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.