Forest Service Folly of the Tongass
Despite many opportunities to promote profitable ventures in tourism, recreation,commercial fishing and environmental restoration, the Forest Service continues its folly in promoting Tongass logging. Annual spending is near historic levels on the timber/roads program despite industry’s contraction to less than 1% of the regional economy. As a result of wasteful spending, the agency lost over $46 million in 2007. This translates to a taxpayer subsidy of over a $600,000 per job. Simply stated, the Forest Service continues to spend as if it were still in its glory days when actual timber demand has fallen by a factor of 8.
The industry’s health and prospects are illustrated by some simple facts. Over the last decade, 45% of the new Tongass timber offered for sale does not even receive a single bid. Of the timber that does sell, 46% is eventually canceled under federal bailouts or enjoys a price reduction for the timber purchased. In fact, the newest give away to reduce the price for timber was just published in the Federal Register (Vol. 73, No 181, 09/17/08).
To help prop up a declining industry, Senator Stevens has inserted annual appropriation riders since the early 1990s. Recently these riders require the Forest Service to only offer “economic timber.” They have also allowed the export of cedar logs to Puget Sound. However, economic timber is really an oxymoron. The Forest Service doesn’t come close to covering its costs to conduct its timber sales and road building. In reality the price paid to the Forest Service for old growth is only a few dollars per thousand board feet and is often reduced under the periodic federal bailouts mentioned above.
In practice, the Stevens riders have had other negative impacts. The Forest Service has had to sweeten the pot to make more timber profitable for the logger. This is accomplished by offering a greater proportion of the most valuable timber – cedar. In recent years cedar has accounted for up to 11-33% in timber sales even though itnaturaloccurrenceis7%ofthetimberbase.2 Even more stunning is the recent Traitors Cove timber offering where 41% of the timber will be cedar – clearly a shortsighted practice of high-grading.
Adding insult to injury, long standing restriction on round log exports has been relaxed. The goal in cutting down the Tongass in the first place was to create local jobs. Now, up to 50% of the timber in new sales can be exported as unprocessed logs. So the public gets to spend millions of their tax dollars to cut down their rare old-growth so that jobs can be maintained in Puget Sound and Japan. This says nothing of the non-timber forest opportunities that are foregone as well.
Simply stated, the numerous no bid sales, the high-grading, and relaxed export restrictions are indicative of a withering Southeast Alaska timber industry. In denial, however, is the Forest Service, which continues to over inflate timber demand to justify their program. Five Tongass timber demand studies have been completed; two in 1990, and one each in 1994, 1997 and 2006. All assumed that Tongass timber is globally competitive and that better days were just around the corner. However, reality has been quite the opposite -- a persistent and precipitous decline in Tongass timber demand. Even the lower range of each demand projection has been overly optimistic. Consequently, each subsequent demand projection was substantially lowered, but nowhere near actual demands. And, the folly continues.
The Solutions: Clearly the Forest Service has been the only winner and something has to change. Unfortunately, my belief is that the Forest Service is not willing, nor capable of implementing a new paradigm. So like in the past congressional intervention is essential. However, getting Congress to focus on the Tongass will be very difficult, as near term stop gap measures we need to reenact the roadless rule for Alaska National Forests and substantially reduce the Tongass timber and roads appropriation.
Over the longer term, additional reform legislation is needed to protect lands, restore second-growth habitat and make investments in our growing economic sectors, such as tourism, recreation, commercial fishing, etc. We will also need more opportunities for traditional and customary uses by Natives, since native corporations have already liquidated their adjacent old-growth forests at accelerated rates. Notwithstanding all the uncertainties, there is no question that a new paradigm will provide more jobs, income and quality of life for the region.
