Road Less Traveled: Tale of Twisted Fate for Temperate Rainforest

Kenyon Fields is a Bellingham-educated temperate rainforest naturalist, living in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Comments: kenyon@gmx.net.

Whatcom County lies smack in the middle of a 3,000 mile-long temperate rainforest belt stretching 20?of latitude from the Californian redwoods to Prince William Sound, Alaska. While of lesser renown than tropical rainforests, temperate rainforests produce greater biomass densities (amounts of organic stuff) than the tropics, and are far rarer.

America’s two largest national forests are found in southern Alaska, and contain the majority of the Northwest Coast’s rainforest. They are the 17 million acre Tongass and its northern neighbor, the Chugach National Forest, which seems relatively dwarfed at six million acres (six times the size of Olympic National Park). Between the two lies the world’s largest contiguous non-polar ice field outside of Greenland.

Although only 30 percent of the old, large volume timber on these forests remains, this Alaskan ancient forest belt contains roughly 40 percent of the remaining temperate rainforest old growth in the world. It’s little wonder then that these forests are second to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as the seat of Alaska’s—if not the country’s—greatest land use battle.

The Chugach has been spared the extensive and grotesque legacy of logging that so characterizes the word “Tongass,” largely as a result of the Chugach’s percentage of rock and ice, and its smaller, more northern and often inaccessible trees.

However, on the Chugach there’s not one acre of congressionally designated wilderness, nor one mile of preserved river. What follows is a summary of the “corkscrewy” legislation surrounding forest conservation, particularly in Alaska, and the recently unveiled Alaska Rainforest Conservation Act.

Although the Tongass is endowed with endless islands of huge trees, throughout its logging history the forest has lost more money than any other national forest, courtesy of federal subsidies that essentially donate public resources to private interests, and from non-competitive contracts for multinational timber corporations. From 1991 to 1994 alone, Tongass National Forest timber programs cost U.S. taxpayers over $165 million.

The majority of Tongass timber that was sold to two pulp companies guaranteed low-cost trees under 50-year contracts in return for their now-closed mills in Ketchikan and Sitka. In the end, taxpayers spent hundreds of millions of dollars subsidizing these companies, while being left with a maze of haul roads through previously untrammeled and wild public real estate.1

There are 380,000 miles of classified Forest Service roads in this country (mostly logging roads), and for a startling comparison, the moon is 239,000 miles from the earth. Rounding up, the earth’s circumference is 25,000 miles, and thus a logging truck could theoretically travel ‘round the planet over nine times on dirt roads paid for largely by our tax dollars.

And the Forest Service boasts an $8.4 billion backlog on necessary road maintenance costs, which means, amongst many repercussions, that untold salmon streams are choked by runoff silt. Unfortunately, “driving for pleasure is the single largest recreational use of Forest Service managed lands.” 2

Perhaps inspired by such madness, on January 12, 2001, President Clinton signed the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, protecting nearly 59 million acres of national forests from new roads, logging, mining and other development. This amounts to two percent and 31 percent of the total U.S. and Forest Service land bases, respectively.

Three roadless Forest Service-administered areas of Washington would receive protection under the rule: the Upper Skokomish, part of the Okanogan, and a personal favorite, the South Shore Quinault forest.

Although more than 80 percent of planned road building in U.S. national forest roadless areas over the next years is slated for the Tongass (which already boasts 4,500 miles of logging roads), the forest initially had the “curious distinction” of being the one national forest specifically exempted from the road ban.3

Fortunately, after pressure from 147 congressional members, Clinton did include the Tongass in the final Roadless Rule. Three days after its passing though, lumber giant Boise Cascade (the only major company still dependent on national forest timber) filed a suit of protest, joined the next day by the State of Idaho. By the end of the month, Bush took office.

One of the first predictable Bush moves was freezing and dismantling the Roadless Rule, citing the need for more public input on legislation that is well-known to have generated a record-breaking 1.6 million public comments after 600 public meetings. Come that May, an Idaho federal judge blocked the Roadless Rule with a preliminary injunction, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ review of the decision is expected to rule any day.4

Later the same month the administration announced it will in fact implement the rule, but with “responsible amendments” to be announced later.5 In other words, the administration will continue to do what it pleases, Bush style. In sum, the plan of attack is to manage on a forest-by-forest basis, rather than cover roadless areas under one management blanket.

The end result will be a web of unique, individualized forest plans capable of confusing (and keeping busy) any environmental watchdog. The move thus marks “a reversion to the same policies that have resulted in the destruction of our national forests,” said Jane Danowitz of the Heritage Forests Campaign.6

Until such Bush amendments are allowed, the new Chief of the Forest Service, Dale Bosworth, issued on June 7, 2001 a directive in which he reserved the decision authority for timber harvest and road construction in inventoried roadless areas to himself—a sketchy move at best.

Furthering the frustration, in July of 2001, the Tongass was essentially removed from Roadless Rule protections, with over 8.5 million acres (of the 9.3 million Tongass acres to be protected by the Roadless Rule) reopened to commercial harvest. That’s 91.4 percent of the Clinton-protected Tongass lands going unprotected, while the portion not exempted is primarily rock and ice.7

Forest Service data reveals that within inventoried roadless areas of Alaska’s two national forests there are 313 million board feet of timber planned for sale in the fiscal years 2002-2004, requiring at least 124 new miles of roads.8

One such pending sale is the passionately controversial Gravina Island contract; an area to be protected under the Clinton ban. Bush’s directives have allowed this Tongass sale to add 22 miles of roads to log an island that, for Alaska Natives, “equates to the Costco of traditional food.” 9

As if the total of nine industry and state legal assaults last spring on the Rule were not enough, Bush’s war of terror on the environment is still seeking to water-down the bite of Roadless Rule protections. For example, last month the Forest Service issued a new policy that, although posing to uphold the Rule, eliminates requirements for environmental impact statements and “compelling need” prior to new road construction.

Meanwhile, Mark Rey has been confirmed by the Senate to oversee the Forest Service as Undersecretary of Agriculture. Besides being a lobbyist for the American Forest and Paper Association, Rey’s former positions include chief of staff for the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Forestry under Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho—the state responsible for the lawsuits against the Roadless Rule.

Rey also helped design the 1995 “salvage rider,” which suspended environmental regulations and allowed for liquidation of fire or insect damaged timber.

Topping off the charts, Steve Brink will supervise Alaskan forests under Rey, and according to the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, “during Brink’s previous Tongass tenure, we saw quashed science, roads that the Forest Service’s own engineers said were a bad idea, proposals for unsustainably high logging levels, and more.” 10

And although Tongass timber programs cost taxpayers an average of roughly $32 million yearly, they remain fiercely defended by Alaska’s “tiny but powerful” Congressional delegation.11

National forest politics are more complicated than the interwoven ecological patterns in old-growth forests. National forests are required to undergo periodic management plan updates, and both the Chugach and Tongass plans are in the final stages of revision.

Amidst the flurry of Roadless Rule issues, in March of 2001 a federal court found that the 1997 Tongass Forest Plan Revision was lacking required considerations for proposed wilderness area additions.

U.S. District Judge James Singleton issued an injunction halting the Forest Service from allowing timber invasion of Tongass roadless areas until the agency complied with the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Forest Management Act. Yet he lifted the injunction in May pending a review of its harm, and the next hearing in the case is scheduled for this month.12

In the meantime, the Forest Service has been crafting a supplemental environmental impact statement, now in its final planning stages. On the note of wilderness, a coalition of conservation groups has taken initiative to protect Alaskan wilds from continued disputes.

On September 20, 2001, Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro introduced the Alaska Rainforest Conservation Act (ARCA) in the House of Representatives (H.R.2908). With nearly 100 co-sponsors already, this bipartisan bill aims to permanently protect key watersheds in the Tongass and Chugach –lands that would have been protected by the Roadless Rule as well as other key tracts–from clearcutting and new road building.13

Based on public comments and involvement in forest planning processes, the act was predominately created by resident members of Alaska conservation groups who make up the Alaska Rainforest Campaign coalition.

There are 14.8 million acres of inventoried roadless areas in Alaska’s two national forests. ARCA would provide legislative protections for 9.16 million acres on the Tongass and 3.8 million acres on the Chugach by establishing Wilderness Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, and Habitat Restoration Areas. Sixty-five Tongass river systems and sixteen on the Chugach would be classified as Wild and Scenic Rivers.

It also establishes special management areas, where small-scale community-based resource management would be allowed, but clearcutting and new road building would be prohibited. Resource development would be allowed on private land and areas of the forest that already have logging roads and infrastructure.14

“The introduction of a bill was necessary, given the tremendous public support for the Roadless policy and the Bush administration’s failure to heed the wisdom of the American people,” said Brian McNitt of the Alaska Rainforest Campaign.15

But despite this support, Alaskans are notoriously weary of the federal government and nearly all rules imposed on them by any faction. This seats ARCA in heavily controversial waters in a state split evenly between conservation voters and the “shoot, extract and log everything good-ol’-boys.”

In Alaska, the “wilderness” designation allows for different land uses than found in wilderness areas in the rest of the union because of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), passed in 1980. Under ANILCA, wilderness in national forests allows subsistence and sport hunting and fishing, snowmobiling for traditional subsistence activities, visiting without permit, recreational gold panning, overflights, and other activities.

Prohibited are new roads, new mineral entry, threats to fish and wildlife habitat, industrial logging and timber sales, and facility development for commercial tourism. Hence, contrary to the fears of many Alaskans that ARCA is an effort by “Greenies” to “lock-up” lands, most current activities would go unhindered.

But Alaska Senators Murkowski and Stevens and Representative Young initiated a federal investigation of the Chugach National Forest Management Plan last summer, claiming that the Forest Service is violating the “no more [wilderness additions] clause” of ANILCA by considering wilderness now. This is clearly an effort to “delay the plan until the public forgets about it,” said Jim Adams, an attorney for the National Wildlife Federation Alaska, and the clause does not apply to forest management plans.16

“The bill would ensure the continued viability of commercial fisheries, subsistence, and customary and traditional uses…ARCA also provides for a long-term, small-scale timber industry by designating lands on the existing road system for timber development.

These lands, plus the timber available from private lands in the region, could support the timber industry for over 130 years at current logging levels,” said Matt Davidson of Southeast Alaska Conservation Council (SEACC). “This bill is about protecting…the rainforest and the industries and livelihoods that depend on them.” 17

“Southeast Alaskans have been pushing to safeguard many of these areas for over 30 years,” said Wayne Weihing, Board President of SEACC. “The roll-back of the watershed protections contained in the 1999 Tongass Land Management Plan, and naming road building zealot, Steve Brink, as Regional Forester, make it clear that Congressional action is the only way to safeguard these community-use areas.” 18

Senator Murkowski, an Alaskan institution known for his anti-enviro rhetoric, summed up one prominent perspective found in this state: “Now they want it all…Have you ever met with an environmental group that’s satisfied? If they were satisfied, they wouldn’t have a cause. They’d have to shut up shop and retire.” Others ask, “Just how much of an economic resource is untouched wilderness?” 19

A study by ECONorthwest in August 2000 answered the latter question with its estimate that national forests generate $234 billion and 2.9 million jobs from recreation, fish and wildlife, clean water, and wilderness areas. Compare this to the $23 billion and 407,000 jobs generated from timber, mining, and grazing, and there’s quite an argument for leaving trees standing for tourism and recreation.20 In Alaska, timber is now third to tourism and fishing for generated revenues, quite a different picture than decades ago.

The 50 million board feet harvested last year marked the lowest harvest level on the Tongass since 1942, notes the Alaska Forest Association.21 Of the 54 billion board feet of lumber consumed in the U.S. last year, less than 4 billion board feet came from national forests, and private plantations alone account for a third of consumed wood.22

ARCA seeks not to run the timber industry out of business, but to contain its use of the remaining virgin public forests. “There are currently roughly 10 billion board feet of timber along the existing forest road system in the Tongass National Forest. This timber, along with more than 3 billion board feet located on private lands in Southeast Alaska, is available under the Alaska Rainforest Conservation Act.” 23

As with most ecological issues, time is running out. Seventy percent of the largest trees in Alaska have been liquidated, and “a mere 1.5 percent of the land left in the Tongass still showcases the rare low-elevation stands of enormous old growth trees that are of the highest value to fish and wildlife—the biological heart of this forest.” 24

It seems we need to teach trees to play our political games. For then the mighty Chugach, Tongass, and their neighboring forests could cast votes by the billions in favor of preserving the little that’s left of a majestic, mossy empire of coniferous cathedrals.

For additional information, see the Forest Service roadless site: http://roadless.fs.fed.us.

1. For this paragraph see Alaska Rainforest Campaign Briefing Kit, 1995; contact ARC at http://www.akrain.org.

2. Forest Service roadless site: http://www.fs.fed.us/news/roads/overview.shtml.

3. “A Land Use Struggle Over a Forest Bounty.” Sam Howe Verhovek. May 27, 2000; The New York Times.

4. “Storm Gathers Over Timber Proposal.” Paula Dobbyn. January 20, 2001; Anchorage Daily News.

5. “Protecting America’s National Forests.” National Environmental Trust and Heritage Forests Campaign. See http://www.environet.org.

6. “Forest Service Directives OK Building New Roads.” Eric Brazil. December 21, 2001; San Francisco Chronicle.

7. “2001-Year in Review.” http://www.akrain. org.

8. Forest Service roadless site: http://www.fs.fed. us/news/roads/overview.shtml.

9. “Storm Gathers Over Timber Proposal.” Paula Dobbyn. January 20, 2001; Anchorage Daily News.

10. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council. http: //www.seacc.org.

11. “A Land Use Struggle Over a Forest Bounty.” Sam Howe Verhovek. May 27, 2000; The New York Times.

12. “Storm Gathers Over Timber Proposal.” Paula Dobbyn. January 20, 2001; Anchorage Daily News.

13. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council. http: //www.seacc.org.

14. “Alaska Rainforest Conservation Act-HR 2908.” Alaska Rainforest Campaign. http://www.akrain.org.

15. “Bill to Protect America’s Last Great Temperate Rainforest Introduced.” Brian McNitt. September 20, 2001. http://www.akrain.org.

16. “Congress Audit Delays Chugach Forest Management Plan.” Elizabeth Manning. February 11, 2002; Anchorage Daily News.

17. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council. http: //www.seacc.org.

18. ibid.

19. “A Land Use Struggle Over a Forest Bounty.” Sam Howe Verhovek. May 27, 2000; The New York Times.

20. “From the Director, Randy Virgin.” Alaska Center for the Environment, Fall 2000 Newsletter.

21. “Storm Gathers Over Timber Proposal.” Paula Dobbyn. January 20, 2001; Anchorage Daily News.

22. “Cutting Old Growth: Worth the Trouble?” Erik Robinson. December 2, 2001; Columbian.

23. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council. http: //www.seacc.org.

24. ibid.