Tongass National Forest: Process Used to Modify the Forest Plan (Letter
Report, 04/17/2000, GAO/RCED-00-45).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Tongass National
Forest's revised forest plan, focusing on the: (1) process used by the
Department of Agriculture (USDA) to modify the management direction in
the 1997 plan and decide the appeals on the basis of the modified plan;
(2) reasons the administration chose to use the process; and (3)
reactions to the modifications and the process.

GAO noted that: (1) USDA's Under Secretary for Natural Resources and
Environment used a unique process to approve modifications to the
management direction in the 1997 Tongass forest plan and decide appeals
on the basis of the plan, as modified; (2) this was the first time that
an Under Secretary approved substantive modifications to a forest plan
and issued initial appeal decisions based on the plan, as modified; (3)
USDA's Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment approved
modifications to the management direction in the 1997 Tongass forest
plan to address certain concerns raised in appeals of the plan and
decided the appeals on the basis of the modified plan for two reasons;
(4) according to the Under Secretary, he believed he improved the 1997
Tongass plan by addressing three interrelated concerns: (a) old-growth
forest and the species that depend on it for habitat; (b) lands and
resources used for subsistence hunting, fishing, trapping, and gathering
by rural Alaskans; and (c) areas of special interest valued for
ecological, recreational, subsistence, cultural, spiritual, and scenic
purposes; (5) his modifications--each of which was designed to increase
the protection of old-growth forest, subsistence uses, and areas of
special interest--included: (a) removing another 234,000 acres from
timber harvesting and other development activities; (b) increasing from
100 years to 200 years the time that must elapse between timber harvests
on the same location on about 40 percent of the Tongass where timber
harvesting is allowed; and (c) decreasing the open road density in areas
where roads have been determined to significantly contribute to wolf
mortality; (6) according to the Under Secretary, the second reason he
chose to approve modifications to the management direction in the 1997
plan and decide the appeals on the basis of the modified plan was to end
the appeals process as quickly as possible; (7) interested and affected
parties have raised concerns about both the modifications to the
management direction in the 1997 plan and the process used to approve
the modifications and decide the appeals; and (8) these concerns are
related to the trade-offs among competing forest uses inherent in the
modifications and the trade-off between ending the appeals process as
quickly as possible and providing opportunities for additional public
participation and further scientific analysis.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-00-45
     TITLE:  Tongass National Forest: Process Used to Modify the Forest
	     Plan
      DATE:  04/17/2000
   SUBJECT:  Forest management
	     National forests
	     Strategic planning
	     Environmental policies
	     Land use law
	     Wildlife conservation
	     Environmental monitoring
IDENTIFIER:  Tongass National Forest (AK)
	     Forest Service Tongass Land Management Plan
	     Alaska

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Testimony.                                               **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************

GAO/RCED-00-45

Appendix I: Information on the Process Used to Revise the 1979
Tongass Forest Plan

18

Appendix II: Information on the Process Used to Modify the 1997
Tongass Forest Plan

38

Appendix III: Comments From the Forest Service

51

Table 1: Major Events in the Revision of the 1979 Tongass Forest Plan 19

Table 2: Major Events in the Modification of the 1997 Tongass Forest Plan 39

Figure 1: Tongass National Forest 6

ANILCA Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NFMA National Forest Management Act

VPOP viable population

Resources, Community, and
Economic Development Division

B-284340

April 17, 2000

The Honorable Frank Murkowski
Chairman, Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources
United States Senate

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The Tongass National Forest (Tongass) in southeast Alaska is unlike any
other national forest. It is larger; its administrative and geographic
structures differ; and although it is subject to the same laws that apply to
other national forests, it has also had laws written specifically for it.

Like the other national forests, the Tongass is required by law to develop a
plan to manage its lands and resources (commonly called a forest plan) and
to revise the plan at least every 15 years. On average, the revision process
is estimated to take 4 years and to cost about $3 million.

The Department of Agriculture's Forest Service approved the first Tongass
forest plan in 1979, and in July 1987, the agency began the process to
revise it. Almost 10 years and over $13 million later, in May 1997, the
Forest Service approved a revised forest plan to manage the Tongass's lands
and resources. Interested and affected parties subsequently appealed the
plan within the 90 days provided for appeals under the agency's planning
regulations. In April 1999, the Department of Agriculture's Under Secretary
for Natural Resources and Environment approved modifications to the
management direction in the 1997 plan to address certain concerns raised in
the appeals and decided the appeals on the basis of the modified plan.

As agreed, this report discusses (1) the process used by the Department of
Agriculture to modify the management direction in the 1997 plan and decide
the appeals on the basis of the modified plan, (2) the reasons the
administration chose to use the process, and (3) reactions to the
modifications and the process. Appendixes I and II provide additional
information about the processes leading up to the May 1997 plan and the
April 1999 modifications, respectively.

The Department of Agriculture's Under Secretary for Natural Resources and
Environment used a unique process to approve modifications to the management
direction in the 1997 Tongass forest plan and decide appeals on the basis of
the plan, as modified. According to the Forest Service, it is not unusual
for an Under Secretary to review, and on occasion direct the Chief to
modify, appeal decisions. However, this was the first time that an Under
Secretary approved substantive modifications to a forest plan and issued
initial appeal decisions based on the plan, as modified.

The Department of Agriculture's Under Secretary for Natural Resources and
Environment said he approved modifications to the management direction in
the 1997 Tongass forest plan to address certain concerns raised in appeals
of the plan and decided the appeals on the basis of the modified plan for
two reasons. First, he approved the modifications because he believed he
could "make a good plan better." According to the Under Secretary, he
believed he improved the 1997 Tongass plan by addressing three interrelated
concerns: (1) old-growth forest and the species that depend on it for
habitat; (2) lands and resources used for subsistence hunting, fishing,
trapping, and gathering by rural Alaskans; and (3) areas of special interest
valued for ecological, recreational, subsistence, cultural, spiritual,
and/or scenic purposes. His modifications--each of which was designed to
increase the protection of old-growth forest, subsistence uses, and areas of
special interest--included (1) removing another 234,000 acres from timber
harvesting and other development activities, (2) increasing from 100 years
to 200 years the time that must elapse between timber harvests on the same
location on about 40 percent of the Tongass where timber harvesting is
allowed, and (3) decreasing the open road density in areas where roads have
been determined to significantly contribute to wolf mortality. According to
the Under Secretary, the second reason he chose to approve modifications to
the management direction in the 1997 plan and decide the appeals on the
basis of the modified plan was to end the appeals process as quickly as
possible. Other options for addressing the concerns--such as returning the
plan to the forest to address the concerns or approving the 1997 plan and
beginning a new process to amend the plan--would have taken more time,
according to the Under Secretary.

Interested and affected parties have raised concerns about both the
modifications to the management direction in the 1997 plan and the process
used to approve the modifications and decide the appeals. These concerns are
related to the trade-offs among competing forest uses inherent in the
modifications and the trade-off between ending the appeals process as
quickly as possible and providing opportunities for additional public
participation and further scientific analysis. Both the modifications and
the process are now in litigation.

At 16.9 million acres, the Tongass is the largest forest in the United
States, roughly equal in size to West Virginia (see fig. 1), and the largest
remaining temperate rain forest in the world. About 60 percent of the
Tongass is forested. Of the forested portion of the Tongass, the Forest
Service considers over half, or 5.7 million acres, to be "productive"--that
is, suitable for providing wood products.

Figure 1: Tongass National Forest
Source: Forest Service's Alaska Region.

The Forest Service's Alaska Region (Region 10), headquartered in Juneau, is
responsible for managing the Tongass and Alaska's other national forest, the
Chugach. A forest supervisor has specific responsibility for the Tongass.
Because the Tongass is so large, it, unlike other national forests, is
divided into three administrative areas, and the Tongass forest supervisor
is assisted by two assistant forest supervisors. The Forest Service manages
the Tongass to provide for multiple uses, such as timber, opportunities for
outdoor recreation, and healthy habitat for fish and wildlife.

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 requires the Forest
Service to, among other things, (1) develop a plan to manage the lands and
resources of each national forest in coordination with the land management
planning processes of other federal agencies, states, and localities and (2)
revise each plan at least every 15 years. The Forest Service's planning
regulations establish detailed procedures for developing a forest plan,
which require the agency to develop several alternatives for managing a
forest and make these alternatives available for public comment.1 Under the
regulations, an environmental impact statement developed in accordance with
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) must accompany each
forest plan. An environmental impact statement assesses the effects of a
major federal action that may significantly affect the quality of the human
environment.

To develop a plan, a forest supervisor first forms an interdisciplinary
team, which identifies management issues on the forest in consultation with
the public, as well as with state, local, and tribal governments. After the
team develops alternatives for managing the forest, the forest supervisor
selects a preferred alternative and submits the draft plan and environmental
impact statement to the public for comment. Following a review of the
comments, the forest supervisor presents a final plan and environmental
impact statement to the regional forester for approval.

Once the regional forester approves the plan, the Forest Service's appeals
regulations allow the plan to be appealed to the Chief of the Forest Service
within 90 days. The Chief must decide all administrative appeals within 160
days of the date the last appeal was filed. The Chief's decision shall, in
whole or in part, affirm or reverse the regional forester's decision and may
include instructions for further action by the regional forester.

According to federal regulations, the Chief's appeal decision must generally
be based on the administrative record for the forest plan and on the
arguments and comments submitted by the appellants. The Chief may ask for
additional information from any appellant or from the regional forester, but
all appellants must be notified of such requests and given an opportunity to
comment. The regulations thus prohibit "ex parte" contact--that is, contact,
except as specified in the regulations, between the Chief and any agency
officials who developed the forest plan or any appellants without notifying
all appellants. These regulations also apply to intervenors--those who are
potentially adversely affected by an appeal and have submitted a timely
request to intervene.

Once the Chief has decided the appeals, the Secretary of Agriculture
generally has 15 days to exercise his or her discretion to review the
Chief's decision and notify all participants that the decision is being
reviewed. The Secretary has delegated this responsibility to the Under
Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment. The discretionary review
must be completed within 30 days of the notice's issuance. The review must
be based on the existing appeals record and the Chief's decision, not on any
newly obtained information, according to federal regulations. The
regulations do not identify the Under Secretary's options for ending the
appeals process; however, the Under Secretary's decision cannot be
administratively appealed.

On October 5, 1999, the Forest Service proposed new planning regulations.2
Although the proposed regulations were not developed specifically to address
the process used to modify the management direction in the 1997 Tongass
forest plan, it is unlikely, if the regulations are finalized, that this
process will be used again. The proposed regulations would replace the
agency's postdecision forest plan appeal and discretionary review process
with a predecision objection process. Under the new process, the agency's
regional foresters--rather than the Chief of the Forest Service−would
make the final decisions on objections to proposed revisions to forest
plans, and forest supervisors--rather than the regional foresters--would
approve the plans.

The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) of 1980 and the
Tongass Timber Reform Act of 1990 apply specifically to the Tongass. Under
ANILCA, no withdrawal, reservation, lease, disposal or other use of such
lands that would significantly restrict subsistence uses shall be effected
until the relevant land management agency determines that (1) the
restriction is consistent with land management principles, (2) the
restriction will involve the minimum amount of land necessary, and (3)
action will be taken to minimize the restriction's adverse effects on
subsistence uses. ANILCA also authorized special funding for the Tongass to
maintain the timber supply at a minimum of 4.5 billion board feet per
decade3 and exempted the Tongass from a NFMA provision restricting timber
harvesting on lands identified as unsuitable for harvest.

The Tongass Timber Reform Act of 1990 repealed ANILCA's special timber
supply funding provision and made the Tongass generally subject to NFMA's
provision restricting timber harvesting on lands identified as unsuitable
for harvest. Under the act, the Forest Service must seek to meet the market
demand for timber annually and over the 15-year planning cycle, consistent
with existing law, appropriations, and the provision of multiple uses and
the sustained yield of all forest resources. "Multiple use" means managing
forest resources so that they are used in the combination that best meets
the needs of the American people. "Sustained yield" means achieving a
high-level annual or regular, periodic output of forest resources without
impairing the productivity of the land. The Tongass Timber Reform Act also
limited timber harvesting near certain streams and made nine modifications
to long-term timber sale contracts between the Forest Service and private
parties, including additional provisions to prohibit the disproportionate
harvesting of high-volume old-growth timber. Large, tall trees that are
valuable for both wildlife habitat and timber production most often
characterize old-growth forest. Densely canopied, loosely spaced trees and a
floor punctuated by woody debris provide a unique habitat for plants and
wildlife, including the marten, hairy woodpecker, brown creeper, and marbled
murrelet. The large size of the trees also makes them valuable for
harvesting as timber.

Appeals Was Unique

The Department of Agriculture's Under Secretary for Natural Resources and
Environment used a unique process to approve modifications to the management
direction in the 1997 Tongass forest plan to address certain concerns raised
in appeals of the plan and decide the appeals on the basis of the plan, as
modified. According to the Forest Service, it is not unusual for an Under
Secretary to review, and on occasion direct the Chief to modify, appeal
decisions. However, this was the first time that an Under Secretary approved
substantive modifications to a forest plan and issued initial appeal
decisions based on the modified plan.4

The Tongass plan, signed in 1979, was the first forest plan approved under
NFMA. From 1979 through 1995, 122 additional plans covering the remaining
154 national forests were approved. As of July 1999, 11 of the 123 plans had
been revised. All but 1 of the 134 original and revised forest plans have
been appealed. Decisions have been reached on 127 of the appealed plans.
Decisions have not been reached on the remaining 6 plans.

Of the 127 plans on which appeal decisions have been reached, the Chief of
the Forest Service, in whole or in part, affirmed 119 and reversed 7. The
reversals may have included instructions for further action by the regional
forester. The Under Secretary approved substantive modifications to the
remaining plan (the Tongass plan) to address certain concerns raised in
appeals and simultaneously issued initial appeal decisions based on the
modified plan.

and Quickly End the Appeals Process

The Department of Agriculture's Under Secretary for Natural Resources and
Environment said he approved modifications to the management direction in
the 1997 plan and decided the appeals on the basis of the modified plan for
two reasons. First, he approved modifications to the management direction in
the 1997 plan because he believed he could "make a good plan better" by
increasing the protection of old-growth forest, subsistence uses, and areas
of special interest. Second, he decided the appeals on the basis of the
modified plan because he wanted to end the appeals process as quickly as
possible.

The three concerns addressed by the Under Secretary−(1) old-growth
forest and the species that depend on it for habitat; (2) lands and
resources used for subsistence hunting, fishing, and gathering by rural
Alaskans; and (3) areas of special interest valued for ecological,
recreational, subsistence, cultural, spiritual, and/or scenic purposes--were
addressed in developing the 1997 Tongass forest plan. The Forest Service
spent 10 years and $13 million developing a legally defensible and
scientifically credible plan to sustain the Tongass's resources. (See app.
I.) The process included numerous opportunities for public review and
comment, numerous studies and peer reviews of ecological and socioeconomic
issues, several assessments by panels of experts and scientists that were
convened and reconvened to evaluate the risks to particular wildlife species
under proposed management alternatives, and direct involvement by federal
regulatory agencies. A Forest Service report concluded that the 1997 Tongass
forest plan "achieved a high degree of consistency with the available
scientific information" and acknowledged and documented the risks to forest
resources. According to the former regional forester for the Alaska Region
who approved the 1997 Tongass plan, the plan is legally defensible,
scientifically credible, and able to sustain the forest's resources.

Thirty-three appeals were filed on the 1997 Tongass plan. The appeals raised
many of the same ecological and socioeconomic concerns that had been studied
and restudied in the process of developing the 1997 plan. A Forest Service
team, which reviewed the appeals, drafted a set of appeal decisions. With
one minor exception, the decisions responded to the appellants' concerns by
affirming the 1997 plan. This set of decisions was approved by the
Department of Agriculture's Office of General Counsel and sent to the
Chief's office for his signature.

A Forest Service team consolidated the 33 appeals into 19 draft appeal
decisions. Forest Service officials familiar with the agency's appeals
process expected the Chief to sign the appeal decisions affirming the 1997
plan, but he never did. Instead, officials within the Chief's office and the
Department of Agriculture identified four interrelated concerns that they
felt were not adequately addressed in the 1997 plan: (1) old-growth forest,
(2) subsistence uses, (3) areas of special interest, and (4) beach
fringe−or the stretch of land extending from the ocean shore inland.

To analyze the concerns and prepare preliminary alternatives for addressing
them, the Forest Service assembled a team of scientists and appeals
specialists from within the agency. This "review team" was instructed (1)
not to contact Forest Service officials in the Alaska Region or the
appellants and (2) to limit its review and analysis to the administrative
record for the 1997 Tongass plan and the existing appeals record. The team
found that these records lacked information for developing preliminary
alternatives to increase the protection of beach fringe, so it deleted this
concern. However, it found that the records did contain information to
change the 1997 plan to better protect old-growth forest, subsistence uses,
and areas of special interest, and it developed five preliminary
alternatives to reduce the risks to these lands and resources.

The Under Secretary, invoking his discretionary authority to review the
Chief's appeal decisions and acting as the Department of Agriculture
official delegated the Secretary's authorities for managing National Forest
System lands, chose one of the preliminary alternatives developed by the
review team. The selected alternative provides the greatest protection to
old-growth forest, subsistence uses, and areas of special interest. However,
the Under Secretary modified the alternative by increasing the number of
areas of special interest from 5 to 18 and deleting certain measures to
protect deer and brown bear. His modifications to the 1997 Tongass forest
plan (1) removed another 234,000 acres from timber harvesting and other
development activities, (2) increased the timber harvest rotation5 from 100
years to 200 years on about 40 percent of the forest where timber harvesting
is allowed, and (3) decreased the open road density in areas where roads
have been determined to significantly contribute to wolf mortality.

The Under Secretary then ended the appeals process by deciding the appeals
on the basis of the 1997 plan, as modified. According to the Under
Secretary, other options for addressing the concerns−such as returning
the plan to the forest to address the concerns or approving the 1997 plan
and beginning a new process to amend the plan−would have taken more
time.

Process

The Under Secretary's approval of modifications to the management direction
in the 1997 plan and decision of the appeals on the basis of the modified
plan marked the latest chapter in a controversial, 12-year struggle to
develop a plan to manage the Tongass. Interested and affected parties have
raised concerns about both the modifications and the process used to approve
the modifications and decide the appeals. These concerns are related to the
trade-offs among competing forest uses inherent in the modifications and the
trade-off between ending the appeals process as quickly as possible and
providing opportunities for additional public participation and further
scientific analysis. Both the modifications and the process are now in
litigation. In the interim, the residents of southeast Alaska who are
economically dependent on the Tongass, their communities and elected
officials, and regional businesses and organizations live in uncertainty of
the forest's future.

Forest plans reflect difficult and often controversial trade-offs among
competing forest uses. For instance, by increasing the protection of
old-growth forest, subsistence uses, and areas of special interest, the team
of Forest Service scientists and appeals specialists--assembled by the
agency to analyze the concerns and prepare preliminary alternatives for
addressing them--estimated that the 1999 modifications to the Tongass forest
plan will reduce the average annual allowable sale quantity of timber6 in
the 1997 plan by 30 percent, from 267 million to 187 million board feet.
However, the estimated average annual allowable sale quantity of timber in
the forest plan, as modified, is not comparable to the estimate in the 1997
plan. The allowable sale quantity under the 1997 plan was developed by using
the Alaska Region's timber harvest planning model. This model had resulted
in the "most thorough and accurate analysis ever conducted for forest
planning purposes in Alaska," according to the Forest Service. However, team
members told us that ex parte concerns precluded them from contacting Forest
Service officials in the Alaska Region to obtain data on timber yields on
different parts of the forest and from using the Alaska Region's timber
harvest planning model in estimating the reduction in the allowable sale
quantity attributable to the 1999 modifications. Instead, the team used a
rudimentary formula that (1) multiplied the estimated average yield per acre
forestwide by the number of acres withdrawn from development and (2) reduced
the forestwide estimated average yield per acre to reflect the increase in
the timber harvest rotation from 100 years to 200 years on certain parts of
the forest. The team then subtracted the reduction in the allowable sale
quantity from the allowable sale quantity in the 1997 plan to estimate the
allowable sale quantity under the modified plan.

Timber harvesting is now limited to about 3 percent of the forest. Some
litigants believe that the modifications approved by the Under Secretary
went too far and that the Forest Service will not offer enough timber to
meet the market demand for it, in alleged violation of the Tongass Timber
Reform Act. Conversely, other litigants believe that the modifications did
not go far enough in reducing timber harvests. For example, some litigants
allege that the plan, as modified, violates the Tongass Timber Reform Act
because it will allow the Forest Service to offer timber in excess of market
demand.

The process used to modify the management direction in the 1997 plan is also
being challenged. For example, an environmental group has sued the Forest
Service, charging that the agency violated its appeals regulations by
failing to decide the group's appeal on the Tongass forest plan by the
regulatory deadline. In addition, an Alaska timber industry association and
a group of southeast Alaska communities have filed suit against the Forest
Service, charging, among other things, that the process to revise the
Tongass forest plan ended and the 1997 plan became final in 1998, when the
regulatory deadlines for deciding appeals and conducting a discretionary
review passed. They maintain that the 1999 modifications to the Tongass
forest plan therefore constituted a significant amendment to the 1997 plan
and that, under the Forest Service's planning regulations,7 the agency was
required to (1) follow the same procedure as that required for the
development and approval of a forest plan, (2) prepare a new environmental
impact statement in accordance with NEPA, and (3) seek additional public
involvement under NFMA and NEPA. The Forest Service, on the other hand,
argues that (1) the 1999 modifications were simply the culmination of the
plan revision process begun in 1987, (2) the revision did not become final
until the appeals were decided, and (3) all requirements concerning
environmental impact statements and public comments were satisfied.

Interested and affected parties have also raised concerns about whether the
basis for the modifications was limited to the administrative record for the
1997 forest plan and the arguments and comments submitted by the appellants.
For instance, the Alaska timber industry association and a group of
southeast Alaska communities assert that in approving the modifications, the
Under Secretary relied on a September 1998 draft study of the market demand
for Tongass timber that was not part of the appeals record. The Forest
Service responded that, while the Under Secretary referred to the study, he
did not rely on it in approving the modifications. The litigants also argue
that, in approving the modifications, the Under Secretary improperly relied
on an interim rule promulgated by the Forest Service on February 12, 1999,
which temporarily suspended new road construction into most roadless areas
until the agency develops a long-term forest roads policy. According to the
Under Secretary, the interim rule provides that for plans in the appeals
process, such as the Tongass plan, road construction in unroaded areas can
be addressed in the appeal decisions (36 C.F.R. sect. 212.13).

In addition, litigants argue that the Under Secretary engaged in improper ex
parte contacts with certain appellants. According to the Under Secretary,
while he had conversations with one of the appellants that are not
summarized in the administrative record for the 1999 modifications, he made
it clear that he could not discuss modifications to the 1997 Tongass forest
plan with the appellant until the modifications had been approved.

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Agriculture's Forest
Service for its review and comment. In commenting on the draft report, the
Forest Service expressed the view that we had not accurately described why
the process used to modify the 1997 Tongass forest plan and decide the
appeals was unique. According to the agency, it is not unusual for an Under
Secretary to review, and on occasion direct the Chief to modify, appeal
decisions. What was unique was that this was the first time that an Under
Secretary approved substantive modifications to a forest plan and issued
initial appeal decisions based on the modified plan. In addition, the agency
suggested that we make clear early in the report that because of ex parte
concerns, the review team of Forest Service scientists and appeals
specialists was instructed not to contact Forest Service officials in the
Alaska Region or the appellants. The team was also instructed to limit its
analysis to the administrative record for the 1997 Tongass forest plan and
the existing appeals record. We revised the draft report in response to
these concerns. We also made technical clarifications to the draft report,
as appropriate.

The full text of the Forest Service's comments and our responses are in
appendix III.

To examine the process used by the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and
Environment to approve modifications to the management direction in the 1997
plan and decide the appeals, we reviewed the available administrative
record, including appeals of the plan. In addition, we researched relevant
federal legislation and regulations. We also interviewed officials from the
Forest Service and the Department of Agriculture who participated in
modifying the plan and/or responding to the appeals of the 1997 Tongass
forest plan. In addition, we interviewed officials from the Forest Service's
Alaska Region and representatives from the office of the Governor of Alaska,
environmental groups, and a timber industry group. We conducted our work
from June 1999 to March 2000 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.

As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 10 days after
the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to the Honorable
Dan Glickman, Secretary of Agriculture, and the Honorable Michael Dombeck,
Chief of the Forest Service. We will also make copies available to others on
request.

If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202)
512-3841. Key contributors to this assignment were Charles S. Cotton, Angela
Sanders, and Richard P. Johnson.

Sincerely yours,
Jim Wells
Director, Energy, Resources,
and Science Issues
Information on the Process Used to Revise the 1979 Tongass Forest Plan

This appendix provides information on the process the Forest Service used to
revise the 1979 Tongass forest plan, completed in 1997. Table 1 summarizes
the major events in the plan's revision. The remainder of the appendix
discusses these events in greater detail.

Table 1: Major Events in the Revision of the 1979 Tongass Forest Plan

 Date      Event
 1987
 July      Process of revising the original Tongass forest plan begins.
 1990

 June      Forest Service releases the draft forest plan for public
           comment.
 November  The Congress enacts the Tongass Timber Reform Act.
 1991

 February  Viable population (VPOP) committee sends the first draft of its
           report to the Forest Service.

 September Forest Service releases a supplement to the draft forest plan
           for public comment.
 1992

 April     Forest Service publishes the draft VPOP report for public
           review.
 1993

 December  Fish and Wildlife Service receives a petition to list the
           Alexander Archipelago wolf as threatened.
 1994

 March     Pacific Northwest Research Station releases the peer review of
           the VPOP report.

 April     Forest Service terminates its contract with the Alaska Pulp
           Corporation.
           Chief appoints a new regional forester to the Alaska Region.
           New regional forester reorganizes the Tongass land management
 May       plan team.
           Fish and Wildlife Service receives a petition to list the Queen
           Charlotte goshawk as endangered.

 September Forest Service issues an environmental assessment on interim
           guidelines for public comment.
           Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and state of Alaska
 December  sign a memorandum of understanding to prevent listing of species
           on the Tongass as endangered or threatened.
 1995

 July      The Congress passes a rider prohibiting implementation of the
           environmental assessment's guidelines.
 1996

 April     Forest Service releases a revised supplement to the draft forest
           plan for public comment.

 September Court remands Fish and Wildlife Service's decision not to list
           the goshawk.

 October   Court remands Fish and Wildlife Service's decision not to list
           the wolf.
 1997

 February  Administration reaches agreement with the Ketchikan Pulp Company
           on closure of its pulp mill and termination of its contract.
 March     Repaneling of scientists begins.
 May       Regional forester approves the Tongass forest plan.

 July      Pacific Northwest Research Station issues a report reconciling
           use of science with policy decisions in the final Tongass plan.

 September Fish and Wildlife Service concludes that listing of goshawk and
           wolf is not warranted.

The Tongass was the first national forest to have an approved forest plan
under the National Forest Management Act (NFMA). The 1979 Tongass forest
plan designated certain areas of the forest off-limits to timber harvesting
and scheduled about 1.7 million of the forest's 5.7 million acres of
commercial forestland8 as harvestable. This land was to support an average
annual allowable sale quantity of 450 million board feet.

The plan was administered on the Tongass by the forest's three forest
supervisors. Because of its size, the Tongass is divided into three
administrative areas--Chatham, Stikine, and Ketchikan--each of which has an
area office, then headed by a forest supervisor. The Forest Service's Alaska
Region, headquartered in Juneau, is responsible for the Tongass and Alaska's
other national forest, the Chugach.

In 1980, the Congress passed the Alaska National Interests Lands
Conservation Act (ANILCA), which created 14 wilderness areas on the Tongass
and designated Admiralty Island and the Misty Fiords as national monuments.
Following ANILCA's enactment, the Tongass's commercial forestland was
reduced by about 1.7 million acres, from 5.7 million acres to about 4
million acres. In addition, under ANILCA, no withdrawal, reservation, lease,
disposal, or other use of such lands that would significantly restrict
subsistence uses shall be effected until the relevant land management agency
determines that (1) the restriction is consistent with land management
principles, (2) the restriction will involve the minimum amount of land
necessary, and (3) action will be taken to minimize the restriction's
adverse effects on subsistence uses. ANILCA directed that at least $40
million derived from timber and other receipts be made available to the
Forest Service to maintain the timber supply from the Tongass to the
dependent forest products industry at a rate of 4.5 billion board feet per
decade. The Forest Service amended its 1979 Tongass forest plan in 1986 to
reflect ANILCA's provisions.

In 1987, the Forest Service began to revise the forest plan for the Tongass.
The agency started by involving the public in a scoping process to identify
issues that would need special attention by the interdisciplinary team
developing the revised forest plan. The team also started developing a
computer database of information about the resources on the Tongass, such as
the location of streams and timber stands, to provide information on the
potential effects of a revised plan.

The organizational structure for planning consisted of a core
interdisciplinary team headed by a team leader and an assistant team leader.
The team members included a wildlife biologist, a lands specialist, a
recreation planner, and a timber resource specialist, among others. The team
leader reported directly to the Chatham Forest Supervisor, who represented
all three forest supervisors and exercised day-to-day responsibilities for
the plan's development. The Alaska Region's Director of Ecosystem Planning
and Budget offered planning advice to the interdisciplinary team leader. In
addition, two groups advised the team. The first group included the Forest
Service's regional directors for timber, wildlife and fish, recreation,
engineering, lands, minerals, and fish and watersheds. The second group
consisted of the planners from each of the forest's three administrative
areas. This organizational structure provided the interdisciplinary team
with input from the forest's three administrative areas and from the
regional directors, who are considered to be the technical experts within
the Forest Service's regional office.

In June 1990, the Forest Service issued a draft forest plan for public
comment.9 The draft plan's analysis centered around 11 issues identified
during scoping: scenic quality, recreation, fish habitat, wildlife habitat,
subsistence, timber harvest, roads, minerals, roadless areas, the local
economy, and wild and scenic rivers. The draft presented seven alternatives
that the Forest Service could adopt to manage the Tongass but did not
include a preferred alternative.

Species on the Tongass

The wildlife strategy contained in the 1990 draft of the forest plan was
questioned. For example, some Forest Service staff from the three Tongass
administrative areas considered the approach too difficult to implement and
not scientifically supportable. Moreover, the Forest Service's approach to
maintaining diverse wildlife populations was changing at this time. For
example, in a 1988 decision on an appeal of the approved forest plan for the
Flathead National Forest in northwest Montana, the Associate Chief of the
Forest Service directed the regional forester to leave 10 percent of certain
watersheds in old-growth areas large enough to provide habitat for certain
species until the region completed additional analyses of these species'
habitat requirements. In addition, in 1990, an interagency scientific
committee released a conservation strategy for the northern spotted owl in
the Pacific Northwest that advocated retaining large blocks of old-growth
forests as a way of ensuring the viability of owl populations.10

In response to concerns about the viability of certain old-growth-dependent
species on the Tongass, in October 1990, the interdisciplinary team revising
the Tongass forest plan established a committee to study the viability of
populations of various old-growth-dependent species--the "viable population"
committee. This committee's principal mission was to identify species whose
viability might be impaired by some forest management activities and to
develop recommendations to maintain viable populations for each such
species. The committee was not part of the interdisciplinary team.

Shortly after the committee was established and during the 6-month period
for commenting on the draft Tongass forest plan, the Congress passed the
Tongass Timber Reform Act of 1990. Among other things, this act repealed
ANILCA's special funding provision for maintaining the timber supply from
the Tongass. The act required, instead, that the Forest Service seek to meet
the market demand for timber annually and over the 15-year planning cycle,
consistent with existing law, appropriations, and the provision of multiple
uses and the sustained yield of all forest resources. The act also limited
timber harvesting near certain streams, designated additional wilderness
areas within the Tongass, and designated 12 additional special management
areas in which timber harvesting and road building are generally prohibited.
The act also made nine modifications to the Tongass's long-term timber sale
contracts, including adding provisions to the contracts to prohibit the
disproportionate harvesting of old-growth timber. The Forest Service amended
its 1979 Tongass forest plan in February 1991 to reflect the act's
requirements.

To respond to the Tongass Timber Reform Act and comments received on the
1990 draft forest plan, which included questions raised about the adequacy
of the wildlife viability analysis in the 1990 draft forest plan, the Forest
Service decided to prepare a supplement to the draft plan. In February 1991,
the viable population committee submitted a report to the leader of the
interdisciplinary team containing a proposed strategy for conserving
old-growth forest and specific standards for 13 species dependent on
old-growth forest as habitat. As foreshadowed by the strategy of the
interagency scientific committee for the Pacific Northwest, the report
recommended the use of large tracts of old-growth reserves close enough
together so that local wildlife populations could interact with each other.
According to the report, such a system would promote the interchange of
genetic material between populations and maximize opportunities for
recolonization should one of the populations suffer local extinction. The
report asserted that this strategy would affect a smaller proportion of the
suitable timber base than was affected by the interagency scientific
committee's strategy or even by the standards appearing in the 1990 draft
forest plan. The report further indicated that the recommended standards
would only "barely assure perpetuation" of certain species on the Tongass.

As the interdisciplinary team prepared the supplement to the draft plan, it
rejected the strategy recommended by the viability population committee.
According to the supplement, the team rejected the committee's habitat
protection recommendations because the team considered the evidence
supporting the recommendations to be insufficient. The draft plan
accompanying the supplement provided for (1) timber sales to be managed so
as to maintain large blocks of old-growth reserves and corridors between the
blocks, where compatible with other resource objectives, and (2) standards
and guidelines to protect any species that had been identified by the
Department of the Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service, the Department of
Commerce's National Marine Fisheries Service, or the Forest Service as
threatened, endangered, or sensitive or as a candidate for any of these
categories.

The supplement,11 issued in September 1991 for public comment, presented
five alternatives, including a preferred alternative. The preferred
alternative was designed, in the Forest Service's words, to "enhance the
balanced use of resources of the forest and provide a public timber supply
to maintain the Southeast Alaska timber industry." The alternative proposed
an average annual allowable sale quantity of 418 million board feet--down
from the allowable sale quantity in the 1979 plan of 450 million board feet.
During 1991 and the spring of 1992, the viable population committee
continued to work on refining and developing its proposed strategy for
conserving wildlife in its February 1991 report and produced a draft report
for review in April 1992.12 At the request of an Alaska Region official, a
wildlife ecologist from the Pacific Northwest Research Station--a Portland,
Oregon, research arm of the Forest Service--reviewed the draft report and
concluded in July 1992 that the report's wildlife conservation strategy was
sound. The ecologist urged closer cooperation between the interdisciplinary
team and the viable population committee and recommended further peer review
of the committee's draft report.

In December 1992, an Anchorage newspaper published an article accusing the
Forest Service of covering up the information contained in the viable
population committee's draft report and of disregarding the report's
conclusions. Forest Service officials denied the accusations and asserted
that the viable population committee's report was only a draft, not yet
ready for public distribution, and that not enough information was available
to finalize the report. In January 1993, the Chairman of the House Committee
on Natural Resources asked the Secretary of Agriculture to investigate this
matter.

After the 1991 supplement to the draft forest plan was released for public
comment but before a preferred alternative was selected, the
interdisciplinary team carried out another study of fish and wildlife
viability. This study was to be included as an appendix--known as "appendix
M"--to the final forest plan. Appendix M described three additional risk
assessments of wildlife viability performed by the interdisciplinary team,
one of which was based on the viable population committee's strategy. The
interdisciplinary team stated in appendix M that these risk assessments
amounted only to hypotheses and required additional data and testing. In
February 1993, the interdisciplinary team presented a draft of a final
revised forest plan--including a record of decision with a preferred
alternative selected by the forest supervisors--for approval by the regional
forester. The regional forester did not sign the decision.

Twenty-three conservation biologists and resource scientists sent a letter
to the Vice President in March 1993, condemning the Forest Service's
treatment of its scientists and their work on the Tongass and the Clearwater
National Forest in Idaho. In June 1993, the House Committee on
Appropriations issued a report to accompany the Forest Service's fiscal year
1994 appropriations bill directing the Alaska Region to (1) assist the
viable population committee in completing its report and (2) seek peer
review of both the completed report and appendix M. The committee completed
a draft of its report in May 1993. By August 1993, the Alaska Region's
regional forester officially requested the Forest Service's Pacific
Northwest Research Station to conduct an independent peer review of the
documents.

In March 1994, the Pacific Northwest Research Station released its report,
which contained 18 individual scientific reviews, a legal review, and a
summary of the reviews and recommendations.13 The peer review gave the
viable population committee's draft report generally "high marks," while
concluding that the strategy contained in appendix M was "not as thorough or
well motivated." The peer review indicated that appendix M needed to go
further to meet the requirements of the relevant legislation.

The legal review concluded that while the viable population committee's
strategy represented "an earnest, if highly cautious" attempt to properly
implement the Forest Service's regulations for ensuring wildlife viability
and diversity, the proposed appendix's strategy did "not appear to implement
either the spirit or the letter of these principles." The legal review also
expressed doubt about the consistency of the Forest Service's proposed
alternative with the Tongass Timber Reform Act's restriction on the
disproportionate harvesting of old-growth timber. One of the scientific
reviewers also raised doubts about the legal validity of the timber harvest
plans outlined in the draft revised forest plan, noting that the plans
appeared to be incompatible with the agency's own proposed wildlife
strategy.

In the 1950s, the Forest Service awarded three 50-year contracts to timber
companies to harvest timber on the Tongass. A fourth contract was awarded in
the 1960s but was canceled before operations began. When initiated, the
contracts required that each of the companies construct and operate a pulp
mill--a mill that converts logs into wood pulp--to provide for steady
employment in southeast Alaska. One of the companies constructed a pulp mill
at Ketchikan, and another company constructed a pulp mill at Sitka. The
third company did not construct a mill, and its contract was reduced to 25
years.

In April 1994, the Forest Service terminated one of the two remaining
long-term contracts, asserting that the contract holder--the Alaska Pulp
Corporation--had breached the contract by closing its pulp mill in Sitka.
The corporation in turn filed an action against the Forest Service for
breach of contract and the unconstitutional taking of property. Litigation
is still pending.

Revision

At the end of April 1994, the Alaska Region's regional forester retired. In
May 1994, the Chief of the Forest Service appointed a new regional forester
to the Alaska Region. The new regional forester requested that the 1991
supplement to the draft forest plan be revised to take into account new
scientific knowledge about wildlife viability and new initiatives within the
Forest Service, among other things.

The regional forester identified five issues on which the revised supplement
would focus:

ï¿½ wildlife viability, because of new information available from the viable
population committee and other sources;

ï¿½ caves and karst,14 because of the recent discovery of world-class karst in
the Ketchikan area;

ï¿½ fish and riparian management, because of new information arising from a
congressionally mandated study--ongoing at that time--on anadromous fish
habitat15 and because of the importance of the fishing industry to southeast
Alaska;

ï¿½ alternatives to clear-cutting,16 because of the Chief's June 1992 policy
to reduce clear-cutting in national forests by as much as 70 percent in
order to manage forests in a more environmentally sensitive manner; and

ï¿½ socioeconomic effects, because of concern about how changes in managing
the Tongass could affect the timber and other industries, especially in
light of the then recent shutdown of one of the region's two pulp mills.

In mid-1994, the newly appointed regional forester established a new
planning team structure to revise the 1991 supplement to the draft Tongass
forest plan. The restructured planning team consisted of two groups--an
interagency policy group and an interdisciplinary team.

The interagency policy group was composed of officials from the Alaska
Region, including the three forest supervisors; program managers from the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the
National Marine Fisheries Service; and personnel from the state of Alaska.
The group's role was to advise the interdisciplinary team on the development
of the revised supplement to the draft forest plan and to provide
interagency coordination with other federal and Alaska agencies. The policy
group was disbanded in April 1996 when the revised forest plan was issued
for public comment.

The interdisciplinary team is divided into two branches: a policy (also
called a management) branch and a science branch. The regional forester
assigned coleaders to the interdisciplinary team--a deputy forest supervisor
to head the team's policy branch and a research scientist to head the
science branch. The policy and science branches coordinated their efforts to
develop alternatives for managing the Tongass.

Under the reorganized planning team structure, the Director of the Pacific
Northwest Research Station appointed research scientists to the
interdisciplinary team's science branch between the fall of 1994 and early
1995 with the concurrence of the regional forester. They included scientists
with backgrounds in forest ecology, wildlife biology, social science,
hydrology, geology, forestry, and statistics. According to Forest Service
officials, scientists were appointed because of concerns about the
scientific credibility of the wildlife strategy in the 1991 supplement to
the draft forest plan.

The research scientists gathered information primarily on the five issues
identified by the regional forester. They (1) gathered existing scientific
data pertaining to the Tongass, (2) reviewed various assumptions and
strategies used in the plan, and (3) developed estimates of risks to
resources that might result from various proposed management activities that
were eventually included in the revised supplement to the draft
environmental impact statement. In most instances, the scientists did not
have the time to develop new data but, rather, relied on information already
in existence.

The regional forester and science branch scientists with whom we spoke told
us that although the research scientists were part of the interdisciplinary
team, they did not participate in developing the alternatives or selecting
the preferred alternative in the revised supplement to the draft forest
plan. Rather, the research scientists in the science branch were responsible
for (1) gathering information on the five issues and forwarding it to the
policy branch and (2) providing comments and views on related scientific
studies and indicating the risks involved in adopting various management
options.

After the policy branch had developed the alternatives to be included in the
revised supplement to the draft forest plan, the science branch convened 10
panels of experts and specialists. Each of nine panels examined the
potential effects of the nine alternatives on one of the following nine
issues: the Alexander Archipelago wolf, the northern goshawk, the marbled
murrelet, the American marten, the brown bear, terrestrial mammals,
fish/riparian areas, old-growth forests, and communities. A tenth panel
updated an existing habitat capability model for projecting the effects of
the nine alternatives on the Sitka black-tailed deer. At the same time, a
working group evaluated the risk each alternative could pose to subsistence
uses.

Many of the policy branch's members were from the prior interdisciplinary
team. The policy branch included national forest personnel with backgrounds
in fish and wildlife biology, economics, recreation planning, resource
information, wildlife ecology, and timber planning.

The policy branch was responsible for developing the alternatives in the
revised supplement of the draft forest plan, managing the resource database,
coordinating public involvement, maintaining documentation of the planning
process, and calculating the impact of alternatives on the amount of timber
available for harvest. In developing the alternatives, members of the policy
branch considered the scientific information gathered by the science group,
as well as the scientists' comments and views on the risks involved in
adopting various management options. The two branches also worked together
to summarize the findings of the 11 scientific assessment panels convened by
the science branch and present the summary to the forest supervisors to aid
them in selecting a preferred alternative for managing the forest. Alaska
Region officials told us that members of the policy branch chose the various
management options, such as the size of the beach fringe and the extent of
the wild and scenic rivers, presented in each alternative.

Under the planning team structure in effect from 1987 to August 1994, the
Chatham forest supervisor exercised day-to-day responsibility for developing
the revised Tongass forest plan and directly supervised the
interdisciplinary team. However, under the new regional forester's new
planning team structure, the three forest supervisors became members of the
interagency policy group whose role was to advise, rather than supervise,
the interdisciplinary team in developing the revised supplement to the draft
forest plan. This new role for the forest supervisors was controversial both
inside and outside the Forest Service.

The forest supervisors stated that they were not involved in the decision to
restructure the planning team or in appointing its new members, including
the research scientists. According to the supervisors, between August 1994
and September 1995, this new management structure prevented them from
exercising their decision-making responsibilities under NFMA with respect to
appointing and supervising the interdisciplinary team.

For example, one forest supervisor told us that the supervisors did not
participate in developing the alternatives or establishing the scientific
assessment panels. He said that if he had been responsible for supervising
the interdisciplinary team, he would not have convened the panels because of
their anticipated high costs, the lack of data on which to make informed
decisions, and the inadequacy of similar past efforts.

According to the deputy forest supervisor assigned by the regional forester
to head the interdisciplinary team's policy branch, he tried to keep the
forest supervisors informed about the interdisciplinary team's work but
generally did not ask them for direction. In addition, he told us that the
deputy regional forester, rather than the forest supervisors, had been
assigned responsibility for hiring, firing, and promoting Tongass planning
staff between August 1994 and September 1995.

The forest supervisors also believe they were not invited to participate in
some key meetings held by the interagency policy group. Other Forest Service
officials note that the interagency policy group was a large, unwieldy body
that made few, if any, decisions.

According to the regional forester, the forest supervisors informed him of
their concerns in the fall of 1995. He concluded that the communication link
between the deputy forest supervisor and the forest supervisors was not
working. He told us that from that point forward, the supervisors became
"reengaged" in the planning process. At about this time, the supervisors
began to participate in meetings held by other Forest Service members of the
interagency policy group. Subsequently, the forest supervisors crafted the
preferred alternative included in the April 1996 revised supplement to the
draft forest plan.

Comment

In April 1996, the Forest Service released the revised supplement to the
draft plan for public comment.17 The revised supplement differed
substantively from the two previous versions of the draft plan that had been
issued for public comment. The revised supplement presented nine
alternatives and a preferred alternative. Each alternative consisted of
variations of 10 components: system and number of old-growth reserves,
rotation age for timber, old growth and watershed retention, method of
timber harvesting, extent of preservation of karst and caves, extent of
riparian protection, size of beach fringe, estuary protection, timber
harvest in watersheds, and deer winter range.

The three forest supervisors considered the initial nine alternatives in the
revised supplement before selecting a combination of components from the
alternatives to create their preferred alternative. The preferred
alternative incorporated old-growth reserves, an average 100-year rotation
age for timber, a combination of harvesting methods, a two-aged
timber-harvesting system, a combination of riparian protection options, and
an average allowable sale quantity of 357 million board feet per year.
Compared with the 1979 forest plan, the preferred alternative and the
majority of the other alternatives considered increased the protection of
wildlife habitat and decreased the amount of timber available for
harvesting.

The April 1996 revised forest plan and environmental impact statement for
the Tongass placed heavy emphasis on regional socioeconomic effects. They
did not, however, attempt to quantify the economic effects on local
communities. For example, the revised supplement examined the effects of
reduced timber harvesting on the timber, recreation, and fishing industries,
both for the region and for the nation, and expressed these effects in terms
of jobs and income created or lost. However, for individual communities, the
revised supplement described socioeconomic effects much more generally than
it did for the region as a whole. The revised supplement profiled each of
southeast Alaska's 32 communities separately and discussed the composition
of each community's economy. However, the revised supplement did not
quantify the economic impact but simply stated whether a proposed
alternative would have a negative, positive, or indifferent effect on the
timber, fishing, and recreation sectors of the community's economy.

Forest Service economists told us that socioeconomic effects were not
forecast as specifically for communities as they were for the region because
not enough information was available about either the communities or the
location of future timber sales. For example, Forest Service officials told
us that without knowing where a timber sale will take place and how the
timber will be processed, the Forest Service cannot determine which
communities will be affected by timber sales. The 1990 draft environmental
impact statement and the 1991 supplement to the draft environmental impact
statement also did not attempt to forecast specific effects on individual
communities.

Draft Revised Plan

After the revised supplement to the draft plan was released for public
comment, the Forest Service held open houses and hearings in southeast
Alaska's 32 communities, met with interested groups, and discussed the
proposed revised plan on local media. The revised supplement to the draft
plan also generated public meetings and demonstrations, as well as
congressional hearings. In July 1996, the regional forester granted a 30-day
extension (through late Aug. 1996) to the 90-day comment period after
considering the public comments received to date and the interest shown by
the public in extending the comment period. About 21,000 respondents
submitted comments. In comparison, for the 1990 and 1991 drafts released for
public comment, the Forest Service received comments from about 3,700 and
7,300 respondents, respectively.

Because of the large volume of public comments, the Alaska Region did not
have the resources to effectively analyze them alone. Instead, regional
officials contracted with a Forest Service team of specialists in content
analysis from the Flathead National Forest in Montana. Between June 1996 and
October 1996, the in-Service team analyzed the public comments. Substantive
issues, concerns, and questions raised by commenters were identified by the
in-Service team and given to the interdisciplinary team for consideration in
developing the revision to the final plan. The in-Service team, working
primarily on the Flathead National Forest, consisted of about 40 people,
including a project coordinator, 2 team leaders, computer support staff,
writers/coders, data entry staff, and editors. In addition, staff from the
Alaska Region assisted the in-Service team.

In early October 1996, the in-Service team prepared the final draft content
analysis summary displaying demographic information and specific
issue-by-issue analysis in a summary of public comments. According to the
content analysis done by the in-Service team, (1) the majority of the public
comments concerned the level of timber harvesting that the preferred
alternative allowed, (2) over half the comments supported lowering the
amount of timber available for harvesting and suggested terminating or not
extending the Tongass's remaining long-term timber-harvesting contract, and
(3) many of the respondents, especially southeastern Alaskans, were worried
about the social and economic effects on their communities if the preferred
alternative was selected .

the Plan

As discussed earlier, in mid-1994, the newly appointed regional forester
established a new planning team structure to revise the 1991 supplement to
the draft Tongass forest plan. Under the new structure, the regulatory
agencies were members of the interagency policy group established to advise
the interdisciplinary team and to improve interagency coordination.

Interagency coordination became increasingly important in December 1993 when
the Fish and Wildlife Service received a petition to list the Alexander
Archipelago wolf as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. In
addition, in May 1994, the Fish and Wildlife Service received a petition to
list the Queen Charlotte goshawk as endangered under the act. Both
subspecies occur on the Tongass and depend on old-growth forest for habitat.
The revised Tongass forest plan, when issued, would affect the management of
these subspecies' habitat and could thus be a determinant in the viability
of the species.

Besides involving the Fish and Wildlife Service in the interagency policy
group, the Forest Service, in December 1994, signed a memorandum of
understanding with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Alaska Department
of Fish and Game to prevent the listing of species on the Tongass as
endangered or threatened. The memorandum provided for the agencies to assess
wildlife habitat, share information about species they manage, and meet
regularly to discuss the status of species to reduce the need to list them
under federal or state endangered species acts.

In addition, the Forest Service's Alaska Region acted independently to
prevent the listing of the wolf, the goshawk, and other species:

ï¿½ In June 1994, the regional forester deferred timber harvesting in
old-growth reserves that the viable population committee had identified as
needed to maintain viable populations of old-growth-dependent species.

ï¿½ In September 1994, the Forest Service issued for comment an environmental
assessment intended to protect the wildlife habitat of such species as the
goshawk and the wolf while maintaining a supply of timber for local
industry. The proposed action in the environmental assessment was to provide
interim management guidelines to protect the species until the revised
supplement to the draft forest plan was approved. If implemented, the
guidelines were intended to protect those areas identified by the viable
population committee as needed to maintain viable populations of
old-growth-dependent species. This action was predicted to "likely result in
measurably lower timber sale offerings to independent mills," as well as
defer some timber sale offerings for the Tongass's remaining long-term
contract. In July 1995, the Congress passed an act 18 containing a rider
effectively prohibiting the Forest Service from implementing the management
guidelines. Accordingly, the regional forester did not sign the
environmental assessment or implement the guidelines.

In 1995, the Fish and Wildlife Service found that listing the wolf and the
goshawk under the Endangered Species Act was not warranted. Environmental
plaintiffs challenged these decisions. In September 1996, as the Forest
Service was reviewing public comments on the revised supplement to the draft
plan and formulating an alternative intended to become the final Tongass
forest plan, a federal district court remanded the Fish and Wildlife
Service's decision on the goshawk to the agency. In October 1996, the same
court reached the same decision with respect to the wolf. In each case, the
court ruled that the Fish and Wildlife Service's basis for not listing the
subspecies−that the revised Tongass forest plan would provide adequate
protection for the species' habitat−was not valid, since the plan had
not yet been formally approved by the Forest Service. Instead, the court
held that the Fish and Wildlife Service must base its decision on the
current (1979, as amended) plan and the current status of the subspecies and
its habitat.

As a result of these court decisions, the Fish and Wildlife Service began
negotiations 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 or threatened.

Despite the involvement of federal regulatory and state agencies in
developing the revised supplement to the draft forest plan, the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the
National Marine Fisheries Service submitted comments on the draft plan that
criticized the preferred alternative as posing a high level of risk to
wildlife and habitat. The Fish and Wildlife Service was concerned that
harvesting timber on a 100-year rotation, as proposed in the preferred
alternative, would prevent forests from recovering characteristics of
old-growth stands, resulting in the loss of viable populations of species
that depend on old-growth forests for habitat. The Environmental Protection
Agency and the National Marine Fisheries Service favored more expansive
riparian protection than the preferred alternative provided to protect fish
habitat and water quality.

Contract Holder's Mill

In February 1997, the administration reached an agreement with the company
holding the remaining long-term timber sale contract to terminate the
contract on December 31, 1999, with a possible extension to October 31,
2000. This agreement required the company--the Ketchikan Pulp Company--to
continue operating two sawmills in southeast Alaska and to clean up
specified environmental damage resulting from its operations in southeast
Alaska. In exchange, the administration agreed to supply enough timber to
operate the sawmills for 3 years and to make certain cash payments to the
company.

In March and April 1997, the scientists on the planning team reconvened the
scientific panels to assess the alternatives in the draft revised forest
plan, some of which had been modified since the revised supplement was
released for public comment in April 1996. As the final alternative for the
forest plan was being developed, the public, the Congress, and officials in
the departments of Agriculture and the Interior, among others, expressed
concern that the final alternative might pose an unacceptable risk to forest
resources--particularly wildlife and fish. As a result, six panels met to
review both the preferred alternative in the draft revised plan and the
emerging final alternative to gauge the effects of these alternatives on
several species of wildlife that live on the Tongass.19 Specifically, these
panels addressed effects on the Queen Charlotte goshawk, Alexander
Archipelago wolf, brown bear, American marten, fisheries resources
(anadromous and resident), and other terrestrial mammals. The head of the
science group described these panels as "not designed to be a fine-precision
exercise, but rather one to provide decisionmakers and the public with
informed professional judgments obtained through a structured, objective
process."

On May 23, 1997, the regional forester approved a revised plan and final
environmental impact statement for the Tongass. The plan established an
allowable sale quantity of 267 million board feet of timber per year, down
from 450 million board feet in the 1979 plan, and lower than the 357 million
board feet proposed in the April 1996 preferred alternative released for
public comment.

List the Goshawk and Wolf

On September 4, 1997, the Fish and Wildlife Service concluded, primarily on
the basis of the revised plan, that listing the goshawk and wolf under the
Endangered Species Act was not warranted. In April 1998, environmental
groups sued the Fish and Wildlife Service, seeking to force the listing of
the Queen Charlotte goshawk under the Endangered Species Act. The groups
asserted, among other things, that the 1997 Tongass forest plan was still
insufficient to protect goshawk habitat.

Selected Alternative

In October 1997, the Pacific Northwest Research Station completed a report
examining the extent to which science was considered in developing the 1997
Tongass plan.20 The report's goal was to examine "how scientific information
was used in making management decisions" and to evaluate "whether the
decisions were consistent with the available information." The report
concluded that the final management decision made in developing the 1997
forest plan "achieved a high degree of consistency with the available
scientific information." To make decisions that were "consistent" with
science, the policy group had to show that they (1) considered all relevant
scientific information, (2) understood and correctly interpreted the
scientific information, and (3) acknowledged and documented the risks to
forest resources associated with their decisions in the 1997 plan.

In 1998, the organizational structure of the Tongass changed. Instead of
three forest supervisors, one forest supervisor has specific responsibility
for the Tongass. An assistant forest supervisor now heads each
administrative area--formerly headed by a forest supervisor. Officials in
the Forest Service's Alaska Region told us that the reorganization is
intended to devolve the management of the Tongass and the implementation of
the Tongass forest plan from the region to the forest.

Information on the Process Used to Modify the 1997 Tongass Forest Plan

This appendix provides information on the process used to modify the
management direction in the 1997 Tongass forest plan and decide the appeals
of the plan. Table 2 summarizes the major events in this process. The
remainder of the appendix discusses these events in greater detail.

Table 2: Major Events in the Modification of the 1997 Tongass Forest Plan

 Date      Event
 1997
 May       Regional forester approves the revised Tongass forest plan.

 September As of this date−the deadline for filing appeals of the
           1997 Tongass forest plan−a total of 33 appeals are filed.
 1998

 March     Regulatory deadline for deciding appeals passes; appeal
           decisions are not yet drafted.

 April     Environmental groups sue the Fish and Wildlife Service to list
           the goshawk.

 June      All draft appeal decisions are submitted to the Chief's office
           by this date; the draft decisions affirm the plan.
           Senate appropriations bill contains a rider requiring the Forest
 July      Service to offer at least 90 percent of the Tongass's annual
           allowable sale quantity of timber for sale each year.

           Environmental groups request a stay of nine timber sales on the
           Tongass; Forest Service does not respond to the request.
           Industry group files suit alleging that the 1997 forest plan
 August    violates planning laws and market demand provisions of the
           Tongass Timber Reform Act.

 September Alaska Region completes a draft study of the market demand for
           timber.
           The Congress drops the rider to the Senate appropriations bill
 October   and funds the preparation of additional timber sales on the
           Tongass.
           Draft appeal decisions remain unsigned, and officials from the
 November  Forest Service, Agriculture, and Justice begin to seek an
           approach to decide the appeals.

 December  Environmental group sues the Forest Service for missing the
           regulatory deadline for deciding appeals.
 1999
           Forest Service and Agriculture decide to modify the management
 January   direction in the 1997 forest plan and draft new appeal
           decisions.

           Forest Service and Agriculture assemble a team to analyze four
           concerns.
           Agriculture's Under Secretary for Natural Resources and
 February  Environment decides he will sign the modifications to the 1997
           forest plan.

 March     Modifications to the plan are largely completed, and work shifts
           to drafting new appeal decisions.

 April     Under Secretary approves modifications to the plan and decides
           the appeals on the basis of the modified plan.
           Environmental and industry groups challenge the modifications
 May       and process in court, asserting that they violate planning laws
           and the Tongass Timber Reform Act.

 June      Court orders the Fish and Wildlife Service to gather additional
           information on the goshawk.
           Administration adjusts the termination date of the remaining
 August    long-term timber contract from December 31, 1999, to no later
           than October 31, 2000.
           Environmental groups sue, alleging that the administration
 September unlawfully failed to assess the environmental impact of the
           timber contract adjustment.
 October   Modifications to the Tongass forest plan take effect.

Thirty-three appeals were filed on the revised plan within the 90 days
established in the Forest Service's regulations. This period expired on
September 25, 1997. In addition to procedural issues associated with the
development of the forest plan, the appeals raised numerous substantive
concerns. The largest number of appeals focused on the forest plan's
potential risks to the environment, particularly through the use of
clear-cutting. The second most frequently cited concerns addressed road
building. The appeals filed from industry groups and some local communities
focused on the 1997 plan's reduction in the allowable sale quantity of
timber and the economic damage to the timber industry that might result.
Intervenors also commented on appeals filed by others.

According to staff in the Forest Service's appeals office, resolution of the
Tongass appeals received high priority. Nevertheless, none of the appeals
was decided within the 160-day period established in the Forest Service's
planning regulations. This period expired on March 4, 1998. A Forest Service
team consolidated the 33 appeals into 19 draft appeal decisions. With one
minor exception, the decisions responded to the appellants' concerns by
affirming the 1997 plan. By the end of June 1998, all of the draft appeal
decisions had been sent to the Chief's office. These draft decisions were in
final form and had been approved by the Department of Agriculture's Office
of General Counsel. Officials familiar with the appeals process in the
Forest Service expected that the Chief would shortly sign the appeal
decisions, but he never did.

Litigation, administrative disputes, and congressional action related to the
implementation of the 1997 plan proceeded while the Forest Service
considered the appeals. For example, in October 1997, a timber industry
group petitioned the Forest Service's Alaska Region to amend the 1997 plan.
Among other things, the group sought changes to the plan to ensure that
industry could have sufficient timber under contract to ensure a 3-year
supply for a veneer plant expected to be opened near Ketchikan. In July
1998, a Senate appropriations bill (S. 2237) was reported out of committee
with a rider that would have required the Forest Service to offer for sale
each year at least 90 percent of the annual allowable sale quantity of
timber in the 1997 plan.

Conversely, at the end of July 1998, several environmental groups requested
the Forest Service to stay nine pending timber sales, attempting to preserve
a meaningful opportunity for a review of their appeals of the 1997 plan. A
representative of one of the groups said the request for a stay stemmed, in
part, from the groups' fear that the Forest Service was beginning to
implement the provisions of the 1997 plan challenged in the groups' appeals.
Although the Forest Service's regulations provide that the agency must
respond to a request for a stay within 10 days, the agency never responded
to the request. However, in October, the Forest Service's Washington Office
directed the regional forester in Alaska to cease advertising timber sales
that were the subject of unresolved appeals or litigation.

Immediately after the period for responding to the request for a stay closed
in August 1998, a timber industry group filed suit against the Forest
Service. Among other things, this suit alleged that the 1997 forest plan
violated the Tongass Timber Reform Act because the Forest Service had failed
to (1) accurately determine the market demand for timber from the Tongass
and (2) seek to meet that demand. The timber industry group sought to enjoin
implementation of the 1997 forest plan and require the Forest Service to
either continue implementing the 1979 plan until a revised forest plan was
approved or adopt an earlier draft as the revised forest plan.

In September 1998, the Forest Service's Alaska Region completed a draft
study evaluating the market demand for Tongass timber. The draft study
concluded that under a high-demand scenario, the demand for Tongass timber
would average approximately 182 million board feet per year over the next
decade--nearly 30 million board feet higher than the agency's previous
high-demand estimate. The draft study specified that in establishing the
market demand, the Forest Service would take into account the timber
industry's need to have an adequate backlog of uncut timber under contract.
Staff from the region briefed officials from the Forest Service's Washington
Office, the Department of Agriculture, the state of Alaska, the Department
of Justice, and the Alaska congressional delegation on the draft study's
findings. The draft study was released for public comment in December 1998.

In October 1998, the Alaska Senate delegation agreed to drop the rider to
the appropriations bill requiring a minimum Tongass timber supply. In
exchange, the Secretary of Agriculture promised to spend $12.5 million to
make sufficient timber available on the Tongass to support the proposed
veneer plant. The Secretary also informally agreed to seek an extension of
the remaining long-term contract and make an effort to resolve the concerns
raised in the timber industry group's lawsuit.

In early December 1998, one of the Tongass forest plan appellants−an
environmental group--sued the Forest Service, alleging that the agency had
violated its appeals regulations by failing to decide the group's appeal
within the 160-day period established in the regulations. The group sought
to force the Forest Service to decide its appeal.

Beginning in the fall of 1998, officials from the Department of Agriculture
held a series of meetings on the Tongass, often including officials from the
Forest Service, the Department of Justice, and other federal agencies. As
early as October 1998, officials in the Department of Agriculture considered
invoking the Secretary of Agriculture's discretionary authority to review
the appeals, and by November, the Department of Agriculture's Under
Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment had decided to assemble a
"SWAT team" to address the appeals. In December, the Under Secretary decided
to meet with Forest Service personnel from the Alaska Region to help decide
the appeals. Two officials--the heads of the region's policy and science
groups that drafted the 1997 plan--flew to Washington, D.C., in early
January 1999 to help Forest Service officials navigate the 1997 plan's vast
administrative record. However, according to Forest Service officials, the
next day these officials were sent back to Alaska because of concerns about
federal regulations prohibiting ex parte contact with Forest Service
officials who developed the 1997 Tongass plan.

By January 1999, the Chief's office and the Department of Agriculture had
identified four interrelated concerns that they felt were not adequately
addressed in the 1997 plan: (1) old-growth forest and the species that
depend on it for habitat; (2) subsistence uses by rural Alaskans; (3) areas
of the forest valued for ecological, recreational, subsistence, cultural,
spiritual, and/or scenic purposes; and (4) beach fringe--the stretch of land
extending from the ocean shore inland.

The amount of old-growth forest and where it should be on the Tongass has
been debated for decades. This debate centers on how much productive
old-growth forest--and, in particular, how many high-volume tree stands
21--should be retained to protect wildlife and provide opportunities for
recreation and how much should be made available for timber harvesting. On
the forest as a whole, over 350,000 acres of productive old growth have been
logged since 1954, the year before the first long-term timber contract was
awarded. Timber harvesting has historically been concentrated in high-volume
stands.

A related debate concerns where old growth should be protected on the
forest. Across the Tongass, timber harvesting has been concentrated in the
higher-volume stands of timber and in timber at lower elevations. Timber
harvesting has occurred in a spatially clumped fashion across the Tongass,
concentrated on islands such as Prince of Wales, Northeast Chichagof, and
Zarembo. Although the 1997 Tongass forest plan created a network of "habitat
conservation areas," which contain old-growth forest, it forecasted a
continuing decline in the amount of old-growth forest on the Tongass,
including a decline in the amount of high-volume old-growth forest on Prince
of Wales Island.

Another area of concern for many rural Alaskans is the ability of the
Tongass to sustain subsistence uses. Subsistence hunting, fishing, trapping,
and gathering activities represent a major focus of life for many southeast
Alaskans and may play a significant role in supplementing their cash incomes
during periods when opportunities to participate in the wage economy are
limited or nonexistent. Subsistence activities also have considerable
cultural significance for both native and nonnative Alaskans.

One species especially important for subsistence is the Sitka black-tailed
deer, which residents of many communities in southeast Alaska hunt for food.
High-volume old-growth timber at low elevations provides important habitat
for this species, particularly during the winter.

Under the 1997 Tongass forest plan, the quality of deer habitat was
projected to decline in some areas by as much as 50 percent. The 1997 plan
stated that the overall sustainability of the Sitka black-tailed deer is not
threatened, but some of those who appealed the 1997 plan asserted that local
timber harvesting could compromise subsistence uses.

Throughout the history of the Tongass National Forest, people have valued
particular geographic areas on the Tongass over others. The areas most
valued are generally parcels of old-growth forest that are accessible to
hikers and tourists, are without roads, and are considered particularly
scenic or provide particularly valuable habitat for wildlife. These areas
are also often valued by the timber industry for their high-quality, easily
accessible timber.

Determining which of these high-value areas (called "areas of special
interest" in the 1999 modifications to the 1997 forest plan) are to be
harvested for timber or otherwise developed and which are to be retained as
natural areas has been the focus of legislative debate for many years.
ANILCA created 14 wilderness areas. Ten years later, the Tongass Timber
Reform Act designated 5 new wilderness areas, 1 addition to an existing
wilderness area, and 12 other areas to be maintained without roads to retain
their wildland character. The House version of the legislation, which
proposed 23 areas for wilderness designation, would have done more to
restrict development.

Beach fringe serves both ecological and recreational functions on the
Tongass. Beach fringe provides a home and a corridor for wildlife, such as
shorebirds, bald eagles, otter, and bear, that prefer to be near the ocean
for food and habitat. In addition, an undisturbed beach fringe preserves
visual beauty along the ocean and creates desirable opportunities for
camping, hiking, and boating. The 1997 plan extended protection of beach
fringe to 1,000 feet from the water level at high tide. However, some
appellants were concerned that 1,000 feet does not provide adequate
protection for the species dependent on beach fringe.

By early 1999, the Under Secretary considered three options for responding
to the appeals and addressing concerns about the 1997 plan. He could (1)
return the plan to the Tongass to resolve the concerns raised in the
appeals, (2) affirm the appeals with additional direction for nonsubstantive
changes to the plan, or (3) modify the plan through the appeals process
without actually returning the plan to the Tongass. Ultimately, after
consultation with officials from the Department of Agriculture, the
Department's Office of the General Counsel, the Department of Justice, and
the Chief's office, he decided to modify the management direction in the
1997 Tongass forest plan and issue 19 initial appeal decisions based on the
modified plan.

The decision as to whether the Chief or Agriculture's Under Secretary for
Natural Resources and Environment would sign the modifications was not made
until the beginning of February. The Under Secretary told us that he agreed
to sign the modifications for two reasons. First, if the Chief signed the
modifications and the appeal decisions, the Secretary of Agriculture--or the
Under Secretary, as designated--would have the discretion to review them.
The Under Secretary said the Tongass National Forest was of such importance
that he anticipated acting on the Secretary of Agriculture's authority to
review the Chief's appeal decisions, which could add months to the process.
The Under Secretary believed he could expedite the process by modifying the
plan and signing the appeal decisions himself. Second, the Under Secretary
had many years of experience with Alaskan issues, including time as a staff
member on the House Committee that drafted the House version of the Tongass
Timber Reform Act. He knew that the Chief was busy with many other matters,
including his natural resource agenda; therefore, the Under Secretary
volunteered to "take over" the appeals process for the Tongass forest plan.

and Appeals

During the last week in January 1999, the Forest Service assembled a team of
15 Forest Service Washington Office and field staff to analyze the four
concerns that the agency and the Department felt were not adequately
addressed in the 1997 forest plan and to offer preliminary alternatives to
address the concerns. The team assembled for the first time on Monday,
February 1, 1999, for an all-day "kick-off" meeting at the Forest Service's
headquarters in Washington, D.C.

During that initial meeting, the team was informed that the modifications to
the plan were "99 percent" likely to end up in litigation. According to the
Forest Service, because of ex parte concerns, the team was instructed not to
contact Forest Service officials in the Alaska Region or the appellants. In
addition, the team was instructed to limit its analysis to information
contained in the 1997 forest plan's administrative record and the existing
appeals record. The administrative record--a collection of 57 compact discs
of information used to develop the 1997 Tongass forest plan--includes the
results of scientific panels on issues relating to the Tongass, public
comments, the plan and environmental impact statement, among other things.
The existing appeals record includes copies of each of the 33 appeals of the
1997 plan, among other things.

The team was given an ambitious schedule. They were expected to work
overtime and weekends, if necessary, to complete the modified plan and
appeal decisions within a month. When the Under Secretary for Natural
Resources and Environment agreed to sign the modifications in February 1999,
he also took the lead in guiding the team and shaping the changes to the
plan.

The team was generally divided into two groups: (1) scientists to analyze
the four concerns and prepare preliminary alternatives for addressing them
and (2) appeals specialists to redraft the appeal decisions to reflect the
modifications as they were developed.

The overall approach used by the group of scientists consisted of three
stages. First, they developed a comprehensive matrix, documenting where in
the 1997 forest plan's administrative record information could be found on
the four concerns--old-growth forest, subsistence uses, areas of special
interest, and beach fringe. Second, limiting themselves strictly to
information in the record--including the 33 appeals of the 1997 forest
plan--the scientists analyzed these issues, alert to possibilities for
reducing risks. This analysis did not yield enough information to develop
preliminary alternatives for increasing the protection of beach fringe, so
they deleted this concern. Finally, they wrote issue papers summarizing
their methodology, findings, and preliminary alternatives for reducing
ecological and biological risks.

ï¿½ For old-growth forests, the scientists focused on the viability of species
that depend on this habitat. They found that the 1997 forest plan could be
improved to provide more protection for brown bear and wolves. Specifically,
they noted that, according to the scientific panels convened for the 1997
forest plan, the high density of roads in some areas posed a risk to wolves
and brown bear. Feeding areas for brown bear were also threatened by the
absence of wide stream buffers in some areas.

ï¿½ For subsistence uses on the Tongass, the scientists mapped areas of the
forest that were used for subsistence. They also analyzed the ability of all
areas of the forest to support the Sitka black-tailed deer on the basis of
(1) future declines in habitat capability projected under the 1997 plan and
(2) the deer-harvest levels described in the plan's administrative record.
They found that the old-growth forest needed by deer, especially during the
winter when they move to lower elevations, could be better protected.
Providing better protection could help stave off a possible decline in the
deer population in subsistence use areas.

ï¿½ For areas of special interest, the scientists developed a matrix of areas
that were mentioned most often in the 1997 forest plan's administrative
record. The matrix ranked the areas according to the number of reasons for
protecting them from development. For example, the matrix identified the
Northeast Cleveland Peninsula as an area of special interest that should be
considered for protection because it was valued for saltwater fishing,
recreation, and subsistence uses by local residents, as well as for roosting
by migrating swans, among other things. The ability to provide for
subsistence uses and the presence of old-growth forest were frequently
identified as reasons for proposing that areas be protected from
development. Moreover, although increasing the protection of beach fringe
was not specifically pursued, the amount of low-level elevation land and
beach fringe was considered in evaluating the value of areas of special
interest to species' viability and sustainability, according to the Forest
Service.

After the scientists analyzed and wrote issue papers on old-growth forest,
subsistence uses, and areas of special interest on the Tongass, they
discussed alternatives for reducing the risks to these lands and resources.
According to the group, the three concerns are closely interrelated, and
management alternatives developed for one would likely affect the others.
For example, a decision to protect an area of special interest by
withdrawing it from development may also increase the amount of old-growth
forest retained and provide more winter habitat for deer. According to
several members of the group, the effect of an alternative on the allowable
sale quantity of timber was considered but was not a driving factor in
determining what alternatives to recommend.

The scientists identified five preliminary alternatives for addressing old
growth, subsistence uses, and areas of special interest on the Tongass: (1)
increase the timber harvest rotation from 100 years to 200 years for all
land where timber harvesting is allowed; (2) restrict development in five
areas of special interest; (3) increase the timber harvest rotation to 200
years forestwide and restrict development in five areas of special interest;
(4) include additional measures in the plan to address the sustainability of
deer and viability of wolves and brown bear, including reducing road density
in wolf habitat areas; and (5) increase the timber harvest rotation to 200
years in some areas, restrict development in certain areas of special
interest, reduce the density of roads in some areas, and include additional
measures to address the sustainability of deer and viability of brown bear.

The group of scientists considered but could not recommend other
alternatives because the 1997 plan's administrative record did not contain
adequate information to determine their possible impact. For instance, the
scientists considered increasing the timber harvest rotation in certain
areas to 300 years and requiring a larger buffer of undisturbed land around
certain streams where brown bear feed, but the administrative record did not
contain adequate information about the impact of these alternatives.

The scientists also provided information on the potential benefits and
trade-offs associated with each of the five preliminary alternatives. For
instance, they identified several potential benefits and trade-offs
associated with the fifth alternative. The scientists asserted that this
alternative would provide the greatest certainty of reducing the risks to
old-growth forest, subsistence uses, and certain high-profile areas of
special interest on the Tongass. On the other hand, the group noted that the
alternative (1) is complex and difficult to describe, (2) could appear to be
a major modification to the 1997 forest plan, and (3) could
disproportionately affect the supply of timber among the Tongass's three
administrative areas. Finally, the team noted that the alternative "provides
the most difficult challenge to accurately describing [allowable sale
quantity] changes."

The Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment chose the fifth
preliminary alternative but added more areas of special interest and dropped
the additional measures designed to ensure the sustainability of deer and
viability of brown bear. The Under Secretary's selected alternative, when
refined, added two new protection measures to the forest plan and changed
the management planned for 14 areas of special interest from "development"
to "mostly natural." One of the new measures increases the timber harvest
rotation from 100 to 200 years on about 40 percent of the Tongass where
timber harvesting is allowed. Increasing the timber harvest rotation means
that timber cannot be harvested from the same stand of trees more often than
once every 200 years. The other new measure decreases the open road density
in areas where roads have been determined to significantly contribute to
wolf mortality. The Under Secretary's decision to add more areas of special
interest removed another 234,000 acres from timber harvesting and other
development activities. Under the 1999 modified plan, timber harvesting is
limited to about 3 percent of the Tongass.

By the middle of March 1999, the group of scientists had firmed up and
drafted most of the modifications to the 1997 Tongass forest plan. At this
point, the group of appeals specialists assumed most of the work. This group
consisted of five staff, one of whom had helped to write the original draft
appeal decisions that were submitted to the Chief's office the previous
summer. Now the group redrafted those 19 draft appeal decisions to reflect
the draft modifications to the 1997 plan.

By April 1999, most of the modifications and appeal decisions had been
drafted. However, two issues remained unresolved: the number of areas of
special interest that should be managed to restrict development and the
timing and method of making the transition to the management direction in
the 1997 forest plan, as modified. Ultimately, the Under Secretary chose to
designate 4 additional areas of special interest in which development would
be restricted, for a total of 18 areas. According to the Under Secretary, he
designated the additional areas in response to an interim rule promulgated
by the Forest Service on February 12, 1999, which temporarily suspended the
construction of new roads into most roadless areas until the agency can
develop a long-term forest roads policy. The interim rule provides that for
plans in the appeals process (such as the Tongass plan), road construction
in unroaded areas could be addressed in the appeal decisions (36 C.F.R. sect.
212.13). He also chose to implement the modifications as of October 1, 1999.
Contracts and other legal instruments in effect as of that date would not be
altered by the modifications to the plan.

As one of its last tasks, the team estimated the allowable sale quantity
under the 1997 Tongass forest plan, as modified. The allowable sale quantity
under the 1997 plan was developed by using the Alaska Region's timber
harvest planning model. This model had resulted in the "most thorough and
accurate analysis ever conducted for forest planning purposes in Alaska,"
according to the Forest Service. However, team members told us that ex parte
concerns precluded them from obtaining data on timber yields on different
parts of the forest and using the Alaska Region's timber harvest planning
model in estimating the reduction in the allowable sale quantity
attributable to the 1999 modifications. Instead, the team used a rudimentary
formula that (1) multiplied the estimated average yield per acre forestwide
by the number of acres withdrawn from development and (2) reduced the
forestwide estimated average yield per acre to reflect the increase in the
timber harvest rotation from 100 years to 200 years on certain parts of the
forest. The team then subtracted the reduction in the allowable sale
quantity from the allowable sale quantity in the 1997 plan to estimate the
allowable sale quantity under the plan, as modified.

On April 13, 1999, the Department of Agriculture's Under Secretary for
Natural Resources and Environment approved the modifications to the
management direction in the 1997 plan and decided the appeals on the basis
of the modified plan. The same day, staff from the Forest Service called the
appellants to inform them that decisions had been reached on their appeals.

Both the Under Secretary's approval of modifications to the management
direction in the 1997 plan and appeal decisions based on the modified plan
are now in litigation. In addition, in June 1999, the government suffered a
setback in the goshawk litigation. A federal district court ordered the Fish
and Wildlife Service to gather additional population data on the goshawk.
The government has appealed this ruling.

In August 1999, the administration adjusted the termination date of the
remaining long-term timber contract from December 31, 1999, to no later than
October 31, 2000, so that timber under the contract would be available for
the veneer plant that was expected to be built near Ketchikan. The
administration made the adjustment conditional on the construction of the
plant. In September 1999, several environmental groups (1) sued, alleging
that the administration had failed to assess the environmental effects of
its actions, as required by NEPA, and (2) filed a motion for a preliminary
injunction seeking to immediately halt timber harvesting under the contract
until the case is decided. In February 2000, the administration withdrew the
condition for adjusting the contract's termination date, asserting that it
was redundant in light of the financial commitments that the contract holder
had made to support the plant's construction. The litigation is still
pending.

Comments From the Forest Service

p
T.he following are GAO's comments on the Forest Service's letter dated March
23, 2000.

1. A discussion of the prohibitions on ex parte contacts in federal
regulations is included in the background section of the report. We revised
the report to say that the review team was instructed (1) not to contact
Forest Service officials in the Alaska Region or the appellants and (2) to
limit its review and analysis to the administrative record for the 1997
Tongass forest plan and the existing appeals record. We also revised the
report to say that (1) the review team was tasked with "analyzing" the
administrative record, rather than "researching and analyzing" the record
and (2) although increasing the protection of beach fringe was not
specifically pursued, the amount of low-elevation land and beach fringe was
considered in evaluating the value of areas of special interest to species'
viability and sustainability.

2. We used "options," rather than "alternatives," in the draft report to
distinguish between the alternatives that had previously been made available
for public comment and the preliminary alternatives drafted by the review
team. However, to be consistent with the administrative record for the 1999
plan, we changed "options" to "preliminary alternatives."

3. We revised the draft report to include subsistence, cultural, and
spiritual values as qualities for which special interest areas were
considered and evaluated.

4. We changed "new" to "revised."

5. We revised the report to say that, according to the Forest Service, it is
not unusual for an Under Secretary to review, and on occasion direct the
Chief to modify, appeal decisions. However, this was the first time that an
Under Secretary approved substantive modifications to a forest plan and
issued initial appeal decisions based on the plan, as modified.

6. We are aware that a Record of Decision approves the management direction
in a forest plan and that appellants appeal the Record of Decision, not the
forest plan. However, the result of an approved or signed Record of Decision
is a revised or amended forest plan. Therefore, for clarity of presentation,
we see no need to introduce the term "Record of Decision" into the report.
We did, however, revise the report to make clear that the Under Secretary
approved modifications to the management direction in the 1997 Tongass
forest plan and decided the appeals on the basis of the modified plan.

7. We revised the report to say that the modified plan removed another
234,000 acres from timber harvesting and other development activities.

8. In the Record of Decision, the Under Secretary states that he is
"modifying the standard and guideline for open road density allowing 0.7 to
1.0 miles or less of open road per square mile in the Regional Forester's
decision by limiting the allowance to 0.7 miles or less per square mile." A
standard is a course of action or level of attainment required by a forest
plan to promote the achievement of goals and objectives. Moreover, while the
1997 plan stated that open road densities of 0.7 to 1.0 miles or less per
square mile "may be" necessary to reduce mortality, the applicable
modification to the 1997 plan states that "open road densities of 0.7 miles
or less per square mile are necessary to reduce mortality to sustainable
levels." (Emphasis added.) However, to reflect the wording in the Record of
Decision, we revised the report to say that the standard and guideline
decreased the open road density in areas where roads have been determined to
significantly contribute to wolf mortality.

9. We revised the report to say that the Tongass contains 16.9 million acres
and deleted the reference to "water, ice, and rock."

10. The 5.7 million acres referred to in our report includes all lands
suitable for providing wood products, not just the 5.06 million acres of
productive old growth. Since about 60 percent (or 10.1 million acres) of the
Tongass's 16.9 million acres is forested and 5.7 million acres are suitable
for providing wood products, we calculated that 56 percent of the forested
portion is considered to be productive.

11. We revised the report to say that under ANILCA, no withdrawal,
reservation, lease, disposal, or other use of such lands that would
significantly restrict subsistence uses shall be effected until the relevant
land management agency determines that (1) the restriction is consistent
with land management principles, (2) the restriction will involve the
minimum amount of land necessary, and (3) action will be taken to minimize
the restriction's adverse effects on subsistence uses.

12. We revised the report to say that (1) ANILCA exempted the Tongass from a
NFMA provision restricting timber harvesting on lands identified as
unsuitable for harvest and (2) the Tongass Timber Reform Act of 1990 made
the Tongass generally subject to NFMA's provision restricting timber
harvesting on lands identified as unsuitable for harvest.

13. We revised the report to delete the definitions of affirmation and
reversal and the reference to subsequent procedural requirements for
significant changes. We also revised the report to state that the Chief's
decision shall, in whole or in part, affirm or reverse the regional
forester's decision and may include instructions for further action by the
regional forester.

14. We revised the report to say that the regulations prohibit "ex parte"
contact between the Chief and any agency officials who developed the forest
plan or any appellants without notifying all appellants and intervenors.

15. We revised the report to make clear that the proposed new planning
regulations were not developed specifically to address the process used to
modify the management direction in the 1997 Tongass forest plan. However, it
is important to make clear to the reader that, if the regulations are
finalized, it is unlikely that this process will be used again.

16. We revised the report to reflect the suggested changes.

17. We revised the report to say that all but one forest plan have been
appealed.

18. According to the issue paper prepared by the group of scientists, the
preliminary alternative chosen by the Under Secretary "provides the greatest
certainty of risk reduction for all identified issues." Therefore, we made
no changes to the report on the basis of this comment.

19. We deleted the sentence concerning the expectations of Department of
Agriculture officials relating to the likelihood of litigation.

20. Because the nature of the Tongass Timber Reform Act's requirements is
the subject of litigation, we revised the report to say that the level of
timber to be offered is "in alleged violation" of the act.

21. We added "NEPA."

22. We revised the report to state that, after the policy branch had
developed the alternatives to be included in the revised supplement to the
draft forest plan, the science branch convened 10 panels of experts and
specialists. Each of nine panels examined the potential effects of the nine
alternatives on one of the following nine issues: the Alexander Archipelago
wolf, the northern goshawk, the marbled murrelet, the American marten, the
brown bear, terrestrial mammals, fish/riparian areas, old-growth forests,
and communities. A tenth panel updated an existing habitat capability model
for projecting the effects of the nine alternatives on the Sitka
black-tailed deer. At the same time, a working group evaluated the risk each
alternative could pose to subsistence uses.

23. We revised the report in response to these suggested changes.

24. We deleted the discussion on the number of acres of old-growth forest
set aside by the 1997 forest plan. As discussed in comment 10, the 5.7
million acres referred to in our report includes all lands suitable for
providing wood products, not just the 5.06 million acres of productive old
growth.

25. We revised the report to state that the Secretary of Agriculture has
delegated the responsibility for exercising his or her discretion to review
the Chief's decision to the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and
Environment.

26. We revised the report to say that the administration adjusted the
termination date of the remaining long-term timber contract and made the
adjustment conditional on the construction of a veneer plant near Ketchikan.
We then provide a chronology of events relating to the adjustment.

(141357)

Table 1: Major Events in the Revision of the 1979 Tongass Forest Plan 19

Table 2: Major Events in the Modification of the 1997 Tongass Forest Plan 39

Figure 1: Tongass National Forest 6
  

1. See app. I of Forest Service Decision-Making: A Framework for Improving
Performance (GAO/RCED-97-71 , Apr. 27, 1997) for a more detailed discussion
of the agency's planning process.

2. 64 Fed. Reg. 54074 (Oct. 5, 1999).

3. A "board foot" is a unit of measurement for timber equaling the amount of
wood contained in an unfinished board 1 inch thick, 12 inches long, and 12
inches wide.

4. An ecoregional plan signed by the Secretaries of Agriculture and the
Interior in April 1994 amended the forest plans for 19 national forests in
the Pacific Northwest. However, the ecoregional plan was the result of a
presidential initiative to address federal court injunctions, not a
resolution of administrative appeals. See Ecosystem Planning: Northwest
Forest and Interior Columbia River Basin Plans Demonstrate Improvements in
Land-Use Planning (GAO/RCED-99-64 , May 26, 1999).

5. Timber harvest rotation refers to the planned number of years between the
formation or regeneration of a stand of trees and its final cutting at a
specified age of maturity.

6. The "allowable sale quantity" is the maximum quantity of timber that may
be sold from an area of suitable land covered by a forest plan over a
decade. The quantity is usually expressed on an annual basis as the "average
annual allowable sale quantity."

7. See 36 C.F.R. sect. 219.10 (f) and 36 C.F.R. sect. 219.12 (a).

8. Commercial forestland is land that produces or is capable of producing
crops of industrial wood and (1) has not been withdrawn from harvest by the
Congress, the Department of Agriculture, or the Forest Service; (2) is
capable of being harvested without irreversible damage to soil or
watersheds; and (3) can be restocked within 5 years of harvesting.

9. Tongass Land Management Plan Revision: Draft Environmental Impact
Statement and Tongass Land Management Plan Revision: Draft Environmental
Impact Statement, Proposed Revised Forest Plan, Forest Service (June 1990).

10. Thomas, et al., A Conservation Strategy for the Northern Spotted Owl:
Report of the Interagency Scientific Committee to Address the Conservation
of the Northern Spotted Owl (1990).

11. Tongass Land Management Plan Revision: Supplement to the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement and Tongass Land Management Plan Revision:
Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Proposed Revised
Forest Plan, Forest Service (Aug. 1991).

12. Suring, et al., A Strategy for Maintaining Well-Distributed, Viable
Populations of Wildlife Associated with Old-Growth Forests in Southeast
Alaska, review draft (Apr. 1992).

13. Kiester, et al., Review of Wildlife Management and Conservation Biology
on the Tongass National Forest: A Synthesis with Recommendations (1994).

14. Karst consists of areas underlain by soluble rocks, primarily limestone.
Dissolution of the subsurface strata results in areas of well-developed
surface drainage that are sinkholes, collapsed channels, or caves.

15. Report to Congress: Anadromous Fish Habitat Assessment, Forest Service,
Pacific Northwest Research Station, Alaska Region (Jan. 1995).

16. Clear-cutting is a method of harvesting timber that involves removing
most or all of the trees from a timber-harvesting site at one time.

17. Tongass Land Management Plan Revision: Revised Supplement to the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement and Tongass Land Management Plan Revision:
Revised Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Proposed
Revised Forest Plan, Forest Service, Alaska Region (Mar. 1996).

18. Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Additional Disaster
Assistance, for Anti-Terrorism Initiatives, for Assistance in the Recovery
From the Tragedy That Occurred at Oklahoma City, and Rescissions Act, 1995,
P.L. 104-19.

19. See Charles G. Shaw III, Use of Risk Assessment Panels During Revision
of the Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan, Forest Service (July
1999).

20. Everest et al., Evaluation of the Use of Scientific Information in
Developing the 1997 Forest Plan for the Tongass National Forest, Forest
Service (Oct. 1997).

21. The Forest Service divides old growth into "productive" and
"unproductive" components and further subdivides the productive component by
volume (number of board feet per acre).
*** End of document. ***