GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to the Chairman, Committee on

Energy and Natural Resources, U.S.

Senate

April 2000 TONGASS NATIONAL

FOREST

Process Used to

Modify the Forest Plan

GAO/RCED-00-45

Page 1 GAO/RCED-00-45 Tongass National Forest

Contents

Letter 3

Appendixes Appendix I: Information on the Process Used to Revise the

1979 Tongass Forest Plan 18

Appendix II: Information on the Process Used to Modify

the 1997 Tongass Forest Plan 38

Appendix III: Comments From the Forest Service 51

Tables Table 1: Major Events in the Revision of the 1979 Tongass

Forest Plan 19

Table 2: Major Events in the Modification of the 1997 Tongass

Forest Plan 39

Figures Figure 1: Tongass National Forest 6

Abbreviations

ANILCA Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NFMA National Forest Management Act

VPOP viable population
Page 2 GAO/RCED-00-45 Tongass National Forest
Page 3 GAO/RCED-00-45 Tongass National Forest

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Resources, Community, and

Economic Development Division

B-284340 Letr

April 17, 2000

The Honorable Frank Murkowski

Chairman, Committee on Energy

and Natural Resources

United States Senate

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The Tongass National Forest (Tongass) in southeast Alaska is unlike any

other national forest. It is larger; its administrative and geographic

structures differ; and although it is subject to the same laws that apply to

other national forests, it has also had laws written specifically for it.

Like the other national forests, the Tongass is required by law to develop a

plan to manage its lands and resources (commonly called a forest plan) and

to revise the plan at least every 15 years. On average, the revision process is

estimated to take 4 years and to cost about $3 million.

The Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service approved the first Tongass

forest plan in 1979, and in July 1987, the agency began the process to revise

it. Almost 10 years and over $13 million later, in May 1997, the Forest

Service approved a revised forest plan to manage the Tongass’s lands and

resources. Interested and affected parties subsequently appealed the plan

within the 90 days provided for appeals under the agency’s planning

regulations. In April 1999, the Department of Agriculture’s Under Secretary

for Natural Resources and Environment approved modifications to the

management direction in the 1997 plan to address certain concerns raised

in the appeals and decided the appeals on the basis of the modified plan.

As agreed, this report discusses (1) the process used by the Department of

Agriculture to modify the management direction in the 1997 plan and

decide the appeals on the basis of the modified plan, (2) the reasons the

administration chose to use the process, and (3) reactions to the

modifications and the process. Appendixes I and II provide additional

information about the processes leading up to the May 1997 plan and the

April 1999 modifications, respectively.
B-284340

Page 4 GAO/RCED-00-45 Tongass National Forest

Results in Brief The Department of Agriculture’s Under Secretary for Natural Resources

and Environment used a unique process to approve modifications to the

management direction in the 1997 Tongass forest plan and decide appeals

on the basis of the plan, as modified. According to the Forest Service, it is

not unusual for an Under Secretary to review, and on occasion direct the

Chief to modify, appeal decisions. However, this was the first time that an

Under Secretary approved substantive modifications to a forest plan and

issued initial appeal decisions based on the plan, as modified.

The Department of Agriculture’s Under Secretary for Natural Resources

and Environment said he approved modifications to the management

direction in the 1997 Tongass forest plan to address certain concerns raised

in appeals of the plan and decided the appeals on the basis of the modified

plan for two reasons. First, he approved the modifications because he

believed he could “make a good plan better.” According to the Under

Secretary, he believed he improved the 1997 Tongass plan by addressing

three interrelated concerns: (1) old-growth forest and the species that

depend on it for habitat; (2) lands and resources used for subsistence

hunting, fishing, trapping, and gathering by rural Alaskans; and (3) areas of

special interest valued for ecological, recreational, subsistence, cultural,

spiritual, and/or scenic purposes. His modifications—each of which was

designed to increase the protection of old-growth forest, subsistence uses,

and areas of special interest—included (1) removing another 234,000 acres

from timber harvesting and other development activities, (2) increasing

from 100 years to 200 years the time that must elapse between timber

harvests on the same location on about 40 percent of the Tongass where

timber harvesting is allowed, and (3) decreasing the open road density in

areas where roads have been determined to significantly contribute to wolf

mortality. According to the Under Secretary, the second reason he chose to

approve modifications to the management direction in the 1997 plan and

decide the appeals on the basis of the modified plan was to end the appeals

process as quickly as possible. Other options for addressing the concerns—

such as returning the plan to the forest to address the concerns or

approving the 1997 plan and beginning a new process to amend the plan—

would have taken more time, according to the Under Secretary.

Interested and affected parties have raised concerns about both the

modifications to the management direction in the 1997 plan and the

process used to approve the modifications and decide the appeals. These

concerns are related to the trade-offs among competing forest uses

inherent in the modifications and the trade-off between ending the appeals
B-284340

Page 5 GAO/RCED-00-45 Tongass National Forest

process as quickly as possible and providing opportunities for additional

public participation and further scientific analysis. Both the modifications

and the process are now in litigation.

Background At 16.9 million acres, the Tongass is the largest forest in the United States,

roughly equal in size to West Virginia (see fig. 1), and the largest remaining

temperate rain forest in the world. About 60 percent of the Tongass is

forested. Of the forested portion of the Tongass, the Forest Service

considers over half, or 5.7 million acres, to be “productive”—that is,

suitable for providing wood products.
B-284340

Page 6 GAO/RCED-00-45 Tongass National Forest

Figure 1: Tongass National Forest

Source: Forest Service’s Alaska Region.

The Forest Service’s Alaska Region (Region 10), headquartered in Juneau,

is responsible for managing the Tongass and Alaska’s other national forest,

the Chugach. A forest supervisor has specific responsibility for the
B-284340

Page 7 GAO/RCED-00-45 Tongass National Forest

Tongass. Because the Tongass is so large, it, unlike other national forests, is

divided into three administrative areas, and the Tongass forest supervisor is

assisted by two assistant forest supervisors. The Forest Service manages

the Tongass to provide for multiple uses, such as timber, opportunities for

outdoor recreation, and healthy habitat for fish and wildlife.

The Forest Service’s

Planning Process

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 requires the Forest

Service to, among other things, (1) develop a plan to manage the lands and

resources of each national forest in coordination with the land

management planning processes of other federal agencies, states, and

localities and (2) revise each plan at least every 15 years. The Forest

Service’s planning regulations establish detailed procedures for developing

a forest plan, which require the agency to develop several alternatives for

managing a forest and make these alternatives available for public

comment.1 Under the regulations, an environmental impact statement

developed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of

1969 (NEPA) must accompany each forest plan. An environmental impact

statement assesses the effects of a major federal action that may

significantly affect the quality of the human environment.

To develop a plan, a forest supervisor first forms an interdisciplinary team,

which identifies management issues on the forest in consultation with the

public, as well as with state, local, and tribal governments. After the team

develops alternatives for managing the forest, the forest supervisor selects

a preferred alternative and submits the draft plan and environmental

impact statement to the public for comment. Following a review of the

comments, the forest supervisor presents a final plan and environmental

impact statement to the regional forester for approval.

Once the regional forester approves the plan, the Forest Service’s appeals

regulations allow the plan to be appealed to the Chief of the Forest Service

within 90 days. The Chief must decide all administrative appeals within 160

days of the date the last appeal was filed. The Chief’s decision shall, in

whole or in part, affirm or reverse the regional forester’s decision and may

include instructions for further action by the regional forester.

1

See app. I of Forest Service Decision-Making: A Framework for Improving Performance

(GAO/RCED-97-71, Apr. 27, 1997) for a more detailed discussion of the agency’s planning

process.
B-284340

Page 8 GAO/RCED-00-45 Tongass National Forest

According to federal regulations, the Chief’s appeal decision must generally

be based on the administrative record for the forest plan and on the

arguments and comments submitted by the appellants. The Chief may ask

for additional information from any appellant or from the regional forester,

but all appellants must be notified of such requests and given an

opportunity to comment. The regulations thus prohibit “ex parte”

contact—that is, contact, except as specified in the regulations, between

the Chief and any agency officials who developed the forest plan or any

appellants without notifying all appellants. These regulations also apply to

intervenors—those who are potentially adversely affected by an appeal and

have submitted a timely request to intervene.

Once the Chief has decided the appeals, the Secretary of Agriculture

generally has 15 days to exercise his or her discretion to review the Chief’s

decision and notify all participants that the decision is being reviewed. The

Secretary has delegated this responsibility to the Under Secretary for

Natural Resources and Environment. The discretionary review must be

completed within 30 days of the notice’s issuance. The review must be

based on the existing appeals record and the Chief’s decision, not on any

newly obtained information, according to federal regulations. The

regulations do not identify the Under Secretary’s options for ending the

appeals process; however, the Under Secretary’s decision cannot be

administratively appealed.

On October 5, 1999, the Forest Service proposed new planning regulations.2

Although the proposed regulations were not developed specifically to

address the process used to modify the management direction in the 1997

Tongass forest plan, it is unlikely, if the regulations are finalized, that this

process will be used again. The proposed regulations would replace the

agency’s postdecision forest plan appeal and discretionary review process

with a predecision objection process. Under the new process, the agency’s

regional foresters—rather than the Chief of the Forest Service−would

make the final decisions on objections to proposed revisions to forest

plans, and forest supervisors—rather than the regional foresters—would

approve the plans.

2

64 Fed. Reg. 54074 (Oct. 5, 1999).
B-284340

Page 9 GAO/RCED-00-45 Tongass National Forest

Laws Unique to the Tongass The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) of 1980

and the Tongass Timber Reform Act of 1990 apply specifically to the

Tongass. Under ANILCA, no withdrawal, reservation, lease, disposal or

other use of such lands that would significantly restrict subsistence uses

shall be effected until the relevant land management agency determines

that (1) the restriction is consistent with land management principles, (2)

the restriction will involve the minimum amount of land necessary, and (3)

action will be taken to minimize the restriction’s adverse effects on

subsistence uses. ANILCA also authorized special funding for the Tongass

to maintain the timber supply at a minimum of 4.5 billion board feet per

decade3 and exempted the Tongass from a NFMA provision restricting

timber harvesting on lands identified as unsuitable for harvest.

The Tongass Timber Reform Act of 1990 repealed ANILCA’s special timber

supply funding provision and made the Tongass generally subject to

NFMA’s provision restricting timber harvesting on lands identified as

unsuitable for harvest. Under the act, the Forest Service must seek to meet

the market demand for timber annually and over the 15-year planning

cycle, consistent with existing law, appropriations, and the provision of

multiple uses and the sustained yield of all forest resources. “Multiple use”

means managing forest resources so that they are used in the combination

that best meets the needs of the American people. “Sustained yield” means

achieving a high-level annual or regular, periodic output of forest resources

without impairing the productivity of the land. The Tongass Timber Reform

Act also limited timber harvesting near certain streams and made nine

modifications to long-term timber sale contracts between the Forest

Service and private parties, including additional provisions to prohibit the

disproportionate harvesting of high-volume old-growth timber. Large, tall

trees that are valuable for both wildlife habitat and timber production most

often characterize old-growth forest. Densely canopied, loosely spaced

trees and a floor punctuated by woody debris provide a unique habitat for

plants and wildlife, including the marten, hairy woodpecker, brown

creeper, and marbled murrelet. The large size of the trees also makes them

valuable for harvesting as timber.

3

A “board foot” is a unit of measurement for timber equaling the amount of wood contained

in an unfinished board 1 inch thick, 12 inches long, and 12 inches wide.
B-284340

Page 10 GAO/RCED-00-45 Tongass National Forest

The Process Used to

Modify the Tongass

Forest Plan and Decide

the Appeals Was

Unique

The Department of Agriculture’s Under Secretary for Natural Resources

and Environment used a unique process to approve modifications to the

management direction in the 1997 Tongass forest plan to address certain

concerns raised in appeals of the plan and decide the appeals on the basis

of the plan, as modified. According to the Forest Service, it is not unusual

for an Under Secretary to review, and on occasion direct the Chief to

modify, appeal decisions. However, this was the first time that an Under

Secretary approved substantive modifications to a forest plan and issued

initial appeal decisions based on the modified plan.4

The Tongass plan, signed in 1979, was the first forest plan approved under

NFMA. From 1979 through 1995, 122 additional plans covering the

remaining 154 national forests were approved. As of July 1999, 11 of the 123

plans had been revised. All but 1 of the 134 original and revised forest plans

have been appealed. Decisions have been reached on 127 of the appealed

plans. Decisions have not been reached on the remaining 6 plans.

Of the 127 plans on which appeal decisions have been reached, the Chief of

the Forest Service, in whole or in part, affirmed 119 and reversed 7. The

reversals may have included instructions for further action by the regional

forester. The Under Secretary approved substantive modifications to the

remaining plan (the Tongass plan) to address certain concerns raised in

appeals and simultaneously issued initial appeal decisions based on the

modified plan.

4

An ecoregional plan signed by the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior in April 1994

amended the forest plans for 19 national forests in the Pacific Northwest. However, the

ecoregional plan was the result of a presidential initiative to address federal court

injunctions, not a resolution of administrative appeals. See Ecosystem Planning: Northwest

Forest and Interior Columbia River Basin Plans Demonstrate Improvements in Land-Use

Planning (GAO/RCED-99-64, May 26, 1999).
B-284340

Page 11 GAO/RCED-00-45 Tongass National Forest

The Under Secretary

Modified the Plan to

Address Certain

Concerns and Quickly

End the Appeals

Process

The Department of Agriculture’s Under Secretary for Natural Resources

and Environment said he approved modifications to the management

direction in the 1997 plan and decided the appeals on the basis of the

modified plan for two reasons. First, he approved modifications to the

management direction in the 1997 plan because he believed he could “make

a good plan better” by increasing the protection of old-growth forest,

subsistence uses, and areas of special interest. Second, he decided the

appeals on the basis of the modified plan because he wanted to end the

appeals process as quickly as possible.

The three concerns addressed by the Under Secretary−(1) old-growth

forest and the species that depend on it for habitat; (2) lands and resources

used for subsistence hunting, fishing, and gathering by rural Alaskans; and

(3) areas of special interest valued for ecological, recreational, subsistence,

cultural, spiritual, and/or scenic purposes—were addressed in developing

the 1997 Tongass forest plan. The Forest Service spent 10 years and $13

million developing a legally defensible and scientifically credible plan to

sustain the Tongass’s resources. (See app. I.) The process included

numerous opportunities for public review and comment, numerous studies

and peer reviews of ecological and socioeconomic issues, several

assessments by panels of experts and scientists that were convened and

reconvened to evaluate the risks to particular wildlife species under

proposed management alternatives, and direct involvement by federal

regulatory agencies. A Forest Service report concluded that the 1997

Tongass forest plan “achieved a high degree of consistency with the

available scientific information” and acknowledged and documented the

risks to forest resources. According to the former regional forester for the

Alaska Region who approved the 1997 Tongass plan, the plan is legally

defensible, scientifically credible, and able to sustain the forest’s resources.

Thirty-three appeals were filed on the 1997 Tongass plan. The appeals

raised many of the same ecological and socioeconomic concerns that had

been studied and restudied in the process of developing the 1997 plan. A

Forest Service team, which reviewed the appeals, drafted a set of appeal

decisions. With one minor exception, the decisions responded to the

appellants’ concerns by affirming the 1997 plan. This set of decisions was

approved by the Department of Agriculture’s Office of General Counsel and

sent to the Chief’s office for his signature.

A Forest Service team consolidated the 33 appeals into 19 draft appeal

decisions. Forest Service officials familiar with the agency’s appeals
B-284340

Page 12 GAO/RCED-00-45 Tongass National Forest

process expected the Chief to sign the appeal decisions affirming the 1997

plan, but he never did. Instead, officials within the Chief’s office and the

Department of Agriculture identified four interrelated concerns that they

felt were not adequately addressed in the 1997 plan: (1) old-growth forest,

(2) subsistence uses, (3) areas of special interest, and (4) beach fringe−or

the stretch of land extending from the ocean shore inland.

To analyze the concerns and prepare preliminary alternatives for

addressing them, the Forest Service assembled a team of scientists and

appeals specialists from within the agency. This “review team” was

instructed (1) not to contact Forest Service officials in the Alaska Region or

the appellants and (2) to limit its review and analysis to the administrative

record for the 1997 Tongass plan and the existing appeals record. The team

found that these records lacked information for developing preliminary

alternatives to increase the protection of beach fringe, so it deleted this

concern. However, it found that the records did contain information to

change the 1997 plan to better protect old-growth forest, subsistence uses,

and areas of special interest, and it developed five preliminary alternatives

to reduce the risks to these lands and resources.

The Under Secretary, invoking his discretionary authority to review the

Chief’s appeal decisions and acting as the Department of Agriculture

official delegated the Secretary’s authorities for managing National Forest

System lands, chose one of the preliminary alternatives developed by the

review team. The selected alternative provides the greatest protection to

old-growth forest, subsistence uses, and areas of special interest. However,

the Under Secretary modified the alternative by increasing the number of

areas of special interest from 5 to 18 and deleting certain measures to

protect deer and brown bear. His modifications to the 1997 Tongass forest

plan (1) removed another 234,000 acres from timber harvesting and other

development activities, (2) increased the timber harvest rotation5 from 100

years to 200 years on about 40 percent of the forest where timber

harvesting is allowed, and (3) decreased the open road density in areas

where roads have been determined to significantly contribute to wolf

mortality.

The Under Secretary then ended the appeals process by deciding the

appeals on the basis of the 1997 plan, as modified. According to the Under

5

Timber harvest rotation refers to the planned number of years between the formation or

regeneration of a stand of trees and its final cutting at a specified age of maturity.
B-284340

Page 13 GAO/RCED-00-45 Tongass National Forest

Secretary, other options for addressing the concerns−such as returning the

plan to the forest to address the concerns or approving the 1997 plan and

beginning a new process to amend the plan−would have taken more time.

Concerns Are Related

to Trade-Offs Inherent

in the Modifications

and Process

The Under Secretary’s approval of modifications to the management

direction in the 1997 plan and decision of the appeals on the basis of the

modified plan marked the latest chapter in a controversial, 12-year struggle

to develop a plan to manage the Tongass. Interested and affected parties

have raised concerns about both the modifications and the process used to

approve the modifications and decide the appeals. These concerns are

related to the trade-offs among competing forest uses inherent in the

modifications and the trade-off between ending the appeals process as

quickly as possible and providing opportunities for additional public

participation and further scientific analysis. Both the modifications and the

process are now in litigation. In the interim, the residents of southeast

Alaska who are economically dependent on the Tongass, their communities

and elected officials, and regional businesses and organizations live in

uncertainty of the forest’s future.

Forest plans reflect difficult and often controversial trade-offs among

competing forest uses. For instance, by increasing the protection of oldgrowth forest, subsistence uses, and areas of special interest, the team of

Forest Service scientists and appeals specialists—assembled by the agency

to analyze the concerns and prepare preliminary alternatives for addressing

them—estimated that the 1999 modifications to the Tongass forest plan will

reduce the average annual allowable sale quantity of timber6 in the 1997

plan by 30 percent, from 267 million to 187 million board feet. However, the

estimated average annual allowable sale quantity of timber in the forest

plan, as modified, is not comparable to the estimate in the 1997 plan. The

allowable sale quantity under the 1997 plan was developed by using the

Alaska Region’s timber harvest planning model. This model had resulted in

the “most thorough and accurate analysis ever conducted for forest

planning purposes in Alaska,” according to the Forest Service. However,

team members told us that ex parte concerns precluded them from

contacting Forest Service officials in the Alaska Region to obtain data on

timber yields on different parts of the forest and from using the Alaska

6

The “allowable sale quantity” is the maximum quantity of timber that may be sold from an

area of suitable land covered by a forest plan over a decade. The quantity is usually

expressed on an annual basis as the “average annual allowable sale quantity.”
B-284340

Page 14 GAO/RCED-00-45 Tongass National Forest

Region’s timber harvest planning model in estimating the reduction in the

allowable sale quantity attributable to the 1999 modifications. Instead, the

team used a rudimentary formula that (1) multiplied the estimated average

yield per acre forestwide by the number of acres withdrawn from

development and (2) reduced the forestwide estimated average yield per

acre to reflect the increase in the timber harvest rotation from 100 years to

200 years on certain parts of the forest. The team then subtracted the

reduction in the allowable sale quantity from the allowable sale quantity in

the 1997 plan to estimate the allowable sale quantity under the modified

plan.

Timber harvesting is now limited to about 3 percent of the forest. Some

litigants believe that the modifications approved by the Under Secretary

went too far and that the Forest Service will not offer enough timber to

meet the market demand for it, in alleged violation of the Tongass Timber

Reform Act. Conversely, other litigants believe that the modifications did

not go far enough in reducing timber harvests. For example, some litigants

allege that the plan, as modified, violates the Tongass Timber Reform Act

because it will allow the Forest Service to offer timber in excess of market

demand.

The process used to modify the management direction in the 1997 plan is

also being challenged. For example, an environmental group has sued the

Forest Service, charging that the agency violated its appeals regulations by

failing to decide the group’s appeal on the Tongass forest plan by the

regulatory deadline. In addition, an Alaska timber industry association and

a group of southeast Alaska communities have filed suit against the Forest

Service, charging, among other things, that the process to revise the

Tongass forest plan ended and the 1997 plan became final in 1998, when the

regulatory deadlines for deciding appeals and conducting a discretionary

review passed. They maintain that the 1999 modifications to the Tongass

forest plan therefore constituted a significant amendment to the 1997 plan

and that, under the Forest Service’s planning regulations,7 the agency was

required to (1) follow the same procedure as that required for the

development and approval of a forest plan, (2) prepare a new

environmental impact statement in accordance with NEPA, and (3) seek

additional public involvement under NFMA and NEPA. The Forest Service,

on the other hand, argues that (1) the 1999 modifications were simply the

culmination of the plan revision process begun in 1987, (2) the revision did

7

See 36 C.F.R. § 219.10 (f) and 36 C.F.R. § 219.12 (a).
B-284340

Page 15 GAO/RCED-00-45 Tongass National Forest

not become final until the appeals were decided, and (3) all requirements

concerning environmental impact statements and public comments were

satisfied.

Interested and affected parties have also raised concerns about whether

the basis for the modifications was limited to the administrative record for

the 1997 forest plan and the arguments and comments submitted by the

appellants. For instance, the Alaska timber industry association and a

group of southeast Alaska communities assert that in approving the

modifications, the Under Secretary relied on a September 1998 draft study

of the market demand for Tongass timber that was not part of the appeals

record. The Forest Service responded that, while the Under Secretary

referred to the study, he did not rely on it in approving the modifications.

The litigants also argue that, in approving the modifications, the Under

Secretary improperly relied on an interim rule promulgated by the Forest

Service on February 12, 1999, which temporarily suspended new road

construction into most roadless areas until the agency develops a long-term

forest roads policy. According to the Under Secretary, the interim rule

provides that for plans in the appeals process, such as the Tongass plan,

road construction in unroaded areas can be addressed in the appeal

decisions (36 C.F.R. § 212.13).

In addition, litigants argue that the Under Secretary engaged in improper ex

parte contacts with certain appellants. According to the Under Secretary,

while he had conversations with one of the appellants that are not

summarized in the administrative record for the 1999 modifications, he

made it clear that he could not discuss modifications to the 1997 Tongass

forest plan with the appellant until the modifications had been approved.

Agency Comments We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Agriculture’s Forest

Service for its review and comment. In commenting on the draft report, the

Forest Service expressed the view that we had not accurately described

why the process used to modify the 1997 Tongass forest plan and decide

the appeals was unique. According to the agency, it is not unusual for an

Under Secretary to review, and on occasion direct the Chief to modify,

appeal decisions. What was unique was that this was the first time that an

Under Secretary approved substantive modifications to a forest plan and

issued initial appeal decisions based on the modified plan. In addition, the

agency suggested that we make clear early in the report that because of ex

parte concerns, the review team of Forest Service scientists and appeals

specialists was instructed not to contact Forest Service officials in the
B-284340

Page 16 GAO/RCED-00-45 Tongass National Forest

Alaska Region or the appellants. The team was also instructed to limit its

analysis to the administrative record for the 1997 Tongass forest plan and

the existing appeals record. We revised the draft report in response to these

concerns. We also made technical clarifications to the draft report, as

appropriate.

The full text of the Forest Service’s comments and our responses are in

appendix III.

Scope and

Methodology

To examine the process used by the Under Secretary for Natural Resources

and Environment to approve modifications to the management direction in

the 1997 plan and decide the appeals, we reviewed the available

administrative record, including appeals of the plan. In addition, we

researched relevant federal legislation and regulations. We also

interviewed officials from the Forest Service and the Department of

Agriculture who participated in modifying the plan and/or responding to

the appeals of the 1997 Tongass forest plan. In addition, we interviewed

officials from the Forest Service’s Alaska Region and representatives from

the office of the Governor of Alaska, environmental groups, and a timber

industry group. We conducted our work from June 1999 to March 2000 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 10 days after the

date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to the Honorable Dan

Glickman, Secretary of Agriculture, and the Honorable Michael Dombeck,

Chief of the Forest Service. We will also make copies available to others on

request.
B-284340

Page 17 GAO/RCED-00-45 Tongass National Forest

If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-

3841. Key contributors to this assignment were Charles S. Cotton, Angela

Sanders, and Richard P. Johnson.

Sincerely yours,

Jim Wells

Director, Energy, Resources,

and Science Issues
Page 18 GAO/RCED-00-45 Tongass National Forest

Appendix I

Information on the Process Used to Revise the Apendxies

1979 Tongass Forest Plan ApendxiI

This appendix provides information on the process the Forest Service used

to revise the 1979 Tongass forest plan, completed in 1997. Table 1

summarizes the major events in the plan’s revision. The remainder of the

appendix discusses these events in greater detail.
Appendix I

Information on the Process Used to Revise

the 1979 Tongass Forest Plan

Page 19 GAO/RCED-00-45 Tongass National Forest

Table 1: Major Events in the Revision of the 1979 Tongass Forest Plan

Date Event

1987

July Process of revising the original Tongass forest plan begins.

1990

June Forest Service releases the draft forest plan for public comment.

November The Congress enacts the Tongass Timber Reform Act.

1991

February Viable population (VPOP) committee sends the first draft of its report to the Forest Service.

September Forest Service releases a supplement to the draft forest plan for public comment.

1992

April Forest Service publishes the draft VPOP report for public review.

1993

December Fish and Wildlife Service receives a petition to list the Alexander Archipelago wolf as threatened.

1994

March Pacific Northwest Research Station releases the peer review of the VPOP report.

April Forest Service terminates its contract with the Alaska Pulp Corporation.

May Chief appoints a new regional forester to the Alaska Region.

New regional forester reorganizes the Tongass land management plan team.

Fish and Wildlife Service receives a petition to list the Queen Charlotte goshawk as endangered.

September Forest Service issues an environmental assessment on interim guidelines for public comment.

December Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and state of Alaska sign a memorandum of understanding to prevent

listing of species on the Tongass as endangered or threatened.

1995

July The Congress passes a rider prohibiting implementation of the environmental assessment’s guidelines.

1996

April Forest Service releases a revised supplement to the draft forest plan for public comment.

September Court remands Fish and Wildlife Service’s decision not to list the goshawk.

October Court remands Fish and Wildlife Service’s decision not to list the wolf.

1997

February Administration reaches agreement with the Ketchikan Pulp Company on closure of its pulp mill and termination of

its contract.

March Repaneling of scientists begins.

May Regional forester approves the Tongass forest plan.

July Pacific Northwest Research Station issues a report reconciling use of science with policy decisions in the final

Tongass plan.

September Fish and Wildlife Service concludes that listing of goshawk and wolf is not warranted.
Appendix I

Information on the Process Used to Revise

the 1979 Tongass Forest Plan

Page 20 GAO/RCED-00-45 Tongass National Forest

The First Tongass Plan

Was Approved in 1979

The Tongass was the first national forest to have an approved forest plan

under the National Forest Management Act (NFMA). The 1979 Tongass

forest plan designated certain areas of the forest off-limits to timber

harvesting and scheduled about 1.7 million of the forest’s 5.7 million acres

of commercial forestland1 as harvestable. This land was to support an

average annual allowable sale quantity of 450 million board feet.

The plan was administered on the Tongass by the forest’s three forest

supervisors. Because of its size, the Tongass is divided into three

administrative areas—Chatham, Stikine, and Ketchikan—each of which

has an area office, then headed by a forest supervisor. The Forest Service’s

Alaska Region, headquartered in Juneau, is responsible for the Tongass and

Alaska’s other national forest, the Chugach.

In 1980, the Congress passed the Alaska National Interests Lands

Conservation Act (ANILCA), which created 14 wilderness areas on the

Tongass and designated Admiralty Island and the Misty Fiords as national

monuments. Following ANILCA’s enactment, the Tongass’s commercial

forestland was reduced by about 1.7 million acres, from 5.7 million acres to

about 4 million acres. In addition, under ANILCA, no withdrawal,

reservation, lease, disposal, or other use of such lands that would

significantly restrict subsistence uses shall be effected until the relevant

land management agency determines that (1) the restriction is consistent

with land management principles, (2) the restriction will involve the

minimum amount of land necessary, and (3) action will be taken to

minimize the restriction’s adverse effects on subsistence uses. ANILCA

directed that at least $40 million derived from timber and other receipts be

made available to the Forest Service to maintain the timber supply from the

Tongass to the dependent forest products industry at a rate of 4.5 billion

board feet per decade. The Forest Service amended its 1979 Tongass forest

plan in 1986 to reflect ANILCA’s provisions.

1

Commercial forestland is land that produces or is capable of producing crops of industrial

wood and (1) has not been withdrawn from harvest by the Congress, the Department of

Agriculture, or the Forest Service; (2) is capable of being harvested without irreversible

damage to soil or watersheds; and (3) can be restocked within 5 years of harvesting.
Appendix I

Information on the Process Used to Revise

the 1979 Tongass Forest Plan

Page 21 GAO/RCED-00-45 Tongass National Forest

The Forest Service

Began to Revise the

Tongass Forest Plan In

1987

In 1987, the Forest Service began to revise the forest plan for the Tongass.

The agency started by involving the public in a scoping process to identify

issues that would need special attention by the interdisciplinary team

developing the revised forest plan. The team also started developing a

computer database of information about the resources on the Tongass,

such as the location of streams and timber stands, to provide information

on the potential effects of a revised plan.

The organizational structure for planning consisted of a core

interdisciplinary team headed by a team leader and an assistant team

leader. The team members included a wildlife biologist, a lands specialist, a

recreation planner, and a timber resource specialist, among others. The

team leader reported directly to the Chatham Forest Supervisor, who

represented all three forest supervisors and exercised day-to-day

responsibilities for the plan’s development. The Alaska Region’s Director of

Ecosystem Planning and Budget offered planning advice to the

interdisciplinary team leader. In addition, two groups advised the team. The

first group included the Forest Service’s regional directors for timber,

wildlife and fish, recreation, engineering, lands, minerals, and fish and

watersheds. The second group consisted of the planners from each of the

forest’s three administrative areas. This organizational structure provided

the interdisciplinary team with input from the forest’s three administrative

areas and from the regional directors, who are considered to be the

technical experts within the Forest Service’s regional office.

In June 1990, the Forest Service issued a draft forest plan for public

comment.2 The draft plan’s analysis centered around 11 issues identified

during scoping: scenic quality, recreation, fish habitat, wildlife habitat,

subsistence, timber harvest, roads, minerals, roadless areas, the local

economy, and wild and scenic rivers. The draft presented seven

alternatives that the Forest Service could adopt to manage the Tongass but

did not include a preferred alternative.

2

Tongass Land Management Plan Revision: Draft Environmental Impact Statement and

Tongass Land Management Plan Revision: Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Proposed

Revised Forest Plan, Forest Service (June 1990).
Appendix I

Information on the Process Used to Revise

the 1979 Tongass Forest Plan

Page 22 GAO/RCED-00-45 Tongass National Forest

A Viable Population

Committee Was

Established to

Examine Wildlife

Species on the Tongass

The wildlife strategy contained in the 1990 draft of the forest plan was

questioned. For example, some Forest Service staff from the three Tongass

administrative areas considered the approach too difficult to implement

and not scientifically supportable. Moreover, the Forest Service’s approach

to maintaining diverse wildlife populations was changing at this time. For

example, in a 1988 decision on an appeal of the approved forest plan for the

Flathead National Forest in northwest Montana, the Associate Chief of the

Forest Service directed the regional forester to leave 10 percent of certain

watersheds in old-growth areas large enough to provide habitat for certain

species until the region completed additional analyses of these species’

habitat requirements. In addition, in 1990, an interagency scientific

committee released a conservation strategy for the northern spotted owl in

the Pacific Northwest that advocated retaining large blocks of old-growth

forests as a way of ensuring the viability of owl populations.3

In response to concerns about the viability of certain old-growth-dependent

species on the Tongass, in October 1990, the interdisciplinary team revising

the Tongass forest plan established a committee to study the viability of

populations of various old-growth-dependent species—the “viable

population” committee. This committee’s principal mission was to identify

species whose viability might be impaired by some forest management

activities and to develop recommendations to maintain viable populations

for each such species. The committee was not part of the interdisciplinary

team.

Shortly after the committee was established and during the 6-month period

for commenting on the draft Tongass forest plan, the Congress passed the

Tongass Timber Reform Act of 1990. Among other things, this act repealed

ANILCA’s special funding provision for maintaining the timber supply from

the Tongass. The act required, instead, that the Forest Service seek to meet

the market demand for timber annually and over the 15-year planning

cycle, consistent with existing law, appropriations, and the provision of

multiple uses and the sustained yield of all forest resources. The act also

limited timber harvesting near certain streams, designated additional

wilderness areas within the Tongass, and designated 12 additional special

management areas in which timber harvesting and road building are

3

Thomas, et al., A Conservation Strategy for the Northern Spotted Owl: Report of the

Interagency Scientific Committee to Address the Conservation of the Northern Spotted Owl

(1990).
Appendix I

Information on the Process Used to Revise

the 1979 Tongass Forest Plan

Page 23 GAO/RCED-00-45 Tongass National Forest

generally prohibited. The act also made nine modifications to the Tongass’s

long-term timber sale contracts, including adding provisions to the

contracts to prohibit the disproportionate harvesting of old-growth timber.

The Forest Service amended its 1979 Tongass forest plan in February 1991

to reflect the act’s requirements.

The Forest Service

Prepared a Supplement

to the Draft Plan

To respond to the Tongass Timber Reform Act and comments received on

the 1990 draft forest plan, which included questions raised about the

adequacy of the wildlife viability analysis in the 1990 draft forest plan, the

Forest Service decided to prepare a supplement to the draft plan. In

February 1991, the viable population committee submitted a report to the

leader of the interdisciplinary team containing a proposed strategy for

conserving old-growth forest and specific standards for 13 species

dependent on old-growth forest as habitat. As foreshadowed by the

strategy of the interagency scientific committee for the Pacific Northwest,

the report recommended the use of large tracts of old-growth reserves

close enough together so that local wildlife populations could interact with

each other. According to the report, such a system would promote the

interchange of genetic material between populations and maximize

opportunities for recolonization should one of the populations suffer local

extinction. The report asserted that this strategy would affect a smaller

proportion of the suitable timber base than was affected by the interagency

scientific committee’s strategy or even by the standards appearing in the

1990 draft forest plan. The report further indicated that the recommended

standards would only “barely assure perpetuation” of certain species on the

Tongass.

As the interdisciplinary team prepared the supplement to the draft plan, it

rejected the strategy recommended by the viability population committee.

According to the supplement, the team rejected the committee’s habitat

protection recommendations because the team considered the evidence

supporting the recommendations to be insufficient. The draft plan

accompanying the supplement provided for (1) timber sales to be managed

so as to maintain large blocks of old-growth reserves and corridors

between the blocks, where compatible with other resource objectives, and

(2) standards and guidelines to protect any species that had been identified

by the Department of the Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service, the

Department of Commerce’s National Marine Fisheries Service, or the

Forest Service as threatened, endangered, or sensitive or as a candidate for

any of these categories.
Appendix I

Information on the Process Used to Revise

the 1979 Tongass Forest Plan

Page 24 GAO/RCED-00-45 Tongass National Forest

The supplement,4 issued in September 1991 for public comment, presented

five alternatives, including a preferred alternative. The preferred

alternative was designed, in the Forest Service’s words, to “enhance the

balanced use of resources of the forest and provide a public timber supply

to maintain the Southeast Alaska timber industry.” The alternative

proposed an average annual allowable sale quantity of 418 million board

feet—down from the allowable sale quantity in the 1979 plan of 450 million

board feet. During 1991 and the spring of 1992, the viable population

committee continued to work on refining and developing its proposed

strategy for conserving wildlife in its February 1991 report and produced a

draft report for review in April 1992.5 At the request of an Alaska Region

official, a wildlife ecologist from the Pacific Northwest Research Station—

a Portland, Oregon, research arm of the Forest Service—reviewed the draft

report and concluded in July 1992 that the report’s wildlife conservation

strategy was sound. The ecologist urged closer cooperation between the

interdisciplinary team and the viable population committee and

recommended further peer review of the committee’s draft report.

In December 1992, an Anchorage newspaper published an article accusing

the Forest Service of covering up the information contained in the viable

population committee’s draft report and of disregarding the report’s

conclusions. Forest Service officials denied the accusations and asserted

that the viable population committee’s report was only a draft, not yet

ready for public distribution, and that not enough information was

available to finalize the report. In January 1993, the Chairman of the House

Committee on Natural Resources asked the Secretary of Agriculture to

investigate this matter.

After the 1991 supplement to the draft forest plan was released for public

comment but before a preferred alternative was selected, the

interdisciplinary team carried out another study of fish and wildlife

viability. This study was to be included as an appendix—known as

“appendix M”—to the final forest plan. Appendix M described three

additional risk assessments of wildlife viability performed by the

4

Tongass Land Management Plan Revision: Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact

Statement and Tongass Land Management Plan Revision: Supplement to the Draft

Environmental Impact Statement, Proposed Revised Forest Plan, Forest Service (Aug.

1991).

5

Suring, et al., A Strategy for Maintaining Well-Distributed, Viable Populations of Wildlife

Associated with Old-Growth Forests in Southeast Alaska, review draft (Apr. 1992).
Appendix I

Information on the Process Used to Revise

the 1979 Tongass Forest Plan

Page 25 GAO/RCED-00-45 Tongass National Forest

interdisciplinary team, one of which was based on the viable population

committee’s strategy. The interdisciplinary team stated in appendix M that

these risk assessments amounted only to hypotheses and required

additional data and testing. In February 1993, the interdisciplinary team

presented a draft of a final revised forest plan—including a record of

decision with a preferred alternative selected by the forest supervisors—

for approval by the regional forester. The regional forester did not sign the

decision.

Twenty-three conservation biologists and resource scientists sent a letter to

the Vice President in March 1993, condemning the Forest Service’s

treatment of its scientists and their work on the Tongass and the

Clearwater National Forest in Idaho. In June 1993, the House Committee on

Appropriations issued a report to accompany the Forest Service’s fiscal

year 1994 appropriations bill directing the Alaska Region to (1) assist the

viable population committee in completing its report and (2) seek peer

review of both the completed report and appendix M. The committee

completed a draft of its report in May 1993. By August 1993, the Alaska

Region’s regional forester officially requested the Forest Service’s Pacific

Northwest Research Station to conduct an independent peer review of the

documents.

The Strategies for

Protecting Wildlife

Were Peer Reviewed

In March 1994, the Pacific Northwest Research Station released its report,

which contained 18 individual scientific reviews, a legal review, and a

summary of the reviews and recommendations.6 The peer review gave the

viable population committee’s draft report generally “high marks,” while

concluding that the strategy contained in appendix M was “not as thorough

or well motivated.” The peer review indicated that appendix M needed to

go further to meet the requirements of the relevant legislation.

The legal review concluded that while the viable population committee’s

strategy represented “an earnest, if highly cautious” attempt to properly

implement the Forest Service’s regulations for ensuring wildlife viability

and diversity, the proposed appendix’s strategy did “not appear to

implement either the spirit or the letter of these principles.” The legal

review also expressed doubt about the consistency of the Forest Service’s

proposed alternative with the Tongass Timber Reform Act’s restriction on

6

Kiester, et al., Review of Wildlife Management and Conservation Biology on the Tongass

National Forest: A Synthesis with Recommendations (1994).
Appendix I

Information on the Process Used to Revise

the 1979 Tongass Forest Plan

Page 26 GAO/RCED-00-45 Tongass National Forest

the disproportionate harvesting of old-growth timber. One of the scientific

reviewers also raised doubts about the legal validity of the timber harvest

plans outlined in the draft revised forest plan, noting that the plans

appeared to be incompatible with the agency’s own proposed wildlife

strategy.

One of the Two

Remaining Long-Term

Timber Contracts Was

Terminated

In the 1950s, the Forest Service awarded three 50-year contracts to timber

companies to harvest timber on the Tongass. A fourth contract was

awarded in the 1960s but was canceled before operations began. When

initiated, the contracts required that each of the companies construct and

operate a pulp mill—a mill that converts logs into wood pulp—to provide

for steady employment in southeast Alaska. One of the companies

constructed a pulp mill at Ketchikan, and another company constructed a

pulp mill at Sitka. The third company did not construct a mill, and its

contract was reduced to 25 years.

In April 1994, the Forest Service terminated one of the two remaining longterm contracts, asserting that the contract holder—the Alaska Pulp

Corporation—had breached the contract by closing its pulp mill in Sitka.

The corporation in turn filed an action against the Forest Service for breach

of contract and the unconstitutional taking of property. Litigation is still

pending.

A New Regional

Forester Redefined the

Direction of the Forest

Plan Revision

At the end of April 1994, the Alaska Region’s regional forester retired. In

May 1994, the Chief of the Forest Service appointed a new regional forester

to the Alaska Region. The new regional forester requested that the 1991

supplement to the draft forest plan be revised to take into account new

scientific knowledge about wildlife viability and new initiatives within the

Forest Service, among other things.

The regional forester identified five issues on which the revised

supplement would focus:

• wildlife viability, because of new information available from the viable

population committee and other sources;
Appendix I

Information on the Process Used to Revise

the 1979 Tongass Forest Plan

Page 27 GAO/RCED-00-45 Tongass National Forest

• caves and karst,7 because of the recent discovery of world-class karst in

the Ketchikan area;

• fish and riparian management, because of new information arising from

a congressionally mandated study—ongoing at that time—on

anadromous fish habitat8 and because of the importance of the fishing

industry to southeast Alaska;

• alternatives to clear-cutting,9 because of the Chief’s June 1992 policy to

reduce clear-cutting in national forests by as much as 70 percent in

order to manage forests in a more environmentally sensitive manner;

and

• socioeconomic effects, because of concern about how changes in

managing the Tongass could affect the timber and other industries,

especially in light of the then recent shutdown of one of the region’s two

pulp mills.

The New Regional

Forester Established a

New Planning Team

Structure

In mid-1994, the newly appointed regional forester established a new

planning team structure to revise the 1991 supplement to the draft Tongass

forest plan. The restructured planning team consisted of two groups—an

interagency policy group and an interdisciplinary team.

The Interagency Policy

Group Advised the

Interdisciplinary Team

The interagency policy group was composed of officials from the Alaska

Region, including the three forest supervisors; program managers from the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and

the National Marine Fisheries Service; and personnel from the state of

Alaska. The group’s role was to advise the interdisciplinary team on the

development of the revised supplement to the draft forest plan and to

provide interagency coordination with other federal and Alaska agencies.

7

Karst consists of areas underlain by soluble rocks, primarily limestone. Dissolution of the

subsurface strata results in areas of well-developed surface drainage that are sinkholes,

collapsed channels, or caves.

8

Report to Congress: Anadromous Fish Habitat Assessment, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station, Alaska Region (Jan. 1995).

9

Clear-cutting is a method of harvesting timber that involves removing most or all of the

trees from a timber-harvesting site at one time.
Appendix I

Information on the Process Used to Revise

the 1979 Tongass Forest Plan

Page 28 GAO/RCED-00-45 Tongass National Forest

The policy group was disbanded in April 1996 when the revised forest plan

was issued for public comment.

The Interdisciplinary Team

Was Divided Into Two

Branches

The interdisciplinary team is divided into two branches: a policy (also

called a management) branch and a science branch. The regional forester

assigned coleaders to the interdisciplinary team—a deputy forest

supervisor to head the team’s policy branch and a research scientist to head

the science branch. The policy and science branches coordinated their

efforts to develop alternatives for managing the Tongass.

The Science Branch Advised

the Policy Branch

Under the reorganized planning team structure, the Director of the Pacific

Northwest Research Station appointed research scientists to the

interdisciplinary team’s science branch between the fall of 1994 and early

1995 with the concurrence of the regional forester. They included scientists

with backgrounds in forest ecology, wildlife biology, social science,

hydrology, geology, forestry, and statistics. According to Forest Service

officials, scientists were appointed because of concerns about the

scientific credibility of the wildlife strategy in the 1991 supplement to the

draft forest plan.

The research scientists gathered information primarily on the five issues

identified by the regional forester. They (1) gathered existing scientific data

pertaining to the Tongass, (2) reviewed various assumptions and strategies

used in the plan, and (3) developed estimates of risks to resources that

might result from various proposed management activities that were

eventually included in the revised supplement to the draft environmental

impact statement. In most instances, the scientists did not have the time to

develop new data but, rather, relied on information already in existence.

The regional forester and science branch scientists with whom we spoke

told us that although the research scientists were part of the

interdisciplinary team, they did not participate in developing the

alternatives or selecting the preferred alternative in the revised supplement

to the draft forest plan. Rather, the research scientists in the science branch

were responsible for (1) gathering information on the five issues and

forwarding it to the policy branch and (2) providing comments and views

on related scientific studies and indicating the risks involved in adopting

various management options.
Appendix I

Information on the Process Used to Revise

the 1979 Tongass Forest Plan

Page 29 GAO/RCED-00-45 Tongass National Forest

After the policy branch had developed the alternatives to be included in the

revised supplement to the draft forest plan, the science branch convened

10 panels of experts and specialists. Each of nine panels examined the

potential effects of the nine alternatives on one of the following nine issues:

the Alexander Archipelago wolf, the northern goshawk, the marbled

murrelet, the American marten, the brown bear, terrestrial mammals,

fish/riparian areas, old-growth forests, and communities. A tenth panel

updated an existing habitat capability model for projecting the effects of

the nine alternatives on the Sitka black-tailed deer. At the same time, a

working group evaluated the risk each alternative could pose to

subsistence uses.

The Policy Branch

Developed Alternatives

Many of the policy branch’s members were from the prior interdisciplinary

team. The policy branch included national forest personnel with

backgrounds in fish and wildlife biology, economics, recreation planning,

resource information, wildlife ecology, and timber planning.

The policy branch was responsible for developing the alternatives in the

revised supplement of the draft forest plan, managing the resource

database, coordinating public involvement, maintaining documentation of

the planning process, and calculating the impact of alternatives on the

amount of timber available for harvest. In developing the alternatives,

members of the policy branch considered the scientific information

gathered by the science group, as well as the scientists’ comments and

views on the risks involved in adopting various management options. The

two branches also worked together to summarize the findings of the 11

scientific assessment panels convened by the science branch and present

the summary to the forest supervisors to aid them in selecting a preferred

alternative for managing the forest. Alaska Region officials told us that

members of the policy branch chose the various management options, such

as the size of the beach fringe and the extent of the wild and scenic rivers,

presented in each alternative.

Forest Supervisors

Played a New Role in

the Restructured Team

Under the planning team structure in effect from 1987 to August 1994, the

Chatham forest supervisor exercised day-to-day responsibility for

developing the revised Tongass forest plan and directly supervised the

interdisciplinary team. However, under the new regional forester’s new

planning team structure, the three forest supervisors became members of

the interagency policy group whose role was to advise, rather than

supervise, the interdisciplinary team in developing the revised supplement
Appendix I

Information on the Process Used to Revise

the 1979 Tongass Forest Plan

Page 30 GAO/RCED-00-45 Tongass National Forest

to the draft forest plan. This new role for the forest supervisors was

controversial both inside and outside the Forest Service.

The forest supervisors stated that they were not involved in the decision to

restructure the planning team or in appointing its new members, including

the research scientists. According to the supervisors, between August 1994

and September 1995, this new management structure prevented them from

exercising their decision-making responsibilities under NFMA with respect

to appointing and supervising the interdisciplinary team.

For example, one forest supervisor told us that the supervisors did not

participate in developing the alternatives or establishing the scientific

assessment panels. He said that if he had been responsible for supervising

the interdisciplinary team, he would not have convened the panels because

of their anticipated high costs, the lack of data on which to make informed

decisions, and the inadequacy of similar past efforts.

According to the deputy forest supervisor assigned by the regional forester

to head the interdisciplinary team’s policy branch, he tried to keep the

forest supervisors informed about the interdisciplinary team’s work but

generally did not ask them for direction. In addition, he told us that the

deputy regional forester, rather than the forest supervisors, had been

assigned responsibility for hiring, firing, and promoting Tongass planning

staff between August 1994 and September 1995.

The forest supervisors also believe they were not invited to participate in

some key meetings held by the interagency policy group. Other Forest

Service officials note that the interagency policy group was a large,

unwieldy body that made few, if any, decisions.

According to the regional forester, the forest supervisors informed him of

their concerns in the fall of 1995. He concluded that the communication

link between the deputy forest supervisor and the forest supervisors was

not working. He told us that from that point forward, the supervisors

became “reengaged” in the planning process. At about this time, the

supervisors began to participate in meetings held by other Forest Service

members of the interagency policy group. Subsequently, the forest

supervisors crafted the preferred alternative included in the April 1996

revised supplement to the draft forest plan.
Appendix I

Information on the Process Used to Revise

the 1979 Tongass Forest Plan

Page 31 GAO/RCED-00-45 Tongass National Forest

The Revised

Supplement to the

Draft Plan Was

Released for Public

Comment

In April 1996, the Forest Service released the revised supplement to the

draft plan for public comment.10 The revised supplement differed

substantively from the two previous versions of the draft plan that had

been issued for public comment. The revised supplement presented nine

alternatives and a preferred alternative. Each alternative consisted of

variations of 10 components: system and number of old-growth reserves,

rotation age for timber, old growth and watershed retention, method of

timber harvesting, extent of preservation of karst and caves, extent of

riparian protection, size of beach fringe, estuary protection, timber harvest

in watersheds, and deer winter range.

The three forest supervisors considered the initial nine alternatives in the

revised supplement before selecting a combination of components from

the alternatives to create their preferred alternative. The preferred

alternative incorporated old-growth reserves, an average 100-year rotation

age for timber, a combination of harvesting methods, a two-aged timberharvesting system, a combination of riparian protection options, and an

average allowable sale quantity of 357 million board feet per year.

Compared with the 1979 forest plan, the preferred alternative and the

majority of the other alternatives considered increased the protection of

wildlife habitat and decreased the amount of timber available for

harvesting.

Socioeconomic Effects

Were Addressed

The April 1996 revised forest plan and environmental impact statement for

the Tongass placed heavy emphasis on regional socioeconomic effects.

They did not, however, attempt to quantify the economic effects on local

communities. For example, the revised supplement examined the effects of

reduced timber harvesting on the timber, recreation, and fishing industries,

both for the region and for the nation, and expressed these effects in terms

of jobs and income created or lost. However, for individual communities,

the revised supplement described socioeconomic effects much more

generally than it did for the region as a whole. The revised supplement

profiled each of southeast Alaska’s 32 communities separately and

discussed the composition of each community’s economy. However, the

10Tongass Land Management Plan Revision: Revised Supplement to the Draft Environmental

Impact Statement and Tongass Land Management Plan Revision: Revised Supplement to the

Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Proposed Revised Forest Plan, Forest Service,

Alaska Region (Mar. 1996).
Appendix I

Information on the Process Used to Revise

the 1979 Tongass Forest Plan

Page 32 GAO/RCED-00-45 Tongass National Forest

revised supplement did not quantify the economic impact but simply stated

whether a proposed alternative would have a negative, positive, or

indifferent effect on the timber, fishing, and recreation sectors of the

community’s economy.

Forest Service economists told us that socioeconomic effects were not

forecast as specifically for communities as they were for the region

because not enough information was available about either the

communities or the location of future timber sales. For example, Forest

Service officials told us that without knowing where a timber sale will take

place and how the timber will be processed, the Forest Service cannot

determine which communities will be affected by timber sales. The 1990

draft environmental impact statement and the 1991 supplement to the draft

environmental impact statement also did not attempt to forecast specific

effects on individual communities.

The Forest Service

Solicited and Received

Public Comments on

the Draft Revised Plan

After the revised supplement to the draft plan was released for public

comment, the Forest Service held open houses and hearings in southeast

Alaska’s 32 communities, met with interested groups, and discussed the

proposed revised plan on local media. The revised supplement to the draft

plan also generated public meetings and demonstrations, as well as

congressional hearings. In July 1996, the regional forester granted a 30-day

extension (through late Aug. 1996) to the 90-day comment period after

considering the public comments received to date and the interest shown

by the public in extending the comment period. About 21,000 respondents

submitted comments. In comparison, for the 1990 and 1991 drafts released

for public comment, the Forest Service received comments from about

3,700 and 7,300 respondents, respectively.

Because of the large volume of public comments, the Alaska Region did not

have the resources to effectively analyze them alone. Instead, regional

officials contracted with a Forest Service team of specialists in content

analysis from the Flathead National Forest in Montana. Between June 1996

and October 1996, the in-Service team analyzed the public comments.

Substantive issues, concerns, and questions raised by commenters were

identified by the in-Service team and given to the interdisciplinary team for

consideration in developing the revision to the final plan. The in-Service

team, working primarily on the Flathead National Forest, consisted of

about 40 people, including a project coordinator, 2 team leaders, computer

support staff, writers/coders, data entry staff, and editors. In addition, staff

from the Alaska Region assisted the in-Service team.
Appendix I

Information on the Process Used to Revise

the 1979 Tongass Forest Plan

Page 33 GAO/RCED-00-45 Tongass National Forest

In early October 1996, the in-Service team prepared the final draft content

analysis summary displaying demographic information and specific issueby-issue analysis in a summary of public comments. According to the

content analysis done by the in-Service team, (1) the majority of the public

comments concerned the level of timber harvesting that the preferred

alternative allowed, (2) over half the comments supported lowering the

amount of timber available for harvesting and suggested terminating or not

extending the Tongass’s remaining long-term timber-harvesting contract,

and (3) many of the respondents, especially southeastern Alaskans, were

worried about the social and economic effects on their communities if the

preferred alternative was selected .

The New Regional

Forester Involved

Regulatory Agencies in

Revising the Plan

As discussed earlier, in mid-1994, the newly appointed regional forester

established a new planning team structure to revise the 1991 supplement to

the draft Tongass forest plan. Under the new structure, the regulatory

agencies were members of the interagency policy group established to

advise the interdisciplinary team and to improve interagency coordination.

Interagency coordination became increasingly important in December 1993

when the Fish and Wildlife Service received a petition to list the Alexander

Archipelago wolf as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. In

addition, in May 1994, the Fish and Wildlife Service received a petition to

list the Queen Charlotte goshawk as endangered under the act. Both

subspecies occur on the Tongass and depend on old-growth forest for

habitat. The revised Tongass forest plan, when issued, would affect the

management of these subspecies’ habitat and could thus be a determinant

in the viability of the species.

Besides involving the Fish and Wildlife Service in the interagency policy

group, the Forest Service, in December 1994, signed a memorandum of

understanding with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Alaska

Department of Fish and Game to prevent the listing of species on the

Tongass as endangered or threatened. The memorandum provided for the

agencies to assess wildlife habitat, share information about species they

manage, and meet regularly to discuss the status of species to reduce the

need to list them under federal or state endangered species acts.

In addition, the Forest Service’s Alaska Region acted independently to

prevent the listing of the wolf, the goshawk, and other species:
Appendix I

Information on the Process Used to Revise

the 1979 Tongass Forest Plan

Page 34 GAO/RCED-00-45 Tongass National Forest

• In June 1994, the regional forester deferred timber harvesting in oldgrowth reserves that the viable population committee had identified as

needed to maintain viable populations of old-growth-dependent species.

• In September 1994, the Forest Service issued for comment an

environmental assessment intended to protect the wildlife habitat of

such species as the goshawk and the wolf while maintaining a supply of

timber for local industry. The proposed action in the environmental

assessment was to provide interim management guidelines to protect

the species until the revised supplement to the draft forest plan was

approved. If implemented, the guidelines were intended to protect those

areas identified by the viable population committee as needed to

maintain viable populations of old-growth-dependent species. This

action was predicted to “likely result in measurably lower timber sale

offerings to independent mills,” as well as defer some timber sale

offerings for the Tongass’s remaining long-term contract. In July 1995,

the Congress passed an act 11 containing a rider effectively prohibiting

the Forest Service from implementing the management guidelines.

Accordingly, the regional forester did not sign the environmental

assessment or implement the guidelines.

In 1995, the Fish and Wildlife Service found that listing the wolf and the

goshawk under the Endangered Species Act was not warranted.

Environmental plaintiffs challenged these decisions. In September 1996, as

the Forest Service was reviewing public comments on the revised

supplement to the draft plan and formulating an alternative intended to

become the final Tongass forest plan, a federal district court remanded the

Fish and Wildlife Service’s decision on the goshawk to the agency. In

October 1996, the same court reached the same decision with respect to

the wolf. In each case, the court ruled that the Fish and Wildlife Service’s

basis for not listing the subspecies−that the revised Tongass forest plan

would provide adequate protection for the species’ habitat−was not valid,

since the plan had not yet been formally approved by the Forest Service.

Instead, the court held that the Fish and Wildlife Service must base its

decision on the current (1979, as amended) plan and the current status of

the subspecies and its habitat.

11Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Additional Disaster Assistance, for AntiTerrorism Initiatives, for Assistance in the Recovery From the Tragedy That Occurred at

Oklahoma City, and Rescissions Act, 1995, P.L. 104-19.
Appendix I

Information on the Process Used to Revise

the 1979 Tongass Forest Plan

Page 35 GAO/RCED-00-45 Tongass National Forest

As a result of these court decisions, the Fish and Wildlife Service began

negotiations with the Forest Service in an attempt to ensure that the final

forest plan would prevent the need to list the goshawk or the wolf as

endangered or threatened.

Despite the involvement of federal regulatory and state agencies in

developing the revised supplement to the draft forest plan, the

Environmental Protection Agency, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the

National Marine Fisheries Service submitted comments on the draft plan

that criticized the preferred alternative as posing a high level of risk to

wildlife and habitat. The Fish and Wildlife Service was concerned that

harvesting timber on a 100-year rotation, as proposed in the preferred

alternative, would prevent forests from recovering characteristics of oldgrowth stands, resulting in the loss of viable populations of species that

depend on old-growth forests for habitat. The Environmental Protection

Agency and the National Marine Fisheries Service favored more expansive

riparian protection than the preferred alternative provided to protect fish

habitat and water quality.

The Administration

Reached Agreement on

the Remaining LongTerm Contract Holder’s

Mill

In February 1997, the administration reached an agreement with the

company holding the remaining long-term timber sale contract to terminate

the contract on December 31, 1999, with a possible extension to October

31, 2000. This agreement required the company—the Ketchikan Pulp

Company—to continue operating two sawmills in southeast Alaska and to

clean up specified environmental damage resulting from its operations in

southeast Alaska. In exchange, the administration agreed to supply enough

timber to operate the sawmills for 3 years and to make certain cash

payments to the company.
Appendix I

Information on the Process Used to Revise

the 1979 Tongass Forest Plan

Page 36 GAO/RCED-00-45 Tongass National Forest

Scientific Panels Were

Reconvened in Early

1997

In March and April 1997, the scientists on the planning team reconvened

the scientific panels to assess the alternatives in the draft revised forest

plan, some of which had been modified since the revised supplement was

released for public comment in April 1996. As the final alternative for the

forest plan was being developed, the public, the Congress, and officials in

the departments of Agriculture and the Interior, among others, expressed

concern that the final alternative might pose an unacceptable risk to forest

resources—particularly wildlife and fish. As a result, six panels met to

review both the preferred alternative in the draft revised plan and the

emerging final alternative to gauge the effects of these alternatives on

several species of wildlife that live on the Tongass.12 Specifically, these

panels addressed effects on the Queen Charlotte goshawk, Alexander

Archipelago wolf, brown bear, American marten, fisheries resources

(anadromous and resident), and other terrestrial mammals. The head of the

science group described these panels as “not designed to be a fineprecision exercise, but rather one to provide decisionmakers and the

public with informed professional judgments obtained through a

structured, objective process.”

The Draft Revised

Forest Plan Became

Final

On May 23, 1997, the regional forester approved a revised plan and final

environmental impact statement for the Tongass. The plan established an

allowable sale quantity of 267 million board feet of timber per year, down

from 450 million board feet in the 1979 plan, and lower than the 357 million

board feet proposed in the April 1996 preferred alternative released for

public comment.

The 1997 Forest Plan

Led to a Decision by

Fish and Wildlife Not

to List the Goshawk

and Wolf

On September 4, 1997, the Fish and Wildlife Service concluded, primarily

on the basis of the revised plan, that listing the goshawk and wolf under the

Endangered Species Act was not warranted. In April 1998, environmental

groups sued the Fish and Wildlife Service, seeking to force the listing of the

Queen Charlotte goshawk under the Endangered Species Act. The groups

asserted, among other things, that the 1997 Tongass forest plan was still

insufficient to protect goshawk habitat.

12See Charles G. Shaw III, Use of Risk Assessment Panels During Revision of the Tongass

Land and Resource Management Plan, Forest Service (July 1999).
Appendix I

Information on the Process Used to Revise

the 1979 Tongass Forest Plan

Page 37 GAO/RCED-00-45 Tongass National Forest

The Science Group

Concluded Its Review

of the Use of Science in

the Selected

Alternative

In October 1997, the Pacific Northwest Research Station completed a

report examining the extent to which science was considered in developing

the 1997 Tongass plan.13 The report’s goal was to examine “how scientific

information was used in making management decisions” and to evaluate

“whether the decisions were consistent with the available information.”

The report concluded that the final management decision made in

developing the 1997 forest plan “achieved a high degree of consistency with

the available scientific information.” To make decisions that were

“consistent” with science, the policy group had to show that they (1)

considered all relevant scientific information, (2) understood and correctly

interpreted the scientific information, and (3) acknowledged and

documented the risks to forest resources associated with their decisions in

the 1997 plan.

The Organizational

Structure of the

Tongass Changed

In 1998, the organizational structure of the Tongass changed. Instead of

three forest supervisors, one forest supervisor has specific responsibility

for the Tongass. An assistant forest supervisor now heads each

administrative area—formerly headed by a forest supervisor. Officials in

the Forest Service’s Alaska Region told us that the reorganization is

intended to devolve the management of the Tongass and the

implementation of the Tongass forest plan from the region to the forest.

13Everest et al., Evaluation of the Use of Scientific Information in Developing the 1997

Forest Plan for the Tongass National Forest, Forest Service (Oct. 1997).
Page 38 GAO/RCED-00-45 Tongass National Forest

Appendix II

Information on the Process Used to Modify

the 1997 Tongass Forest Plan ApendxiI

This appendix provides information on the process used to modify the

management direction in the 1997 Tongass forest plan and decide the

appeals of the plan. Table 2 summarizes the major events in this process.

The remainder of the appendix discusses these events in greater detail.
Appendix II

Information on the Process Used to Modify

the 1997 Tongass Forest Plan

Page 39 GAO/RCED-00-45 Tongass National Forest

Table 2: Major Events in the Modification of the 1997 Tongass Forest Plan

Date Event

1997

May Regional forester approves the revised Tongass forest plan.

September As of this date−the deadline for filing appeals of the 1997 Tongass forest plan−a total of 33 appeals are filed.

1998

March Regulatory deadline for deciding appeals passes; appeal decisions are not yet drafted.

April Environmental groups sue the Fish and Wildlife Service to list the goshawk.

June All draft appeal decisions are submitted to the Chief’s office by this date; the draft decisions affirm the plan.

July Senate appropriations bill contains a rider requiring the Forest Service to offer at least 90 percent of the Tongass’s

annual allowable sale quantity of timber for sale each year.

Environmental groups request a stay of nine timber sales on the Tongass; Forest Service does not respond to the

request.

August Industry group files suit alleging that the 1997 forest plan violates planning laws and market demand provisions of

the Tongass Timber Reform Act.

September Alaska Region completes a draft study of the market demand for timber.

October The Congress drops the rider to the Senate appropriations bill and funds the preparation of additional timber sales

on the Tongass.

November Draft appeal decisions remain unsigned, and officials from the Forest Service, Agriculture, and Justice begin to

seek an approach to decide the appeals.

December Environmental group sues the Forest Service for missing the regulatory deadline for deciding appeals.

1999

January

Forest Service and Agriculture decide to modify the management direction in the 1997 forest plan and draft new

appeal decisions.

Forest Service and Agriculture assemble a team to analyze four concerns.

February Agriculture’s Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment decides he will sign the modifications to the

1997 forest plan.

March Modifications to the plan are largely completed, and work shifts to drafting new appeal decisions.

April Under Secretary approves modifications to the plan and decides the appeals on the basis of the modified plan.

May Environmental and industry groups challenge the modifications and process in court, asserting that they violate

planning laws and the Tongass Timber Reform Act.

June Court orders the Fish and Wildlife Service to gather additional information on the goshawk.

August Administration adjusts the termination date of the remaining long-term timber contract from December 31, 1999, to

no later than October 31, 2000.

September Environmental groups sue, alleging that the administration unlawfully failed to assess the environmental impact of

the timber contract adjustment.

October Modifications to the Tongass forest plan take effect.
Appendix II

Information on the Process Used to Modify

the 1997 Tongass Forest Plan

Page 40 GAO/RCED-00-45 Tongass National Forest

Thirty-Three Appeals

Were Filed on the 1997

Tongass Forest Plan

Thirty-three appeals were filed on the revised plan within the 90 days

established in the Forest Service’s regulations. This period expired on

September 25, 1997. In addition to procedural issues associated with the

development of the forest plan, the appeals raised numerous substantive

concerns. The largest number of appeals focused on the forest plan’s

potential risks to the environment, particularly through the use of clearcutting. The second most frequently cited concerns addressed road

building. The appeals filed from industry groups and some local

communities focused on the 1997 plan’s reduction in the allowable sale

quantity of timber and the economic damage to the timber industry that

might result. Intervenors also commented on appeals filed by others.

According to staff in the Forest Service’s appeals office, resolution of the

Tongass appeals received high priority. Nevertheless, none of the appeals

was decided within the 160-day period established in the Forest Service’s

planning regulations. This period expired on March 4, 1998. A Forest

Service team consolidated the 33 appeals into 19 draft appeal decisions.

With one minor exception, the decisions responded to the appellants’

concerns by affirming the 1997 plan. By the end of June 1998, all of the

draft appeal decisions had been sent to the Chief’s office. These draft

decisions were in final form and had been approved by the Department of

Agriculture’s Office of General Counsel. Officials familiar with the appeals

process in the Forest Service expected that the Chief would shortly sign the

appeal decisions, but he never did.

Implementation of

1997 Plan Gave Rise to

Controversy

Litigation, administrative disputes, and congressional action related to the

implementation of the 1997 plan proceeded while the Forest Service

considered the appeals. For example, in October 1997, a timber industry

group petitioned the Forest Service’s Alaska Region to amend the 1997

plan. Among other things, the group sought changes to the plan to ensure

that industry could have sufficient timber under contract to ensure a 3-year

supply for a veneer plant expected to be opened near Ketchikan. In July

1998, a Senate appropriations bill (S. 2237) was reported out of committee

with a rider that would have required the Forest Service to offer for sale

each year at least 90 percent of the annual allowable sale quantity of timber

in the 1997 plan.

Conversely, at the end of July 1998, several environmental groups

requested the Forest Service to stay nine pending timber sales, attempting

to preserve a meaningful opportunity for a review of their appeals of the
Appendix II

Information on the Process Used to Modify

the 1997 Tongass Forest Plan

Page 41 GAO/RCED-00-45 Tongass National Forest

1997 plan. A representative of one of the groups said the request for a stay

stemmed, in part, from the groups’ fear that the Forest Service was

beginning to implement the provisions of the 1997 plan challenged in the

groups’ appeals. Although the Forest Service’s regulations provide that the

agency must respond to a request for a stay within 10 days, the agency

never responded to the request. However, in October, the Forest Service’s

Washington Office directed the regional forester in Alaska to cease

advertising timber sales that were the subject of unresolved appeals or

litigation.

Immediately after the period for responding to the request for a stay closed

in August 1998, a timber industry group filed suit against the Forest Service.

Among other things, this suit alleged that the 1997 forest plan violated the

Tongass Timber Reform Act because the Forest Service had failed to (1)

accurately determine the market demand for timber from the Tongass and

(2) seek to meet that demand. The timber industry group sought to enjoin

implementation of the 1997 forest plan and require the Forest Service to

either continue implementing the 1979 plan until a revised forest plan was

approved or adopt an earlier draft as the revised forest plan.

In September 1998, the Forest Service’s Alaska Region completed a draft

study evaluating the market demand for Tongass timber. The draft study

concluded that under a high-demand scenario, the demand for Tongass

timber would average approximately 182 million board feet per year over

the next decade—nearly 30 million board feet higher than the agency’s

previous high-demand estimate. The draft study specified that in

establishing the market demand, the Forest Service would take into

account the timber industry’s need to have an adequate backlog of uncut

timber under contract. Staff from the region briefed officials from the

Forest Service’s Washington Office, the Department of Agriculture, the

state of Alaska, the Department of Justice, and the Alaska congressional

delegation on the draft study’s findings. The draft study was released for

public comment in December 1998.

In October 1998, the Alaska Senate delegation agreed to drop the rider to

the appropriations bill requiring a minimum Tongass timber supply. In

exchange, the Secretary of Agriculture promised to spend $12.5 million to

make sufficient timber available on the Tongass to support the proposed

veneer plant. The Secretary also informally agreed to seek an extension of

the remaining long-term contract and make an effort to resolve the

concerns raised in the timber industry group’s lawsuit.
Appendix II

Information on the Process Used to Modify

the 1997 Tongass Forest Plan

Page 42 GAO/RCED-00-45 Tongass National Forest

In early December 1998, one of the Tongass forest plan appellants−an

environmental group—sued the Forest Service, alleging that the agency

had violated its appeals regulations by failing to decide the group’s appeal

within the 160-day period established in the regulations. The group sought

to force the Forest Service to decide its appeal.

Agencies Sought an

Approach to Decide

the Appeals

Beginning in the fall of 1998, officials from the Department of Agriculture

held a series of meetings on the Tongass, often including officials from the

Forest Service, the Department of Justice, and other federal agencies. As

early as October 1998, officials in the Department of Agriculture

considered invoking the Secretary of Agriculture’s discretionary authority

to review the appeals, and by November, the Department of Agriculture’s

Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment had decided to

assemble a “SWAT team” to address the appeals. In December, the Under

Secretary decided to meet with Forest Service personnel from the Alaska

Region to help decide the appeals. Two officials—the heads of the region’s

policy and science groups that drafted the 1997 plan—flew to Washington,

D.C., in early January 1999 to help Forest Service officials navigate the 1997

plan’s vast administrative record. However, according to Forest Service

officials, the next day these officials were sent back to Alaska because of

concerns about federal regulations prohibiting ex parte contact with Forest

Service officials who developed the 1997 Tongass plan.

Decisionmakers

Identified Concerns

By January 1999, the Chief’s office and the Department of Agriculture had

identified four interrelated concerns that they felt were not adequately

addressed in the 1997 plan: (1) old-growth forest and the species that

depend on it for habitat; (2) subsistence uses by rural Alaskans; (3) areas of

the forest valued for ecological, recreational, subsistence, cultural,

spiritual, and/or scenic purposes; and (4) beach fringe—the stretch of land

extending from the ocean shore inland.
Appendix II

Information on the Process Used to Modify

the 1997 Tongass Forest Plan

Page 43 GAO/RCED-00-45 Tongass National Forest

Amount and Distribution of

Old-Growth Forest

The amount of old-growth forest and where it should be on the Tongass has

been debated for decades. This debate centers on how much productive

old-growth forest—and, in particular, how many high-volume tree

stands 1

—should be retained to protect wildlife and provide opportunities

for recreation and how much should be made available for timber

harvesting. On the forest as a whole, over 350,000 acres of productive old

growth have been logged since 1954, the year before the first long-term

timber contract was awarded. Timber harvesting has historically been

concentrated in high-volume stands.

A related debate concerns where old growth should be protected on the

forest. Across the Tongass, timber harvesting has been concentrated in the

higher-volume stands of timber and in timber at lower elevations. Timber

harvesting has occurred in a spatially clumped fashion across the Tongass,

concentrated on islands such as Prince of Wales, Northeast Chichagof, and

Zarembo. Although the 1997 Tongass forest plan created a network of

“habitat conservation areas,” which contain old-growth forest, it forecasted

a continuing decline in the amount of old-growth forest on the Tongass,

including a decline in the amount of high-volume old-growth forest on

Prince of Wales Island.

Subsistence Uses Another area of concern for many rural Alaskans is the ability of the

Tongass to sustain subsistence uses. Subsistence hunting, fishing, trapping,

and gathering activities represent a major focus of life for many southeast

Alaskans and may play a significant role in supplementing their cash

incomes during periods when opportunities to participate in the wage

economy are limited or nonexistent. Subsistence activities also have

considerable cultural significance for both native and nonnative Alaskans.

One species especially important for subsistence is the Sitka black-tailed

deer, which residents of many communities in southeast Alaska hunt for

food. High-volume old-growth timber at low elevations provides important

habitat for this species, particularly during the winter.

Under the 1997 Tongass forest plan, the quality of deer habitat was

projected to decline in some areas by as much as 50 percent. The 1997 plan

1

The Forest Service divides old growth into “productive” and “unproductive” components

and further subdivides the productive component by volume (number of board feet per

acre).
Appendix II

Information on the Process Used to Modify

the 1997 Tongass Forest Plan

Page 44 GAO/RCED-00-45 Tongass National Forest

stated that the overall sustainability of the Sitka black-tailed deer is not

threatened, but some of those who appealed the 1997 plan asserted that

local timber harvesting could compromise subsistence uses.

Areas of Special Interest Throughout the history of the Tongass National Forest, people have valued

particular geographic areas on the Tongass over others. The areas most

valued are generally parcels of old-growth forest that are accessible to

hikers and tourists, are without roads, and are considered particularly

scenic or provide particularly valuable habitat for wildlife. These areas are

also often valued by the timber industry for their high-quality, easily

accessible timber.

Determining which of these high-value areas (called “areas of special

interest” in the 1999 modifications to the 1997 forest plan) are to be

harvested for timber or otherwise developed and which are to be retained

as natural areas has been the focus of legislative debate for many years.

ANILCA created 14 wilderness areas. Ten years later, the Tongass Timber

Reform Act designated 5 new wilderness areas, 1 addition to an existing

wilderness area, and 12 other areas to be maintained without roads to

retain their wildland character. The House version of the legislation, which

proposed 23 areas for wilderness designation, would have done more to

restrict development.

Beach Fringe Beach fringe serves both ecological and recreational functions on the

Tongass. Beach fringe provides a home and a corridor for wildlife, such as

shorebirds, bald eagles, otter, and bear, that prefer to be near the ocean for

food and habitat. In addition, an undisturbed beach fringe preserves visual

beauty along the ocean and creates desirable opportunities for camping,

hiking, and boating. The 1997 plan extended protection of beach fringe to

1,000 feet from the water level at high tide. However, some appellants were

concerned that 1,000 feet does not provide adequate protection for the

species dependent on beach fringe.

A Decision Was Made

to Modify the 1997 Plan

By early 1999, the Under Secretary considered three options for responding

to the appeals and addressing concerns about the 1997 plan. He could (1)

return the plan to the Tongass to resolve the concerns raised in the appeals,

(2) affirm the appeals with additional direction for nonsubstantive changes

to the plan, or (3) modify the plan through the appeals process without
Appendix II

Information on the Process Used to Modify

the 1997 Tongass Forest Plan

Page 45 GAO/RCED-00-45 Tongass National Forest

actually returning the plan to the Tongass. Ultimately, after consultation

with officials from the Department of Agriculture, the Department’s Office

of the General Counsel, the Department of Justice, and the Chief’s office,

he decided to modify the management direction in the 1997 Tongass forest

plan and issue 19 initial appeal decisions based on the modified plan.

The decision as to whether the Chief or Agriculture’s Under Secretary for

Natural Resources and Environment would sign the modifications was not

made until the beginning of February. The Under Secretary told us that he

agreed to sign the modifications for two reasons. First, if the Chief signed

the modifications and the appeal decisions, the Secretary of Agriculture—

or the Under Secretary, as designated—would have the discretion to review

them. The Under Secretary said the Tongass National Forest was of such

importance that he anticipated acting on the Secretary of Agriculture’s

authority to review the Chief’s appeal decisions, which could add months

to the process. The Under Secretary believed he could expedite the process

by modifying the plan and signing the appeal decisions himself. Second, the

Under Secretary had many years of experience with Alaskan issues,

including time as a staff member on the House Committee that drafted the

House version of the Tongass Timber Reform Act. He knew that the Chief

was busy with many other matters, including his natural resource agenda;

therefore, the Under Secretary volunteered to “take over” the appeals

process for the Tongass forest plan.

The Forest Service

Assembled a Team of

Specialists in Forest

Issues and Appeals

During the last week in January 1999, the Forest Service assembled a team

of 15 Forest Service Washington Office and field staff to analyze the four

concerns that the agency and the Department felt were not adequately

addressed in the 1997 forest plan and to offer preliminary alternatives to

address the concerns. The team assembled for the first time on Monday,

February 1, 1999, for an all-day “kick-off” meeting at the Forest Service’s

headquarters in Washington, D.C.

During that initial meeting, the team was informed that the modifications to

the plan were “99 percent” likely to end up in litigation. According to the

Forest Service, because of ex parte concerns, the team was instructed not

to contact Forest Service officials in the Alaska Region or the appellants. In

addition, the team was instructed to limit its analysis to information

contained in the 1997 forest plan’s administrative record and the existing

appeals record. The administrative record—a collection of 57 compact

discs of information used to develop the 1997 Tongass forest plan—

includes the results of scientific panels on issues relating to the Tongass,
Appendix II

Information on the Process Used to Modify

the 1997 Tongass Forest Plan

Page 46 GAO/RCED-00-45 Tongass National Forest

public comments, the plan and environmental impact statement, among

other things. The existing appeals record includes copies of each of the 33

appeals of the 1997 plan, among other things.

The team was given an ambitious schedule. They were expected to work

overtime and weekends, if necessary, to complete the modified plan and

appeal decisions within a month. When the Under Secretary for Natural

Resources and Environment agreed to sign the modifications in February

1999, he also took the lead in guiding the team and shaping the changes to

the plan.

The team was generally divided into two groups: (1) scientists to analyze

the four concerns and prepare preliminary alternatives for addressing them

and (2) appeals specialists to redraft the appeal decisions to reflect the

modifications as they were developed.

The overall approach used by the group of scientists consisted of three

stages. First, they developed a comprehensive matrix, documenting where

in the 1997 forest plan’s administrative record information could be found

on the four concerns—old-growth forest, subsistence uses, areas of special

interest, and beach fringe. Second, limiting themselves strictly to

information in the record—including the 33 appeals of the 1997 forest

plan—the scientists analyzed these issues, alert to possibilities for reducing

risks. This analysis did not yield enough information to develop preliminary

alternatives for increasing the protection of beach fringe, so they deleted

this concern. Finally, they wrote issue papers summarizing their

methodology, findings, and preliminary alternatives for reducing ecological

and biological risks.

• For old-growth forests, the scientists focused on the viability of species

that depend on this habitat. They found that the 1997 forest plan could

be improved to provide more protection for brown bear and wolves.

Specifically, they noted that, according to the scientific panels convened

for the 1997 forest plan, the high density of roads in some areas posed a

risk to wolves and brown bear. Feeding areas for brown bear were also

threatened by the absence of wide stream buffers in some areas.

• For subsistence uses on the Tongass, the scientists mapped areas of the

forest that were used for subsistence. They also analyzed the ability of

all areas of the forest to support the Sitka black-tailed deer on the basis

of (1) future declines in habitat capability projected under the 1997 plan

and (2) the deer-harvest levels described in the plan’s administrative

record. They found that the old-growth forest needed by deer, especially
Appendix II

Information on the Process Used to Modify

the 1997 Tongass Forest Plan

Page 47 GAO/RCED-00-45 Tongass National Forest

during the winter when they move to lower elevations, could be better

protected. Providing better protection could help stave off a possible

decline in the deer population in subsistence use areas.

• For areas of special interest, the scientists developed a matrix of areas

that were mentioned most often in the 1997 forest plan’s administrative

record. The matrix ranked the areas according to the number of reasons

for protecting them from development. For example, the matrix

identified the Northeast Cleveland Peninsula as an area of special

interest that should be considered for protection because it was valued

for saltwater fishing, recreation, and subsistence uses by local residents,

as well as for roosting by migrating swans, among other things. The

ability to provide for subsistence uses and the presence of old-growth

forest were frequently identified as reasons for proposing that areas be

protected from development. Moreover, although increasing the

protection of beach fringe was not specifically pursued, the amount of

low-level elevation land and beach fringe was considered in evaluating

the value of areas of special interest to species’ viability and

sustainability, according to the Forest Service.

After the scientists analyzed and wrote issue papers on old-growth forest,

subsistence uses, and areas of special interest on the Tongass, they

discussed alternatives for reducing the risks to these lands and resources.

According to the group, the three concerns are closely interrelated, and

management alternatives developed for one would likely affect the others.

For example, a decision to protect an area of special interest by

withdrawing it from development may also increase the amount of oldgrowth forest retained and provide more winter habitat for deer. According

to several members of the group, the effect of an alternative on the

allowable sale quantity of timber was considered but was not a driving

factor in determining what alternatives to recommend.

The scientists identified five preliminary alternatives for addressing old

growth, subsistence uses, and areas of special interest on the Tongass: (1)

increase the timber harvest rotation from 100 years to 200 years for all land

where timber harvesting is allowed; (2) restrict development in five areas

of special interest; (3) increase the timber harvest rotation to 200 years

forestwide and restrict development in five areas of special interest; (4)

include additional measures in the plan to address the sustainability of deer

and viability of wolves and brown bear, including reducing road density in

wolf habitat areas; and (5) increase the timber harvest rotation to 200 years

in some areas, restrict development in certain areas of special interest,
Appendix II

Information on the Process Used to Modify

the 1997 Tongass Forest Plan

Page 48 GAO/RCED-00-45 Tongass National Forest

reduce the density of roads in some areas, and include additional measures

to address the sustainability of deer and viability of brown bear.

The group of scientists considered but could not recommend other

alternatives because the 1997 plan’s administrative record did not contain

adequate information to determine their possible impact. For instance, the

scientists considered increasing the timber harvest rotation in certain areas

to 300 years and requiring a larger buffer of undisturbed land around

certain streams where brown bear feed, but the administrative record did

not contain adequate information about the impact of these alternatives.

The scientists also provided information on the potential benefits and

trade-offs associated with each of the five preliminary alternatives. For

instance, they identified several potential benefits and trade-offs associated

with the fifth alternative. The scientists asserted that this alternative would

provide the greatest certainty of reducing the risks to old-growth forest,

subsistence uses, and certain high-profile areas of special interest on the

Tongass. On the other hand, the group noted that the alternative (1) is

complex and difficult to describe, (2) could appear to be a major

modification to the 1997 forest plan, and (3) could disproportionately affect

the supply of timber among the Tongass’s three administrative areas.

Finally, the team noted that the alternative “provides the most difficult

challenge to accurately describing [allowable sale quantity] changes.”

The Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment chose the

fifth preliminary alternative but added more areas of special interest and

dropped the additional measures designed to ensure the sustainability of

deer and viability of brown bear. The Under Secretary’s selected

alternative, when refined, added two new protection measures to the forest

plan and changed the management planned for 14 areas of special interest

from “development” to “mostly natural.” One of the new measures

increases the timber harvest rotation from 100 to 200 years on about 40

percent of the Tongass where timber harvesting is allowed. Increasing the

timber harvest rotation means that timber cannot be harvested from the

same stand of trees more often than once every 200 years. The other new

measure decreases the open road density in areas where roads have been

determined to significantly contribute to wolf mortality. The Under

Secretary’s decision to add more areas of special interest removed another

234,000 acres from timber harvesting and other development activities.

Under the 1999 modified plan, timber harvesting is limited to about 3

percent of the Tongass.
Appendix II

Information on the Process Used to Modify

the 1997 Tongass Forest Plan

Page 49 GAO/RCED-00-45 Tongass National Forest

By the middle of March 1999, the group of scientists had firmed up and

drafted most of the modifications to the 1997 Tongass forest plan. At this

point, the group of appeals specialists assumed most of the work. This

group consisted of five staff, one of whom had helped to write the original

draft appeal decisions that were submitted to the Chief’s office the

previous summer. Now the group redrafted those 19 draft appeal decisions

to reflect the draft modifications to the 1997 plan.

By April 1999, most of the modifications and appeal decisions had been

drafted. However, two issues remained unresolved: the number of areas of

special interest that should be managed to restrict development and the

timing and method of making the transition to the management direction in

the 1997 forest plan, as modified. Ultimately, the Under Secretary chose to

designate 4 additional areas of special interest in which development

would be restricted, for a total of 18 areas. According to the Under

Secretary, he designated the additional areas in response to an interim rule

promulgated by the Forest Service on February 12, 1999, which temporarily

suspended the construction of new roads into most roadless areas until the

agency can develop a long-term forest roads policy. The interim rule

provides that for plans in the appeals process (such as the Tongass plan),

road construction in unroaded areas could be addressed in the appeal

decisions (36 C.F.R. § 212.13). He also chose to implement the

modifications as of October 1, 1999. Contracts and other legal instruments

in effect as of that date would not be altered by the modifications to the

plan.

As one of its last tasks, the team estimated the allowable sale quantity

under the 1997 Tongass forest plan, as modified. The allowable sale

quantity under the 1997 plan was developed by using the Alaska Region’s

timber harvest planning model. This model had resulted in the “most

thorough and accurate analysis ever conducted for forest planning

purposes in Alaska,” according to the Forest Service. However, team

members told us that ex parte concerns precluded them from obtaining

data on timber yields on different parts of the forest and using the Alaska

Region’s timber harvest planning model in estimating the reduction in the

allowable sale quantity attributable to the 1999 modifications. Instead, the

team used a rudimentary formula that (1) multiplied the estimated average

yield per acre forestwide by the number of acres withdrawn from

development and (2) reduced the forestwide estimated average yield per

acre to reflect the increase in the timber harvest rotation from 100 years to

200 years on certain parts of the forest. The team then subtracted the

reduction in the allowable sale quantity from the allowable sale quantity in
Appendix II

Information on the Process Used to Modify

the 1997 Tongass Forest Plan

Page 50 GAO/RCED-00-45 Tongass National Forest

the 1997 plan to estimate the allowable sale quantity under the plan, as

modified.

On April 13, 1999, the Department of Agriculture’s Under Secretary for

Natural Resources and Environment approved the modifications to the

management direction in the 1997 plan and decided the appeals on the

basis of the modified plan. The same day, staff from the Forest Service

called the appellants to inform them that decisions had been reached on

their appeals.

The Modifications

Drew New Litigation

Both the Under Secretary’s approval of modifications to the management

direction in the 1997 plan and appeal decisions based on the modified plan

are now in litigation. In addition, in June 1999, the government suffered a

setback in the goshawk litigation. A federal district court ordered the Fish

and Wildlife Service to gather additional population data on the goshawk.

The government has appealed this ruling.

In August 1999, the administration adjusted the termination date of the

remaining long-term timber contract from December 31, 1999, to no later

than October 31, 2000, so that timber under the contract would be available

for the veneer plant that was expected to be built near Ketchikan. The

administration made the adjustment conditional on the construction of the

plant. In September 1999, several environmental groups (1) sued, alleging

that the administration had failed to assess the environmental effects of its

actions, as required by NEPA, and (2) filed a motion for a preliminary

injunction seeking to immediately halt timber harvesting under the

contract until the case is decided. In February 2000, the administration

withdrew the condition for adjusting the contract’s termination date,

asserting that it was redundant in light of the financial commitments that

the contract holder had made to support the plant’s construction. The

litigation is still pending.
Page 51 GAO/RCED-00-45 Tongass National Forest

Appendix III

Comments From the Forest Service ApendxiI

Note: GAO's comments

supplementing those in the

report text appear at the end of

this appendix.
Appendix III

Comments From the Forest Service

Page 52 GAO/RCED-00-45 Tongass National Forest

See comment 1.

Now on pp. 45 and 46.

Now on pp. 12 and 46.

See comment 2.

Now on p. 47.
Appendix III

Comments From the Forest Service

Page 53 GAO/RCED-00-45 Tongass National Forest

See comment 3.

Now on p. 4.

Now on p. 11.

See comment 4.

See comment 5.

Now on p. 10.

See comment 6.

Now on pp. 4, 10, 11, 13, and 50.

See comment 7.

Now on pp. 4, 12, and 48.

Now pp. 4 and 11.
Appendix III

Comments From the Forest Service

Page 54 GAO/RCED-00-45 Tongass National Forest

p

See comment 8.

Now on pp. 4, 12, and 46.

See comment 9.

Now on p. 5.

See comment 10.

Now on p. 5.

See comment 11.

Now on p. 9.

See comment 12.
Appendix III

Comments From the Forest Service

Page 55 GAO/RCED-00-45 Tongass National Forest

See comment 13.

Now on p. 10.

See comment 14.

Now on p. 8.

See comment 15.

Now on p. 8.

See comment 5.

Now on p. 10.

See comment 16.

Now on p. 10.

Now on p. 10.
Appendix III

Comments From the Forest Service

Page 56 GAO/RCED-00-45 Tongass National Forest

Now on p. 10.

See comment 17.

Now on p. 11.

See comment 18.

Now on p. 12.

See comment 6.

Now on p. 12.

See comment 6.

Now on p. 13.

See comment 19.
Appendix III

Comments From the Forest Service

Page 57 GAO/RCED-00-45 Tongass National Forest

See comment 20.

Now on p. 14.

See comment 21.

Now on p. 14.

See comment 6.

Now on p. 15.

See comment 11.

Now on p. 20.

See comment 22.

Now on p. 29.

See comment 23.

Now on p. 32.

See comment 23.

Now on p. 40.

See comment 23.

Now on p. 40.
Appendix III

Comments From the Forest Service

Page 58 GAO/RCED-00-45 Tongass National Forest

See comment 23.

Now on p. 41.

See comment 23.

Now on p. 42.

See comment 24.

Now on p. 43.

See comment 25.

Now on p. 45.

See comment 1.

Now on p. 45.
Appendix III

Comments From the Forest Service

Page 59 GAO/RCED-00-45 Tongass National Forest

See comment 1.

Now on p. 46.

See comment 23.

Now on p. 47.

See comment 23.

Now on p. 47.

See comment 1.

Now on p. 48.

See comment 23.

Now on p. 49.

See comment 23.

Now on p. 49.

See comment 23.

Now on p. 49.
Appendix III

Comments From the Forest Service

Page 60 GAO/RCED-00-45 Tongass National Forest

See comment 4.

Now on p. 50.

See comment 21.

Now on p. 50.

See comment 26.

Now on p. 35.
Appendix III

Comments From the Forest Service

Page 61 GAO/RCED-00-45 Tongass National Forest

T.he following are GAO's comments on the Forest Service's letter dated

March 23, 2000.

GAO's Comments 1. A discussion of the prohibitions on ex parte contacts in federal

regulations is included in the background section of the report. We revised

the report to say that the review team was instructed (1) not to contact

Forest Service officials in the Alaska Region or the appellants and (2) to

limit its review and analysis to the administrative record for the 1997

Tongass forest plan and the existing appeals record. We also revised the

report to say that (1) the review team was tasked with “analyzing” the

administrative record, rather than “researching and analyzing” the record

and (2) although increasing the protection of beach fringe was not

specifically pursued, the amount of low-elevation land and beach fringe

was considered in evaluating the value of areas of special interest to

species' viability and sustainability.

2. We used “options,” rather than “alternatives,” in the draft report to

distinguish between the alternatives that had previously been made

available for public comment and the preliminary alternatives drafted by

the review team. However, to be consistent with the administrative record

for the 1999 plan, we changed “options” to “preliminary alternatives.”

3. We revised the draft report to include subsistence, cultural, and spiritual

values as qualities for which special interest areas were considered and

evaluated.

4. We changed “new” to “revised.”

5. We revised the report to say that, according to the Forest Service, it is not

unusual for an Under Secretary to review, and on occasion direct the Chief

to modify, appeal decisions. However, this was the first time that an Under

Secretary approved substantive modifications to a forest plan and issued

initial appeal decisions based on the plan, as modified.

6. We are aware that a Record of Decision approves the management

direction in a forest plan and that appellants appeal the Record of Decision,

not the forest plan. However, the result of an approved or signed Record of

Decision is a revised or amended forest plan. Therefore, for clarity of

presentation, we see no need to introduce the term “Record of Decision”

into the report. We did, however, revise the report to make clear that the

Under Secretary approved modifications to the management direction in
Appendix III

Comments From the Forest Service

Page 62 GAO/RCED-00-45 Tongass National Forest

the 1997 Tongass forest plan and decided the appeals on the basis of the

modified plan.

7. We revised the report to say that the modified plan removed another

234,000 acres from timber harvesting and other development activities.

8. In the Record of Decision, the Under Secretary states that he is

“modifying the standard and guideline for open road density allowing 0.7 to

1.0 miles or less of open road per square mile in the Regional Forester's

decision by limiting the allowance to 0.7 miles or less per square mile.” A

standard is a course of action or level of attainment required by a forest

plan to promote the achievement of goals and objectives. Moreover, while

the 1997 plan stated that open road densities of 0.7 to 1.0 miles or less per

square mile “may be” necessary to reduce mortality, the applicable

modification to the 1997 plan states that “open road densities of 0.7 miles

or less per square mile are necessary to reduce mortality to sustainable

levels.” (Emphasis added.) However, to reflect the wording in the Record of

Decision, we revised the report to say that the standard and guideline

decreased the open road density in areas where roads have been

determined to significantly contribute to wolf mortality.

9. We revised the report to say that the Tongass contains 16.9 million acres

and deleted the reference to “water, ice, and rock.”

10. The 5.7 million acres referred to in our report includes all lands suitable

for providing wood products, not just the 5.06 million acres of productive

old growth. Since about 60 percent (or 10.1 million acres) of the Tongass's

16.9 million acres is forested and 5.7 million acres are suitable for providing

wood products, we calculated that 56 percent of the forested portion is

considered to be productive.

11. We revised the report to say that under ANILCA, no withdrawal,

reservation, lease, disposal, or other use of such lands that would

significantly restrict subsistence uses shall be effected until the relevant

land management agency determines that (1) the restriction is consistent

with land management principles, (2) the restriction will involve the

minimum amount of land necessary, and (3) action will be taken to

minimize the restriction's adverse effects on subsistence uses.

12. We revised the report to say that (1) ANILCA exempted the Tongass

from a NFMA provision restricting timber harvesting on lands identified as

unsuitable for harvest and (2) the Tongass Timber Reform Act of 1990 made
Appendix III

Comments From the Forest Service

Page 63 GAO/RCED-00-45 Tongass National Forest

the Tongass generally subject to NFMA's provision restricting timber

harvesting on lands identified as unsuitable for harvest.

13. We revised the report to delete the definitions of affirmation and

reversal and the reference to subsequent procedural requirements for

significant changes. We also revised the report to state that the Chief's

decision shall, in whole or in part, affirm or reverse the regional forester's

decision and may include instructions for further action by the regional

forester.

14. We revised the report to say that the regulations prohibit “ex parte”

contact between the Chief and any agency officials who developed the

forest plan or any appellants without notifying all appellants and

intervenors.

15. We revised the report to make clear that the proposed new planning

regulations were not developed specifically to address the process used to

modify the management direction in the 1997 Tongass forest plan.

However, it is important to make clear to the reader that, if the regulations

are finalized, it is unlikely that this process will be used again.

16. We revised the report to reflect the suggested changes.

17. We revised the report to say that all but one forest plan have been

appealed.

18. According to the issue paper prepared by the group of scientists, the

preliminary alternative chosen by the Under Secretary “provides the

greatest certainty of risk reduction for all identified issues.” Therefore, we

made no changes to the report on the basis of this comment.

19. We deleted the sentence concerning the expectations of Department of

Agriculture officials relating to the likelihood of litigation.

20. Because the nature of the Tongass Timber Reform Act's requirements is

the subject of litigation, we revised the report to say that the level of timber

to be offered is “in alleged violation” of the act.

21. We added “NEPA.”

22. We revised the report to state that, after the policy branch had

developed the alternatives to be included in the revised supplement to the
Appendix III

Comments From the Forest Service

Page 64 GAO/RCED-00-45 Tongass National Forest

draft forest plan, the science branch convened 10 panels of experts and

specialists. Each of nine panels examined the potential effects of the nine

alternatives on one of the following nine issues: the Alexander Archipelago

wolf, the northern goshawk, the marbled murrelet, the American marten,

the brown bear, terrestrial mammals, fish/riparian areas, old-growth

forests, and communities. A tenth panel updated an existing habitat

capability model for projecting the effects of the nine alternatives on the

Sitka black-tailed deer. At the same time, a working group evaluated the

risk each alternative could pose to subsistence uses.

23. We revised the report in response to these suggested changes.

24. We deleted the discussion on the number of acres of old-growth forest

set aside by the 1997 forest plan. As discussed in comment 10, the 5.7

million acres referred to in our report includes all lands suitable for

providing wood products, not just the 5.06 million acres of productive old

growth.

25. We revised the report to state that the Secretary of Agriculture has

delegated the responsibility for exercising his or her discretion to review

the Chief's decision to the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and

Environment.

26. We revised the report to say that the administration adjusted the

termination date of the remaining long-term timber contract and made the

adjustment conditional on the construction of a veneer plant near

Ketchikan. We then provide a chronology of events relating to the

adjustment.

(141357) Letr
Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of

reports are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to

the Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit

cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are

discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

Orders by visiting:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders by phone:

(202) 512-6000

fax: (202) 512-6061

TDD (202) 512-2537

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list

from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone

phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain

these lists.

Orders by Internet:

For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet,

send an e-mail message with “info” in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web home page at:

http://www.gao.gov

To Report Fraud,

Waste, or Abuse in

Federal Programs

Contact one:

• Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

• e-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

• 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)

United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00