon.''
Well, we have already harvested half the trees, according
to them, and we are going to foul up the streams as well.
Mr. Janik. Senator, I have been asked the question several
times: What difference does the new revision make as compared
to previous practices by the Forest Service on the Tongass that
have been authorized. I think some of the criticism that may be
valid with regard to our authorizations have been
distributional. There are certain areas on the Tongass where we
definitely are going to have to do things differently. There
are some areas where the new standards and guidelines will not
permit the level of harvest that occurred in that particular
area in the past.
So there is definitely a change emerging here with the
revision. But we are still presented with an opportunity to do
things right for the long haul. As I have often said, even in
front of your committee, sir, we are in a prevention mode still
and we would like to stay in that mode and not have to correct
problems later, so that 50 years from now we can look back and
enjoy the same kinds of things on the Tongass that we enjoy
today.
The Chairman. 50 years from now under this plan you will
still have 92 percent of the old growth forest.
Mr. Janik. Moving towards that 84 percent figure. After 10
years we will have the 92 percent.
The Chairman. Then we go West to the San Francisco
Examiner. That is a paper owned by a corporation that still
owns and manages a significant amount of private timber in
California, and publishes in a city that was built to a large
degree on timber wealth. The Examiner is even worse with its
numbers than most papers. Its editors have not yet grasped the
difficult concept of multiplication, because they claim:
``The Forest Service would double the number of trees
logged each year. The plan threatens to destroy virgin forest
and pristine watersheds. The Clinton administration should stop
this plan and should do it now.''
Mr. Janik. I appreciate you drawing attention to that
particular article, because it does reveal one item that is
often misunderstood and misquoted. The old forest plan before
the revision was signed had an allowable sale quantity of some
520 million board feet. That is total volume, often misquoted
as being 450 because at that time we only expressed volume
based on saw log portions of the total volume. But really the
important comparison is 520.
The new calculation is 267 in the revision, which is a
substantial decrease, of course.
Another figure that is misquoted is that the ASQ, the
allowable sale quantity, is often referred to as a timber
target, which it is not. It is a planning calculation. It
establishes the maximum that could be cut off the Tongass over
a decadal period, meaning 2.67 billion board feet, on the
average 267 per year.
But it was only last year that we had a harvest as low as
120 million board feet. For the last 17 years the average
harvest on the Tongass has been about 327 million board feet.
So when some folks refer to a doubling of the harvest,
comparing the 267 with the 120 I think is what they are doing.
They are looking at a very exceptional year, last year, when
the timber industry was sent into a tailspin with regard to the
closure of the mill in Sitka and Wrangell and then the upcoming
announcements with regard to Ketchikan Pulp Company and so on.
But this revision does substantially decrease timber
offerings and potential harvesting on the Tongass, and we
certainly have heard a lot about that from many of our critics.
The Chairman. I will not ask you why we have not been able
to communicate factually the correctness and accuracy of your
new TLMP. But clearly it has not been evidenced in public
consumption in these editorials.
The Lewiston, Idaho, Tribune--that is a town that has a
large pulp mill. The Lewiston Tribune states: ``Organizations
like the National Resource Defense Council will not be happy
until every tree on every national forest is declared off
limits to the timber industry. The industry, once habituated to
buying 200 year old Tongass trees for $2 each, will not be
satisfied until the Tongass returns to logging limits of old,
about twice that of the new plan.''
I guess we could all feel good to be in the middle of this.
But being in the middle between a questionable policy of the
past and a draconian view of the future is not necessarily a
position of very high virtue. Also, I think that the Lewiston
editorial writers exaggerate a bit as they characterize what
the communities and the industry in southeastern Alaska have
asked for.
Would you care to characterize the position of the
Governor's Timber Task Force, Phil? Or should we ask them
directly?
Mr. Janik. It would probably be best to ask them directly.
But as an adviser to that group, what I have experienced with
that task force--that was by invitation of the Governor; I felt
very privileged to be invited to sit on that group. I find them
a group that is trying to identify their futures, given all the
changes that have occurred in southeastern Alaska and the
timber industry, trying to determine where to make the kinds of
investments that would fill some of the voids that now exist in
southeast, particularly dealing with the lower grade material
that has, frankly, no place to go now with the pulp mills
having closed, and kind of a forward-looking group.
Yet a great deal of uncertainty exists within the group
because of the dramatic changes that have occurred. But I am
optimistic about the task force and where it may lead. I think
a forum like that is necessary right now to help folks make
those kinds of decisions.
We are there in the role of technical assistance, again
helping with one of the things you have gotten involved in, Mr.
Chairman, that is the Wisconsin lab representatives coming out
from the Forest Service to help those folks determine what the
potentialities are and so on.
So I feel good about the forum.
The Chairman. Well, I think we all agree that the position
of the Governor's Task Force has been a positive one, and I
would agree there is uncertainty relative to the assurance of
the industry being maintained at a yet undetermined level, but
optimism that it can achieve a significant contribution to the
economy of southeastern Alaska.
But I am not sure just where the Clinton administration is
on the same subject. I note that a May 21 story in our own
Washington Post made the following observation: ``The White
House had no specific comment on the Forest Service's plan
yesterday when it came out, saying only that the administration
is committed to national forest management that protects the
environment and maintains a sustainable supply of timber across
the country. Congressional sources familiar with the new plan
said the administration would probably wait to see what kind of
a response the plan generated from the public and on Capitol
Hill before taking a stand one way or another.''
They did not say anything about the editorial writers. We
have already seen that.
I would ask you, what is your interpretation of the
administration's position on the plan now that we have had an
opportunity to hear from the editorial writers? And I am not
sure you can take a sample of what the reaction is here on the
Hill, but many people are informed by the editorial writers as
to the attitude generally of the public.
What is your opinion of the administration's position on
the plan?
Mr. Janik. Before I answer that question, just one
response, if I may, to the somewhat mixed reaction by the
public at large, although there again there have been many
editorials and newspaper articles that I have reviewed that
have indicated that the opinion is that the plan is a balanced
one. But I think again the interest in the Tongass and
different expectations of what occurs there or should occur
there pretty much leads to some often polarized positions on
what the expectations might be on that forest.
The Chairman. Would you care to explain in your opinion why
this polarization?
Mr. Janik. Well, I think it is because, Senator, the
Tongass still represents to many folks--and I hear this a lot
from people getting off ferries in Juneau, where I live--they
come to Alaska to see the pristine environment and the
wildlife, and at the same time they come to look at the
lifestyles of the people. So there is mixed expectations.
People come there for different reasons.
But I think the wildness of Alaska is what draws most
people up there, and I think the notion of not disturbing any
of it is often what folks kind of imagine as an expectation,
anyway, on the Tongass, where others recognize what a national
forest is and that is a multiple use mission kind of setting
and in fact appreciate being able to view a mining operation or
a logging operation, and so on.
I do think that across the board, based on the public
comments we have received, that regardless of where people come
from they do expect the job to be done right and
environmentally sound, regardless of what it is we may be
taking on, whether it be mining, logging, road construction, or
whatever.
There is a sense of, let us make sure we do it right in
Alaska. I hear a lot of that regardless of the philosophy that
people come to me with.
Regarding specifically your question regarding the
administration, all I can say to that I guess is that the plan
is signed. I am the decisionmaker. If there had not been, I
guess, strong support with the review that we had throughout
the process--and I expected that kind of review to occur--I am
not sure that would have happened. But the regional forester
did sign that document, meaning me, on May 23.
I also would point out that we need to be a little bit
careful because of the appeals process, with regard to who
might be reviewing these challenges that may emerge to the
planning decisions that I ultimately made, and that comes to
the Chief's office for deliberation. So I would guess there is
some hesitancy to weigh in on some of these things immediately.
The Chairman. I assume it is fair to say that you have
gotten your last paycheck after signing the document?
Mr. Janik. That was still delivered, yes. That goes
automatically into my account, and I did not hear anything from
the bank.
The Chairman. And you did not have anything bounce, all
right.
Let us turn to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. I guess in St.
Louis they do not really worry too much about endangered birds
except perhaps the Cardinals are having a hard time staying
above .500 in the weakest division in baseball. But they would
believe that the Clinton administration should and could stop
this plan. They also note:
``Standing in a downpour during his trip in May to a Costa
Rican tropical forest, President Clinton extolled the rain
forest. `I came here to emphasize the importance of the forest
that surrounds us, the chain of life, not only in Costa Rica
and Central America, but in all the world,' '' he said.
The Post-Dispatch goes on to editorialize that: ``The
Tongass is no less important, no less deserving of
preservation, and no less worthy of presidential protection.''
I happen to agree that the Tongass is no less important,
Phil. But my constituents live there, as you know, and so do
you and I, and that is why I must make the following request.
At our last hearing I noted a June 20 Washington Times story
that reported that in order to accommodate the President's
speech it was necessary to bulldoze and pave a 350-foot path to
the podium. As you recall, he was on crutches at the time. So
the Costa Rican Government bulldozed and paved a path right
through the rain forest, the Barelo Carilio National Park.
Now, whatever the current administration finally decides on
the TLMP, I hope you can assure me today that we will not be
bulldozing it and paving any paths to accommodate perhaps
presidential proclamations on the Tongass. I would assume that
we could agree on that, Phil?
Mr. Janik. We will do whatever is right, Senator.
The Chairman. Not whatever is necessary. Well, that is
reassuring.
I could not help but note a certain inconsistency there,
that obviously was too good to pass up.
Mr. Janik. That is one article I have not seen.
The Chairman. We would be happy to provide it for you.
Mr. Janik. I would like to read that.
The Chairman. It probably is not in your circulated
reading, but it is certainly in ours.
I am going to move over to an area that you highlighted in
your statement with regard to recreation and tourism, where the
Forest Service is focusing more of its area of attention. I am
pleased that the tourism standard and guidelines provide
assistance for appropriate recreation needs and tourism, using
the different land use designations or the various LUD's.
I think the guidelines will be helpful in advising local
Forest Service officials about what kind of recreation and
tourism opportunities should be considered and can be
accommodated in different land use categories. I am pleased the
agency will be able to work with the recreation and tourism
industry to provide and develop some of these guidelines and
standards.
I think that there is a presumption that you have stated
that Alaska is that pristine area that ought to be available,
and the opportunity to just take off and walk through the
Tongass is something that was epitomized in a conversation I
had with the Vice President, where he and his family were
looking forward a couple years ago to an opportunity, that
conflicted I think with a book, so as a consequence the trip
had to be cancelled.
But you and I know you just do not go for a nice long walk
through the Tongass. Unfortunately, there are very few areas in
the Tongass that allow a visitor for a walk through the
Tongass. I think there is a road around--excuse me. There is a
trail around Ward Lake in Ketchikan that offers something of
that nature. But few areas really have that kind of an
experience. You have to put a trail in, you have to brush it
out, you have to clear oftentimes timber because of the
density.
But yet the vision is, we will just go for a walk, we will
cross the island. And of course, you get a couple hundred yards
into that and you suddenly are faced with the reality that you
are likely not going to reach your goal.
So I would suggest that attention be given, particularly in
the area of high density visitor opportunities, for some kind
of a forest walk. I know that there has been some advance and
there has been more concern expressed. But I understand that
there is a proposal for permanent oversight facilities in some
of the remote recreation or old growth habitat LUD's areas, and
I am curious to know how those proposals will be evaluated in
the course of planned implementation as you look at more and
more requests for accommodations for visitors in the areas, as
opposed to what we pretty much had, which were day-type trips
or the availability of a Forest Service cabin, which really do
not provide the visitor with the opportunity that many visitors
would like, a little more in the idea of accommodations being
provided.
Mr. Janik. Senator, I will attempt to answer that. But
while I am doing that, I would ask Kimberly Bown, if I may, to
come to the table.
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Janik. If we are going to pursue some questions on
tourism, she has traveled 4,000 miles here. I would like her to
have an opportunity to answer some of these questions.
The Chairman. That is fair enough.
Mr. Janik. Thank you.
Senator, I am really pleased with what has happened with
regard to our interaction with tourism, the tourism industry
representatives, regarding this revision, because I believe
they at least have some level of satisfaction with our
responsiveness to their requests. That has dealt with
identification of some of the areas that they have been
particularly interested in, and it does represent somewhat of a
menu or a mix of opportunities for different clients that they
serve and what their expectations are.
With regard to all the land use designations and how that
affects them, there are standard and guidelines that apply to
each of those in the forest plan and would represent certain
restrictions on some of those expectations. But I think we have
tried to front-load consideration of those needs early on in
the planning process and, even though there will be further
NEPA work and analysis--the forest plan is not going to resolve
all those things, of course--I am confident that we have in a
great degree reduced the potential conflict that will come from
project implementation, including considerations within old
growth reserves or anywhere else.
The Chairman. Well, I note in the standard and guidelines,
for example, permanent overnight facilities in the areas of old
growth habitat are 24. That would be number of overnight guests
that you would consider as appropriate in old growth habitat in
the entire Tongass?
Mr. Janik. Kimberly, would you like to answer?
Ms. Bown. At any one site, Senator.
The Chairman. For what?
Ms. Bown. At any one site.
The Chairman. At any one site? How many sites might you
anticipate?
Ms. Bown. That would be evaluated on a case by case basis
as the proposals came in. What the plan--actually, the plan
really does lead the Nation in terms of looking at types of
facilities and capacities, a range, providing some sideboards
in the range of capacities that these kinds of developments,
the scales of developments, and by prescription or by LUD
offering some guidelines to the staff on the forest in
evaluating proposals as they come in the door.
We were lacking that in the past. The industry has asked
very aggressively for some and helped us develop, actually,
develop those sideboards so that that capacity question that
has been debated a lot in the past does now have some better
direction and guidelines to provide the staff in evaluating
proposals.
The Chairman. Do you anticipate establishing pretty much
along the lines of the concession type contracts that the Park
Service has?
Ms. Bown. We operate a little bit differently from the Park
Service. They often invest their own Government funds to build
the facilities. We work in partnership with the industry, the
Forest Service providing some of the facilities, the cabins, as
you mentioned, campgrounds, trails, and then we look to the
industry to provide other services, the more outfitted and
guided services, the vehicles.
The Chairman. Do you within your budget, do you have the
capability to build, say, a lodge at a site with 24 beds?
Ms. Bown. We would not necessarily pursue that. We would go
out with a request for proposal and solicit proposals from----
The Chairman. The private sector.
Ms. Bown. From the private sector.
The Chairman. Okay. And are you prepared to give them a
lease?
Ms. Bown. Yes.
The Chairman. And would the lease be adequate to amortize
the cost?
Ms. Bown. That is what we are--within the confines of the
national direction, which for large-scale developments such as
ski areas, there are long-term leases available. For the
shorter term operations there's a scale that applies to the
various levels of development. More typically the operations
are authorized for 5-year periods, and then the larger scale
developments are often up to 15 years or longer, depending.
The Chairman. When do you anticipate having available to
the visitor industry a pro forma of what they can--what
definitive areas might be available, what the lease terms might
be, and what would be most desirous from the standpoint of the
professional planner?
Ms. Bown. In terms of the larger scale developments?
The Chairman. Yes.
Ms. Bown. Well, in working with the industry to define
that, we do not have in the current plan specific sites laid
out for those larger scale developments.
The Chairman. Does industry have any requests in to you?
Ms. Bown. They do not at this time. And we had some
difficulty in working with that upper scale development with
them because they feel themselves in a competitive nature and
are not necessarily ready to share their long-term visions for
where their interests are.
For the smaller scale developments, however, we are working
with them actively to look at various options for small base
camp facilities or hut to hut type systems or trail connectors
that they might need.
The Chairman. It is kind of a chicken and egg deal, which
begins first. In other words, does the industry come to you
with requests or do you kind of define your parameters that you
are prepared to make available to encourage industry to put in
facilities so that visitors can have access? Your experience in
observing the Park Service in Glacier Bay may be of some
assistance to you. That is a concessionaire, but clearly you
are going to have to provide a sufficient lease to encourage
investment to come in and amortize, because it is probably
quite a seasonal opportunity.
Ms. Bown. We do have sites in the Alaska region, one right
now in fact that is out on the street up on Turnigan Pass, to
respond to that heavy demand for rest room facilities and other
services.
The Chairman. I am well aware of the demand for rest room
facilities and the reluctance of the Forest Service to
necessarily have to provide that service. But you have been and
it is much to your credit.
Ms. Bown. And right now we are in the request for proposal
process from the industry or from the private sector to develop
a fairly broad level facility up there to accommodate the rest
rooms and the lodging and others. That came or it was generated
as a catalyst from the demand that was there.
That is the pattern, typically, that a demand arises and
then we respond to it with a request for proposal if it is not
appropriate for us necessarily to offer that service. Other
ways that those proposals or activities are authorized or
initially generated are from the industry walking in with an
idea, as for instance the icefield flights out of Juneau were
initially conceived of by the industry and walking in, and as
we all tested that together it has really expanded to quite an
industry there.
Mr. Janik. I think Kimberly, Mr. Chairman, used a very
important word. What we are trying to do is position ourselves
so we can be responsive to requests, and the involvement of the
tourism industry in the revision has taken us a giant step, I
think, in terms of where they would like to see some
opportunities for further consideration.
But the kinds of operations you are suggesting, I do not
think we really have seen any serious large proposals come in
yet.
Ms. Bown. Not in southeastern Alaska.
Mr. Janik. Not in southeast.
Ms. Bown. We have had a number on the Chugach.
The Chairman. Well, again, I think the industry is still
formulating its plans for expansion, and there has been an
assumption that it would be very difficult to get long-term
leases sufficient to amortize investments in the Tongass. But
perhaps more aggressive posturing by the Forest Service will
resolve that.
I am interested in exploring the different ways that you
would evaluate impact and desirability of different forms of
tourism in the wilderness areas and other nondeveloped land use
designations. Would you evaluate, say, a boat landing facility
on how many people would have access to the wilderness, or does
the valuation include impacts associated with length of stay?
For example, how do you assess the different impact of a
boat landing for a vessel that may deposit 75 people onto a
wilderness beach who may stay for 1 or 2 hours against a set of
kayakers that may camp overnight, build fires, spend more time,
and therefore impact for a longer period of time the area
involved?
How do you balance between those impacts? Or let us assume
that you have one of the smaller tour boats simply drop anchor
and run a group ashore in a wilderness area in their shore
boats?
Ms. Bown. May I?
Mr. Janik. Certainly.
Ms. Bown. Actually, that specific situation or scenario was
discussed with the industry between draft and final and some
changes were made to our matrix and standard and guides on
recreation and tourism to accommodate those boat-based small
excursion opportunities in the less developed LUD's, which is
what they were requesting. What they were requesting was that
the capacity should be higher than the 12. At that point it was
at 12-person capacity, and now it is sitting at anywhere from
groups of 50 to it is accommodating the larger, the small
cruise ship but larger excursions onto that one fringe of the
beach.
In evaluating a proposal that would come in for, let us
say, a boat base facility for a kayak group versus a motorboat
or whatever, that would be evaluated on a case by case basis
and the cumulative effects of what that activity did to the
surrounding area certainly would be considered under the NEPA
process for that specific project.
But as I said, originally the capacities really offer some
long-awaited guidelines for the staff across the forest to use
as sideboards where they can consider the proposal.
The Chairman. Well, as we move towards more utilization for
tourism as an attraction to southeastern Alaska, let us take
again the proposed construction of a 24-person overnight
facility in an area that the industry would select, but let us
assume that area is sensitive. It is an old growth LUD habitat
and the environmental analysis required to evaluate the
desirability of locating such a recreation facility would
probably be substantial.
So the agency may be hard-pressed to find the cost of an
environmental review sufficiently capable to satisfy the
interested parties that such a facility will have an acceptable
level of impact on the old growth habitat or LUD. One of the
easiest ways to fund that would be to have the analysis be
required to be underwritten by the applicant, that is the cost
of the analysis.
How would you work that if indeed the opportunities would
be mandated that you consider a competitive process? So the
question is can you negotiate with one or do you have to put it
out for competition? And if the applicant is going to
underwrite the cost and suddenly finds out that he has a
competitive situation there, how do you make sure that the
special use permit is considered as being competitively offered
at the same time you find an applicant who is willing to defray
part of the cost of doing the environmental evaluation?
Have you addressed these questions?
Ms. Bown. Yes, we have, not necessarily to the satisfaction
of the proponents. This is a national issue to some degree, but
as a proponent would like to expedite the evaluation of their
idea or proposal or project, they can expedite it through
offering to pay for the analysis, the EA or EIS as is
determined necessary.
In doing that, we enter into a third party agreement where
the Forest Service contracts with a firm or the private sector
to do the environmental analysis or assessment, and in doing
that they retain the decisionmaking position that they need to
retain or that the agency needs to retain.
At that point when the environmental or the NEPA process is
finished, then you do have to go out with a solicitation or
prospectus to ask for or request proposals again in a
competitive nature, because the bottom line is that what we are
trying to do out there is to get the best offering to the
public. The proponent that initially underwrites the cost of
the environmental assessment does have a risk associated with
not being competitive for the end project that is authorized
through a special use permit.
The Chairman. Do you not think that is going to discourage
people from running the risk of underwriting the cost, if they
have no assurance? Because you know, this is pretty much
pioneering in a sense. You have got a short season. It is
dependent on, what, Memorial Day to Labor Day or something of
that nature.
I mean, I am being a devil's advocate here, but I think it
is important that you recognize that if you are going to pursue
this in a sincere and yet feasible manner you are going to have
to have flexibility.
Mr. Janik. Mr. Chairman, you have keyed on a very
troublesome area in terms of what we would like to do, and it
is in conflict with the competitive bidding process and so on.
All I can say to that is we are trying to find a way to make
that work. We do not have the answer to that yet.
The Chairman. Have you asked for any Congressional
assistance?
Mr. Janik. I do not think that has happened, no.
The Chairman. Well, that is what we are here for. If you
need special consideration relative to the uniqueness, the
short season or any number of functions, I would suggest that
you pursue it with a request, and we can always hold a hearing
and see if it is feasible and equitable.
Let me ask a question about how you calculate permit fees.
As I understand it, your fee is 3 percent of the adjusted gross
cost of a trip. Does that not penalize expensive trips
involving expenditure of a short time on a forest, like a large
boat, helicopter landings, to the benefit of less expensive
trips where the participants on the trip spend a lot longer
time and therefore have a greater impact? I am talking about
the kayakers or those that organize pack trips.
It seems that one would question, should not your fee be
related to the amount of time and the level of impact that is
being visited on the forest as a factor, a major factor?
Ms. Bown. The current fee structure that has been in place
since the early eighties does give the operator the choice of
either a fee per service day or a 3 percent of the gross
revenues. The 3 percent of the gross revenues can be adjusted
for time on forest, which we do very, very frequently up in
Alaska, is the time that they are on national forest for a day
is the only time that is associated or calculated into the fee
calculation.
Additionally, we have instituted nationally, but we have
taken advantage of it especially at our visitor centers for bus
visits or taxi drivers or such, that a short stop fee is then
instituted where the stop or the visit is generally less than 4
hours. That has also been able to minimize or make more
equitable the fee charged to those operators.
The Chairman. Well, I am still a little concerned about
penalizing the expensive trips and not reflecting more on the
related amount of time and the level of impact of some of the
visitor types. Are you comfortable with that?
Ms. Bown. I am afraid I really do not understand your
question, Senator.
The Chairman. Well, the kayakers are in there, as an
example, or the organized pack trips, and they are in there for
several days. So their impact is obviously much different than
a boat or a helicopter. A helicopter lands, they are in there
for 20 minutes if that long. Is there an equity there or is
there an inequity?
Ms. Bown. The current system with 3 percent of gross----
The Chairman. I am not asking about the current system,
because we can always change the current system.
Ms. Bown. My point is that we have changed it for a short
stop fee, and we are pursuing that same system to be applied to
those icefield flights, which is exactly I think the point that
you are making. The short stop fee, which is available only for
very short stops, generally 4 hours or less, and not more than
2 service days for that package trip, which certainly the trips
to the visitors centers by the buses and the taxis fall within
that and do get it, it is a per-head charge and it is much less
and a lot less calculation that goes along with it.
We are hopefully--I am certain that by next season we would
have the air flights, the icefield flights for instance, under
the same short stop fee, which will ease their accounting and
the fee structure to them considerably.
The Chairman. Why does it take so long to resolve the
helicopter issue?
Ms. Bown. Well, we have----
The Chairman. That is where you have got a substantial
visitor demand, as I understand it.
Ms. Bown. Right now we have a regional working group, four
outfitter guides that are working hard on this. They all have
other jobs. We pull them in at least--we pulled them in twice
this year so far. They are working with our fiscal folks to
bring this together. Phil's leadership has put a tremendous
emphasis on accommodating and being responsive to the visitor
industry's needs as authorized through our special uses.
The special uses really are the vehicle that we authorize
all these uses, and so we have a special team. But they are
working hard on this and they----
The Chairman. How long have they been working on this?
Ms. Bown. Well, we came in with this short stop fee
nationally, it became available to us last year, to the Nation.
And we have instituted it for the visitor centers initially and
now we are pursuing it for the air flights, the air carriers.
The Chairman. When will you have it completed?
Ms. Bown. Applicable to the icefield flights?
The Chairman. Well, helicopter flights, wherever they are.
Ms. Bown. I can assure you by next season. I am not sure if
they could get any sooner, but I could certainly check for you.
The Chairman. Phil, is there a reason that we cannot make
some decisions on this? I mean, you have been working on it for
a long time. The operators, you know where they want to go, you
know what they do. They need some finality, some certainty.
Somebody has got to make some decisions.
Mr. Janik. I took a note on this, obviously, and we will
see if we can expedite this faster than it has been.
The Chairman. Is there some uniqueness that makes it very
difficult to reach a decision how you are going to set them up
and manage them?
Ms. Bown. I cannot speak for all the fiscal implications
that I know that are involved in this. The current fee
structure, though, has been working fairly well for these
folks, and primarily the leadership of the Alaska region has
pushed for a short stop fee that has changed the national fee
structure to accommodate these specific kinds of short stops on
national forests, because a lot of the use is off national
forests.
The Chairman. Well, we have seen an extraordinary time
sequence involved with the Forest Service's actions, and I
would hope that certain things are within the parameters of
decisions being made in a reasonable time, because we have a
seasonal reality associated with Alaska. You get the
information, say you want a decision by a certain date, put a
team together, and get it done, make a decision.
Let us go to wild and scenic rivers. How many of the
recommendations or the recommended wild and scenic river
corridors are adjacent to development LUD's, in the sense of
corridors adjacent to those areas? Got any idea?
Mr. Janik. Why do not I start the answer to that, Mr.
Chairman, and then if Kimberly has anything to add. As
identified in my decision in the record of decision, 32 of the
112 rivers that were deemed eligible for possible
recommendation were selected and passed on as a recommendation
as part of the forest plan revision, 32 of the 112.
An additional 37 of the 112 have the majority of their
corridors within wilderness and LUD-2 areas. And then I am
going to add another figure to that: Another 25 occur in non-
development LUD's. So with the recommendation of 32, and then
you add to that the 37 and add to that the 25, you end up with
94 of those 112 have a pretty substantial level of protection.
That was one of the considerations in terms of choosing the
32 figure, in addition to it simply shaking out as being
representative streams in various provinces as part of the
study. I emphasize that point because I have heard quite a bit
of criticism regarding why did that shake out as such a low
number, 32, when you had 112 to select from. Well, part of that
had to do with this observation on our part.
So 84 percent of 112 are in a pretty high level of
protection, considering the 32 we are also recommending. In
addition, there were some communities that responded back to us
that basically said that designation as wild and scenic was not
something they would prefer to have happen, and we took some of
that response into consideration, I believe.
I am going to stop there and see if Kimberly has anything
to add to that.
Ms. Bown. I do not.
The Chairman. Could you provide for the record which
communities objected and were accommodated as a consequence of
their rejection?
Mr. Janik. Certainly.
[The information requested was not received at the time the
hearing went to press.]
The Chairman. In assessing the effects of potential wild
and scenic river recommendations, I gather you assumed a half-
mile corridor, even though all the currently designated rivers
in Alaska have a one-mile corridor. I am wondering what would
be the effect of the wider corridor on the timber base and
transportation corridors?
Mr. Janik. In total acreage, I do not have that available.
But again, we could provide that.
The Chairman. Does anybody have that number?
[No response.]
The Chairman. Can you provide us with that?
Mr. Janik. Yes, we can.
[The information requested was not received at the time the
hearing went to press.]
The Chairman. You have pretty well, I think, acknowledged
what kind of comments you received on your proposals relative
to your ability to accommodate some of the communities on the
proposed designations. So I assume you had comments that were
in favor and those that were in opposition?
Mr. Janik. Yes, we did.
The Chairman. What was the basis for the additional
recommendations in the final TLMP?
Mr. Janik. On the five additional streams?
The Chairman. Yes.
Ms. Bown. I am sorry, I do not have that in front of me.
Mr. Janik. These were, as I remember, these were
recommendations from the public in terms of going from, I
believe it went from 25 to 32, is my recollection, Mr.
Chairman, from the draft to the final. And I believe it had to
do with recommendation from the public that we considered.
Mr. Norbury, perhaps you have something else to add to
that. I think that was the reason.
Ms. Bown. Brad may be able to answer as well, because I
think they were in your area.
Mr. Powell. That is very accurate. There was public comment
in support of those, and the majority of those were also in
protected areas, as Phil already mentioned.
The Chairman. Can you recall a few of the names of the
five?
Mr. Powell. I would have to check. The five we added, the
majority I think were in LUD-2's or----
The Chairman. You do not remember the names of the rivers?
Mr. Powell. I can look that up.
The Chairman. We would appreciate that for the record.
[The information requested was not received at the time the
hearing went to press.]
The Chairman. Let us go into the funding a little bit now,
on the implications of the plan, cost estimates and so forth. I
am informed that you were advised by staff that you would be
asked to estimate what it would cost in out year appropriations
to implement the final TLMP. I wonder if you could give us some
indication on how that cost would compare to appropriations
over the last several fiscal years?
Mr. Janik. I am going to ask Mr. Norbury to help me with
that answer. But the estimate for implementing the forest plan
that I approved approximates about $83 million. That assumes
fulfilling the full potential of the 267 million board feet of
timber. That is a significant assumption because, again, that
is not a target.
The Chairman. Is road building in that?
Mr. Janik. Sir?
The Chairman. Or has road building been taken out?
Mr. Janik. I believe roads are in there. That is the total
number, approximately $83.5 million. The timber portion of
that, of course, is substantial, and any reduction from the
allowable sale quantity in terms of what the offering might be
for that particular year would significantly affect that
number, that total.
The Chairman. Now, if the legislation in the House that
would terminate any road building as part of the timber
purchase credit, if that is stricken, then you would assume
that the contractor would bid the timber in at a price to put
his own roads in, which would mean that the stumpage would be
substantially less than it is assumed under your proposal of
some, what, $83 million?
Mr. Janik. $83.5 million.
The Chairman. Is it basically a push, even though
recognizing you do not get that back under the same funding
mechanism?
Mr. Janik. Are you asking if road building was prohibited?
The Chairman. No, no.
Mr. Janik. Or the purchaser credit were eliminated?
The Chairman. You have got it in here, but there may be a
change if Congress eliminates that.
Mr. Janik. The $83.5 million does assume the existing
purchaser credit. That is in the plan, so if there is any
change to that those numbers would have to be adjusted.
Mr. Norbury. Mr. Chairman, to clarify, the $83 million does
not include the purchaser credit allowance.
Mr. Janik. Oh, I am sorry.
The Chairman. How does that compare to previous years? I
understand it does not, it does not include purchaser credits.
Purchaser credits are how much more?
Mr. Norbury. For a program of 267 million, we are
estimating $32 million a year in purchaser credit.
The Chairman. How does this compare with previous years'
appropriations on a fiscal year basis?
Mr. Norbury. For the past 3 years the allocation to the
Tongass has been around $65 million a year.
The Chairman. For the past 3 years it has averaged $65
million?
Mr. Norbury. Around $65 million in total funds.
The Chairman. And with the exception of last year, those
were years when the allowable cut was in excess of 250.
Mr. Norbury. Yes, sir, that is correct.
The Chairman. And the rationale for the $83 million when
you are harvesting less timber and spending, needing a greater
appropriation compared to previous years, when you were
harvesting more timber and had less appropriation, is due to
what?
Mr. Norbury. Mr. Chairman, I can provide some detail of
what the changes are, but before doing so let me emphasize that
we do not regard the plan as a budget document.
The Chairman. Well, you might not, but the taxpayer might.
Mr. Norbury. The plan is implementable at various budget
levels. We do have some estimates of what we think a desirable
budget level is, and those estimates simply represent what we
think would be a desirable way to progress toward the
objectives established by the plan. I will provide some detail
on what those are.
But if we get different budget levels, we will continue to
implement the plan. There are increases in several areas. One
of them is in the NFEM fund code, which is currently titled
land management planning inventory and monitoring. That is to
provide for an expanded monitoring program for the Tongass and
also some additional administrative studies.
The Chairman. Monitoring? What do you monitor that you do
not monitor anyway? You have got your forest people out there.
I mean, you use a term, but what does it really mean? What are
you going to physically do more than you are doing now?
Mr. Norbury. The detail on that is provided in the plan.
The monitoring plan, our estimate is $1.4 million a year. Much
of that are things that we are doing now, but what we intend to
do a better job of is things like monitoring stream conditions
to be sure that the standard and guidelines that we have
established for streams will in fact achieve the objectives and
have the results that we intend that they have.
The Chairman. I assume the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
does some of that. The State Department of Fish and Game does
some of that. You are saying more monitoring and there is less
logging occurring.
Mr. Norbury. One of the problems we have had with
monitoring in the past that is done by the other agencies is
that it is done in a piecemeal fashion and it is not always
laid out in a way that would let us determine the extent to
which the changes they pick up in their monitoring are
attributable to our management actions.
What we really hope to do with this new plan is to work
cooperatively with the other Federal agencies and the State of
Alaska in developing a joint monitoring program in which we can
all be looking at it from the same point of view and produce
data that we could share and use commonly.
The Chairman. I can certainly appreciate and understand
that. But I would assume that there would be some efficiencies
associated with that. You are going to monitor, then somebody
else's budget, maybe the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, can be
reduced in the sense of their monitoring. But you know, just
for everybody increasing the monitoring budget, if you want to
wander down that rabbit trail because everybody wants to assume
the responsibility--I would like you to provide for the record
what you propose to do with an $83 million fiscal budget
excluding purchaser credits that is going to be different than
what you have been doing previously when you have been spending
$65 million and producing a higher volume of timber.
[The information requested was not received at the time the
hearing went to press.]
Mr. Norbury. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I will touch on a
couple of other differences that are actually of larger
magnitude than the one you just mentioned. The timber program
would be--funding for the timber program would be increased.
Our costs for preparing timber sales have increased.
The Chairman. Why have they increased? Environmental
concerns?
Mr. Norbury. Because of environmental concerns. Our costs 3
years ago were running at around $50 a thousand. They are
running closer to $80 a thousand.
The Chairman. Do you think that has something to do with
those that suggest that the Federal Government subsidizes the
Tongass Forest for the benefit of the industry? I mean, if your
costs go up to a point, we would have to acknowledge that there
is substantial Government subsidy.
Phil, you know what I am getting at.
Mr. Janik. I think I understand your inference, yes, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. What encouragement do you have to control
your costs so that the forest will stand on its own? Or can the
Tongass stand on its own in relationship to the increased costs
associated with what it costs you to manage it?
Mr. Janik. The display here simply tries to depict what it
would cost to get out the various outputs, and it does not
really get into that philosophy.
The Chairman. I know, but you and I are continually
confronted with the criticism that the Tongass is a subsidized
forest for the benefit of industry. Is that not a fair
statement?
Mr. Janik. We do hear that, yes, sir.
The Chairman. How do you counter that when your costs are
increasing and you are using, what, $50?
Mr. Norbury. On the projections--Mr. Chairman, on the
projections that we have in the plan, the timber program is
about a breakeven proposition. The anticipated revenues will
just about cover the costs of operating it. The other programs
do not generate revenues and are in fact subsidized.
The Chairman. And are in fact subsidized?
Mr. Norbury. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Well, go ahead, Phil, and give me a degree of
comfort.
Mr. Janik. I do not think I have any comfort to offer. The
costs for the timber program are increasing and, yes, you are
correct, you have heard us state and you have seen that the
expectation of projections for timber are decreasing.
The Chairman. How much--how far do you go with this? I do
not know. Are your costs increasing 10 percent, 15, 20, over
what they have been? And how do they compare with other
forests?
Mr. Janik. I think Mr. Norbury has the figures per
thousand. I think we are close now to nearly $100 per thousand
for preparation.
Mr. Norbury. The allocation for fiscal 1997 was based on
$80 a thousand. Our expectation is that under the plan it will
be closer to $100 per thousand. The last time I did a regional
comparison on this, our costs were still lower than the costs
in the Pacific Northwest.
The Chairman. Well, that is as a consequence of the
President's forest plan, is it not, the President's forest plan
as it is applicable in the Pacific Northwest?
Mr. Norbury. I have not investigated the reasons behind the
costs.
The Chairman. Well, you ought to investigate it.
It appears to me that we are moving--and as you look at
your planning, I think you have got an obligation to recognize
that it appears that we are well on our way to the Tongass
doubling the costs. What are you going to do about it? And if
you cannot do anything about it, are you going to ask for some
kind of relief? Or do you just let it go?
The forester who is working on the tourism plan is working
on a plan. You folks are moving to almost doubling your costs,
which brings on the question of justification for
commercialization of the forest. What kind of relief do you
need? What are you asking for? Or is it just a reality that we
have to live with it and Katy bar the door.
Mr. Janik. Well, with regard to today's discussion, Mr.
Chairman, it is simply a reality that we tried to depict here
on this page, and that is that the outputs--and I think I would
go back to Mr. Norbury's statement. This is not a budgeting
document as such, so that if we do not get budgeted at $83.5
million, which is likely, that we will not, then some of these
expectations will not be realized.
So this plan can be implemented at any funding level.
The Chairman. Well, what I asked is which ones goes out the
window and which ones remain.
Mr. Janik. That is deliberated every year in the budget
process.
The Chairman. You have got that process under way,
because--and assuming you do not get full funding, and the
reality is nobody gets full funding around here. What would
happen if you got 80 or 70 or 60 percent of your requested
funding levels? How do you implement and pattern your land
management outcomes at these different funding levels?
Mr. Janik. That is the very struggle we go through every
year in the negotiations of the budget with the national office
and beyond.
The Chairman. Well, it would appear that something would
have to give.
Mr. Janik. Yes.
The Chairman. And my question to you is, does the timber
preparation? Is that what gives first in this scenario of 60 to
70 percent of funding?
Mr. Norbury. Mr. Chairman, we do not have that kind of
discretion with respect to our budget. We do not get a sum of
money that we can allocate amongst the programs. It comes to us
tied to specific programs, so if we get less than full funding
that will vary from program area to program area. Those
decisions are made both by the Congress and by the national
office.
The Chairman. If the Congress appropriates into the timber
funding program an adequate amount, you can perform that task,
perhaps at the expense of monitoring or doing something else;
is that right?
Mr. Norbury. We will pursue the timber program to the
extent we receive timber funding. We will pursue the monitoring
program to the extent we receive monitoring funding.
The Chairman. Given the completion of the plan and the
administration's emphasis on downsizing, it would appear that
now would be an appropriate time to evaluate the personnel
complement and the organizational structure of the region and
the Tongass National Forest as a whole. In broad terms, can you
describe what sort of downsizing initiatives you envision and
whether you envision any office shifts or major organizational
changes?
Mr. Janik. I would like to start again with that answer and
then maybe give Mr. Powell an opportunity to talk about his
specific area in Ketchikan, just to speak from what is
happening on his area.
Let me start this way, Mr. Chairman. We have formed what we
are calling a transition team in the region to analyze this
very subject area, and that is with the changes in the plan,
with the changes in the Federal budget, as we have seen the
trend, how ought the region to respond to those changes? And
there have been some things already in motion because of having
to do more or the same with less, depending on how you look at
it.
We have figures which represent, for instance, that in 1996
we had about 662 people serving the Tongass National Forest,
and in 1997 that is down to 654. We are projecting that could
drop as low as around 566, again for the Tongass National
Forest. If you compare that number, that projection, for the
year 2000 with back as recently as 1994, you will see a number
of about 725.
We have these numbers and we would be happy to submit them
for the record if you wish.
[The information requested was not received at the time the
hearing went to press.]
The Chairman. How many of those in 1994 were contract or
brought up to assist in the preparation of various Forest
Service activities? Because there was an effort at one time to
bring up from, I think, Oregon, the Willamette area, to
expedite.
Mr. Janik. I think these numbers only reflect, if I am
correct, permanent full-time employees on the payroll.
The Chairman. So in 1994 you had about 725?
Mr. Janik. And in 1997 we are looking at 654, and
projecting a loss of nearly 100 more by the year 2000.
The Chairman. What type of positions are you losing?
Mr. Janik. Here is just a quick display. On the Chatham
area, for instance, we are looking at a loss of about 48
positions during this transition, with about 16 of those being
engineers, 3 various line positions, biologists about 9,
foresters about 13, and then administrative types about 7. We
have breakouts like this for each of the areas of the Tongass,
and if you would like me to go through those I will.
The Stikine area, considering it started, this process of
``downsizing,'' a few years ago, the influence of this plan in
their judgment is that they will probably hold level. But the
Ketchikan area, Mr. Powell's area, you are looking at minus 40
positions, Brad?
Mr. Powell. That is correct, that is what we are currently
anticipating. The only thing I would add to what Phil has said
is each of the areas has undertaken a process to look at the
new forest plan, try and anticipate what type of organization
that we think it will take to implement that plan, and then try
and develop plans for the future to make those adjustments in
our organization.
The Chairman. You indicated a reduction of so many
engineers and so many biologists.
Mr. Janik. Yes.
The Chairman. How many engineers do you have?
Mr. Janik. I do not know if I have that figure with me. Do
we have that?
The Chairman. How many biologists do you have?
Mr. Janik. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. I do not think I have
those numbers with me.
The Chairman. Can you provide us for the record the
breakdown of the various capabilities?
Mr. Janik. Just to clearly understand, for the Tongass?
[The information requested was not received at the time the
hearing went to press.]
The Chairman. Of the 654. This is just the Tongass, as
opposed to the Chugach. How many personnel do we have in the
Chugach?
Mr. Janik. I believe we have nearly, what, 200 people on
the Tongass?
The Chairman. Chugach.
Mr. Janik. Excuse me, on the Chugach.
I cannot pick that number up. I will provide that to you.
[The information requested was not received at the time the
hearing went to press.]
The Chairman. Does anybody know that?
[No response.]
Mr. Janik. We will provide that number to you.
The Chairman. Is there also a downsizing contemplated in
the Chugach?
Mr. Janik. They are going through a downsizing as we speak,
yes.
The Chairman. Do you have any plans for a reorganization of
any of your offices, functions, districts, regions?
Mr. Janik. We do not anticipate that currently. What we are
trying to do is develop shared services and teams that approach
things in a more efficient way. Kimberly referred to special
uses. We have made a decision regionally that we could get that
job done more efficiently if we not try to do it by each
individual unit, but rather provide a central experience bank
of people that could handle those requests that come in. We are
looking at various areas like that and trying to respond
similar in kind.
But we have not anticipated any changes in units, such as
district reconfiguration or forest areas or whatever.
Mr. Powell. Phil, just one addition to that. We are looking
at one district combination, between our Ketchikan ranger
district and Misty Fjords. But it is not really derived from
the Forest Service plan. We are looking at it because we think
it makes good sense to serve the citizens of Ketchikan and we
think that we can be more efficient in doing that. So it is
just occurring at the same time, and we currently have not made
a decision on that. But we are looking at that to see if it
makes sense to combine those into one office.
The Chairman. Well, is there any reason why it would not?
Misty Fjords' access to Ketchikan is--I cannot understand why
you would have two to begin with.
Mr. Powell. Well, it is a very large administrative unit
when you take all of Misty Fjords and Ketchikan ranger
district. Traditionally it has been managed as two. We have an
opportunity now with a vacancy in one of those positions and we
are taking a hard look at it. In fact, we have one manager
operating both of them now as we explore that.
Mr. Janik. Brad's basically got that on a trial basis right
now it and it is so far looking like it makes sense.
The Chairman. In Ketchikan you utilize the old Federal
Building and the Forest Service Building out towards the ferry
terminal?
Mr. Janik. Right.
Mr. Powell. We have two primary offices there in Ketchikan:
the old Federal Building where the supervisor's office is and
then the ranger district building, which is close to the post
office, which serves now as the office for both Misty Fjords
and Ketchikan ranger district.
The Chairman. How many people are in the Juneau office, the
regional office?
Mr. Janik. In the regional office, we have about 200. I
think we have just under 200 at the regional office. And we
have been attempting to downsize there as well. We have gone,
for instance, from, what was it, 12 staff directors to 7. That
occurred about 2\1/2\, 3 years ago. And we are looking at ways
to improve efficiencies through that kind of merging.
The Chairman. I draw your attention to a document that is
part of your administrative record. You have it as exhibit 1 in
the materials that were sent to you, a document summarizing
commitments made between the Forest Service and the Fish and
Wildlife Service in December of last year concerning
implementation priorities. Can you give us an estimate on how
much success you had in the completion of these tasks and what
the cost would be?
Mr. Janik. Yes, I could go through each of these 18. I am
sure you do not want me to do that, but these are referred to
as the list of the 18 commitments that were made between Dave
Allen and myself, my counterpart interest Alaska region for the
Fish and Wildlife Service.
I would say there has been substantial agreement and
progress on these points. Some of these points were items that
I agreed were appropriate for inclusion in the record of
decision in discussion with Dave Allen and his staff. Others
represent follow-up commitments for implementation of the plan.
For instance, I will just pick one out here: number 13 and 14,
for instance, inter-agency monitoring of wolf mortality. That
would be done with the Department of Fish and Game as well.
No. 14, conduct TLMP studies as a collaborative effort;
there are some scientific studies that are identified in the
plan that we are going to do some follow-up on, and we
definitely would want the Fish and Wildlife Service being part
of that.
Those are just two examples.
The Chairman. Would in your opinion any of these require a
plan amendment in the near future?
Mr. Janik. No, no.
The Chairman. Would the costs be included in your earlier
estimates of what would be required to fully implement the
plan?
Mr. Janik. Regarding these 18?
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Janik. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. And they were totaling what?
Mr. Janik. Just for these 18? I have no idea.
The Chairman. Can you provide that?
Mr. Janik. Yes, we can provide that.
[The information requested was not received at the time the
hearing went to press.]
Mr. Janik. Although some of that is going to be estimates,
not absolute assurances, because some of this, Mr. Chairman, we
are going to basically determine and forge based on what our
budget realities are.
The Chairman. Would you anticipate seeking additional
appropriations or authority from Congress or the Department of
the Interior or the Department of Agriculture in association
with this list?
Mr. Janik. I would say that remains to be seen. We did not
anticipate that at the time this list was put together.
The Chairman. Well, if you anticipate any as you review and
provide for the record, I would appreciate it if you would
review that and indicate kind of an update on whether or not.
Under appendix N of the FEIS there is a statement, ``Sitka
blacktail deer are the principal prey of the wolf and long-term
viability of wolves is directly related to long-term deer
habitat capability,'' which is a point of common agreement
among the wolf assessment panel. Now, that is a strong
statement. If the long-term viability of the wolves is directly
related to the long-term deer habitat capability, how do you
account for a viable wolf population in areas of southeastern
Alaska, such as the mainland, Glacier Bay? Moose and goat
populations are certainly not high enough in these areas to
offset the 13 deer per square mile you project as needed to
maintain wolves.
Appendix N states further--okay. Well, why do you not
answer that one.
Mr. Janik. May I ask Chris Iverson to replace Kimberly Bown
at the table?
The Chairman. Sure.
Mr. Janik. I think we are going to be needing his
expertise, as well as perhaps some of Tom Mills' people on this
one.
Thank you, Kimberly.
Chris, would you please address the 13 deer per square mile
and its significance with regard to the prey base for wolves?
Mr. Iverson. Those values and the relationship you quoted
is related to the wolf assessment that was prepared. Those
values are derived from the Prince of Wales study area and we
make the statement that where deer are the principal prey of
wolves in that analysis.
The Chairman. Is there any place that deer are not the
principal prey of wolves?
Mr. Iverson. We hypothesize that on the mainland, where
goats may be a principal prey, and in the Stikine River delta,
where moose may be a principal prey, on the Chilkap Peninsula
moose may be a principal prey. So in other areas off of the
islands, we believe that deer may not be the principal prey
items.
So those conclusions are restricted to the islands by and
large, Prince of Wales especially.
The Chairman. Well, there is not 13 goats or 13 moose per
square mile in the Stikine, that is for sure. So what are they
eating there?
Mr. Iverson. They are eating moose and it would take many
fewer moose. We have not----
The Chairman. Not necessarily goats?
Mr. Iverson. Certainly fewer goats. But we have not made
those assessments relative to mainland wolves. The issue in the
assessment was relative to deer and the equilibrium models that
were done in the wolf assessment were relative to deer
populations. And the analysis was careful to restrict it to
island populations, where deer is the principal prey of wolves.
The Chairman. What did you factor in relative to Admiralty,
Baranof, and Chichagof, where there are no wolves?
Mr. Iverson. They were not factored in because wolves do
not occur on those islands.
The Chairman. But deer do.
Mr. Iverson. But deer do.
The Chairman. And what is the--outside of man, what is the
predator then for the deer on those islands?
Mr. Iverson. We suspect that perhaps brown bear may be
taking fawns, and certainly the human harvest.
The Chairman. You have the human harvest on the rest of the
islands, where you have both the wolf and the deer.
Mr. Iverson. Correct.
The Chairman. Yet you do not have the wolves on Admiralty,
Baranof, and Chichagof.
Mr. Iverson. And I believe we have perhaps more deer and
perhaps more liberal hunting seasons for human use on the
mainland.
The Chairman. Because there are certain areas where you
have high density, for example on Queuyu, where I believe the
deer season has been for all practical purposes almost closed
for a decade as a consequence of the high number of wolves.
What do the wolves eat if there is no deer? Each other?
Mr. Iverson. I would suspect out there that the wolf
density is low, commensurate with the low deer density. So the
wolves per area is much lower on Queuyu than it is on Prince of
Wales, where there are much healthier deer populations.
The Chairman. But do not the wolves move to where the deer
are?
Mr. Iverson. To an extent. But certainly within the
territory----
The Chairman. I mean, you see them swimming, and you have
observed them surely, from the islands in southeastern Alaska,
island to island.
Mr. Iverson. Yes, they swim to a certain extent, 2, maybe 3
miles maximum.
The Chairman. Yes. And do they go back and forth from the
mainland to the islands?
Mr. Iverson. In the central southeast, in the Stikine area,
the Stikine River delta, we believe they move from the mainland
to the islands fairly readily. On Prince of Wales, where the
swimming distance is much greater across Clarence Strait, I
think the interchange--we have suspected that the interchange
is much, much less. The genetic studies suggest there is some
interchange, but based on a 3-year study no wolves left on
Prince of Wales Island toward either Revilla or the mainland.
The Chairman. Because it is simply too far?
Mr. Iverson. At least during that time period we did not
see it, possibly because it could be a long swim, not too far.
But the probability of a swim across there, a successful swim,
is likely very low.
The Chairman. That is the same probability you are using to
suggest that there is no wolves on Admiralty, Baranof, and
Chichagof, because it is too far to swim.
Mr. Iverson. That is one possibility, but we are not
certain of why wolves have never colonized those three islands.
It may be the swimming distance, it may be the presence of
large brown bear populations. We simply do not know.
The Chairman. You have brown bear populations on the
mainland, and you have wolves, and you have deer.
Mr. Iverson. The brown bear populations on the mainland are
much lower and you have a source population for the wolves
through the interior possibly in British Columbia.
The Chairman. Appendix N states: ``Furthermore, the wolf
assessment concluded that sustaining the current estimated wolf
populations on Prince of Wales''--and I guess it is ``Koskiosko
Island.''
Mr. Iverson. Koskiosko.
The Chairman [continuing]. ``Koskiosko would require a deer
population of from 42,000 to 54,000 for a 95 percent
probability of equilibrium, given current human deer harvest
levels.'' 95 percent probability means that you are pretty sure
of this finding, or at least I would think that would be the
case.
In order to have such a high level of statistical
confidence in the statement, I assume it is based on a
carefully controlled experiment on Prince of Wales that is
repeatable and carries with it the 95 percent probability. Is
that correct, and could you provide the committee with a copy
of the study or studies that generated such a high level of
confidence?
Mr. Iverson. That value and that analysis was done and
included in the wolf assessment, which we can provide you a
copy of. The details of that, it was a multiple iteration
statistical analysis based upon three principal factors: one,
the current deer harvest on Prince of Wales Island; the current
estimated deer population; and the reproductive capacity of
those species.
David Pearson at the University of Alaska was the
statistician that developed that analysis. Beyond what is
already in the wolf assessment, I could see if we could obtain
the original printouts or whatever original analysis went into
developing that relationship.
[The information requested was not received at the time the
hearing went to press.]
The Chairman. Well, I assume, since you used it, that you
have got it.
Mr. Iverson. We could try to obtain it from Dave Pearson,
the principal author of that assessment.
The Chairman. Is that model-based or is it based on actual
experiments?
Mr. Iverson. It is based on estimated population size from
several factors: the telemetry study that Dave Pearson did on
Prince of Wales Island. He had estimates of the population size
of wolves. He had reproductive, estimates of reproductive
capacity of wolf size and number of pups. He had from Fish and
Game the number of deer that were harvested on Prince of Wales
Island. And we had estimates of deer population size on Prince
of Wales and the proportion of the population that was
harvested by humans.
He took those independent factors that are real data--they
are not--well, deer harvest is real data--and he took those
data and applied them into this statistical model to develop
this equilibrium of 13 deer per square mile.
The Chairman. You are aware that the subsistence board made
a recommendation to reduce hunting dramatically on Prince of
Wales Island?
Mr. Iverson. Yes, I am.
The Chairman. It was not finalized, but it was recommended.
Do you concern yourselves with predator control of any kind to
enhance the deer population?
Mr. Iverson. That has not been an option that we have
considered at this point.
The Chairman. It has not been an option?
Mr. Iverson. Not so far that we have considered. That would
not be one under our purview.
The Chairman. Why?
Mr. Iverson. I think that is a State Fish and Game
responsibility.
The Chairman. Well, I mean, if you are legitimately
concerned--and you are--with the deer population and the
largest, outside of the human take, is the wolf, you have no
concern over limiting the number of wolves when you recognize
that traditionally--and this is factual and scientifically
proven--that on an island the deer population will be decimated
dramatically over a period of time by the wolf and the wolf
will swim off to the next island.
So if you want to maintain a higher number of deer on the
island, you address the merits of some kind of reduction of the
wolf population.
Mr. Iverson. That may not be--our concern up to this point
has been to sustain enough habitat to support the stable
populations of all these species and to sustain the current
human harvest of the deer.
The Chairman. But do you recognize the reality that the
wolves take the deer and once the deer are reduced they move
off to the next island, or do you dismiss that?
Mr. Janik. Mr. Chairman, may I answer that?
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Janik. I think that deals with more a policy kind of
all. The Federal subsistence board, which I sit on--often Jim
Kaplan, my deputy regional forester, represents me there--they
dealt with that very recommendation that you mentioned and they
voted not to follow through with that recommendation.
There is also coordination that goes on with the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game and that board on some of the
subject matter you are referring to, and that is when there is
a problem with regard to predator control or whatever in terms
of other expectations, that is discussed.
We also have free communications, obviously, from agency to
agency, and the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Department of
Fish and Game, and the Forest Service through that agreement
that we signed in I believe it was December 1994, which deals
with preventing listing of species, but nevertheless when there
is a relationship like this with regard to predator and prey,
if issues of this kind come up, that is discussed in that kind
of forum.
And we have direct access to people in the Department. If
we think actions are necessary that do not come under our
jurisdiction, we bring them to our attention. So far that has
not seemed to be necessary in that area.
The Chairman. Well, if you go over to Queuyu, I would
suggest that you might find some different attitudes
prevailing. I do not see how you can simply determine that you
are going to manage all species at a maximum level and not
recognize the reality of what happens with the wolf and the
deer population relative to the cycles that have been in
existence since you have got any recorded history of
southeastern Alaska. That is just the reality.
Anyway, it is apparent that your business is not predator
control.
Appendix N includes a discussion about the deer habitat
models which for areas on Prince of Wales and Koskiosko predict
a current deer habitat capability of 19 deer per square mile
for an area as a whole and 20 deer per square mile for the
unfragmented and unroaded wildlife areas, such as Honker
Divide. The discussion and accompanying tables go on to show
that scientific studies of deer densities from northern
southeastern Alaska to Vancouver, B.C., have found actual deer
densities to be as much as two to seven times higher than would
be predicted by your model.
Given the only real science around predicts significantly
higher numbers than you have in your unvalidated deer model,
why would you continually rely on your model as having any
validity in predicting habitat capability of 13 deer per square
mile as a ``professional working hypothesis'' for purposes of
basically locking up areas to provide deer for wolves?
Mr. Iverson. Senator, the model that we are using does
predict habitat capability. It does not estimate deer
populations per se. This table was developed to compare our
model outputs, how well they compare, with other blacktail deer
populations on the west coast, and our model was at or below
most of these other. And these populations are estimated
populations, not capabilities. So maybe those populations were
higher at that time or those lands, like Vancouver Island, have
a much higher capability for deer density than islands in
southeast.
So we believe that the model is as good a model as we can
produce with the data that we have right now relative to
habitat capability, and it is careful to show in the table that
it is capability and not population estimates, as the other
numerical estimates in that table show.
The Chairman. So you are erring on the side of
conservatism.
Mr. Iverson. That is one possible explanation.
The Chairman. Appendix N concludes: ``Wolf populations
appear to be more resilient on Queuyu, Kupreanof, Mitkof,
Wrangell, Zrimbo, and Etolin Islands than what you call GMU-2,
Prince of Wales, and may possibly persist under relatively low
deer densities.''
Now, I find that rather startling in looking at the facts
as I understand them. We do not have to speculate, to resort to
untested models, to know wolves persisted in this region--that
is Queuyu, Kupreanof, GU-3--through the consecutive severe
winters of 1969 through 1972 and resulting extremely low deer
densities in the seventies to the early nineties, and survived
over 50 years of bounties which were paid on all wolves taken
in the region. Now, that is a correct statement, is it not?
Mr. Iverson. Yes, it is, Senator.
The Chairman. Is it not correct, as reported in appendix N,
a researcher by the name of Smith in 1986 reported that 78 of
80 wolf scats located near the den of a wolf pack on Revilla
Island were dominated by beaver hair and bones and that 70
percent of the telemetry relocations were within the vicinity
of active beaver colonies? Is that true or false?
Mr. Iverson. That is true.
The Chairman. Is it not also true that Revilla has a
substantial deer population?
Mr. Iverson. I am not sure of the current population on
Revilla. They are lower, I believe, than Prince of Wales and
associated islands, outer islands, probably higher than on the
mainland.
The Chairman. Yet Prince of Wales was noted for special
action by the subsistence board, as opposed to Revilla?
Mr. Janik. The advisory recommendations, yes.
The Chairman. So that must mean something.
Wolves also persist, and have for as long as we have had
records, on the mainland in Glacier Bay, where there is few if
any deer. Pearson in his 1996 study acknowledges this, but
attributed it to more a diverse prey base. Now, I assume that
he meant moose, goats, and isn't it true that moose and goat
numbers in the area are nowhere near high enough to offset the
deer biomass available, say, on Prince of Wales Island?
Mr. Iverson. I would say the densities of those species are
much lower.
The Chairman. Also, Pearson in his study of wolves on
Prince of Wales found that deer feces and parts in 90 percent
of the seats--that is ``scats.'' This number was then assumed
to be the floor of deer requirements to maintain Prince of Wale
wolves and was then plugged into various models to come up with
a conclusion that habitat capacity of 13 deer per square mile
must be maintained to ensure wolf viability on Prince of Wales?
Mr. Iverson. No.
The Chairman. That is not correct?
Mr. Iverson. That is not correct.
The Chairman. What is correct?
Mr. Iverson. An explanation of that, that 13 deer per
square mile on this, and I think this line of thought, and let
me explain, is that the analysis of 13 deer per square mile,
the capability to produce those current number of deer would
sustain the current condition. The current human harvest of
deer I think is 2,500, 3,000 deer on the island. It would
sustain the current deer--wolf population on the island.
So it would maintain the status quo. It is not a minimum
level to maintain viable populations of wolves. The wolf
assessment was careful to say we are not certain what that
population level is. They were talking about in the wolf
assessment what would sustain the current equilibrium.
The Chairman. In appendix N, double counting of wolf prey
leads in the model to ``no consideration of the annual
increment of annual spring fawn production that may represent a
20 to 40 percent increase in population size until mid to late
winter,'' biomass available to wolves essentially throughout
the year but not represented in the model, and the acknowledged
likelihood you are underestimating deer habitat capability,
possibly by a very substantial amount.
Is that a possibility?
Mr. Iverson. That is certainly one of the factors that we
listed in appendix N for believing that the deer habitat
capability model was somewhat conservative.
The Chairman. Based on what you have told us, I am
wondering if this is a habitat capability plan or a hunting
capability plan. Do you have enough wolves for the hunters, the
trappers?
Mr. Iverson. We were assessing--we were not designing--this
was an assessment of what does this plan provide in terms of
capability. Our assessment was that I think it is over 80
percent of the range on Prince of Wales had sufficient habitat
under this alternative to sustain the current equilibrium, this
13 deer per square mile estimate. So we were going to sustain
the current human use of the deer resource, the current wolf
population, the current harvest of wolves. So we were providing
a sustainable approach in over 80 percent of this range.
The Chairman. Well, what is your charge, to maintain a
viable population or to maintain the current bag limits?
Mr. Iverson. Our first obligation is to sustain habitat to
provide for viable populations of all the species. What this
analysis suggested was that with the habitat there we had a
high assurance of the viable level, as well as sufficient
habitat to maintain the current other uses of the resource--
resources.
The Chairman. So you are doing both, in effect?
Mr. Janik. I would say that, yes, that strategy was
designed to do both. I guess I would ask Brad just to make a
comment about the influence of the group there dealing with
subsistence on that island.
The Chairman. Do you want to go next?
Mr. Powell. I think, particularly back to the subsistence
issue, that the Southeast Council when they made their
recommendation they were influenced by some information that
they thought indicated that there had been a downturn in deer
harvest. Subsequently that information proved to not be factual
and, as the subsistence board actually looked at it, that is
why they made the determination not to change the seasons,
because they did not find that there was any downturn in
harvest.
What we have agreed to, though, is to do some additional
work and increase our monitoring to really watch that harvest
over time. So I think that it is really a little bit of apples
and oranges, what we are talking about, because they really had
some information that did not prove to be accurate in the long
term.
Mr. Janik. Mr. Chairman, one other thing--and Chris,
correct me if I am wrong here--but as I remember us focusing in
on this detail of habitat capability for deer on Prince of
Wales, one of the primary reasons was in fact that that was
judged to be a hot spot, so to speak, with regard to concern
for wolf population trend. In other areas of the Tongass you
will not find any specific deer management guidelines per se
because the other measures that we decided, that I decided, to
implement captured most of the concerns for the deer winter
range, whether it be beach protection area or estuary or old
growth reserves.
So the particular attention given here to Prince of Wales
was because of the hot spot. Chris, is that correct?
Mr. Iverson. That is correct, because of the substantial
past harvest, the reduction in capability on the island, and
the current what was perceived as possibly unsustainable
mortality levels.
The Chairman. Well, I think what you are attempting to do
is meritorious. On the other hand, you are overlooking the
capabilities of the contribution of predator control,
regardless of how unseemly it may be to the public. It is a
management tool, if properly used, to enhance the species you
want to see enhanced. And the fact that your agency shies away
from it as far as any recommendation is concerned I think is a
bit irresponsible relative to recognizing that it is and can be
a very effective management tool.
Yet, for professional reasons and public opinion, and
perhaps correctly, you have chosen not to consider that in the
management.
Further, you take no note of the other reality, and that is
the winter kill, which, as you and I both know, is significant.
It is unpredictable. It is just a reality that is associated
with southeastern Alaska. At the time when the heavy snowfall
comes down, the deer are on the beaches eating kelp. They are
vulnerable to the wolves, they are in a weakened condition, and
in many cases that winter kill will dictate that some action
should be initiated relative to assisting.
Of course, one of those actions can be reduction of the
wolf population.
Mr. Janik. Mr. Chairman, just for clarification, our
position is not in opposition to any type of predator control,
whether it be even trapping or hunting. It just so happens that
particular measure does not come under our jurisdiction, so we
would----
The Chairman. No, but you have the ability to make
recommendations.
Mr. Janik. That is correct.
The Chairman. And you are not making any in the area of
predator control.
Mr. Janik. In this particular setting, though, we are
confronted with the observation that the wolf numbers are lower
than they ought to be, and that is the----
The Chairman. The wolf numbers are lower than they ought to
be?
Mr. Janik. In this particular area, yes. And that is why--
--
The Chairman. Which particular area?
Mr. Janik. Prince of Wales.
Mr. Iverson. Let me----
The Chairman. You are going to get in trouble there, Phil.
Mr. Janik. Well, let us talk about that.
Chris.
Mr. Iverson. This analysis--we suspect that the populations
are sustainable right now. What our concern is is for the long-
term capability in terms of deer to support the wolf
population.
The Chairman. You get a winter kill, what are you going to
do about it?
Mr. Iverson. There will be a natural predator-prey response
so that the prey population of deer will go down and likely the
wolf population will go down, similar to what you explained on
Queuyu.
The Chairman. Yes, it follows. The deer population drops
down and then the wolf population either moves if they can or
they drop down.
Mr. Iverson. Correct.
The Chairman. Yet you are managing the forest in such a way
as to enhance both the wolf and the deer, in the sense of
habitat.
Mr. Iverson. In the sense of habitat, for long-term
sustainability of a population.
The Chairman. But these extending circumstances that you
have no control over do occur, and you have no plan or any
apparent effort to take whatever steps might be necessary to
initiate a predator control program to offset the reality of
the winter kill, and that is obvious.
Is it not fair to say that there is in part a tradeoff
between the timber harvest, Phil, and deer bag limits, and that
you choose to maintain the status quo in deer harvests and to
reduce the timber harvests accordingly? That is the conclusion
I reached.
Mr. Janik. My answer to that would be that the old growth
reserve system on Prince of Wales that has been established,
one of the largest on the Tongass--Brad, help me. How many
acres?
Mr. Powell. It is close to a quarter million acres on north
Prince of Wales and interconnected reserves, primarily around
the Honker Divide area.
Mr. Janik. That is the more substantial influence on the
timber yield, is that old growth reserve, as compared to
specific measures for deer standard and guidelines there, I
would say.
The Chairman. But you cannot give me a specific answer and
I understand that, but that fringe area is an effort that has
been attempted to have been maintained as a reality of where
the deer spend the winter. They cannot get up to the meadows,
they cannot get up on top.
Let us go over to the other hot one. How many goshawks are
there on the Tongass, and is the population increasing,
declining, or stable?
Mr. Iverson. In the goshawk assessment and in our
documentation, we have pretty clearly said that we do not know
what the current population is. In response to the second part
of your question, the assessment looked at the habitat
relationships of goshawks, the clear and undeniable selection
for productive old growth, the reduction of old growth in
southeast Alaska that approximates about 15 percent of the
region.
The goshawk assessment, based upon those two relationships,
concluded that there has likely been a reduction in capability
for goshawks, which would have an associated decline in the
population.
The Chairman. Well, what do you say about the Justice
Department's filing in the Southwest Center for Biological
Diversity v. Babbitt in July 1996: ``Because there is no
current study to estimate relative abundance or density, no
inferences can be made about the number of goshawks nesting in
southeastern Alaska or their population trend.''
Mr. Iverson. I would agree with the first part, that we
cannot make inferences on the population size. But as I just
said, I believe that we can make some inference based upon
relationships, that we are fairly certain that there has been a
reduction in capability in southeastern Alaska over the past 40
or 50 years.
The Chairman. So I guess I would ask, who is wrong, you or
the Justice Department? You suggest the Justice Department?
Mr. Janik. Careful, Chris.
The Chairman. Anybody want to volunteer who is right?
Mr. Janik. We do deal with habitat, Mr. Chairman, and we
try to do the best we can in making the relationships and
setting out prescriptions that respond to that. That really is
what our strategy is based on.
The Chairman. Yet you recognize and acknowledge that you
have not done an extensive inventory of the habitat beyond the
areas of proposed timber sales of any consequences?
Mr. Janik. We have not done an extensive search for goshawk
nests, that is true, Tongass-wide.
The Chairman. So your studies have been done in association
with timber sales?
Mr. Janik. Not just limited to that. Chris, go ahead. We
have gone beyond just the timber sale areas.
Mr. Iverson. Yes. We testified before that we found a large
number of nests relative to timber sale preparation activities.
But we have also found a large number of nests outside of
timber sales. And furthermore, the Fish and Wildlife Service
conducted a survey in I think 1995 that surveyed all or
surveyed only within legislatively withdrawn areas. And I think
as we testified last year, they did not find a reservoir of
goshawks in those areas.
The detection rates were not different between timber sale
preparation areas and wilderness and LUD-2 areas.
The Chairman. Well, I am not going to ask you how much of
the forest or the timbered area that you covered, because I do
not think you have been able to cover an extensive amount to
bring any scientific evaluation. But you have answered the
question relative to how many goshawks there are. You do not
know. And we know what the Justice Department has concluded,
that there is no current study to estimate the relative
abundance or density and no inferences can be made on the
number of goshawks nesting in southeastern Alaska or the
population trend.
So I question the science because there is not enough of it
and what we have is not conclusive. Yet as a consequence of the
goshawk, the theory of a threatened species is before us and
currently before the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and I
think that indeed is unfortunate relative to the scientific
evidence that we have.
Are goshawks an old growth-dependent species?
Mr. Iverson. I would say ``dependent'' is not an accurate
word. I would say they are closely associated with, with
productive old growth forests.
The Chairman. Let me ask you whether they are dependent or
not. You say closely associated. Well, that can mean----
Mr. Iverson. They select for old growth relative to its
abundance and availability in their habitat use patterns, but
they also use other habitat types. So to say they are dependent
upon old growth is unlikely accurate. They are closely
associated.
The Chairman. Well, as you may know, quoting from the
Justice Department filing in the Southwest Center for
Biological Diversity v. Babbitt: ``The Forest Service stated
that, although its joint study with the Alaska Department of
Fish and Game showed that goshawks were located in old growth
areas, it also showed that, contrary to the earlier theory, the
goshawks in southeastern Alaska do not necessarily require
large areas of fragmented higher volume old growth forests.
According to the Forest Service, the study revealed that, while
goshawks were selecting productive old growth forests, male
goshawks selected the edges rather than the forest interior
habitat.
``Additionally, of the 1592 goshawk telemetry relocation
points collected from 68 radio-marked goshawks, only 20 percent
would occur in areas currently delineated under the old growth
TLMP as available for timber harvest over the next 100 years.''
Finally, as to population trends, the Forest Service
concluded: ``Despite low sample sizes, the current research and
monitoring to date have failed to reveal evidence of declining
goshawk populations.''
Any comment?
Mr. Iverson. I think most of that is accurate. There is a
part in there about the selection of edge by male goshawks, and
subsequent analysis last summer in the final goshawk assessment
could not--based on new analysis, we no longer propose that
relationship. There is not a selection or an avoidance of edge
habitat, whether it is clearcut edge or old growth
nonproductive forest edge. So that relationship----
The Chairman. What was the justification for the earlier
contention that there was?
Mr. Iverson. It was with a smaller sample size and a
different statistical analysis and, as the goshawk assessment
team, we put the new analysis and the assessment--we would
stand behind the new analysis.
The Chairman. You would not the old one?
Mr. Iverson. Not any longer.
The Chairman. Why did you the first time?
Mr. Iverson. Because it was a preliminary analysis on
smaller sample size, and a different statistical analysis. It
was a preliminary result.
The Chairman. Well, putting aside the edge area, do the
HCA's contribute to the goshawk viability?
Mr. Iverson. Yes, they do.
The Chairman. You sure?
Mr. Iverson. If they are providing productive old growth
forest as a long term strategy for sustaining the population,
yes.
The Chairman. Well, let me tell you what the Justice
Department said in the same case: ``Then from October 26 to
October 28, 1994, the inter-agency workshop held a meeting to
re-evaluate its June 30, 1994 recommendations in light of new
information. The transcript of this meeting provides critical
insights into the true state of the scientific knowledge
concerning the Queen Charlotte goshawk.
``The transcript revealed that, although the inter-agency
workshop team, a team composed of the leading goshawk experts,
had doubled the information they had last June, they
nevertheless still had `no information about the population
dynamics, demography, or the habitat needs of the birds.' ''
Mr. Iverson. That is correct.
The Chairman. It sounds to me like less than perfect
science.
Dr. Mills. I would like to comment on that if I could, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. Go ahead.
Dr. Mills. I think we have testified very clearly that the
scientific record on systems as complex as the Tongass are far
from complete. However, I think, as Mr. Iverson just cited,
there has been additional goshawk information collected, and
inevitably the decisionmakers are placed in a position of
making decisions in the face of uncertainty. And if we had to
wait until we had certainty, there is probably a whole bunch of
opportunities that we would miss in the meantime.
The Chairman. Well, I do not know that I agree with you.
One of the things that I am sure you read in the Tongass
testimony relative to Barry Hill is the lack of accountability
for time and costs has delayed the forest plan revision. This
particular listing states relative to your question, Dr. Mills,
or statement: ``An option on these things that we do not know
all the science we would like would be to move forward with a
decision, a decision conditioned on adequate monitoring
components.''
It further states: ``The Forest Service has historically
failed to live up to its own monitoring requirements, and
Federal regulatory agencies and other stakeholders continue to
insist the Forest Service front-load the process, perpetuating
the cycle of inefficiency.''
I am just wondering why on these questions that clearly you
need more science, more time, more evaluation, you would not
make your decisions conditioned on monitoring, so that you
could initiate whatever changes.
According to the inter-agency task force chaired by the
Council on Environmental Quality--and this is the Bible that we
currently live under--according to that inter-agency task force
chaired by the Council on Environmental Quality. ``An agency
can condition a decision the effects of which may be difficult
to determine in advance because of the uncertainties or the
costs. However, the Forest Service has historically given low
or negligible priority to monitoring and continues to approve
projects without adequate monitoring components and does not
generally perform the monitoring of a forest plan
implementation required by its current regulators.''
I can understand your effort to finalize, but clearly in
these areas that we have discussed there is a lot lacking and
we both know it. But you have not in your evaluation of your
TLMP done in my opinion what would seem to be an appropriate
action, and that would be to condition your decisions on
monitoring these scientific questions that you do not have the
information.
Mr. Janik. Two reactions to that if I may, Mr. Chairman.
One is that our monitoring plan in the revision intends to
address the very concerns you just mentioned. We may not be
able to do 100 percent of the monitoring job that we would like
to do, but we are definitely going to pick up the pace and do a
more credible job of monitoring than perhaps has been done in
the past.
That monitoring will in large part, again, deal with the
habitat trends, with some tracking of populations, which are
much more difficult to survey and analyze and draw any cause-
effect relationships from.
The other part I would like to say is that the old growth
reserve system and the beach areas that have been protected and
the estuary areas that have been protected and the riparian
standards that have been chosen all relate to a whole host of
species that are believed to be associated and-or require those
kinds of habitat conditions.
It is not just restricted to the goshawk or it is not just
restricted to any single species, but a whole community of
species. That is why I was persuaded to make the kinds of
decisions I did.
The Chairman. Well, certainly no one would criticize you
for making the decision based on constant monitoring. But once
you set the level so low, there is little inducement and we
basically lose the value of monitoring. I am personally of the
opinion that that is what we have done here, as opposed to
setting it at a level that would meet the industry's current
installed capability, which is not addressed in the TLMP
unfortunately, and then monitor your process where your science
is questionable.
It is so basic that maybe that is why it escapes me.
Dr. Mills. Mr. Chairman, I would surely agree that there
have been places where the Forest Service has not been as
aggressive with monitoring as would be desirable. I believe
that is why the regional forester included a fairly assertive
monitoring package in this plan, and likewise in collaboration
with the region PNW station scientists have some follow-on
studies to do that very kind of enhancement of information.
I would also suggest, though, that opportunities are not
necessarily being lost by taking the decision track----
The Chairman. Well, it depends on whose opportunities you
are talking about. If you are talking about the state of the
industry's opportunities and the jobs that go with it and the
community and the welfare of the areas, we are not at a level
of the existing sustained capability of the industry after we
shut down the two major pulp mills.
But that is a responsibility I think only some of you bear.
Dr. Mills. I think that there is also ample evidence that
when we have taken the tack to wait until we had perfect
information that, first of all, we never had it. But at that
time, oftentimes the options available for decisions had far
greater impact on the very people that you are concerned about
than if a more conservative approach was taken in the absence
of the complete information.
Some of the decisions that were made in the Pacific
Northwest as a result of similar decisions I think would bear
that out.
The Chairman. Well, I guess you and I disagree on that
point.
Let us talk about marten. There seems to have been some
misunderstanding by the national press on just what a marten
is, but we all know. And maybe they can--there is not many of
them left in here. Well, we will do the best we can.
The five biogeographic provinces to which the marten
standard applies, I am told, is East Chichagof, Kupreanof,
Mitkof, Etolin Island and the vicinity, minus Zrimbo, which
does not have marten, north central Prince of Wales, and
Revilla.
Now, in your record of decision you say: ``The effect of
the measures added to alternative 11 have not been explicitly
modeled, but have been judged to be relatively small.''
However, in appendix M you further say: ``Where applied and
found necessary, the effect will be to approximately double the
rotation age and reduce the volume available for harvest in any
time period by about half.''
Mr. Janik, the new plan schedules 496,000 acres of old
growth for harvest. Over 304,000 or 60 percent of the 496,000
acres are found in the 5 provinces to which the measure added
for that matter apply. About 130,000 acres of old growth
scheduled from those provinces is classified as high volume.
The marten standard applies to high volume old growth
stands below 1500 feet in elevation. Most high volume old
growth is found below 1500 feet, possibly as much as 80 percent
of the high volume. That would translate into as much as
104,000 acres in the 5 provinces to which the marten standard
will apply. Almost 104,000 acres of high volume old growth
would contain something like 3.8 billion board feet of timber.
According to appendix N, the added measure would reduce the
contribution of these high volume stands to the allowable cut,
allowable sales quantity, by half. That is a potential
reduction of 1.9 billion board feet of timber. That is almost
as much as your entire NICIASQ for the next decade, which is
about 2.19 billion board feet.
Do you think that qualifies as a significant reduction in
the ASQ?
Mr. Janik. There was considerable discussion when we dealt
with the mitigation measures as to what effect those would have
on the calculated ASQ, and we spent a great deal of time on
this very subject. One item that influenced the stay on the 267
calculation was that we have left determination of where to
apply mitigation measures to interdisciplinary teams because we
judged that even within those provinces those measures may not
be necessary, depending on what other old growth conditions may
exist there in such an analysis.
In addition, our experts who make those kinds of
calculations--we have one of them here today, John Day--studied
this at length and determined that, given the tradeoffs with
other kinds of things that are conditioned into those
calculations, that there was no reason to believe that this was
a significant change at this point. It goes back to your
message on monitoring, Mr. Chairman. We are going to watch this
very closely, and if we experience that these mitigation
measures are having to be applied in a very regular kind of
fashion within these provinces and are going to accumulate into
a level that will definitely have an effect on our projected
yield, we will definitely address that problem.
The Chairman. Would you increase the yield then?
Mr. Janik. Pardon me?
The Chairman. Would you increase the yield?
Mr. Janik. That is possible.
The Chairman. You see, the point I am making here is, when
you set a reduction of 1.9 billion feet of timber as a
consequence of your analysis that may be so low that the
monitoring and the public opinion associated with increasing
the volume if your science proves too conservative is a reality
that you could offset by monitoring a reduction of a billion
board feet rather than almost two.
Mr. Janik. The mitigation measures just for the marten, it
would be very unlikely that the outcome of the monitoring would
be an increase, because the additional restrictions suggested
in those mitigation measures could only lead over time to a
decrease if they are applied and accumulate over time.
But the 267 generally, if overall monitoring suggests that
the potential is greater than that overall, considering all
things, then, yes, we have as much of an obligation to look at
an amendment there as we would with a reduction.
The Chairman. What would you do if the State banned
trapping on marten? Would that make any difference?
Mr. Janik. In terms of mitigation measures?
The Chairman. In terms of available timber. If you made a
reduction of 1.9 billion board feet as a consequence of this
extended evaluation and the State prohibited trapping of
marten, what would that do?
Mr. Janik. The responsibility we have is with the habitat,
Mr. Chairman, and we have----
The Chairman. Yes, but if you have more species because
nobody is trapping them?
Mr. Janik. But if we deteriorate the habitat base upon
which the species depends, over time, regardless of what other
measures are in place, that will become the limiting factor and
they will decline.
The Chairman. Well, will these mitigation measures that you
have taken be adequate for the current take that occurs by
trapping?
Mr. Janik. We believe the mitigation measures and the old
growth reserve system--I do not want to just say mitigation
measures here, but the total response to what we understand are
the habitat relationships with the marten--we believe are
adequate to sustain that species over time.
Now, there are other variables that come to play on the
actual fluctuation of population trends, and we are back to
that discussion that we had earlier in terms of who is in
charge of these measures and, if in fact things like trapping
need to be, regulations need to be changed, the Department of
Fish and Game would be the appropriate authority to do that,
one way or another.
The Chairman. Well, have you looked at trying to maintain
the current level of harvest? Marten I am talking about,
trapping of marten.
Mr. Janik. Chris, help me there.
Mr. Iverson. That has not been an implicit objective of the
design of the conservation strategy. It is to maintain
sufficient habitat so that in the long term sufficient viable
populations would be maintained.
The Chairman. That is contrary apparently to your
management on the deer population, where you acknowledge you
are trying to keep both up in the air.
Mr. Iverson. The discussion earlier relative to deer
populations was an analysis of what the habitat from the
strategy could produce, and for deer it would sustain the
current situation. The strategy, in addition to these
additional measures, are what we judge necessary for a
reasonable likelihood of long-term sustainable populations.
The Chairman. And you observed the marten populations on
Prince of Wales, where you had extensive logging, is that
right?
Mr. Janik. Are you asking if we actually observed?
The Chairman. The population levels.
Mr. Janik. The concern for the marten was really revealed
through some of the panel assessments that were conducted and
the risk level. At least that is what influenced my
decisionmaking.
The Chairman. Was the risk panel a major factor in the
decisionmaking process on the marten, your own decision?
Mr. Janik. The information on risk totally, not just what
came from the panel but then as was interpreted by the science
team, influenced my decision, yes, sir. Risk in terms of
viability of all these species.
The Chairman. In calculating the ASQ you used something
called ``regulation classes,'' with regulation class 1 being
clearcut, 2 clearcut and reserves, and 3 group selection; is
that correct?
Mr. Janik. I understand those as broad categories we used,
yes. If we are going to pursue a line of questioning on this
calculation of ASQ, we may want to shift here with emphasis on
Mr. Norbury and Mr. Day, but that is of course your preference.
The Chairman. Well, if a particular stand was in regulation
class 1 for purposes of the ASQ, is it not true one of the
effects of either the added marten or goshawk standard will be
to change the regulation class from 1 to 2 or maybe 3?
Mr. Janik. I think we are going to have to ask Mr. Day to
come up and answer some of these. Chris, why do you not step
back for a second. We may call you back.
John Day is coming to the table.
Mr. Day. In regards to the regulation class question,
regulation class 1, 2, 3 is kind of a derivation of land use
designation and a variety of scenic classes. Reg class 1 is
managed more intensively than 2 and 3. But one thing we have
done, realizing from our experience on the ground in the visits
we have done and input from the forest supervisors, is we have
reduced, say, the total permissible harvest from those down
slightly, because we know--at least in Brad's case, he has
stated 20 percent of his areas in green will not be managed as
green, for a variety of competing reasons.
So it is true they have been dropped down, and they would
be impacted by the standard and guidelines. If laid on top of
the reg class 1, we would certainly make that change in the
model.
The Chairman. What are the scheduled acres by regulation
class for alternative 2--excuse me--alternative 11 as used to
calculate the ASQ, scheduled acres by regulation class?
Mr. Day. In terms of percent?
The Chairman. Uh-huh.
Mr. Day. Of the entire available land base, I know that
about 65 percent is scheduled. I do not have the breakdowns.
The Chairman. Of the total land base. Why do you not
provide that for the record.
Mr. Day. Okay.
[The information requested was not received at the time the
hearing went to press.]
The Chairman. How many of the high volume acres below 1500
feet in elevation in the 5 provinces to which the additional
marten standard applies were regulation class 1 for purposes of
calculating the ASQ?
Mr. Day. Again, may I explain the way we went about
incorporating----
The Chairman. Not really. I just need the answers.
Mr. Day. Again, I am not exactly sure.
The Chairman. Why do you not provide that for the record.
[The information requested was not received at the time the
hearing went to press.]
The Chairman. Table B-12 of appendix B illustrates how
sensitive the economics of timber harvesting are to regulation
class change. For example, on the Chatham area high volume
normal operable timber in regulation class 1 has a net dollar
per acre value of $4,958 per million board feet--excuse me, per
thousand board feet. Change the regulation class to 2 and the
net dollars per acre drops to 2,054 per thousand, a drop of
some 61 percent. Change the class from 1 to 3 and the value
drops to a minus $13,000.
Given this, how much of the timber in your NICI from the
FEIS is still economic after the additional protective measures
are applied and the necessary changes to regulation class have
been made? Anybody know?
Mr. Day. Well, the way we determined NIC 1, the N-I-C 1, it
is based on the operability classes. Now, the incorporation of
the marten standard and guide and the goshawk standard and
guide would not influence the operability call for that
particular area. But granted, there would be additional costs
certainly from the standard and guidelines if it moved from a 2
to a 3 or a 1 to a 3 rate class.
Mr. Norbury. Mr. Chairman, the application of the marten
standard and guidelines or the goshawk standard and guidelines
is far more complicated than simply moving from one regulation
class to another. Basically, the marten standard and guidelines
established certain habitat objectives and leaves considerable
flexibility to the field to determine what silvicultural
prescription would achieve those objectives.
We have done some experimental layouts in the Ketchikan
area--Brad may want to comment on this here in a few minutes--
where we have looked at what are the alternative silvicultural
prescriptions that might achieve the marten and goshawk habitat
objectives. What we are finding is that there are choices and
there are significant choices, and that there are silvicultural
regimes that can get as much as 70 percent of the volume,
rather than the 50 percent that we were thinking at the time
the plan was adopted.
The other interesting thing that is coming out of that
analysis is that the value of the timber that is coming out of
those areas has increased. Basically, we are leaving a lot of
the lower value timber there to provide the habitat objectives
established by the standard and guidelines.
So while it is true that the costs of harvesting are going
up substantially in those areas where you apply those standards
and guidelines, the values of the timber coming off are also
increasing. And based on the field trials that we are doing
right now, it looks like it is about a wash.
Would you like to add to that?
Mr. Powell. I could only add from the standpoint that I
think Phil mentioned earlier that we need to monitor this,
because we have just started to----
The Chairman. I do not have any problem with that. It is
where you start, it is your base, that concerns me.
Mr. Powell. I understand, but just to explain a little bit
the wide variation.
The Chairman. No, just go back to this report. They say you
have basically been derelict in the monitoring process and your
decisionmaking process. You either have or you have not. Now,
maybe you are getting better.
Mr. Powell. I think we have acknowledged, as we talked
earlier, that we intend to increase our monitoring. But what I
think is important relative to the issue that we are talking
about, as we try to apply the standard and guide there are many
different options. We have got our field foresters out looking
at it right now.
What we are finding out is if you look at these standards
and guides they do not require that merchantable trees be left,
so oftentimes we think we will be able to leave utility grade
trees or lower value trees, thus increasing the value of the
stand and meeting that marten standard. But we are not going to
really know until we lay out a few of these, see how they sell,
see what it takes to administer them and what it takes to
actually accomplish the standards and guide.
The Chairman. Well, I do not dispute that, Brad. But by the
same token, you could be in here making the same presentation
relative to the unknown lack of scientific evidence on the
goshawk or the marten or the wolf at a level of 350 and saying
you are going to monitor it because you do not know.
Now, clearly because of peer pressure and national
environmental pressures and so forth, you have chosen to come
down with what you feel you find defensible, and it may be
conservative and you are maybe going to monitor. But I think it
points out the reality to anybody who has sat here for 5, 4
hours at least, the extraordinary complexities and the
constriction that is within the Forest Service in its ability
to responsibly come up and say: Well we do not know; this is
what we are going to do and we are going to monitor in the
process.
And you have not been monitoring in a manner that has
certainly been commendable by the report on the lack of
accountability for time and costs, which you have all read, as
I have, and underlined.
Mr. Janik. Mr. Chairman, I just want to emphasize that my
decision was not politically based. It was based on the science
input and the risk assessments and, frankly, I want to stay out
of the courtroom.
The Chairman. Well, I am not going to argue that. But by
the same token, your decision could have been signed by any one
of two people that were there previous to you, or at least one,
because this thing has been ready at different numbers at
different times and could have been signed, but was not.
And I am not going to go into the reasons why it was not
signed, but maybe that is a subject for another hearing at
another time.
Mr. Janik. But all I can say to that, not passing judgment
on any of those previous events, but the information base we
are dealing with today is different than I am sure what they
were dealing with then, and that is what influenced me.
The Chairman. I could not agree with you more, but the
opportunity to monitor was there and it was not then, and it is
becoming now I think something that you are considering. Why
you were not considering a long time ago, I do not know.
Anyway, the question of viability. In developing your
approach to meeting the species viability requirement under the
National Forest Management Act, did either you or your
cooperating agencies include consideration of the impact of
timber harvesting on non-Federal lands in your analysis?
Mr. Janik. The information that was totally considered and
that I understand did consider some of the information
available of what was happening adjacent to Federal land. But
the predominant focus was the habitat trend on Federal land,
meaning the national forest.
Dr. Mills. If I could add to that, Mr. Chairman. The risk
assessment panels were asked to evaluate the likelihood that
habitat was available to provide for at least a minimum number
of reproductive individuals that were well distributed across
the planning area, and the planning area with the interspersed
State and Native corporation lands was considered in that scope
of planning.
The Chairman. And that included Native lands?
Dr. Mills. Yes.
The Chairman. Was your approach to species viability
modeled after the President's Northwest forest plan?
Dr. Mills. The methods that were used to extract expert
opinion from recognized experts in the field, yes, was a method
that had a lot of similarities to the expert opinion panel
process used in the Northwest forest plan.
The Chairman. In your decision did you apply a viability
standard requiring 80 percent chance of viability for 100 years
of every native vertebrate species?
Mr. Janik. I think Dr. Mills is looking at me because that
is a decisionmaker's reference. I did not use any fixed
percentage to persuade me to make the decisions I have made. 80
percent has been----
The Chairman. Well, how did the risk panels advise you?
What did the risk panels advise you to do?
Mr. Janik. They did not.
Dr. Mills. If I could comment----
The Chairman. What did they use? Certainly they addressed
it.
Dr. Mills. The risk panels did not use any particular
cutoff of what constituted an acceptable level of risk. They
were very careful simply to provide estimates of what the risk
level was. And in fact, the results from the risk assessment
panels for the final alternative include some estimates of the
range of risk, many of which are well below 80 percent.
The Chairman. Well, what did they use as a definition of
viability, then?
Dr. Mills. Viability was defined as habitat that was
available for a viability population well distributed across
the planning area.
The Chairman. What is a viable population?
Dr. Mills. That was articulated by the magnitude and
connectivity of habitat that was deemed to be necessary for
these individual species.
The Chairman. Well, you still are left with the question of
viability as a broad interpretation. It means different things
to different people. How many martens, how many deer, how many
goshawks? How many do you need to have a viable population?
Dr. Mills. We have acknowledged that the information on
population levels and trends is fragmentary at best and
therefore, consistent with our planning regulations, we looked
at the presence of habitat and its connectivity across the
planning area.
The Chairman. Well, yes, but is that what the planning
regulations require? You have got 90 percent theoretically of
the forest or thereabouts is going to remain in the state that
it was in 1950. So when you give me viability and you
generalize, yet you have been quite specific on setting an
allowable cut. I just cannot necessarily accept that you can
use a general term of viability without some association of
what does that mean in numbers?
Dr. Mills. What we are required by regulations to consider
is to maintain a habitat to support at least a minimum number
of reproductive individuals----
The Chairman. What's a minimum number?
Dr. Mills. Well, in habitat that is well distributed so
that those individuals can interact with others in the planning
area. We did not do an estimate, a direct estimate of
population. We did do an estimate, based upon the experts, of
how much habitat was necessary to maintain a viable
population----
The Chairman. You have got 80 to 90 percent of your habitat
retained under this plan.
Dr. Mills. That is true, Mr. Chairman. 80 to 90 percent of
the productive old growth, and a requirement that that habitat
must be well distributed across the planning area and therefore
connectivity in those habitat components. Therefore, that is
what the experts on the panel evaluated and provided estimates
of the likelihood that implementation of the alternatives over
a 100-year time period would lead to various levels of habitat
magnitude and connectivity.
The Chairman. Well, that is what bothers me about the
process. You can justify your experts in your particular
profession, but as a layman--and I am going to ask you, well,
is 78 percent non-viable? You cannot tell me it is or is not.
Dr. Mills. No, Mr. Chairman, I cannot say that 78 percent
is viable or non-viable. Scientists worked very hard to provide
some estimates of the level of risk of achieving viability and
well distributed populations.
Mr. Janik. In terms of how I looked at that as the
decisionmaker, Mr. Chairman, in those areas where there was a
pretty high level of assurance that I heard from the risk
assessments, it led me to a decision of one kind. When there
was not as much assurance with some of these paneled species
and then further interpretation by others, that is what led to
the response with some of the mitigation measures, to
demonstrate that where we were less certain as to whether the
job was being done adequately some additional measures would be
employed to make sure we would not commit any fatal flaws.
The Chairman. Well, that is fine. But, you acknowledge that
this was modeled after the President's Northwest forest plan,
and that was dealing with a forest that was to a high degree
harvested. They were harvesting second growth. Now, here you
have a different forest. You have virgin forest that is
probably 30 percent dead or dying.
Mr. Janik. I believe what Dr. Mills meant was that the
procedures might be similar, but the people providing the
information were confronted with the conditions of the Tongass,
not the Pacific Northwest, when they gave their assessments.
The Chairman. Well, that is true, but when you deal with a
figure of what is viable and what is not, we are flying kites.
Mr. Janik. Well, the courts have chosen not even to try to
be precise with that.
The Chairman. But your defense of a decision is now based
on your comment that you are going to monitor.
Mr. Janik. And the risk ratings.
The Chairman. But risk ratings are beyond your control in
many cases. Winter kill is beyond your control.
Mr. Janik. The risk ratings represent an important piece of
information to me.
The Chairman. Sure they do. But some of the risks
associated with the viability is beyond your control, beyond
habitat control.
Mr. Janik. Yes, these are habitat-related.
Dr. Mills. If I could comment on the habitat versus non-
habitat considerations. Much for the same reasons that I
believe are implied in your questions, Mr. Chairman, we wanted
to make sure that the information we provided did not
unnecessarily restrict management of habitat based upon impacts
on population that had nothing to do with habitat, and
therefore the risk assessment panels were asked to evaluate the
habitat contribution to viable and well distributed population
and to ignore non-habitat factors, and thereby did not indicate
some higher level of risk that led to more habitat protection
based upon non-habitat impacts on populations.
The Chairman. The assumptions that you just described, did
the public ever have an opportunity to comment on those?
Dr. Mills. The public? The public did have information in a
science report that was published about the same time that the
draft EIS was published. The draft EIS had the panel results in
it, and therefore the public had opportunity to comment on the
information that was considered in the risk assessment.
Mr. Janik. I believe the information was also discussed in
the face to face visits that we made twice to 32 communities in
southeast as a matter of the science component to that.
The Chairman. In the 1997 panelists, the question comes up,
why did the panelists not review all of the original proposed
alternatives, including the preferred alternative in the draft
TLMP and the selected alternative and the unreleased record of
decision. Particularly if there will be different panel members
comparing these risk assessments with the previous risk
assessments for certain of the alternatives, it may have been
an apples to oranges comparison.
At a minimum, to ensure that the same individuals are
applying the same opinion-based analysis in the same way,
looking at the same management prescriptions, the new panels
could have reviewed all the alternatives. Am I not correct?
Dr. Mills. The second set of panels were called, Mr.
Chairman, because the preferred alternative in the draft EIS
and the alternative that was emerging as the final alternative
had never been subjected to risk assessment panels.
The Chairman. Why was that?
Dr. Mills. Because the risk assessment panels that were
called prior to the draft EIS evaluated the alternatives in the
draft prior to the selection of both the preferred and the
development of the final, so that those two alternatives simply
were not available when we called the panels in 1995 and 1996,
and therefore the principal reason for calling the panels in
1997 was to evaluate the two alternatives that had not
previously been provided to the panels.
The Chairman. Well, why did this process occur after the
public participation effort had been completed?
Dr. Mills. In an effort to make sure that the draft could
get out in as timely a manner as possible, and likewise----
The Chairman. Well, it took how many years?
Dr. Mills [continuing]. And likewise not to subject the
public to another supplement after about three after this draft
was out.
The Chairman. Well, it is supposed to be a public process,
is it not? I mean, you pride yourself on public participation
up to a point, and then after the public participation effort
has been completed this occurred.
Dr. Mills. The risk assessment panel results for the nine
alternatives that were paneled and were available for public
comment in the draft spanned the preferred alternative and the
draft and the final alternative, and therefore the public
certainly had considerable information about risks associated
with different alternatives.
The Chairman. Well, that is my point. The 1997 panel risk
assessment did alter the analysis of each alternative,
including the regional forester's selected alternative.
Dr. Mills. I am sorry, could you repeat that? I did not
catch it all.
The Chairman. The 1997 panel risk assessment did alter the
analysis of each alternative, including the regional forester's
selected alternative.
Dr. Mills. No, the risk assessment panel that was called in
1997 did not alter the analysis. It analyzed two alternatives
that had not previously been available for analysis and also
paneled several other alternatives that had been previously
paneled to determine whether in fact the second set of panels
provided results that were comparable to the first set. Our
analysis of the second set of panels confirmed that in fact
they were comparable.
The Chairman. And you are suggesting the public had a
chance to comment on those two alternatives that you analyzed?
Dr. Mills. Well, the public had a chance to comment on the
preferred alternative in the draft.
The Chairman. No, no, I am talking about what your risk
assessment panel did. If you say it did not alter, then I am
asking you if the public had an opportunity specifically.
Dr. Mills. I have acknowledged that, no, the public did not
have the particular risk assessment results from the preferred
alternative in the draft, nor the final alternative in the
final EIS, to comment on. But I also commented that those two
alternatives are well within the bounds described by the nine
alternatives for which the public did have risk assessment
results and could comment on the draft.
Mr. Janik. Mr. Chairman, the primary reason for reconvening
the panels was to increase the legal defensibility of the plan,
in that those two were not subjected to the same kind of rigor
initially. We made that decision at expense of criticism of
having the process linger on for that reason.
The Chairman. Well, I would suggest that that kind of a
compromise may cause you problems. I think it is fair to say
that we have acknowledged that the public did not have a chance
to comment on the two alternatives and, given the significance
of these assessments in the final decisionmaking process and
the problems that we have articulated with the first round of
assessments in our view of the draft TLMP, I find no rational
reason why the public was precluded from any meaningful review
on these new risk assessments.
The public should have had a right to see, review it and
comment on it in the context of comments on a new draft
preferred alternative; and why did they not?
Mr. Janik. I would ask if I could just clarify one point.
The forest supervisor's recommended alternative did receive
public comment. It just was not subjected to the paneling. That
was in April 1996. That is because when they formed the
recommendation they picked and chose from various alternatives
that had been paneled.
Dr. Mills. If I could add just one more, Mr. Chairman. I am
not sure I heard everything that you said there, but----
The Chairman. I will repeat it if you want.
Dr. Mills. No, that is okay. But there were no flaws that
we identified with the first set of panels, nor the second set
of panels. The second set of panels were called in no way as an
indication that the information provided from the first set was
in any way in error or incomplete.
The Chairman. The difference, of course, is that you have
different personnel on the different panels. And still we are
faced with the reality that the public had the right to see,
review, and comment on the context of commitments in the new
draft preferred alternative, and I still do not have an
explanation of why the public did not have a chance to comment
on it.
Dr. Mills. There are two----
The Chairman. Other than the time element.
Dr. Mills. There are two points there, Mr. Chairman. One,
we were concerned about the question of whether the ability not
to get all 24 panelists back together would in fact cause a
problem. We were able to get 20 of the 24 back together, but we
had to have 4 new panelists. The four new panelists nonetheless
were experts in their fields, just as the other four who could
not be there.
One of the reasons that we repaneled in 1997 some of the
same alternatives that we paneled earlier was in fact to be
able to do that comparison, and the results from comparing the
1997 panels and the 1996 confirmed that in fact estimates from
the two sets of panels were very comparable.
The Chairman. Well, anyway we have acknowledged that the
public did not participate.
What measures were taken to protect the scientific
integrity of the panel process? The process was conducted under
a modified version of the Delphi method that is not described
anywhere in the scientific literature. It was imperative that
the process be conducted in a fashion that is both credible and
empirically defensible. However, the confidentiality of the new
panelists' identify and views was breached and seriously
compromised.
On April 3 I was contacted by media representatives who had
in their possession lists of the new panel members. They asked
my office to react to the selection of the panel members. A few
days before that we were informed that the interest group
representatives also had in possession the new lists and were
urging their members to contact--now get this--to contact the
panel participants for the purpose of providing them with
information and their views regarding the appropriate
management of the Tongass.
These contacts may have affected, perhaps grievously, the
integrity of the panel process. For example, I understand the
Department's Office of General Counsel expressed a similar
concern in writing.
Now, maybe you can reassure me about your promises about
the scientific integrity of the new risk assessment process.
This would be a good time to do it.
Dr. Mills. The risk assessment process that we used is a
nominal group process that is described extensively in the
literature. It is very similar to a Delphi method, which
likewise has an extensive body of literature. It similarly was
used in the Northwest forest plan and has stood the rigors of
court scrutiny and stood to those rigors.
Concerned that some of the panel members might have been
contacted and influenced by outside sources, we made special
pains during the 1997 panels to ask all the panelists whether
they had been contacted with any attempt to influence them, and
they responded to a person that they had not. Therefore we
continue to support the credibility and integrity of the panel
process and the results it has produced.
The Chairman. I think previously there had been
acknowledgment that, Mr. Janik, you were heavily influenced by
the marten panel. And I am going to read an excerpt from the
marten panel: ``Marten TLMP assessment silent observer notes,''
whatever that means, ``March 25-26, TLMP Building, Juneau.'' I
did not know they named a building after it, but I am not
surprised.
This is a statement of the general introductory session:
``The participants met on the planning process and alternative
descriptions were very good. There was a lot of information
presented in a short period of time. However, there were
several topics that were not presented that should have been
and some information presented that may have biased the
panelists. They are:
``One, there was not any mention made of the young growth
management program on the Tongass. Panelists left with the idea
that once an acre is harvested the Forest Service walks away
from it.''
Page 2: ``Observation of the panel. One panel member noted
that he was the president of the local chapter of the Sierra
Club in his area. Several panel members had a very anti-
clearcut attitude and were very opinionated and outspoken on
this. All panel members had a difficult time distinguishing the
differences between a viable marten population and a
sustainable marten population.''
Any comments?
Dr. Mills. I would like to make one and then I would like
to ask Chris Wood to elaborate since he is very familiar with
that panel.
It is certainly true that in the science process there is a
lot of very strong discussion and views hammered out with a
fair amount of intensity, and I am sure the marten panel was no
exception to that. We did try to determine whether in fact the
panel member was a member of the Sierra Club and found that
that was not true. And there is a rather extensive body of
literature that does talk about the effect of harvesting on
suitability of marten habitat, and to conclude that that
somehow means that there is a bias against clearcutting I do
not believe is a correct result.
But if I could ask Chris Iverson to add to that in terms of
in particular the information that was provided to the panels.
Mr. Iverson. Yes, Senator, I gave the presentations on the
alternatives and the background of forest ecology that we
discussed, and it was true that in that presentation I did not
discuss second growth management. Then there was a later
discussion, I do not know if it was in that panel, but in
subsequent panels we did provide the fact that we do have a
second growth management program on the Tongass. Approximately
200,000 acres have been treated.
So that, as I recall, there was a sequence of several
panels that I gave this presentation. I cannot recall if later
in the discussion that issue came up or if it was in subsequent
presentations, but it was apparently true that from that
observer and that presentation we did not discuss second growth
management.
The Chairman. Well, do you agree or not with this statement
that ``all panel members had a difficult time distinguishing
the difference between a viable marten population and a
sustainable marten population? Several panel members indicated
that they considered both terms meant the same thing and could
not distinguish between the two terms when doing their ratings.
It might have been helpful to have spent more time trying to
get these distinctions clear in the minds of the panelists.''
Mr. Iverson. I did not facilitate that panel. Jean
Negaynor, one of our IDT members, did. We discussed as he was
facilitating that panel and we wanted to bring that concept up
to separate the distinction between a sustainable population
and a viable one, and he did comment that there was at least
one panel member that did have difficulty distinguishing
between that.
The Chairman. It says here ``all panel members.''
What is the difference, again?
Dr. Mills. Mr. Chairman, could I ask----
The Chairman. Let me just ask, since you worked this area
of sustainability. I would like to know myself, and maybe some
folks out there that are still sitting would like to understand
the difference between a viable marten population and a
sustainable marten population.
Mr. Iverson. I cannot give you specifics, but I will give
you conceptually what the difference would be. A sustainable
one is one that had a principal population that, like in money
management, would produce interest that you could harvest, a
sustainable surplus or a harvestable surplus, and there was a
habitat capability that could produce that level of a
population. So that would be a sustainable population, that
could sustain itself as well as a sufficient harvestable
surplus.
Now, a viable population conceptually would be one that
just had enough habitat, had a long-term capability to sustain
itself without an additional harvestable surplus, in very brief
terms.
The Chairman. That would be a minimum viability.
Mr. Iverson. Well----
The Chairman. Sure it would.
Mr. Iverson. It would be a population that could just--the
habitat necessary just to sustain itself.
The Chairman. That is a minimum, is it not?
Mr. Iverson. It has often been referred to as that.
The Chairman. I hope that some of the Alaskans that read
this and have a familiarity with it will recognize the
constriction that we run afoul of in representing the ability
to make decisions here based on that kind of discernability,
because I can certainly understand the panel members
questioning the viability and the sustainability, because a
sustainable marten population could become a viable marten
population, depending on a number of things, including habitat,
hunting--excuse me--trapping pressures or what have you.
Mr. Iverson. Senator, you are on track with a good
observation, that there is so much uncertainty or a lot of
uncertainty in this concept in terms of population
fluctuations, uncertainty about habitat relationships, that
there is a continuum there of when a sustainable population may
come to the level of a viable one because of this uncertainty.
The Chairman. Well, if I were sitting on the panel I do not
know whether I would come down on the side of sustainable or
viable as my charge.
Mr. Iverson. They were clearly charged with the viable
population, long term viable.
The Chairman. Yes, but you just acknowledged that a
sustainable can become a viable.
Mr. Iverson. I do not believe I said that. I said there is
uncertainty.
The Chairman. You acknowledged that I said it, that it
could happen.
Mr. Iverson. Because of uncertainty, there is a continuum.
The Chairman. We have a letter here to Chris Iverson from
David Pearson, who was one of the panelists in 1995.
Mr. Iverson. He was a resource specialist, I believe.
The Chairman. He was on the team?
Mr. Iverson. No, he was the author of the wolf assessment.
Dr. Mills. He provided background information to the
panelists.
Mr. Iverson. He was a resource specialist.
Dr. Mills. He was not one of the panel evaluators.
The Chairman. He provided background on the wolf?
Mr. Iverson. Correct, at the first panel assessment.
The Chairman. He says as follows in the second paragraph:
``Nonetheless''--he is commenting on the second day. ``It was
good to hear from biologists with years of experience.
Nonetheless, it was very clear to me and to the panel members
that the volume of information presented was overwhelming and
the members felt uncomfortable evaluating a plan for an area
with which they are almost completely unfamiliar.''
And of course, most of them have not lived in Alaska, so
their familiarity is limited to they see in a short time or
however they study.
He goes on to say: ``I think it would have been best if a
working definition of 'well distributed and viable' was
established at the very beginning of the process.''
He further states: ``It is also clear that you folks are so
pressed for time that you cannot doublecheck the information
that you present and expect the panelists to reference when
evaluating the planned alternatives.''
``Further''--is that enough? The best part is yet to come.
I think the point is this is another case of a participant
who does not know the definition of ``viable.''
Mr. Iverson. Could I respond to that, Senator?
The Chairman. Sure.
Mr. Iverson. In response to your first point, Dave Pearson
was making an observation on behalf of the other panelists,
which I am not sure--I think that was his perception. I do not
know that we can take that as their belief.
In response to the second point, the definition of ``well
distributed population'' is what I think you referenced, the
panelists through the discussion of the behavior of each
species on each panel came to conclusions of, through their
discussion, what might be a well distributed population. There
was no a priori definition of that, and it was developed as the
discussion evolved in each panel.
The third, the haste that was referenced there in terms of
the data I think that Dave was referencing. It was one column
of data in one deer model outputs that I believe that Dave was
referencing in terms of a problem in data, that was corrected.
The Chairman. I have got to take a telephone call back
here. Go ahead with the questions.
If you gentlemen want to walk out, let us just keep going,
but individually you can walk out and come back. That is what I
am going to do.
Mr. Rey. This will be questions for Tom. Did either sets of
the panels--that is, either the 1995 or the 1997 panels--have
members that were not full-time Federal employees?
Dr. Mills. Yes, there were members that were not full-time
Federal employees, including those who were identified by the
Governor as representing the Governor. That included both State
employees and university employees. We restricted the panel
members to Federal employees and those that the Governor
identified in order to meet the requirements of FACA.
Mr. Rey. That was true in both 1995 and 1997?
Dr. Mills. Yes.
Mr. Rey. And there were no members in either 1995 or 1997
who were neither Federal nor State employees, then?
Dr. Mills. Not at the time they were panelists, no.
Mr. Rey. Were notices published of panel meetings?
Dr. Mills. No, there were not notices published of panel
meetings. They were not treated as a public event. They were
treated as an opportunity to provide information on the effects
of the alternatives.
Mr. Rey. So there were no public observers or anything of
that nature?
Dr. Mills. There were no public observers. There were
individual silent observers, just as the letter that the
Senator read.
Mr. Rey. Those were also Federal employees?
Dr. Mills. I believe they were all Federal employees, all
Forest Service employees.
Mr. Rey. What criteria or considerations did you use in
selecting panel members, and did you do any evaluation of
either whether or now you wanted to balance their points of
view or their areas of expertise?
Dr. Mills. I would like to ask Dr. Everest to answer that.
He was personally involved in the selection of the panels.
Dr. Everest. All the panelists were selected for their
expertise in the given area, like all the wolf panel
participants were experts on wolves from various places across
the country, as often as possible from Alaska.
Mr. Rey. Did the public have any chance to comment on the
information in appendix M or appendix N of the FEIS prior to
your publication of the record of decision?
Mr. Janik. No.
Mr. Rey. Was there any consideration given to making that
opportunity available at any time in the process?
Mr. Janik. There was only brief discussion, recognizing
that alternative 11 and all of its implications was properly
part of the public process and we saw no need to go back to the
public with that alternative.
Mr. Rey. Appendix M and appendix N were published in May
1997 and the FEIS was published in January 1997. How did you go
about using M and N as information for the FEIS?
Mr. Janik. The addition of appendix M and N pretty much
came about, especially appendix N, as a result of the
repaneling that took place, and therefore was provided as part
of the record for purposes of fulfilling that obligation.
Again, it was not subjected to public review.
Mr. Rey. If I heard the testimony correctly, you were
comfortable that the difference in individuals between the 1995
panels and the 1997 panels did not have an influence on the
results, because you felt that the results were comparable in
both cases. Did you hear that right?
Dr. Everest. That was correct.
Mr. Rey. But you also published for public information a
May 8 document called the 1997 TLMP Risk Assessment Panels,
which described how to use the information from the risk
assessment panels properly and how to avoid using it
improperly. That was the purpose of the document, right?
Dr. Everest. Yes.
Mr. Rey. And there you indicate that variability and mean
likelihood scores of up to a maximum of about plus or minus 15
points was noted between the 1995 and 1996 panels and the 1997
panels when the same alternatives were rated by the same
evaluators approximately 15 months apart.
Dr. Everest. That is correct.
Mr. Rey. Can you square the two statements, first the fact
that there were different people did not materially influence
the results, but second that, even where they were some of the
same people apparently, if I am not misreading this, there was
still a plus or minus 15 percent factor?
Dr. Everest. I think that just indicates that there is some
uncertainty around any estimate of risk that is done through
expert opinion. In the panels where there were some new panel
members, the variability that we saw was not greater than those
areas, those panels where there were no new panel members.
Mr. Rey. But the variability was pretty high in any case?
Dr. Everest. The variability was variable. For example, in
the brown bear panel it was plus or minus 2 points. In some
other panels it was as high as plus or minus--the highest was
17 points, a spread of 17 points.
Mr. Rey. Which were the highest in your recollection?
Dr. Everest. Which were the highest in terms of
variability? Marten was 14 points, goshawk was 17, wolf was 14,
brown bear was 2, the other mammals widely distributed group
was 5, other mammals endemics was 10.
Mr. Rey. Was there any correlation between the fact that
the mitigating measures that you added in at the very end of
the process were for--is there any relevance to the fact, I
guess I should say, that the mitigating measures that you added
to the end of the process, at the end of the process, were
primarily for species where the variability in the risk
assessment panels was the highest as opposed to the lowest?
Dr. Everest. No, I would say no.
Mr. Rey. Let us go back to the question of defining
viability for a second. The document also says: ``The inherent
uncertainty in evaluating risk prevented the evaluators from
identifying the precise trigger point for maintaining
viability.'' Is that in the context of the discussion we had
still a position that you----
Dr. Everest. What the panelists did was look at--well,
first they defined what ``well distributed and variable'' meant
to them--``well distributed and viable'' meant to them. They
did that by looking at the five outcomes that they had
available to them in the panel process. In general, they
identified and defined ``well distributed and viable'' as
falling within outcome 3.
Outcome 3 was a situation where the habitat could have
permanent gaps and there may be some difficulty of individuals
interacting across those gaps. In general, the panelists said
that was where their concept of viable and well distributed
fell. So to span that particular outcome, we summed outcomes 1
and 2, outcomes 1 and 2 and 3, and the spread is within outcome
3.
But within outcome 3 the spread could have been a
significant number of points, and there was no way to define
exactly where within that spread of points the trigger was for
well distributed and viable.
Mr. Rey. It is true, as you say here, that the panel
evaluators' concept of a well distributed habitat was a more
difficult condition to meet than the maintenance of habitat to
sustain viability, that they distinguished between those two
and that the former was a tighter standard in their view than
the letter?
Dr. Everest. That is correct. For example, you could have
viable brown bear populations on Admiralty Island only, but to
be well distributed they would have to be on Admiralty,
Baranof, and Chichagof.
Dr. Mills. But it is also true, if I could add, that since
with most of the species the panelists could not define where
those two triggers fell within outcome class number 3, the
results, the numerical results, simply described the range of
outcome likelihood that encompasses 3 without any indication of
where those two triggers might fall within 3.
Mr. Rey. So they did not have a specific idea of where they
fell. They just knew that one was a tougher standard than the
other.
Dr. Mills. That is what they concluded.
Mr. Rey. The last question: Where in either the regulations
or the statute did you derive the authority to define the
planning area to include all land ownerships in the geographic
location of the Tongass?
Mr. Iverson. I do not believe that is in the planning area.
The planning area is the national forest system lands, and that
was the area that the analyses were done in the FEIS. The
panelists were displayed maps of the entire forest, but the
assessment of likely outcomes was restricted to Federal lands.
Mr. Rey. Did we not have testimony earlier that you looked
at the Native lands as well in making the viability
determinations? Not the panels themselves, but you in making
the decision.
Dr. Everest. The panelists, the panelists were shown the
entire planning area, which included the other ownerships as
well. So when they did their risk assessments they were taking
into account the entire planning area.
Mr. Iverson. For a clarification, when we said yes, we
included other non-Federal lands and analyses to do cumulative
effects analyses, in many analyses we included the acreage of
private lands in those analyses. Particularly I recall in
appendix N in the goshawk analysis, there is a section in there
that includes non-Federal lands to do a full cumulative effects
analysis.
Mr. Rey. And from whence does the responsibility to include
the non-Federal lands in the analysis derive?
Mr. Iverson. It is related to the requirement to do a
cumulative effects analysis. There is two lines of question
there. I think you are asking about viability in non-Federal
lands. That was not the case. The question was did we consider
non-Federal--my answer in the non-Federal land analysis is
relative to cumulative effects analysis, not to viability.
Mr. Rey. It was also disclosed in the viability panels that
you were looking at the entire planning area. It was discussed
that there was a significant amount of harvest on the non-
Federal lands, was it not? And it entered into their
considerations that the amount of harvest on non-Federal lands
was in fact relevant, perhaps in some of their minds highly
relevant, to the viability considerations; is that not correct?
Mr. Iverson. They were shown the maps and the activities
with the juxtaposition of the non-Federal lands, but their
likely outcomes were restricted to Federal, the Federal land
component of that landscape. Now, if the allocation of land,
the combination of allocation of lands among the various
alternatives may vary, and their outcomes would be predicated
on the combination of Federal allocations, say like on Prince
of Wales, whether there is reserves or not, that was the
component they were instructed to affect their likelihood of
outcome assignment of points.
The Chairman. Well, I think we are just about wound up. I
had hoped to get through panel one and panel two, and I think
we are about two-thirds through with panel two. It would be my
intention to reconvene tomorrow at 9:30.
But prior to that, I have a couple of questions that came
up in association with the opening statement of Mr. Phil Janik.
In your review, is there any other national forest with
proportionally as much old growth and, if so, what? I am sure
there is not, but what would be the second major forest of our
national forests?
Mr. Janik. Probably the Chugach.
The Chairman. Okay, so Tongass is the first, Chugach is the
second. Where would we go for the third?
Mr. Janik. That is a tough one.
Mr. Iverson. One or more of the forests in the Pacific
Northwest may be in the 15 to 20 percent range, maybe 30. We
could check and get you some figures in the FEMAT.
[The information requested was not received at the time the
hearing went to press.]
The Chairman. Because it would be interesting to see a
comparison of the manner in which the monitoring process occurs
on other forests, the manner in which a forest management plan
is structured, because I think that there is some significance
and uniqueness associated with the Tongass.
I am also curious to know how you address your
responsibility in two areas. One--and my terminology may be a
little inconsistent here, but to meet the anticipated demand or
market demand, which I think you have acknowledged as one of
your criteria. Then the other is to fail to address, if you
will, the installed capacity of the industry as we have it
today without the two pulp mills.
There seems to be an inconsistency there. You want to meet
market demand, but to meet market demand theoretically you
would first address sufficient timber to meet your installed
capacity. But we have had conversations about this before and,
for reasons that are yet to be explained to me, you have not
seen fit to address that. Yet you arbitrarily address many
other factors.
Mr. Janik. I will address the demand question first. That
of course refers back to the Tongass Timber Reform Act, the
often discussed clause, seeking to provide enough timber to
meet market demand. We have been through a number of
discussions on this, a number of court cases, and the rest of
that clause is a very important part of that obligation and
that is consistent with other multiple use objectives, using my
own license here in terms of wording, but something to that
effect.
But we have struggled with this subject, there is no
question about that, and there has been great debate over just
how demand should be calculated and what does it represent and
what is the absolute obligation of the agency with regard to
it.
I would like to inform you, Mr. Chairman, we are working up
right now a set of procedures that I hope will enable us to
treat demand more definitively than we have in the past. I am
not in the position to predict when those might be complete,
but we are working on this very subject, because we know that
we need to be more profiled with how we are addressing the
subject of demand and how it relates to capacity of mills and
all of that kind of thing.
Now, our current estimate of capacity of mills is, or
consumption, I guess, of wood, is 230 million board feet saw
log. We got that information from the operators themselves.
Now, if you translate that to add the utility onto it----
The Chairman. Is this existing mills that are operational?
Mr. Janik. Yes, as I understand, yes.
The Chairman. What about Wrangell?
Mr. Janik. No, that does not include Wrangell.
The Chairman. Is there a reason? It is installed capacity.
Mr. Janik. Well, it is not operating.
The Chairman. Why it is not operating?
Mr. Janik. Well, because APC chose to close it.
The Chairman. No. There is not enough timber to attract a
buyer.
Mr. Janik. And we hear that, sir.
The Chairman. No, it is not ``hear it.'' It is factual,
Phil. Let us recognize a few realities.
Mr. Janik. Well, I am going to acknowledge your difficulty
in some of these areas.
The Chairman. Well, you have got 230, but you do not have
Wrangell.
Mr. Janik. Now, 230 is just----
The Chairman. Saw logs.
Mr. Janik. So if you add the utility onto that----
The Chairman. Let us stay with saw logs, because what are
you going to do with the Wrangell mill?
Mr. Janik. The point I am trying to make here in terms of
the total harvest that is needed to provide that is that it
exceeds our calculated ASQ, I would suspect.
The Chairman. That is obvious. I asked the question what
your obligation was to meet installed capacity. You talk about
meeting market demand. You address market demand initially on
the basis of installed capacity. That is one major----
Mr. Janik. That is one definition.
The Chairman. Yes, but it is an appropriate definition to
consider, because before somebody else comes in and establishes
additional capacity prudence dictates that you address your
current installed capacity, because the infrastructure costs,
which you folks do not necessarily have to spend a lot of time
on because it is not your charge, are significant. The loading
facility, cold decking facility, environmental concerns
relative to the sawdust disposal, hog fuel disposal, emissions,
suggests that the logical place if you are going to do any
manufacturing is where you already have installed capacity.
Mr. Janik. We do not see it that way, Senator. A point of
disagreement.
The Chairman. You tell me how you see it.
Mr. Janik. The calculation of 267 million board feet as our
calculated allowable sale quantity is our transmission to the
world, the public and the timber industry that this is the best
that can be expected as a maximum, and our projection----
The Chairman. You did not relate it at all to the installed
capacity?
Mr. Janik. We certainly related in discussion, but we do
not interpret it as an obligation.
The Chairman. You felt no obligation then? You felt no
obligation?
Mr. Janik. Not an absolute obligation, that is correct.
The Chairman. No obligation to the people of southeastern
Alaska or the investment associated and the jobs in the
sawmills? You felt no obligation?
Mr. Janik. We tried to do the best we could to provide as
much timber as possible, recognizing that need by the timber
industry.
The Chairman. You had an obligation, just like you have an
obligation for habitat, to address the concerns associated with
the installed capacity and the sustainability of jobs
associated with that.
Mr. Janik. That is something we try to do, sir.
The Chairman. I can recall when the Chief sat right where
you are sitting and told me there would be enough timber for
the Wrangell mill; there was absolutely no reason why there
could not be, with the ultimate disposition and demise of the
two pulp mills.
What do you say to that? I can pull out the testimony if it
would help.
Mr. Janik. The very discussions that we are having with the
Governor's Timber Task Force amount to this kind of discussion,
and that is what can one reasonably expect off the national
forest, off the Tongass, and then they are looking at other
possible sources of timber and they are addressing these very
references, such as capacity and-or utilization, which is from
our record about 50 percent of the capacity. So that would be
about 170 in terms of the existing operating facilities, which
does not include Wrangell and does not include the new proposal
at Ketchikan either.
We have tried to do our best, given all the other
obligations we have, to put as much timber on the street as we
can.
The Chairman. As I see the TLMP as it is presented now, you
have as a consequence of a process which you could have made
judgments on monitoring it because of the unknown science, lack
of scientific evidence with regard to the qualifications of the
goshawk or the wolf or the marten or any number, it is evident
that you have come down with a figure which you say you can
substantiate, and I cannot suggest that you cannot. But there
is no scientific evidence as to the adequacy or inadequacy of
this low base.
Now, if you are wrong on the marten, if you are wrong on
the wolf, if you are wrong on the deer, the theory is you are
going to increase the allowable cut. But that is hypothetical.
The point I am making is you cannot on the one hand try and
meet market demand as an obligation without recognizing the
association of installed capacity, because that is going to
basically have the ability to meet market demand. You are not
going to meet market demand without primary manufacturing,
because you are not going to allow, I assume, the export of
round logs out of the State, are you?
Mr. Janik. That is another policy we are working on right
now, and that is a very important item to this discussion.
The Chairman. Well, let us discuss it now. Are you going to
allow round log exports outside of cedar?
Mr. Janik. We have been approving some of those
applications currently, Mr. Chairman. But we also hear much
from our southeast communities and the timber industry that
they want to see more manufacturing done on site, the value
added notion, and we are taking that into consideration as
well.
I am not in a position to predict the outcome as to how
generous or restrictive we will be with that.
The Chairman. Do you want Congress to address the question
of round log export and simply prohibit it? Would that help you
out?
Mr. Janik. I am sorry, I missed the first part of that.
The Chairman. Would you like Congress to address the issue
of round log export off Forest Service lands in Alaska? Would
that help you out?
Mr. Janik. If Congress were to give us that instruction----
The Chairman. Yes, to not do it.
Mr. Janik. I am not sure it would help us out. It would
certainly clarify the issue.
The Chairman. Well, it would help meet market demand, would
it not, in the State? Because if you are going to allow the
export you are not going to meet the market demand associated
with primary manufacturing.
Mr. Janik. The difficulty we have in this transition is the
timber industry right now is in a spot, as you know, without
any place to go with their lower grade material.
The Chairman. And whose fault is that?
Mr. Janik. It is a combination of factors.
The Chairman. Well, let us be realistic.
Mr. Janik. International pricing----
The Chairman. Aw, come on, Phil. Let us get basic. ALP came
in with a proposal for a 10-year extension, a 10-year contract
to put in a fiberboard mill. The Secretary of Agriculture
acknowledged that he was going to recommend it and it was
turned down at the White House.
Now, that would have utilized utility grade had it been
built, right?
Mr. Janik. That would have utilized utility grade.
The Chairman. And what happened with Ketchikan Pulp? They
came in and asked for a 15-year contract to put in an
investment of, what, $220 million into a pulp mill. It would be
the state of the art, chlorine-free. You folks were non-players
in that issue, but clearly this administration and the Forest
Service chose not to consider and grant that extension.
So these are realities, and you can call it market demand,
but both of those facilities would be operating today, and
those jobs in those communities and that new technology, which
the administration prides itself on, would be in existence, two
cleaner mills, state of the art, and a place for the utility
timber.
Now, I am not blaming anyone at the table, but I think we
have to reflect on those hard core facts. They asked. They were
denied.
Mr. Janik. In terms of answering your initial question,
Senator, I think there is obviously a basic disagreement here.
We do not see any absolute obligation to meet any particular
level as compared to trying to do the best we can to meet
market demand. That is how we interpret TTRA.
The Chairman. Well, I think that particular acknowledgment
might cause you to reconsider at a later time, so I will just
leave it at that, because that certainly is a statement that I
have never heard enunciated from the Forest Service or any
representative of the Forest Service, that there was not an
obligation to meet market demand and the association of meeting
that through trying to address the existing installed capacity,
recognizing that the two pulp mills are gone.
Which takes us back to the original Forest Service
contribution of coming into southeastern Alaska with long-term
contracts to utilize the utility timber that makes up the
majority of the forest in southeastern Alaska. So now you have
acknowledged that you are looking at individual requests for
export, which simply drives the primary manufacturing base
outside Alaska. If you allow that, that is what will happen.
But the irony of it is--and I think you have gone through
and reviewed the records of the former Chief Frank Heinselman
and the thought process that occurred in the fifties, that
somehow we needed to stimulate a year-round industry in
southeastern Alaska and it was up to the Forest Service to
provide the assurance of a timber supply and hence the 50-year
contracts, to utilize a product that you are proposing to ship
out now in the round.
Mr. Janik. I am not proposing that at all, Senator.
The Chairman. Well, you are suggesting that you are looking
at requests and you have granted requests previously. Very few
requests have been granted. I think you are the first person
to--you and I had a conversation some time ago, a few years
ago, when you first acknowledged that you had allowed a
shipment to go out at a time when there was a shortage of
timber in the State at a time when we had a pulp mill and
certainly a market for that.
Yet you saw fit to--I would like to see, again have the
record reflect your justification of that, because it still is
a little foggy to me. But the Forest Service is going to either
try and position its structure for the benefit of the job base
in Alaska or it is not. That the obligation that you took on 50
years ago, but clearly that seems to have abandoned, and I
really fail to understand the rationale.
Mr. Janik. The perspective we have in reevaluating the
export policy, Mr. Chairman, is that it is going to become more
restrictive. We recognize the importance of keeping as much
wood in southeast as possible. We are working with the timber
industry on that subject and we will certainly work at levels
beyond our regional level to finally resolve this as to what
would be a working productive policy. I just want to make that
clear with you.
The Chairman. I do not know how long we are going to have
to wait. But I think it is important to reflect in your
statement that to suggest that the responsibility for the pulp
mills closing is a change in international and national markets
in recent years is not a full disclosure by any means relative
to what you could have added, that the Forest Service denied
the extension of both companies to change their process and
rejuvenate their facilities, and these were denied by the
Forest Service.
Whether it be the Forest Service that wants to accept the
responsibility or the administration, it is academic. To
suggest in your statement that the economic disaster funds
somehow make up for the disaster associated with the loss of
the industry and the inability now to utilize the utility
timber and the attitude of the Forest Service in simply
dismissing that as a responsibility is just beyond me, and
beyond many, many people in Alaska that fail to understand
where the stewardship has gone.
Mr. Janik. If I may react to that statement, Senator.
The Chairman. Go ahead.
Mr. Janik. We are frankly very proud of the contribution we
are trying to make to assist communities going through this
transition that they are, those that have been dependent upon
the timber industry as well as the industry itself. My
testimony mentions our State and private forestry programs, the
effort that Brad himself has been involved in with regard to
the SRT formulation and working in a multi-agency fashion. We
are doing the best we can with the resources we have to assist.
The Chairman. Well, you are getting the resources. Your
budget seems to indicate that you have got some plans to expend
the taxpayers' dollars. But clearly you do not have a plan to
meet the installed capacity that is left in Alaska.
Is it not extraordinary that here we have the largest of
all our national forests and we cannot even sustain a minimum
base industry? Hell, New York State burns more for firewood
than we cut commercially. I think these things have to be kept
in a perspective. You have testified time and time again, and
you know the merits of how you present your case, and so do I.
I am struck by your conclusion: ``The Tongass revision
strikes a balance. It protects the health, diversity, and the
productivity of the Tongass ecosystem while it provides for
resource use well into the twenty-first century. The plan
provides for commercial use of the forest to support the
southeastern Alaska community.''
I do not know how you can make that statement if you do not
even address the existing capacity in those communities after
you have terminated the major users of the wood product, and
that is the pulp mills.
So I guess we have come to the conclusion of 4\1/2\ hours,
and I commend you for your patience and your willingness to
respond. I think that we have touched on some delicate areas
and touched on some broader areas and have structured a record
that we will be able to reflect on in the future. I would
appreciate giving any of you an opportunity to wind this up. I
have no further statements, other than, relative to the
testimony of the first panel, I would ask that we may have the
agency's written findings on whether the TLMP is a rule, and I
am going to ask for that to be determined within the week. If
there is any reason why they cannot do it, why, we will see.
[The information requested was not received at the time the
hearing went to press.]
The Chairman. Which leads me to I guess one other question,
and that is who makes the decision in the Forest Service of
whether this is a rule or not relative to the process that we
were exposed to in the first panel?
Mr. Janik. I believe we can expect that decision to come
from the Chief, sir.
The Chairman. Has the Chief addressed this?
Mr. Janik. The Chief today has taken the position that
forest plans are not a rule, including the Tongass plan.
The Chairman. Including the Tongass plan.
Mr. Janik. And given the input of GAO and OMB over the past
few days, I would suspect he is going to read those documents
very carefully. I have no way of predicting whether that can be
done in a week in terms of any affirmation one way or another
of what his position might be. But I would say the short answer
to your question is the Chief.
The Chairman. Well, that is fair enough. That is where I
would put it, too. I assume that--we are faced with a case of
whether the Chief and the Forest Service is complying with
under the intent of the law or they are not. The fact that they
have not been is incidental to the reality of whether it fits
into that qualification, and I guess somebody else is going to
make that determination.
Mr. Norbury, do you have anything to wind up your 4 hours
or 4\1/2\ hours?
Mr. Norbury. No, sir, but thanks for the opportunity.
The Chairman. Mr. Powell.
Mr. Powell. I have nothing to add.
The Chairman. Dr. Mills.
Dr. Mills. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. I cannot resist.
The Chairman. Go ahead.
Dr. Mills. I would like to touch just very briefly on the
question of timber demand and start a little bit where Phil
Janik left off about the difficulty of----
The Chairman. I might add, that is the first thing that is
going to be up tomorrow.
Dr. Mills. Then I will be more than happy to wait until
tomorrow.
The Chairman. Go ahead.
Dr. Mills. No, that is fine. We will talk about it
tomorrow.
The Chairman. If you want to get it on the record today, do
it.
Dr. Mills. I am sure I will have ample opportunity
tomorrow.
The Chairman. Dr. Everest.
Dr. Everest. I will wait until tomorrow.
The Chairman. Chris.
Mr. Iverson. I will pass, too, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Phil.
Mr. Janik. Thank you.
The Chairman. All right. Have a nice afternoon, and I
suggest you go out and buy a nice steak or something. You
deserve it.
[Whereupon, at 4:19 p.m., the hearing was recessed, to
reconvene on July 10, 1997.]
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.''
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.''
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----
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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----
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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----
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.''
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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:
``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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.''
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.''
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.
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.''
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.
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.
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.''
``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.
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.
[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.
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.
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.
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]
``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,
William H. Miller.