532 



adequate timber supply, and our dilemma is the realization that 

 the Forest Service is directed to make available up to 4.5 per 

 decade or 450 million each year. And we see from 1978 to 1989, 

 over that 10-year period, approximately 3.7 billion board feet was 

 cut, as compared to 4.5, which was mandated. And you said there 

 was a shortage of timber, and we go through the years — and I do 

 not have to repeat it — but in years like 1983 there were only 251 

 million instead of 450 million. It seems like they would have been 

 building up an excess each year of timber that they were required 

 to have available and that was not used, and that excess would 

 carry over. So, I have done figures on the difference between what 

 they were supposed to cut and what was actually cut. Over a 10- 

 year period, there is nearly 800 million board feet that would be 

 surplus. Now, I do not understand how you can say that you were 

 out of timber, when it shows that they have cut less than 450 

 during that period. And where is the surplus? 



Mr. RoppEL. In order to understand the supply and demand in 

 the Tongass you have to understand that it is not just the Forest 

 Service timber in the last few years, particularly since 1980. It has 

 been the whole supply to the dependent industries. Since 1980 cor- 

 porations have started their operations and have been harvesting 

 anywhere from 200 to close to 400 million feet a year. About 75 

 percent of that wood goes into the export market in the form of 

 round logs. There are no export restrictions on their logs, just as 

 there are none for private owners in the Northwest or any part of 

 the United States. 



The pulp component, or low-rate component of that wood, has 

 been going into dependent industries. I would say that probably 90 

 percent of that has been purchased by either Ketchikan or by the 

 Sitka mill. At one point, in 1985 and 1986, they supplied roughly 35 

 percent of our makeup required for wood chips. So, that is an ele- 

 ment. 



The contract has built up a backlog of contractual obligation. 

 However, the timber backlog is on paper; it is not available for us 

 to cut because the Forest Service, even though it shows it to be 

 timber that may have been sold or in the sale program, the neces- 

 sary sale work or the environmental impact statement work and 

 the sale preparation work that lets it go or whatever, has not been 

 done. So, that timber may be known as a backlog and unsold or 

 available, but it is not available to us until all of that work is done. 

 That is the case with the short fall that we see now. 



Senator Murkowski. The suitability requirements that have 

 been brought up, the reason for waiving it in the national forest. 

 National Practices Act, do you know that? 



Mr. RoppEL. I am unaware. I know that is a matter that the 

 Forest Service can answer. Senator, I am just not aware of the 

 reason for that. 



Senator Murkowski. Lastly, and maybe I will ask a question my 

 colleague would have asked, but from your perspective, why has 

 Congress supplied a permanent appropriation of $40 million and a 

 4.5 billion board feet per decade availability of timber supply, 

 making the Tongass obviously different than other national forests. 

 Why should the Tongass be different? 



