August 10, 1998
Mr. Michael Dombeck, Chief
U.S.D.A. Forest Service
14th & Independence, SW
Washington, D.C. 20250
VIA Facsimile and U.S. mail
RE: Interested Party Comments on Request for Interim Relief for
Timber Sale Projects in Forest Service Region 10, Tongass National
Forest
Dear Chief Dombeck:
This letter is the Alaska Forest Association’s (AFA) interested party comments,
pursuant to 36 CFR Part 217, specifically 36 CFR §217.10(f)(3), on the July 31, 1998,
“Request for Interim Relief for Timber Sale Projects Pending Resolution of the
Tongass Land Management Plan Administrative Appeals,” signed and submitted by
Nathaniel Lawrence of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) on behalf of the
Southeast Alaska Conservation Council (SEACC) et al., hereinafter referred to as
“request for relief.” The request for relief seeks to halt implementation of
various timber sales pending a final decision on appeals of the Tongass Land Management
Plan revision of 1997.
AFA is the forest products industry trade association for Alaska and represents nearly 100
member companies doing business in the timber industry in Alaska and another 200 associate
member companies providing goods and services to the Alaska timber industry. AFA is both
interested in and would be directly affected if the Forest Service grants, either
partially or in its entirety, the “interim relief” requested in the
aforementioned letter.
As an essential part of AFA’s comments on the letter for relief, we incorporate by
reference AFA’s “Appeal of Record of Decision and Revised Supplemental Final
Environmental Impact Statement Regarding the Tongass Land Management Plan,” dated,
September 24, 1997 (previously submitted); and AFA’s letter of “Intervention in
Appeals filed on the Revised Tongass Land Management Plan, RSFEIS and ROD,” dated
November 8, 1997 (previously submitted).
The parties requesting interim relief make two requests. First, they request a stay of
activities on specified sales for which NEPA analysis has been completed and on which a
Record of Decision has been signed. Second, they request that a directive be issued
instructing Region 10 to proceed no farther on NEPA analysis and timber sale planning for
a list of specified sales which are part of the Region’s planned timber offerings for
the next two years.
1. Demand for Tongass timber It is clear that the request for relief is based upon
SEACC’s position that all other uses of the Tongass National Forest should be placed
ahead of timber production. Indeed, the balance between the various multiple uses of the
Tongass National Forest is clearly tipped in favor of non- development and non-consumptive
uses. The letter for relief seeks to remove any vestige of a remaining balance, and would
permanently and irreparably harm AFA and its member companies who depend upon purchasing
timber from the Tongass National Forest timber sale program.
SEACC’s approach, which would narrow the uses of the Tongass by severely limiting the
timber sale program, is contrary to the recommendations of the Governor’s Southeast
Regional Timber Task Force, on which the Forest Service participated in an advisory role.
It is also contrary to the will of Congress embodied in the Tongass Timber Reform Act of
1990 which requires the Forest Service to seek to meet the annual and planning cycle
market demand for timber from the Tongass National Forest. That demand will be dictated by
the market place and will be expressed through the efforts of business people who build,
maintain and operate timber-based businesses in Southeast Alaska. The groups seeking
interim relief are simply attempting to substitute their peculiar view of the proper use
of the Tongass for that of Congress without regard for the economies and social structures
of the existing communities in Southeast Alaska.
Under Section 101 of the Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA), the Forest Service is directed
to seek to meet the annual and planning cycle demand for timber from the Tongass (Cf. TLMP
ROD at 37). The Forest Service has also acknowledged its objective to supply saw timber to
Southeast Alaska sawmills (TLMP ROD at 25). However, both TLMP and the request for relief
rely on Timber Products Outputs and Timber Harvests in Alaska: projections for 1997-2010,
by David Brooks and Richard Haynes to estimate demand for purposes of TTRA §101.1 AFA
asserts that the Brooks and Haynes analysis is severely flawed for at least the following
reasons.
The need to provide a sufficient and reliable supply of timber, including a sufficient
supply of timber under contract, to the Southeast Alaska timber industry cannot be
overemphasized, and is not taken into consideration by Brooks and Haynes.
For a forest industry to exist in Southeast Alaska, it must be of large enough scale to
sustain all the various direct and indirect components of the industry, including logging
and road building contractors, tug and barge lines, financial services, etc. A guaranteed
supply of timber, of sufficient scale to justify the investments needed to make Southeast
Alaska’s industry competitive in the global markets, is absolutely essential to
maintaining a sustainable forest industry in this region. In addition, timber offerings
must have minimum bid rates that permit the purchasers to operate economically (i.e., at a
reasonable profit), to allow for further value-added capital investments. The
Governor’s Southeast Alaska Timber Task Force [sic] estimated that the minimum volume
needed to sustain a viable industry is 300 MMBF, a volume which should easily be accepted
in the market if economic timber sales area available. By estimating a demand well below
this level, Brooks and Haynes have failed to take into account the importance of minimum
industry scale in their analysis, and hence have estimated a level of demand which is
unrealistic. (Meeting "Market Demand" for Timber on the
Tongass National Forest at 6, Robert Flynn & Associates, December 8, 1997,
emphasis in original. This report is attached as Attachment A.)
In exercising its agency discretion, the Forest Service has determined that a three-year
supply of timber must be maintained under contract to meet demand and the needs of
Southeast Alaska timber operators (letter to Senator Ted Stevens from Forest Service
Associate Chief George Leonard, dated April 23, 1997). The RSFEIS for the revised TLMP
stated that mill capacity was 322 mmbf.2 Multiplied by three years, the Forest Service
would need to maintain under contract at least 966 mmbf of timber to carry out its
three-year supply policy. However, as of July 29, 1998, the industry had only 460 mmbf of
volume currently under contract, although approximately 50 mmbf of this volume is subject
to pending litigation. The agency is therefore at least 506 mmbf short of providing a
three-year supply of timber under contract. Thus, the timber industry needs a lot more
timber than is currently available.
The Forest Service’s policy to maintain a three-year supply of timber is a matter
within the agency’s discretion. Further, the Forest Service’s three-year timber
supply pipeline policy is consistent with the revised TLMP. It does not change or affect
the application of standards and guidelines, land use designations or other objectives and
directives of the revised TLMP. Moreover, maintaining a three- year supply of timber does
not violate the market demand provisions of TTRA §101. Rather, it is based on the annual
and planning cycle demand analyses which the Forest Service is required to conduct
pursuant to TTRA §101.
However, the Forest Service has failed to date to maintain a three-year supply of timber
under contract. Even 966 mmbf would be insufficient to maintain the currently surviving
industry and to interest investors in embarking upon new, value-added wood product
operations, such as the proposed KPC/Sealaska veneer mill. (See "Market Demand"
at ¶ 5 on page 3, at ¶8 on page 4, and 35.)
As the timber industry has long stated, and as the Forest Service recently stated in the
Control Lake FEIS, there are a number of reasons for maintaining a three-year supply of
timber:
To be responsive to market demand, the Forest Service attempts to provide an opportunity
for the industry as a whole to accumulate a supply of purchased but unharvested timber
(i.e. volume under contract) equal to about three years of timber consumption. There are a
number of reasons for allowing the accumulation of volume under contract. First, this
allows the industry ample time to plan an orderly and systematic harvest schedule that
meets all timing restrictions and permit requirements. Second, it allows the industry to
better manage its financial resources and to secure financing on the basis of longer term
timber supply. Third, it allows time for the necessary infrastructure (roads, log transfer
facilities, and logging camps) to be put in place prior to timber harvest. Finally, an
ample timber supply gives the industry more opportunity to sustain itself through market
cycles. If demand for pulp or lumber in any year suddenly increases, producers will have
access to enough timber to respond to the increase in demand without waiting for the
Forest Service or the Congress to take action. Normally, the unharvested volume under
contract will be drawn down during high points in the market when mills increase
production, and built up when markets are poor and production declines. In response to
changes observed in the volume under contract the Forest Service may consider adjusting
its budget and timber program. (Control Lake Timber Sales FEIS, Vol. II, App. A at 2.)
The Brooks and Haynes analysis fails to adequately account for changes in the overseas
demand for timber, and to analyze the implications of those changes for the Southeast
Alaska timber industry. Asian markets, particularly in Japan, have indicated an increased
interest in forest products which have undergone some initial processing:
One other trend which would tend to favor Alaskan lumber producers in the Japanese market
is the continuing replacement of log imports with lumber imports. For example, since 1990,
Japanese imports of North American logs have declined 35%, while lumber imports have
increased 27% (Fig. 3). This trend is expected to continue in the future, which will mean
less competition from Pacific Northwest log imports, and more opportunities for lumber
imports, including those from Alaska. (See "Market Demand" at 11, emphasis
added.)
This interest and demand present new opportunities for new ventures in the Southeast
Alaska timber industry.
Another shortcoming of the Brooks and Haynes report was its failure to address decreasing
competition from other supply sources, including Canada. Experts are predicting a decline
in the competitiveness of the British Columbia sawmill industry, and this should have been
considered in the Brooks and Haynes report, as pointed out by Dr. Con Schallau:
We do not share the pessimistic assessment by Brooks and Haynes of the "stiff
competition" from producers in Canada. They neglect to point out that production from
British Columbia will decrease significantly in the very near future. There is nothing to
prevent Alaska from filling the niche vacated by B.C. processors provided there is a
reliable National Forest timber supply. (See "Market Demand" at 18.)
The Brooks and Haynes report is also unreliable because it failed to consider that it
relied on information during a period in which the agency failed to maintain an adequate
supply of timber for the industry:
The Brooks and Haynes forecast of Alaska lumber production is evidently heavily influenced
by the performance of the industry during the 1992-1996 period, rather than on expected
market demand for lumber produced from Tongass timber. Several times in the 1997 report,
the authors point out that the use of updated data for this recent period is one of the
main reasons for the radical change in their forecast.
****
However, this recent period (1992-96) was a period during which the
industry operated at a distinct disadvantage because of uncertainty surrounding their
timber supply, and the failure of the Forest Service to provide sufficient timber for the
mills to maintain an adequate volume under contract. Hence, actual production levels
probably did not reflect the true competitive position of the Alaskan forest products
industry. (See "Market Demand" at 26. Cf., id. at 29-30, memorializing the
Irland Group’s findings in 1992 that "[w]e cannot simply equate market demand
with past or present consumption . . . If current consumption were taken as a measure of
demand, it would be an underestimate.")
The Brooks and Haynes Report demand report focused exclusively on international demand by
Japan. However, the potential demand for Tongass timber by markets in China, India, and
South Korea are promising. (See "Market Demand", at 13-14. Cf., "Market
Demand", at 2, ¶¶ 1-2, describing the shortcomings in the Brooks and Haynes demand
analysis and the Forest Service’s determination of demand.) Moreover, the Irland
Group, which was commissioned by the Forest Service in 1992 to prepare a report on the
demand for Tongass timber, found that "[m]arkets are so large that Alaska’s
industry will not be constrained by market size or long-term growth trends." (Id. at
6.)
Further, the domestic market for Tongass timber is generating a need for a reliable timber
supply and demonstrating that domestic demand for Tongass timber is stable and has room to
expand.
Virtually all of Silver Bay Logging Company’s Wrangell sawmill production is being
sold to Pacific Northwest timber customers. All of Viking Lumber Company’s
production goes to window and door manufacturers in the Pacific Northwest.3
All of the wood processed by Louisiana-Pacific’s (LP’s)/Ketchikan Pulp
Company’s (KPC’s) sawmill in Ketchikan is sold to domestic purchasers. All
of the veneer produced by the plant under consideration by KPC and Sealaska would be
shipped to LP’s secondary manufacturing plant in Oregon. Wood processed by the
Seley sawmill on Gravina Island is sold to Pacific Northwest customers.
All of these operators have stated that they would process more timber if it were
available.
Demonstrated mill capacity is another factor that is used in determining timber demand.
The RSFEIS for the revised TLMP noted that sawmill capacity on the Tongass is 322 mmbf.
However, the normal operating capacity of current sawmill installations in Southeast
Alaska is 355.5 mmbf. (See Attachment B.) Moreover, proposed and future facilities will
increase mill capacity.
In light of the demand concerns set forth above, the request for relief’s complaint
that the sale program under TLMP is “enormous” and “needs action by the
Chief” to stop it is seen to be without merit. The sale program is not
“enormous” relative to the needs of Alaska producers and real market demand. In
fact, the budget request for Fiscal Year 1999, anticipating a mere 155 mmbf program
(including salvage), is likely to severely cripple the industry by constraining supply in
violation of TTRA §101.
2. Harvest methods The request for relief also seeks to dictate harvest methods based upon
aestheticconsiderations and unproven assertions regarding effects on wildlife and fish
habitat, while disregarding important silviculture considerations. The request for relief
waves aside as meaningless and unimportant the silvicultural reasons for clearcutting on
the Tongass (pp. 6-8) despite the fact that any standard silviculture text will inform its
reader that issues such as control of dwarf mistletoe and adequate regeneration of shade
intolerant species are effectively dealt with by using a clearcut harvest prescription.
Furthermore, there are many sites in Southeast Alaska where large, old growth Sitka spruce
were harvested for fish traps in the pre-industrial era. A visit to these sites reveals
that several decades after this individual tree selection harvest took place, no
significant spruce regeneration has occurred. The visitor to these sites will see old
spruce stumps, older spruce and hemlock trees which were not removed in the harvest and
some second growth hemlock. In other words, tree selection harvests of the past in
Southeast Alaska tend to indicate that the result of this harvest method will be a
noticeable type conversion from spruce/hemlock to hemlock.
That non-clearcut harvest prescriptions are unproven and risky in the Tongass is well
known by the Forest Service and was discussed during the TLMP revision process. For
example, during the revision process a draft Forest Service memorandum dealing with growth
and yield estimates pointed out the problems with partial cut harvest prescriptions. The
memo states, in relevant part,
We cannot use SEAPROG to project growth and yield information on old-growth trees left in
partial cut prescriptions. Partial cutting is experimental in southeast Alaska. There is
currently no scientific basis or tool for predicting the yield response of old-growth
stands to partial cutting. The feasibility of applying some of these alternative
silvicultural systems, under Alaskan climatic and economic conditions is debatable and
will require additional study and experience. Single tree selection and group selection
cutting that took place in Pacific Northwest old-growth Douglas-fir and hemlock stands
during the 1930's, created forest of crooked often diseased trees with little future
timber value (Oliver, 1990 and Isaac, 1956). Selective logging damaged the residual stand,
windthrow was excessive, and growth was poor (Isaac, 1956 and Wright, et al., 1947).
3. “Rarity” of high volume class stands The request for relief asserts that the
plan fails to stop “high grading” on the Tongass. It asserts that the higher
volume stands are “scarce” and “now rare,” that they are the
“Forest’s biological heart” and are being “disproportionately depleted
by high-grade logging.” These claims are completely without merit. The request for
relief fails to acknowledge that the Forest Service now deals with Volume Classes 5-7 as a
group, designated “High Volume Class stands,” because for wildlife purposes
there is no statistically significant difference between their values. Suggesting that
alleged “old growth dependent species” such as marten and Sitka black-tailed
deer cannot survive without huge blocks of VC 6 or 7 timber has no basis in science
whatsoever.
The TLMP FEIS shows that there are slightly over 5 million acres of Productive Old Growth
(POG) in the Tongass National Forest. Of that, 2.159 million acres is high volume old
growth. As of 1995, only 7 percent of the POG existing in 1954 had been harvested (Table
3-4, FEIS, 3-23). Of the high volume old growth on the Tongass in 1954 (2.537 million
acres) less than 15 percent had been harvested by 1995, leaving 85 percent still intact
(Table 3-6, FEIS, 3-29). This hardly qualifies it as “rare” under any definition
of that term.
Under the 1979 Plan (as amended), the majority of high volume old growth remaining in the
Tongass was already protected. In the RSDEIS for TLMP, the Forest Service contemplated an
alternative (Alternative 9) which would have continued the land allocations and management
options of the 1979 Plan. As Table 3-6 clearly shows, Alternative 9 would allow only an
additional 19 percent of the high volume POG to be harvested between now and 2095 (Table
3-6, FEIS, 3-29). That assumes a maximum harvest for the next 97 years, a scenario very
unlikely to unfold. Thus, the request for relief’s claims regarding depletion of high
volume old growth are seen to be specious and do not provide any basis for a stay of
pending sales or a directive calling a halt to further NEPA work under the Plan.
4. Fish habitat issues In asserting that continued harvest of timber in the Tongass will
be harmful to fish habitat, the letter ignores important information, including the
conclusions of recent research and the proven success of the riparian protection standards
of TTRA.
The request for relief ignores results of several years of monitoring anadromous fish
streams on private lands in Southeast Alaska which are managed under provisions of the
Alaska Forest Resources and Practices Act (FPA). The FPA requires 66 foot managed riparian
buffers in timber management areas on private lands in the coastal forests. Results of
effectiveness monitoring under the Act are set forth in the executive summary of The
Effectiveness of Riparian Buffer Zones for Protection of Salmonid Habitat in Alaska
Coastal Streams, by Douglas J. Martin, Morgan E. Robinson, and Richard A. Grotefendt, May
1, 1998 (attached as Attachment C). The report concludes that for one important benefit of
riparian buffers, contributions of large woody debris (LWD), “a 20-meter buffer zone
is more effective for providing LWD than a wide buffer (>20 m.) or an unlogged area.
This is caused by an increased probability of tree recruitment from the outer portion
(10-20 m. zone) of the buffer zone as a result of elevated windthrow activity.” For
anadromous fish streams that are naturally deficient in LWD, clearcut harvests with
appropriate (20 meter) riparian buffers can actually provide a net benefit to fish
habitat.
In the Tongass Timber Reform Act of 1990 (TTRA), Congress dictated very aggressive
riparian protection standards for the Tongass National Forest. In October 1992, in
connection with the TLMP SDEIS, the Forest Service presented information along with
Southeast Regional Planning Team data that identified for each of the five salmon species,
the “current potential harvest,” which was defined as the number of salmon that
could be harvested “if all habitat, improvement projects, and aquaculture facilities
were producing fish to their maximum capacity” (emphasis added). In addition, the
SDEIS identified “Year 2000 Goals;” the “GAP” or difference between
“current potential harvest” and “Year 2000 Goals” in fish numbers and
as a percent; and finally, the current fish harvest in Southeast Alaska as an average of
1986 through 1990 and as a percent of the “Year 2000 Goals.”
At the time the SDEIS was written (1991), the current “El Nino” had been
positively affecting ocean conditions in Southeast Alaska since the mid-1970s and the TTRA
set of riparian management directives were in place. As presented by the Forest Service in
the SDEIS in 1991, the current actual harvest, as an average of 1986 through 1990, was the
following percentages of the Year 2000 Goal for each salmon species: (1) king salmon, 53
percent; (2) coho salmon, 68 percent; (3) sockeye salmon, 68 percent; (4) pink salmon, 116
percent; and (5) chum salmon, 28 percent.
Based on ADF&G produced data and with only TTRA riparian protection measures in place,
the current actual harvest, as an average of 1991 through 1995, was the following
percentages of the Year 2000 Goal for each salmon species; (1) king salmon, 48 percent;
(2) coho salmon, 132 percent; (3) sockeye salmon, 104 percent; (4) pink salmon, 172
percent; and (5) chum salmon, 77 percent. If harvest over only the last three years (i.e.,
1993, 1994, and 1995) were used, chum salmon harvest is at 101 percent of the Year 2000
goal, trending upward. If Year 2000 goals for all salmon in Southeast Alaska are combined,
because fish habitat is not generally managed by species on the Tongass National Forest,
the harvest for all species over the 1991 through 1995 period is 145 percent of the
combined Year 2000 goals. Thus, with only TTRA riparian standards in place and a
relatively constant set of ocean conditions over the past five years, actual harvests are
substantially above what regional experts believed the maximum production capabilities of
the habitat were in the late 1980s and early 1990s with ongoing and cumulative timber
harvest.
The 1997 TLMP revision ignored the success of the TTRA riparian protections and greatly
reduced both allowed and projected timber harvests. The data show that the additional
protections included in TLMP are unnecessary, constitute overprotection at the expense of
the timber sale program, and will permanently and irreparably harm AFA and its member
companies.
5. Wildlife habitat issues
In asserting that continued harvest of timber in the Tongass will prove to be harmful to
wildlife habitat, the request for relief ignores important research, including research
currently being conducted regarding wildlife benefits of second growth management. It also
ignores the wildlife benefits of the wilderness and LUD II designations created by
Congress in ANILCA and TTRA. Non-development areas, which even in a legally developed and
scientifically defensible Tongass forest plan would be interspersed with timber harvest
areas, provide more than adequate deer habitat for both feeding and winter snow escape.
Indeed, the wildlife protection measures in TLMP constitute overprotection at the expense
of the timber sale program, and will permanently and irreparably harm AFA and its member
companies.
The Forest Service and Ketchikan Pulp Company were involved in research on second growth
thinning in the early 1990s which indicated that TLMP may be too conservative in
estimating wildlife populations in and around managed stands. The Forest Service, Stikine
Area is currently engaged in research intended to provide information on the interaction
between timber management and deer populations. In 1997, AFA and Sealaska entered a
partnership to launch a three-year study of deer habitat in managed second growth stands
based on a preliminary nutrition model developed by a Forest Service scientist. AFA
asserts that these research projects and others like them should be utilized more fully by
the Forest Service to determine the actual effects, including potential benefits, of
timber management relative to Sitka black-tailed deer.
Finally, the request for relief fails to account for the interaction of shelter-providing
areas such as LUD I and LUD II areas, riparian zones and beach fringes with the abundant
food sources provided in early stage regenerations stands. The request for relief ignores
the potential benefits of managing second growth stands for multiple purposes, including
timber production and deer browse. The FACA-violating procedures used by the Forest
Service in establishing its wildlife habitat strategy for the TLMP revision likewise
overlooked this interaction.
6. Wilderness review issue
The request for relief asserts that TLMP’s “wilderness review is
inadequate,” citing 36 CFR 219.17(a). This claim is without merit because under the
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA) the Forest Service is
prohibited from conducting “further studies of Federal lands in the State of Alaska
for the single purpose of considering the establishment of a conservation system unit,
national recreation area, national conservation area, or for related or similar purposes .
. . unless authorized by this Act or further Act of Congress.” ANILCA § 1326(b), 16,
U.S.C. § 3213 (emphasis added).
Summary
For the reasons set forth above, the Alaska Forest Association urges you to deny the
requests set forth in the July 31, 1998, Request for Interim Relief for Timber Sale
Projects in Forest Service Region 10, Tongass National Forest.
Sincerely,
Jack E. Phelps
Executive Director
cc:
Jim Caplan, USDA Forest Service, R10
Marilyn Heiman, Alaska Governor’s Office
Janis Searles, Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund
Eric Jorgensen, Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund
Robert Lindekugel, SEACC
Nathaniel Lawrence, NRDC
AFA Board of Directors
Jim Clark, Robertson, Monagle & Eastaugh
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A ......... Meeting "Market Demand" for Timber on the Tongass
National
Forest, Tacoma, Washington: Robert Flynn & Associates, December 8, 1997.
Attachment B ......... Summary of Sawmill Capacity in Southeast
Alaska, Ketchikan,
Alaska: Alaska Forest Association, July 8, 1998.
Attachment C ......... Executive Summary of The Effectiveness of Riparian Buffer Zones
for Protection of Salmonid Habitat in Alaska Coastal Streams, Seattle, Washington:
Martin, Douglas J; Morgan E. Robinson; and Richard A. Grotefendt; May 1, 1998.
1 A May 15, 1997 draft of the Brooks and Haynes market demand report was relied upon in
developing the
revised TLMP (FEIS, Appendix M). This market demand report was never made available to the
public for
review and comment. Return
2 This estimate is actually low. As shown by the July 8, 1998 Summary of Sawmill Capacity
in Southeast
Alaska, prepared by AFA and attached hereto as Attachment B, Southeast mills actually have
an installed
normal operating capacity of 355.5 mmbf. Return
3 Viking Lumber Company recently increased its production and expanded its work shift to
meet increasing
demand for its product. Return
