http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centr...ws/6404357.htm

headline:

News











--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------

Posted on Mon, Jul. 28, 2003

Bush plan will increase logging in Tongass National Forest
By SETH BORENSTEIN
Knight Ridder Newspapers

PRINCE OF WALES ISLAND, Alaska - Craning his head back, forester Dave Schmid
offered his professional opinion of the 200-foot-tall tree in front of him:
"Big a-spruce!"

Prompted, he gave more pertinent details: The tree is 500 years old, 3,000
board feet of wood. There are millions of ancient trees like that spruce in the
heart of Alaska's Tongass National Forest, larger than West Virginia and North
America's only temperate rain forest. The constant rain - as much as 200 inches
a year - feeds towering trees, blueberry bushes and ever-present moss, and the
Tongass has more plant life than almost anywhere else in the world.

The trees also provide jobs that feed many of the 6,000 residents here. That's
the problem with Tongass National Forest. The magnificent centuries-old trees
that make it unique also are the main source of income in a local economy
that's scraping bottom.

Something's got to give, and it may be the tall trees.

The Bush administration this month took the first steps toward more than
doubling the logging of ancient trees in the Tongass and perhaps reviving the
area's timber industry. That action shifted the nation's top environmental
battleground from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to the Tongass.

"The biggest issue is how we will manage the old-growth stands," said district
forester Dale Kanen. That includes about 300,000 acres of trees in areas that
can't be cut without new roads. U.S. Forest Service documents show that the
timber industry could reap up to 870 million board feet of wood from the
now-roadless areas, enough lumber to build more than 43,000 houses. That's more
than a quarter million trees.

Environmentalists want to save them, fearing a repeat of the massive
clear-cutting that left still-ugly patches beside the rough gravel logging
roads that cut through this region. At least 300,000 Tongass acres have been
clear-cut; most of the trees were chopped into pulp for nearby mills. Even
Forest Service rangers such as Schmid agree that clear-cutting was overdone
from 1980 to the early 1990s.... (cont)

(Aozotorp) writes:

There are millions of ancient trees like that spruce in the
heart of Alaska's Tongass National Forest, larger than West Virginia and North
America's only temperate rain forest.

Pretty much the entire pacific coast from the Alaska to Northern
California is temperate rain forest.

The constant rain - as much as 200 inches
a year - feeds towering trees, blueberry bushes and ever-present moss, and the
Tongass has more plant life than almost anywhere else in the world.

While temperate rain forests generate an impressive quantity of biomass,
they are not known for diversity of either flora or fauna. Any tropical
rain forest has more species in a given 10 acre plot than is found in the
entire Tongass.

Couldn't you have picked a writer who had at least been outside a city
limits? This guy is a fool.

--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc

(Aozotorp) writes:

There are millions of ancient trees like that spruce in the
heart of Alaska's Tongass National Forest, larger than West Virginia and
North
America's only temperate rain forest.

Pretty much the entire pacific coast from the Alaska to Northern
California is temperate rain forest.

The constant rain - as much as 200 inches
a year - feeds towering trees, blueberry bushes and ever-present moss, and
the
Tongass has more plant life than almost anywhere else in the world.

While temperate rain forests generate an impressive quantity of biomass,
they are not known for diversity of either flora or fauna. Any tropical
rain forest has more species in a given 10 acre plot than is found in the
entire Tongass.

Couldn't you have picked a writer who had at least been outside a city
limits? This guy is a fool.


9-24-1997
JOINT STATEMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE PEER REVIEW COMMITTEE CONCERNING THE
INADEQUACY OF CONSERVATION MEASURES FOR VERTEBRATE SPECIES IN THE TONGASS
NATIONAL FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN OF RECORD

Introduction and Summary
This statement concerns the measures adopted by the USDA Forest Service in its
Tongass Land Management Plan Record of Decision to protect Old Growth habitat
and to protect wildlife species associated with Old Growth forest on the
Tongass National Forest. This is a Joint Statement submitted by Dr. Roger
Powell, Dr. Russell Lande, Dr. Dale McCullough, Dr. William Lidicker, Jr., Dr.
Craig Benkman, Dr. Andrew Hansen, Dr. Paul Paquet, Dr. John Ratti, Dr.
Christopher Smith, Dr. Richard Taber and Dr. Robert Jarvis. We served together
on the Peer Review Committee that the Pacific Northwest Research Station
assembled in 1993. The Forest Service requested the formation of our committee
to conduct an independent review of the conservation measures related to
wildlife habitat then being considered by the Forest Service as it planned the
land management for the Tongass National Forest. Together, we have many decades
of research and management experience related to wildlife, ecology, population
biology, and conservation biology. Our backgrounds and qualifications were more
completely described in the Peer Review. We make this statement after a review
of relevant portions of the Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, various
panel assessments, conservation assessments and key supporting documents.

The Peer Review, completed in 1994, concluded that none of the Forest Service's
strategies was adequate to preserve viable, well distributed populations of
wildlife species that are dependent on Old Growth forests on the Tongass. The
Peer Review made specific recommendations for habitat protection measures and
recommended further research in identified areas. After conducting additional
scientific reviews of key issues and species, which generally reaffirmed the
advice of our Peer Review, the Forest Service prepared for public review in
1996 a Revised Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (RSDEIS)
for the Tongass Land Management Plan.

Concern that the wildlife measures in the Forest Service's proposal failed to
respond effectively to scientific input led us to submit in the fall of 1996 a
Joint Statement regarding the RSDEIS. That statement concluded that the Tongass
Land Management Plan draft alternatives would not ensure the viability of
populations of several wildlife species associated with Old Growth forests. The
Joint Statement also recommended that the Forest Service develop new
alternatives that would improve the Plan's strategy for Old Growth forests. As
the Peer Review and other previous reviews had done, the Joint Statement made
several specific recommendations, including 1) no logging on the remaining
large blocks of Old Growth forest and on undeveloped watersheds and 2) adoption
of single tree and small group selection logging techniques in the matrix
between Old Growth blocks to mimic the dominant natural disturbance patterns on
the Tongass.

In May 1997, the Forest Service released its Final Forest Plan and EIS (FEIS).
Though the FEIS and supporting documents are improved by a fuller discussion of
basic conservation planning concerns we and others have raised in the past, we
are dismayed that the Forest Service has not considered any alternatives that
differ substantially from those in the RSDEIS. Rather than substantively
addressing the core criticisms and recommendations raised by previous
scientific reviews, including the Peer Review and our Joint Statement, the
selected alternative for the Tongass Land Management Plan, Alternative 11,
differs only marginally from the alternatives presented in the RSDEIS. What
changes were made do not address the fundamental problems with the Old Growth
strategy raised consistently by the scientific community over the last several
years. We believe that, like previous alternatives proposed by the Forest
Service, the plan adopted in May 1997 will not ensure viable, well distributed
populations of wildlife species adapted to Old Growth forest on the Tongass
National Forest.

The New Management Plan Does Not Correct Major Shortcomings of the Draft Plan

Our review of the 1996 RSDEIS found the preferred alternative, and all other
alternatives the Forest Service formulated, except the no logging alternative,
seriously inadequate in 4 areas. We concluded that none of these alternatives
as proposed would ensure the continued viability of wildlife species on the
Tongass National Forest. The 4 problem areas we (1) habitat reserve size and
design, (2) high-grading, (3) landscape connectivity and (4) clear-cutting. The
new TLMP does not correct these problems, and no other new alternative, which
might have, was included in the FEIS.

1. Reserve Size and Design

The Forest Service has accepted, in principle, the need for habitat reserves as
part of its strategy for conservation of wildlife on the Tongass. The agency
continues, however, to rely on an inadequate reserve system. TLMP documents
defend this approach in large measure by pointing to the absolute number of
acres that will not be directly logged. This analysis ignores the adverse
consequences of fragmenting habitat. Highly fragmented habitat may provide
little or no benefit for many wildlife species.

Many terrestrial species are negatively affected by fragmentation of their
natural habitat. As the 1993 V-POP report discussed, human-caused fragmentation
of blocks, or patches, of wildlife habitat into smaller blocks threatens the
persistence of species in, and often beyond, the fragmented area. Small patches
make populations more susceptible to stochastic events and human disruption.
Consequently, large blocks of habitat must be preserved to ensure overall
species viability.

The edges of forest fragments provide poor habitat for species that are adapted
to forest interiors. Such edges experience greater exposure to sunlight and
wind, which disrupt microclimates and change vegetation. Increased edge also
enhances access for predator and competitor species, and promotes invasion of
exotic plants and animals. Some of these "edge effects" extend far into habitat
fragments. The small sizes of patches in fragmented habitat make them less
suitable for species that depend on large areas of unfragmented habitat. Small
patches of old growth habitat have low prey densities and reduced cover.
Fragmented habitat also experiences high access by human beings and their
vehicles, which also affects most wildlife adversely.

For these reasons, fragmented habitat may induce wildlife to abandon small
fragments, to perish while ranging outside of the fragments in less favorable
habitat, or to stay in a small fragment and experience high mortality and low
reproductive success. When portions of a species' range become vacant as a
result of these processes, population viability may be threatened. For most
vertebrates, continuous occupancy of all suitable habitat is not required for a
population's security. Temporary vacancy of suitable habitat, however, owing to
random demographic changes for example, is common and such habitat is quickly
recolonized. Such local extinction is very different from lost occupancy caused
by human alteration of the landscape. When patches of suitable habitat are
vacant, or will not reliably support successful reproduction, because they have
been rendered unsuitable in the long term through human actions, the
population's overall viability may be adversely affected. This is particularly
likely in highly heterogenous landscapes and for species that have low mobility
or low populations. In these instances, interaction among individuals may be
restricted.

Fragmentation of forests due to management activities is of particular concern
in Southeast Alaska for several reasons. Substantial barriers to wildlife
dispersal already exist on the Tongass National Forest, including steep
topography, highly dissected vegetation, and isolation of islands by water.
Endemic species, many of which are found on the Tongass, often have small
populations and are special risk as a result of human-caused disturbance. Many
species use Old Growth forest on the Tongass National Forest, causing
particular concern. Private as well as public lands in Southeast Alaska have
experienced disproportionate logging of the so-called "high volume" stands.
These stands are critically important as wildlife habitat. Because almost all
Old Growth that has been logged has been clear-cut, and clear-cutting has led
to labyrinths of roads, a profound contrast exists between altered (logged) and
unaltered (Old Growth) habitat. Finally, because few wildlife species have
received even rudimentary research attention, the probability is high that
management practices that alter habitat will produce unanticipated adverse
impacts. An example of an unanticipated research finding is the recent
discovery suggesting that the Alexander archipelago brown bears may represent a
unique taxon, probably at the species level.

Taken together, these factors make the size, design, and quality of habitat
reserves critically important if well-distributed and viable populations of
wildlife species -- including those for which we have few data -- are to be
maintained on the Tongass National Forest. In reviewing the RSDEIS in 1996, we
concluded that no alternative incorporated an adequate Old Growth reserve
strategy. The most extensive reserve system (in alternative 3 and in the
supervisor's "preferred" alternative) was, somewhat surprisingly, simply a
version of the one the 1994 Peer Review found to be inadequate to ensure
viability of all species. The new TLMP also bases its Old Growth reserves on
that original V-POP strategy, and the criticisms we voiced in 1994 and again in
1996 still apply. In general, the reserves are not appropriately designed in
size and location, and do not preserve the remaining large blocks of high
quality habitat on the Tongass.

The Forest Service has acknowledged the recommendation of the Peer Review,
reiterated in other information from the scientific community, including our
Joint Statement, that a significantly larger reserve system be established to
protect the remaining large blocks of Old Growth on the Tongass. Unfortunately,
the Final Plan, which the Forest Service claims responded to this advice,
appears to us primarily to change only the descriptions of the reserve system
without making the necessary substantive improvements.

The Forest Service's claim that it has substantially improved its reserve
system rests largely, as we interpret the plan, on a redefinition of the
reserve system. The Forest Service now describes an expanded system of reserves
that includes not only the land in Old Growth habitat status (the former HCAs),
but all land in non-developmental land use designations (LUDs). This land is
included in the reserve system, regardless of its location or habitat value,
simply by virtue of being in a non-developmental LUD (Appendix N-24).

This new justification of what is essentially the old plan is flawed for many
reasons. First, the Forest Service mistakenly assumes this substantial reserve
system was unaccounted for in the Peer Review and Joint Statement because these
reviews addressed the HCA system in isolation. On the contrary, the V-POP
recommendations, Peer Review, and following criticisms of the reserve system,
including our Joint Statement in 1996, were all based on the understanding that
not all lands outside HCAs would be logged, that some land was in wilderness or
otherwise protected by law, that some land was managed by the Forest Service
for uses other than logging, and that not all Old Growth in lands allocated to
logging would be cut, particularly in the short term. The V-POP Final Review
Draft itself repeatedly referenced legislatively protected areas, stream side
and beach-front buffer zones, "unsuitable" timberlands, and forest stands
difficult or impossible to log. The V-POP committee explained that its mapping
of medium and large HCAs was adjusted to overlap as much as possible with these
lands, and predicted that no more than 20% of the Old Growth needed for small
HCAs would come from lands slated for logging. Indeed, over-attention to
locating reserves in already protected areas -- at the expense of optimum
reserve design -- was a major flaw identified by the Peer Review Committee. One
of us (Lidicker) specifically noted that most HCAs located in logging zones did
not meet minimum size standards (unlike those in areas unavailable for
logging). It was with this understanding that the Peer Review and our Joint
Statement criticized the proposed HCA system now adopted, and we recommended
specific additional protection for remaining blocks of Old Growth and for the
important high volume stands. Redefining what a reserve is does not respond to
the fundamental issues raised by our Joint Statement and similar critiques.

More importantly, the actual changes from draft to Final Plan are only marginal
improvements, even if all the non-development areas are treated as Old Growth
reserves for wildlife. Comparisons between the draft and Final Plan in this
regard are complicated by different ways of presenting the small HCAs in the 2
plans. As we understand it, both the draft and Final Plans include the small
HCAs recommended by the original V-POP committee. The small HCAs are identified
and mapped in the Final Plan. By contrast, in the draft plan, the small HCAs
were to be laid out in the future at the project level. Thus, the level of
protection did not change with the addition of small HCAs in the Final Plan --
only the timing of the designation of the small HCAs. In the draft plan
(Alternative 10), the Forest Service does not account for the small HCAs in its
description of the acres in the development and non-development land
designations; the Forest Service does include them in the Final Plan. This
difference is significant. The small HCAs designated in the Final Plan total
approximately 480,000 acres. Thus, the information in the FEIS exaggerates the
improvement from draft to Final Plan. In addition, though small HCAs may
provide limited benefits to some species, we question whether the small HCAs
would be of much value to the larger reserve system for many species.

To estimate the actual change in protection between the draft and final, we
relied on an analysis by Interrain Pacific (attached) which applied the mapped
small HCAs to the draft plan and recalculated the number of acres in each
category. Though only an estimate, it provides a better approximation of the
relative difference between draft and final than does the FEIS. This analysis
shows that the change between draft and Final Plan is small. Only about 180,000
acres are moved from the timber harvest designations to the natural setting
LUDs. This is only a 1.3% increase in the broadly defined reserve system. More
importantly, the number of acres of high volume Old Growth that changes from
timber designation to natural setting is only about 13,000, less than a 1%
improvement in the high volume Old Growth protected by the reserve system
broadly defined. Thus, even if we take the newly defined reserve system in the
plan at face value, the improvements over the draft are marginal and do not
approach the kind of major change recommended by the Peer Review and our Joint
Statement.

How small these changes are can be seen on a map prepared by Interrain Pacific
(Interrain Pacific, Change in Land Use Designation, 9/7/1977) that shows
changes in the designations of land from timber to natural setting and vice
versa. Again excluding the small HCAs, modifications well distributed across
the Tongass were made in both directions between the draft and Final Plan.
Overall, we can discern no significant benefit to Old Growth dependent species.
Some modifications are clearly beneficial, such as the protection afforded to
the large Old Growth block on northern Chichagof Island. Others appear to
remove protection for important blocks of habitat, such as the changes on Lynn
Canal and eastern Baranof Island.

Looking more carefully at the changes on a forest-wide basis from the draft to
the Final Plan, the small increase in "apparent" protection does not come from
increases in the Old Growth reserve category. In fact, after adjusting for the
small HCAs in the draft, overall the Old Growth (HCA) designation declines from
draft to Final Plan by about 200,000 acres (or about 60,000 acres of high
volume, a 21% drop). The greater level of protection afforded by the Final Plan
comes instead from an increase in the semi-remote recreation category. This
difference is important because Old Growth reserves and semi-remote recreation
areas receive different levels of protection.

The semi-remote recreation designation is more liberal than the Old Growth
designation in permitting salvage and associated green tree logging, road
building and motorized use, and logging to enhance recreation opportunities.
Moreover, not all forest-wide wildlife standards and guidelines apply in these
areas. In addition, we are concerned that even the Old Growth designation
(HCAs) remains open to road building and salvage logging under some
circumstances. Although these practices are intended to be the exception rather
than the rule, when salvage logging and road building do occur on Old Growth
reserves, the impact on reserve quality could be substantial. With this in
mind, the 1994 Peer Review advised the Forest Service "do not log or build
roads" within HCAs. This problem is expanded, however, under the plan, in which
more of the reserve system is in semi-remote recreation designation than in Old
Growth (HCA) status.

Though the FEIS makes it difficult to evaluate the Forest Service's claim to
have created improved, very large reserves in each of the 21 biogeographic
provinces, this again appears to be more a matter of redefinition than
improvement. The Forest Service describes these reserves as composed of
contiguous lands in all of the nondevelopment LUDs, presumably including
wilderness areas and other areas protected in the draft. As the above analysis
demonstrates, small HCAs aside, the net changes from draft to final added only
a small amount of habitat to the nontimber designations. This strongly suggests
that no new very large reserves were created by removing large blocks of Old
Growth from the timber base. This appears to be confirmed by the Interrain map
showing changes from draft to final Plan. Finally, though the Forest Service
argues that these reserves protect a significantly larger amount of Old Growth
than recommended in the V-POP report, the comparison is misleading. First, the
V-POP recommendations were made with knowledge of the larger areas of old
growth protected outside of HCAs and, second, the volume in the newly described
reserves is distributed over a much larger area and much of the area protected
is not Old Growth. Overall, if, as it appears, these so-called very large
reserves are composed largely of areas previously protected and now relabeled,
we do not believe these reserves are responsive to the advice of the Peer
Review and our previous Joint Statement.

Thus, no matter how one looks at the Forest Service's reserve system in the
Final Plan, it represents little improvement from the draft plan.

Besides problems related to size, other problems of design still exist in the
Final Plan. For example, with few exceptions, we see no evidence that
topographic and biogeographic factors affecting animal movement have been
considered. These factors include water, ice fields, mountainous terrain,
differences between high and low elevation habitats, and other differences in
vegetation.

Perhaps of greatest concern is the failure to protect the Forest's remaining
pristine watersheds. We concluded in our 1996 Joint Statement that continued
road building and logging in these watersheds could not be reconciled with the
Forest Service's obligation to ensure the viability of all native vertebrate
species.

Other evaluations of the needs of wildlife on the Tongass, in addition to ours
in 1996, have focused on the need to preserve the forest's large blocks of Old
Growth, especially high volume Old Growth. The 1994 Peer Review concluded that,
to keep important landscape options open, the Tongass should "not further
fragment existing large blocks of high volume Old Growth." The V-POP committee
responded to the Peer Review by recommending that at least the three largest
patches of Old Growth be protected in each ecological province. The Forest
Service's brown bear assessment panel stated that the first priority should be
to retain currently unroaded watersheds in a roadless condition.

TLMP, however, continues to fragment these critical habitat areas. A map
prepared by Interrain Pacific (Interrain Pacific, Roadless areas and intact
old-growth areas available for logging, 9/7/97) shows numerous roadless and
intact Old Growth areas around the Tongass that remain available for logging.
Analysis by the Forest Service itself of the protection given to interior
blocks of Old Growth shows that few large blocks will remain unfragmented. Of
the 14 ecological provinces with significant forestland, only 3 have their
single largest interior Old Growth block protected from further fragmentation
by logging. Moreover, two of the three that are fully protected are the
smallest of the entire set of fourteen. (These figures exclude the 4 provinces
that are legislatively protected, which, have never been the source of concerns
about the Forest Service viability plan.)

This pattern of planned fragmentation extends to other large habitat blocks. Of
the three largest such blocks in each province, only 9 of 42 are protected from
further fragmentation. Of the largest five, only 19 out of 70 are protected.
All others are available for logging to some degree.

Blocks of high volume Old Growth forest fare worse under the Final Plan than do
the largest blocks of Old Growth. Of the Old Growth blocks in each province
with the most high volume forest, only one of the 14 is fully protected.
Looking at three in each province, only 9 out of 42 are fully protected. The
numbers in these last 2 paragraphs do not change significantly if the analyses
are done on blocks or patches that are only 90% protected, rather than fully
protected.

Generally, substantial acreage in these blocks is protected from logging,
though apparently not from the impacts of roads. Fragmentation can, however,
have major effects even when relatively little habitat is altered directly. For
precisely this reason, our recommendations, and those of other reviewers, have
focused on eliminating further fragmentation of existing large blocks (rather
than focusing on a total acreage). The Final Plan allows significant, major
fragmentation of the remaining blocks of Old Growth forest.

2. High grading

The quality of habitat for wildlife varies widely across forest types found on
the Tongass. In general, the more desirable timber classes correspond to
habitat of high value to wildlife. The high "volume classes" provide a
combination of large living and dead trees, multiple canopy layers,
high-nutrient forage on the forest floor, good protection from snowfall, and
other important features leading to habitat of high quality for wildlife
adapted to Old Growth. At the same time, these high volume classes have been,
almost exclusively, the target for past logging in Southeast Alaska. As a
result, the 1994 Peer Review concluded the Forest Service must preserve future
management options to ensure the future viability of wildlife populations. An
immediate action that would preserve future options is to protect low
elevation, high volume Old Growth immediately via "low grading" to compensate
for past, disproportionate logging. Under the Final Plan, not only will
compensatory low grading not take place, but high grading will continue.

Those habitats that have the highest value for wildlife, and also are the most
rare, were associated with the highest volume classes in the timber
classification system that the Tongass has recently abandoned. The new system
does not separately recognize these stands, formerly classified as volume
classes 6 and 7. The new system, instead, includes former classes 6 and 7 in a
broader "high volume" class that covers 43% of the productive Old Growth.
Because volume classes 6 and 7 are not separately tracked any longer, it is not
possible to predict their fate from reading the FEIS.

Unfortunately, there are reasons to presume that disproportionately heavy
logging of the richest volume classes will resume. In last year's draft plan,
much of the timber was to have been sold under a long term contract that, as we
understand it, required the Forest Service to avoid high grading volume classes
6 and 7. New sales under that contract have since ended and the high grading
prohibition expired with the contract. The Forest Service has not substituted a
comparable legal constraint for any timber sales under the new Final Plan,
despite the biological imperative for preserving these stands.

Even for the new, larger "high volume" classification, in which classes 6 and 7
are subsumed, we find no special measures to compensate for past high grading.
Indeed, a high proportion of timber sales will, in the next few decades, log
the most economic timber. Such an approach to sales strongly suggests that some
form of high grading will continue. Composition of the habitat reserves does
not guard against this, since their percent high volume is approximately
equivalent to the percent in the Forest at large. Consequently, the percent of
high volume Old Growth in the reserves must be much lower than what the
forest-wide average was before recent logging of nearly a million acres of
almost exclusively high volume stands on public and private lands combined.

3. Landscape Connectivity

In our 1996 Joint Statement, we concluded that connectivity among habitat
reserves was a serious problem for all of the logging alternatives given in the
RSDEIS. That problem has not been meaningfully addressed in the Final TLMP. In
particular, robust corridors, wide enough to provide secure interior habitat
and wide enough to survive windthrow and other disturbance events, and designed
with topography in mind, have not been designated among reserves.

The FEIS and background documents point to additional riparian buffer strips
included in the Final TLMP, arguing that they help remedy this problem. As we
understand the new riparian standards, however, they do not add buffers wide
enough to accomplish this goal. The new buffers on headwater streams reach only
to the banks of these small tributaries. They could not, therefore, be even as
wide as the buffers provided for higher order streams in the RSDEIS, which we
explained were too narrow to be adequate corridors for Old Growth associated
species.

Mapping of the small Habitat Conservation Areas (HCAs) is also held out as
providing connectivity. Small reserves may add to landscape connectivity by
serving a "stepping stone" function for some species, but this has yet to be
documented. Small HCAs, however, were already required in the RSDEIS we
critiqued (and its predecessor V-POP strategy), though not mapped, and we
presumed their existence.

TLMP documents state that the 1,000 foot beach fringe will link habitat
reserves. As with the small HCAs, these may provide some connectivity. In our
review of the RSDEIS, we found inadequate the alternative that included a 1,000
foot beach fringe (though the second 500 feet was available for small scale,
ecologically based logging). Moreover, the beach fringes only connects areas
between coastal habitat blocks, not those in the interiors of islands or the
mainland. A 1,000 foot beach fringe is too narrow, subject to blowdown, and in
at least some places is degraded by past logging. To provide secure wildlife
movement among reserve areas (and to facilitate regular genetic interchange),
corridor standards should at least be on the order of those described in
Lande's contribution to the 1994 Peer Review: a no-cut zone of 2,000 feet in
width.

(cont)

(cont):

4. Clearcutting

The scientific reviews assembled by the Forest Service over the last three
years have repeatedly called for a major change in logging methods on the
Tongass. The 1994 Peer Review concluded that, consistent with generally
accepted principles of ecosystem management, future logging should mimic the
small-scale, natural disturbance patterns on the Tongass. Rather than adopt an
ecologically-based approach, however, the selected alternative continues to
rely heavily on the silvicultural method most destructive to Old Growth
wildlife habitat: large-scale clear-cutting on short rotation. Continued
large-scale clear-cutting, particularly on a short rotation as called for in
the plan, is incompatible with ensuring adequate protection of wildlife and
essential habitat.

The Forest Service has defended its selection of clear-cutting based on limited
knowledge about the practical impacts on the timber program of the selection
logging methods that mimic natural disturbance patterns. It is undisputed,
however, that continued clear-cutting on anything resembling the current scale
comes at a grave cost to wildlife species associated with Old Growth on the
Tongass. Given the relative certainty of the adverse impacts of continued
clearcutting and the current information that shows small scale disturbances
are the dominant form of natural disturbance on the Tongass, the Forest Service
must begin requiring some form of selection logging as the dominant logging
method on the Tongass, even if some uncertainty exists about such logging
methods. Otherwise, the Forest Service cannot ensure the viability of many
species of Tongass wildlife. Postponing this change until long term research is
completed, as the plan proposes, ignores the need for an immediate transition.

The Final Plan justifies continued clearcutting in the name of "Adaptive
Management." The Forest Service misunderstands adaptive management to be
maintenance of the status quo, with monitoring, until incontrovertible evidence
shows that the status quo does not work. Under such a regimen, little can be
done to protect populations of wildlife before perpetuating them becomes
impossible. The Forest Service must use a true adaptive management approach:
adopt management practices supported by the best scientific evidence to date;
rethink those practices as new information becomes available; use new evidence
to reconsider the costs of both Type I (the danger of changing management when
present management is actually best) and Type II error (the danger of not
changing management when the change would be for the better).

Finally, no evidence supports the suggestion in the FEIS that the proposed
management will substitute for a matrix managed to duplicate natural
disturbance patterns on the Tongass. Expanded beach fringes, increased riparian
protection, restrictions on even age logging that may be imposed in certain
areas for protection of martens and goshawks, and fragmented Old Growth
remaining in the matrix simply cannot compensate for the extensive clearcut
logging proposed in the Final Plan.

Conclusion

The final Land Management Plan for the Tongass National Forest does not
incorporate the recommendations of the Peer Review or other scientific input in
fundamental ways. Consequently, we do not believe that this Plan will protect
viable, well distributed populations of vertebrate species on the Tongass
National Forest.

Roger A. Powell, Ph.D.
Department of Zoology
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC 27695-7617 Russell Lande, Ph.D.
Department of Biology
University of Oregon
Eugene, OR 97403-1210
William Z. Lidicker, Jr., Ph.D.
Professor of Integrative Biology
and Curator of Mammals
Museum of Vertebrate Zoology
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, CA 94720 Dale R. McCullough, Ph.D.
Department of Forestry and
Resource Management
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, CA 94720-0001
Robert L. Jarvis, Ph.D.
Professor of Wildlife Ecology
Oregon State University
Corvallis, OR 97331 Andrew J. Hansen, Ph.D.
Department of Biology
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT 59717
Paul C. Paquet, Ph.D.
Central Canadian Rockies
Wolf Ecology Project
Meacham, Sask. S0K 2V0
Canada John T. Ratti, Ph.D.
Department of Fish and
Wildlife Resources
University of Idaho
Moscow, ID 83843

Richard D. Taber, Ph.D.
Forest Zoology and Wildlife Science
University of Montana
Missoula, MT 59812 Christopher C. Smith, Ph.D.
Division of Biology
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506

Craig R. Benkman, Ph.D.
Department of Biology
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM 88003

http://www.seacc.org/ForestFacts.htm

Wildlife: Many wildlife species depend on the protection provided by old-growth
forests. Buried under deep winter snows, clearcuts are inaccessible to wildlife
during the harshest season. When the trees grow back in tightly-packed second
growth stands, the dense canopy and snarled lower layers do not let enough
light in to support forage plants. These areas become “biological deserts�,
with low productivity persisting for more than 100 years.

Xref: kermit alt.forestry:10841

(Aozotorp) writes:

9-24-1997
JOINT STATEMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE PEER REVIEW COMMITTEE CONCERNING THE
INADEQUACY OF CONSERVATION MEASURES FOR VERTEBRATE SPECIES IN THE TONGASS
NATIONAL FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN OF RECORD

Do you have anything related to this that gives any factual information?
For instance, the PRC never once mentions what species they are concerned
with preserving. If it were a book report, I would give it a C-.

--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc

Larry Caldwell wrote:

(Aozotorp) writes:


9-24-1997
JOINT STATEMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE PEER REVIEW COMMITTEE CONCERNING THE
INADEQUACY OF CONSERVATION MEASURES FOR VERTEBRATE SPECIES IN THE TONGASS
NATIONAL FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN OF RECORD


Do you have anything related to this that gives any factual information?
For instance, the PRC never once mentions what species they are concerned
with preserving. If it were a book report, I would give it a C-.

Well, it was written by a bunch of bureaucrats...

I see martens, goshawks and a possible new species of Brown bear listed.
Unlisted but present are regular Brown bears, black bears, wolves and
eagles by the bushel - not endangered in Alaska. Lynx and wolverine may
not be present on the islands but are on the mainland - they're both
listed. Fishers are a possibility as well.

The biggest problem with the Tongass is it's distance from markets makes
virtually any expense too much and an excuse to high grade. Logging -
as we know it Outside -couldn't be done without massive subsidys.

Example: For many years it was "practical" to long butt high quality
cedar in SE Alaska, barge it down to Puget Sound and truck it 2 hours to
west end shake mills. The mills could buy that cheaper than they could
bid on salvage locally!

(mike hagen) writes:

I see martens, goshawks and a possible new species of Brown bear listed.
Unlisted but present are regular Brown bears, black bears, wolves and
eagles by the bushel - not endangered in Alaska. Lynx and wolverine may
not be present on the islands but are on the mainland - they're both
listed. Fishers are a possibility as well.

None of those species require old growth. In fact, they do better in a
patchwork canopy with lots of edge vegetation and open areas. A possible
exception is the fisher, since I'm not familiar with that animal.

The biggest problem with the Tongass is it's distance from markets makes
virtually any expense too much and an excuse to high grade. Logging -
as we know it Outside -couldn't be done without massive subsidys.

I thought so. There is plenty of timber to log in national forests in
the lower 48. Maybe we could trade preservation of the Tongass for a
resumption of wood production in Oregon and Washington?


--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc

(mike hagen) writes:

I see martens, goshawks and a possible new species of Brown bear listed.
Unlisted but present are regular Brown bears, black bears, wolves and
eagles by the bushel - not endangered in Alaska. Lynx and wolverine may
not be present on the islands but are on the mainland - they're both
listed. Fishers are a possibility as well.

None of those species require old growth. In fact, they do better in a
patchwork canopy with lots of edge vegetation and open areas. A possible
exception is the fisher, since I'm not familiar with that animal.

The biggest problem with the Tongass is it's distance from markets makes
virtually any expense too much and an excuse to high grade. Logging -
as we know it Outside -couldn't be done without massive subsidys.

I thought so. There is plenty of timber to log in national forests in
the lower 48. Maybe we could trade preservation of the Tongass for a
resumption of wood production in Oregon and Washington?


--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc