|
Tongass National Forest
Federal Building
648 Mission Street
Ketchikan, AK 99901
(907) 225-3101
(907) 228-6222 (TTY)
e-mail comments to:
Web Manager
|
|
|
|
Forest Plan Adjustment >
Public Involvement >
Public Meeting and Hearing >
Open House
Question #16 the land
Submitted by Adam Martin from Olympia, WA on 03-22-2007, at 12:26:18
|
|
Q: I'm curious why, regardless of the fact that timber production on national forest lands has always cost taxpayers enormous amounts of money this plan continues to focus heavily on timber production? This is public land, not land to be siphoned of to private interests. Timber sales have never been lucrative and have only benifited the timber industry at the expense of local communties and the land itself. As a resident of the PNW I have seen what forest plans focusing solely on extraction have done. Only 5% of the original temperate old growth forests are left in the lower 48. As you are managing the last of the Temperate Rainforest, your responsibility lies with protecting it, not partitioning it off to the higher bidder. I don't understand why your new plan does not take into account the global realities of timber production and the realities and setbacks of timber production in SE Alaska, because if you did, the focus would not be on timber extraction.
But frankly the irresponsibility of the plan reflects the irresponsibility that has been a mainstay in Forest Service land management in Tongass as well as the National Forests in general. How else could the Forest Service mistakingly double proposed market demand on timber? Frankly it was irresponsible, and if the FS took the health of intact forests and communitites seriously, it wouldn't allow for so much timber extraction opportunities -not even in the planning stage. But, as history has shown the FS values the timber industry above local communities. Lastly, how does your plan take into account carbon released from clearcutting?
|
|
A: As noted in response to Comment #11, the Tongass Timber Reform Act requires the Forest Service, subject to appropriations from Congress and in balance with all renewable resources, to seek to meet annual demand for timber. It also requires us to seek to meet market demand for the planning cycle.
Please see the response to Question #15 for some discussion regarding market demand estimates.
Carbon sequestration is addressed in the Climate and Air section of the Draft EIS, which starts on page 3-12. As discussed in this section, alternatives that harvest more old growth have the potential to affect the amount of carbon sequestrated, depending on how much of the wood is removed from the forest and how it is used. Alternatives 4 and 7 would harvest the most wood and would convert both the saw timber and much of the utility wood into lumber and other building materials, that would continue to store sequestered carbon for a relatively long period of time.
Interest in enhancing ecosystem carbon sequestration and storage has intensified recently, as concerns about how to mitigate climate change have increased. We will continue to evaluate new and emerging imformation.
|
|
Question #15 TLMP
Submitted by Steve Lewis from Tenakee Springs, AK on 03-22-2007, at 12:25:58
|
|
Q: THe 9th Circuit required the Forest Service to redo it's Tongass Forest Plan because the Forest Service incorrectly analyzed demand in the earlier version. This new Plan's preferred alternative proposes virtually identical allowable sale quantities as the plan the court threw out.
How does the Forest expect the court to find that they have adequately addressed the concerns of the court? Isn't finding a very similar ASQ likely to lead the court to reject the new plan on its face? If not, how does the Forest explain reaching the same conclusions with different economic analyses?
|
|
A: As noted in the response to Question 11, the alternatives can be compared to the planning cycle demand along with potential effects on all resources and uses. In our 1997 analyses and display of information on demand, we were looking at more of a range of volumes (high, medium and low). We did not really identify a planning cycle demand figure at that time. This left the relationship of alternatives and the longer term demand less clear, which directly led to the Court's decision and direction.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals did not direct the Forest Service to avoid any specific ASQ, or any other finding, in its considerations. It did direct the Forest Service to consider a wider range of alternatives, and to reconsider demand.
Note that the Forest Service specifically did not identify a Preferred Alternative in the Draft EIS. You may be looking at Alternative 6, which we identified as the Proposed Action when the original Notice of Intent was published in March 2006.
|
|
Question #14 Economical Timber Supply for support of local communities and timber industry.
Submitted by Richard Coose from Ketchikan, AK on 03-22-2007, at 12:17:06
|
|
Q: Many statutes governoring the National Forests assure local, forest-dependent communities with access to and a sustainable use of National Forest resources which will sustain the economy and quality of life of such communities. This includes a adquate, reliable, economical supply of timber. Over the past decade, this timber supply has not been provided, and the SE Alaska forest dependent communities have severly suffered economically and socially with the loss of the good paying timber industry jobs. The question is how does the Forest Service propose to manage the Tongass NF to insure that 360 mmbf of economical timber is reliably available to the industry so our SE communities can again have diverse and strong economies?
|
|
A: Two of the alternatives in the DEIS include ASQ levels of 360 or more. ASQ is the maximum amount of timber that can be harvested. The actual amount that can be made "reliably available to the industry" is dependant on a number of factors, not all of which are controlled by the Forest Service. For example, the funding Congress appropriates to the Forest determines the amount of timber sale planning and sale preparation that can be accomplished. The demand for timber products helps determine the willingness of producers to bid on timber sales. How or when the timber industry in Southeast Alaska takes advantage of the Alaska specific lumber grades now available, in order to be able to sell finished products to Alaskans, will also play a role. The level of timber sale litigation has also proven to be an important factor in determining what is actually available for harvest.
|
|
Question #13 Salmon Habitat
Submitted by Jonathan Brouwer from Juneau, AK on 03-22-2007, at 11:52:11
|
|
|
Q: In the Tongass Forest Plan DEIS it is stated that “Roads pose the greatest risk to fish resources on the Tongass” (page 3-61) and according to a recent Trout Unlimited study, approximately 72% of all salmon populations in Southeast Alaska are found in undeveloped watersheds. Given this information how would the 4,285 miles of new roads, that could be constructed if the proposed action is selected, impact the salmon producing watersheds in the Tongass?
|
|
A: It is true that roads are believed to pose the greatest risk to fish resources on the Tongass (among all potential management activities under the Forest Plan). The Tongass Forest Plan recognizes this risk and that is why it contains restrictive standards and guidelines for the location and design of roads and requires the application of a comprehensive list of Best Management Practices. In addition, the riparian standards and guidelines prescribe relatively extensive no-harvest zones within riparian areas that are designed to meet the intent of the Anadromous Fish Habitat Assessment (conducted for the Tongass) and the Soil and Water standards and guidelines provide additional protections for steep slopes, areas with high mass movement potential, and unstable class IV stream channels. Taken together, the set of standards and guidelines that protect riparian, stream, and fish resources are very comprehensive. They are designed to minimize the risk of roads and timber harvest.
In addition, it is not surprising that 72% of all salmon populations in Southeast Alaska are found in undeveloped watersheds. More than 90% of the Southeast Alaska land base is undeveloped (of the 16.8 million-acre land base, 5.8 million acres are in wilderness and 9.5 million acres are in roadless areas), so one would expect 72% or more of the salmon production to come from these areas simply based on relative land areas.
|
|
Question #12 Forest Costs vs Receipts
Submitted by Mike Sallee from Ketchikan, AL on 03-22-2007, at 11:47:34
|
|
Q: I hear the Tongass timber industry contributes about 1% to local economies while USFS recreational cabins on the Tongass are being closed for lack of funds.
What does the USFS spend on planning and administering timber sales and associated roads? What do local,state,and federal governments receive in timber receipts? What does USFS spend on non-timber developments and what are the receipts to local,state,and federal governments from those?
|
|
A: Under the Recreation Facility Master Plan process, recreation cabins and other facilities are being examined to determine maintenance needs, use rates, and value within the Tongass National Forest's recreation niche. Cabins and other facilities with little or no use may be removed, but recreation facilities may be built where public use would be higher. Community groups are also stepping forward to support needed facilities where Forest Service funding is not available.
As noted in response to Question #7, approximately $21 million was spent planning and administering timber sales and building roads in 2006. Sales in that year generated approximately $600,000 in revenues for the federal government. These numbers and the amounts the Forest Service spends on other activities are presented for 2006 in Table 3.22-32 on page 3-469 in the Draft EIS. The receipts for non-timber activities were approximately $2.5 million in 2006.
|
|
Question #11 timber demand
Submitted by Julio Moots from Durango, CO on 03-22-2007, at 11:04:30
|
|
Q: Can you explain what factors are taken into consideration when deciding whether an alternative meets timber demand? Specifically, in alternative #1, the chart describing it says it would not meet projected timber demand under the four scenarios studied, but do the demand calculations take into account the amount of timber that is cut for a timber sale but is then left to rot when companies decide to back out, such as described in this Washington Post article? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31070-2004Jul31.html
Is estimating timber-sale backouts part of the calculation process when examining projected demand? Also, if the timber-demand calculations disregard failed or non-sales such as described in the article above, why? Are there any plans to begin taking them into account? And if they are taken into account, is the overall financial viability of the plan impacted by the negative income they generate, and by how much? The cited Washington Post article describes "a timber sale that, on the front end, earned the U.S. Treasury about $45,000 but cost American taxpayers about $2 million to set up."
Are there any plans to calculate the economic vitality of communities near the Tongass based on industries other than logging, such as recreation? If not, in light of the economic gains possible through other, less-destructive forest-based industries, why is logging given such an enormous advantage as the default industry presumed to contribute to economic vitality? How would citizens go about altering this policy if it actually exists?
|
|
A: The Tongass Timber Reform Act requires the Forest Service, subject to appropriations from Congress and in balance with all renewable resources, to seek to meet annual demand for timber. It also requires us to seek to meet market demand for the planning cycle.
Calculating the annual demand is fairly straight forward for us to do because we have recent performance data from the timber industry and thus can project out for the next 1-3 years. The planning cycle demand projects out at least 10-15 years and reflects more what could be possible in the future.
As noted in the Draft EIS and especially in the Timber Demand poster at the beginning of this section of the website, we have relied on published studies to determine the potential planning cycle demand. Assuming a fully integrated industry, this number appears to be about 360 MMBF/year, which we can then use to evaluate how each alternative is responsive to that level of potential demand. Displaying the effects or consequences of each alternative on all renewable resources will help us determine how much the Tongass NF should contribute toward meeting the planning cycle demand for timber while providing for balancing all other resource and use needs.
The demand analysis prepared for this Draft EIS is discussed from page 3-439 on. The possibility of a timber sale purchaser defaulting after the purchase is not factored into this analysis.
The Draft EIS assesses the impacts of the proposed alternatives on the recreation and tourism and commercial fishing industries, as well as the timber industry. Economic impacts to the regional economy and local communities are assessed in the Economic and Social portion of the Draft EIS, which begins on page 3-403.
|
|
Question #10 Timber Receipt
Submitted by Bruce Eagle from Wrangel, AK on 03-22-2007, at 10:25:34
|
|
|
Q: Neither the State or local Goverment can tax property on the Tongass. This has placed a severe burden school operations on all towns with in the Tongass. What is the projected dollar amount generated under ALT 4 assuming that we return to the old formula.
|
|
A: As discussed on pages 3-437 and 3-438 of the Draft EIS, the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act of 2000, which extended through 2006, has not been reauthorized at this time. If we were to return to the old formula, 25 percent of revenues generated through Forest Service activities, including timber sales and recreation, would be returned to the state for distribution back to the boroughs. There is currently other legislation in the works and there is no indication at this point that there will be a return to the old formula.
Assuming we were to return to the old formula, the revenue generated by the timber program would vary based on the level of harvest and the value of the timber harvested. Alternative 4 would be closer to the payments received from 2000 to 2006, which are based on a average of the three annual highest payments from 1986 through 1999, than Alternative 1.
|
|
Question #9 ASQ Calculations
Submitted by Kevin Wallace from Seattle, WA on 03-22-2007, at 10:22:17
|
|
|
Q: How exactly was ASQ developed/determined under each of the alternatives; was it solely based on economic demand? The DEIS points out that it assumes that all ASQ will be harvested under each of the alternatives to meet projected demand, but then states that it is highly unlikely that all ASQ will be harvested (P.3-423). How does this affect the liklihood of meeting projected demands under the alternatives?
|
|
A: First, let's define ASQ: this term stands for Allowable Sale Quantity and represents the maximum amount of timber that the Tongass would be allowed to harvest over a decade (normally expressed as an average annual amount). The land bases for the alternatives were developed to address many issues, including the need to provide a wide range of options for addressing timber demand. This was required by the recent Ninth Circuit Court decision, which is the major impetus for this EIS.
In 2006, the Pacific Northwest Research Station developed a timber market demand study for Alaska that defined four scenarios for future demand. The range of land bases for the alternatives was intended to include and bracket these scenarios. However, the ASQs for each alternative were developed using a forest management model called Spectrum (which is tied to the land base for each alternative).
As noted above, the ASQ represents a maximum decadal harvest level, which is not the same as the likely harvest level. Harvest levels on the Tongass have typically been at a level that is well below the ASQ. However, for many of the effects analyses in the EIS, it is assumed that the maximum level would be harvested.
It is true that if the demand is equal to the ASQ, it may be difficult to satisfy the annual demand. This is considered in the evaluation of the ability of each alternative to meet the annual demand.
|
|
Question #8 Importance of roads
Submitted by Bruce Eagle from Wrangell, AK on 03-22-2007, at 10:06:40
|
|
|
Q: How has the FS addressed the importance of forest roads to the future infrastructure of SE AK for the development of power and transportation corridors?
|
|
A: As the Forest looks at lands that has current road access along with those that could need access in the future, other potential access needs are considered as well. For example, we look at the State of Alaska long term transportation and utility plans (see Page 3-229 to 233 in the Draft EIS) and consider potential routes along with our potential access needs. The Forest Plan and all alternatives include a Transportation and Utility System LUD which addresses actual and potential future infrastructure.
|
|
Question #7 Economics of Timber
Submitted by Erika Bjorum from Juneau, AK on 03-22-2007, at 09:56:55
|
|
Q: If you look at the 2005 State of the Forest, a report on the Tongass published by the US Forest Service, you'll find that the cost to taxpayers of maintaining the timber program was $48 million, but the Forest Service took in less than $600,000 in timber receipts. In the Draft EIS for the Forest Plan, you'll see on page 3-409 that Wood Products jobs only account for 5% of the direct resource-dependent employment. Resource-dependent employment, in turn, only accounts for 26% of total Southeast Alaska employment. On the other hand, recreation and tourism account for 62% of the direct resource-dependent jobs. Does it make sense that timber jobs, making up such a small fraction of total jobs, should take up so much of the Tongass budget when it's proposed that the growing recreation tourism industry is being asked to foot even more of the bill for using the Tongass?
|
|
A: About $28 million of the $48 million you cite is attributable to costs associated with timber planning, production, and management on the Tongass National Forest(this includes significant costs for appeals and litigation). For 2006, the total amount is about $21 million. Fixed costs and investments in planning are fairly stable over time, and require higher levels of production and higher market values to amortize.
Budgets for the National Forest System, and the portion that devolves to the Tongass for forest management, are set in appropriations passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. While any National Forest in the Nation could likely make good use of additional recreation funding, it would be a violation of Federal appropriation law for the Forest Service to convert forest management funds into recreation funds.
Both timber and recreation jobs can be important components of a sustainable economy in SE Alaska.
It is important to again keep in mind that Congress determines the mix of appropriations that come to any National Forest.
|
|
|
|
|
page: 1 of 2 per page: 10 total: 16 Next > Last >> |
|
|
Forest Plan Adjustment >
Public Involvement >
Public Meeting and Hearing >
Open House
|
