[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]
E-M:/ Senate Subcom on Timber Mandate
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enviro-Mich message from anne.woiwode@sfsierra.sierraclub.org
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Timber Mandate 4/4/00
Summary: On Tuesday afternoon, April 4, the Senate Approps Subcommittee
took testimony from former DNR Acting Director Mike Moore, timber industry
lobbyists, Sierra Club, Sara Davis of Forests Forever and the DNR on
timber mandate in the DNR Budget. No action was taken, and the next
meeting is expected to be when decisions are made.
Detailed account: In the second hearing of the Senate Appropriations
Subcommittee on Natural Resources on the FY2001 DNR Budget this year
extensive testimony was offered on the mandated timber marking and sale
boilerplate language in the bill. New faces and voices were heard and the
hearing provided additional discussion and information than in the House.
The first person to testify was Michael Moore, retired from the DNR after
serving in upper level positions, including as Acting Director. Moore is
currently teaching at the University of Michigan and is doing consulting
work as well. His testimony gave both a historical perspective and
analysis of the effects of this continued use by the legislature of
boilerplate language in budget bills to mandate timber management by the
DNR. Moore explained that his opposition to the use of boilerplate
language put him in the same corner as "preservation" groups such as the
Sierra Club.
In particular, Moore discussed his take on National Forests policies and
their evolution at the federal level and how that foreshadows similar
problems in Michigan. During the Reagan administration, at the upper
level of the Forest Service a mandate to increase timber production well
above sustainable levels was made. According to Moore, this resulted in
reactions from Congress leading to the use of riders on the budget that
have increasingly politicized the decision process on the National
Forests. Mike Moore advocates having decisions on public forests made by
professionals using scientific information.
Relating this to the now four year debate over a timber mandate in the
budget, Moore pointed out that with term limits the Legislature will
increasingly include people who are there only briefly. Annualized
mandates for timber production could as easily turn to a 0 cords per year
on 0 acres mandate as the makeup of the body changes. Moore advocates that
if the legislature does want to provide direction on timber, that they
should amend PA 451, the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act
(NREPA) to set how decisions about management of the State Forests should
be made, though he advocates a broad outline directing the use of science,
leaving it to the professionals and the Natural Resources Commission to set
specifics.
Moore's discussion also raised concerns about the effect the mandated
timber sales levels would have if the economy were to falter and prices
for timber were to drop. Adding a historical note, he observed that
research he is doing with another retired DNR official led to uncovering
quotes from the 1930's in which forest managers at the time thought the
state would be lucky if at the turn of the next century they could produce
35,000 cords of wood from state lands, and today the debate is about
levels 20 to 30 times of wood more than they thought could be available.
Questions from the Senators included concerns from Senator Koivisto that
if the DNR wasn't required to cut, that they would not put up the timber.
Moore said he didn't disagree with some legislative direction, but that
the annual battle in the budget is a real problem.
Senator Gast asked Moore if he supported the idea of a ceiling on timber
levels instead of a floor, and after some discussion Moore indicated that
he saw no problem with a ceiling, but the current use of a floor is
unacceptable. Gast expressed interest as well in leaving issues as much as
possible to the Natural Resources Commission, while stressing that they do
best when they listen to the public. The Senator shared Moore's concern
about successors in the Approps. Com losing sight of the history of issues
as a result of term limits, and saw the problems with the annualized
boilerplate in the budget.
After Moore, Tim Karasek lobbyist for the Michigan Association of
Timbermen presented virtually the same testimony as was given to the House
Subcommittee (see archives of Enviro-Mich if you wish to see the content).
One theme that came out in questions from Senator McManus of Karasek was a
distinct prickliness regarding the protests and criticism of him in the
Traverse City area on this issue. McManus asked Karasek if knew of Tim
Flynn (a Sierra Club leader and contributor to Enviro-Mich) whom McManus
called a "yahoo" from his district who kept raising questions, some of
which McManus asked. Comments were shared back and forth about the
alleged inaccuracy of the information presented by Flynn, referencing in
particular an article published in a Traverse City newspaper that laid out
analysis of the effect of the mandated timber harvest proposed in the
House on the State Forests over time. Karasek also commented that he
didn't understand why this issue, out of all the boilerplate issues,
attracts so much attention. He was followed by Judy Augenstine, lobbyist
for the Timber Producers and another group I didn't catch, who said she
had thought that in the House of Representatives a compromise was hatched
that everyone was happy with. She expressed support for the language
passed by the House.
Then I spoke on behalf of Sierra Club. Many of the issues I raised have
been raised before (you talk about an issue long enough you do in fact
repeat yourself!). I did point to various pieces of information from the
DNR that had been provided to the House but not yet to the Senate, hoping
that they would be reviewed by the Senators as well. I raised the issue of
the $2.5 million of General Fund now being proposed as a fund shift into
the Forest Development Fund to cover the shortfall in that fund as a
result of timber industry backlogs in the cutting of timber sales they
have already purchased from the state. The backlog is largely because of
a generous policy regarding timber sales on State Forests, allowing a
small upfront fee from the successful bidder and allows the logger years
to actually complete the sale. I pointed out that this alone raises
serious questions about the idea more timber should be mandated to be put
up for sale on State Forests. Also, I took issue with the comments
regarding the information that Tim Flynn has presented, inviting the
Senators to have independent experts of their choosing to examine this
analysis rather than simply taking anyone else's word about its supposed
flaws. In addition, I urged the Senators not to accept at face value the
materials handed out by the timber interests, including an analysis by
former State Forester Hank Webster which is based on very out of date
information and has not been subject to peer review.
Questions posed to me included some about Sierra Club's position on timber
sales on federal forests (Sierra Club is seeking legislation to stop
commercial timber sales on federal lands) and state forests (Sierra Club
does not oppose timber sales per se on MI State Forest lands, though we
have many deep concerns about management of the State Forests), follow ups
on the comments on the $2.5 million fund transfer. Senator Gast asked me
as well about the use of a ceiling instead of a floor on timber sales on
State Forests, and I expressed support for that. I did say, however, that
I don't think the state is capable of setting a number for what is an
appropriate level of timber cutting because they have never collected all
of the information they need to make such a determination. I discussed
that the use of the Compartment Review process would be better than an
arbitrary number set by the legislature, but also said the fact is without
Plans for the State Forests that balance all the demands there is no good
way to set a number for timber management. In addition, I expressed
concern that the mandate is interpreted on the ground in the DNR as saying
that getting the timber out is the top priority, and the professionals on
the ground feel that pressure. This was challenged by Senator Koivisto,
who asked if I was saying that DNR professional staff stop considering
effects on wildlife, etc., as a result of this mandate. I explained that
my understanding was that there has in fact been direction given to staff
on the ground in the UP either one or two years ago to increase the number
of acres of timber marked in order to try to meet the mandate. My sense
is that the staff will try to do what they are trained to do but feel
compelled to try to meet this mandate timber level.
Then, Senator McManus had an aid provide me with a flyer from the rally
held in Traverse City last week protesting the timber mandate. He asked
repeatedly if Sierra Club had organized the protest, characterizing the
participants as "nut cases". I noted I had actually only heard about it
after the fact and was not even aware of the name of the group. Sierra
Club had, I noted, broadcast over email (including Enviro-Mich) our
extensive concerns about the boilerplate on timber mandates. Senator
McManus took particular offense at the flyer stating that he is pushing a
bil that will cut 80% of the trees in our state forests in the next 36
years, and asked if I had said that. I noted that the concern tied to the
boilerplate language, and suggested that if he was to support doing away
with the boilerplate I would gladly broadcast that information.
Next was Kelli Sobel for the DNR, who provided additional clarification
and information on many of the topics raised. Senator McManus asked her
to respond to the "accusation" that DNR staff are not using their
professional judgement to manage the land because of the mandate. Sobel
said the staff of course use their professional judgement, but also noted
that they end up "walking a fine line to meet the boilerplate." She gave
an overview of the process by which sales are put up, the DNR's
Silvicultural Analysis which provided the various numbers that have been
used in the proposed legislation, and other background info as well.
Senator DeBeaussaert asked what is in the current DNR Budget, and Sobel
cited the 855,000 cords marked, and that last year there were no acres
included. DeBeaussaert asked about how the money flows into the Forest
Development Fund, and also if there is a connection between the shortfall
in revenue and the boilerplate. Sobel explained that there isn't a direct
connection, but that the revenue has been less than the costs for the
Forest Management Division for a number of years, eating up a surplus
developed in the mid-1990's. DeB also asked about the claims by the
Michigan Association of Timbermen that the reason they are continuing to
push this mandate in boilerplate is that they were promised by the DNR
that there would be increased timber production if the industry lobbied
for an extra $1 million of tax dollars to be put into the budget in 1994.
Sobel said they are exploring the history of this and will report back.
McManus asked about the lag mentioned between when a timber sale is made
and when the trees can be cut. Sobel explained that the DNR requires 10%
down from the successful bidder at the time of a sale, and allows 3 years,
with an option of a 4th, for the logger to complete the sale. The DNR,
she reports, is trying to get loggers to complete cuts within a year of
when they are sold, but there is 1.3 million cords of timber in the
pipeline right now which has been sold but not cut. DeB asked that more
information about this be provided to the committee.
Koivisto asked about the fund transfer in the context of a permanent fund
transfer built into the budget the 1990's from the Forest Development Fund
to the Forest Fire fighting programs. Forest fire fighting had come
entirely out of general funds prior to that time, but in 1995 the
legislature put about $2.8 million into the fire fighting from the then
Forest Management Fund because there was a lot of money coming in. Sobel
explained that history some, and noted that the DNR was supportive of that
fund shift when the Forest Development Fund was flush, and would now
support a shift back so that all Forest Fire fighting funding comes from
General Funds now that the Forest Development Fund is poor.
The last testifier was new to the process and so had not known to put in a
card, so was called only after attention was called to her waving her hand
at the back of the room. Sara Davis of the Traverse City area came to
speak on behalf of many people in Michigan who she don't like what the
legislature is doing with the timber mandate. She brought a petition with
111 signatures of people opposed to the timber mandate, and said more are
being collected. The concern she expressed was that people didn't even
know about this issue, and they disagree with cutting down the trees
without public input on it. She said she didn't necessarily oppose all
timber cutting on public lands, but thought that in a democracy people
needed to be able to have some say, and this process didn't give people
that chance. She referenced her baby, whose cooing and gurgling noises
were a stark contrast to the noises heard in and around the capitol
normally, and that she wanted to see that her child would grow up with
forests to enjoy and appreciate.
Senator McManus began early on to throw questions at Davis in a way that
many afterwards expressed deep surprise at because of the level of
hostility. Davis was indeed part of the group that had protested in
Traverse City, and the protest was brought by Forests Forever, a some what
looseknit, but clearly homegrown group of people who are concerned about
the forests. McManus peppered her with questions about where her
information came from, stating at one point that we have been cutting
trees on state lands for almost 100 years -- "where have you been?" Davis
held her cool under the badgering line of questions, raising questions
about how anyone is supposed to know about these decisions because it is
so hard to find out about what is going on with the forests.
After a while, Senator McManus called on Senator Koivisto, followed by
Senator Gast, both of whom disagreed with Davis's points but were offering
up supportive and informational comments and observations about the
process by which the decisions are made. Their comments and questions
helped to take the hostile edge out of room, but the initial questioning
stuck with all in the room for quite some time.
At the end of this testimony, Senator McManus called an end to the meeting
and said they will discuss the DNR budget bill at their next meeting.
One footnote on this: I was startled at the end of the hearing, held in
the Senate Appropriations room in the Capitol Building, to see two
uniformed capitol police and a red-coat page lingering by the doors of the
Committee room. This is something I have not seen before, or certainly
for a very long time. I can only assume, since I then realized the
uniformed cops had been in the doorway from the start of Davis's
testimony, that they must have been summoned to be present. Davis was
with her baby and three other young adults from their Traverse City.
Davis has long, dark hair in dredlocks, and one woman had hair died
magenta color. They all wore piercings and dressed like many people one
routinely encounters particularly in college communities.
What a lousy commentary on our allegedly open system of decision making
for legislation in this state. A citizen who seeks to testify about a
controversial issue is subjected to harsh questioning bordering on
insults, and, I have to believe because of their appearance, she and her
group are shadowed by law enforcement officers as they seek to present
their point of view. And people wonder where the cynicism comes from.
Anne Woiwode
==============================================================
ENVIRO-MICH: Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental
and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action. Archives at
http://www.great-lakes.net/lists/enviro-mich/
Postings to: enviro-mich@great-lakes.net For info, send email to
majordomo@great-lakes.net with a one-line message body of "info enviro-mich"
==============================================================