Legislature(1995 - 1996)
08/23/1996 09:20 AM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
August 23, 1996
9:20 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative William K. "Bill" Williams, Co-Chairman
Representative Joe Green, Co-Chairman (via teleconference)
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chairman (via teleconference)
Representative Alan Austerman (via teleconference)
Representative Ramona Barnes (via teleconference)
Representative John Davies
Representative Irene Nicholia
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Don Long
OTHER HOUSE MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Kim Elton
Representative Caren Robinson
Representative David Finkelstein (via teleconference)
SENATE MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Loren Leman (via teleconference)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Tongass Land Management Plan (TLMP) Ketchikan Pulp Company Issues
WITNESS REGISTER
DIANE MAYER, Director
Division of Governmental Coordination
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 110030
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0030
JIM CAPLAN, Deputy Regional Forester
Alaska Region, U.S. Forest Service
United States Department of Agriculture
P.O. Box 20107
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Telephone: (907) 364-2684
GARY MORRISON, Forest Supervisor
U.S. Forest Service
204 Siginaka Way
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Telephone: (907) 747-6671
FRED NORBURY, Director
Ecosystem Planning and Budget
U.S. Forest Service
P.O. Box 21628
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Telephone: (907) 586-8886
DOUGLAS SWANSTON, Co-Team Leader
of the Tongass Land Management Plan
U.S. Forest Service
P.O. Box 34255
Juneau, Alaska 99803
Telephone: (907) 586-8725
JOHN DAY, Analyst
Tongass Revision Team
U.S. Forest Service
P.O. Box 23146
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Telephone: (907) 586-8706
BETH PENDLETON, Co-Team Leader
of the Tongass Land Management Plan
U.S. Forest Service
8465 Old Dairy Road
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-8703
TROY REINHART, Manager
Employee Affairs and Public Relations
Ketchikan Pulp Company
Box 6600
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 228-2340
BOB MAYNARD, Legal Counsel
U.S. Forest Service
P.O. Box 21628
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-8826
BERNE MILLER, Executive Director
Southeast Conference
124 West 5th Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 463-3445
MARK REY, Professional Staff
U.S. Senate Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources
706 Hart Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-0202
PREVIOUS ACTION
No previous action to record
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-78, SIDE A
Number 001
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAM (BILL) K. WILLIAMS: We'll call the meeting to
order. The time is 9 - I have 9:20 a.m., August 23, 1996.
CO-CHAIRMAN JOE GREEN: Bill, Anchorage is on. Can you hear us?
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Yes. Maybe what we could do - we have here
-- in Juneau we have Representative Nicholia and Representative
Davies. Who else do we have on-line?
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN: Representative Ogan here.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN: We have Representative Green and Finkelstein in
Anchorage and several other dignitaries.
REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN: Austerman in Kodiak.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Okay. Is anyone else on teleconference on
the committee? Have a person from Representative Loren Leman's
office here. Senator, I'm sorry. And we have Representative Bill
Hudson. I think that's all we have here. ....to get the facts
regarding the Tongass Land Management Plan revision and to inquire
into what more the state can do to make the KPC extension a
reality. The committee will not be taking any public opinions at
this time so we are here today to discuss issues which are vitally
important to the future of Southeast Alaska. As we all are aware,
the federal government is a major land holder in Southeast Alaska,
in Alaska. Southeast is no different as the Tongass National
Forest encompasses the whole panhandle. Currently, the Tongass
Land Management Plan or TLMP is under revision. The final TLMP
will dictate the life of Southeast residents for years to come. It
is crucial that every effort is made to inform Alaskans what
choices lay before us concerning the management of our home. TLMP
comment period is scheduled to end next Monday, August 26. There
have been many press reports concerning the reduction in the
allowable sale quality or quantity and for ASQ outlined in the
draft TLMP, which is currently out for public comment. Because the
final TLMP will have such long lasting and far reaching effects
into the life of every Southeast Alaskan, we must ensure that all
laws have been followed, especially regarding the Forest Service,
responsibility to give accurate information to the public. If
Alaskans do not have accurate information about the choices before
them, it will be impossible for us to coherently comment on the
draft TLMP and hence our future. I have heard from many concerned
parties that the public is being mislead by the draft TLMP, which
is presently out for review. We must also ensure that Forest
Service has lived up to its obligation, under law, to seek proper
involvement by the state and local government and by the general
public. This committee must do everything possible to ensure that
the Forest Service has lived up to its obligation under law.
Alaskans must not be shortchanged on an issue of this magnitude.
Also, today we want to talk with the Governor's Office to see what
- what else we might be able to do together to support the
delegation's effort to extend KPC's contract. The Alaska
Legislature overwhelmingly passed a resolution this past session
urging the Governor and the congressional delegation to do
everything in their power to extend KPC's contract an additional 15
years. It has been reported that KPC will be forced to shut down
if it doesn't get an extension of its contract this year. That
would be a tragedy. The fate of hundreds of workers and their
families hangs in the balance. The committee has asked the Knowles
Administration to testify focusing on four areas: What more, if
anything, can the state do to advance the KPC extension of contract
modification legislation now in Congress; the state's finding on
the TLMP revision; and the 23 percent shortfall and ASQ reported by
Commissioner Hensley of which TLMP alternative the state is
officially supporting; and questions regarding what level of
cooperation did the Forest Service seek from the state at different
times in the TLMP process. The committee will also hear from the
Forest Service concerning a broad range of TLMP issues, most
notably what lead to the miscalculation which reduced the ASQ
associated with the published TLMP alternatives; what has happened
behind closed doors in order to bring the ASQ back to the published
alternative levels; and what should the Forest Service pull -- and
what should the Forrest Service pull the current draft back; and
should the Forrest Service pull the current draft back, correct it,
reoffer it - a corrected version to the public. The Southeast
Conference has been asked to testify concerning their knowledge as
the - of the reported ASQ reductions and other associated facts
concerning a draft TLMP. I also asked Southeast Conference staff
to be on hand for specific TLMP technical questions. Senator
Murkowski has sent Mark Rey of his staff to participate here today.
Mr. Rey will read a statement for Senator Murkowski and will be
available for questions. He should be touching down at the airport
now. I apologize for the short notice of this meeting but the
urgency is being driven by looming federal deadlines. The TLMP
comment period is scheduled to end Monday and once Congress goes
back into session, they are only scheduled to meet for a few weeks.
If the committee members don't have any questions, I'd like to ask
Diane Mayer, the director of the Division of Governmental
Coordination for the state of Alaska to step forward to testify.
Any questions from the committee members?
Number 550
REPRESENTATIVE RAMONA BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I'd like you to know
I'm on-line.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Thank you Representative Barnes.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES: Okay.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN: Hey Bill.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Yes, state you're name please.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN: We barley had to cutoff again. This is
Representative Green. Are you going to -- as soon as Director
Mayer has testified, are you going to get into the questions that
you sent her?
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Yes.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN: Okay, thank you.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Are there any more questions from committee
members? Ms. Mayer, do you have any opening comments or...?
Number 618
DIANE MAYER, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION,
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR: I do. Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of
the committee. My name is Diane Mayer and I am the director of the
Division of Governmental Coordination, here on behalf of the state
of Alaska. Thank you for your letter detailing your questions for
the Administration. I appreciate the opportunity to comment. You
have asked what more can the state do to advance the KPC contract
extension and contract modification legislation now before
Congress. Since the Governor's April announcement of his support
for an extension of the KPC contract, the Administration has and
continues to work hard to make it a reality. The Governor has sent
letter to both President Clinton and Mark Suwyn, CEO of Louisiana
Pacific, expressing his support for the contract extension. The
Governor's support is based on five principles: Compliance with
environmental laws; commitment to local hire and contracting;
adherence to multiple use and sustained yield principles;
expeditious completion of a well conceived Tongass Land Management
Plan; and use of new technology to maximize the value of timber
harvested. Copies of the Governor's letter to the President and
Mr. Suwyn are submitted, for the record, in response to your
questions. I'm sure the Governor will make the President's
response public as soon as he receives it. The Governor's recent
letter to fellow Alaskans detailing his continued efforts in
support of a KPC contact extension is also submitted for the
record. A this by the way is the same piece that recently ran in
the Ketchikan Daily News. Rather than demanding acceptance of
legislation currently pending in Congress, which the federal
Administration opposes, Governor Knowles is urging Senator
Murkowski to work with the Clinton Administration to design an
approach that both Congress and the President can support. The
Governor has asked KPC to delay any decisions about the mill's
future until additional efforts are made to develop supportable
legislation, and it's encouraging both LPC - LP and KPC to enter
into good faith negotiations with the White House. Other efforts
by the Knowles Administration includes our testimony at
congressional hearings in support of the extension. The Governor
is meeting with KPC president Ralph Lewis to discuss how the state
could be of further assistance. Additionally, the state is
actively involved in trying to resolve KPC labor and management
concerns. Most recently the state has issued a new air quality
permit to KPC and the Department of Environmental Conservation
continues to work with KPC on regulatory issues. Finally, the
extension is one of five items the Governor will discuss with key
Democratic leaders at the Democratic National Convention. The
Governor also hopes to bring this and other matters up to President
- to President Clinton's attention at the convention. We have also
asked the state to explain the 23 percent reduction in the
allowable sale quantity. A letter from Commissioner Willie Hensley
to the congressional delegation provides the state's response to
this question and is also submitted for the record. In his letter,
the commissioner states that his reference to a possible reduction
was both premature and incomplete. The state believes that the
Forest Service is the only entity with the resources to fully
explain their forest planning calculations and we do defer their
expertise. In regard to whether the Administration wants the
Forest Service to consider impacts of the proposal for landless
Native legislation in the revised supplemental draft environmental
impact statement, until Congress recognizes landless Natives in
legislation there is nothing to consider in the current TLMP
process. It may be appropriate for there to be amendment .... and
if it results in an impact to the land base of the Tongass National
Forrest. The Governor's letter to Bob Loescher on the subject of
landless Natives is also submitted for the record. You have asked
what the state's position is regarding the Tongass Land Management
Plan. The state is currently in the process of drafting and in
final review of our comments on the draft TLMP document. They will
be completed by Monday, August 26th and will be submitted -
submitted to the hearing record at that time. Late yesterday I
received numerous additional questions regarding Forest Service
regulatory requirements for planning in the states involvement in
the process. We have had a good dialogue with the Forest Service
as they work through their planning process. As such, we have not
felt the need to explore their specific regulatory obligations for
dialogue. The Forest Service could better respond as they know how
they have gone about meeting these regulatory obligations at each
step of the process. The state basically does not have the
resources to monitor Forest Service implementation of their regs.
Thank you for the opportunity to just make some opening remarks and
if there are additional questions, I'll try to answer them.
Number 979
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: You may have answered some of the questions
already and I - I believe you've answered most of em, but to go
over ones I think I probably missed. Is that alright if I could go
over them again and I'd like to inform the state of the 23 percent
ASQ reduction that Commissioner Hensley had reported in Ketchikan
on August 7th of this year. Do you know who - who -- the first
question that I've sent to you -- who informed the state of the 23
percent ASQ reduction that Commissioner Hensley reported in
Ketchikan on August 7th of 1996?
Number 1037
MS. MAYER: Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I don't think -
- I'm not aware of any specific individual reporting any specific
reduction. I know that as the state has been reviewing the Tongass
Plan there has been some dialogue amongst peers in the state and
federal agencies who discuss values associated with areas that the
state has interest in, communities would have interest in and
through the course of those discussions, as data has been
discussed, the - the information that has merged on a given day
seem to equate to this percentage, but as far as any official
announcement or any information, there has never been any
transmittal of a specific 23 percent reduction and I don't think,
as I said in my opening statements, Commissioner Hensley
specifically addressed this in his letter stating that his
expression of that was both premature and not based on any complete
analysis or information.
Number 1109
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Okay. Talking a little bit about the add
backs and the take away in the TLMP revision, has - what where you
told in this regard? Did they -- have - has the Forest Service
advised you of any additional shifts in the - in the figures?
Number 1140
MS. MAYER: As I has mentioned in the remarks, the state -- the
process of planning is complex and I believe the Forest Service has
made daily editoration(sp). They're examining and testing their
models. I think they should actually be applauded for continuing
to try and to refine them, but as far as any state involvement of
that effort we are deferring to the Forest Service and their
expertise on planning and doing a very detailed analysis.
Number 1163
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: The comments that I made in my opening
statement was that these add backs and take aways were done in the
back room, so to speak. Did we as a state know - did the
Administration know about this? How they came, what they did in
the add backs and take aways?
Number 1186
MS. MAYER: As I said, there had been discussion only of some of
the values as associated to some of the areas and the fact that
different individuals might be dealing with those numbers at any
level. This is not a back room event. I think it's just the
computer people running their models and trying to conduct the
analysis that they need to do for planning. I know I wouldn't want
to spend all day behind the computers calculating these, but I do
think that's somebody's job there and I think they do that daily.
Number 1220
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Well, some of the problems I guess that we
were having would be like the add backs, and I think we should know
about it, some of the add backs and take always to get the ASQ.
Such as adding more acreage - possibly adding more acreage of
wetlands to bring up the ASQ that I'm sure that we should be aware
of. And was there any discussion like that?
Number 1250
MS. MAYER: The state defers to the Forest Service. Our
expectation is that if they produce the final plan that they can be
confident that the numbers are the best that they have and I expect
them to do analysis along the way to be sure that's what they're
delivering. What they do in their process to get there are or how
they get there, I think is something that they can better address.
Number 1274
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: The federal regulations, you mentioned
earlier that the Forest Service will -- and I mentioned them a
couple of times and you said that it would be left up to the Forest
Service. These federal regulations require the state input and
local government input also. Do you believe that the - that the
Forest Service has done this with the state and kept us informed,
worked along with us. Did the Forest Service talk with the state
government prior to the Forest Service recommendation of the
preferred alternative?
MS. MAYER: We've met with the Forest Service at several points
throughout the planning process. There were early discussions that
just simply have advised us to the scheduled meetings with the
state team of people who is actually analyzing it from the state -
analyzing the draft from the state's point of view. I think we had
discussions with them at points that coincided with also public
workshops and the state also participated in all the public
hearings in the communities throughout Southeast. And these
references that you gave me late last night, I actually did have
the federal register pulled off the internet to try to put these in
context and I found that they dealt very specifically with the
Forest Service requirement for public involvement which paralleled
the process we've been in, but as far as which specific meeting
satisfied which specific recommendation. That's -- I say we don't
monitor them, but we trust that they're following procedures as
required.
Number 1380
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: But the state feels comfortable that they've
been following the federal regulations as required. That's what
you're saying?
Number 1388
MS. MAYER: We feel that we've had a good dialogue with them at the
- throughout the planning process and that they, I'm sure, can
address exactly how they've managed requirement that they're
legally required to meet.
Number 1402
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: You mentioned also that you were going to -
that the state was gonna have their comments on TLMP revision here
on Monday - before Monday.
MS. MAYER: Yes.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: What alternative in the draft TLMP revision
does the state support? Would you know today?
Number 1426
MS. MAYER: Well I -- the state is in the final review of its
comments and I think you can appreciate just given the review
process that you guys went through to get me this letter that it is
real important that we just complete that review before we make
public announcements about the state's position. That letter will
be available Monday at the close of the comment period and, as I
said, I will submit it for the record.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Okay. Are there any questions that other
committee members have?
Number 1457
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN: Yes, Bill, this is Joe Green.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Yes Joe or Representative Green.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN: This comment that was made by the director that
were numerous questions on the Forest Service land, could you tell
use kind of what - where most of those came from and what was the
tenor of those questions? Were they a broad of spectrum of people
or were they selected groups?
Number 1480
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Yes, Representative Green, they were broad
spectrum of people from the community of Ketchikan. You know
Ketchikan is running scared right now. TLMP is a very important
part of....
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN: Representative Williams, I'm sorry, I phrased
that poorly. I meant the question that Director Mayer mentioned
that they had recently received.
Number 1508
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Yes, they were sent by my office,
Representative Green. And the questions came from just being in
the public area meeting with different people, concerns of industry
folks, just people on the street. As you know, this has been going
on for quite some time. Our concern that the public hearing
process, because of what has come about today on the ASQ fall down,
we are concerned about that and how is it going to affect the TLMP
process and....
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN: I'm sorry, I thought she was referring to
something other than the list of questions you sent her.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: No.
Number 1564
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN: Okay, no we have copies of your questions. I'm
sorry, I thought there had been some other things coming in to.
Yah, I have a couple of other questions if it's alright with your
time schedule.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Please do Joe, we have all day.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN: Okay. Not being a forest expert but being
quite concerned about how the - how the forest is going to
regenerate after this tremendous infestation of beetle bark - bark
beetle kill and has happened. Is it the feeling from the director
or anyone else who may have had some direct input from the federal
Administration that they would rather see those trees just stand
there dead than to be harvested and allow for reforestation?
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Would you like to answer that?
Number 1602
MS. MAYER: Yes, Representative Green and members of the committee,
the bark beetle infestation is not anywhere near in fact it's very
slight is my understanding on the Tongass and not a major issue in
the Tongass plan. To the extent it does exist, I think that from
what I have hear in very minor areas that people are trying to
assess that in getting on top of it right away so that we don't
have the effects that we have up in the Interior. But beetle
infestation is not a major issue. I think as far as the extent it
does exist or how it might play in this plan, the Forest Service
would really be in much better position to address that.
Number 1642
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Representative Green, I'm sorry I didn't
back to you and the Speaker on that issue. I did plan on having an
informational meeting on specifically that issue hopefully in early
September.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN: Right, that will be with the letter we got from
Ron?
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Yes.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN: Okay, my concern about it, and I appreciate the
director's candor on it, my concern is that 15 years ago it wasn't
a problem on the Kenai either and it became a small isolated size
and we thought about it and we studied it and we reviewed it and
now it's of massive proportions. And my concern would be that if
we get caught in that same dilemma of studying and reviewing and
reading your hands, are we going to jeopardize mature growth in the
Tongass because we're concerned about our tourism and my concern
would be that selective logging down there would be far more
attractive than a complete stand of dead trees like we have up
here. And because the (indisc.) the beetle seems to attack mature
trees rather than young trees, that seems to be a prime eating area
for them, and so what I'm concerned about is this isn't a new
issue. We've had at least ten or more years in Alaska and I'm
wondering if the director feels that we have studied this long
enough and we should take some proactive measures?
Number 1722
MS. MAYER: You know I might just add that I did have the
opportunity to tour on Prince of Whales Island just about a week
and a half ago and in the course of that tour there was some
discussion about bark beetle infestation on the Tongass and I was
actually very encouraged, both by remarks from the Forest Service
as well as representatives of Sealaska at how much we have learned
that the importance to really get ahead of that issue and before it
spreads to the degree that it has in the Interior. And to my - to
my knowledge, they have both flown high resolution of photography
and I believe that's gonna be followed with some infrared
photography to use technology available now to really identify
exactly the extent of those sites and then develop a harvest plan
accordingly to handle it. I'm not a expert on this subject, but I
did in that sharing your concern on that had some very productive
discussions on the issue and I do believe that we have definitely
learned from the infestation up North.
Number 1755
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN: If I might follow up on that then. Seemingly,
that is an -- we don't have any kind of a anti bug spray that is
acceptable. If we have an industry that is actually in jeopardy of
leaving that can actually harvest those logs now, is it a wise idea
to not supplement that industry now in anticipation of a - an
infestation that we won't be able to control? In other words,
maybe we should be taking some mature trees selectively now, either
through helicopter harvest or something - certain areas to help the
industry as well as get prepared for a - an infestation rather than
to allow that industry to shrivel and die and leave and then we're
left with nothing but dead standing trees.
Number 1820
MS. MAYER: You know the Administration has always, and throughout
the letters which I did submit for the record, has really supported
and appreciated the importance of the timber industry throughout
the Southeast Region and supported the continuation of the viable
timber industry. So I don't think anybody is talking about any
industry shriveling and dying. The importance of a - of an
industry I think that - that can do the -- to realize the maximum
utilization of the forest that we have is crucial and I think is
part of that's certainly getting ahead on the spruce bark beetle
issue is extremely important. Some of the infestation is on
private lands and, as I understand, Sealaska is well ahead of that
for their properties and since you do have a cast of Forest Service
representatives here, I'm sure they can speak very specifically to
what their program or intention is to the degree that it exists on
Forest Service land.
Number 1872
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN: Ms. Mayer, I - I don't want to become
adversarial but I would ask you to talk with the people in Wrangell
as far as the industry being in jeopardy. And I think we've heard
certainly from Ketchikan Pulp that yes they are and that limited
harvest to the extent that we're talking about now is -- or - or a
lack of being able to have the -- work 15-year extension very well
may be a death now. I - I think that we're rather cavalier if we
feel that we can continue to restrict and restrict and expect the
private industry to take this. It's kind of like sending a fighter
into the ring with one hand tied behind him. He's not prohibited
from getting in the ring, but he's certainly prohibited from doing
it the way he should do it and I think that's what we're doing to
industry.
Number 1912
MS. MAYER: Well I certainly do appreciate your remarks about
concerns about the status of the industry now. I think what the
Governor is doing is working very hard to first stabilize and then
-- has also been working very hard then to instigate a variety of
value-added initiatives. We have done a lot to promote timer sales
and to encourage the Forest Service to be issuing timber sales for
independent loggers to keep operators like Frank Age and others.
I had a wonderful tour actually of Kirt Dahlstrom's(ph) facility,
Viking Lumber, and actually gained a lot of information and
appreciation for his effort to get the maximum value out of the saw
logs that he's processing. The Governor's legi -- value-added
legislation and our encouragement of also some smaller - getting
smaller contracts to some of these operators to stabilize the
situation first and then move forward into value-added
manufacturing has been a consistent effort by the Administration
and I think that's captured in the a letter that I've submitted to
the record dated August 22, of -- to fellow Alaskans which details
the steps the Administration has taken to stabilize the situation
and to promote a viable timber industry.
Number 1981
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN: Representative Williams, if I could have one
more question and then I'll get off the horn for a bit. Diane,
you've talked about the Governor's letter to the President. Can
you tell us what the tenor of that letter is? I know you said
you'd make that available, but I'm wondering if it's of the same
tenor that perhaps our congressional delegation has indicated or
that others of us in the state who have been very strong advocates
of logging in the Tongass. Can you tell us kind of is that the
same tenor that the Governor used or is his somewhat more benign?
Number 2009
MS. MAYER: I would characterize the tenor of the Governor's letter
as promoting the principles of unity and bringing people together
to really work through the issues and develop contract extension
legislation that is acceptable to Congress and to the President so
that we can move on. The Governor does highlight his principles
that he would like to see included in that and I did refer to those
in my opening remarks, and the Governor encourages the President to
open negotiations or - and continue negotiations with the company
to get to that end. I consider it extremely positive and critical
really for maintaining the jobs and supporting families that are
both affected, both in Ketchikan and the surrounding work area.
Number 2051
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN: That's a very good political answer, but I hope
the letter is far more positive than what I just heard. Thank you.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Are there any other questions from committee
members?
Number 2060
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES: Mr. Chairman.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES: Representative Barnes.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Representative Barnes.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES: My question is relating to the accounts
that I have read of this in the newspaper and what I have read is
that - and I'd like her comment - that it seems to me that the
President is generally opposed to any development, whether it be
cutting timer or opening ANWR in Alaska. And that while -- what
I've hear you say is the Governor has (indisc.) wants to kind of
bring people together. Does she really believe that there is any
way that you're going to bring Bill Clinton onboard on this issue
or any other in the state?
Number 2096
MS. MAYER: I think that the -- I know that the Governor has and
will continue to advocate for the contract extension as he has
discussed in the submittals that I've given you and that he's gonna
continue. He hopes to meet with the President and I know that soon
as he gets the President's response to his letter, he will make
that public. I think the - the need for Congress and the President
to work together and the ability for them to work together is going
to count on unity amongst Alaskans effected in these important
decisions and to the extent that we have legislation that
represents the interests of the forest users. I'm certain the
President will be very sensitive.
Number 2130
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES: Well, I think when you talk about
representing all Alaskans, that's not possible because there are
some groups in Alaska that are never gonna support any cutting of
timber in the Tongass. We all know that and when we try to hang
our hat on that I think that is very wrong approach to take. We
have to decide what is best for the (indisc.) share of Alaskans and
I think our congressional delegation sets that out. It think it's
up to the Governor to get together with them and go forward. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES: I'll go back on mute now.
Number 2159
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: I have a question here and that - you
probably have answered it but maybe I didn't hear it. In July, and
it's number 14 for your -- in July, 1995, a memorandum -- the
Forest Service employees then Guy Cellier and Kathleen Morse stated
that they advised the interdisciplinary team leaders of a need for
a community by community effects analysis to describe the impacts
of each TLMP alternative. They attached a description of the - of
how the socioeconomic analysis should proceed. Their plan was
apparently rejected on the grounds that there was insufficient time
or resources to perform it. Mr. Cellier has since resigned from
the Forest Service and Ms. Morse has moved to the Alaska Department
of Commerce and Economic Development. Has the state reviewed the
memorandum and come to any conclusion on whether it is accurate?
Has there been any follow up with Ms. Morse, who now works for the
state, regarding whether the socioeconomic study in the TLMP
revision is adequate?
Number 2215
MS. MAYER: The memorandum, Mr. Chairman, that you refer to is I
believe an internal Forest Service memorandum and I have not seen
that or studied it. I do -- I had had the pleasure of working both
with Guy Cellier and Kathleen Morse and the remark about Mr.
Cellier resigning, I do know -- I talked to him shortly before he
left and he was offered and accepted a job I believe running a - a
tree farm in Hawaii, which was an attractive offer which he
decided, for some reason, would be more interesting than...
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: I'm not implying that they left because of
this, I just...
MS. MAYER: Oh, well I'm just saying that the statement of his
resignation sounds fairly abrupt. I think he got an offer he
couldn't refuse.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Well that's good.
MS. MAYER: Kathleen Morse is on a - what's called a IPA, a inter
personnel agreement, where she is on loan essentially to the state
on contract, specifically to work on the Governor's value added
initiative. Kathleen Morse has exceptional knowledge and
understanding of what it takes economically and in terms of
infrastructure and the structure of the industry, what it takes to
really realize the benefits of value added. And we have primarily
brought her onboard to do that job. The fact that she is on loan
to us to address that issue, and the state is working on TLMP, I
have actually to the chagrin of her supervisor tried to tap her for
a, you know, her knowledge about the Tongass plan and we have
lightly, just in conversation talked about the economic aspects.
The main message just in conversations I've had with her as a state
employees is that I know she does feel strongly that - that more
could be done to gather just baseline information about how the
Southeast economy functions and the relationships of the economy
between communities to help us better understand just the baseline
situation. So we can make more informed decisions, you know, given
some of the policy issues raised by the plan. I have not gotten
into any discussion with her in depth on either her prior memo that
you've referenced here or any real detailed, you know, economic
analysis under TLMP. Again, her - her job with us is to work on
value added.
Number 2326
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: I see Representative Caren Robinson and
Representative Kim Elton here also. Please, come join us. I
guess, you know, the socioeconomic study that is been, I believe,
is very important to this plan. How do you think - how do you feel
about that? You know not having that done?
Number 2351
MS. MAYER: I've been around Tongass issues for years actually and
while people have looked at what the Forest Service have done and
then have been able to think up what a next step might be, looking
at it retroactively, the analysis and the depth of analysis the
forest has done in this plan is superior and I think reflects their
real effort to upgrade the analysis that they have done in the
past. So I'm looking at more than I've seen in plans before. And
as I reflected on discussions with Kathleen Morse that the
limitation I think we have is in our own baseline information to
really take it to that next step and her recommendations have
consistently been to really focus and gain a better understanding
of those baseline conditions so that we can then continue to
upgrade the effort the Forest Service has made to capture the
economics of the region and to a - to better express them in the
plan.
Number 2399
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Did you see the (indisc.--coughing) the
paper article stating that TLMP comments are being processed and
answered from how do you pronounce that? Montana, Calasbell(ph).
MS. MAYER: Calasbell(ph)
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Calasbell(ph). Do you have any comments on
the idea that the Forest Service would hand off the responsibility
to deal with Alaskans on an Alaskan issue to the the people in the
Lower 48 who have no connection with and no stake in the effects of
TLMP.
Number 2420
MS. MAYER: Well, I actually have asked the Forest Service about
how they're handling the comments. As a public official that
frequently manages project reviews, the effective handling of
comments is -- can be a challenge and the shear volume -- I'm
personally overwhelmed with the volume were talking -- I believe
this article is referencing 15,000 responses and a -- as I
understand it in my discussions with them that they have had some
initial read of those comments and characterization of them simply
to package them into then manageable units related to the issues
and do an initial sort -- that it's my understanding that all that
information, once sorted and entered into some kind of database
where it could actually be managed is coming back to Juneau to then
be addressed by their planning team. So I view the job -- my sense
of the job that's happening in Montana is really a technical one of
data entry and not necessarily an analytical one that - that, you
know, really makes any kind of value judgements or assessments
about what they mean. And I think -- you know if that's where they
have their computer systems to do it that....
TAPE 96-78, SIDE B
Number 001
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN: Bill I'm -- this is Joe Green again. I would
like to follow-up on Representative Barnes' question if I might.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Please do, Joe.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN: If the Governor's attempt to try and get a
consensus opinion with Alaskans, I think Representative Barnes made
a very good point that that's gonna be impossible. And I'm
wondering if, as a - as a follow-up or a root to that, is the
recent mailer that the Alaska Center for Environment sent out about
trying to encourage people to get vocal about prohibiting Tongass -
- well I guess not prohibiting, but certainly staying with a
reduced amount of timber harvest which would tend to work against
the Governor's desire. My concern is that if we don't harvest that
there is a life cycle, and again I'm speaking as a lay person in
this, but the life cycle of a forest, as I understand it, is used
mature and then old age and somewhere between maturity and old age
is when we have this problem of both beetle infestation and forest
fires. And one of the things that I think would be in addition to
the beetle kill that would be a travesty is for the Tongass to
become so mature with all the fuel that would grow around the base
of those trees and then the mature trees themselves, dead or alive,
that would be subject to horrendous fires like we have fought up
here recently and California is enduring now and the canyons
(indisc.). Forest fires are certainly not something that we stick
aside lands that -- and the older these trees get without being
harvested either selectively or clear-cut, whatever method, the
more (a) you've laxed the resource sale that we could get and even
worse, you incur a tremendous cost of trying to combat that forest
fire subjecting people to, you know, risk. I mean we lose forest
fire - forest fighters - fire fighters, pardon me, every once in a
while. And so it's just another issue that I think, perhaps in our
study, that needs to be looked at and not ignored that a -- even if
you are a forest preservationist, it seems to me that you would
favor selective logging in an effort to try and preserve the forest
and allow new growth to take over when the trees finally get to the
point, they're either gonna either fall over or die. We need to
have a removal of this canopy so that new trees can grow. That's
a long way around trying to say something, but I hope - I hope that
the tenor there was clear.
Number 131
MS. MAYER: I would only make a few brief remarks on that one
related to the fire hazard. I appreciate how - how critical it is
in many areas in Alaska and the country, but Southeast being a rain
forest, I don't think fire hazard is on anyone's screen as a major
issue. I don't know if our rainfall is upward of 90 or 100 inches
of rain or upward from there in various areas in the regions. So,
we don't have a fire hazard to contend with. And regarding the
remarks on harvest, I would just reiterate the Governor is truly
committed to stabilizing and maintaining a viable timber industry
in Southeast Alaska and I don't - I haven't seen the flyer you
referenced but there is -- I think the Governor is working hard to
be sure that that industry exists.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Is there anymore questions from committee
members?
Number 178
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN: Mr. Chairman, this is
Representative Finkelstein. Can I ask a question?
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Please do, Representative Finkelstein.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Just a
question for Ms. Mayer (indisc.). A lot of the - the discussion
here has been condition on some process that this timber, if it
isn't left under this contract in a extension, isn't gonna get cut.
In your opinion just dealing with timber issues around the state,
isn't it the among the best timber in Alaska? And if it's resold,
isn't it likely to be bought?
MS. MAYER: Yes.
Number 203
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN: The other question I had, Mr.
Chairman, is in reference to selective logging as an option. I
assume the Forest Service is looking at that, but is that not --
didn't the actual logging techniques used because of a variety of
silva culture and issues, isn't it clear cutting?
MS. MAYER: I'm sorry, would you just repeat that? I went
somewhere.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN: Well, a couple of the other questions
have been built around this concept of selective logging which
clearly is an option, but because of silva cultural issues involved
with the tree types, isn't the most common logging activity, the
dominant logging activity clear cutting?
Number 230
MS. MAYER: Yes. I'm sure the Forest Service can get into silva
culture of the forests in Southeast, but given the nature of this
spruce hemlock forest and particularly the spruce being the most
valuable species in the - in the region and in the state, as you
had mentioned, it does require -- it's shade intolerant, it does
require openings. It does require clear cutting to - for its
reproduction. And I might add that, again, referencing my recent
trip to Prince of Whales I was completely impressed by the quality
of the second growth that is coming on in Prince of Whales Island,
particularly in those areas where additional thinning efforts were
being made, both on Forest Service and on private land, to bring
that spruce forest. But it does require clear cutting and I don't
think there is a -- is a any question that that is a silva cultural
practice will continue on the Tongass.
Number 305
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: I'm still having trouble, Ms. Mayer, of the
- whether or not we parallel the process. Maybe you could write a
letter. I don't expect you to answer. I don't want the answer
just yet. Maybe you could write a letter to the committee about
how and why the state should take interest in the forest - whether
the Forest Services has followed the rules, these regulations that
were there. I'd like a little something in writing from your
office.
MS. MAYER: In response to those questions?
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Yah.
MS. MAYER: I'd be happy to submit that.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: I think that Alaskans should feel
comfortable that the state is monitoring the regulations that we
have to follow. Any more questions? I have one final question.
Is there anything else that you can recommend that KPC or the
community of Ketchikan can do to assure the Governor and the public
that KPC is living up to the Governor's five principles? What can
the communities do to demonstrate the united front that Senator
Stevens and Governor Knowles have said is important to their
success?
Number 344
MS. MAYER: I think the Governor's support for the contract
extension for KPC has been based on the five principles, which does
summarize the points that he would like to see met as we work
towards getting that legislation passed. And I do know that KPC
has been working with the Department of Environmental Conservation
and EPA on the environmental issues. I expect that those efforts
will continue, the -- particularly the completion of TLMP is very
important. The state is very interested in expeditious completion
of that plan and to have closure on that planning effort so that we
can have the base of information that that plan reflects,
incorporated into the - into the contract decision would be
extremely helpful so -- and the third point too is the value added
technology that I know KPC is looking in to and just basically
continuing pursuit of the efforts underway. The Governor has asked
that KPC delay any decision about closing the mill until we really
can explore these points and have a chance to work with Congress
and the President to come to some mutual agreement about
legislation on contract extension, and I think that's pivotal.
Number 411
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Is there anything that the communities in
Southeast can do the help? What can we do to help the -- you know,
show a united front that being talked about?
Number 423
MS. MAYER: I think just participation in those same issues,
particularly then completion of TLMP and just expression of the
community interest in that plan. I think a good plan will be a key
to unraveling some of the contention that seems to surround this
issue and completion of that plan is critical to get beyond the
contention of it and into really the resolution of the important
certainly timber management decisions that are before us.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Okay. Representative Nicholia
Number 455
REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA: Thank you, Co-Chair Williams. A
question I have is regarding a 23 percent reduction in timber
available for harvest that was just released on August 7th. Was
that resolved?
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman could we have the -
Representative Nicholia speak up a little?
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Representative Nicholia, we only have...
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA: Oh.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Why don't you come...
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA: Oh, we only have that?
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA: Okay, I'll say it real loud then. The
question I have is I don't know if it was addressed earlier or not
but the announcement of August 7th by Commissioner Hensley that
there is a 23 percent reduction in timber available for harvest.
Has that problem been resolved? What kind of impact does that have
on this process here for getting this timber available for harvest
in the the Ketchikan area.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES: Mr. Chairman, would you repeat her question
because I couldn't hear it either?
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: You want to come up here? I was -- we have
a speaker phone that only works from this area.
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA: Can you hear me Ramona? Ramona, can you
hear me?
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES: Now I can.
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA: Okay. The question I had was I wasn't
sure if it was addressed earlier about the 23 percent reduction in
timber available for harvest and my question was - was whether that
was resolved by the department or is that a problem with the Forest
Service?
Number 527
MS. MAYER: I did, in my remarks, refer to a letter from
Commissioner Hensley to the congressional delegation explaining
that exact point. And in his letter, Commissioner Hensley one,
really disavows expertise as a computer scientist or a land
management planner, but he does point out that the remarks he made
were both premature and based on information that was not complete.
And he discusses that in his letter and then further to say that
the Forest Service, in working through its modeling for forest
planning, frequently does runs that attempts to better adapt the
models to information that they have or that might be coming in
through the process. I'm sure they'll address that in their
remarks before the committee, but the state is and does defer to
the Forest Service expertise to really work that model. And so as
far as the -- is there a problem? The degree to which there truly
is a problem is something that I think the Forest Service will
discuss when they're up here in their testimony, but it is not
anything that the state had discovered or that is a - is a issue
that the state is - that the state is even able to resolve. We
have neither the hardware nor the software to get into it and that,
you know, then that is a federal issue and as far as the status of
it right now, I'm sure those guys will be able to address it more
specifically.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Are there any more questions?
Number 612
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN: Yes, Mr. Chairman I have one other comment. It
may be more than a question and I'm somewhat concerned that in this
year of federal elections that perhaps there is a feeling among
some of the Administration of both the state and the federal
government that is more politically expedient to waltz closer to
the middle of the road than to take a strong advocacy position that
I think this state needs and I would hope that the Administration
is not trying to - to placate a middle of the road attitude because
time is running out and then be able to say "Gee whiz, we really
tried, we wanted to do more but time caught us." My concern is
that if the Governor, either his letter or a phone call or a second
letter is not extremely proactive. We're not gonna get any
response from the President and, as a result, we will be meeting
again this time next year or the year after that and we'll still be
thinking about studying whether or not we want to log in the
Tongass. And I think we've studied it to death and it's time for
something proactive and I'm not hearing this from the director.
And so I hope I have misunderstood your responses and that there
isn't any time delay or any kind of delaying tactics going on here.
Please tell me that I'm wrong, Diane.
Number 680
MS. MAYER: I - I can assure you that the Governor is very sincere
in his efforts and, if necessary, I could just review the points in
the letter of all the steps that have been taken. We have been
very proactive in pursuing this contract extension issue as
outlined in the submittal. I do know that, and it's very timely.
The Democratic Convention is coming up and the Governor does have
a short list of issues of which KPC contract extension is on that
list to discuss with Democratic leaders and I know that he hopes to
meet with the President then next week at that session to go over
it with him. I think the presumption in all of this, given what
everyone of us in this room has seen come out of Washington, D.C.
in the last year. The presumption that a call from a gov - from
anyone really can really bridge some of the interesting politics,
both from Congress and the President is that one call from anybody
would be enough to change the situation is a remarkable compliment,
but I assure you that the Governor is working hard and has members
of his Administration working on every aspect needed to bring the
contract extension - make it reality concurrent with the principles
that he's outlined.
Number 749
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN: Mr. Chairman, what I would like to bring to her
attention is that there was a strong issue made at the Republican
Convention. In fact it was embodied by the that convention with
less than gubernatorial support. It seems to me that if - if those
of us in far lesser positions are able to sway nationally, what
would be included in their platform at least in their attitude that
the Governor of this state would certainly have a strong position
to do likewise. What I'm hoping is that we can count on our
Governor and you, as supporting that Governor, to make such strong
input to the Democratic National Convention that we could expect
that this might not be a partisan issue. This is a survival issue.
Thank you.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Representative Davies.
Number 799
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just - just
wanted to comment about the, you know, what's - what's possible and
I think that, you know, I certainly support the notion the Governor
should be out there with a forceful statement, but a forceful
statement should reflect the reality in which the congressional and
presidential politics are being conducted and since the President
has already come out in opposition to the existing congressional
language it doesn't seem to me that it makes sense to for us, as
Alaskans, to advocate that the President change his position there.
What makes sense is for us to, as Senator Stevens said, to find the
position that we can all agree on that - that will reflect that
political reality that's back in Washington, D.C. And we can write
all the forceful resolutions and letters we want if and -- they can
be very strongly worded, but if they're flogging a dead horse, they
won't get us anywhere. So I think what I hear the Governor saying
he's trying to do is he's trying get people to agree on a slightly
course of action that has a reduced level rhetoric and a slightly
refocused goal and, hopefully, that by doing that we can actually
come to an agreement. It's clear that the path that Congress has
been going down now will not result in an agreement. And so, you
know, I think that it doesn't do us any good to write strongly
worded letters to continue down that path. We have to figure out
a different path that will be successful and go down that path
together.
Number 881
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: I guess you know what along those same lines
that the people in Ketchikan are running scared as you know and we
are concerned and I think mostly - most of all if we can keep
saying we're doing it and keep us informed of what you're doing, it
sure would help us feel a little more comfortable. You mentioned
earlier about getting TLMP completed and you support KPC and we're
gonna have TLMP done by Monday and then we have an ASQ problem.
Not knowing where that number is, we don't know what the preferred
- what preferred alternative that the Administration is going to.
We know that the industry wants Alternative 2, I think it is.
Actually, if we could go back to Alternative P, we'd probably go
with that. Isn't it -- wouldn't it be good if the Administration
would ask the Forest Service to delay the public comment period -
ending the public comment period until we had the firm numbers
before we went though all this process? I mean today we don't have
your alterna -- your comments in which where you're going with
TLMP, and we only have two more days - three more days before it's
due. And how could we - how can you help us in this area? I mean
are you guys having the same problem we're having, shooting at a
moving target?
Number 992
MS. MAYER: The TLMP plan has a variety of alternatives in it and
they - the ASQs associated with those, the available timber
associated with those and also the zoning that's provided for the
variety of resource users of the forest shifts in every one of
those alternatives. And the Forest Service has the flexibility to
move from this draft that we're looking at to a final to draw upon
those elements of any of the alternatives they've presented. And
I'm sure they could discuss it with you much better than I can, but
I see timber harvest volumes available within the entire planning
document that reflect a broad range of possibilities and I don't
think they're limited to any one alternative at this point. I
think they have a lot of flexibility to draw upon the elements of
that plan based on the public comment they've received and what
they're hearing from Alaskans about the values and use of the
forest that to come up with a mix that really tries to be
responsive to those comments. So I don't feel, given the range
that's addressed in that plan, that they're limited to - to any
certain volume. I think that we can be -- I think they have a lot
of flexibility within what they've shown the public and what the
public has commented on to develop a alternative that satisfies the
interest, and clearly the interest of the timber industry as well
as the interest of recreation, tourism, mining. There are elements
in that plan that they can put together for a final and draw upon
if they create a final.
Number 1090
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: So you feel confident that the Forest
Service will provide enough timber?
MS. MAYER: I fully expect that they will. I don't know what their
final alternative is. I believe they have the options they need to
come up with a mix that addresses that issue.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Alright, well thank you, Diane, for being
here. I'd appreciate it if you'd join us here at the table.
MS. MAYER: I'd be happy to and I will work on -- put together a
letter in response to some of the regulatory issues you raise.
Thank you for the opportunity.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Next
we'll go to the Forest Service supervisors. We have a problem here
with seating. Do you need more seating here? Or we could have
people move around if...
JIM CAPLAN, DEPUTY REGIONAL FORESTER, ALASKA REGION, U.S. FOREST
SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE: Mr. Chairman, I think
what we'll do is call upon people as we need. Maybe have them come
up and I'll step away and let them come to the microphone.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: We'll leave a couple of seats open. Thank
you, gentlemen. You're fine Diane. Do you have any opening
comments or would you like me to just start with questions.
Number 1180
MR. CAPLAN: Yes sir, I do have an opening statement and I did want
to thank you, sir, for the opportunity to be here today to meet
with you and the committee to talk over issues regarding management
of the Tongass National Forest, in particular, the land management
plan. My name is Jim Caplan. I'm the Deputy Regional Forester for
Natural Resources. Just back in the state for about two and a half
months now after an absence of almost nine years. I'll confess to
you that looking around the room here, there are so many familiar
faces of people that I worked with in the past because I was a
Legislative Affairs coordinator here for some time that frankly,
sir, it makes me a little more nervous than I probably otherwise be
to appear in this role after all this time. Let me just say I
thank you for your friendly welcome and appreciate the opportunity
to appear before this committee and provide information regarding
the management and use of natural resources on the Tongass National
Forest. With me today are and why don't you folks just hold up you
hands for recognition, Fred Norbury, Ecosystem Planning and Budget
Director; Gary Morrison, Forest Supervisor for the Chatham Area;
and Beth Pendleton and Doug Swanston, co-team leaders for the
Tongass Land Management Plan Revision efforts. In addition to
those folks, we brought a few more staff people just in case we got
into a level of detail. On your behalf, we wanted to be ready to
answer quickly and I would say to you, sir, that maybe that later
on we'll - we may want to resolve some thing through written
communications if we get highly technical. Mr. Chairman, you asked
me to address four questions in you letter of August 14th. The
first two questions deal with the Administration's position on
Senate 1877, the Ketchikan Pulp company Timber Extension Act. The
Administration strongly opposed Senate 1877, because it undermines
the Secretary of Agriculture's authority to mange the resources of
the Tongass National Forest; restricts the Secretary's ability to
adapt to changing environmental information; and conflicts with
certain existing laws, including the Tongass Timber Reform Act. I
would ask that a copy of the Administration's July 10 testimony on
Senate 1877 be made part of the hearing record today and we
provided that earlier. Having answered your question about the
legislation, I would like to emphasize that the Administration is
committed to maintaining a sustainable flow of timber to the
Ketchikan Pulp Company in accordance with the terms of the existing
contract, the Tongass Timber Reform Act and other relevant
statutes. And I would reaffirm to you, sir, that that is very
strongly supported by both the regional forester and myself. Under
Secretary Lyons said at the July hearings in Washington, D.C., that
once the revision of the Tongass management plan is completed, he
would welcome a discussion of timber-related opportunities for
Southeast Alaska. Also, as indicated by under Secretary Lyons, if
the United States decides to continue a contractual relationship
beyond the year 2004 with KPC, we believe that the appropriate
vehicle would be a new contract in accordance with the Tongass
Timber Reform Act. We agree that we'll be better equipped to make
decisions about future long-term commitments, whether they involve
contractual matters or not, to the timber industry in Southeast
Alaska reflecting sound scientific information and extensive public
input once the revision process is completed. That is why
discussing the revision of the Tongass management plan with you
today is so important and why we hope to clear up the recent
confusion surrounding the process we've been engaged in over the
last several years. I'll point out to you, sir, that when I left
in 1987, they were getting ready to revise the Tongass Land
Management Plan. Turning to your remaining questions, let me
address reports of reductions in allowable sale quantities for the
alternatives in the revised supplement to the draft environmental
impact statement. No final plan or related ASQ has been
established at this time. The Forest Service is still receiving
public input on the draft revision. We extend the comment period
in response to requests from many interests, including, for
example, the Alaska Forestry or Forest Association, Concerned
Alaskans for Resources and Environment and subsistence users out of
the national forest who are busy doing their gathering during the
summer months. We did this to provide more time for comment.
Since April of this year, we have received over 16,000 comments
from the public. You can tell from the newspaper article, it was
15,000 a few days ago, it's 16,000 now. These comments will be
considered along with the original 10,000 comments we received in
our initial revision process in 1992. After the public comment
period on the draft revision closes on August 26, we will continue
to analyze public comment and develop the final revised plan. So,
any estimates regarding ASQ in the final revised forest plan or
final environmental impact statement alternatives are premature.
At this point in the planning process between draft and final, we
are, among other things, validating computer model runs and testing
resource assumptions to ensure they accurately reflect resource
conditions on the ground. These common sense steps do not indicate
problems with the planning process or flaws int he information used
to develop the draft alternatives. We are reviewing our draft and
making adjustments like this to ensure that the final plan and the
final direction for the management of the Tongass is based on the
best information available. The ASQs for the alternatives in the
Final Environmental Impact Statement could be higher or lower than
those stated in the draft. This depends on the outcome of the
computer validations and ground testing, as well as changes that
the Tongass Forest supervisors and Forest Service planning team
might make in response to new information. Our Tongass Land
Management Planning Co-team Leaders, Beth Pendleton and Doug
Swanston, and Fred Norbury, Ecosystem Planning and Budget Director,
can provide you with insights into how the ASQ may be adjusted up
or down as we move through the planning process to a final plan.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask that a copy of the letter from Regional
Forester Janik dated August 16th, to Mr. Jack Phelps, Executive
Director for the Alaska Forest Association, which discusses these
issues, be made part of today's hearing record and we did supply
that letter earlier. We know that people care deeply about the
resources of the Tongass National Forest and we will continue to
work towards completing the revision to reach an acceptable balance
for management of the Tongass. We are committed to a viable timber
industry and want to provide a resource program built on sound
science. It will provide a sustainable resource of raw materials
to the timber industry in Southeast Alaska while adequately
considering all of the other important resources of the Tongass.
When the final plan is published, we will make all of the planning
information and, if needed, the planners to explain it - available
to the public. This concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman. My
colleagues and I would be pleased to address any questions you or
members of the committee may have. I only have one caveat to that
is in that we have some current litigation which may prevent us
from being specific in terms of our remarks and we don't want to
sound stubborn or unresponsive in that area. I just wanted to let
you know that up front. Would also express one personal remark and
that is we've -- having been away nine years and having watching
this unfold from afar, it distresses me a great deal personally
that we have not collectively, as a community, all of the interests
mustered the will to complete a revision to the Tongass Land
Management Plan. Mr. Chairman, a plan is kind of like a tire.
When it leave the factory it's nice and new, bright and shinney,
deep treads and very safe. Then after a while, the tread starts to
ware off, the tire gets patched and pretty soon you don't dare run
down the road on it. And frankly, that's what we're asking of the
old Tongass Land Management Plan - to serve as a bald tire in a
fast moving car. And sir, if we don't get it fixed, we don't get
it updated and imprint and done, I'm very much afraid that we're
gonna run off the road and that's why I'm back here. And I pledge
to you that as a neighbor, as a - an employee of the Forest Service
in Southeast Alaska, as part of the fabric of Southeast Alaska, as
all the Forest Service employees are, that we're working very hard
on - on making the revisions to this plan successful. I would
point out that we have been here since 1902, that we've been with
Alaskans in boom and bust, and that we will continue to do so.
When people's property values fall, ours fall. When their fortunes
go sour, ours go sour. And it's our commitment to Southeast Alaska
that keeps us coming back to meetings like this and working with
the legislature on these issues. So if you have some questions,
I'm ready to go.
Number 1664
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: I have a comment to your last -- personal
comment. That tire that you're talking about, you know, may be
bald and what have you, retreaded and may need be retreaded or
whatever - changed, but we have people in the communities in
Southeast that are very concerned about that tire and how we are
changing that one.
MR. CAPLAN: Yes sir.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Since you've changed that tire, took it off
and took it to the -- get it fixed, we have lost 40 percent of our
jobs here in Southeast Alaska. So I take exception to your
comments today, your personal comments. We have - we're playing
with people's lives here today and we can't afford any more fixing
like you've fixed this - fixed so far. Our people in Southeast
Alaska have lost their jobs, they've lost their homes, they've
moved out of state. What do we do about them now? Fix them some
more? I am concerned. I still see the room full of employees of
the Forest Service while my constituents in Ketchikan and Southeast
Alaska have left town. I have walked through the homes here in the
community of Ketchikan knocking on doors. You know you see -
generally you see a lot of these signs - Vote for Bill Williams -
Vote for Alarie Stanton - Vote for Bill Thomas - Richard Whittaker.
You know what I see down there now more so? This house for sale -
that house for sale, all throughout the community. I would hope
that we can come together. This meeting today was -- I would like
to see us come together as a community. The Forest Service, being
the fellows that are doing this to us. So, however it may be, I
would like for us to come together and you see what's happening
today. Sitka has closed down since you've fixed - changed - took
the tire off to fix it. Wrangell has shut down since you've taken
the tire off to fix it. Ketchikan Pulp is thinking about cut -
closing down since you've taken it off to fix it. How do we deal
with this? How much more fixing are we gonna do?
MR. CAPLAN: Mr. Chairman, the present time not having been here
for the last nine years, I would point out that it's probably not
a result of the Tongass Land Management Planning effort that these
unfortunate things have happened. And for the record, sir, I would
point out that as a result of the oil bust in the state of Alaska,
I went bankrupt in 1988. I understand the economic consequences of
economic downturns in a very personal way. Wouldn't visit one
moment of that on anyone else.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: That's happening today.
MR. CAPLAN: I understand that.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Have you visited Wrangell?
MR. CAPLAN: Yes.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Have you visited Sitka?
MR. CAPLAN: Yes.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: What do you think of that?
Number 1893
MR. CAPLAN: I think Wrangell is suffering seriously. I think
Sitka is making the best do they can with new industries and new
activities, but I'm no expert in these matters. All I can report
is what I see.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: I'd like to take a few minutes break here
right now for maybe about five minutes.
Number 1920
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN: Mr. Chairman.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Yes.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN: Is it possible -- I'm gonna have to leave.
This is Joe Green from Anchorage and I'm wondering if I could just
put in a parting shot before I leave - before you take your break
if that's alright?
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Please do.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, I'm sure most of you are aware of a
press release about a week ago - ten days ago - something like that
where a couple of the senators and a couple of the representatives
came on pleading with the Governor to take a stronger stand. And
it has come to my attention that the President's chief of staff
recently said that he could support the contract extension there
for the 15 years if the Governor supported it, and then we get the
Governor saying well he could support that if the delegation would
work with the President. And the concern that I have is that we're
talking about a wheel here a minute ago and maybe what we've got is
point the finger at the other guy and we go round and round and
round and we don't get anywhere. So what I'm concerned about is
that if by chance the Governor, through his very dedicated and
extreme forcefulness and his leadership ability, is not able to do
any good with the President -- has his office made any attempt at
some sort of economic stability for Southeast - the very concerns
that you've expressed, Mr. Chairman? And finally I would suggest,
as I have earlier, that the Governor take a much stronger attitude
on this thing and I think, as we've seen on the Republican side,
that should that happen, and we would go down as tab -- they keep
talking about doing something cooperative. Will this get
cooperative on trying to fix a very serous economic and perhaps
ultimately critical problem with the viability of the forest
itself? Lets try and get this thing done sometime in this decade.
I mean we're not that far from the turn of the century and then
it's another decade after that and I -- what I'm suggesting is more
proactive rather than reactive attitude from the legislative - from
the administrative office. And I apologize that I have to run, but
I would certainly appreciate hearing something when after you
break, there would be some response from both the federal and state
administrative offices.
Number 2105
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Well now that we have the Forest Service,
maybe you can respond.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES: Mr. Chairman, before you leave I have
something to say too.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: I'd like to get a response from Forest
Service on Representative Green's comments.
Number 2117
MR. CAPLAN: I believe that under Secretary Lyons, certainly the
chief of the Forest Service and the regional forester and I and all
our colleagues remain open to discussing opportunities. The
Administration has taken the position we need to complete the
Tongass Land Management Plan to have a strong basis for our
discussions in the future. I certainly concur with that. We're
moving expeditiously to make that happen and we are very concerned
about maintaining a viable timber industry, even as it changes over
time here in Southeast Alaska.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Representative Barnes.
Number 2171
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman I
have listened very intently to the discussion that has been going
on this morning and it appears to me over the last two years that
there has been a great deal of discussion over the timber industry
in Southeast and what it appears to me from someone that doesn't
live in Southeast, but has been involved in the legislative process
for a long long time that over that period of time from the time
the congressional delegation has held hearings in Southeast on the
timber issues, there has been a lot of buck passing. It seems that
there has got to be a time when the buck passing stops and we do,
in fact, look at what's happening to that industry, what's
happening to the people's lives and that have very, as
Representative Green says so eloquently, take a proactive position
as it relates to the forest and the Tongass. Mr. Chairman, while
Southeast Alaska is primarily affected with fishing and timber
interests, the rest of the state in one form or another is also
affected with one resource development project or another because
we are a resource based state and without it, we as people, cannot
survive. So any time we have these issues, it seems to me that the
people of the state, irregardless of where they live, have to come
together for the benefit of all the people. So I would hope that
the discussion will be looked at in that manner. Thank you.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Thank you, Representative Barnes. With
that, we'll take a five minute break and we'll be back at - in five
minutes.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Can you hear us on teleconference? Anyone
on teleconference?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We're on in Anchorage.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: How about Kodiak? Can you hear us alright
in Anchorage? Can you hear us alright? We've change our apparatus
here.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We're hearing you fine in Anchorage.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Thank you.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yah Bill, this is Ketchikan, we hear you
loud and clear.
Number 2413
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Thank you. I'd like to go to the -- you
handed out your written statement Mr. Caplan...
MR. CAPLAN: Yup, you bet.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: ...and the Administration strongly opposes
Senate bill 1877 because it undermines the Secretary of
Agriculture's authority to manage resources in the Tongass national
forest. Could you tell me how it restricts and undermines the
Secretary's authority to manage the resources?
Number 2470
MR. CAPLAN: I believe, sir, I will ask someone more familiar with
the bill come up, but I would just make a general remark that I
think it - all of the provisions of 1877 were what the
Administration....
TAPE 96-79, SIDE A
Number 001
MR. CAPLAN: Sorry, sir. We can - we can get more detail for you
if you want. It's just that we didn't directly participate in that
effort.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: You don't know what the - what's undermining
the Secretary's authority?
MR. CAPLAN: I - offhand sir, I'd - I'd have to go back and check
the record of testimony which we don't have with us today.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. CAPLAN: I apologize but I hadn't anticipated that particular
question.
Number 080
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Under NFMA planning and regulations, aren't
- aren't you responsible for directing efforts of the TLMP team?
Have you done so?
MR. CAPLAN: I personally am not responsible - the forest
supervisors in particular, with us today is Gary Morrison who
directs the efforts of the - the TLMP team. And, of course, we
have administrators - two co-team leaders who do the day-to-day
work.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: If you would like them to come and join us.
MR. CAPLAN: Sure. All the mikes are working now folks, so if you
can find a mike, just make use of that.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Maybe we could pull up another chair up
there. I think that's Representative Nicholia's seat. Just pull
another chair up. If you could state your name for the record,
whoever is going to answer that question.
Number 159
GARY MORRISON, FOREST SUPERVISOR, U.S. FOREST SERVICE: My name is
Gary Morrison. I'm the forest supervisor for the Chatham area of
the Tongass - one of the three forest supervisors for the forest
and responsible for the preparation of the Tongass Forest Plan.
Representative Williams, could you please repeat the question for
me please.
Number 181
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Under the NFMA planning regulations, aren't
you responsible for directing the efforts of the - the TLMP team
and have you done so?
MR. MORRISON: That is correct. We are responsible. The three
Tongass forest supervisors are responsible for the preparation of
the plan and the identification of a preferred alternative for the
draft and responsible to make a recommendation to the regional
forester for the selected alternative in the - at the final
environmental impact statement stage.
Number 239
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Okay. How do you account for the 23 percent
fall down on the ASQ for each of the alternatives in the TLMP
revision. Why weren't those errors caught in advance? Wasn't
Kathleen Morse to catch them? Isn't -- is she a forest service
employee? Was she involved in double checking these figures while
she's working for the forest service? If not, who was?
MR. MORRISON: Okay, that's - that's a lot of questions. Let me -
let me try to take a shot at it. To answer your first question,
the - the allowable sale quantity is one of the measures of the
outputs of the forest plan, along with a lot of other measures. As
far as those numbers changing during the course of the planning
process, that is very common for that to happen and in fact, I
would expect that to happen. The - the number 23 percent reduction
- I have only seen that number in the press and - and heard it
mentioned. I'm not personally familiar with that number. It's not
a number that I as a responsible forest supervisor have dealt with
internally. I - I can't even figure out how additions and
deletions from the ASQ could be added and subtracted to come up
with that number. So, I can't speak to that. We have had during
the process from the very beginning and of late, changes in the ASQ
or allowance sale quantity, based on possibilities that we would
consider in changing our preferred alternative. If we are to
change - slightly change some land allocations - that changes the
ASQ and we ask the computer people to go back and tell us what are
the consequences of those changes. If we change a standard and
guide in the plan, that has consequences and changes the ASQ and we
go back and ask the computer people to - to tell us what those
changes might be. So this is an ongoing thing. And some go up and
some go down and in the end, we want to be able to have a good
understanding of what is causing the allowable sale quantity to go
up and down. And - and likewise, we want to know specifically what
the consequences are for - for other things as well as - as timber.
What are the consequences for wildlife, for fish, for recreation,
for tourism, for subsistence - all of the resources and activities
that we deal with. So it's an ongoing thing and I guess my
feeling, Mr. Chairman, is that it's unfortunate that - that numbers
start floating around at this time because it is a very fluid sort
of a thing. And we're not locked into a number and I'm
disappointed that people try to lock in on a number because they
will be changing up to the last minute. As everyone knows, the
public comment period is not yet closed and until that closes,
we're not gonna to be locking in on anything. So what we're
dealing with now are "what ifs." What if we go this way? What if
we go that way and our computer people are coming up with those
numbers. And those - those numbers would change today as compared
to yesterday, compared to two weeks ago when the 23 was coming up.
As far as...
Number 504
MR. CAPLAN: Gary, if I could add just a little bit to that. I
think Director Mayer pointed out very correctly that - that the
numbers that - that Gary and the team are looking at vary within
the range of numbers presented in the - in the draft. And that the
public has had the opportunity and will continue to have the
opportunity to look at the likely consequences of that range of -
of ASQ. And I would just point out that sometimes the public has
a way of focusing on what the supervisors refer to as a preferred
alternative when in fact that full range of alternatives is
available to the agency in terms of its selection process. Thanks
Gary, I didn't mean to interrupt there to much.
Number 546
MR. MORRISON: With respect to the questions concerning Kathleen
Morse, she is an economist, works for the Forest Service, has been
working for us on the planning team, has answered many of our
social and economic questions that we have had. She is not
responsible for calculating the ASQ, is not responsible for - for
finding where there are additions to the ASQ or deletions to the
ASQ. She does have some responsibilities to tell us in the
planning process what the consequences would be socially and
economically and in - in that respect, it relates to the ASQ
because as - as you pointed out very well, Mr. Chairman, the ASQ is
absolutely critical to the people in the timber industry and as the
ASQ goes, so goes the social and economic effects in the community.
So - so Kathleen has had - had some role in that. She doesn't
develop them and I would not have expected her to be knowledgeable
about changes and - and she would not have an effect on - on their
going up or down. And now with her new role in the position she's
- she has with the state, she has less role than before even in -
in working up the consequences of the changes that we might propose
to the - to the drafts.
Number 658
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: You mentioned something about the
socioeconomic study. Are you familiar with the July 95 memorandum
the Forest Service employees, Mr. Cellier and Kathleen Morse stated
they needed a socioeconomic study. Could you...
MR. MORRISON: Yes, I am.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: ...familiar with that.
MR. MORRISON: Yes, I am, Mr. Chairman.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: And in that they said that we needed one.
Can you speak to that memorandum?
Number 679
MR. MORRISON: Sure. Throughout the planning process, social and
economic evaluation and - and inclusion in the plan has been
important. We have been learning all the time how to best do that,
how to best address it and how to add to it. Our feeling in
previous drafts was that that analysis and the descriptions of the
communities and consequences of various actions on the communities
was inadequate. That was part of the reason that we did bring on
additional team members - scientists including a - a person to deal
with the social aspects and in getting Kathleen Morse more involved
as an economist. The - the work that they did early on was - was
helpful in preparing drafts. The proposals that they had midway
through the process to do a more extensive study and data gathering
and analysis in the communities, I believe would have been helpful.
I don't think that it's - it's a fatal flaw because we didn't
gather that kind of intensive information because as I've stated
before and stated on the record in -in previous hearings with the -
the delegation, I'm - I'm - I'm not really sure how valuable
knowing some of the information that was gonna be gathered at that
time would be to me as one of the - the decision makers in
developing the final alternative. And the reason I say that is, to
precisely identify the consequences on any one community by more or
less timber is very difficult to do because the timber is very
mobile within Southeast Alaska. If we have more or less timber
harvesting on the north end of the Tongass here on the Chatham
area, whether that timber goes to Sitka, comes to the small mill
here in Juneau, goes to Wrangell, goes to Petersburg, goes to
Ketchikan, is - is very difficult to tell so the consequences of
more or less on any given community is - is very difficult to
assess. I think we can assess it overall and - and I think that
having timber available close to timber-dependent communities is
very important and I think we're - we're gonna be able to do a good
job of - of describing those consequences. But the overall effects
on any given -- any one given community by the timber that - that
can move 500 miles one way or the other through Southeast Alaska,
is extremely difficult. And that was part of our reason for not
going into some of the analysis that - that Guy and Kathleen had
suggested early on. I - I guess I would just add to that, that
between the draft and final, we are doing additional work as we've
committed to the delegation and committed to the public.
Additional work in the social and economic arena and that work is
going on right now. So hopefully we will have better information,
more detailed information when the final comes out than we did even
in this last draft.
Number 896
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: I may have heard you wrong but communities -
small communities such as Wrangell and Thorne Bay - you know,
they've been waiting for timber and there's no more timber coming
from there - from there to them or from wherever it's from.
Wrangell shut down, Sitka shut down. I don't understand how that -
how you answered that not being important - socioeconomic - I - I
think I would like to know if you're going to cut back on timber
for Ketchikan Pulp Company or - anymore and - and how it's going to
affect my community - socioeconomic. Like I mentioned earlier, you
know you see all the For Sale signs up - they're competing with me.
MR. MORRISON: I - I appreciate that and I - I guess I don't - I
don't want to - to underestimate the - the consequences of it. I
think it is very important. I guess the only point I was making is
that it's - it's very difficult to tell exactly what effects would
be on any given community because timber can come to one community
or another from a long distance. Timber can come from the Sitka
area or the Hoonah area to a mill in Ketchikan or a mill in
Wrangell if - if they wanted to buy it and move it that far. So to
say more or less timber harvesting at Hoonah is gonna have more or
less effect on a mill in Ketchikan, it's - it's very difficult to
make that particular relationship. So that - that was the problem
that we had with it.
Number 1001
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Okay. I guess in your preferred
alternative, it's going to cut back on timber. Okay? We already
know that. We already know what happened in Wrangell and Sitka and
Ketchikan. The - the Ketchikan sawmill is running -- I don't know
if it's even running -- is it running anymore? I know I as a
longshoreman haven't loaded a ship out of Ketchikan this year at
all and half of last year.
MR. MORRISON: Mr. - Mr. Chairman, I guess...
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Maybe you could - maybe you could explain
what the socioeconomic analysis is supposed to do. I - I don't
understand it.
Number 1058
MR. CAPLAN: I wonder - to some degree there's - there's a couple
of points here that are probably worth making. One is that the
socioeconomic work that's normally done with the forest plan is
aimed at providing a general overview of what the economic effects
of different alternatives might be. In most cases, they don't try
to account for what's happened as far as the past history of an
area is concerned; although, sometimes that information is very
useful. And the reason for that is that the Forest Service
maintains a supply of timber and attempts to get it to the timber
industry in a - in an effective way and yet there are many other
factors that come into play including the marketplace, the demand
for the - for the products produced by the timber industry,
business decisions which are made by prudent business operators as
to how they will run their business, when they'll shut it down,
when they'll start it up. And those are all decisions that are
quite outside what the Forest Service has done in the past and can
do in the future. So when we do a socioeconomic view, it is really
a projection of forecast, usually pretty general because we can't
account for all the decisions that other people will make. And we
can't account for other forces in the marketplace. And - and
that's a simply fact of life. I wonder Fred Norbury, if - if you
had any more thoughts on the Chairman's question as far as
socioeconomic....
Number 1137
FRED NORBURY, DIRECTOR, ECOSYSTEM PLANNING AND BUDGET, U.S. FOREST
SERVICE: Yeah, I'd like to go back a little bit to - to Kathleen's
comments. My - Mr. Chairman, my name is Fred Norbury and I'm the
director of Ecosystem Planning and Budget for the region and in
fact, Kathleen is on my staff and - and I'm very familiar with her
thinking on this issue. She's on my staff, although I've loaned
her to the TLMP team for long periods of time and now I've loaned
her to the state and so it's a hard time getting any - any of her
time for anything, but I do talk to her. She makes several points
with respect to the socioeconomic analysis. One of them she says
that there's no doubt in her mind that what we've done complies
entirely with the regulation - with the National Forest Management
Act planning regulations. Secondly, there's no doubt in her mind
that what we've done is better than anything that's been done
before in Alaska and better than anything else she's been able to
find elsewhere in the country. And - and - and by better, I mean
in terms of the amount of detail that we've been able to bring up
on information on specific communities and - and try to understand
the economy of each community and what's different about the
economy of each community. She also says that the work that was
done for the draft of the revision that was published by and large
accomplishes what she and Guy Cellier hoped would be accomplished
in the program of work that they outlined in the memo that - that
you referred to. She says there is more that could be done and she
hopes that we will continue to do that and in fact, when she
testified on this in Senator Murkowski's hearings - I guess it was
a few months ago - she talked about additional work we could do to
describe the effects of - of mill closings and reductions in timber
volume on specific communities. And she's outlined that work for
the team and in fact, the - the team is doing that analysis now and
will present that for the decision makers to consider before they
make a decision on the revision and also for -- it'll be displayed
to the public. You have to differentiate two stages in the
analysis here. First is what are the overall consequences for the
region if timber harvesting goes up or down.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: For the region?
MR. NORBURY: For - for - for Southeast Alaska as a region. We -
our - our mathematical models are pretty good at - at describing
that. We have - we have very widely accepted and very well tested
mathematical models for describing those kinds of consequences.
Then we run into the problem - we don't know who's gonna buy the
timber. If we knew who was going to buy the timber, then we could
tell you how much each individual community was going to be
affected. We can't answer that question. We can answer another
question though and this is what we're working on now. Suppose
that whoever is in charge of KPC does not buy timber or whoever is
in charge of the Wrangell mill does not buy timber, what are the
consequences for that community if that happens. We can describe
some of that and that's the kind of analysis we're working on now.
That's the kind of analysis that's gonna be available to Gary
before he makes a recommendation to Phil as to the - what the
selected alternative ought to be for the revision. That's the
information that'll be available to the regional forester to
consider. We think we've gone as far as the state of the art in
economics will let us go in trying to describe the consequences on
individual communities at this point.
Number 1301
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: So you - what you're saying then is that the
- you're doing a socioeconomic study by community-by-community and
by plan-by-plan - whatever these plans are, you've got a study...
MR. NORBURY: Well, we - we have two pieces - two pieces and
they're quite different...
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Let's say that...
MR. NORBURY: They're both helpful.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Wrangell, you know, for instance - let's
talk about Wrangell - what - what happened there or Ketchikan. How
is this plan going to affect Ketchikan and all the other
communities? You're - you're doing that today?
MR. NORBURY: Yes and no. What - what we're doing is we're saying
if less timber becomes available - or if less timber is purchased
by the mill in Wrangell or by - if less timber is purchased by the
mill in Ketchikan, these are the consequences for the community of
Ketchikan. We can say that. What we can't say in the forest plan
is how much of the ASQ is gonna end up in Ketchikan.
Number 1367
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: But there will be enough timber for
Ketchikan and Wrangell and Sitka or - or you're not even -- or
Thorne Bay?
MR. NORBURY: That's - that's a decision that - that ultimately the
regional forester makes as to how much timber's gonna be available
for Southeast Alaska...
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: But that's - I think that's where I'm coming
from. You know, I - I would hope that the information that you're
getting is gonna help the people that are making the decision in -
in how it's going to affect Ketchikan, Wrangell, Sitka, Petersburg
and Juneau.
MR. NORBURY: Mr. Chairman...
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: I would hope that - that a plan of some sort
would come - come - come forth before that the Forest Service comes
out with the plan - this is - this is good for you - believe me,
it's good for you - that's what - that's what I'm hearing and I
would like to know why it's good for me.
MR. CAPLAN: I think, Mr. Chairman, in partial answer, I would say
that we are pledged and dedicated to upholding our portion of the
KPC contract as it presently exists and it - that includes
supplying timber at volumes under the contract - in compliance with
that contract. In addition, I sent a letter August first to
independent timber contractors and others here in Southeast who are
interested in the independent program, saying we're very much
concerned about their needs and our - our continuing pledge to
support them. So whatever you see as a final plan produced by the
agency will represent those two things as far as I know right now
and that is a continuing commitment to independent sales operators
- the small guys in many cases in the small towns - as well as to
uphold the contract as written and amended by - by TTRA and so
forth. So we're here and we're going to continue to be here in
terms of supplying timber.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Representative Davies.
Number 1474
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES: I - I had a question about the - the
economic plan in general. I'm - I'm not real familiar with the
process, could you -- are there -- clearly the allowable sale
quantity is one of the major variables that you're studying, what
are the -- are there other variables? Do you - do you have
economic analyses that look at the fishing industry, do you have
economic analyses that look at tourism, subsistence gathering,
hunting - I mean, are those also things that these economic
analyses consider?
MR. NORBURY: Yeah. There's - there's - there's two classes of
economic analysis. One of them is - is description when you simply
try to describe how the economy is functioning and understand how
the pieces relate so you get some general - you get some general
feeling for how if you effect it what - what the consequences are
gonna be. We - we've en massed quite a lot of data on that. And
a lot of that is summarized and analyzed and presented in the - in
the draft which is this document here which we've gotten wide
circulation for and in the documents that are referred to in here.
And this - this - this rests upon our planning record of thousands
of documents and a lot of extra efforts. The second thing is that
you try to - to estimate what are the consequences of your
management decision on how that economy functions. When we get
into that area, the one we focused on the most is timber because
that's the - the economic activity that our plan has the most
direct and immediate effect on. And so -- and we have very
detailed models - they're called input/output models in economic
jargon, that - that describe all the sectors of the economy and how
the different sectors are interrelated and how if you make a change
in one sector, how those consequences ricochet through all the
other sectors of the economy. For fishing, our - our - our models
are not quite so good for two reasons. One of them is that so much
of the fishing industry is self-employed and the - the economic
data that we have on that fishing industry is a lot weaker. The
second, more important reason is that we believe that our
management of the Tongass over the next 10 years is unlikely to
have any consequences over the next 10 years on the fishing
industry because of the - the - the elaborate protections we're
trying to build into that to protect fish habitat, water quality,
riparian habitat and those sorts of things. We believe that any -
any effect of - of our management on employment in the fishing
industry is gonna - is gonna be small - very, very small compared -
compared to the other effects on - on the fishing industry.
Tourism - we face a similar problem in that we know that - that
tourism is booming in Southeast Alaska. We know that it's a major
growth industry. We know that the - that the amenity resources of
the Tongass are a major draw for that tourism. We know that it's
the wilderness - small w (ph) attributes of Southeast Alaska are a
powerful selling point for the industry. What we don't know is how
our decisions about ASQ are going to affect the growth of that
industry and that's because economic science can't tell us very
much about what the relationship is. Everybody knows it's some gut
level that if you make the place look ugly, tourists are going to
quit coming. But when the ASQ goes from 300 to 400, does -- can -
can anybody tell you how many fewer cruise ship passengers are
going to show up? No. The - the -- we simply don't understand the
economy in that much detail. So we haven't traced - we haven't
traced the consequences through for the tourism industry in - in
nearly as much detail as we have for say the timber industry. And
I could -- there's similar kinds of logic would apply for mining
and - and some other aspects of the economy. Does that answer your
questions?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES: Yes, thank you.
Number 1654
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: For the interest of the committee members
and participants, I - I do plan on going right through lunch and
hopefully, we're done here by shortly after 1 o'clock or soon -
soon. I'd like to talk a little bit more about the 23 percent
figure that was announced by Commissioner Hensley. Was it a net
number?
Number 1683
MR. CAPLAN: It -- for us sir, we have a very hard time tracing
what that number represents. I apologize.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Okay. That's fine.
MR. CAPLAN: We haven't been able to reconstruct where - where that
figure came from.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Maybe you could talk a little bit about the
add back in the plan that was taken away and what percent impact
each take away and add on has on the ASQ. For example, have the
dealt with the 100,000 acres of suitable land in Ketchikan, Alaska
- Ketchikan area which were actually dropped from the land base to
-- as a consequence of standards and guidelines but left in the ASQ
calculation for the Ketchikan area. Can you talk a little bit
about that?
MR. CAPLAN: I wonder which of the staff understands the detail on
that.
MR. NORBURY: The 100,000 acres? I can take a stab at -- or maybe
you should do it, Doug -- (indisc.) the McGilvery soils - you're
the soils guy.
Number 1731
DOUGLAS SWANSTON, CO-TEAM LEADER OF THE TONGASS LAND MANAGEMENT
PLAN, U.S. FOREST SERVICE: Well, I'll - I'll - I - I will take a
stab at it. As I understand it and I'm incidentally...
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Identify yourself.
MR. SWANSTON: Yes. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my
name is Douglas Swanston. I'm a co-team leader of the Tongass Land
Management Plan and I share that duty with Beth Pendleton. The -
my background is - is in soils and geology. I've had some fair
amount to do with - with the discussion on the - on the 100,000
acres that has been put in and withdrawn and put back in again.
Basically, standards and guides have identified McGilvery soils,
which are soils that develop on very steep slopes, as - as
unsuitable and they had been removed from the tentatively suitable
timber base. But I think that - that myself and the majority of
specialists on the ground do not agree with that removal. I don't
know why it was removed in the first place and we have asked to
have it replaced back into the suitable timber base and it is there
at the moment.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: You might tell them what McGilvery soils
are.
Number 1779
MR. SWANSTON: Yes - McGilvery - I did tell them what the McGilvery
soil was. It - these are soils that are developed in very steep
slopes.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Where was this area again please?
MR. SWANSTON: Well, this - this is - this is in the Ketchikan
area. These are soils that are - are generally developed in very
steep slopes but there are areas where the timber can be reached
and it can be managed effectively. So, we've placed them back in
to the tentatively suitable timber base.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Representative Davies.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES: Doug, on that point. Do you - do you know
this -- so there's 100,000 acres that was in this category.
MR. SWANSTON: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES: Do you know -- can you tell me even
approximately what the effect on the ASQ would have been with the
removal of that 100,000 acres?
MR. SWANSTON: I -- let me defer to John Day. John, can you give
us an estimate of what the percentage difference would have been if
we'd left the - the - the McGilvery soils out at the time this
was...
Number 1817
JOHN DAY, ANALYST, TONGASS REVISION TEAM, U.S. FOREST SERVICE:
Okay. I'm John Day. I'm the analyst on the Tongass Revision Team.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Move closer to the mike, please.
MR. DAY: My name is John Day and I'm the analyst on the revision
team. I'd like to elaborate a little bit more on that 100,000 if
I may. It began -- the 100,000 acres is an inventory problem.
Basically, the Tongass has a -- I don't mean to get too
complicated, but it's a problem that initiates with inventory
coverages we have. We have soils. We have slope and a variety of
other things. And in our tentatively suitable process, we call it,
we start from 17 million acres which is the Tongass, and we move
down to the suitable land base or to the tentatively suitable land
base, which is about 2.3 million. In this process, step 4 -
there's six steps - step 4 removed McGilvery soils and what has
happened - what there was - there was a discrepancy between
McGilvery that were coded on the Stikine and Ketchikan areas. So
over the years we were running this process, some areas were coming
through the - coming through those steps. We went back and checked
the miscodes, there was 100,000 acres miscoded for soils. The
overlap between the soils in the slopes and a variety of other
things really makes the impact to the tentatively suitable lands
about 50 or 60,000 acres. Then when you add on top of that the
land use designations, it works out to about 20 to 40,000 acres by
alternative. So in - in essence, say the preferred alternative has
a 20,000 acre mistake or miscode, it would result in - if we have
1.5 million acres available and 20,000 were to be added or
subtracted, it would be a proportion -- approximately a
proportional change, depending on the economics and the content of
those lands. One thing we have found that a majority of these
McGilvery soils are in second growth. So almost -- their
contribution to the allowable sale quantity up front is negligible.
Number 1904
MR. CAPLAN: I would point out in the interest of time, Mr.
Chairman, that we'd be happy to answer any of these questions
specifically - glad to stay here and do that for you but if you
have more specifics, Mr. Day or any of the staff would be happy to
reply without necessarily tying up the time of yourself and the
committee.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: I'd appreciate that if it could be done in -
Monday is the last day of public hearings and if we could have it
before that.
MR. CAPLAN: Well, it's -- they have made adjustments - a lot of
them very small - and it's a normal part of the checking process,
as I mentioned in my testimony. The -- a process which by the way
they've been working on steadily for about a year, really
intensified to make sure their data were as accurate as possible
for the draft and continue to do so, so that they're accurate for
the final. And, you know, it's - it's a- a internal and external
process involving some of our partners, like the state. So it - it
will be difficult to describe all the things that have been fixed;
although if you have a list of the larger factors, we'd be happy to
reply.
Number 1952
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Do you anticipate any more net changes or
any more add backs or take aways?
MR. CAPLAN: I think there will continue to be minor adjustments as
they - as they complete the checking on their data and their
models. I'm sure a lot of the larger items have been caught as a
result of the interdisciplinary work, work with the state and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and (indisc.) people like that.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Minor isn't 23 percent.
MR. CAPLAN: No. Again, I don't quite know where that came from.
I'm sure someone somehow accumulated what they thought was all of
the corrections that were made. But at this point in my
discussions with the team, generally they're not finding that they
would - would see much difference now if they were to rerun the
preferred alternative from the draft from what is in the draft
because of the different compensating factors. So, very small
difference, if any.
Number 1989
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Is there a plan for advertising - advising
the public for the add backs and take aways? Do you plan to advise
the public of how each alternative is impacted by each add back and
each take away? Do you plan to let the public comment on these
changes? If not, why not? If so, how can you do that consistent
with the current schedule?
MR. CAPLAN: I would -- Beth -- I don't know - would you like to
reply to that. I would have a preliminary statement that any of
these changes are recorded in the planning record and - and once
the plan is final, that's available to the public for review,
comment and of course, for the use in any manner including using
our appeals process.
Number 2020
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: But, you know, listening to the gentleman
that just got through talking here about the soils and this sort --
even though I'm no expert at it, but I'm sure there are some in -
in the timber industry that would -- that maybe you could talk a
little bit about that also and have you -- have you had any
feedback from anyone - other experts in the state or industry?
MR. SWANSTON: Well, we - we haven't had any feedback from the
industry but basically, it's basic soil science. These are soils
that have been fully mapped throughout Southeast Alaska and I think
that there'd be very few people that would disagree with our
replacing these soils back into the tentatively suitable land base
primarily because it's a productivity issue and stability -
stability, which is a big concern originally in both those soils,
can be taken care of with standards and guides. There are very
specific standards and guides that - that describe what the field
person has to do to make some kind of an estimate of the relative
hazard from harvesting in these areas. And we felt that there is
enough of that land area with enough productive - productive timber
that we should leave it in and allow those decisions to be made on
the ground. Let - let me address if you would Mr. Chairman, some
of this question about the quote 23 percent. It - it bothers me -
I - I hear this quite a bit. I personally don't know where the
number came from but it's common practice for us, as a team, to
look at the existing computer models to - to test them, to input
new information, to adjust information that's in there, and then we
ask our analysts to give us some feedback in terms of a worst case
scenario on what might happen if you did this or did something
else. And we have this done fairly regularly and we have these
numbers floating around and - and that may be where some of the 23
percent came from. I - I don't know. But those numbers are
generally resolved - we - when - if they're very large, we ask our
analysts to go back, re-analyze them and these are usually taken
care of. And this is done as a regular course of our operation.
Number 2119
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Large areas of 100,000 acres is a very large
area you know and you might talk a little bit about how you get -
you advise the public about changes in that area. Have -- Do you
plan to advise the public of any other changes in add backs and
take aways or...
MR. SWANSTON: This will certainly be part of the final plan. This
is all -- all of these changes will appear in the final plan.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: And we'll be able to comment again at that
time? I mean, that's the only time we'll be able to hear about the
add backs and take aways?
MR. SWANSTON: No, I - I believe that after the 26th of this month,
that is the end of the comment period for this plan.
Number 2148
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: So after the - after you add back and after
the 26th of this month after the add backs and take aways, we won't
be able to say that you're right or wrong?
MR. CAPLAN: There's a period, Mr. Chairman, after the notice of
availability for the plan in the record decision, there's a 30-day
interval in which we do not implement the plan and - and during
that time period, frequently we hear from the public. Although,
normally it's not an official period, we work out a lot of things
with respect to the planning record and work on that with the
public. So, people who are interested constantly work with the
Forest Service and that doesn't stop once the final is complete.
Number 2177
BETH PENDLETON, CO-TEAM LEADER FOR THE TONGASS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN
REVISION, U.S. FOREST SERVICE: I think what I would add -- any -
any changes that are made to...
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Please state your name for the record.
MS. PENDLETON: Yes, Beth Pendleton and I'm the Co-Team Leader for
the Tongass Land Management Plan Revision. Any - any changes made
in any of the alternatives as we proceed to a - a final will be
thoroughly discussed in the final and the effects of those will
also be discussed as well.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Are there any questions from committee
members? Representative Elton.
Number 2202
REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON: Thanks, Mr. Chair. Kind of a follow up
question to a question that Representative Davies asked and I'll
address it to Jim, but it may end up back in Fred's lap here. When
you were talking about the economic modeling that you were using
and you say you have a well developed model for impacts on the
timber industry and a less well developed model for fishing and
tourism. And - and I guess one of the concerns that I have is that
it would seem to me that Tongass management issues are as important
to Holland America as they may be to Louisiana Pacific, for
example. So I'm wondering if you're developing these new models or
you're working on models that will accommodate questions about
tourism and about fishing.
MR. CAPLAN: I think - Representative Elton, I think over time with
more information, as for instance the tourism industry continues to
grow, it may well be possible to do better economic models with
them. I think I'll let Fred address this in a little more depth,
but one of the difficulties in a rapidly growing industry is
defining what they want and then translating that into economic
terms, when in essence many of the things they want are qualitative
things - they're aesthetics things and very difficult to quantify -
very difficult to look at how they make decisions in the - in the
environment. We have a long history with the timber industry here
in Southeast - 40 some years - and we have more access to their
records because of the nature of our contracts with them as well as
better data from the state, I think. So all of that will come into
play as better information is available from the industry in what
they desire. Fred, maybe you could be more specific.
Number 2269
MR. NORBURY: I'd - I'd say there's two pieces to it and there's
one piece of it we do real well already. If you can tell us what
the level of tourism's gonna be in some future year, we can tell
you what the consequences for the economy are in - in quite
(indisc.) sale. The hard part and this is the piece we don't do so
well, is to say if you adopt alternative 2, this is how the future
level of tourism is gonna change because that has to do with how do
people react to what they see in making their tourism decisions.
And that's just less well understood. The Forest Service funds a
lot of research into that area and it's - actually, our research
branch has a very extensive research program on that and we're
getting - we're getting better models in that area. But there's
not - we're not gonna have a magic bullet that'll - that'll answer
that question tomorrow.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON: Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Number 2308
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Are there any other questions from committee
- committee members? If not, we'll continue. What will be the
impact on the preferred alternative from the failure of the TLMP
revision to include growth and yield tables for the silva culture
system or use two-aged and uneven-aged management systems?
MR. CAPLAN: I'm not sure I understand that question. Does one of
the staff -- Yeah, could you repeat that, sir. I apologize.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: The failure for -- what will the impact on
the preferred alternative from the failure of the TLMP revision to
include growth and yield tables for a silva culture system which
used two-aged and uneven-aged management systems?
MR. CAPLAN: Is it -- I get the impression sir, that what you're
saying is we're not including accurate figures about the effects of
our two-aged or alternate systems.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Yes.
MR. CAPLAN: Yeah, okay. Would one of you care to respond to that?
I believe we've modeled that, haven't we and -- as we've gone
through the alternative.
Number 2354
MS. PENDLETON: Yes, we have modeled that and this week, have
completed some analysis concerning the growth and yield model and
specific to the preferred alternative, there is no change as it
relates to the allowable sale quantity. I think that the details
of that modeling, we could certainly be happy to provide to you in
a - in a written statement.
MR. CAPLAN: Okay, is that satisfactory?
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Yes.
MR. CAPLAN: We will -- we will advance that to you in written
form. But it has been taken into account.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Okay. In the interest of time...
MR. CAPLAN: Sure.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Given the 15-year history of 68 percent less
sales than ASQ, is it reasonable to assume that the Forest Service
will actually offer and sell substantially less each year than the
297 million board feet? How much less? What does the level of
(indisc.) sales mean to timber-dependent communities?
MR. CAPLAN: I would just say as overview, Mr. Chairman, that one
of the things that's happened when I used perhaps the unfortunate
analogy of a - of a wheel going down the road is that -- one of the
things that's happened in the re-tread of this wheel during the
plan process here, has been that we've tried to build in
significant conservation measures and other things of concern to
the public and litigated in the court system and so forth, to
ensure that our ASQ would be offered at a very high level. Of
course, an allowable sale quantity is a 10-year process and many
people break it down into 1-year increments. Some years we often
offer more, in some we offer less. One thing we can't do is
predict what others will do once again with respect to litigation
or other effects, but we know when we have built into the plan
extensive protective measures for riparian areas, beach front,
community needs and so forth, that the likelihood of being
litigated is far lower and that's part of the re-tread process that
we have. So we fully expect to, and as I said before, we fully
intend to uphold our part of the KPC contract and we fully expect
to be able to implement at the levels indicated in the plan. That
may well not mean that every year the 297 is what is offered. One
year it could be less; one year it could be more. It all depends
on - on markets and - and how fast we can get our job done. Would
someone else care to comment on that?
Number 2464
MR. NORBURY: The only other variable that - that's worth
remembering is that the actual sale level that the Forest Service
offers is - is very much dependent on what Congress chooses to
fund. And in - in the past...
TAPE 96-79, SIDE B
number 001
MR. CAPLAN: ...variables and choices that we - we have no control
over.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Lawsuits.
MR. CAPLAN: Lawsuits and what Congress will do in terms of funding
or - or new legislation.
Number 018
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Getting the timber available -- making the
timber available -- I - I don't know exactly how to -- this -- to
get this question across, but there's been - I know from my
experience as a landowner myself and in the timber industry, we
look out four or five years. Where are we gonna go? What are we
gonna do? And depending on the market, what is the market going to
do? It has to do with availability of timber. I know that when we
are getting ready for five years, we know what - what areas we're
gonna go in to, what permits we need and we work on them. More
importantly, if we're gonna get into the timber industry like next
year - 1977 -- 1997 - that we would have already had that plan
completed and that pipeline so to speak, of timber would be
available. I could go to my customer and say this is a timber area
that we're gonna sell, this is the volume of timber that we have,
this is the species, grade and what have you - would you tell me
how much you're gonna bid on it. Now, I'm not hearing that from
industry today -- from the last few public hearings I've heard, is
that okay, you can have this amount of timber here and it's August
and KPC, ALP or Wrangell mill didn't have time to get to building
road or going in to find out exactly what's there. Can -- how is
the Forest Service working to make available at least four or five
years in advance -- I'm sure that you know - with the lawsuits that
are always out there and the problems that we're having getting the
timber -- are you working towards - to make that available four or
five years out in advance?
Number 103
MR. CAPLAN: Well, we -- as you're probably aware, Mr. Chairman, we
strive to get about a three-year supply ahead and we have
consistently found that very difficult to accomplish. Currently,
with Ketchikan Pulp Corporation contract we're -- we - we have
offered to them and released to them about 300 million board feet
which they have. Although we disagree with them slightly, they
have apparently about 80 million board feet available from the
existing road system or what they're building. They've indicated
to us that - that they will mostly be building road this year
rather than conducting a lot of active logging and that's a - you
know - their choice as a prudent manager. And so, we're a little
ahead on the volume with them right now. And that's good; it gives
them more flexibility as -- based on your description and your
knowledge. The independent sale program troubles me a little more
and one of the reasons for my letter in April - or in August was to
get a dialogue going with those folks. Currently under contract we
have a little over 100 million board feet. Some of it's being
worked; some of it's not. And - and this year we will put up an
additional little over 100 million board feet before the end of the
year. So we are trying to come to grips with these things. It's
certainly a priority for me - particularly the KPC contract - and
will continue to be so for as long as that continues.
Number 161
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: How much timber does it take to run the
Ketchikan Pulp Company per year?
MR. CAPLAN: Well, I would ask them that question, but does anyone
know what on record they're talking about in terms of volume?
There's a difference between mill capacity and...
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It's under litigation so you might want
to...
MR. CAPLAN: That's right. We just got -- I'm sorry.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Well, maybe I might ask the Ketchikan Pulp
Company representative.
Number 180
TROY REINHART, MANAGER, EMPLOYEE AFFAIRS AND PUBLIC RELATIONS,
KETCHIKAN PULP COMPANY: And the question was what's our
contractual amount?
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Could you...
MR. CAPLAN: I think the question was what does it take to run the
mill.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: State your name for the record, please.
MR. REINHART: My name is Troy Reinhart. I'm public or Employee
Affairs and Public Relations Manager for Ketchikan Pulp Company.
The contractual obligation for the Forest Service to us through our
long-term contract is an average of 192.5 million board feet per
year.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: What does it take to run the company?
MR. REINHART: Our - our mill or all our facilities combined use
over -- between 200 and 225 million board feet per year. But we
have always understood that we had to go to other sources to get
that additional amount of volume out there and we'd always planned
on the Forest Service's commitment through our long-term agreement
as the core amount for that. And due to shortfalls that they've
given us over the last five years, not meeting that contractual
amount, that is what has led to the shortfalls that we've had and
had curtailments in facilities -- you mentioned the Ketchikan
sawmill has not been running along with the Annette - Annette
hemlock mill -- over the last two years, I believe they've ran a
total of about six months, so that's the reason for the shortfall.
Number 226
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Okay. And you're saying now that - that
you're making available enough timber for the pulp mill
contractually?
MR. CAPLAN: Well, what I can say is that we're - we're at about a
300 million board foot level - we believe a significant proportion
of that is available to them currently and their choices about how
to operate on that are up to them. We're going to continue to
strive to be enough ahead so that they have good management
options. We're hopeful that a completed forest plan will help
reassure that, making us less vulnerable to successful litigation.
Number 256
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Yeah, okay. I have a little difficult time
accepting that. I work at the pulp mill and it's kind of difficult
when there isn't - and I hear it from both sides - okay - and I -
I guess it's when you make something available within a certain
time limit -- like I said, I believe you have to get out there
three, four, five years ahead so that we get the litigation out of
the way, you know, and this sort. I would hope that you would
strive to get the - get the timber available so that they can look
at it and find out what it is.
Number 286
MR. MORRISON: Mr. Chairman, maybe let me speak for a moment as a -
- as a manager responsible for making timber available and I can
only speak for our area - for the Chatham area, but we - we do try
to have timber made available ahead and that requires that we do
the proper environmental analysis to get out ahead and as it's been
pointed out here, there are always difficulties with appeals,
litigation and then our budgeting process. But I have a timber
sale planned for the area that stretches out for 13 years right
now, so I have some sense of where, if everything else being equal,
the current plan that we're managing under I know where we're gonna
go to try to make timber available for the next 13 years. That --
as we get closer to current year, that - that sale schedule is a
lot firmer. We also have a - a fairly formal 10-year timber sale
schedule that I have available and then we try to look more closely
at the - the 3 years out in front of us and - and making volume
available in - in that particular time frame. And the significance
for me of three years is that's about what it takes to go through
an environmental impact statement these days, then going through
the appeals and then hopefully, not having any litigation. But we
have a pretty good certainty as to where the timber would come from
over the next 3 years, a reasonable certainty of where we expect to
get it over the next 10 years and I have our people working out to
13 years. So, there is - is an effort underway to do that.
Number 354
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Maybe you could say again why we're not
getting this, you know, and we shut down. Is it because of -- I
don't know -- what could it be? The Ketchikan sawmill isn't
running. Annette Island isn't running to capacity. Ketchikan --
could you -- I hear what you're saying...
MR. CAPLAN: There are many -- there are many factors involved as
you know, in a business decision. In - in the case of Metlakatla
this year, we've met with those folks. They had concerns about the
sales that we had put up and had chosen not to bid on any of them.
If - if they don't, then we can't get the volume to them, as I - I
guess is about the bottom line and there's -- they explained their
rationale - it was very reasonable from a business standpoint and
we're working with them to try to identify further opportunities
that would interest them. But if market conditions are bad or
other things then a prudent manager makes the decision and maybe
the volumes are not moving for awhile. I have no other way of
explaining it.
Number 405
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Can I get Ketchikan Pulp back up here again?
MR. REINHART: Yes, sir.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Mr. Reinhart, could you talk a little bit
about this issue -- about not getting it and sales made available
to you and you're not buying it and market conditions and...
MR. REINHART: Sure. Sir, I think that there was confusion with
the Metlakatla Indian tribe, Mr. Caplan mentioned, in not
purchasing sales with the mill that we operate in joint operation
with them as part of our long-term contract. I know there's been
many problems on the independent sale side which the - the tribal
community participates in, in (a) not enough volume being offered;
that volume being offered in configurations which were not
appraised correctly and they were not able to go bid on those. And
that's concerns that we discussed with the independent community
and share many of the same concerns because some of those sales
we've looked at and attempted to make bids upon and those types of
things. As far as our long-term contract, the Forest Service has
consistently over the last five years, not met the level of the
volume that they're supposed to provide under our contract. That
volume has been offered us most of the times very late in the year
- September and October - and this year it looks like it'll
probably snow earlier than that. But usually snow happens not to
soon after that and when you get those offerings, you're not able
to go out and build those roads that you need to, to access that
timber and it's not coming to us in a timely manner. Steve Brink,
in a declaration in some of the litigation that goes on in this
environment, has stated that KPC needs - to maintain a viability
operation and be economical and consistently - a three-year supply
and they admitted in that declaration - Steve Brink works for the
Forest Service - he admitted in that declaration that the Forest
Service has not provided us that pipeline of money. Senator
Stevens provided the Forest Service with money to create a
pipeline. There's some concern now and a GAO - General Accounting
Office - investigation of whether that money was properly applied
to build a pipeline or not and I guess that would be spelled out.
But as far as for KPC, we (a) have not gotten our contractual
amount of volume which causes a shortfall and (b) it has been late
and not in a pipeline form so we can go out and as you correctly
noted in your discussion, to get out there and to build the roads
in a timely manner, to get our camps constructed or have the camps
coordinated in the right time to go out and get that volume. And
unfortunately, what we have right now is families that have been --
the head of the household or the company -- the person that may
work in one of our camps for us, he's dislodged from his family
because there's no work at Coffman Cove because the volume wasn't
provided to us in a proper amount of time so we could build the
road, so he's at Shelter Cove or he's at Thorne Bay or he's in
Ketchikan or somewhere removed from his family - will work 10 days
and go home for a few days and we try to coordinate with those to
try to not cause that disruption but if there was an adequate
pipeline and the Forest Service adequately provided us the timber
called for under our contract, we wouldn't have those kinds of
situations go on.
Number 547
MR. CAPLAN: Mr. Chairman, I can only say there's a few things
there which we really can't comment on because they are in
litigation but I would point out the GAO report very clearly stated
that the Forest Service had expended the funds properly. The fact
that the timber pipeline did not appear was a result of some of
these other factors we've already discussed.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Does any committee member have any questions
or comments? Representative Davies.
Number 584
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES: This is - this may sound like a fairly
naive question but - but I think it's germane and that is perhaps
we could review the bidding a little bit and could - could we have
the Forest Service tell us what in - not in a lot of detail - but
in - in - in kind of the bulletized, you know kind of the top three
or four essential items -- what - what is your understanding of the
terms of the contract with Ketchikan Pulp? When we talk about a
15-year extension of a particular (indisc.), what is the - what is
the contract as we know it right now? What - what are the
essential elements of that contract that we're talking about
extending?
MR. CAPLAN: We want to be careful on how we express that. The
contract was joined early in the 1950s and extends through 2004.
That's one of the principal matters and people talk about extending
that contract beyond the year 2004. So it's -- that's really the
basis of a lot of this discussion. The Forest Service has some
discretion around its timber contracts but that kind of an
extension is not available to us administratively. Thus, the
things going in Congress and the efforts being made to join that
discussion.
Number 653
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES: And -- while I mean, some of the other
items -- what is from your understanding - what is the volume
that's - what's...
MR. CAPLAN: I really can't comment. I apologize but - but that
would take us into an area about how much is - should be offered
and - and that kind of thing. The contract is available to read.
I could easily send you a copy, if you wish. I hesitate to...
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES: You can't even tell me what the volume
is...
MR. CAPLAN: Well...
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES: Just on a 10-year average or whatever...
MR. CAPLAN: Well, it's - it's asking too much right now in light
of the litigation, quite frankly. I hate to sound like I'm not
going to rule on that, but I'm not.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES: I'm also interested on other things. What
is it -- what other obligations does the Forest Service have in
terms of -- I don't know what they might be - things like building
roads and other -- are there specific contractual terms that have
to do with - with providing access and infrastructure and that kind
of thing? Also, I'm - I'm interested in this question in relation
to the comment that was made earlier that while the allowable sale
quantity might be in excess of 400 million board feet per year,
that when Congress doesn't fund that level, what does that mean to
say Congress doesn't fund that level? What - what is the funding
used for?
Number 700
MR. CAPLAN: Okay, perhaps I could ask Gary to talk just a little
bit about the roading situation. I will say that - that roads and
other infrastructure are built from - from two sources. One is the
- one is money passed to us by Congress for that express purpose
and another case is purchaser credit is allowed wherein the - the
contractor builds the roads and then receives credit for those
because it's in the public interest. So, Gary...
Number 745
MR. MORRISON: I'm a very poor one to answer this because I don't
really deal directly with the KPC contract. The northern part of
the Tongass had the APC contract which no longer exists so I guess
I - I don't feel in a very good position to do that -- I don't know
anyone here that - that could talk very well, other - other than
Troy, about that (indisc.-laughter).
MR. CAPLAN: Troy is free to comment while some of the rest of us
are not free to comment.
MR. MORRISON: I don't know I guess would ask Bob Maynard, our OGC
attorney if - if he has anything relative to the terms of the
contract that might help answer the question of Representative
Davies.
Number 787
BOB MAYNARD, LEGAL COUNSEL, U.S. FOREST SERVICE: Let me get to the
microphone here. I'm Bob Maynard. I'm legal counsel for the
Forest Service up here in Alaska and these folks aren't just hiding
the ball for the fun of it or otherwise being evasive. We have
major litigation with Ketchikan Pulp Company that's pending. We
have major litigation with environmental groups over KPC offerings
where we're trying to deliver volume to KPC in which contract
volume issues come up, so they're just constrained from commenting
on contract volume and things - and a lot of things about the
contract. We've got over $300 million in claims pending against
the government from KPC right now. The contract has provisions
about road building - it doesn't require the Forest Service to
build roads - is the way I would characterize the contract on road
building and the KPC contract, like other Forest Service contracts,
provides for what we call purchaser credit for road building. I
think the rest of your question dealt with appropriations and
timber pipeline and that's really not so much a legal question -
it's just a matter of -- I really think it's for someone else to
answer if they can.
MR. CAPLAN: I would suggest maybe Fred. You've had a lot of
familiarity with budget over the last seven years. Do you have any
comments?
Number 849
MR. NORBURY: Yeah, the -- our budget comes fairly tightly
constrained. We're not free to use the money we get for whatever
we want. It comes in - in separate appropriation fund codes and
their purpose is established for which it can be used. So we get
a set amount of money that we can use for - for timber sale
preparation. We use that and we use all of it. And that -- the
way that amount gets set varies from year to year it's - it's - as
Congress keeps changing the budget process and as the appropriation
committees take a different degree of interest in the Tongass.
Some years they have specified this is the amount of money we want
to go to Alaska and this is the volume we're expecting to get for
that. In other years, they've simply provided money to the Forest
Service and let the Forest Service Washington office -- provide
timber money to the Washington office of the Forest Service and let
the Forest Service decide how that money ought to be distributed
amongst the various parts of the country. I don't think, though
that -- in my own mind, I don't see a tie between that and the
contract question though cause I -- I -- I don't think anyone's
argued that we've had insufficient funds to satisfy the - our legal
requirements under the contract. That issue hasn't come up. Does
that get at what you wanted?
Number 917
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES: Well -- so in my taking your question that
-- that with respect to the congressional appropriation -- your
answer to the question with respect to congressional appropriation
to say that that money is predominately used in the - in the
preparation of sales and I presume that means for things like doing
the assessments of how much volume's out there, preparing the
documents, doing surveys, salaries - that's what that
appropriation's used for and if the appropriation is lower, you
just simply can't physically do the work that would be required to
put out more millions of board feet on the table....
MR. NORBURY: That's -- that's absolutely correct and there are
lags involved in the process too. It takes us about three years to
prepare a timber sale from the time we start. So we -- it takes
appropriations over several years in order to get a timber sale
completely prepared. If -- when the appropriations available for
preparing timber sales go down, some timber sale preparation work
will be postponed - take longer to get done.
Number 961
MR. MORRISON: So for someone like me, on - on the ground, the
money that we get in timber each year that - that Fred's referring
to - some of that goes to do on-the-ground reconnaissance for
finding out where the timber is that - that we want to seek to make
available. Some of it goes to writing environmental documents to
satisfy all of the - the legal needs for making the timber
available. Then some of that money goes to laying out the timber
sales on the ground - marking the sales themselves - as well as
doing the design and survey for where roads will be located. Then
those sales are then either offered to KPC as a long-term contract
offering or they're advertising and sold as an independent timber
sale. And there's some costs that we incur associated with that -
preparing an appraisal and doing the crews and going through all of
the work to - to precisely identify how much timber is being sold
out there. And then some of the money is then used to administer
the sale and that's engineers making sure that the roads are built
correctly and in the right locations and meet environmental
standards. It goes to foresters who are administering the timber
sale to make sure that the correct timber is - is harvested and
it's harvested in the correct way. And then additional timber
money at the end goes to close out and rehabilitate sites and close
roads and so forth. And then there - following that, there is
additional timber that's available for post-sale activities
including reforestation and timber thinning and so forth that occur
a number of years later. So it stretches out over a whole lot of
years and as Fred says, money comes in - in different pots and -
and we have to make the decision of how much of that's going toward
the planning, toward the execution and toward the post-sale work.
So it spreads out over the - a number of years for any given sale
and it's all dependent on how much Congress gives us and comes down
through the Washington office and the Regional office here in
Juneau out to the forest and then we make the call as to how to
spread that money to get the biggest bang for the buck.
Number 1083
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES: I have one follow-up. What would be your
estimate of the sort of average annual appropriation from Congress
for these purposes....
MR. NORBURY: It's running - it's running about $15 million a
year...
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES: How much?
MR. NORBURY: About 15 million.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES: One five.
MR. NORBURY: Yes, one five. It's 12 to 15. It's - it - that's a
direct timber sale money. Some years there's some additional money
on top of that for roads. That - that - that - the money we've
been getting for roads has been going down significantly and it's -
will probably continue to go down if current trends continue.
Number 1115
MR. CAPLAN: We also receive additional monies that are used in
support of - of timber programs from time to time. Fred's
referring to the - the large body of monies for that purpose.
So...
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES: Would this -- and this includes the
independent sales as well.
MR. NORBURY: Yes, it does. Yes. We -- we fund both -- both the
contract -- long-term contract and independent sales out of that.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES: Thank you.
Number 1136
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: I recognize you can't control lawsuits,
appeals or the amount of funding you will receive for the timber
program. However, they do occur as in the past 15 years history
has so amply demonstrates. If you are unable to improve the
performance, what would the effect be of the draft preferred
alternative on the timber industry today?
Number 1160
MR. CAPLAN: First of all, I would say that - that our attempt to
get the plan completed is an attempt to - to improve our
performance with respect to litigation. Second of all, although it
may not appear so from media accounts, we win more than we lose in
terms of litigation. Unfortunately, even when we win it slows us
down. And then the third -- yeah -- and then the third thing is
that it's again something that's highly speculative if we try to
say (indisc.-tape garbled) litigation could have effect on the
preferred alternative because we -- it's simply not predictable.
Number 1194
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: I'm going to tie three questions together
here. Do you consider pulp based products such as those produced
at the KPC facility, to be value added? And without KPC facility
to process the lower quality wood into pulp based products, what
would be the likely use of this material?
Number 1217
MR. CAPLAN: Beth, do you have anything on that? I - I would say
that any -- any activity that manufacturers wood fiber into another
form adds value to that fiber. And there are many, many forms of
that and I believe many people lately, including the Forest
Service, has talked about what would be the way to generate the
most value from the wood fiber as it passed through Ketchikan or
any of the smaller communities. And so, yes they are adding value.
We would also ask down the road, what -- how could we do that
better and therefore, if the Forest Service continues on with its
forest management program as it is, we will have a need to utilize
low grade material to manufacture that low grade material in some
form and are very interested in what people propose in that regard
- what the business community is interested in doing. Beth, I
don't know if you had anything to add to that.
Note: The response is inaudible.
Number 1275
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: What would you do with the -- the wood
quality that isn't good for sawmills and this sort -- what would
you suggest that if the pulp mill goes away -- what would happen to
that pulp?
MR. CAPLAN: We -- the utility grade material -- a lot of people
have talked about different ideas about how to use that and again,
I -- I would be very interested in what the business community
could see - foresee the use of it. The Forest Service can create
the opportunity but doesn't necessarily have the - you know - the
means - the mechanism to use it. We recently have asked our forest
products laboratory people, and the Forest Service maintains
through its research branch, the forest products laboratory in
Madison, Wisconsin. Many people know it because it was the source
of the glue lam beam (ph) that you see in so many churches and
large institutions. That was a large time ago. Those folks are
quite a powerhouse of public, private ventures to explore the use
of wood fiber products. We've had them travel through Southeast
Alaska and meet with many people up here and others have - have
provided information - I believe UAF has also participated - I'm
not positive - but the net effect of this is to offer a range of
choices about how to - to use wood fiber and the business community
has - can look at those and others of which they're knowledgeable
and make some decisions and proposals. We're open to that
discussion any time.
Number 1350
MR. MORRISON: I guess, Mr. Chairman, the short answer to that
question would be that we would not allow timber harvesting on the
national forest that would not utilize the low grade pulp material.
It would have to be removed in any timber sale that we would make
so if KPC was no longer in existence, we would either expect that
there would be some other business in Southeast Alaska or elsewhere
in Alaska that would take that material or it would have to be
exported in one form or another to a facility somewhere else
because we wouldn't allow it to lay in the woods.
Number 1387
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Chipping would certainly take a lot less...
MR. MORRISON: Chipping's a possibility. That would meet the
export requirement and they could then export it to - down to
Canada or to the Lower 48 or whatever. That's not been done a lot
but that - that is a possibility.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: You'd be exporting jobs.
MR. MORRISON: That's correct.
MR. CAPLAN: Certainly things like co-generation are a possibility
- pelletizing - there's many choices.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Okay, well if there's no other questions
from committee members, I'd like to thank you for coming and
hopefully that -- Representative Elton.
Number 1431
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Not really a question
but a request perhaps given I'm somewhat intrigued by the notion
that - that we can read the contract but we can't - can't get
questions answered about the contract. I'm assuming that means
that - that - that what's on paper is okay to talk about but what
it means is - is maybe -- creates more a difficult problem. So,
I'm not a member of the committee - I would appreciate it if I
could get a copy of the contract (indisc.). Mr. Chairman, an
additional comment. We appreciate the way the meeting proceeded
(indisc.) somewhat concerned that that cathartic part at the
beginning where everybody gets everything off their chest was going
to -- was going to taint, perhaps the rest of the meeting. I - I -
I appreciate the moving toward the (indisc.) production and some of
the other issues that are - are more contract related. I guess at
the beginning of the meeting I was somewhat concerned that by
demonizing(ph.) whether it's Republicans or Democrats or the
President or the Governor or members of the delegation, doesn't -
doesn't really get us any place. And - and - and demonizing the
Forest Service was maybe especially painful because I grew up in a
Forest Service family. I - I picnicked at Auke Rec with them and
at Dredge Lake with them and I - I know that the -- I did that in
the 1960s when the expectations of the Forest Service were much
different than the expectations now. And the solutions that the
Forest Service has been told to find are - are very, very difficult
because they're now dealing with subsistence issues, they're now
dealing with (indisc.) issues, they're now dealing with fishing
issues that - that weren't up there before. And just as it's -
would be extremely difficult for a lot of people in this room to
swallow if they - if I was told to write the solution for the
Tongass - I mean - I can tell you that it would scare the hell out
of a lot of people in the room perhaps, because - because - and I
wouldn't want the job -- I mean trying to balance what Gustavus
expects or what some components in Gustavus expect versus what some
people in Wrangell expect or people in (indisc.-paper shuffling)
expect or people in Ketchikan expect -- I mean it's - it's very,
very difficult. We're just talking about communities now. If we
start talking about the different people that are making money off
of the forest, it becomes even more complicated. And - and I
appreciate the work that not just the Forest Service has put into
this but KPC and some of the communities. I'm - I'm encouraged
that we now know - maybe we found out too late - but we now know
that perhaps the best solution comes through meetings like this and
through (indisc.-coughing) process - whatever process is going to
evolve with TLMP and - and we can't expect those solutions to come
from a federal judge because we don't know what the decisions are
going to be that a federal judge makes and - and I'm much more
comfortable having the professionals that are around this table and
in this room coming up with those solutions. So - so, I guess to
get to the point, Mr. Chair, I appreciate the way the meeting
turned out and -and I do recognize the cathartic value sometimes of
pointing the finger and shaking and - and demonizing and
scapegoating, but I - I appreciate your efforts to get us back on
track and talk about production and - and I think that other things
we probably need to talk about are markets, science and research,
and some of the other things. So - so just a thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Number 1420
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Thank you, gentlemen.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you, sir.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: We'll next hear from Southeast Conference.
Please state your name for the record.
Number 1692
BERNE MILLER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SOUTHEAST CONFERENCE: Good
afternoon, Mr. Chairman, member of the committee, my name is Berne
Miller and I'm the Executive Director of Southeast Conference, a
private nonprofit regional development organization that works to
help create strong economies, healthy communities and a quality
environment in Southeast Alaska. On behalf of the board of
directors, I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify today
on the Tongass Land Management Plan revision documents now out for
public comment. As you know, for the past year Southeast
Conference has been an active participant in the TLMP revision
process. Our fundamental interest has been and is, in seeing the
regional forester implement a forest plan that does no unnecessary
economic or social harm to the people and communities of Southeast
Alaska. To that end, we've engaged the Forest Service in a
continuing dialogue about what should be done during the revision
process and what a good outcome from the process would be. In the
past few weeks, we've learned that errors and omissions have been
discovered in the assumptions, data and analytical methods on which
materials now out before the public for review and comment have
been based. Our understanding is that, that as a result, the
projected economic allowable sale quantity may be overstated by as
much as 25 percent for all alternatives included in the draft
revised supplement to the draft environmental impact statement. We
have been unable to get definitive details on the nature and
magnitude of the problem but our understanding is that errors and
omissions have been discovered in the following areas: Impact of
new standards and guidelines understated; impact of visual reserves
understated; impact of small habitat conservation areas
understated; impact of watershed constraints understated; impact of
large habitat conservation area reallocations understated;
incorrect second growth rotation age assumption; impact of two-age
management regime omitted, although we may have heard that that's
been corrected since; impact of potential landless Natives claims
settlement omitted; and amount of suitable forest land overstated.
These errors and omissions, compounded with other inaccuracies we
have identified in the Forest Service's timber supply analysis,
could result in actual timber harvest as much as 40 percent below
the ceiling at which the Forest Service seems poised to set the
allowable sale quantity. Some people have suggested that the
problem we have identified doesn't exist, that the people of
Southeast Alaska have nothing to fear. But if reality unfolds in
the way our analysis suggests, it will sound the death knell for
people and communities in Southeast Alaska who depend on the timber
industry for their economic and social health and well-being. And
even if we're wrong, published Forest Service figures still state
that as many as one-third of existing timber industry jobs could
disappear under the draft preferred alternative. Let me turn for
a moment to the public participation process. Southeast
Conference, along with many other people, has urged that everyone
in Southeast Alaska become knowledgeable about what the Forest
Service proposes to do and that everyone tell the Forest Service
what they think about it. Affording people an opportunity for
informed, intelligent involvement in public decision making is what
public participation is all about. For people to be well informed
so they may make intelligent decisions and comments, they must be
provided accurate, reliable information to read and review.
Because of the errors and omissions enumerated above, the public
has been provided inaccurate and unreliable information and the
16,000 or more comments the Forest Service has received to date
have been in response to inaccurate and incomplete information. We
think this situation makes for bad public process. We hold,
therefore, that the Forest Service should withdraw their draft
documents, correct them and reissue the documents for another full
round of public review and comment. If the Forest Service believes
they cannot do this and must go to final quickly, then the Forest
Service should offer the -- should offer the final EIS and forest
plan for a significant period of public review and comment before
implementation. Either of these steps would afford the public
accurate information for intelligent review and comment. One or
the other is necessary for the kind of informed public partition --
participation we and others advocate and that is required by Forest
Service regulation. To touch but briefly on a related matter -
Southeast Conference has long maintained the Forest Service should
have prepared a detailed socioeconomic analysis of the impacts of
each TLMP alternative on every one of the communities in Southeast
Alaska. And we had discussions with Forest Service people to that
end early last year. The Forest Service did include an analysis of
impacts at the regional level but gave our people and communities
little and contradictory information about what might happen to
them closer to home. Months ago, we suggested to the Forest
Service what a good socioeconomic analysis ought to contain.
Today, just for the record, I have provided another example, a
community-by-community analysis of the impacts of another forest
plan conducted by the University of Idaho at the request of the
Idaho State legislature. Mr. Chairman, simply correcting and
reissuing TLMP documents seems like a simple, common sense way to
fix the problems most everyone seems to agree are there to one
degree or another. But the world very rarely works in simple,
common sense ways. The Forest Service will probably make some
adjustments and plow ahead to a decision. And that brings me full
circle to where I started. Southeast Conference thinks the
regional forester should select a TLMP alternative that brings no
economic or social harm to the people and communities of Southeast
Alaska. Southeast Conference thinks that - that until errors and
omissions are expunged from TLMP documents and the public has been
given accurate information for review and comment, the regional
forester should select that alternative most likely to result in
actual harvest of the - about 300 million board feet a year that
most people seem to agree is the minimum needed to sustain our
people and communities. Our analysis shows that actual harvest may
fall as much as 32 percent short of the computed economic ASQ for
all alternatives now before the public. The only alternative
presently on the table likely to be given serious consideration and
that has any probability of doing no harm to the people and
communities of Southeast Alaska is Alternative 2 and Southeast
Conference recommends the regional forester select and implement
that alternative. Thank you.
Number 2166
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Thank you. Are there any questions from
committee members? You touched on the Southeast Conference's
socioeconomic issues, did you review any of the - again, did you
review any of the analyses done by the Forest Service?
MR. MILLER: Yes, we looked quite closely at information that was
released for public review and comment. And I do have to say that
- that the analysis at the regional level is more detailed and more
comprehensive than - than what the Forest Service has done in the
past. The - the community-by-community analysis doesn't have much
more in it than was in it the last round and - and talks only in
very general qualitative terms about what the impacts on each
community are likely to be.
Number 2234
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Along those same lines, I note that the
assessment panel did - that did the socioeconomic analysis finds
that there is no change in the jobs and industries whether the
timber harvest volume goes up or down. Is it -- is that credible
in your opinion?
MR. MILLER: When in my statement I - I alluded to contradictory
information as we heard described earlier, in the regional
analysis, the Forest Service's model indicates that - that
employment in other sectors of Southeast's economy are relatively
unaffected by the level of activity in the timber industry. In the
community-by-community analysis where they - they look at - at
qualitative assessment of impacts on employment in a couple of
areas and several other factors in general and in some cases
significantly, there are different results. The two don't
necessarily agree. So there isn't always a correspondence between
the regional analysis and the community-by-community analysis.
Number 2330
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Another area that I am - which I am
concerned in TLMP is whether or not the public has been fairly
treated. By that I mean whether a person is more development -- is
for more development or against more development on the Tongass,
the TLMP revision should adequately inform the public of the plan
the Forest Service plans to follow. Only by proceeding this -- in
this way, can the public meaningfully comment on the TLMP revision.
In your opinion, did the TLMP revision adequately inform the
(indisc.-tape garbled) the Forest Service intends to follow? Could
you list any ways in which you believe it does not?
Number 2415
MR. MILLER: I think that -- it's hard to say because it depends on
how you come at - at answering the question. Certainly, the public
was provided a - a great deal of information over the - over the
course of - of the public comment period. The public was given a -
a lot of opportunities to - to register written and verbal comments
in - in visits in almost every community in Southeast Alaska that
the Forest Service conducted. Yet the information that was before
the public - it is our belief - was not necessarily accurate.
TAPE 96-80, SIDE A
Number 001
MR. MILLER: ...and the Forest Service has an obligation to to - in
the final as a part of the I believe as what's published is a part
of the final respond to all of the comments that have been offered.
So we're gonna -- we should see responses to 16,000 some odd
comments by the time we're finished. In that respect, whether the
comments will had been dealt with or glossed over or ignored or
explained the way, we'll have to wait and see.
Number 057
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: I won't ask you the 23 percent figure, but
we heard the Forest Service's explanation. But I will ask should
the public be advised of the add backs and take aways in the plan?
MR. MILLER: From what's - what's appeared in the press and public
discussion, I don't think there is a lot of real information out
there about whether -- what we're hearing about are are - is the
result of normal refining and checking as a part of the process or
whether there are truly serious errors inside the analysis and
particularly inside the models. We certainly haven't been able to
find out for sure. Because that's been fairly widely known for a
couple of weeks now, that certainly ought to be very carefully
explained, at minimum, in whatever the Forest Service puts out in
the final. As I said in my statement, our preference would be that
- that all of those errors and missions be taken care of and the
draft reissued so that we get a look at real alternatives, if you
will, because an alternative that may be as much as 25 percent
incorrect - inaccurate, characterize it how you will, is a little
discomforting.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Are there any more - are there any questions
from the committee members on teleconference or here? Do you wish
to make any other comments?
Number 186
MR. MILLER: One thing that has been a question you've asked
several times is about Guy Cellier and Kathleen Morse's memo about
socioeconomic analysis, something that Forest Service certainly
knows is being very important to Southeast Conference over the
course of the last year. And Kathleen and Guy and I sat together
for probably half a day early last year talking about how a good
analysis of the effects on the communities of Southeast Alaska
ought to be done. And we talked about visits, polls, television
programs, all sorts of different tools that - that on the front end
of the process would do two things, would learn about the
communities and then would ask the communities what's the -- how
does the Forest Service and how does the forest fit into your
community and how should the impacts on your community be assessed?
What do you think? And then fold that into the socioeconomic
process and then go back to the communities at the end and say
here's what our analysis shows is likely to happen. What do you
think about that? And we've analyzed that in a way that makes
sense to you in the community. I don't recall specifically the
1995 memo that you've referred to, but I do know that - that a lot
of what we had talked about is possibilities for the way in
analysis ought to go didn't happen and I was quite optimistic at
that time that it would because it seemed like a good way to
approach it -- ask people how they're involved, what they think is
gonna happen to them and how they want that determined and that to
us is good public participation.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Representative Davies.
Number 313
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES: Well, I thought I heard someone
representing the Forest Service say that there was some aspects of
this economic analysis that were continuing, as we speak, as a
result of my guess on the discussions at the congressional level.
Did you hear it that way and are these part of the things that
you're concerned about? And if those were completed, how much
would that address the things that you think are left?
Number 347
MR. MILLER: I heard it that way. We're hopeful that a lot of
effort will go into that. You may or may not know that one of the
things we did with the Forest Service was McDowell Group gave us a
suggestion for - for how a good socioeconomic analysis ought to be
done. Told us it was time consuming and expensive and we sent it
on to the Forest Service and said this is sort of what your
analysis ought to look like. One of the things that McDowell
pointed out was, as somebody else said, was we don't have a good
baseline on large parts of our economy. We don't know how it
works. Tourism is one thing that people have talked because it's
new, it's growing and the interrelations between timber harvest and
how many tourist come is not very well understood. That's why the
effort that McDowell laid out was both big and expensive because
the first step is to develop that baseline and that understanding.
And once you develop a sufficient understanding of how that works
in the relations to other parts of the economy, then you can build
the kind of input output models that already exist for some parts
of the economy and get a very good look at projecting what's likely
to happen given all aspects of the forest plan. I don't know that
that's what the Forest Service is doing. I sure would like it if
they were because I think that's what's necessary. It doesn't
exist. It's never been done for Southeast.
Number 455
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Are there any more questions from committee
members? Thank you, thank you. Next we'll have Mr. Rey.
Number 492
MARK REY, PROFESSIONAL STAFF, U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND
NATURAL RESOURCES: Good afternoon.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Good afternoon.
MR. REY: I appreciate the opportunity to offer a brief statement
on behalf of Senator Murkowski who chairs the Senate Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources. I will review the committee's and
Alaska delegation's recent activities in two areas. First, I'll
discuss efforts underway to provide a legislative extension to the
50-year timber sale contract between the Ketchikan Pulp Corporation
and the U.S. Forest Service. Second, I will review the committee's
and the delegation's oversight of the Forest Service's development
of the Tongass Land Management Plan. I want to begin by commending
your leadership, Mr. Chairman, in helping top develop a strong
bipartisan majority of both the Alaska Senate and House of
Representatives to recommend an extension of the KPC contract. In
response to your efforts, the efforts of the Alaska Senate, those
of the Governor, and the Alaska congressional delegation introduced
S. 1877, the Environmental Improvement Timber Contract Extension
Act of 1996, on June 13th. The bill extends the KPC contract for
an additional 15 years and modifies the contract to offset the
negative effects that have occurred as a consequence of the
unilateral contract changes made in the Tongass Timber Reform Act
of 1990. The extension is needed to allow for the amortization of
more than $175 million of capital expenditures to bring KPC into
compliance with with environmental requirements. The bill imposes
conditions set forth by the Governor for the contract extension.
The contracts changes are designed to reverse some deleterious
changes to the bilateral contract made in 1990. These 1990 changes
have reduced operability of the contract, are the subject of damage
claims filed, and in some cases, already secured by KPC, and may be
found unlawful. On July 1 of this year, the supreme court in a
decision, U.S. V WINSTAR CORPORATION, held that neither the
government generally, nor the Congress specifically, can use
Sovereign Act authority to absolve itself from any liability
incurred as a consequence of unilaterally modifying a contract with
another party. Without the contracting changes included in S.
1877, including a requirement that liability associated with the
1990 changes cease upon enactment, the government may eventually be
found liable for damage claims in excess of $300 million. S. 1877,
and a companion measure in the House, have been fully heard by the
relevant Senate and House committees. When Congress resumes in
September, we will be pursuing every available avenue to secure
passage of S. 1877. Unified bipartisan support from Alaska will be
required to convince the President to sign the bill. While the
Clinton Administration has testified in opposition to the measure
as introduced, we have already made some changes and are prepared
to work further with the Forest Service and the Administration to
produce a bill that responds to their concerns while protecting the
economy of Ketchikan. Now let me turn to the oversight of the
ongoing Tongass Land Management Planning process. As you know,
Congress has historically played a larger role in the management of
the Tongass National Forest than any other national forest in the
system. Separate pieces of legislation addressing management on
the Tongass passed in both 1980 and 1990, created specific
statutory obligations for the Tongass that do not occur in other
national forests. At the same time, management on the Tongass must
still meet the requirements of the more generic National Forest
Management Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered
Species Act and other relevant federal land management and
environmental statutes. Consistent with this larger congressional
role in the management of the Tongass, our oversight of the TLMP
process over the last two years has been detailed and extensive.
Some 14 separate pieces of correspondence have been transmitted
from the delegation to the Administration, the department or the
Forest Service concerning TLMP matters since early 1995. Since the
draft TLMP was first released earlier this summer by the Forest
Service, we have had three oversight hearings on the draft plan.
These hearings occurred on April 18th, in Washington, D.C., and on
May 28th and 29th, in Ketchikan and here in Juneau, respectively.
I have before me the transcripted testimony from the oversight
hearings to sort of serve as mute evidence of our interest in how
the TLMP process has proceeded. As you can see by the size of the
pile, we've delved pretty deeply into the TLMP process. And I'd
like to be able to say that our oversight has concluded with the
draft TLMP is in full accordance with the statutes governing
management of the Tongass specifically, as well as the public lands
and environmental statutes, generally. Regrettably, this is not
the case as we have uncovered a series of significant problems
associated with both with the process used to develop the draft
plan, as well as the substance embodied in the plan alternatives,
including the preferred alternative. Most recently, our problems
with the draft plan were summarized in an August 15 letter to the
Secretary, co-signed by the three members the Alaska delegation.
I will submit this letter for the record of your hearing and
summarize. In short, we registered serious concerns with the
recent revelations that there would be a fall-down in the allowable
sale quantity in all plan alternatives as a consequence of failure
to properly account for forest-wide standards and guidelines and
accurately collaborate the implementation of some forest-wide
models. But apart from that most recent revelations concerning the
fall-down in the ASQ, we also apprised the Secretary of four
categories of failings that our oversight has uncovered. First, we
raised several concerns with the process used to develop the TLMP
and questioned whether that process follows all of the NFMA
planning regulations and NEPA public disclosure and comment
requirements. In our view, it does not for reasons that are
outlined in the letter to the Secretary. The recent revelations
about the fall-down in ASQ and subsequent modifications that may
occur between the draft and the final plan only heighten our
concerns about compliance with National Forest Management Act and
NEPA public involvement requirements. We are doubtful that the
public will have had a meaningful opportunity to offer their views
in a informed manner. Second, we raised concerns about the
applicability of the island biogeographic/habitat conservation area
model on the Tongass. This model for wildlife habitat viability
was not validated for Southeast Alaska and appears to be applied on
the Tongass in ways that are highly disputable. We do not accept
the Forest Service's rationale that this type of approach is
mandated by the species viability requirements of the National
Forest Management Act. Indeed, this approach is only one of
several alternatives to meeting species viability obligations that
that agency could choose. True this approach has been ratified by
a district court judge sitting in this judicial circuit, and would
likely be ratified by the Ninth Circuit. However, the Fifth
Circuit has ratified a far different approach to maintaining
species viability that the Forest Service in the Lake States has
embraced and is in many ways similar to the approach of the
previous 1992 draft TLMP. The dispute among the circuits affords
the Administration much more flexibility in selecting an
appropriate conservation plan than the Forest Service is exhibiting
on the Tongass or has evinced today. Third, we raised serious
concerns, as have you, about the inadequacy of the socioeconomic
impact analysis that has been performed to date. In our view, it
does not meet the standards of either the National Forest
Management Act or the Tongass Timber Reform Act. Fourth, during
the course of our oversight we have been apprised of a wide number
of these problems by past and current TLMP team members. This
series of revelations by agency experts involved in the process is
both significant and unique in our experience with land management
planning. For example, after our May hearings in Juneau, we
received a June 7th, 196 - 1996 submission by a former TLMP team
member sighting eight NEPA regulatory violations, a Tongass Timber
Reform Act and an ANILCA violation and 22 separate NFMA regulatory
violations. These are matters of personal opinion in some cases,
but nevertheless are significant from the standpoint of information
coming from within the agency and from its own employees. We have
apprised the Secretary that the Alaska delegation is taking the
view that TLMP fits within the definition of a major rule under the
1996 amendments to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, P.L. 104-121
passed by Congress and signed by the President this past March.
Thus, we are assuming and we expect that the department will submit
the final Tongass Land Management Plan to Congress to provide us
with the 60 statutorily mandated session days to evaluate the plan
and decide whether to endorse it or pass a resolution rejecting it
for the President's consideration. The 1996 Act precludes the
final plan from taking effect until the requisite session days have
expired. We have, however, heard one persuasive rationale for why
the agency needs a final TLMP on a more expedited basis. That is
incorporated in the Administration's July 10, 1996, testimony
before us that it could not contemplate S. 1877 or similar
legislation to extend the KPC contract without a final TLMP to
evaluate the contract extension against. You've heard similar
testimony today. Consequently, in - in the August 15th delegation
letter to Secretary Glickman, we offer to consider condoning the
agency going forward with a interim final document so that the
Administration would have the information necessary to evaluate a
KPC contract proposal if we succeed in passing a bill to send to
the President for his consideration. Under these circumstances,
the delegation might countenance a new selected alternative as an
interim final TLMP with a mutually agreeable comment period to
provide a fair opportunity for informed public review. This is an
option that we believe fairly responds to the Administration's
testimony on the contract extension, as well as provides a basis
for closing on a TLMP that meets all of the Agency's statutory and
regulatory obligations and strikes a fair balance for the country
and the people of Southeast Alaska. Once again, I appreciate the
opportunity to testify today and I'd be happy to respond as best I
can to your committee's questions.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: We have any questions? Representative
Davies.
Number 1201
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES: Do we - do we have a copy of the letter to
the Secretary?
MR. REY: No, we'll submit that to you for the record.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES: I would like to get that. And if I might
one other question. What is your understanding of what an interim
final TLMP would be? Does that then eventually have to be
submitted for the 60 day evaluation by Congress would it, you know,
become final prior to that?
MR. REY: An interim final rule, under the Administrative
Procedures Act, is a mechanism to allow an agency to put a
regulatory scheme in place, but then to consider comments on it,
contemplate further changes of it and then to eventually
incorporate those changes ultimately in a final rule or in this
case a final plan. During the pendency of that process, the
interim final plan would remain in a force and effect. It would
essentially be the plan under which the Tongass would be managed,
pending the receipt of persuasive comments to make changes. It's
unclear since the law is so new whether a interim final rule would
be subject to the 1996 Regulatory Flexibility Act amendments. Our
view, as a delegation, is that if the - if the Administration
wanted to work with us on such a compromise, we could probably find
a way perhaps through legislation this year to make it clear that
the interim final rule shouldn't be so treated pending the public
comments that would be received and hopefully evaluated pursuant to
the - to whatever changes would be made, development of a final
rule which would then be subject to the 1996 Act.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Are there any other questions from committee
members? Is anybody on teleconference that has any questions? Are
you still there? Probably out having lunch.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Indisc.) still here.
Number 1323
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you. I'm particularly concerned
whether the socioeconomic study fully informs the public of the
impacts of each alternative upon their communities. Do you have
any comments on this?
Number 1338
MR. REY: I think the testimony that we received in the hearing in
Juneau strongly suggests that the analysis that is presently
available to the public does not provide that information and that
in the Juneau testimony, which was referenced earlier, Ms. Morse
outlined several additional layers of analysis that could and would
presumably be conducted, but those are ongoing and the public will
not have the opportunity to evaluate those and assess whether they
enjoy the same assumptions that the Forest Service used until after
the plan is final and the issue moot under the agencies current
schedule. We were told by Ms. Morse that that analysis is under
way, have no reason to believe it's not, but I think the issue here
is not whether that analysis will ultimately be done, eventually it
will be obvious to everyone as the impacts occur. But the question
here is when is that analysis done and is it being done in a timely
fashion that allows people to offer comments about their specific
situations and, at present, the answer to that question is no.
Number 1397
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Okay. You've heard the discussion about the
23 percent number from the Forest Service meaning that some of the
matters have been added back in the plan and increased the ASQ.
Some matter have been taken out of ASQ and reduces the ASQ. Can
you describe for the committee the - what these shifts are? In
your opinion, does the public need to have an opportunity to
comment on these changes?
Number 1429
MR. REY: I think that Mr. Miller accurately summarized the changes
that - that we have become generally aware of through the
information mill, such that it exists. The series of adds and
deletions that he described are very similar to what I have heard
and jotted down in the conversations that provided that
information. I think it's imperative in many respects that the
public have the opportunity to review those because I think some of
them go to the heart of what will drive litigation over the final
plan particularly where you're switching activity around within the
forest to net out some of these effects. You're going to be
harvesting in areas that people presently may assume no harvesting
will occur in and when they see that that's changed in the context
of a final plan, on which their comments will no longer have a
great deal of relevance, they will most likely want to bring that
to whatever - to the forum that's then available to them which is
the courts or the appeals process. And that - that seems to me to
be an undesirable outcome. I think it'd be far better, given the
kinds of changes and the magnitude of the changes that we're
talking about, to give the public another comment process to be
able to deal directly and in an informal way with the Forest
Service to try to sort out and maybe, hopefully, net out although
I'm doubtful that that can occur - the changes that are being made.
Let me offer another piece of information that I think is
pertinent. Generally speaking, I agree with the agency's testimony
to the effect that these sorts of adjustments and validations are
what you would expect to happen between the issuance of a draft and
the completion of a final land management plan. In that respect,
adjustments of this sort have occurred in most plans, but this plan
is -- the process that was used to develop this plan is in many
ways modeled after the President's Pacific Northwest Forest Plan
that affects the area west of Cascades in Oregon, Washington and
Northern California. Many of the techniques used, some of the
organization developments were very similar to the President's plan
which is called FEMAT. What we found in FEMAT was a significant
fall-down in ASQ, particularly in the first years that the plan was
to be implemented because of a failure to operationalize some of
the theories and techniques that were applied as forrest or in this
case region-wide land management restrictions. And so as a
consequence, FEMAT produced 20 percent of the promised ASQ in the
first year, no more than 30 percent in the second year and won't
become fully operational at about 80 percent of what they initially
said the ASQ would be until the fifth year of the plan. I think
it's important to note that - that the TLMP does not contain a ten
year timber sale action plan as most land management plans
historically have. So you have no way of knowing how much of the
ASQ is really achievable after these adjustments are made, one, and
whether that achievability is a decadel(ph) ability, meaning that
at some point later in the decade you'll get there or whether it's
achievable on year one of the implementation of this TLMP. And
that's of course a big difference to people who are dependent upon
those outputs because if they're only gonna get 20 or 30 percent of
the promised ASQ in the first or second year they may not be around
to enjoy the full fruit of the Forest Service's efforts five years
out. The second thing that's important is that because the ASQ or
the preferred alternative was, in our view, close to the bone, if
you will, of a number that would support the existing industries in
stalled capacity we questioned the agency closely about whether the
draft TLMP would be better than the draft FEMAT in terms of a fall-
down in ASQ once it was operationalized. And the testimony that we
received in the hearing in Washington, D.C., in April strongly
suggested that on the basis of superior information and the
experience gained through TLMP the fall-down wouldn't occur. There
was in fact a model implementation reduction factor plugged into
all of the alternatives to account for some of the adjustments that
are now occurring so that there wouldn't be a drop in ASQ between
the draft and the final. That filled us with some degree of
optimism based upon a comparison of our experience with FEMAT. Now
that optimism disappears because it appears that the same sort of
fluctuations and variability and ambiguity and remaining procedural
validation that would normally occur between a draft and final plan
is in fact occurring and that in all likelihood, we have a no
better prediction of what the real output will be with TLMP than we
did with FEMAT. In fact the numbers, like the 23 percent number
that are surfacing which as the Forest Service says and I agree may
or may not be the right number, are higher than the estimates that
were surfacing at this point in a comparable period in the
development of TLMP or the development of FEMAT.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Representative Nicholia
Number 1717
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA: Thank you Chairman Williams. My question
is about why wasn't there an action plan? And then my second
question was did you get any feedback from the U.S. Forest Service
on whether there is going to be a new comment period?
Number 1730
MR. REY: I don't know why there wasn't a timber sale action plan.
That's a question that we'll be asking the Forest Service as well.
It was something we didn't focus on in our previous hearings and
the answer to your second question is no, we haven't gotten a
response from the August 15th letter, but that's a pretty short
period of time so I wouldn't expect one this quickly.
Number 1750
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS: Any other questions? You've heard the
Forest Service talk about how they strongly oppose S. 1877 because
it undermines the Secretary of Agriculture. Could you talk a
little bit about the bill and the modifications that will take away
the - that will undermine the Secretary of Agriculture's authority?
Number 1765
MR. REY: Well I'm not - I mean I understand the sort of the
rhetoric behind the testimony. I have to confess that I don't
quite understand exactly what authorities we'd be taking away. The
contract -- I mean obviously we would be imposing Congress' will to
extend for an additional 15 years of contract that the agency may
not want to see extended or if, as its testimony indicates, would
prefer to extend on its own. The problem is the agency doesn't
have the authority statutorily to grant a 15 year contract
extension under the 1976 National Forest Management Act. The
longest contract that they can write is a ten year contract which
wouldn't necessarily be adequate to advertise the investments that
KPC is forced to make to come into compliance with its consent
decree with the Environmental Protection Agency. So I don't know
that we're taking away an authority that they have there so much as
providing one that they don't have. Insofar as the contract
modifications are concerned, the changes that we're making go to
the pricing and offering of timber and take us more or less back to
or at least closer to the bilateral contract that existed between
the company and the forest service prior to 1990. And if we pass
this bill and KPC applies for the extension and, therefore, agrees
to those terms even though they're not identical to the terms that
existed between 1990 and some cases they're more restrictive to the
company, then the company will have entered into a bilateral
contract. Absent that, there is a real question whether the
contract that exists today that Congress modified in 1990, will be
sustained by the courts as a constitutional exercise of
congressional authority. Now, I'm not trying to weaken the
government's position in a pending damages claim case. I expect
the government to defend the contract changes that Congress made in
1990, as well as they can, but much has changed since 1990, and
most specifically the supreme court has ruled most emphatically
within the last two months about whether what we did, that is we
the Congress did in 1990, was something that we have the authority
to do. And it seems that the supreme court said we don't. The
same congressional research service, American Law Division
attorneys that advised the 1990 Congress that they did have the
constitutional authority to make unilateral changes to the contract
have, at our request, reviewed the supreme courts decision in
Winstar. Their conclusion provided to us was that had Winstar
existed in 1990, their conclusions would have been 180 degrees
different than the ones that they offered to Congress at that time.
So I don't know that we're taking away any authority there that the
Forest Service will ultimately be sustained in exercising. I hope
if we are unable to fix this congressionally, to sort of rectify
the damage done by a past Congress that the government will prevail
because I don't think we want to see the taxpayers hit with that
kind of a bill. At the same time, I think we have an obligation,
given that the supreme court has ruled, to try to sort this out and
to correct it right now.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Representative Davies.
Number 1928
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES: Let me make sure I understand what you're
saying. If -- when you say rectify this, does that mean that if
this extension were to be offered under some simpler terms to 1977
and KPC were to apply for it and then the contract would be entered
into, would the $300 million claims disappear?
Number 1948
MR. REY: We would make as a requirement of the extension the cap
on damages so they would not carry into the future. These damages
have occurred. In some cases, the claims have been found valid and
have been awarded are continuing to occur and the preponderance of
them will occur over the course of the remaining term of the
contract. One of the requirements we will include in the
legislation is a simple finding that if the contract is extended
and - and on mutually agreed upon terms, which would occur if KPC
takes the extension. Prospective damages would be eliminated.
There wouldn't be any cause for those damages to occur because we'd
rectify the situation that caused them in the first place.
Number 1986
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: What in your opinion can state, legislature
or the communities in Southeast do to assist you in the passage of
1877.
Number 2003
MR. REY: Let me take the license of broadening the question
slightly and tell you what I think the delegation, the state and
the Administration together should do both to enhance the prospects
of a favorable resolution to the contract extension issue as well
as to bring us to closure on the Tongass land management planning
process. And there are three things that I think are worth doing.
I think first thing to do is to put aside the partisan debate. The
contract extension never has been or ever will be an all or nothing
proposition for the Alaska delegation. Legislating, as you know -
as all of you know, is a compromise between - reached between
engaged parties and that's what this legislation will be because
it's not gonna be different than - in that respect than any other
legislative effort. The problem is you can't engage parties that
are unwilling to talk and, at present, for the most part it seems
that the Administration is in that posture. I believe the
government - the Governor and the state have been helping and will
continue to help to try to move the Administration to becoming
engaged in trying to find out whether we can reach that compromise.
I have no reason nor do anybody in the delegation that has any
reason to question the sincerity there. It may not be successful.
The Administration in Washington may be responding to other
constituencies than Alaska residents. Clearly, the environmental
community - the national environmental groups, let me qualify that
by stating specifically national environmental groups, are in a
posture of not being willing to engage. We've met with them twice.
We've had to meet with the company once. I am relatively confident
the Governor has met with the Alaska affiliates of the groups as
well, but we haven't been able to get them to engage and if that's
the constituency that the Administration is gonna respond to then
we probably have a long road to hoe. The first thing think I think
is it's pointless to continue any partisan rhetoric. If we're
successful we're gonna be successful together. If we fail we can
engage in the blame placing later. It's something I hope we don't
have to do. I think the second thing that we can do together is to
be square with people of Southeast Alaska that the TLMP will
include some fundamental decisions that won't make everybody happy
about the future of Southeast Alaska. The relatively easy,
although at the time painful - painfully rot comprises that
accommodated everyone are passed. They passed in 1980, and to some
extend in 1990, and right now we have much more difficult
compromises to reach. To some extent, many aspects of the TLMP
methodology exacerbate the conflicts in decision making by
assumptions that there are inherent incompatibilities among uses of
the Tongass. For instance, our review of the socioeconomic expert
panel contains some evidence that many of the experts started from
the assumption that a plan alternative that involve more timber
harvesting as opposed to less were inherently in conflict with
tourism. There isn't a database to substantiate that as an
operating assumption and that just exacerbates the conflicts that
occur, but at the same time I don't think that that sort of broad
assurances, the tough choices, aren't going to happen are very
helpful. They're misleading and unhelpful. In that respect, the
deputy regional forester's analogy earlier to tires is laden with
an irony, that since I know Jim pretty well I sure he didn't
attend. I mean the quality of you tires is something that you
worry about after you have set a direction to travel in. You don't
worry about whether you have good tires or bad tires if you don't
know which way you're headed. And the TLMP is as fundamentally an
exercise in setting a direction to travel in for the next ten years
asking people to focus on the old TLMP versus the new TLMP as tires
of higher or lesser quality, in my view, cloaks the more
significant decisions that are being made. You know, Jim is
correct that the preferred alternative that's presently before the
public did not cause the economic dislocation that you spoke
eloquently about initially, but that doesn't obviate the reality
that the preferred alternative will ratify that economic
dislocation and send us in that - irrevocably in the direction of
that future to wit if we pick that alternative we are not
fundamentally going to open a saw mill in Wrangell and we're not
gonna have the volume of timber available to offer an opportunity
for processing in Sitka. I mean those are the things that we ought
to be focusing on for the public to help make this decision at
least as informed if no less painful. The third thing I think we
can do together is to try to avoid blaming the victim which is
something that is an experience that we draw from the Pacific
Northwest. Doctor Robert Lee(ph), a rural sociologist at the
University of Washington, has done a significant amount of research
about how the changes in Forest Service management as a consequence
of the prelude to in the adoption of the President's Pacific
Northwest Forest Plan played out in the rural communities of
Western Oregon, Washington and Northern California. And what he
shows is that as the conflict gets heated, there is a tendency to
blame the victim, that is the displaced workers in a sense
caricature them and demonize(ph) them. And if you were to go back
and look at a reasonable sampling of editorial cartoons from major
West Coast and East Coast daily newspapers during the height of the
spotted owl crises, I think you'd see evidence of that sort of
caricaturization occurring, and I think we're starting to see some
of the evidence of that here. It's something that we ought - we
have to guard against. For instance, we're beginning to see the
rumors that the people who - in Ketchikan who are supporting the
pulp mill's case for an extension are threatening people and prone
to violence on a widespread basis and I don't think there is any
basis for that other than - than perhaps an intent to caricature
some of the people and to start an exercise in blaming the victim.
Secondly, I think we're starting to see letters to the editor
blaming the company for the current state of affairs and I don't
see any utility to that either. I think that those are the sorts
of things that we have to together try to avoid participating in
and encourage the people of Southeast Alaska and all Alaskans to
avoid it as well. So those would be the three things that I'd
suggest. A long answer to a relatively simple question.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Do you have anything more that you'd like to
add or...
Number 2318
MR. REY: No, just thank you for your help so far and I hope
together we can bring these issues to a conclusion that if - if not
representing a consensus, at least represents closure. And I think
it may be that the consensus here is not something that is - that
is reachable on a broad scale basis. This may be one of those
exercises in governing where we have to make painful choices as
best we can as in your case elected officials and myself just staff
to elected official and move on, but I hope we can do that together
- Democrats and Republican working side-by-side.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Have any more comments from the committee
members or questions? Would you add like to add anything more?
Number 2347
MS. MAYER: Thank you for the opportunity and the forum and I think
it's been a real healthy discussion of interests and information.
I appreciate it. Thank you.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: Caplan.
MR. CAPLAN: I just appreciate everyone's remarks. I appreciate
the tolerance of the Chairman on the lengthy time we spent
sometimes replying to questions and I certainly agree that
management of the Tongass is a bipartisan effort, that we have to
work as hard as we can at achieving consensus, but at some point we
need to make a good clean decision and move on. Certainly, the
Forest Service, among all the parties involved, is perhaps the most
anxious to do that and we look forward to getting that done with
all of you. Thank you.
Number 2382
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS: I'd like to thank the committee members for
coming down, Representative Davies, Representative Nicholia and the
Representative committee members on teleconference. (Indisc.)
help, and especially the state - the Governor's office for coming
and helping us better understand and get his word out, and the
Forest Service for being here and especially you Mr. Rey. Thank
you for coming. With this, this committee stands adjourned at 1:25
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|