Let’s Dive Into: Proposed Alaska Roadless Rule

 

 

 

I’ve told my story before about working on the 95 RPA Program sometime in 93 or 94, 27 years ago, bringing the issue of roadless to the group then known as Chief and Staff, when Jack Ward Thomas was Chief.  Someone at the meeting said “but what about Alaska?” and the idea was dropped. I often wonder what would have happened if someone in the  group had said “well, Alaska is different, we could leave them out and go ahead with the others.”

And so here we are (27 years later) with a draft Roadless Rule for Alaska out for public comment.  Having been involved in Colorado Roadless and the massive misinformation onslaught by many groups and media (a veritable blizzard of hit pieces), I am going to wade in to asking “what’s actually in the draft rule? and how does that relate to how it’s portrayed?”.

I’ve sent a note to the AK Roadless folks asking whether they have information on these topics easily accessible. But perhaps others out there have information to share. This Salon piece aroused my curiosity with the “science” angle. Also the headline seemed a bit over the top “Forest Service moves to open “America’s Amazon” to loggers””.

Trump’s National Forest Service is using a refuted scientific theory to justify building roads in our country’s largest national forest, what some call “America’s Amazon.”
Loggers want to raze trees more than 1,000 years old. 
The Forest Service says guidelines from the United Nations’ climate authority would be followed. Two scientists whose research was cited in the U.N. study says the Forest Service is espousing junk science.
The “more than 1000 years old” link comes from an op-ed in the LA Times authored by Chris Wood and Mike Dombeck.  Reasonable people may well disagree about 2001 Roadless history.
“The final rule allowed for new road construction on a case-by-case basis, for firefighting, forest health, energy development and access to private holdings, but it seriously restricted new timber sales.”
I don’t actually see a clause in the 2001 Rule for roads for “forest health.”  Somehow I can’t read 294.12 and get that. Can anyone help?
The science thing… there are several IPCC reports that talk about climate change and forests. We’d have to look up which one is cited in the FS documents.  Also, having your work cited in a document is not the same as having your thoughts be the same as the consensus.  And, of course,  Salon uses the term “refuted” instead of the more accurate “disputed.” But when are consensus IPCC  findings “junk science”and when not? After Solstice Break we’ll look at this issue in depth as part of a new feature called “Why People Disagree About Forest Carbon.”
The Tongass stores more carbon removed from the atmosphere than any other national forest in the country in its old-growth Sitka spruce, hemlock and cedar trees. It  helps protect Alaska, which is warming more than twice as fast from climate change as our planet overall. The forest holds about 650 million tons of carbon or about half of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions in 2017.

I also think it’s interesting to equate the total storage of the forest with annual emissions of the US. A person could also argue that if Alaska is warming twice as fast, those trees are in trouble anyway.  But wait, this E&E News story says..

Even though 9.2 million acres of inventoried roadless areas would be freed from the roadless rule, only 185,000 acres would be added to the areas that may be considered for timber harvest, the Forest Service said.

Overall harvest projections remain at 17,000 acres of old growth and 11,800 acres of young growth over the next 100 years, levels envisioned in the 2016 Tongass land management plan.

“The proposed rule does not change the projected timber sale quantity or timber demand projections set out in the Tongass Forest Plan,” the Forest Service said in the documents. “The alternatives examine different mixes of land areas and timber restrictions that would incrementally increase management flexibility for how the forest plan’s timber harvest goals can be achieved, but does not fundamentally alter the plan’s underlying goals or projected outcomes.”

Based on the FS point of view, they are trying to switch around where they get their 28,800 OG and YG acres per year. Wikipedia says the Tongass is 16.7 million acres. Is that .2% of the total acres per year? How relevant is it then, to talk about the carbon on the entire forest as relevant to this decision?

10 thoughts on “Let’s Dive Into: Proposed Alaska Roadless Rule”

  1. “The proposed rule does not change the projected timber sale quantity or timber demand projections set out in the Tongass Forest Plan,” the Forest Service said in the documents. “The alternatives examine different mixes of land areas and timber restrictions that would incrementally increase management flexibility for how the forest plan’s timber harvest goals can be achieved, but does not fundamentally alter the plan’s underlying goals or projected outcomes.”

    I think I’ve made this comment before, but it is worth repeating. You can’t change the acres suitable for timber production without changing the long-term sustained yield for the Forest. At a minimum, they will have to explain how that affects their existing forest plan decisions, and under the prior planning regulations annual timber volume was limited by sustained yield where old growth forest was a major component. (They have attempted to make sustained yield irrelevant under the 2012 Rule by replacing allowable sale quantity with “projected” sale quantity, but this plan is not under the 2012 Rule.) By expanding the timber base without increasing harvest, they are moving toward their holy grail of “flexibility” to “get the cut out.” They need to clearly explain what this means on the ground and in the long term. If the areas they want to avoid are really not suitable for timber production, they should be taken out of the timber base (reducing flexibility).

    Reply
    • Jon, I am a bit over my head here, but it seems to me that if you developed the LTSY based on suitable acres plus some biological idea of how fast trees grow and how much volume there is, then you could potentially arrive at a different array of acres that will provide the same LTSY.

      It seems to me that first they have to figure out what kinds of things they want to tweak (restrictions, acres) and then they can find out the best mechanism to do the tweaking (in the Rule or in a plan amendment).

      Reply
      • I thought they had decided on a rule, and as such they aren’t following any of the rules for forest planning. That, and uncertainty about what the roadless rule does and doesn’t do, makes it hard to figure out what the implications may be for the forest plan and future planning.

        Basically, LTSY = acres x volume/acre over time. I haven’t heard them say they are taking out any acres to offset the new ones (“a different array of acres”), so the LTSY should be higher, and probably so should the near-term annual harvest. Unless they are also are changing the volume/acre or rotation length. I don’t hear them saying that they are changing those things (“tweaks”) in the roadless rule (which leads to my forest planning questions).

        Reply
        • I think we would have to talk to people/read the EIS (horrors!) to figure this out. I’m going to dive into it further, hoping not to have to read the EIS.

          Reply
  2. “Based on the FS point of view, they are trying to switch around where they get their 28,800 OG and YG acres per year. Wikipedia says the Tongass is 16.7 million acres. Is that .2% of the total acres per year? How relevant is it then, to talk about the carbon on the entire forest as relevant to this decision?”

    (I am sincerely embarrassed for you Sharon, and the Society of American Foresters.)

    A far more relevant question to be asking yourself is, “Why would anyone who knew just how vacuous of reason and objectivity this question reveals; and why would someone with intimate personal experience of the subject matter to be discussed, attempt to engage in responding to such a profoundly ignorant and incurious assumption couched in bias and reductionism?

    What, truly, is the point of participation in a dialog when such a transparently clueless statement made by the founder of this blog proclaiming her scientific and planning credentials acquired over decades in her USFS career (while citing from Wiki no less) reveals, not just her self-imposed ignorance and gobsmacking personal biases, but reinforces an inescapable conclusion that she is using “Smokey” to exploit and advance her propagandistic agenda which so happens to align with agendas of corporate CEOs and multibillionaire funders of Gang Green?

    That’s not ethical Sharon, despite your repeated admonitions of ethics being relevant to these discussions. What you resist, nonetheless persists.

    I have asked you before to please explain whether you have permission to exploit Smokey, the brand, or if so, provide evidence, or additionally, why you think you do not need permission to exploit “Smokey” the brand, and once provided an explanation, I’d be glad to engage in revealing what a profoundly absurd question you have posed and other implications you have proffered for discussion. on this matter.

    I’ve been a rural resident environmental activist of, (thus completely dependent upon), the Tongass NF for over 35 years. I’ve been reluctantly participating in NCFP/TSW off and on for over a decade now. Now I know why so many have acome and gone: pointlessness in participation.

    With such a transparently clueless statement made by the founder of this blog proclaiming her scientific and planning credentials acquired in her career (citing from Wiki no less), I’ve come to realize the pointlessness of my further participation.

    It’s your call Sharon. You can refuse to answer a simple question and reveal its implications, or you can engage in the stated mission of your blog and enable my consideration of further participation.

    (And Jon, you might want to check your calculated Sharon-shared assumptions as well — they are extremely embarrassing for having overlooked the obvious.)

    Reply
    • David, I’m not exploiting “Smokey Bear”. In my research, that’s what the Ad Council trademarked, not Bear or Smokey individually. The R-6 Retirees are called the Old Smokeys https://www.oldsmokeys.org/. I can certainly stop using the historic painting on the top of the blog, but I don’t think that really has to do with your main concerns about me, since they existed when this website was called NCFP. I honestly don’t remember your asking me about that before.

      I just jumped into the Alaska Roadless stuff because I thought my experience with Colorado Roadless might help me wade through it easier than people who had not worked on State Rules. If I don’t understand something, please tell me your point of view. If I am indeed “clueless”, please enlighten me.

      Yes, I have a crazy idea that people talking to each other about things they disagree about (AKA peace-seeking) is a useful thing to do, regardless of specific outcomes. I’m not the only person who thinks this, in fact some call it “promoting civil dialogue.”

      Also, just so you know, I’m not easily embarrassed for being ignorant, it’s an opportunity for learning. We all can’t know everything about everything.

      Reply
    • While you have had some reasonable posts over time, Mr Beebe, most of your posts, such as this, just lash out, for lack of a better phrase, at anyone and everyone who doesn’t share your own particular viewpoint.
      What are your scientific qualifications and training? Where is all of your research, and understanding of pre-existing research? Just living in Alaska isn’t good enough, as we have all been countlessly informed many times that it is fair for someone in Arizona to tell someone in Oregon, for example, what they do or do not want done with public lands. So if someone outside of Alaska wants to disagree with you, you need something besides a thesaurus and wild claims that are not substantiated along with the fact that you live there.

      I say all of this because clearly we should not do any lasting damage to the Tongass, or harvest old growth. But you could learn a lot about optics, and communication. Frankly, many times you do yourself and cause more harm than good. Case in point – accusing someone of using this forum as an exploitative tool, of not knowing anything, and that everyone else is just wrong, evil, stupid, etc, is a pretty useless approach. If you have in fact exhausted all your options over 35 years, and this is all you have left, either stop dropping to a lower level, or perhaps maybe admit you might be wrong on some things.

      Lastly, I think citing wikipedia for the acreage of a National Forest is fine. Yet again, another example of an attack and criticism that comes off petty, and makes you look even worse.

      Reply
      • Mr/Ms. Anon (?),
        Thank you for your feedback helpfully illustrating my points, by (in your own words) lashing back at someone who doesn’t share –>”your particular viewpoint.” “scientific qualifications and training” “Lastly, I think citing wikipedia for the acreage of a National Forest is fine.””petty,…or even worse,”<– you're fully entitled, but it's also fully understandable then, why you hide behind "Anon."

        Reply
    • David,

      Sharon’s non-commercial use of the “Smokey” brand is protected First Amendment speech. In 1993, I had the pleasure of working with Lighthawk (aka “the environmental air force”) and its Seattle attorney in a case that declared unconstitutional the Forest Service’s regulation barring non-commercial use of Smokey Bear’s image. Here’s the court’s conclusion:

      By ruling that the 16 U.S.C. § 580p-4(a) and 36 C.F.R. § 271.3 are unconstitutional as applied to LightHawk the Court by no means intends to create an open season on Smokey Bear. While the question is not before the Court the government can likely regulate commercial uses of Smokey Bear as allowed by USOC. Those portions of the regulatory scheme addressing solely commercial uses remain intact. However, the statute and regulation, which impose content based restrictions on non-commercial uses, cannot be applied to LightHawk’s purely expressive political speech.

      812 F. Supp. 1095, 1103-1104 (W. Dist. Wash. 1993).

      If, heaven forbid, Sharon were to charge a toll or fee for access to this website, the answer would be different.

      Reply
      • Thanks Andy.
        There’s law and there’s ethics.

        I stand by my use of the contextual definition of “exploit” and am specifically referring to: “use (a situation or person) in an unfair or selfish way.” Sharon’s selfish penchant for advancing and normalizing her outlier climate denialism on this blog during a crucial period of necessary policy course correction is unconscionable.

        My earlier response to Anon seems to have been truncated (at least on my browser) and I’ve requested help from Matthew in including images refuting Sharon’s repeated mocking disbelief that Tongass old growth trees easily reach several centuries in age.

        Further explanations can be found in that comment of my associated concerns for how Sharon is using this blog to advance climate emergency denialism while the Tongass, its coastal communities with rural dependencies on intact ecosystems, and its marine environment are hanging on an existential precipice. Meanwhile Sharon is denying international consensus of causal relationships and/or ignoring ,and/or obfuscating predictions which are our present realities well ahead of schedule.

        Dave standing on a cedar tree stump on the Lindenberg Peninsula. These were taken while ground-truthing the Tonka Timber Sale on the Tongass National Forest this summer with the film crew.

        The closeup is of a knife scrape on the stump to reveal the grain and knife point Dave sunk 1” from the outside of the trunk. There are more than 50 annular rings in that first inch. The first “foot” itself, (12″X 50) is easily 500 years alone.

        Reply

Leave a Reply to Jonathan Haber Cancel reply