A group of 13 environmental organizations recently filed a letter with Forest Service Chief Mike Dombeck asking the Chief to halt virtually all planned new timber sales in the Tongass pending a decision on the TLMP administrative appeals. Alaska Forest Association executive director Jack Phelps sent the following letter to Chief Dombeck in response.
August 10, 1998 Mr. Michael Dombeck, Chief
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
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.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.
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
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
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
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
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
cc: Jim Caplan, USDA Forest Service, R10 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
|
