Tongass National Forest

Tongass Home » Newsroom » News Releases

Release of draft Environmental Impact Statement for Tongass Forest Plan

Remarks by Forrest Cole, Tongass National Forest Supervisor, at a news conference, January 12, 2007

I’ve lived in Southeast Alaska for nearly thirty years, and I believe there are two features that make it outstanding. One is the beauty, bounty and richness of the natural landscape that surrounds us. The other is the diversity and vitality of the human communities nestled within it.

In the time I’ve lived here, I’ve seen some changes, too. I’ve watched population loss in communities cripple their ability to provide services like schools and health care. At the same time, I’ve seen the big timber companies leave the area, and watched small, family-owned wood products businesses struggle to survive and grow. I’ve watched recreation and tourism boom and become major players in the economies and lifestyles of Southeast. And, I’ve watched new trees in clearcuts I laid out grow back into thriving stands of young trees.

The Tongass National Forest, which I am responsible for protecting and managing, represents about seven-eights of the land area of Southeast Alaska. Everything we do on the Forest affects the human and natural environment – some things we do affect it negatively; some things affect it positively; and some things do both! Many of the decisions I make have an immediate effect, and some take a little longer to see.

Maintaining the stunning beauty and other natural values while still providing access to and use of public resources is our challenge. It is also critical to achieving economic stability for the communities of southeast Alaska. The Tongass National Forest Land Management Plan provides the framework to meet both goals.

Today I am releasing a draft Environmental Impact Statement that corrects the deficiencies in our Forest Plan found by the Ninth Circuit Court, relating to timber demand, range of alternatives, and cumulative effects of timber harvesting on State and private ownerships. In addition, I’m releasing a draft Forest Plan that incorporates a number of updates identified in our “Five-Year Review” completed in 2005.

As a couple of side notes, we have used the 1982 Planning Rule rather than the recently published 2005 Rule, because the Court’s decision called for an EIS, and because many interested parties asked that the Plan be amended with the same rules that developed it. While the Forest Service recently decided that Forest Plans would no longer require EIS’s, under the 2005 Rule, we will continue with the previous process throughout this planning effort. When it is completed, we will begin transitioning to the new planning rule.

The Pacific Northwest Research Station prepared a new timber demand analysis as a result of the Court’s decision. The demand analysis is a key component of the amendment process because it is the science that lets us directly address one of the Court’s findings. We have studied this analysis carefully, along with a number of other analyses, and have used them to develop the alternatives we analyzed in the Draft EIS. I believe the scenarios it presents will allow us to chart a future course for the Forest that will provide long-term vitality for the communities of southeast Alaska, and significant conservation of pristine landscapes.

I have chosen not to identify a preferred alternative in this Draft EIS, both because I hope that public input can help us make a more informed choice in the end, and because I want to open the door for the broadest possible opportunities for collaboration.

There are a number of factors I must carefully consider to find a balance among the many competing needs and desires for Tongass resources that affect how we apply our stewardship mandate. For example, the centerpiece of our current Forest Plan is a conservation strategy that protects the biological heart of the Tongass – the most significant areas for wildlife and fish, among other values. It was designed to assure sustainability for all resources and values, while allowing development on a relatively small portion of the Tongass to make opportunities available to communities in southeast Alaska. Extensive unmodified natural environments characterize the Tongass, and can continue to do so under the updated Plan.

One challenge, and one area where we need your assistance, is how best to incorporate conservation of resources into a selected alternative that also supports community economic viability, through an integrated timber industry, yet without impacting other uses.

For another example, the Tongass Timber Reform Act of 1990 requires the Tongass National Forest to seek to provide a supply of timber to meet annual and planning cycle timber demand, consistent with multiple use and sustained yield of all renewable forest resources. The short term (or annual) demand for timber is calculated each year. The longer term demand for timber (or planning cycle demand) is a significant component of the Tongass Forest Plan that looks out 15 years or more. Several independent demand analyses have indicated the potential planning cycle demand could be approximately 360 MMBF per year.

The challenge is how to have an available land base large enough to meet timber demand if it materializes, without immediately impacting other resources and values. This land base could allow timber demand to progress over time from a relatively stable source of timber supply as the industry elects to make infrastructure investments. At the same time, it makes sense to think about designing an implementation strategy that focuses timber harvest primarily in the minimum land base necessary to sustain it, with expansion into more sensitive areas only if demand increases.

A number of thoughts come to mind when looking at the various alternatives we considered. For example, Alternative 6 updates the Forest Plan relative to the 5 Year Review, but may not provide a large enough land base, suitable for timber harvest, to achieve an integrated timber industry. An integrated timber industry is expected to process all products from the forest in a cost- and value-effective manner. Alternative 4 offers an opportunity to accommodate a more integrated timber industry while balancing other resource effects, thus assisting the communities with economic development and enhancing the industry’s competitive position in world markets. Alternatives 1 and 2 focus on much lower levels of timber harvest from a smaller suitable land base, and thus have lower potential impact on other resource values.

I intend to work with the communities of southeast Alaska, and “communities of interest” throughout the Nation, to gain the fullest level of collaboration possible as we develop our final decision. Unlike many previous planning processes, however, this amendment process has been open to the public since January when a new website was opened specifically for the project. The site, found at http://tongass-fpadjust.net, provides background information, continuous updates on progress, and opportunities for the public to present their views and input to the process. The timber demand analysis is posted on the website, for example.

I intend to complete the planning process by August, 2007 to maintain stability for southeast Alaska’s wood products industry and the Forest’s timber program. Currently, the wood supply necessary to operate the existing mills in Southeast Alaska is hanging in the balance until we finish this process.

Let me close with a little historic perspective: The 1997 Plan took 13 years and nearly 13 million dollars to produce. The litigation, claims and time spent on the 1999 Modified Decision, as well as on the 2001 Roadless Rule, added more time and money. The 2003 Wilderness analysis decision added an additional two million dollars to the planning cost; additional litigation increased this cost over one million more in attorney fees and claims. Now we are investing an additional two million to respond to the current Court order. This adds up to nearly 20 million dollars.

I believe the money spent on this planning effort, litigation, claims, not to mention people’s time, could be put to better use. I also believe the communities of southeast Alaska deserve to know what can and can not be counted on for their future economies. Communities like Wrangell are tired of waiting for something to happen when opportunities surround them on the National Forest.

I am looking for the plan to be finalized once again this year, so we can get on with the business of implementation, rather than constant litigation. I intend to work with each of the communities in Southeast Alaska, and the “communities of interest”, so that they have full understanding of the current situation, and so that they take an active role in building a final decision that the Forest can implement. Those who elect not to participate should expect others to plan the future of the Tongass for them. For those who are willing to take an active interest, I will commit to make all the resources available to make this effort the last so that we can begin to stabilize our communities’ futures.

As I stated last March at Southeast Conference, what we’ve been doing the past ten years clearly is not working, for anyone – except maybe for a few lawyers. The only way I see out of the “conflict pit” we’re mired in, is for all of us to work creatively to build a plan that meets our cumulative interests in the “radical center”.