Tongass National Forest

Tongass Home » Projects & Plans

Note: This is a word-for-word representation of the official document reformatted for the Web. It is provided for your convenience and is not considered the official project documentation.

Logjam Timber Sale FEIS

Abstract:

The Forest Service proposes to harvest up to approximately 75 million board feet (MMBF) of timber and build approximately 29 miles of road on Prince of Wales Island, northeast of the community of Thorne Bay, Alaska, on the Tongass National Forest. The actions analyzed in this EIS are designed to implement direction in the Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). Harvest methods for all alternatives include clearcutting (even-aged management) using conventional (cable and shovel) logging systems, and clearcutting with reserves (two-aged management) using helicopter yarding, prescribing either 50 percent or 75 percent basal area retention. The Final EIS describes five alternatives, which provide differing outputs and responses to issues identified for this project:

Alternative 1 (No Action) proposes no harvest or roadbuilding activities in the project area at this time. Current and on-going management activities would continue.

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) proposes to harvest about 75 MMBF of timber on about 3,692 acres, building 8 miles of NFS road and 21 miles of temporary road. About 99 acres of harvest are within inventoried roadless areas (IRAs).

Alternative 3 proposes to harvest about 52 MMBF of timber on about 2,701 acres, building 2 miles of NFS road and 12 miles of temporary road.

Alternative 4 proposes to harvest about 38 MMBF of timber on about 1,686 acres, building 3 miles of new NFS road and 9 miles of temporary road.

Alternative 5 proposes to harvest about 73 MMBF of timber on about 3,422 acres, building 5 miles of new NFS road and 17 miles of temporary road.

Summary

Introduction

The Forest Service has prepared this Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) to
analyze the potential impacts of timber harvesting and road management in the Logjam
project area. This Final EIS is in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act 42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq. (NEPA), the National Forest Management Act of 1976, and all other
relevant Federal and State laws and regulations.

Project Area
The Logjam project area is located in Southeast Alaska on Prince of Wales Island, northeast
of the community of Thorne Bay (see Map 1) and covers approximately 56,133 acres of lands,
containing 1,129 acres of State and private lands (non-NFS) and 55,004 acres of NFS lands.
The project area consists of seven land use designations (LUDs) as defined in the 2008
Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). Of the seven LUDs in the
project area (Timber Production, Modified Landscape, Scenic Viewshed, Recreational River,
Scenic River, Old-Growth Habitat and Special Interest Area), most of the units are located
within three LUDs: Timber Production, Modified Landscape and Scenic Viewshed. The
Forest Plan authorizes timber harvest in these LUDs. The project area is within reasonable
proximity to local mills and communities.

In implementing Forest Plan direction in accordance with the Council of Environmental
Quality regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508), this Final EIS answers the following eight
questions:

1 – What action is proposed?
This proposed action (Alternative 2) would harvest 75 million board feet (MMBF) of timber
and build about 29 miles of road (8 miles NFS and 21 miles temporary road). The Forest
Supervisor of the Tongass National Forest will make a final decision as to method, amount of
harvest, and amount of road building in the Record of Decision for this project. The proposed
action includes about 99 acres of harvest within lower-value1 inventoried roadless areas
(IRAs). The proposed action and all action alternatives would accomplish the goals and
objectives of the Forest Plan.

Site-specific descriptions and resource considerations for each potential harvest unit are
included as unit cards in Appendix B of the Draft EIS. All roads have been located and will
be designed to avoid or minimize effects on wetlands. Resource considerations for each
proposed new system road are included in the road cards in Appendix C of the Draft EIS.

(40 CFR 1502.4(a); 1508.23; 1502.14; and 1502.5)
1 See 2008 Forest Plan, ROD Adaptive Management Strategy page 64.

2 – Why is the project being proposed?
The Logjam Timber Sale project is proposed at this time to respond to goals and objectives of
the Forest Plan (UDSA 2008b), to help move the project area toward the desired conditions
described in that plan, and to meet the needs of Southeast Alaska timber operators. The
Forest Plan includes both forest-wide goals and objectives and area-specific (land use
designation) goals, objectives, and desired conditions.

The Logjam Timber Sale project would respond to the following Forest Plan goals and
objectives:

Timber--Goal

• Provide for the continuation of timber uses and resources by the timber industry and
  Alaska residents (USDA 2008b, 2-7).

Timber--Objectives

• Seek to provide an economic timber supply sufficient to meet the annual market
  demand for Tongass National Forest timber, and the market demand for the planning
  cycle, up to a ceiling of this Plan’s allowable sale quantity, which is 2.67 billion board
  feet in the first decade (USDA 2008b, 2-7).
   Provide 2-3 years supply of volume under contract to local mills and then establish
  shelf volume to maintain flexibility and stability in the sale program (USDA2008b, 2-
  7).
• Review the timber sale program and work with State and other partners to implement
  changes that will keep an “economic timber” perspective throughout the process and
  monitor the implementation of these reforms to ensure they are consistently employed
  across the Forest (USDA 2008b, 2-7).

Local and Regional Economy--Goal

• Provide a diversity of opportunities for resource uses that contribute to the local and
  regional economies of Southeast Alaska (USDA 2008b, 2-5).

Local and Regional Economy--Objective

• Support a wide range of natural resource employment opportunities within Southeast
  Alaska communities (USDA 2008b, 2-5).

Seeking to meet timber demand for the Tongass National Forest is required by Section 101 of
the 1990 Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA) which states that, “...to the extent consistent
with providing for the multiple use and sustained yield of all renewable forest resources, seek
to provide a supply of timber from the Tongass National Forest..” With this EIS, the
interdisciplinary team found that the project area has a roaded landscape, tree species
composition, and general tree quality that presents an opportunity for an economic timber
harvest. In addition, the interdisciplinary team found that the timber resources in project area
are of high value for local economies. Southeast Alaska, and locally the Prince of Wales
Island area, has experienced a significant decline in manufacturing and natural resource
employment. This decline has been mirrored by a decline in sawmill industry production and reduced harvest levels. By allowing the use of renewable timber resources for Southeast
Alaska mills, jobs and income are generated for Southeast Alaska’s economy. The need for
project action is further explained in Chapter 1 and in greater detail in Appendix A of this
document.
(40 CFR 1502.13)

3 – Alternatives: What other action would meet the same need?

Four action alternatives and a “no action” alternative to the proposed action have been
analyzed in detail. Each action alternative provides a different response to key issues while
still meeting the stated purpose and need of this EIS. Each of these alternatives represents a
site-specific proposal developed through an intensive, field-verified, interdisciplinary team
evaluation of timber harvest unit and road design.

All action alternatives to the proposed action are consistent with the Forest Plan. All
applicable Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines have been incorporated into the design of the
proposed units and alternatives. While some alternatives have been designed to provide a
greater measure of protection than is required by the Forest Plan for some resources, such as
spreading out units to reduce the impacts to sensitive watersheds (see Alternative 4), all
alternatives were designed to meet Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for all other
resources. Additional direction comes from applicable laws and Forest Service manuals and
handbooks. Each alternative complies with the Forest Plan Conservation Strategy designed to
ensure the maintenance of viable populations of all vertebrate species on the Tongass by
means of a comprehensive approach based on principles of conservation biology. Forest Plan
Standards and Guidelines for riparian areas are applied to all streams within the project area.

The following is a brief discussion of how the alternatives respond to the key issues identified
for the Logjam project. A detailed comparison of these issues by project alternative is
summarized in Chapter 2, and a full examination of issue comparison by alternative is
provided in Chapter 3.

Alternative 1

Alternative 1 is the No-action Alternative in the EIS. Under this alternative, no timber harvest
or roadbuilding would take place at this time, which would not meet the purpose and need.
Alternative 2

Alternative 2 (see “1 – What action is proposed?”) addresses Issue 3, Timber Supply and Sale
Economics.
Alternative 3

This alternative addresses effects related to road construction and stream crossings.
Alternative 3 also addresses cumulative effects of past harvest on stream flow. This
alternative maintains the current roadless characteristics (Issue 4) of the inventoried roadless
areas (IRAs).

Alternative 4

The primary objective of Alternative 4 is to minimize the fragmentation of wildlife habitat.
This alternative also maintains the current roadless characteristics (Issue 4) of the inventoried
roadless areas (IRAs). Alternative 4 emphasizes wildlife habitat and travel corridors, while
providing opportunities for timber harvest and road construction (Issue 2). It minimizes the
effects on wildlife by reducing the amount of timber harvest acres and miles of road
construction.

Alternative 5

Alternative 5 emphasizes timber sale economics while maximizing total volume harvested
(Issue 3). This alternative emphasizes economical timber harvest by minimizing road
construction and maximizing cable and shovel clearcut settings. This alternative is also
designed to maintain current roadless characteristics in IRAs in same the manner of
Alternatives 3 and 4.

4 – What would it mean not to meet the need for project action?

Not meeting the need for timber production in the project area would mean that Forest Plan
requirements for continuous yield of timber would have to be met in other areas. Harvest
from small sales may continue to occur in this area if this project does not go forward.
However, harvest in this manner does not include a landscape-level approach, does not
provide a balanced view of resource needs, and would contribute only a minimal amount of
wood fiber to the local and regional economies of Southeast Alaska.

5 – What are the effects of the proposed action, and alternative actions — in comparative format?

Chapter 2, Alternatives, introduces how the alternatives meet the purpose and need for the
project, and compares outputs, objectives and effects of the alternatives in terms of the key
issues. Chapter 3, Environment and Effects, discusses in more detail the effects of the
proposed action and alternative actions by issue. Chapter 3 also discusses the proposed and
alternative actions’ effects on the affected environment and environmental consequences by
resource.

The following four issues were determined to be potentially key or significant and within the
scope of the project decision. The IDT developed the alternatives to the proposed action to
address these issues; Chapter 2 of this FEIS discusses and compares the alternatives. See
Table 2-1, Comparison of Alternatives by Issue. Chapter 3 examines the existing condition
and analyzes the effects or consequences of the project as it relates to these issues. The
following summarizes these effects:

Issue 1 – Effects to Aquatic Habitat
Alternative 1 (No Action) has no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects.

Alternative 2 would have minor effects (effects would be measurable, with only small,
localized changes to the site, lasting less than a week) on sedimentation and aquatic habitat.
Compared to other alternatives, Alternative 2 has the most effects on sedimentation and
aquatic habitat. Alternative 2 could result in moderate (effects would be measurable at the
stream reach or subwatershed scale, and last more than a week) cumulative effects if existing
roads are not stored and decommissioned, with practices specifically focused on restoring
natural drainage patterns and reducing sediment sources.

Alternatives 3 and 4 are similar, with minor effects on sedimentation and aquatic habitat -
less than Alternatives 2 and 5. Alternative 3 would have fewer road-stream crossings (Class I,
II, and III) than Alternative 4, resulting in the least effects of all alternatives.

Alternative 5 would also have minor effects to sedimentation and aquatic habitat. Compared
to other alternatives, Alternative 5 ranks second in effects on sedimentation and aquatic
habitat.

Issue 2 – Wildlife and Subsistence Use
Deer habitat capability would be expected to decline in proportion to the amount of deer
winter range harvested. As a result, all action alternatives will likely result in a deer habitat
capability below 18 deer square mile in WAA 1421.

All action alternatives would result in an increase in the road density of WAA 1421. Both the
current density and the density as a result of this project are above the threshold guideline for
areas where wolf mortality has been identified as a concern.

All action alternatives would result in a decrease in productive old-growth habitat. Habitat
adequate to maintain viable populations of old-growth associated species such as the spruce
grouse, migratory birds, and others is maintained within the old-growth reserves.

All action alternatives would result in a decrease in high-value marten habitat, snag-dependent
species habitat and Prince of Wales flying squirrel habitat. However, habitat adequate to
maintain viable populations of these species is maintained by the Conservation Strategy that is
a part of the Forest Plan.

The proposed action and alternatives are not anticipated to cause impact to any suitable
habitat, nor cause disturbance to individuals for the following species: trumpeter swan,
peregrine falcon, or Kittlitz’s murrelet, because critical habitat is not found here.
The Logjam project may have an effect on the goshawk and its habitat within the project area.
It is determined that the action alternatives for this project may adversely impact individual
northern goshawks, but that all alternatives are not likely to result in a loss of viability in the
project area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing, because habitat adequate to maintain
viable populations of these species is maintained by the Conservation Strategy of the Forest
Plan.

Issue 3 – Timber Supply and Sale Economics
Each of the four action alternatives is responsive to the need for a reliable, economic supply of
sawtimber to meet market demand. These alternatives also have the potential to support
timber industry employment and benefit local and regional economies. The extent to which each alternative meets this need is correlated directly to the total volume of timber harvest for
that alternative.

Alternative 2, the proposed action, allows for the greatest total volume of timber harvest and
therefore has the greatest potential to meet the purpose and need of the project, followed by
Alternatives 5, 3 and 4, respectively. These alternatives would provide less volume to meet
demand and would therefore provide less opportunity for employment and income to local
and regional economies. See Table S-1, below.

For timber volume to contribute to the stated purpose, it must also be economically viable.
Current indicated bid value estimates show all alternatives to have a positive value. The
quantity of economically viable timber volume available at project implementation would
depend on a number of factors. Changes in regional and global timber markets and other
factors such as fuel costs can dramatically affect stumpage values and logging costs at the
time of implementation and harvest. The full economic benefits of a given alternative may
not be available under poor market conditions. Alternative 5 has the highest indicated bid
value of any alternative, due to relatively low logging and road costs. Alternative 5 also
allows the second-highest volume of harvest—approximately 3 percent less than Alternative
2.

Table S-1
Timber Harvest Volume and Indicated Bid Value Compared by Alternative

1 Adjusted for additional rock haul costs as described in Chapter 3, Issue 3.

A stable timber economy requires an even flow of timber; which allows operators to make
capital investments and employ qualified workers. Timber from the Logjam project
constitutes a portion of the timber supply available to Southeast Alaska’s economy. A stable
timber supply in Southeast Alaska depends on the success of many timber sales across the
forest. The importance of this project to the region’s timber industry is emphasized by the
relatively favorable economics of the available volume. The amount of timber harvest also
affects the availability of timber in the future and contributes to long-term timber supply.

There would be no adverse human health and environmental effects for any alternative that
disproportionately impacts minority and low-income populations, because of the location and
nature of this project.

Issue 4 – Inventoried Roadless Areas
Alternative 2 (proposed action), proposes timber harvest (99 acres) in IRAs 511 and 514.
This proposed timber harvest is in portions of the IRAs in Phase I of the the Forest Plan (see
Timber Sale Program Adaptive Management Strategy, Chapter 1). Alternatives 3, 4, and 5
have no timber harvest activities in IRAs 511 and 514. For all action alternatives, the
proposed harvest acres in combination with the previous harvests are not likely to affect the
roadless character of these two IRAs, because proposed actions or alternative actions would
not cause development in corridors between the IRAs, would not reduce the remoteness of these
areas, would not greatly reduce the acreages of the IRAs, and would be unlikely to affect the biological, geological, scientific, or recreation values of the IRAs.

6– What factors will be used when making the decision among alternatives?

The factors that will influence the decision between alternatives include design and location of
timber harvest, road construction and reconstruction, social and economic factors (see Timber
Supply and Sale Economics in Chapter 3), and silvicultural practices in the project area (see
the section Decisions to be Made in Chapter 1).

7 – Are there any ways to mitigate adverse effects?

Possible adverse impacts may occur from implementing the actions proposed under each
alternative. Measures have been formulated to mitigate or reduce these impacts, guided by
direction in the Forest Plan. Adverse effects, such as risks from windthrow to standing timber
after harvest have been evaluated, and means to minimize windthrow, such as windfirm
buffers, are incorporated into all harvest unit prescriptions, where needed. If any previously
undocumented goshawk nests are discovered at any time prior to or during the implementation
of this project, the appropriate protection measures (nest buffers) would be enacted.

Resource specialists from the IDT use on-the-ground inventories, computer (GIS) data, and
aerial photographs to prepare unit cards for each harvest unit in the unit pool for the project,
and road cards for each segment of road. The cards describe site-specific concerns, and how
these concerns would be mitigated or avoided in the design of each unit and road segment.
Resource concerns and mitigation measures may be refined further during final layout, when
specialists have one more opportunity to refine their unit and road card recommendations.

Some general mitigation common to all alternatives is described in Chapter 2. A moredetailed
discussion by issue and resource is in Chapter 3.

8 – What monitoring is necessary?

Routine implementation monitoring is part of the administration of a timber sale contract.
The sale administrators and road inspectors ensure that the prescriptions contained on the unit
and road cards, and the unit silvicultural prescriptions, are incorporated into contract
documents; they then monitor performance relative to contract requirements (Appendices B
and C, Draft EIS). Input by resource staff specialists, such as fisheries biologists, soil
scientists, hydrologists and engineers, would be regularly requested during this
implementation monitoring process. These specialists provide technical advice when
questions arise during project implementation.

Tongass National Forest staff annually conducts a review of BMP implementation and
effectiveness. The results of this and other monitoring are summarized in a Tongass National
Forest Annual Monitoring and Evaluation Report. This report provides information about
how well the management direction of the Forest is being carried out and measures the
accomplishment of anticipated outputs, activities and effects.

Final EIS Organization

This Final EIS discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would
result from the proposed action and alternatives. All numbers in this document are
approximate. The document is organized into four chapters:

• Chapter 1 explains the purpose and need for the proposed action, discusses how the
  Logjam Timber Sale project relates to the 2008 Tongass Land and Resource
  Management Plan (Forest Plan), and identifies the significant, or key, issues driving
  the Final EIS analysis.
• Chapter 2 describes the proposed action, compares alternatives to the proposed action
  including a No-action Alternative, and summarizes the significant environmental
  consequences by issue.
• Chapter 3 describes the natural and human environments potentially affected by the
  proposed action and alternatives, and discloses what potential effects are anticipated.
• Chapter 4 contains the list of preparers, the Final EIS distribution list, literature cited, a
  glossary, and an index.
• Appendices provide additional information on specific aspects of the proposed project.
  This Final EIS incorporates documented analyses by summarization and reference
  where appropriate.

Copies of this Final EIS may be obtained from the Thorne Bay Ranger District office at
Thorne Bay, Alaska. Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of projectarea
resources, may be found in the project record located at the Thorne Bay Ranger District
office.

Due to the size of the PDFs it is advised that you first download the PDF to your computer then open and/or print it.

01_feis_front_cover.pdf (537k)
02_feis_dear_reader_letter.pdf (298k)
03_feis_abstract.pdf (10k)
04_feis_summary.pdf (39k)
05_feis_table_of_contents.pdf (33k)
06_feis_ch_1.pdf (388k)
07_feis_ch_2.pdf (62k)
07a_feis_alt1_ec.pdf (1.6M)
07b_feis_alt2.pdf (1.1M)
07c_feis_alt3.pdf (1.2M)
07d_feis_alt4.pdf (1.1M)
07e_feis_alt5.pdf (1.2M)
07f_feis_trans_ec_n.pdf (541k)
07g_feis_trans_es_s.pdf (537k)
07h_feis_trans_pc_n.pdf (548k)
07i_feis_trans_pc_s.pdf (543k)
08_feis_ch_3.pdf (2.4M)
09_feis_ch_4.pdf (204k)
10_feis_app_a.pdf (92k)
11_feis_app_b_response_to_comments.pdf (3.2M)
12_feis_app_c_changed_units_roads.pdf (10.0M)
13_feis_app_d_cumulative_activities.pdf (36k)

Download Adobe© Acrobat© Reader

USDA Forest Service - Tongass National Forest Accessibility Statement
Last Modified: June 26, 2009