|
Home | Mission | Newsletter | Publications | About ABFC | Join ABFC Voices of the Forest
Public Testimony on the Future of the Tanana Valley State Forest: Issues and Opportunities Related to Land Use Management in Interior Alaska Janice C. Dawe, Anthony N. Whitworth, Richard J. McCaffrey,
IntroductionThis document has been prepared because the Alaska Boreal Forest Council[1] believes that the Alaska Division of Forestry's (DOF) planning process is not working satisfactorily and requires greater public participation. It has been created by the Alaska Boreal Forest Council to assist DOF's public planning process. It is a comprehensive review of public opinion on a proposal to alter management practices in the Tanana Valley State Forest (TVSF).
Testimony concerning that proposal, as well as other management issues, was received by DOF during its 30-day public review of the draft 1994-1998 TVSF DOF Operations Schedule.2 Participants in the Alaska Boreal Forest Council have read the 30-day review testimony and, in this document, attempt to present each individual's written and/or oral comments concisely and objectively. To do this, we first condensed the testimony (see Appendix C: Abstracted Public Comments) and then summarized it around issues of public concern (see Summary of Testimony). This compilation is intended to provide a framework for a more thorough analysis than is currently available[3] and to promote better communication and education about issues during the 1994 revision of the TVSF Management Plan.[4]
For those of us who have produced this document, it has provided an invaluable means to explore the scope of our community's aspirations for the forest. A more daunting task has been to define the audience for the document itself. We believe this audience is wide. It includes all individuals involved or interested in policy decisions and long-range planning for the TVSF: state employees, the public, local and state government representatives, the business community, the academic community, the media, public lands- and environmental-interest groups, and private landowners.
Historical Background
In the "Unutilized Harvest Potential" portion of the draft 1994-1998 TVSF DOF Operations Schedule, DOF proposed a significant increase in timber cut levels. While previous timber harvests have largely been confined to spruce sawlog and mixed species fuelwood cuts, DOF announced that the marketability of unutilized hardwoods, primarily birch and aspen, was now being considered. DOF anticipated high public interest in this idea and therefore scheduled open houses at both ends of the mandated 30-day public review period,[5] even though no such meetings are required under agency regulations.
The proposal to allow large-scale logging in the TVSF brought forth an unprecedented demonstration of public concern. Sixty-five people signed the attendance sheet at the June 17, 1993 open house and thirty-six gave oral testimony. DOF prepared a written transcript of the tape-recorded proceedings. At the second open house, held on July 8, DOF made an informational presentation, answered questions about the five-year operations schedule, and took oral testimony from 26 individuals. That testimony was also tape-recorded and transcribed. Similar open houses were held in Tok on June 15 and in Delta Junction on July 22.[6] Although neither of those meetings was recorded or transcribed, a written summary of oral comment for the Tok meeting is available at DOF's Fairbanks Area Office.
DOF received a total of 191 oral and written comments on the draft 1994-98 TVSF Operations Schedule.[7] They provide a powerful tool for assessing some of the public's many concerns about large-scale, long-term timber sales in the TVSF. In fact, the level of public comment received during the 30-day public review is roughly the same as that received during the much more intensively debated first TVSF Management Plan of 1988. In that planning effort, the Division sent out approximately 1,500 brochures and questionnaires to individuals and organizations interested in a range of TVSF public land issues. One hundred fifty-six completed questionnaires, seven letters, five statements by native village councils, and a petition containing 112 signatures were received by DOF.[8]
The traditional agency accounting of public comment has tended to label responses only as in favor or opposed. Thus, two-thirds of Tanana Basin commentors were opposed to large-scale forest development, while one-third voiced approval of expanded forest harvest operations. We reject this thumbs up/thumbs down approach to issues of vital public concern. We believe such an approach devalues the role of education and the implications it holds to help form public opinion. Experience suggests that the managment of public resources is best served when public participation is fully engaged and officially encouraged. This seems especially important when discussing a resource whose values are as manifest as forest lands. In this regard, our attempt to create a comprehensive analysis of indivdual testimony offers significant public access across on a wide range of values that are dependent on an intact forest resource.
In addition to testimony from the local region, the draft 1994-1998 TVSF DOF Operations Schedule also received a number of form letters promoting increased forest development. Thirty-nine of these letters originated in Southeast and Southcentral Alaska, and one from inside the Tanana Basin region. Because of their identical language and construction, and because it was assumed they represent an effort by industry to promote its agenda, they've been weighted in this analysis as representing a single response.
Public Process
Public process is guided by state law and laid out in agency regulations.[9] A fair public planning process provides many opportunities for broad citizen involvement and results in planning decisions that address public concerns. Judging from the 30-day review testimony, a substantial number of citizens feel that input has not been integrated into policy.
Division of Forestry's public participation model is responsible for this attitude.[10] DOF's planning process provides few opportunities for public involvement and contains no mechanism whereby the public can share in policy-directive decisions. Compare and contrast this with the planning process outlined by the United States Forest Service.[11] An equitable public process would include an education element--this has largely been lacking. The year-long activities of the Community Forest Forums, co-sponsored by the University of Alaska Cooperative Extension Service and Forest Forum Steering Committee, fill part of the education void.[12] Other efforts and greater support from DOF are sorely needed.
DOF has said "It's your forest" [13] and that it wants to foster a fair and open public process. A fair process would make the public and the Division equal partners in an interdependent, on-going planning process. Further, it would recognize that each partner has certain rights, responsibilities and obligations. The public would depend on state forestry professionals and other state personnel to provide objective, timely data to establish the biological and economical limits within which the forest could be managed. In return, the state agencies would depend on the citizenry to direct it as to how, within those parameters, the forest should be managed.
The Alaska Boreal Forest Council is prepared to work with state agencies and all interested members of our community to create a public process that more effectively involves the public and reflects its aspirations in long-term planning efforts affecting our community. We hope to broaden the community's opportunities to directly influence public policy. We are afraid that if people continue to feel that their concerns are not being incorporated, they will become disillusioned and "opt out." Instead, the public needs to see that its role is truly a meaningful one and that it can influence land-use decisions. This, we feel, is the basis of a fair public process. We invite all readers to critique our ideas and make suggestions for their improvement and expansion.
Preparation of DocumentThe practical steps in preparing this document are outlined below. First, the public comments of 173 individuals and organizations were condensed (abstracted), entered into an textbase, indexed and recursively exchanged with a flat database, then sorted according to 26 keywords (see Appendix E for a list of keywords and testimonies referring to them). Each of the 26 keyword subsets of testimony was summarized. The summaries are presented in the "Summary of Testimonies" section.[14]
Every attempt has been made to maintain objectivity throughout the document. Our goal is to report the views expressed in the 30-day testimony without editorializing. The following are potential sources of bias and the steps we have taken to minimize their influence in the document:
Summary of Testimony
As stated in "Preparation of Document," the testimony has been summarized within twenty-six subject areas or "keywords." In writing these summaries we have attempted to report the ideas objectively and provide full documentation. The number in parenthesis after each keyword is the number of individuals, identifiable by reference number, addressing that subject. A complete list of reference numbers pertaining to each keyword (including those of the replicate form letters when appropriate) is given in Appendix E, Standardized Keywords. Within the summary statements, each superscript refers to an endnote that contains the testimony reference number(s) of the testimony from which a particular idea, paraphrase, or quote has been extracted (see Endnotes and Appendix C).
The nature of the public's testimony is such that boundaries between keywords often overlap. To accomodate this pattern, as well as help the reader focus attention on areas of specific concern, twenty-five of the the keywords have been grouped by broad issue type: Biological Resource, Economic, Forest Management and Social. The twenty-sixth keyword, "sustainability" provides the link among the issues. Sustainability is the quality of the intact forest as it cycles through periods of disturbance and renewal (Biological Resource Issues) and the goal we seek in diversifying our local and state economy (Economic Issues). Our state constitution mandates sustainability in human use of forest resources (Forest Management Issues) and community members profess that sustainable lifestyles are a primary concern (Social Issues). Given the current global preoccupation with economic and environmental sustainability, we, as citizens, are obligated to define sustainability as it effects our community.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE ISSUES
Keyword: ecosystem
Keyword: fisheriesPublic comment having to do with fisheries mostly revolved around concerns over detrimental effects of logging on fishery resources.[53] Concerns were voiced regarding commercial,[54 ]subsistence,[55] and sport fisheries.[56 ] Testimony pointed out the current lack of studies and knowledge regarding the effects of logging on fisheries.[57 ] Concerns were voiced over the effects of logging on fish habitat.[58] Several people testifying felt that fisheries resources were an equal or higher use of forests, for their economic value through tourism,[59 ]commercial fishing,[60] or just in general.[61 ] Specific fishery concerns were also voiced regarding the Tanana-Yukon drainage as spawning grounds for major salmon stocks,[62] and regarding the lack of habitat protections under the Forest Practices Act.[63]
Keyword: regenerationSeveral people testified that replanting should be encouraged[64], and that replanting costs should be taken from the sale of the timber.[65] Several people testified that timber sale plans should include reforestation plans.[66] Several people cited lack of data on effective reforestation in Interior Alaska.[67] Two people testified that overmature forests inhibit regeneration by creating "high fire potential and site takeover by regeneration-inhibiting grasses" as in the Kenai Peninsula,[68] and by creating windfalls and inhibiting regeneration as in Southeast Alaska.[69] One person testified that there was good natural regeneration after riverboat era logging in Fairbanks,[70] another said that most of the cut over Rosie Creek burn area was "growing up pretty green",[71] another that in Southeast Alaska re-seeding was prolific after logging.[72] One person suggested leaving strips of trees for re-seeding.[73] One person suggested leaving everything less than six inches DBH to promote regrowth, and testified that local loggers plant trees: "we planted 50,000 trees ... last year."[74] One person testified that there was litter left after reseeding efforts along the Little Chena River.[75] One person testified that Anchorage, following deforestation, is beautifying by spending thousands of dollars to plant trees.[76] One person stated that the "aesthetics of regrowth don't match those of original stands."[77]
Several people testified that growth rates should match harvest rates (see sustainability).[78] Several people testified that Interior Alaska has a slow rate of growth.[79] Estimates of the time it takes for white spruce to grow to harvestable timber ranged from 80-120 years,[80] a minimum of 70-80 years[81] and 80 years.[82] One person questioned whether a 76-year rotation was sufficient time for replacement.[83] The only estimate for white birch was a minimum of 40-60 years.[84] One person suggested that forestry decisions should be made with this time frame in mind.[85] One person testified that local loggers don't want to "tear it all up because they want their kids to go in there twenty years later and reharvest."[86] One person testified that "riverboat era logging near Fairbanks provides evidence of increased growth rate of residual trees."[87]
Keyword: riparian buffer zoneTestimony regarding riparian buffer zones mentioned that riparian zones are critical habitat zones.[88] Riparian zones (and the concern over lack of them) were mentioned with respect to erosion prevention.[89] They were also mentioned as maintaining water quality, and testimony voiced concern over degradation of water quality if adequate buffer zones are not maintained.[90] Testimony also related to the concern that the highest value timber would be high-graded from along stream banks, resulting in rapid degradation of riparian habitat.[91]
ECONOMIC ISSUES
The keywords in this group include the economic aspects of the forest: Economy, Forest Industry, Forest Products, Markets, Scale, and Tourism.
Keyword: economyMost comments supported the belief that Alaska can benefit from a diverse and integrated economy.[92] As a variation on that theme, some commented that Alaskan industry will benefit from greater economies of scale in resource development, implying a gain from increased developmental scale.[93] However, some complained that the full impact of increased development of Alaskan forests for harvest had been inadequately explored and thus it would be foolish to further permit large-scale logging until definitive economic returns can be evaluated.[94] More than one person observed that current levels of logging were sustainable and beneficial to the local economy, but large-scale sales would not be.[95] At least one person noted that large-scale timber harvesting could reduce Alaska's unemployment problem.[96] Others saw a possible extension of the Alaskan tax base as a possible consequence.[97] A question was raised of whether or not the perceived employment benefits would be enjoyed by local workers.[98] One person suggested that some comments were irrelevant because they were made by 'preservationists' with no Alaskan economic interest.[99] Another felt that the economic benefits were likely to be small compared to the environmental damage expected.[100] It was observed that the relatively harsh growing conditions here limit the commercial cuts to isolated tracts, but value would be negatively offset by the cost of building roads.[101] Finally, a number of commentors noted a strong negative impact from large-scale timber harvests in the form of reduced tourism in Alaska[102] and decline in subsistence economies.[103]
On a different tack, contributors noted that there should be more concern for and study of displaced habitat for Alaskan species.[104] With regard to the amount of biomass for harvesting, two people noted that harvest will prevent the waste of biomass from over-mature and dying trees.[105]
While some argued that the planned harvest would not exceed the estimated maximum sustainable yield of the forest in its entirety,[106] they did not comment on the effect of large-scale forestry on the sustainable yield of a given small tract and did not offer alternatives such as selective logging to address this concern.
Many noted that there is likely little value added from forestry that is expected to remain in the State of Alaska.[107] and that the plan offered no more than a "Band-Aid economical boost."[108] These commentors noted that Alaska has been notorious in the past for exporting raw logs and harvesting valuable trees for pulp.
Finally, a number of contributors were skeptical of the return to state government subsidies of forestry development, claiming that such subsidies are a "black hole" of public finance with little measurable or verifiable return.[109]
Keyword: forest industryPublic response to the draft 1994-98 TVSF DOF Operations Schedule was mostly concerned with the cost-benefit ratio of long-term, large timber sale offerings.[110] Focus was on the schedule's effect on the timber industry as represented by local small sawmill operators[111] and the forest products industry, the latter perceived as an outside interest.
A few testifiers saw the greatly increased timber offerings as a chance to utilize "mature" Tanana Valley State Forest timber and thus attract the forest products industry to help diversify the oil-dependent Alaskan economy.[112] Others expressed concerns about sustainability,[113] the ability of the state to effectively manage such an undertaking,[114] and the state subsidizing the forest products industry by paying for road building and reforestation.
Many expressed concerns about the effects of large-scale timber harvesting on fisheries and wildlife,[115] on erosion, on watershed destruction, and on tourism.[116] One felt that tourists do not find clearcuts to be an eyesore, and that the impact of future logging near highways will be minimal because there is not much left along the highway to log.[117] Another person said that logging "boosts our local economy and has been done pretty well"[118] but should be postponed until small-scale, low-impact logging is feasible.[119] Others thought that the slow growth and low quality of our hardwoods requires large-scale sales for profitability.[120] On the other hand, massive timber operations in the Pacific Northwest are cited as bad management practices that occur when forest products industries from outside are attracted to large-scale offerings. The comparison to Tongass National Forest was made.
While the environmental effects of long-term large-scale timber offerings were frequently voiced, the economic impact of the proposed greatly increased timber offerings were expressed by small sawmill operators and timber workers. These local timber-dependent workers feared that the large forest products industries will squeeze them out of the timber picture.[121] They felt the local economies that they support will also suffer at the hands of the bigger, often multinational companies.[122] Small operators are seen as utilizing marginal timber, and can manage the site with consideration for environmental degradation unless forced by the state into clearcutting. Small sawmill operators and their woodworkers have a vested interest in sustainable forestry for their children that outside interests don't.
Local timber workers wondered about large-scale timber sales and the loss of their timber sources to outside interests not tied to the community.[123] There are no safeguards as logs can be exported to Japan and the supply of logs for the small operator is not guaranteed. Reference was made to Ketchikan. When logging first started in the Tongass, small operators were guaranteed their share of timber. Within two years, no small operator was left.[124]
Aside from environmental degradation and local economic impact, large-scale logging which attracts a forest products industry could lead to wasteful forest practices like high-grading or cutting the best timber. Local operators are more concerned about the forest's health as they want resources managed so they are available for their children's livelihood.
Local small sawmill operators and woodworkers worried about their source of timber in the face of large offerings; they were concerned that destruction of the resources they depend on will occur. Other small operators would like to see research on local utilization and manufacture of timber to make high-value wood products locally. Another is interested in bidding on a timber sale and would like to sell finished products.[125]
Keyword: forest productsSome said there is a need for a forest products industry of reasonable economic scale to help move us beyond being dependent on the oil industry.[126] High value products could be made from the spruce and hardwoods, and chips could be produced. More timber sales will bring jobs and an increased tax base. Requests for proposals should be sent to forest products firms. These proposals should state what the minimum rates are for our timber.
Some said that our trees are only good for chipping, so particle board makes sense, but there is no mention of it in the "Five-Year Plan." Others thought we have a wood quality problem in Interior Alaska. Local construction grade lumber is too low quality compared to that shipped in. It dries poorly and has many knots and splits. One local firm hasn't been successful in drying local birch. We need research on ways of improving the quality of wood products so we can make high-value products. If the quality problem could be overcome, a viable wood products industry might be built upon a chipping operation that would work in tandem with a furniture and cabinet industry.
Larger quantities of firewood and houselogs should be made available to the public. Instead of shipping logs to Japan, we should sell processed wood (and not just logs cut on two sides) and make jobs for Alaskans.[127] Interior forests could be an input to our economy by creating local jobs.[128]
There are problems with current forest products utilization practices. Firewood, especially birch, is left to rot on some timber sale areas. Shipping export quality logs goes against the local economy's interest because we end up with lower quality wood for our building projects and the local economy often doesn't benefit from export sales. Export sales should be minimized. Raw log exports is the worst use of our resources. Because the Sitka Pulp Mill is closing indefinitely, we should not cut local spruce for pulp. Shipping raw logs overseas puts Alaska on par with other Third World natural resource providers.
Older growth white spruce has excellent strength and durability. It should be looked at as a specialty wood. Wood needs to be graded in accordance with Western Wood Products Association rules to develop local markets for processed lumber to use in local construction.
Most interior trees aren't quality lumber trees but are for paper and go to Japan. Do we want to see Alaska paved and deforested for the creation of paper in Japan? The timber industry is a poor choice for economic diversification. It benefits only a few for the short-term. Interior timber should be used in a conservative manner to produce fiber for commercial use for generations. DOF should concentrate on providing fuelwood and sawlogs for local use.
Keyword: marketsMost people who mentioned "markets" in their testimony were opposed to exporting raw logs,[129] exporting logs that have only been sawed on two sides[130], or exporting forest products in general.[131] Many wanted to see local processing of logs to provide local jobs and income[132], and to keep the best logs for local products.[133] One person testified that the DOF should "concentrate on providing fuelwood and sawlogs for local use."[134] Concern was expressed that local markets might be flooded by large sales.[135] Two people spoke of a need to research or develop local markets for logs.[136] One person testified that local spruce should not be cut for pulp because there was no markets for pulp logs, but that older growth white spruce should be considered a specialty wood for use in local construction.[137] Several people testified that previous timber sales had exceeded demand for the logs and had resulted in wasted wood[138] and a need to export logs.[139] One person recommended better coordination between DOT, FNSB, GVEA and the public to fully utilize timber resources taken principally for construction but not utilized by commerce or the public in the region.[140]
Keyword: scaleMany people testified either in support[141] or in opposition[142] to large-scale timber sales. Those whose testimony supported large-scale sales cited benefits to the economy,[143] reducing waste by fire and insects,[144] the necessity of large-scale and long- term sales to attract industry,[145] and the increased sensitivity to environmental concerns of large companies.[146] Many asked that large-scale sales be deleted from the plan.[147] Several people warned that large-scale sales could cause boom-bust swings in the economy[148] and that large harvests were non-sustainable.[149] Several people testified that they liked present harvest levels,[150] and were in favor of timber contracts going to local operators.[151] Four people[152] testified that large-scale sales would require revision of the TVSF Plan. Three people[153] argued that DOF does not have the capacity to administer a 20-fold increase in timber sales.
Keyword: tourismTourism is the second largest private sector basic industry employer in the state and in Fairbanks. Some 2038 full-time jobs (payroll $34 million annually) are supported by non-resident visitors in the Interior/Northern region of Alaska. An estimated 1100 additional jobs are generated in the Interior/Northern region by Alaskans visiting. In 1990 the visitor industry reported investing a total of $79 million in the Interior/Northern region. That amount has risen steadily since. The two major tourism attractions are the unblemished landscape of Alaska and the native cultures. Each is dependent upon an intactecosystem.
Testifiers referred to tourism as being an important industry in the Tanana Valley and an important forest value that DOF had underestimated. Ecotourism creates numerous jobs and brings high economic return from use of unmanipulated natural ecosystems.[154] Large-scale expansion of timber cutting is likely to have adverse effects on tourism,[155] especially on Ecotourism which is the most rapidly-growing sector of the tourism industry.[156] Tourism itself is rapidly expanding and by the year 2000 will be the most profitable industry in the world. Polls report that 95% of those polled would pay extra money to companies that follow ecotourism principles of protecting both local environments and cultures.[157] A large-scale timber industry in the Tanana Valley will scar the land and damage the unblemished face of Interior Alaska for a long time. Fairbanks would be ugly without trees and an ugly town is not very viable as a tourist attraction. Tourism is sustainable while rapid forestry exploitation is not.[158] The last intact boreal forest ecosystem is here in Alaska, which is a tremendous tourism advantage.[159] Tourism operators stated that this kind of timber development will hurt their businesses as tourists are attracted to the region because of its natural state.[160]
FOREST MANAGEMENT ISSUES
Keyword: Five-Year ScheduleThe plan is inadequate and fails to meet Title 38 and Title 41 standards.[161] The public made a number of comments on the inadequacies of the "Public Review Draft of the Five-Year Timber Harvest Schedule of the Alaska Division of Forestry's Fairbanks Area, Delta Area, and Tok Area for Fiscal Years 1994 through 1998." While it was generally called the "Five-Year Plan," the "Plan" for the TVSF is a different document that was published in 1988. The "Plan" does come up for review every five years, so it is also known as the "Five-Year Plan". To the public, these are confusing forestry planning documents. To avoid this problem here, this section refers to the public review draft of the timber harvest schedules simply as "the Draft."
Comments about the Draft could be divided using the keyword "five-year plan" into two groups; one group in favor of the proposed large-scale timber sales, the other group against them. In this analysis, instead, we bring out the public ideas about the Draft schedule itself and its role in the planning process. In some instances, when the word "plan" is present but only in the context of discussing economy, sales, wildlife, etc., those comments are not analyzed here.
Reasons given by the public that the Draft is an adequate document are as follows: It is a "good management document. Essential for inviting larger forestry industrial interests to locate here. Potential here greater than in Finland, where forest products account for 60% of GNP."[162] The plan is "[an] important step in enabling reasonable economic scale operations."[163] "Appropriate to provide notice in the five-year plan of potential sale of currently 'unutilized harvest potential'. Its uses should be given careful study and planning, including extensive public review, prior to making commitments."[164] Wholehearted endorsement for long-term plan to ensure sustained yield and address related concerns.[165] Sufficient, careful background work done.[166]
Several reasons were given that the Draft is an inadequate document. (1) Forestry should remove large-scale logging from five-year plan. [because] the state would make too many concessions and go beyond any good the community would receive.[167] (2) The Draft: does not conform to guidelines in TVSF Management Plan; contains material beyond scope of document, especially in "Unutilized Harvest Potential;" contains statements of questionable biologic and economic accuracy, contains cumbersome reporting units; gives little weight to forest values other than timber cutting; and, has numerous editorial errors."[168] (3) The numbers for sustained yield, biologic capacity of land, and allowable cuts [in 1988 Plan and the Draft] do not correspond. This calls into question credibility of either or both the Plan and the Draft schedule. (4) The Draft need[s] new section in schedule that details scientific strategy and resources that will be devoted to forest inventory effort.[169] (5) One testifier wanted to remove large-scale logging from plan [because] effects of large-scale logging not thoroughly thought out."[170] "Please delete the large-scale logging from the five-year plan and end the destruction before it starts."[171] (6) Another expressed that the large-scale logging issue is not appropriately introduced in this Draft. " ... inventory first ... [then] comprehensive study of impact on community ... should be made ... then consider all its other values ... bring all this to bear in public discussion about large-scale logging ... this [is] another variation of Alaska's love affair with boom and bust cycle.[172] (7) Large scale logging is "based on ill-conceived speculation and that its costs far outweigh any real benefit to the majority of Alaska public lands' users." (8) DNR and DOF continue to take exception with public's wishes with regard to management of State land. Instead, DNR/DOF manipulate and distort those wishes.[173] Plan first, schedule second.[174] Information and statistics incomplete and misleading.[175]
Several people expressed the idea that an unprofessional campaign was underway in the draft as follows: One person indicated that DNR should stop campaign to increase harvest levels.[176] Others stated simply that DNR should remove large-scale logging from Plan.[177] The Draft is an inappropriate mode to announce large-scale sales because use of our forest resource is [a] matter for public and professional agreement, thorough and thoughtful analysis. Hasty development dangerous.[178] Another felt that it seems highly irresponsible and unprofessional to propose huge logging opportunities without data.[179] The large-scale sales schedule in the Draft is incorrect because [other] resource values--wildlife, fish, recreation, science, aesthetic wilderness values, air quality, water quality, soil quality, global aspects relating to boreal ecosystem, and climate change. Not available for public review now. Right now, we have no economic studies to review![180] As a forester, disappointed with how DOF conducted public planning process. Highly prejudicial advertising campaign and confused, bumbling manner of [public] meeting. "Public agency which purports to conduct a good-faith planning effort must present management options in an impartial manner and seek to faithfully receive, understand, and incorporate public concerns into planning documents--at least--before attempting to propagandize a particular development scenario in the community." Revise TVSF Plan (1988) before sales. "It is just plain good policy."[181] Reflecting on the planning process, one person stated that Get large-scale out of Five-Year Plan. Right now for barrel of gas, only $1 goes to State of Alaska. Rest is going out. Same with timber and fish, all our rich resources. We're not gaining anything for long-term, so we should think about how much we're losing. It's just for short-term, not long-term benefit.[182]
Keyword: harvestTestimony using words subsumed under the keyword "harvest" (methods, salvage, waste, clearcut, allowable sale quantities (ASQ), leave strips, high grading, selective cutting, reharvest, overcuts, deforestation, crop rotation) expressed a wide range of concerns.
Some supported the increased harvest as proposed in the five year schedule. Large-scale developers would be more sensitive to environmental concerns.[183] Topography allows harvesting techniques that protect water quality.[184] Trees are wasted if not harvested by man: they rot, burn or become bug infested.[185] Should accept judgment of professional foresters, under public review, to insure acceptable conservation practices are used in harvesting.[186] Likes public-private Forest Management Agreements (FMAs).[187] Supports conservative use, but wonders if there will be long-term plans for harvest methods, regeneration/reforestation and possible/known impacts.[188] "We all hate to see a clearcut, but it's a necessity. Needs to be managed properly."[189]
Because of slow growth and low grade of hardwoods, large-scale harvests are necessary here, but clearcuts are not the eyesores some maintain, and public concerns can be adequately met. Furthermore, regeneration and planting are doing well, and there is more timber now than there was 50 years ago, so increased harvest is reasonable.[190] There are no rare or endangered species to worry about in the TVSF, so a harvesting program could be established here, recognizing the limitations of this forest, if we replant and act reasonably.[191]
Others rejected increased harvest in the five year plan. Allowable sale quantities (ASQ) in State Forest Plan are exceeded greatly in five-year plan, not sustainable.[192] Wood was wasted in previous sales, need to use that before adding more sales.[193] Unutilized harvest potential overestimated.[194] Misused "salvage" when meant harvest.[195] Clearcuts may bring negative economic values in future.[196] Need to coordinate harvest of trees on road cuts and powerlines and include in total harvest.[197] Need better inventory to decide true ASQ.[198] Have observed large clearcut west side of Tanana River between Delta and Fairbanks, nothing growing there now.[199] Need studies to see effects of clearcutting on fish.[200] Cutting oldgrowth would hurt Delta caribou.[201] Rotation in Tanana Valley could take 80-120 years, slower than other places, not sustainable.[202] Current harvest practices leave brush and trees for insect infestation.[203] Supports current family operators, two fold increase is shaky.[204] Regrowth different than original stands.[205] Scale back to existing harvest levels.[206]
Further objections to increased harvest included the following: Selective cutting may be practical if true costs of road building and environmental degradation figured in harvest equation.[207] Need more leave strips and patchy cuts for wildlife and to decrease impact.[208] Wonder if additional trees given to loggers to compensate for road construction expenses are included in ASQ.[209] Concerned about high grading timber that can be most profitably logged, i.e. along rivers and no riparian zone buffer called for in contract.[210] Need to harvest on sustainable basis for locally owned and operated companies.[211] After three clearcuts, forest is gone. Forest Service in Pacific Northwest looking at selective cutting.[212] Reforestation not being done correctly here.[213] We believe in doing a good, clean job logging and except when State makes us clearcut, we don't clearcut. Make sales smaller so local people can do the work, therefore less "raping and pillaging" that comes with big business.[214] Agrees room for increased harvest, but not 12,000 acres a year, long-term, better to log in small tracts to maintain nature of forest.[215] Reforestation should not be subsidized.[216]
Even more objections were indicated in testimony: Overcuts in Pacific Northwest unsustainable, but political pressure demanded them.[217] Clearcuts' effects on climate not known.[218] Clearcuts decrease biodiversity, causing lack of resistance to insects, fire.[219] Long-term, large-scale sales promote high grading.[220] Saw overlogging in Ketchikan when big companies arrived, need information so small companies can keep going here.[221] Clearcutting would cause erosion, degradation of the watershed and possibly unknown problems.[222] Clearcutting would cause long lasting eyesores.[223] Clearcutting not sustainable.[224] Long term, large scale would detract from the quality of life in the Interior.[225] Clearcuts very visible from the air, and we frequently travel by air.[226] Clearcuts raise stream beds.[227] Clearcuts in Pacific NW left terrible scars seen from ground and air.[228] Reforestation plans should accompany sale plans at least one year in advance.[229] Only emergency salvage sales are legally excepted from the successive versions of the five year plan.
There was question concerning salvage sales in leave strips: Are they emergencies? Are the leave strips effective? Same thing on margins of clearcuts?[230] Requests previous year's harvest be included in current schedule.[231] Asks for clarification as to why reforestation plans cannot be included in sales.[232] Opposes plan out of concern for possible damage to fish and wildlife habitat and quality of life.[233]
Keyword: interagency cooperationOther state agencies, the Board of Forestry, and the public, through formal hearings, must agree with DOF before revising the plan.[234] Recommend better coordination between DOT, FNSB, GVEA, and public to fully utilize timber resources taken principally for construction, but not utilized by commerce or public in region.[235] ADF&G Habitat Division said they have no information on effects of logging in Interior on anadromous fish. Ninety percent of the food chain occurs in the first couple hundred feet of vegetation along the river bank. Fisheries shouldn't be sacrificed at expense of forestry. Wants DOF to do EIS.[236] DOF has jurisdiction over TVSF lands but lacks jurisdiction over TBAP lands. Request that the DOL should lead public involvement process for its portion of forested lands in the Tanana Valley.[237] DOL should be more involved with public process.[238]
Keyword: inventoryTestifiers who mentioned inventory asked that it occur prior to large-scale timber sales,[239] before requests for proposals (RFPs) to industry are sent out,[240] and before Tanana Valley State Forest Plan revision.[241] It was called absent in TBAP,[242] inaccurate,[243] and inadequate.[244] The data in it were termed marginally acceptable.[245] The process of inventory was asked to be defined[246] and to include statistical data analysis.[247] It may show large-scale sales sustainable[248] and be a determinant of sustainability.[249] It should include a study of local logs used in local manufacture.[250] Decisions should be based on it rather than special interests, emotion, or economic bias.[251] How to quantify non-timber values in the inventory was conjectured.[252] And it should treat the impact of logging on quietude, bird habitat, art, inspiration, psychological health, and other factors.[253]
Keyword: logging elsewherePart or all of the testimony of nineteen respondents referred to instructive situations and experiences outside the Fairbanks area.
Outside of Alaska: The five-year plan was praised for its potential to contribute to Alaska's economy to an extent greater than in Finland, where forest products account for 60% of GNP.[254] Intervention by forest management was seen as preventing site takeover by regeneration-inhibiting grasses or fire as happened to the weak, stressed, overmature forests of the Kenai Peninsula and Tyonek.[255] Reports on logging in Southeast Alaska, British Columbia, and the states of Washington and Oregon were said to show that clearcutting had detrimental effects on anadromous fish streams.[256] Minnesota demonstrates how the [logging] industry provides only short-term profits for a few and long-term poverty for the region. Income and property values are very low in logging areas. Tourism favors areas where no logging ever occurred or has not for several decades.[257] Furthermore, we should avoid rushing to sell our boreal forests to large corporations for clearcutting, as is now happening in Russia, Japan, and Korea.[258] Alaska's pristine wilderness and last intact boreal forest ecosystem are seen to be a major attraction for tourists; don't ruin this by extensive logging, as occurred in Maine, Wisconsin, Montana, Idaho, the Pacific Northwest, and Sitka.[259] The TVSF is being threatened by planned large-scale logging operations and will suffer the fate of other boreal forests unless protected. Other boreal forests around the world--including Canada, Scotland, Scandinavia, and the former USSR--are under increasing pressure or have already been substantially cut, reducing biodiversity, and jeopardizing clean air and water, as well as global climate and spiritual well-being.[260] One person who grew up in Oregon saw the same processes, driven by economic and political pressures, that led to loss of the Pacific Northwest's forests, now beginning in Interior Alaska.[261] A Native Alaskan, who practices a subsistence life style but thinks globally, asked that we consider how much of our natural resources we are losing, and urged that we avoid large-scale cuts and think in the long term. "Everything [is] related to the forest for me. I have a lot of respect for the nature, the natural world. I hate to call it a wilderness because wilderness [is] defined like it's there to be caged. Whatever happens in other world affects our area because we are the last ones of the natural world. I have people, friends, from the Amazon forest, and I have friends from redwood forest. I have friends from Northwest forest, and they all have the same problem. In a way, up here in this natural world, we're not poor, we're rich in that sense. Not in the sense of money, but in the sense of value to what we have there to use, and that's very important. As Alaskans, we're in a special unique position to teach the world in a good way what we're trying to teach them out there. That we're still halfway here. That we practice here, and we value here, which other ones tend to have lost it."[262]
Inside of Alaska: Lack of harvest in Southeast Alaska was observed to result in inhibition of regeneration and loss of overmature trees via windfall, whereas harvest led to prolific reseeding and also promoted wildlife and the economy.[263] Anchorage was said to be spending money to plant trees after loss of their forest.[264] Roadbuilding in the Tongass Forest of Southeast Alaska was said to result in a 95% net loss to the state. True harvest costs should be determined and made public before deciding on how to manage and harvest the forests. Clearcutting has negatively impacted Southeast Alaska and British Columbia by causing soil erosion, stream degradation, loss of biodiversity and habitat, cost-ineffective road building, and decline of fisheries.[265] If the Tongass Forest experience is a guide, then this plan will likewise cost the state money[266] and benefit mainly big corporations rather than small operators.[267] The experience of the Pacific Northwest should teach us to look towards selective cutting rather than clearcutting.[268] Flyers familiar with Southeast Alaska reported extensive clearcuts in the Yakutat and Juneau areas and favored adoption of sustainable forest management practices,[269] advising and foregoing of state subsidies to industry.[270]
Keyword: management toolsSeveral people testified in favor of management plans,[271] praising long -erm management plans,[272] active sound management,[273] responsible management,[274] sustained-yield management,[275] and multiple-use management.[276] A number of people cited the Tanana Valley State Forest Plan[277] and the Tanana Basin Area Plan,[278] the Forest Resources and Practices Act,[279] the Alaska Constitution,[280] and AOC Policy[281] as documents that should be considered in developing management plans. Four people mentioned the need for an EIS to be prepared and used to evaluate management plans,[282] and several others mentioned protecting the environment through planning.[283] Several people suggested additional research whose results should be incorporated in management plans. Topics included the ecology of interior forests,[284] fish and wildlife populations,[285] fisheries,[286] and wood products.[287] Several people suggested that public input could be more effectively incorporated in management plans.[288] Three people expressed confidence that the public process would insure proper planning and environmental safeguards.[289]
Keyword: previous experiencePrevious logging operations in the Fairbanks area elicited a wide range of responses from those testifying, reflecting their particular views of local forest management and its place in their life.
Supplying logs and firewood for local use was seen as appropriate forest management.[290] When the forest is viewed as a commodity, proactive ("Don't leave it to the whims of nature!"), scientific, sustained-yield forest management was seen as a desirable tool to provide jobs, diversify the economy, prevent "waste" of old or soon-to-be insect-infested trees, encourage new and more vigorous timber growth, and also benefit desirable wildlife such as moose.[291] Some viewed large-scale logging operations near the Tanana and Chena rivers as one-sided and destructive. Those operations were considered detrimental to fish and wildlife, the unspoiled wilderness, and the subsistence lifestyle.[292] "Are you to destroy our home and our livelihood to benefit the pockets of a few?...haven't seen any regard for the land of for the people who make this their home."[293] "I am opposed to [logging operations] crossing of the [Little Chena] river which will further erode the aesthetic quality of the river for us river users."[294] Clearcutting was seen as leading to ecological damage through soil erosion, degradation of watersheds, and loss of fish habitat.
Keyword: roadsRoads were mentioned in a large number of testimonies. People liked the idea of new road construction because that would allay poverty in the Tanana Valley,[295] allow improved access for recreational and other uses,[296] keep winter roads open to fuelwood sales around logging areas,[297] and increase property values.[298] People were concerned about or opposed to new road construction because muddy quagmires scar the land and mining roads from 100 years ago are still visible from the air.[299] Federal road building funds can only be used to build new roads, not maintain old ones. The state is already short of road maintenance funds. Large-scale road building programs seem to be feeble, short-term attempts to spur the economy using federal dollars.[300] More roads bring increased hunting pressure on wildlife populations[301] and impact fur bearer populations.[302] Plan proposes road building in exact areas where there is the greatest public opposition. Concept of "enhanced multiple use" does not include road building into areas valued by users for purposes inconsistent with roadway development.[303] We don't have enough information to assess impact that new roads will have on the fragile environment.[304] Roads serve as ignitors for fires by passing vehicles and as highways for "pests."[305] Roads bring people from outside,[306] and increase traffic, bringing litter, noise, air, water, and visual pollution.[307]
The costs of road construction were a frequent concern: What are the long-term costs? The state's obligation to construct and maintain logging roads could more than offset money gained by the state for leases of timber lands.[308] Timber sales should be profitable even when road construction and other expenses are considered.[309] For every dollar spent on Southeast Alaska forest-related road building, the State of Alaska only earns back a few pennies, resulting in a net loss of about 95%.[310] Government shouldn't subsidize industry.[311] Use of state capital improvement funds in many proposed sales was opposed.[312]
Keyword: specific locationsSeveral people were concerned with or otherwise interested in specific logging operations in the Interior.
Concerned with specific operations: The apparent devastation and irreversibility of clearcuts was a source of concern. The spruce clearcut west of the Tanana River, between Delta Junction and Fairbanks was said to look as if it could be farmed and as if nothing will grow there.[313] The sensitivity of our fisheries to forest management practices and our lack of understanding of the ecological functioning of Alaska's major watershed was pointed out."[314] "ADF&G has revealed they know little of the spawning habits of major chum and coho salmon populations in the Tanana River drainage. Ninety percent of the food chain occurs in the first couple hundred feet of vegetation along a river bank, therefore buffers cannot be ignored."[315] A complaint was aired about the lack of a buffer strip and the litter left behind alongside the Little Chena River.316 Objection was raised to timber sales and/or new road construction in the Goodpaster River watershed.[317]
Other Interests: Changes in the public process were requested, specifically for more time for public review, particularly for the Iowa Creek, Spruce #2, Nenana Ridge, Birch #3, Glacier Creek, Spruce #2, Left Fork Cr., Birch [#?], Teklanika, Spruce #1, Halfway North, Birch #3, Standard West, and Birch #1 proposed-cut areas. Also requested was increased public involvement as by elimination of those less-than-50-acre sales now legally negotiated without full public review.[318] One person expressed interest in bidding on the Healy Launch timber sale.[319] On the other hand, roads were held to favorably increase property values and facilitate access at the Left Fork site.[320]
SOCIAL ISSUES
Keyword: communityThemes emerged when members of the public discussed how their community would be affected by actions taken or not taken by DNR on the TVSF.
Keyword: legal problemsThe legal problems mentioned by testifiers can be grouped into five categories as follows:
|
