Hearing of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on Proposed Fiscal Year 2006 Budget Request for the Forest Service

STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA

Senator Murkowski. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And good morning, Mr. Bosworth, Mr. Rey.

I do have an opening statement that I would like to submit in full for the record. But just very, very briefly, there is a pretty good quote, I think, from former President Teddy Roosevelt, that I think we ought to be reminded of when we think of our forests and forest management.

He said, "First and foremost, you can never afford to forget for a moment what is the object of our forest policy. That is not to preserve the forests because they are beautiful, though that is good in itself, nor because they are refuges for the wild creatures of the wilderness, though that, too, is good in itself; but the primary objective of our forest policy, as the land policy of the United States, is the making of prosperous homes.''

And when you think about it, there is a pretty fundamental difference between a national park and a national forest. When we think about the multiple-use policy--you know, in Alaska, I think we certainly appreciate that we would like to get back to a policy of multiple use. It is not only the recreation, and it is not only the "look but do not touch,'' but also there is a
principle that requires that our forest resources be managed not only for the ecosystem and the habitat values but for tourism, for recreation, and also for the harvesting of timber.

So I hope that we will be able to refocus on this pretty fundamental organic principle of multiple use. I think it is a principle that is often lost in some of the politicized debate that goes on.

So, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the opportunity this morning to be able to ask questions of Mr. Bosworth and Mr. Rey as we focus on those principles of how we better achieve a true multiple-use policy for our national forests.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Senator Murkowski follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Lisa Murkowski, U.S. Senator From Alaska

Good morning, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to join you in welcoming Mr. Rey and Chief Bosworth back to the committee. It is no understatement to say that the Forest Service is one powerful presence in my State of Alaska.

The Forest Service manages some 22 million acres in Southeast and South Central Alaska. The Tongass National Forest stretches the 500 mile length of the Southeast Alaska panhandle and covers more than 80% of the land. The Chugach National Forest begins just 50 miles south of Anchorage and stretches some 200 miles across Prince William Sound, the
Copper River Delta and the Kenai Peninsula.

I am proud to join with Mr. Rey, Chief Bosworth and Forest Service employees across the nation in observing the 100th anniversary of the Forest Service. The Forest Service was founded on the principle of multiple use.

The Alaska Forest Association is fond of this 1903 quote which is attributed to President Theodore Roosevelt and appears on their website:

"First and foremost," President Roosevelt explained, "you can never afford to forget for a moment what is the object of our forest policy. That is not to preserve the forests because they are beautiful, though that is good in itself, nor because they are refuges for the wild creatures of the wilderness, though that too is good in itself; but the primary object of our forest policy, as the land policy of the United States, is the making of prosperous homes.''

There is a fundamental difference between a National Park and a National Forest. The governing principle in our National Parks, particularly those in the Lower 48 that are not subject to the management principles in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act is "look but don't touch.''

Multiple use does not mean "look but don't touch.'' The principle requires that our forest resources be managed not only for ecosystem and habitat values, but also for tourism, recreation and yes, the harvest of timber to promote economic development.

During this centennial year I would hope that we refocus on this fundamental, organic principle of multiple use. It is a principle too often lost in the highly politicized debates that in my view have hijacked our forest policy with the goal of managing our National Forests in the same way we manage our National Parks. Multiple use simply does not mean turning our National Forests into wilderness areas.

The people of Alaska and visitors to our State enjoy our forest resources for their natural beauty and recreational opportunities. Our national forests are home to diverse species of fish and game which Alaskans depend upon for their subsistence foods.

But we must also not forget that Alaska's national forest resources have historically provided the economic lifeblood for numerous Southeast Alaska communities. This too is part of President Roosevelt's legacy.

I am sad to observe that our Nation's recent lack of commitment to multiple use principles in the Tongass National Forest has wreaked havoc on the economy of Southeast Alaska and brought pain to numerous small businesses.

There may be some in this room who would say that Southeast Alaska's forest products industry is a relic of the past and that the family owned businesses that own the mills and construct the roads--should be put out of their misery.

Like most Alaskans, I respectfully reject this notion. I would like to think that the best days of the Alaska forest products industry are yet to come.

I applaud the work of the good people at the Ketchikan Wood Technology Center and the Wood Utilization Center in Sitka who are working to develop new markets for Alaska timber.

And I applaud the resilience of Ted Falconer, an entrepreneur from Washington state, who has withstood the efforts of a national environmental organization to harass into abandoning plans to reopen a veneer mill in Ketchikan. According to the Associated Press, 153 unsolicited letters were faxed to Mr. Falconer from the offices of the Natural Resources Defense Council, jamming his fax machine.

But most of all, I appreciate the resilience of our family owned businesses that simply refuse to say die.

I have had an opportunity to read the prepared testimony and appreciate Chief Bosworth's observation that the United States consumes much more wood than it produces and must import wood from othe countries. The same is true for Alaska. A 1998 marketing study shows an annual lumber market in Alaska of approximately 100 million board feet--most of which comes from Canada and the Lower 48 states. We also import engineered wood products, manufactured wood products and
preservative treated wood.

Alaska is prepared to accept the challenge of supplying its own timber needs. The mills that struggle to stay open have an operating capacity of about 200 million board feet. Yet today the mills have only about 50-70 million board feet of timber available.

The 1997 Tongass Land Management Plan provides that a maximum of 267 million board feet of timber can be harvested from the Tongass. Yet the Alaska Forest Association is deeply concerned that the Forest Service continues to plan for only 100-150 million board feet annually and is able to deliver about 50-70 million board feet.

I'm going to stop here but let me close on this point. The Alaska Forest Products industry is not going away and I want you to know that this Senator Murkowski--like the last one--is committed to seeing it flourish.

I look forward to working with Mr. Rey, Chief Bosworth and the devoted Forest Service employees in Region 10 who are truly committed to multiple use informed by sound science and sound economics toward this end.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let us stay on the fire subject for just a moment. As you know, we had a horrific fire season last summer in Alaska. We lost 6.5 million acres. It was the worst fire season on record for the State since we have been recording this.

The notes that I have here indicate that there were 703 fires. For some reason, I am remembering it as a much larger number. But any way you cut it, it was huge. It was a devastating loss for us.

You know many of those issues. You know that we have got a hearing coming up on how all the agencies that were involved worked together or what worked right and what did not work right.

But we have got some issues up north that cause me to believe, coming from a very unscientific approach, that we are going to have another tough fire year. Our temperatures in the interior are increasing.

We are still dealing with spruce bark infestation, although perhaps not at levels that we have seen in the past, but I think it is still going to be tough year. And I think other Alaskans feel the same.

And, quite honestly, the folks in the interior would really like to be able to breathe the air during the summer months instead of looking out through a smoke-filled haze.

So I was somewhat interested in your map that is looking at the seasonal wildfire outlook February through August 2005. Alaska is all white. I am hoping that perhaps your meteorologists know something different and that you are not thinking that Alaska is going to have a tough fire season, but maybe we just were not included in the map. But we need to be prepared.

So my question to you in looking at some of the cuts that we have--and this was raised by Senator Wyden and some others, zeroing out the volunteer assistance. Certainly in many instances up north, our volunteer fire departments are the first responders to many of these Federal land fires.

I just have real serious concerns about where we are going to be and how we work with the Alaska communities that are potentially at risk to reduce the fire risks that I think are going to be real again this coming summer. So if you could just address some of those.

Mr. Rey. Okay. As to your first observation, Alaska is white in this particular iteration because our predictive models pick up Alaska a little bit later in the year given that the cold weather stays longer up there.

So it will be probably another couple of weeks before we have a reasonable prognostication of what the Alaska fire season is going to be like, although most of our fire people agree with your suggestion that it could well be another difficult fire season.

Second, as the chief indicated in response to Senator Wyden, we have targeted our cuts away from the volunteer fire departments. So the money that we retained in those accounts, the funded volunteer fire fighters are going to stay in those accounts for that purpose.

What we hope to do with the needs for large fire fighting organizations is to work with the people at FEMA who have a large account for fire fighting assistance, upwards of $700 million, and make sure that we coordinate our efforts so that we are addressing the primary wild land fire fighting needs among larger communities which is where our cuts would be most heavily felt.

Senator Murkowski. On the Tongass, the point was made earlier about the road funds. We recognize that right now these roads have to be constructed to the same specification as a Federal highway which increases the cost and reduces Forest Service timber receipts.

Now, in southeastern Alaska, we look at those timber roads and we certainly recognize that these do not even come close to looking like a Federal highway. We need the roads, but the cost of building them to this standard is making timber sales in certain areas uneconomic and impairing the viability of, as you know, an already struggling timber industry.

Why do we have to construct these roads to this high standard?

Mr. Rey. Well, there are two reasons. But those reasons aside, this is something we are looking at. In the past, many of the roads that were being constructed were not simply timber roads. They were part of what we wanted to establish as part of the arterial network or the transportation network for southeast Alaska. Indeed many of the roads in existence on
Prince of Whales Island today started as timber roads as an initial matter.

Now they do not serve that function, but they do serve an important function in allowing people to drive between Craig and Thorne Bay, for instance. That need is starting to diminish as that system has been established. So a smaller number of roads are going to be built to that standard for a longer-term purpose.

Senator Murkowski. Do you see us getting away from that standard though?

Mr. Rey. Yes. One of the things we are looking at is being able to scale down some of the road standards for roads that are not going to have a longer-term or subsequent use after the timber sale occurs. So that is something we are working on with the region in southeast Alaska.

Senator Murkowski. I look forward to working with you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Senator Murkowski. I have one more question. I appreciate the opportunity to come back again to the Tongass issue.

As you know, we have only got one harvest and 12 percent of commercial timber on the Tongass in the past hundred years. And as we look to the Tongass land management plan, it provides that a maximum of 267 million board feet can be harvested from the Tongass, yet we are concerned, primarily the Alaska Forest Association is concerned that the Forest Service continues to plan for only 100 million board feet annually and is able to deliver only between about 50 to 70 million board feet.

We don't have any threatened or endangered species on the Tongass and yet we have, through the land management plan, we have got several constraints, reserves, buffers that do limit the economically viable timber that can be made available.

So the question that I have to you this morning is whether the Forest Service is committed to preserving and enhancing the timber industry in southeast and whether in your view it is appropriate to revisit or to rethink some of the restrictions
that currently exist out there as they relate to the Tongass.

Mr. Rey. The short answer to the first question is yes. The short answer to the second question is that we have embarked on the 5-year review of the Tongass Land Management Plan. The issues you described will be part of that review.

You are correct. There are no threatened or endangered species or at least terrestrial species on the Tongass. The stellar sea lion is within the range of the Tongass.

There is, however, a very robust population of environmental litigants in southeast Alaska, as there is in Oregon. Much of the complexity in fulfilling the President's commitment to implement the Northwest Forest Plan is comparable to the complexity associated with fully implementing the Tongass Land Management Plan. That is, moving sale offerings through the appeals and litigation processes.

Senator Murkowski. And as we recognize, that is incredibly tough. I am sure you are aware we are attempting to get a small veneer plant in the Ketchikan area up and going. Some of the tactics that have been used of late to pressure the individual that wants to move forward with this in my opinion are not only inappropriate, wrong, short-sighted, but really very offensive
in their approach.

We have a management plan out there that allows for this and yet it is not just the litigation. It is other efforts by individuals that will seek to literally shut down the Tongass for any viable timber harvesting. That is what we deal with.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the latitude of questions.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_senate_hearings&docid=21331.wais