Editor’s Note: The following is a condensed version of remarks by Forrest Cole, Tongass National Forest Supervisor, at a news conference, January 12, 2007. The comment period on the Tongass plan is open until April 12.
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 grow back into thriving stands of young trees.
The Tongass National Forest represents about seven-eights of the land area of Southeast Alaska. 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 local communities. The Tongass National Forest Land Management Plan provides the framework to meet both goals.
Today I am releasing a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) that corrects the deficiencies in our Forest Plan found by the Ninth Circuit Court. In addition, I’m releasing a draft Forest Plan that incorporates a number of updates identified in our “Five-Year Review.”
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 in the DEIS.
The centerpiece of our current Forest Plan is a conservation strategy that protects the biological heart of the Tongass. 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.
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.
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. 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 million board feet 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.
Alternative 6 updates the Forest Plan relative to the 5 Year Review, but may not provide a large enough land base to achieve an integrated timber industry. Alternative 4 offers an opportunity to accommodate a more integrated timber industry while balancing other resource effects, thus assisting the communities with economic development. Alternatives 1 and 2 focus on much lower levels of timber harvest from a smaller land base.
I intend to complete the planning process by August to maintain stability for southeast Alaska’s wood products industry and the Forest’s timber program. Currently, the wood supply necessary to operate existing mills is hanging in the balance until we finish this process.
The 1997 Plan took 13 years and nearly 13 million dollars to produce. Combined with litigation, claims and time spent on the 1999 Modified Decision, the 2001 Roadless Rule, the 2003 Wilderness analysis decision and the current Court order, the cost adds up to nearly $20 million.
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 communities deserve to know what can and cannot be counted on for their future. Communities are tired of waiting for something to happen when opportunities surround them.
What we’ve been doing the past ten years clearly is not working, for anyone. 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.”
A new website has been opened specifically for the project at http://tongass-fpadjust.net.
Forrest Cole is the Supervisor for the Tongass National Forest in Southeast Alaska. He is based in Ketchikan.
