|
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 >
Welcome >
Public Involvement >
Town Hall >
Public Hearing
Testimony List
Note: you will need to hit refresh on your browser to review new testimony as it is submitted.
Comment #5
|
|
|
Submitted by Jonathan Brouwer from Juneau, AK at 17:10:47, on 03-22-2007
|
As a young commercial salmon fisherman I am worried the forest service is not doing enough to restore, protect and enhance fish habitat in the Tongass National Forest. Based on the Forest Service’s own estimate over 70 percent of the salmon harvested in Southeast Alaska originated from within the Tongass. The way the Forest Service ultimately decides to manage the Tongass will impact commercial fisheries from Metlakatla to Yakutat. I encourage Forest Service to reprioritize in the Tongass and make maintaining and enhancing salmon habitat a top priority.
In the draft Tongass Forest Plan the Forest Service states, “Roads pose the greatest risk to fish resources on the Tongass.” According to a recent Trout Unlimited study, approximately 72% of all salmon populations in Southeast Alaska are found in undeveloped watersheds. The Forest Service further explains that: “Generally, the greater the density of roads in a watershed, the greater risk there is to fish resources.” Between 1,766 miles, with alternative one, and 6,264 miles, with alternative seven, of new logging roads could be constructed, depending on the alternative selected. I ask the Forest Service evaluate human disturbances to every watershed at the very beginning of timber sale planning by completing a comprehensive watershed analysis.
Many watersheds identified by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game as Primary Fish Producers in 1998 are slated for road construction and logging in several of the alternatives in the draft Tongass Forest Plan, including the Proposed Action. Some of these watersheds include Ushk Bay Creek near Sitka, Wasta Creek on Cleveland Peninsula, Castle River near Petersburg, and Port Camden Creek. on Kuiu Island. I would like to see these watersheds and all other primary salmon producing watersheds identified by Fish and Game permanently protected.
Since 2000, the Forest Service has replaced 240 blocked culverts, but funding available for culvert replacement is shrinking. Presently, an additional 1,322 blocked culverts on the Tongass need replacement to improve fish passage. All 7 alternatives in the DEIS call for new roads in some of Southeast Alaska’s most productive salmon watersheds. I strongly believe Forest Service should fully fund salmon habitat restoration and enhancement projects including the culvert replacement program.
As you know the demand for wild Alaskan salmon is greater than ever. With dock prices and ex-vessel values for salmon on the upswing, the future looks bright for commercial salmon fishermen in Southeast Alaska. Between 2004 and 2006 the average wholesale value (ex-vessel value) for salmon in Southeast Alaska was $89 million compared to an average of $68 million (2005 dollars) between 1984 and 2005. In 2005 salmon harvesting and seafood processing supported 2,847 direct jobs or about 8% of total Southeast Alaska employment. This stands in stark contrast to the 450 wood product jobs in 2004, equal to only 1% of regional employment.
While I am most comfortable with alternative one, I believe fish habitat will not be adequately protected even if the Forest Service selects this alternative, because some primary fish producing watersheds are still in the timber base. I am not against logging in the Tongass and I don’t think an Allowable Sale Quantity of 52 million board feet is too much. I, however, will never be comfortable with a Forest Plan that allows the heavily subsidized timber industry to log at the expense the fishing industry. Commercial salmon fishing is a sustainable industry that depends on the watersheds the Forest Service manages.
Thank you for providing this opportunity to comment on the Tongass Forest Plan.
|
|
Comment #4
|
|
|
Submitted by Elaine Price from Coffman Cove, AK at 15:46:46, on 03-22-2007
|
I live and work in the Tongass National Forest. Our communities need a stable year round economy. The Tongass National Forest is huge. There is plenty of forest to support tourism, conservation,mining, logging and maintain quality fish habitat. When a person flies over the area they can truely comprehend how big Alaska is and how much of it is untouched.
I would like to see the Forest Service maintain a stable supply of merchantable timber to encourage growth in the timber industry. Timber related jobs were year round jobs with benefits a person could raise a family on. Those days are gone and it is a shame the only timber industry is the value added mom and pop outfits who can't even afford to buy shoes for their kids much less employ someone.
Southeast Alaska needs about 330 million board feet of good quality timber a year to support a smaller scale timber industry than in the past. The timber needs to be sustainable, with a reliable supply without all the lawsuits driving the cost up. There needs to be new roads to access good timber. There needs to be a plan to harvest second growth once it reaches a merchantable size.
Prince of Wales is the destination of many tourists because we have miles of roads. These roads need to be maintained and left open for future logging, mining, tourism and subsistance.
There is no future in SE Alaska for our children except seasonal tourist related jobs. The Tongass is a National Forest not a National Park. Please manage our forest for mulitple use and not to please the out of state person who has never been here and probably never will.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
|
|
Comment #3
|
|
|
Submitted by Karen Petersen from Thorne Bay, AK at 15:10:47, on 03-22-2007
|
Thank you for providing this forum for public comment.
My comment is a general comment about the management of the Tongass National Forest. The Tongass Land Management Plan is not intended to pit one user group against the other. The Tongass National Forest is a MULTI use forest with enough resources to provide for all users. The Tongass can sustain a healthy timber harvest program, as well as an active recreation program. It can sustain wild salmon streams as well as allow for mineral extraction.
I would like to see a forest management plan that allows all kinds of people to make their living here - that includes loggers, fishermen, tour guides, artists, miners and anyone else who has a legitimate reaon to do business here. I would really like to see a plan that allows the Forest Service to do their job of managing the forest with out having to do backbends to justify their position.
I support a Tongass Land Plan that has an active timber progam. I support an ASQ of 204 which will allow all of the current sawmill operators to continue and also gives a margin for growth. I would like to see a biomass program be intigrated into the timber program. Possibly a credit system that gives people a refund for ensuring their wood waste goes to a biomass project instead of being burned on site. We are wasting a good percentage of our resource by turning it into sawdust!
Thank you.
|
|
Comment #2
|
|
|
Submitted by Megan McDermott from Dayton, OH at 15:03:58, on 03-22-2007
|
I adamantly object to the "proposed action plan". Such high levels of cutting are unsustainable and devastating to one of our nation's remaining pristine old-growth forests. I am also concerned about the impact this might have on the roadless areas which, in fact, need the most protection.
There are no long-term economic benefits to the local economy or the nation -- it is short-sighted to allow such devastating "harvesting" for the benefit of a few logging companies and at the expense of our national heritage.
Again, I strongly object to this plan.
|
|
Comment #1
|
|
|
Submitted by John Inman from Ketchikan, AK at 14:27:59, on 03-22-2007
|
I write today as an interested citizen and as a resident of Southeast Alaska. In my spare time, I am the Scoutmaster of a Boy Scout troop in Ketchikan. We enjoy our times in the outdoors, and are grateful to be able to live here.
My troop includes kids from across the economic continuum. Some have great potential and options for their futures, some have less potential and fewer options. It would be wonderful if all of them would be able to remain in Ketchikan after high school graduation, or to return after college graduation, if they so chose -- but this can only be so if we have a vigorous economy. But the economy here and throughout Southeast Alaska has been weak for several years, and populations continue to decrease.
Because almost all of the land around us is owned by the federal government in the form of the Tongass National Forest, that land is not available for careful and planned productive development. But this is okay with me, so long as the landowner (the Tongass National Forest) makes some careful and reasonable (even if limited) opportunities for the local population to benefit from the use of the land. I believe that it is eminently reasonable for some resource extraction (such as timber harvests) to occur on National Forest land. I believe this can be done carefully, with regard for the scenic beauty of the land and waters. Indeed, I believe this must be done. A National Forest is not a National Park, and should not be managed like one. A National Forest should serve multiple interests in a balanced approach, and a progressive timber industry is a valid interest.
I am no expert on the Draft EIS or the particulars of the seven proposed alernatives, and I cannot (and don't want to) speak in favor or against any of them. I don't understand ASQs and such. But for the sake of the kids in my Boy Scout troop and their families, I hope the resulting outcome will be a careful and reasonable decision that helps support the local economy to grow. Our economy cannot rely solely on tourism, as tourism jobs are short-term and low-paid. Certainly it is possible to manage the National Forest in a way that meets the needs both of those who live here and need a vigorous economy as well as those who pass through and want a scenic view. And I suppose some people, like me, are both -- we want both a vibrant economy and a vibrant view.
As to what exactly the balance should be, I will defer to the persons who are appointed to make that decision. I don't want all the old-growth trees to be cut down, and I understand that none of the proposed alternatives contemplate such. But I don't want the forest to be managed like a National Park, either. I don't know if these comments are helpful, because I don't provide any expert opinions or facts and figures on any of the proposed alernatives, but I have been aware of the invitation for public comments and, as a member of the public, I thank you for the opportunity.
|
|
|
|
|
page: 1 of 1 per page: 10 total: 5 |
|
|
Forest Plan Adjustment >
Welcome >
Public Involvement >
Town Hall >
Public Hearing
|
