Restoring nearly 85,000 acres of Tongass National Forest land to the Sealaska Corporation, in accordance with the 40-year-old Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, won’t damage salmon runs.
Paul Olson, who wrote in a guest opinion column published in late May, argues against Sealaska’s land bill with speculation, not science, when he states that its passage will hurt fish runs. These arguments are simply not supported by scientific findings.
Olson’s assertion that “roads and logging directly contribute to stream temperature problems” is not consistent with findings in the Tongass Annual Monitoring & Evaluation Reports, which are published by the U.S. Forest Service. These reports show that summer water temperatures in the Prince of Wales streams are not associated with past logging and especially during the years when fish kills were observed. For example, the 2001 report (a year with reportedly large fish kills) found no discernible difference in maximum water temperature between logged and unlogged streams.
An intensive 2009 study of three Tongass National Forest streams found that even two of the streams where there had been no logging routinely exceeded high temperature standards, which are set by the state of Alaska. Reporting on that study, the Tongass Monitoring and Evaluation Report stated that “the state’s numeric criteria, as currently written and applied, may be too stringent to reflect natural conditions, even in headwater basins of Southeast Alaska.”
Over the last 50 years periodic fish kills have been observed in Southeast Alaska streams. These fish kills correspond with years in which there were large runs of salmon during the late summer and fall, when water levels were low during periods of sunny, warm weather.
In 1990 the Alaska Working Group on Cooperative Forestry/Fisheries Research investigated the cause of fish kills and concluded that low dissolved oxygen levels in holding pools, not high temperature, was the primary factor killing salmon. The turbulence of flowing streams disperses oxygen in the water, which salmon and other aquatic animals depend on for respiration. When salmon are crowed in small pools during a period of low stream flows (turbulence is limited) the demand for oxygen is greater than the supply, and fish die. That, not excessively high water temperatures, is what the working group found to be the cause of the fish kills it investigated on Prince of Wales Island.
So yes, fish kills happen on Prince of Wales Island and they will continue to happen in response to natural events that are beyond human control. Olson blames logging for high stream temperatures, but scientific findings don’t support that claim.
Finally, Olson contends that streamside buffer zones that are retained for stream protection are temporary, and will blow down after logging occurs. Again, the scientific record doesn’t agree.
A survey of 120 randomly selected buffer zones on Sealaska lands, which was published in the Canadian Journal of Forest Research in 2007, found that blow down was only 7.5 percent greater at sites that had been logged than at sites that had not been logged.
Long-term monitoring of streams on Sealaska lands has shown no indication of salmon habitat degradation, and the habitat has benefited at some sites where trees were blown into streams and created pools and cover which are important to the survival of juvenile and adult salmon.
Don’t believe urban myths about logging impacts which are not relevant to modern forest practices. Alaska’s forest practices rules are based on the best available scientific knowledge and are subject to revision through an ongoing adaptive management program. This cooperative effort is supported by Sealaska and state agencies, and is the common sense pathway to forest stewardship and the sustainability of salmon throughout the region.
• Martin is a Ph.D. and started Martin Environmental in 1996 and works as an independent consultant, and research scientist. For five years, Martin was co-chairman of the Cooperative Monitoring and Evaluation Committee of the Washington Forest Practices Adaptive Management Science Program. His consulting work includes numerous environmental investigations ranging from California to Alaska, including an assessment of impacts from the Exxon Valdez oil spill on salmon. He has a Ph.D. in fisheries science from the University of Washington and is an affiliate professor at the School of Forest Resources, University of Washington.
Comments (35)
Add commentn
o
Something is missing in the writer's bio
He is a paid Sealaska contractor.
"Restoring nearly 85,000
"Restoring nearly 85,000 acres of Tongass National Forest land to the Sealaska Corporation, in accordance with the 40-year-old Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, won’t damage salmon runs." Passing this act won't hurt the salmon, all that logging that follows will...
Doug Martin - I remember him from the old days
For hire describes him.
He needs to disclose who's paying him
Local knowledge vs "science."
Seems the folks asking for recognition for "local knowledge" may have had hired, contract "scientists" in mind. I think the other opinion piece is an interesting contrast.
So where is the same
So where is the same contemptuous cynicism when people who get paid to oppose the bill write articles? When someone who writes AGAINST Sealaska, no one seems to immediatley point out "They get paid to write that". But I guess its a different story when they agree with you; where and why they get their paycheck doesn't matter so much then huh?
The man has a Ph D- you dont get contracted and write a positive testimonial simply because you get paid; he woulnd have any professional credibility and people wouldnt hire him if he had no integrity.
Finally some scientific views to contradict the speculative fear mongering, propaganda.
Douglas Martin has been paid
Douglas Martin has been paid by Sealaska since 1994. Do you really think Sealaska would contract him for decades to do studies that suggested they weren't doing enough to protect salmon streams?
He can certainly be a professional and undoubtly has experience in SE though his many years of contracting with Sealaska. It is naive to think that he could keep his contract without providing the results Sealaska is looking for.
Again, SEACC and friends,
Again, SEACC and friends, USFS, and others get paid to write articles AGAINST the legislation. Lets just be consistent, fair, and apply the same model of logic here when analyzing the literature and speculating on the motives. I guess what were saying here, is only UNPAID, UNCOMPENSATED in any form opinion pieces matter here. So, according to that logic, only about 1% of the Opinion letters really are fair, and objective.
Nobody's paying me
In fact if you check close you'll find it's almost entirely unpaid citizens fighting this bill.
I think it's important to disclose that he's a long term employee of Sealaska. I mean he added about a hundred words of poofery on his tag line - the size of a small letter to the editor.
What did he forget?
Paul Olson letter vs Doug Martin
Paul Olson is not a SEACC employee and wrote his letter based on his experience as a fisherman in Southeast Alaska. For Douglas Martin to write a paragraph about his professional credentials and not mention twenty years of Sealaska contracting is disingenuous.
As far as objective or fair opinion letters, it seems clear that if someone feels strongly about an issue enough to voice their opinion in print they naturally have a bias. That's obvious, isn't it?
Don't take a weatherman to know which way the wind blows
All this science gobbledy-gook aside, apparently Mr. Martin spends so much time in front of his computer making excuses for clearcuts that he has never walked from a forest into a large clearcut area.
Anybody can make the observation that an open area is warmer than a shaded area. Don't take no phd to figure that out.
Really interesting how people
Really interesting how people wanna blame the collapse of the fishing industry on logging. Sealaska was IN the fishing industry BEFORE logging. That industry tanked due to a drop in foreign demand; not logging. Personally I would LOVE it if commercial fisherman prospered. I commercial fished, so did many of my family. But getting pennies to the pound wasn't worth it. Its not the fish population its the price per pound. Our fisheries are fine. Ask ADFG.
Ravenhouse .....
.... I have been patiently holding my tongue, but enough is enough.
Your posts are simply absurd.
If some Sealaska hack told you it would be good to jump off of a bridge, you would be the first one in line at the rail. Sorry ...... you have no credibility.
Stop licking boots ..... save some face .... be quiet.
Ravenhouse......
.... I know Paul Olson. He is a fisherman. He is an honest man who is true to himself, and his ideals. You are no Paul Olson.
How could this 'editorialist' not mention the absurd temp buffer
If this martin guy is serious how could he not mention the absurd temporary buffers in S.730? It's stupidest thing I ever heard of.
@ Zerocut: Funny coming from
@ Zerocut: Funny coming from someone who didnt have their facts straight Zerocut. How long were you blaming Sealaska for Cube cove when it was actually Sheeatika that cut that timber? Your like some awkward 5 year old flailing away at a pinata; eventually will hit your target when you swing hard and long enough, even if by accident. Keep holding your tongue... youve exhausted your bag of peanuts and now grasp at whatever rock you can find.
Much of the land chosen by
Much of the land chosen by Sealaska in this legislation is Karst, in 1993 a panel of experts hired by the USFS found Karst on NPOW to be significant at both national and international levels. Karstlands tend to support bigger trees and more salmon than non karstlands do.
They found karstlands to be critically important to fisheries as did the study of "Coho Salmon in Karst Dominated Streams"
This study also found that karst has been heavily damaged already by the timber harvests that have taken place there, and that silt and debris travels great distances in the karst landscape to effect salmon spawning streams.
The National Cave Symposium in 1997 showed the immense difficulty of logging on karst. They found that Karst requires stronger standards for buffers. Karst studies show that a buffer must equal at least 2 tree's high (or 300ft ) in order to be wind firm in karst.
These areas are currently protected by the National Cave Resource Protection Act, they will lose these protections, that so many have volunteered their time to enacting, if Sealaska gets these same karst areas for their enterprise land so they can harvest the timber.
It has been show in many studies that logging on karst does indeed negatively impact fisheries.
very few of the letters against Sealaska's legislation are written by people associated with paid groups, and those have been identified as such. Whereas almost all the Pro Sealaska letters are written by people hired by the corporation in some form or other
Not supported by scientific findings?
Let us try to keep the mudslinging to a minimum please...
I am surprised at the statement: "These arguments are simply not supported by scientific findings". When I do a search in google scholar, I find a number of findings related to this subject: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=logging+affecting+water+quality&hl=e...
Such as: http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php?requester=gs&collection=ENV&r...
Cube cove / Lake Florence / Sealaska @ Hoonah like peas in a pod
All examples of the same thing. Sealaska got the NOLs at Hoonah along with Koncor then wiped the place out. Cube Cove was primarily Koncor but as an example it's the same - the true nature of what Sealaska does on the ground.
I agree Ed- Im perfectly
I agree Ed- Im perfectly willing to have a mature debate-in fact I welcome it. Yet, people post disrespectful attacks with negative, snide quips, and present false facts. Like anyone else, you attack and you can expect me to fight back. You want respect, speak with respect. It is quite possible to be fair and respectful when you take an opposing view.
Your post is offering a different view; not attacks and negative energy. Thanks for the link, I'll check it out.
Totally untrue that this will
Totally untrue that this will not hurt fisheries Studies have shown that Karst landscaped are heavily damaged by timber harvest. Much of this land selected by Sealaska is Karst. Karst was shown by a panel of experts hired by the USFS to be critical to healthy salmon habitat as Karstlands tend to support bigger trees and and more salmon than non karst does. The 1997 National Cave Symposium show the immense dificulty of logging on karst. They showed that karst requires wind firm buffers, and that for buffers to be wind firm on Karst that the buffers must be equal to 2 tree's high ( or over 300 ft ) to be wind firm.
The National Cave Protection Act protects karst on Federal lands , these lands and fish streams will lose this protection if these same lands are made into Sealaskas private timber lands. Studies have shown how important karst is to fisheries , such as "Coho Salmon in Karst- Dominated Streams".
Studies show how damaging logging is to karst.. it only takes being able to add to figure it out.
As per other article: 2006, largest fine ever for violations of the Forest Resource Protections Act
Hydaburg had to fight Sealaska to protect their watershed
Logged Natzuhini Drainage despite warnings from Fed. Agencies-- causing numerous land slides dumping silt into salmon streams for Pinks and Coho.
Citations from AKDFG and DNR for damage to Deer Creek, a stealhead and salmon spawning stream
Sealaska will be logging in
Sealaska will be logging in areas that were already logged by USFS, AK Pulp, And Ketchikan pulp. Its second growth with roads already in the area. Im will willing to hear what you say Ravensquak. My question is sincere: How does this impact the fisheries and are you sure they intend to log in the areas you speak of? There are parts of this legislation that are selected for conservation-not all the land will be logged. Again, Im being honest in my question and am willing to hear your perspective.
Gunalcheesh.
Dear Mr. Martin
Very interesting selective reading of fisheries science and stream temperatures. Apparently, it is only coincidence that the worst fish kills in southeast alaska occur in the most heavily logged landscapes. Is that your hypothesis? Coincidence?
S'pose you're not aware that the department of fish and wildlife in your state says you need buffers of 250 feet for 20 foot wide streams, buffer and 200 feet for 5 - 20 foot wide streams and 150 foot buffers for streams less than five feet.
Translation: the 66 foot permanent buffers on Alaska private timberlands is based on junk science, or no science at all.
S'pose you disagree with your colleagues in fisheries science who seem to think that "cumulative warming and clearings at a basin scale lead to a progressive stream warming and shrinks the overall useable thermal habitat for entire salmonid populations"
translation: Large-scale clearcut logging kills fish.'
How many thousands of dollars did it cost for you to write a lame and scientifically unsupportable rebuttal to some dirty old hippie fisherman? Sealaska's shareholders should demand their money back.
science is often misunderstood
Science is often difficult...to understand, fund, accept, etc. but one great thing about science is that it is -by definition - testable. I don't really care who paid for Mr. Martin's research, because scientists (especially biologists and ecologists) are forced to find funding in creative ways. I put more stock in the journals the scientists publish their findings in, and I trust the peer review process (depending on the journal). Mr. Martin is publishing defensible science in respectable journals with rigorous peer reviews. His findings have standing in the literature on the topic of how forestry activities and management policies affect water quality and fish resources (among others). That doesn't mean his scientific conclusions are the end all on the topic (i.e. a scientific theory). But it means that other scientists can replicate his methods, collect additional data, conduct new experiments, and test his findings. That is how science works. I think Mr. Martin offers up a reasonable response to Mr. Olson's letter, which I believe described legitimate observations (e.g. fish kills), but incorrectly attributed them exclusively to logging practices when logging is one component of the myriad of variables contributing to that result.
Agreed. Science is not an
Agreed. Science is not an EXACT precise practice without its shortfalls and issues, but I will still take it over someones random opinion. He makes a reasonable, scientific argument.
Areas included as
Areas included as Conservation areas in this new legislation, (Senate version only ), are mostly at about of 2,000 ft and comprised of rocky , sparsely treed, landscape, where logging will not be taking place anyway. I must admit this is my interpretation of these areas, as I have not been able to see a good map of these areas, and can only compare their small blank map to a USFS map with topography on it.
Karst areas they are trading for are what are termed " Large tree forests" 10 - - 30 times more productive than the average forest on the Tongass. That is why they want them , and that is why they were so heavily targeted during the 50 yr timber contracts. These include the Old Growth Reserves that have been set aside, protected, by the FS so as to ensure that wildlife populations have a chance to remain stable and thrive. The Fish streams of the area can be effected by timber harvest from miles away, as debris and silt are carried for miles in the karst system which is a hydrologic system, mostly underground. The average soil on karst is 2" , easily washed away into the cave/karst system, where the debris clogs and destroys the life in them. Much of this area they want would not be logged because of the constraints of logging karst and the protections in on Federal lands. Much has been written on Alaska's forested karstlands, and the effects on salmon and other fish streams, not only because of spawning but because these streams being so rich in food are essential to young fish ( fry and par ) who feed in the estuaries of these streams in mass.
thanks ravensquak
thanks ravensquak
I wrote a letter too and didn't get "paid" to do it.
Contrary to ravenhouse's belief that people are getting "paid" to write letters against Sealaska.
You got it right good
I think you caught on to the key point good when you noted that the guy totally dodged the issue of the temporary buffers. He was just trying to confuse people.
http://www.sitnews.us/0511Viewpoints/052311_mickey_knight.html
The link is to another article on buffers - the issue Martin was afraid to take on so he just selectively cites some outdated material produced years ago. Martin doesn't look at the big issue with the state of Alaska buffers at all - that they only protect a limited component of the overall stream system. Instead, he focused on outdated science to get at one point in the article he was responding to and misrepresented that current state of science and the article writer's points with regard to stream temperatures by trying to find other excuses for fish kills decades back (why were there low dissolved oxygen levels anyway? Logging? Hmm.).
Martin is a timber industry scientist and not an independent fishery scientist and his characterization of the impacts of logging on stream temperature reflects that bias. The point of the concern in the article was cumulative impacts of logging and hot summers but of course Martin just says that the author incorrectly blamed logging for everything in a disingenuous attempt to make the writer look stupid. Martin completely ignores climate change, as well he should - his business depends on liquidating the planet's lungs.
The forest service study most likely used but not formally cited by Martin (Walters & Prefontaine, 2005) actually acknowledged that logged watersheds on POW had higher temperatures. And the Journal of the American Water Resources Association has published several articles over the past decade (Moore & Spittlehouse, 2005, Gomi, 2006 and others)(long after the 1990 study quoted by Martin) showing that there is considerable warming after logging. A comprehensive review of the BLM's plans for logging in western oregon by a science team that does not receive its paycheck from private logging corporations pointed out that 100 foot buffers (WOPR Science Team Review, 2008) were not enough to address stream temperature concerns. There is ample science to counter Martin's views just as you find scientific literature debating both sides of the greenhouse gas theory. Again, it seems like the disagreement can often come down to who butters their bread.
Martin's piece isn't science. It's rhetoric hidden by phd credentials and it carefully misrepresents the overall points of the article it criticizes in order to confuse people. Don't be confused. Landscape scale clearcut logging is bad for fish.
We can play dueling scientists all night long but ...
when you dramatically alter the landscape with clearcutting at the scale Sealaska cuts, a rational person understands that there will be consequences to the salmon who depend on a certain set of environmental conditions to thrive.
Sealaska may be willing to play russian roulette with salmon. The thousands of people in Southeast who depend on a healthy salmon population are not.