Tongass National Forest Logjam ROD

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 ROD

Summary

The Logjam Timber Sale Record of Decision (ROD) describes my decision on the Selected Alternative, which is Alternative 5 as modified for the Logjam Final EIS.

The Selected Alternative will harvest timber from 3,422 acres of commercial forest land to contribute approximately 73 million board feet (MMBF) of sawlog and utility timber volume to the Tongass National Forest timber sale program. The timber will be harvested by ground-based logging systems or by helicopter. Both even-aged management (clearcut) and two-aged management (partial harvest) will be used. The Selected Alternative includes construction of 5 miles of National Forest System (NFS) road and associated access management objectives, and 17 miles of temporary road. No inventoried roadless areas are included in the Selected Alternative. Design features of timber harvest units in this decision are described in detail on the unit cards in Appendix 1 of the ROD.

Implementation of a portion of the roads and units in the Selected Alternative will be delayed until ongoing acid rock drainage response activities associated with the Coffman Cove Road in the project area are completed. This delay will allow the completion of the reconstruction of the Coffman Cove Road, which will be used as part of the haul route.

Project Location

The Logjam Timber Sale project area is located on Prince of Wales Island, and is within the Thorne Bay Ranger District, about 23 air miles northwest of Thorne Bay, Alaska, 60 miles northwest of Ketchikan, Alaska and 3 miles south of Coffman Cove, AK (see Map R-1). The Logjam project area encompasses 56,133 acres of north Prince of Wales Island. Elevation ranges from sea level to over 2,500 feet in the headwaters of Logjam Creek. Most of the Logjam project is within value comparison units (VCUs) 5730 and 5770. There are 125 miles of existing NFS roads and 46 miles of decommissioned temporary roads within the project area. The Coffman Cove Road, also known as Forest Highway 44 (connected segments of the FSR 23, FSR 30, and FSR 3030) is the newly paved two-lane highway that connects the project area to the communities of Thorne Bay and Craig with Coffman Cove via the State of Alaska highway system on Prince of Wales.

Decision
My decision includes timber harvest and the associated roads from Alternative 5 as displayed in the Logjam Final EIS. After publication of the Draft EIS, minor modifications to this alternative were made and are discussed in the Final EIS. The units and roads for this project are located in Appendices 1 and 2 of this ROD. Considerations made in the selection for this decision include:

Implementation of some units and roads will be delayed until ongoing acid rock drainage response activities in the project area (described below) are complete. This includes the following units and associated roads: 573-62 through 573-65; 573-67 through 573-69; 573-71; 573-73 through 573-77; 573-83 and 573-85. This will also delay the construction and reconstruction of the following National Forest System roads: 3030710-2, 3030720-3, and 3030820. This affects about 1,130 acres (18.7 MMBF) and 6 miles of NFS and temporary road construction of the Selected Alternative.

Description of the Selected Alternative
The Selected Alternative will harvest timber on 3,422 acres of commercial forest land to contribute approximately 73 million board feet (MMBF) of sawlog and utility volume to the Tongass National Forest timber sale program. Timber harvest will be either even-aged management (clearcuts or clearcuts with reserves) or two-aged management. Design features of timber harvest units in this decision are described in detail on the unit cards in Appendix 1 of the ROD.

The Selected Alternative includes construction of 5 miles of National Forest System (NFS) road and 17 miles of temporary road. About 2.8 miles of road would be reconstructed. All newly constructed NFS roads will be placed in storage after timber sale activities are completed. Temporary roads will be decommissioned and allowed to revegetate after harvest. The Road Management Objectives (RMOs) for ongoing maintenance and design features of the new NFS roads for this decision are described in detail on the road cards in Appendix 2 of the ROD. The RMOs for the existing roads are summarized on a table in Appendix 2. Temporary roads are included on the unit cards, Appendix 1. If needed, the Coffman Cove, Thorne Bay, or Naukati LTFs may be used to transport the timber from Prince of Wales Island to other locations using barging and/or rafting as the permit allows.
Transportation maps showing the road system are in the Final EIS, and maps showing the road system under the Selected Alternative are at the end of this ROD.

Reasons for the Decision
In making my decision, I considered the objectives to meet the purpose and need for this project as well as the issues and concerns raised during scoping, and comments on the Draft EIS, both in support and opposing this project. I considered Forest Plan direction relevant to this project and the competing interests and values of the public. I considered all viewpoints and incorporated them where feasible and consistent with the purpose and need of the project.

I evaluated the trade-off between resource protection and social values. The Selected Alternative provides a beneficial mix of resources for the public, within a framework of existing laws, regulations, policies, public needs and desires, and the capabilities of the land, while meeting the stated purpose and need for this project. My decision to implement the Selected Alternative conforms to the Forest Plan and National Forest Management Act (NFMA).

I considered the need to manage this timber resource on the Tongass in order to produce an even-flow of sawtimber and other wood products. Appendix A describes the process that maintains a steady supply of timber and how each project goes through a series of steps before timber can be offered from the National Forest. I considered the concerns for providing economical timber sale offerings and the need to meet annual demand for timber. This decision provides about 73 MMBF toward meeting the timber industry needs in Southeast Alaska timber industry. This volume includes both sawtimber volume and utility volume. Although there are few markets within Southeast Alaska for utility volume at this time, this component may meet future needs especially if the need for alternative fuels increases.

I realize that the financial efficiency of the Selected Alternative has decreased since the analysis was done for the Draft EIS. However, the development of economic sales appears to be possible even though there continues to be a current downward trend in the timber markets. At this time, not all of the timber may be economical to offer; I also needed to consider the fluctuation of timber markets, the length of time that it takes to do field review and analyses on a project of this size, the timber volume available and the relative effects of each alternative. The first sale of approximately 30 MMBF of timber is planned to be offered in FY 09. Subsequent sales will be added to the 5-year timber sale plan, through the process described in Appendix A of the Logjam Final EIS.

Potential annualized jobs that could be supported are estimated between 251 and 356. The range of these jobs accounts for possible differences if the purchaser elects to ship material to the lower 48 states under the limited interstate shipping policy or export policies. The higher end of this range accounts for all material processed locally including Alaska yellow-cedar and western redcedar. The purchasers may elect to process all the sawlogs, including Alaska yellow-cedar and western redcedar, locally, which is the upper range of these jobs. As well, purchasers could elect to ship up to 50 percent of the total sawlog volume of all species, and 100 percent of the utility volume to other markets. The latter represents the lower end of this range of jobs and would reduce support for local sawmilling jobs. For this project, this could be primarily interstate shipment to the lower 48 of unprocessed Sitka spruce and western hemlock sawlogs that are: a) smaller than 15 inches in diameter at the small end of a 40-foot log; or b) grade 3 or grade 4 logs of any diameter. Currently, western redcedar is identified as surplus to Alaska’s domestic needs and all Alaska yellow-cedar may be shipped to domestic and foreign markets at the purchaser’s options.

I have considered the concerns about effects to aquatic systems downstream of the Coffman Cove Forest Highway (FH 44) that occurred during the reconstruction of this road by the Western Federal Lands Highway Division in 2006 thru 2008. Pyrite-rich rock obtained from a single quarry used for reconstructing FH44 resulted in acid rock drainage from 3.5 miles of FH44. Acid rock drainage impacts (decreased pH and elevated dissolved metals) were observed downstream of the road in seven streams. The Forest Service issued a Time Critical Removal Action Memorandums under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) in 2008 and again in May 2009. Ongoing acid rock drainage response actions in 2009 are expected to increase pH and reduce dissolved metals in affected streams.

Acid rock drainage is addressed in the effects section of the EIS as part of the existing condition in the Logjam project area and was considered during the cumulative effects analysis as part of Issue 1, Effects to Aquatic Habitat. Throughout the eastern portions of the Logjam area, the prevalent parent rock is likely to have iron pyrite of variable concentrations. I am taking the following measures to assure there will not be acid rock drainage problems with the Logjam project roads.

The Selected Alternative will not use pyrite-rich rock. There is one road (3030710-2) where construction could expose additional pyrite-rich bedrock, and if that occurred, three streams could be at risk for exposure to acid rock drainage. An onsite evaluation will occur before and during road construction, and mitigation measures will be employed to minimize or avoid subsequent effects. Addition of limestone rock from a nearby pit will be used to neutralize possible effects if pyritic rock is encountered. These measures are described specifically on the road cards in Appendix 2.

Existing road drainage problems have been inventoried and have been incorporated into the RMOs. It is the intent to repair drainage and reduce erosion during road reconstruction and pre-haul maintenance through the Logjam Timber Sale where roads are used for the timber sale.
As post-haul road maintenance funding is available, some existing roads would be stored or decommissioned to reduce their effects as indicated in Table A2-1 in Appendix 2, Road Cards.

The Selected Alternative would result in minor, short-termed, and localized effects on sedimentation and aquatic habitat, which would be unavoidable but expected with these types of activities. All construction and harvest activities would be monitored to ensure compliance with the best management practices. Road 3030720 would need to be reconstructed to access Unit 577-73. This road would require two bridges to be installed, and maintenance to address the road prism failures and cut-bank and side-slope erosion that has deposited sediment and debris flows onto the road bed. Helicopter logging of Unit 577-73 would again be considered at time of implementation.

Areas adjacent to streams with high windthrow concerns have been identified on the unit cards. Reasonable assurance of windfirmness zones will be designed to protect the forested riparian management areas where additional protection for windfirmness is needed.

I considered the potential for increased fragmentation within a naturally fragmented area, the reduction of productive old growth, and the effects on wildlife. The Forest Plan Conservation Strategy with its system of reserves and matrix of old-growth forest is designed to provide population viability across the Tongass in accordance with NFMA. The decision on the 2008 Forest Plan Amendment included an interagency biologist review and allocation for the Old-growth Reserves (OGR) in the Logjam project area. The Forest Supervisor modified the Interagency OGR slightly. The Forest Supervisor changed the size classification of the small OGR to large OGR in VCU 5770.

I considered all of the comments on the Draft EIS about the Old-growth Reserves (OGR) and the need to retain landscape connectivity, especially the connection between the Honker Divide and Sarkar Lake. The small OGRs in the Logjam project area (VCU 5730 and 5770) are both adjacent to the large Honker Divide area to the southeast, which is partly allotted to a medium OGR and non-development LUDs. The Honker Divide area connects to the area surrounding Sweetwater Lake and the 100-foot lake buffer to the Sarkar Lake region to the west. To the south, the Honker Divide area connects to a small OGR, which abuts the Karta Wilderness area and the eastern side of POW.

Both Alaska Department of Fish and Game personnel and environmental groups have expressed concerns about the potential level of wolf mortality resulting from the total and open road densities within the project area. These comments appear to conflict with information obtained from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and used in this analysis. Specifically, concerns about wolves in GMU2 and in the project area are not supported by the wolf harvest data made available, as is further explained in the Issue 2 section that follows.

I have further considered that human access in the Logjam project area may also lead to wolf mortality concerns as access is temporarily increased by new road construction. In light of this, all planned roads for the Selected Alternative will be stored (Maintenance Level 1) or decommissioned after their use for timber harvest. This will result in no net increase in open road density over time for the project area and only a slight increase in total road density for the project area. I believe this will have a negligible effect on wolf mortality.

I am committed to work cooperatively with the State of Alaska on wolf management issues. There have been recent discussions between the State and the Forest Service regarding wolf management on Prince of Wales Island and other geographic areas on the Tongass and there is commitment from both agencies to address this issue. Since the development of any wolf management plans needs to be addressed at a scale larger than a single project, such as the Logjam project area, my staff is working with Alaska Department of Fish and Game staff to address potential wolf management issues Tongass-wide.

The revision of the Alaska Region sensitive species list occurred in February 2009. One plant species added to the 2009 sensitive species list was found in the Logjam project area in Unit 573-83. The effects to the known populations were analyzed and included in the Logjam Final EIS. This project would not lead towards a trend toward listing. Two wildlife species, the black oystercatcher and the Aleutian tern, were added to the revised sensitive species list. These species are unlikely to be affected by the activities from the Selected Alternative due to no proposed activities along the beach except for possible use of existing LTFs.

The Selected Alternative does not cut any trees or build any roads in any inventoried roadless areas.

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines direct that karst features be protected within the project area as described in the Final EIS and the unit cards. If a windfirm buffer cannot be achieved in Unit 577-37 to protect adjacent high-vulnerability karst, this unit will not be harvested.

Care will be taken to ensure that the two populations of bull thistle along Road 2360000 will not be spread by planned activities. Mitigation measures are described later in this ROD, and included on the road card.

A potentially significant historic property was located at the end of the 2008 field season. This new information is being evaluated this season. If necessary, mitigation of effects will be achieved by dropping acreage from the unit so no historic properties will be affected. The State Historic Preservation Office was consulted and concurs with this strategy. Any additional heritage resource sites found after the sale contract is awarded will follow the contract provisions for protection.

The effects on scenery when viewed from the Visual Priority Routes and Use Areas (Forest Plan, Appendix F) were evaluated. The parts of the project area most commonly seen are from the Coffman Cove Road and Sweetwater Lake. Visual disturbance will be dispersed throughout with no single area impacted beyond maximum disturbance thresholds at any one time. Units are designed to meet their corresponding scenic integrity objectives as designated in the Forest Plan and some units would meet higher objectives.

Areas with slopes greater than 72 percent either have been avoided or will have a slope stability analysis completed prior to implementation, consistent with Forest Plan direction.

I considered the comments received about climate change on the 2008 Forest Plan Draft EIS and reviewed the analysis in the 2008 Forest Plan Amendment Final EIS. The 2008 Forest Plan forest-wide analysis discusses the risk of possible effects and the considerable uncertainty of how the climate may change. The 2008 Forest Plan acknowledges there is general agreement among scientists that the climate is warming. However, there is considerable uncertainty concerning specific predictions of how the climate may change, and even more uncertainty regarding the effects of climate change on the resources of the Tongass (2008 Forest Plan, p. 50). The Tongass National Forest will continue to monitor potential effects of climate change through the Forest Plan monitoring program, and other studies that are happening regionally and nationally. Changes in climate may also affect the long-term conditions of the natural resources of the project area. Any needs for a different course of action that might affect this decision will be addressed through existing procedures to determine whether changes are warranted, as described toward the end of this Record of Decision.

Issue 1: Effects to Aquatic Habitat
Cumulative effects of past and proposed harvest and existing and proposed roads in the Logjam project area may increase sedimentation and impact aquatic habitat. Project comments expressed concerns that the intensity of past harvest in the Logjam project area may increase sedimentation and impact aquatic habitat, watersheds, and fish.

Past, present and future road construction, road maintenance, and road crossing construction all generate a level of disturbance and contribute sediment to project area streams. Proper functioning condition assessments in the affected watersheds concluded sediment deposition was contribution to a downward trend in one stream reach (in Hatchery Creek). This stream reach is located on a tributary that flows into Hatchery Lake and will not be affected by the proposed harvest units in this watershed. The proposed harvest in the Hatchery Creek watershed is located along a tributary that flows into Hatchery Creek approximately 1 mile upstream from Sweetwater Lake. All other reaches were rated as properly functioning or functioning at risk with an upward trend. There are nine Class I, six Class II, and nine Class III stream crossings proposed in the Selected Alternative. The remainder would be constructed on Class IV streams. Effects would be measurable, although the changes would be small, localized to the site or affected stream reach, and last less than 1 week. The project area would generate multiple timber sales over a protracted time period, so sediment-generating disturbance is mitigated by TTRA streamside buffers and time. Currently, stream reaches in the project area contain adequate large woody debris (LWD), which will help store and meter sediment downstream over time.

Time Critical Removal Actions (TCRA) in 2008, 2009, and 2010 are expected to cause improved conditions (increases in stream pH and reduction in dissolved metal concentrations) in streams currently affected by acid rock drainage from the FS 3030 Road (Coffman Cove Road, FH 44). Effectiveness monitoring of these response actions is prescribed in the May 2009 TCRA Memorandum. If construction of the 3030710-2 Road disturbs pyrite-rich bedrock, additional acid rock drainage impacts (low pH and high concentrations of dissolved metals) to streams 4, 5, and 7 may occur, but abundant limestone is available from a nearby rock pit that can provide treatment capability to neutralize acid rock drainage. Active testing and sampling will identify any need for neutralization very early, as described in the 3030710-2 road card (Appendix 2)

Issue 2: Wildlife and Subsistence Use
Proposed timber harvest combined with past harvest may affect deer winter range habitat, fragmentation, productive old-growth (POG) habitat, subsistence use, and road density.
Comments expressed concerns about subsistence use and wildlife in the project area including the effects of deer winter habitat and availability of deer for subsistence, wolf mortality due to high road density, the lack of connection between Sarkar Lake and Honker Divide, and species such as cavity nesters, grouse, black bear, marbled murrelet, and endemic species.

The Selected Alternative will reduce productive old growth from 25,891 acres to 22,543 acres in the project area, reducing the habitat for POG-associated species such as cavity nesters and marbled murrelets. The reduction of old-growth acres in this area will increase habitat fragmentation. While this increased fragmentation may affect travel patterns of some old-growth associated wildlife species, the landscape-level connectivity is well maintained through the system of buffers, OGRs and remaining old growth in the project area.

Information provided by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) indicates that wolf harvest on POW should not exceed 30 percent of the estimated wolf population in GMU2. GMU2 wolf harvest data for the period covering 1997-2007 indicates that only the 1999/2000 season met the identified 30 percent threshold, at which time the State enacted an emergency closure of the wolf hunting/trapping season. ADFG data further shows that during the same 10-year period, the average wolf harvest for GMU2 has been 22 percent of the estimated population per year (except 1999/2000). Within WAA 1421 (which roughly corresponds to the Logjam project area), ADFG data shows average harvest of only 2.3 wolves per year, which includes 15 wolves taken from WAA 1421 in the 1999/2000 season.

As a result of the Logjam project, the total road density of the WAA may increase slightly. Total road density (for roads in all ownerships) in WAA 1421 below 1,200 feet in elevation would increase from 1.6 miles per square mile to 1.9 miles per square miles, which may increase hunting success for subsistence use of deer and trapping success of furbearers such as wolves and marten. Open road densities are currently estimated to be 0.75 mile per square mile (Forest Plan 2008). Open road density would remain the same, since all new timber sale roads will be stored or decommissioned after timber harvest is complete.

Issue 3: Timber Supply and Economics
The financial efficiency of timber sales affects the viability of Southeast Alaska’s forest products industry and the ability of the industry to contribute to the local and regional economies. Timber purchasers and affected communities are concerned about the quantity and quality of timber volume offered by the Forest Service to support timber-related jobs, the cost of road construction, as well as the logging costs associated with the proposed logging systems and silvicultural prescriptions.

Issue 4: Inventoried Roadless Areas
Concerns were expressed that timber harvest and road construction in inventoried roadless areas could affect the characteristics of the area.

Other Environmental Consequences
All resources were evaluated for the effects of the Selected Alternative. Analyses of the effects on other resources for the Selected Alternative, including the cumulative effects with other projects, are summarized in the Final EIS and further information is located in the project record.

Alternatives Considered
Five alternatives were considered in detail in the Draft EIS released for public comment. All alternatives, with the exception of Alternative 1, respond to the purpose and need. All action alternatives respond to the issues identified in varying degrees as displayed in Table R-1 and discussed in the Logjam Final EIS.

Alternative 1 - No Action, proposed no new timber harvest or road construction in the project area. It does not preclude timber harvest from other areas or from the project area in the future. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations require that a “No Action” alternative be analyzed in every EIS (40 CFR 1502.14(d)). This alternative represents the existing condition. It can also serve as a baseline for comparing the action alternatives and responded to the issues of cumulative watershed effects, no timber harvest in inventoried roadless areas, and protection of wildlife habitat. This alternative does not meet the purpose and need of supplying timber. If the need for timber production in the project area is not met, then timber would need to be supplied from other areas.

Alternative 2 was the proposed action and the preferred alternative for the Draft EIS. Due to the change from the marten and goshawk forest structure standards and guidelines in the 1997 Forest Plan to the legacy standard and guideline in the amended Forest Plan, the volume of the proposed action increased between the initial scoping for the Logjam project and the Draft EIS. The proposed acres of timber harvest and road construction remained approximately the same. This alternative proposed to harvest 3,692 acres, producing 75 MMBF of timber. This is the only alternative that enters an inventoried roadless area. While this alternative would meet the timber management objectives of the project, I have determined that it is not necessary to harvest or build roads in an adjacent inventoried roadless area for this project at this time, and the economics of the Selected Alternative are better than the proposed action.

Alternative 3 proposed to harvest 2,701 acres, producing 52 MMBF of timber. This alternative emphasized Issue 1, Effects to Aquatic Habitat. The analysis and development of Alternative 3 emphasized Sweetwater, Logjam, and Trumpeter watersheds because they comprise most of the project area, designing helicopter yarding units in these areas so no additional roads would need to be built. These watersheds have high fisheries values and the highest levels of harvest and road construction. This alternative addressed effects related to road construction and stream crossings by proposing helicopter harvest instead of roads for several units, such as access to units 573-73, 573-74 and 573-75 by the 3030720 road. Alternative 3 also addressed cumulative effects of past harvest on stream flow. I did not select this alternative since it provides less timber volume and uses helicopter logging for areas that are previously roaded. This may result in less opportunities for economic timber sales.
Alternative 4 proposed to harvest 1,682 acres, producing 38 MMBF of timber. The development of Alternative 4 responded to Issue 2 by reducing the amount of productive old growth harvested and miles of road construction, thereby reducing the impact to high-value deer habitat, road densities by WAA (an access concern related to subsistence use and wolf mortality), reducing fragmentation and maintaining travel corridors. This alternative would provide for economic timber sales; however, the overall volume is insufficient to meet the needs of the current industry, as described in Appendix A. Such a supply of economic timber is crucial at this time since there is a downward trend in the timber market as well as other Southeast Alaska industries.

Alternative 5 is the Selected Alternative. The reasons for the decision are explained under “Reasons for the Decision”.

Environmentally Preferred Alternative
Alternative 1, the No-action Alternative, would result in no environmental disturbance and is therefore the environmentally preferred alternative. Of the action alternatives, Alternative 4 is the environmentally preferred alternative for the project area. This alternative would retain the most productive old growth and provide the most connectivity, have less increase in total road density, and cause less soil disturbance.

Several additional alternatives were proposed internally or by the public during scoping and review of the Logjam Draft EIS. More discussion of these alternatives is located in Chapter 2 of the Final EIS, Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study, and in Appendix B.

The alternatives suggested during scoping that were considered during the alternative development stage of the project included: an alternative to solely address the inventoried roadless area concerns, an alternative that would only address the needs of the smaller mills on Prince of Wales Island, an alternative that would not construct any new roads including no new temporary roads, and an alternative that would use the marten and goshawk guidelines from the 1997 Forest Plan. Further analysis of the project did not indicate that these alternatives should be further considered. Rationale for eliminating these alternatives from detailed analysis is included in Chapter 2 of the Draft EIS and summarized here.

Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 addressed the concerns about inventoried roadless areas since none of these alternatives proposed units or roads within these areas. Other projects on POW Island (Goose Creek EA and Soda Nick EA) addressed the need for supply to the smaller mills on the island; this project was designed to provide a larger-volume sale in addition to small sales. Because of this, the construction of roads was needed to access the timber as efficiently, economically, and safely as possible. The Logjam project was classified as a Category 3 project in the Forest Plan ROD (p. 76) which required the project to be consistent with the 2008 Forest Plan.

In addition, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) submitted an alternative with their comments on the Draft EIS. The “Conservation Alternative” as TNC referred to it, limited harvest to about half of the Logjam project area, resulting in an estimated 2,654 acres and 31 MMBF volume and 9 miles of road construction. More-detailed information on the evaluation of the TNC "Conservation Alternative" is in Appendix B of the Logjam Final EIS and the project record.

In response, the interdisciplinary team compared the proposed "Conservation Alternative," by TNC to those alternatives are already analyzed and determined that it was similar in volume to Alternative 4. Several points discussed in Appendix A of the Logjam Final EIS make it clear why the amount of volume available for sale is critical at this point in time:

Other parts of the “Conservation Alternative” were similar to other alternatives studied in detail in the Final EIS and did not represent a substantial difference to other alternatives previously analyzed:

The “Conservation Alternative” focused on limiting road construction and timber harvest in the Sweetwater Lake VCU 5730. This alternative did not include any road construction in Sweetwater Lake and Trumpeter Creek watersheds and changes the unit prescriptions to helicopter partial cut, not to exceed 25 percent removal. The interdisciplinary team developed Alternative 3 in response to the amount of road and past harvest in the project area. The analysis of field and GIS data emphasized Logjam and Trumpeter Creek watersheds as being more sensitive to potential cumulative effects than the other watersheds in the project area. Alternative 3 focused on limiting road construction and timber harvest in these two watersheds.

Concerns for wildlife expressed in the "Conservation Alternative" had been taken into consideration in the design of Alternative 4 in a different manner. The "Conservation Alternative" recommended dropping the units along the west side of Sweetwater Lake entirely to maintain wildlife travel routes. Alternative 4 widened buffers and deferred portions of units for the same reason. TNC recommended closing four roads (portions of 3000, 30305, 3035, and 2052) at the end of harvest activity for wildlife security reasons. Alternative 4 does not close these roads in their entirety because these roads are needed for subsistence uses and administrative access.

In regards to closing the NFS Road 3000 at the Sarkar Old-growth Reserve (OGR) boundary, it is my decision to close the spur road that provides access into the OGR, as well as the spur that provides access into an area used for remote recreation. Closing these spurs will lessen the effects of the project on disturbance to wildlife and recreation users, and restore connectivity. The mainline road, and the road spurs which access development LUDs, will remain open.

Regarding NFS Road 30305, it is my decision to close the spurs roads off the 30305 road in this area. Regarding NFS Road 3035, it is my decision to keep this road open for subsistence uses and administrative access, and to close the spur roads off the 3035 road beyond the point identified by TNC. The mainline of the 30305 and 3035 roads will remain open, but by closing these spurs, there will be less effects to wildlife.

Although the partial cutting as proposed for the “Conservation Alternative” instead of clearcutting may have less impact to wildlife connectivity, it would negatively affect long-term timber management objectives in an area designated for timber management. The IDT determined that the proposed partial cutting by helicopter in the “Conservation Alternative” may reduce the long-term timber management opportunities in the project area. If an area is roaded, and the stand is suitable for conventional logging systems, units were completely dropped to meet wildlife and watershed objectives. That way, the option to do even-aged harvest in the future is maintained and the near-term disruption to wildlife is less.

The primary difference between the partial-harvest prescriptions in the “Conservation Alternative” from the partial-harvest prescriptions proposed by the IDT is that the TNC proposes using a designation-by-diameter approach where the trees to be retained or cut is based only on their diameter. The prescriptions in the Logjam FEIS are based on individually designating the trees based on many characteristics. The long-term objectives can be better met by individually designating the trees. However, the designation-by-diameter prescription may be considered during implementation in response to markets or other information.

Table R-1
Comparison of Alternative Design and Issues by Alternative, Including the Selected Alternative

aIndicated bid value--Adjusted Indicated Bid Values that include additional rock haul costs can be found in Chapter 3, Issue 3.
b Logging Cost: The harvesting and transportation costs for an operator of average efficiency.
c Road Cost: Estimated average cost of new road construction, existing road reconstruction and maintenance.
dAnnualized jobs per MMBF based on net sawlog volume sold.
e The 600-foot “affected area” for timber harvest is based on how the roadless inventory was completed for the 2003 Forest Plan SEIS and the 2008 Forest Plan Amendment. This added acreage around each unit accounts for impacts indirectly affecting nearby acres through sound travel, visual disturbance and possible limited access.
Source: GIS; NEAT_R v. 2.15, 3rd Qtr. 2007 as adjusted for increased costs for additional rock haul

The 2008 Forest Plan Amendment was completed with the signing of the Record of Decision (ROD) on January 23, 2008. Logjam is a Category 3 project as listed in the Transition to the Amended Forest Plan which includes “Timber sale projects for which a Draft Environmental Impact Statement has not been released for public comment before the effective date of this Plan. These projects shall be based on the amended Plan and will be consistent with all applicable management direction.” Forest Plan Record of Decision, p. 70.

I have determined that this Decision and the Logjam Final EIS are consistent with the decision for the 2008 Forest Plan Amendment.

The ROD for the 2008 Forest Plan Amendment adopts the Timber Sale Program Adaptive Management Strategy, under which portions of the suitable land base become available for project-level planning in three phases. The Logjam project area is within the Phase 1 portion of the suitable land base with the exception of Unit 573-02, which is in the Phase 2 landbase of the Adaptive Management Strategy. However, timber production acres in Phase 2 can be designed for personal use timber, micro sales, salvage sales, and small commercial timber sales generally less than 1 MMBF. Accordingly, Unit 573-02 will be reserved for small sales, less than 1 MMBF, to be offered at some future date, as allowed by the Timber Sale Program Adaptive Management Strategy (2008 Forest Plan Record of Decision, pg. 65)

Public involvement has been instrumental in identifying issues and creating alternatives for this project and assisting me in making a more-informed decision for the Logjam Timber Sale project. Public meetings, Federal Register notices, newspaper ads, government-to-government consultation, group and individual meetings, and the Tongass National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions were used to seek input for this project. See Chapter 1 of the Logjam Final EIS for information and timing of public involvement activities. A complete list of all members of the public, groups, and agencies that received a copy of the Draft EIS for review is in Chapter 4, Logjam Draft EIS.

Comments received regarded subsistence, roads and access, wildlife species and habitat (especially deer and wolf), fish, cumulative effects, roadless areas, wilderness, timber supply, demand and economics, karst and caves, soil stability, water quality, wetlands, old-growth habitat and reserves, recreation, harvest methods and prescription, and windthrow. Responses to these comments are in Appendix B of the Logjam Final EIS.

Throughout the planning period for this project, and other timber harvest projects, deliberate and candid dialogue also occurred with a group representing local, regional, and national stakeholders, known as the Tongass Futures Roundtable. From the website www.tongassfutures.net: “The Roundtable brings together a diverse group of stakeholders long involved in the Tongass to discuss how to incorporate our economic, cultural, and ecological values in public policy issues throughout the region. The Roundtable seeks to explore how a broad range of stakeholders can address these public policy issues and work together to achieve a long-term balance of healthy and diverse communities, vibrant economies, responsible use of resources including timber, while maintaining the natural values and ecological integrity of the forest.” During discussion with the Roundtable, I encouraged participants, and the group as a whole, to offer alternatives for consideration on this project early in the process.

Project Record
The project record for this project includes the Draft EIS and Final EIS, Forest Plan, all material incorporated by reference and other critical materials produced during the environmental analysis of this project. The project record is available for review at the Thorne Bay Ranger District.

As a project-specific measure, the use of non-pyritic rock such as basalts and limestone for road surfacing and road construction will minimize effects on pH and dissolved metals concentrations in streams on the project area, especially from the full-bench section of the 3030710-2 Road, as described on the road card in Appendix 2.

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) of 1980; Section 810
Subsistence Evaluation and Findings: A subsistence evaluation was conducted for the five alternatives, in accordance with Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) Section 810. ANILCA 810 subsistence hearings were conducted in Thorne Bay, Coffman Cove, and Craig, Alaska on April 27, 28, and 29, 2009, respectively.

The evaluation concluded that the Selected Alternative will not have a significant possibility of a significant restriction of subsistence uses for bear, furbearers, marine mammals, waterfowl, salmon, other finfish, shellfish, and other foods such as berries and roots (Issue 2, Chapter 3, Subsistence section, in the Final EIS). However, this evaluation indicates that the potential foreseeable effects from the Selected Alternative may have a significant possibility of a significant restriction of subsistence use of deer.

This was based on the Forest Plan cumulative effects analysis of resource development on subsistence resources. Based on that analysis, the decision on the Forest Plan concluded that “implementation of the Forest Plan may result in a significant restriction to subsistence use of deer due to the potential effects of projects on the abundance and distribution of these resources, and on competition for these resources” (p. 60).

Necessary and Consistent with Sound Management of Public Lands: The Selected Alternative has been examined to determine whether it is necessary and consistent with sound management of public lands. In this regard, the National Forest Management Act, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, the Tongass Timber Reform Act, the Wilderness Act, the Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan, the Alaska State Forest Resources and Practices Act, and the Alaska Coastal Zone Management Program have been considered. Based on the analysis presented in the Logjam FEIS, the findings in this ROD and the analysis for the Forest Plan, I have determined that the Selected Alternative strikes a balance between meeting the resource needs of the public and protecting the forest resources.

Amount of Public Land Necessary to Accomplish the Proposed Action: The amount of land necessary to implement the Selected Alternative is, considering sound multiple-use management of public lands, the minimum necessary to accomplish the purpose of this project. The entire forested portion of the Tongass is used by at least one rural community for subsistence purposes for, at a minimum, deer hunting. It is not possible to avoid all of these areas in implementing resource use activities, such as timber harvesting and road construction, and attempting to reduce effects in some areas can mean increasing the use of others. The current Forest-wide standards and guidelines and LUD prescriptions provide for management or limit activities in many of the areas most important for subsistence uses, such as beaches and estuaries, and areas with high fish and wildlife habitat values.

Reasonable Steps to Minimize Adverse Impacts to Subsistence Uses and Resources: Subsistence use is addressed specifically in a Forest-wide standard and guideline, and subsistence resources are covered by the Forest-wide standards and guidelines for wildlife, fish, riparian areas, and biological diversity, among others. Fish and wildlife habitat productivity will be maintained at the highest level possible for the Selected Alternative, consistent with the overall multiple-use goals and improved protection of the Forest Plan.

Bald Eagle Protection Act
The Selected Alternative complies with the Bald Eagle Protection Act. An Interagency Agreement between the Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) restricts management activities within 330 feet of an eagle nest site. No bald eagle nests have been located in the project area.

Clean Air Act of 1970 (as amended)
Emissions from the implementation of the Selected Alternative will be of short duration and are not expected to exceed State of Alaska ambient air quality standards (18 AAC 50).

Clean Water Act (1977, as amended)
Project activities meet all applicable State of Alaska Water Quality Standards. Congress intended the Clean Water Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-500) as amended in 1977 (Public Law 95-217) and 1987 (Public Law 100-4) to protect and improve the quality of water resources and maintain their beneficial uses. Section 313 of the Clean Water Act and Executive Order 12088 of January 23, 1987 addresses Federal agency compliance and consistency with water pollution control mandates. Agencies must be consistent with requirements that apply to "any governmental entity" or private person. Compliance is to be in line with "all Federal, State, interstate, and local requirements, administrative authority, and process and sanctions respecting the control and abatement of water pollution."

The Clean Water Act (Sections 208 and 319) recognized the need for control strategies for nonpoint source pollution. The National Nonpoint Source Policy (December 12, 1984), the Forest Service Nonpoint Strategy (January 29, 1985), and the USDA Nonpoint Source Water Quality Policy (December 5, 1986) provide a protection and improvement emphasis for soil and water resources and water-related beneficial uses. Soil and water conservation practices (BMPs) are recognized as the primary control mechanisms for nonpoint source pollution on National Forest System lands. The EPA supports this perspective in their guidance, "Nonpoint Source Controls and Water Quality Standards" (August 19, 1987).

The Forest Service must apply BMPs that are consistent with the Alaska Forest Resources and Practices Act (AFRPA) to achieve Alaska Water Quality Standards. The site-specific application of BMPs, with a monitoring and feedback mechanism, is the approved strategy for controlling nonpoint source pollution as defined by Alaska’s Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Strategy (2007). In 1997, the State approved the BMPs in the Forest Service Soil and Water Conservation Handbook (FSH 2509.22, October 1996) as consistent with AFRPA. This handbook is incorporated by reference into the Forest Plan and this project.

A discharge of dredge or fill material from normal silvicultural activities such as harvesting for the production of forest products is exempt from Section 404 permitting requirements in waters of the United States, including wetlands (404(f)(1)(A). Forest roads qualify for this exemption only if they are constructed and maintained in accordance with BMPs to assure that flow and circulation patterns and chemical and biological characteristics of the waters are not impaired (404)(f)(1)(E). The BMPs that must be followed are specified in 33 CFR 323.4(a). These specific BMPs are incorporated into the Soil and Water Conservation Handbook under BMP 12.5.

The design of harvest units for the Selected Alternative was guided by standards, guidelines and direction in the Forest Plan and applicable Forest Service Manuals and Handbooks. The unit cards and road cards (Appendices 1 and 2) contain specific details on practices prescribed to prevent or reduce nonpoint sediment sources.

Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972 (as amended)
Under the Coastal Zone Managment Act, Federal activities that affect any land or water use or any natural resource of the coastal zone must be conducted in a manner that is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the applicable state coastal management program. On December 4, 2006, the State of Alaska issued a final consistency response concurring with the Forest Service's General Consistency Determination (GCD) for Tongass National Forest Timber Sales (State I.D. No. AK 0608-10J). Under this GCD, all timber harvest and associated activities conducted on the Tongass National Forest - except for those that require State or Federal permits - have been determined to be consistent with the enforceable policies of the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP). The Selected Alternative for the Logjam project area does not include any activities that require a State or Federal permit. Accordingly, it is entirely within the scope of the GCD. Consequently, no individual consistency determination or review is required.

Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (as amended)
A biological assessment was prepared and sent to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as part of the Section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act. USFWS and NMFS concurred with the findings of “not likely to adversely affect” the federally listed species. The biological assessment is included in the project record.

Federal Cave Resource Protection Act of 1988
There are occurrences of carbonate rock and associated cave resources in the Logjam project area. Field reconnaissance identified areas of concern. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines will provide protection of these areas. The activities of the Selected Alternative will not have a direct, indirect, or cumulative effect on any significant cave in the Logjam project area.

Forest Service Transportation Final Administrative Policy (Roads Rule)
The Final EIS and this ROD are prepared to be consistent with the Forest Service Transportation Final Administrative Policy and the Tongass National Forest Level Road Analysis (January 2003), Prince of Wales Road Analysis (August 2005) and the Logjam Project level analysis (October 2008). I have determined that the proposed road system is “the minimum road system needed for safe and efficient travel and for administration, utilization, and protection of National Forest System lands" (36 CFR 212.5).

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
The potential effects of the project on Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) were included in Chapter 3 of the Draft EIS. This discussion includes reference to the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation Act that requires the Forest Service to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service on projects that may affect EFH. It also includes a description of the EFH in the project area, a description of the proposed activities, and a description of the measures that will protect these essential habitats.

The Draft EIS was provided to the National Marine Fisheries Service to formally initiate the consultation process according to the agreement dated June 26, 2007 between the Forest Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. NMFS concurred with the findings (January 20 2009) that the Logjam Timber Sale may adversely affect EFH because of cumulative effects of past harvest and provided conservation recommendations. The Forest Service responded to the recommendations and prescribed project-specific mitigation measures regarding the acid rock drainage that resulted from the Forest Highway Project. NMFS responded to the new information and mitigation measures, concurred that the mitigation measures would minimize effects to EFH, and provided no new conservation recommendations. This satisfies the EFH consultation requirement based on the 2007 Agreement with NMFS.

These recommendations and the responses are located in the project record and summarized in the Final EIS. Information on the mitigation measures and applicable Standards and Guidelines to minimize effects to EFH are discussed in Chapter 3 of the Final EIS and Appendices 1 and 2 of this ROD. A copy of the Final EIS will be sent to NMFS.

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972
Actions authorized in the Selected Alternative will not have a direct, indirect, or cumulative effect on marine mammals. Marine mammal viewing guidelines administered by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and enforced by the Coast Guard are sufficient for their protection. Contractors, purchasers and employees will be required to follow provisions on Marine Wildlife Guidelines, including special prohibitions on approaching humpback whales in Alaska as defined in 50 CFR 224.103. NMFS administers the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), which prohibits the “take” of all marine mammal species in U.S. waters. “Take” is defined as “to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.” Harassment is defined in the MMPA as “any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild; or has the potential to disturb a marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavior patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering.”

National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 (as amended)
The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires specific determinations in the Record of Decision: consistency with existing Forest Plans, a determination of clearcutting as the optimal method of harvesting, if used, and specific authorizations to create openings over 100 acres in size. Information and rationale used to develop unit prescriptions is shown on unit cards (Appendix 1 of the ROD), in Chapter 3 of the Final EIS, and in the project record.

The Forest Plan (p. 4-71 to 4-72) and 1997 Forest Plan EIS (Appendix G, p. G-7 to G-9) give guidance on when to use even-aged management. Clearcutting (an even-aged method) is used in this project to preclude or minimize the occurrence of potentially adverse impacts from wind where the wind damage potential is moderate to high. Clearcutting is also used to remove or reduce mistletoe infestations, logging damage or other factors affecting forest health. Specific information and rationale for use of this prescription is shown in the silvicultural prescriptions (which are a part of the project record), in the introduction to the unit cards and in the individual unit cards (ROD Appendix 1), and in Chapter 3 of the Final EIS. Where used, this prescription has been deemed optimal related to site-specific considerations as described above.

Unit 577-25 will result in a 106-acre even-aged management stand. Even-aged management stands, Units 577-17 (82 acres) and 577-18 (46 acres), are connected by an approximate 800-foot corridor. Unit 573-01 (102 acres) may or may not create an opening larger than 100 acres at time of implementation.

These unit designs best utilize the topography and available logging system to avoid the isolation of suitable timber, allow for the location of windfirm boundaries and allow a reduced cost of preparation, logging and administration of harvest activities. This complies with the direction in the Forest Plan pages 4-72 and FSM 2400-2002-1. The effects of these created openings were considered in the analysis for the Selected Alternative.

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (as amended)
Heritage resource surveys of various intensities were conducted in the analysis area in accordance with the Regional Inventory Strategy. A finding of “no historic properties affected” was recommended for all alternatives for the Logjam project. Under the terms of the existing Programmatic Agreement with the Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (USDA FS 2002, as amended 2007) “the Forest may proceed with the undertaking in lieu of a consensus determination of eligibility pursuant to 36 CFR 800.4”. New information regarding a cultural site in a proposed harvest unit became known after analysis, completion of the EIS and public comment. This new information will be evaluated when snow cover allows. If necessary, mitigation of effects will be achieved by dropping acreage from the unit. The "no historic properties affected" determination will be retained. The State Historic Preservation Office was consulted April 14, 2009. SHPO concurs with this strategy.

Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA) of 1990
Forest Plan Riparian Standards and Guidelines apply to the Selected Alternative, and no commercial timber harvest will occur within 100 feet of any Class I stream or any Class II stream flowing directly into a Class I stream, as required in Section 103 of the TTRA. The design and implementation direction for the Selected Alternative incorporates best management practices (BMPs) and Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for the protection of all stream classes.

Timber harvested under the Selected Alternative will provide part of the timber supply to the Tongass National Forest ’s timber program as stated in Section 101 of TTRA - “… the Secretary shall, 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 which (1) meets the annual market demand for timber from such forest and (2) meets the annual market demand from such forest for each planning cycle.”

Executive Orders

Executive Order 11988 (Floodplains)
Executive Order 11988 directs Federal agencies to take action to avoid, to the extent possible, the long- and short-term adverse effects associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains. The numerous streams in the Logjam project area make it essentially impossible to avoid all floodplains during timber harvest and road construction. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines limit riparian harvest to the extent feasibile to facilitate road construction and logging operations. The amount of road in floodplains will be minimized whenever possible as stated in the BMPs. Roads may be constructed in or through floodplains subject to the design requirements of the BMPs.

Executive Order 11990 (Wetlands)
Executive Order 11990 requires Federal agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, the long- and short-term adverse effects associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands. Techniques and practices required by the Forest Service serve to maintain the wetland attributes including values and functions. There will be minimal loss of wetlands with the Selected Alternative, primarily due to road construction. In some areas, soil moisture regime and vegetation composition or structure may be altered; however, these altered acres would still be classified as wetlands and functions as wetlands in the ecosystem.

Road construction through wetlands is avoided to the extent practicable. Where wetlands cannot be avoided, road construction will adhere to State-approved BMPs, which include at a minimum the Federal baseline provisions in 33 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) 323.

Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)
Executive Order 12898 directs Federal agencies to address whether a disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental impact on minority populations, low-income populations, or Indian tribes is likely to result from the proposed action and any alternatives. Although the surrounding communities do include low-income and minority households, no disproportional adverse effects are expected to occur solely to those people. Efforts were made during the public participation process to inform everyone of the project and possible effects through notices in local papers, local meetings, and contacting tribal governments.

The Executive Order directs agencies to consider patterns of subsistence hunting and fishing when an agency action may affect fish or wildlife. Although low-income and minority people are not the sole users of these resources in Alaska, the effects of these resources are addressed in Chapter 3 of the Final EIS. A discussion of acid rock drainage, which has resulted from another project, has been added to the Final EIS; no public water supplies or known drinking water sources will be affected.

Executive Order 12962 (Aquatic Systems, Recreational Fisheries)
Executive Order 12962 requires Federal agencies to evaluate the effects of proposed activities on aquatic systems and recreational fisheries. The Selected Alternative minimizes the effects on aquatic systems through project design, application of standards and guidelines, BMPs, and site-specific mitigation measures. In the Selected Alternative, recreational fishing opportunities would remain essentially the same as the current condition because aquatic habitats are protected through implementation of BMPs and riparian buffers.

Executive Order 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites)
Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites, provides presidential direction to Federal agencies to give consideration to the protection of American Indian sacred sites and allow access where feasible. In a government-to-government relationship, the tribal government is responsible for notifying the agency of the existence of a sacred site. A sacred site is defined as a site that has sacred significance due to established religious beliefs or ceremonial uses, and which has a specific, discrete, and delineated location that has been identified by the tribe. Tribal governments or their authorized representatives have not identified any specific sacred site locations in the project area.

Executive Order 13112 (Invasive Species)
Executive Order 13112 requires Federal agencies (in part) to evaluate whether the proposed activities will affect the status of invasive species; and to not carry out activities that promote the introduction or spread of invasive species unless it has determined that the benefits of such action outweigh the potential harm caused by invasive species; and that all feasible and prudent measure to minimize risk of harm will be taken in conjunction with the actions. The Selected Alternative implements specific measures to minimize the introduction and spread of invasive species.

Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments)
Executive Order 13175 directs Federal agencies to respect tribal self-government, sovereignty, and tribal rights, and to engage in regular and meaningful government-to-government consultation with tribes on proposed actions with tribal implications.

The Heritage Resource Report (R2008100554056) was sent for review and consultation on October 24, 2008. The report was sent to the Klawock Cooperative Association, the Craig Community Association, the Hydaburg Cooperative Association, the Organized Village of Kasaan, the Wrangell Cooperative Association, the Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, Sealaska Corporation, and Sealaska Heritage Institute. No responses were received from that review. The Logjam EIS was described and discussed at an Island-Wide Tribal/FS meeting in Klawock on April 3, 2009. No concerns were raised at this meeting. Tribal consultation does not imply that the tribes endorse the Selected Action or any of the alternatives.

Executive Order 13186 (Migratory Birds)
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (amended in 1936 and 1972) prohibits the taking of migratory birds, unless authorized by the Secretary of Interior. The law provides the primary mechanism to regulate waterfowl hunting seasons and bag limits, but its scope is not just limited to waterfowl. The migratory species that may stay in the area utilize most, if not all, of the habitats described in the analysis for breeding, nesting, and raising their young. The effects on these habitats were analyzed for this project.

The decision will not have a significant direct, indirect, or cumulative effect on any migratory bird species in the project area. There may be direct moderate effects on individuals or small groups and their nests from the harvest of timber or the disturbance caused by harvest and related activities.

Executive Order 13443 (Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation)
Executive Order 13443 directs Federal agencies to facilitate the expansion and enhancement of hunting opportunities and the management of game species and their habitat. The analysis considered and disclosed the effects on hunting activities. The Selected Alternative will maintain the current hunting opportunities by adhering to the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines that maintain habitat for hunted species.

Federal and State Permits

Federal and State permits necessary to implement the authorized activities are listed at the end of Chapter 1 in the Final EIS.

Implementation Process

Implementation of this decision may occur no sooner than 50 days, following publication of the legal notice of the decision in the Ketchikan Daily News, the newspaper of record, published in Ketchikan, Alaska.

Timber harvest activities in the project area will take place on lands found suitable for timber production under provisions of the National Forest Management Act. The timber may be offered in one or more sales.
This project will be implemented in accordance with Forest Service Manual (FSM) and Forest Service Handbook (FSH) direction for Timber Sale Project Implementation in FSM 2430 and FSH 2409.18. This direction provides a bridge between project planning and implementation and will ensure execution of the actions, environmental standards, and mitigations approved by this decision, and compliance with the TTRA and other laws. All applicable best management practices (BMPs) will be applied to the Selected Alternative.
Implementation of all activities authorized by this Record of Decision will be monitored to ensure that they are carried out as planned and described in the Final EIS.

Appendices 1 and 2 to this Record of Decision contain the unit and road cards for the Selected Alternative. These cards are an integral part of this decision because they document the specific resource concerns, management objectives, and mitigation measures to govern the layout of the harvest units and construction of roads. These cards will be used during the implementation process to assure that all aspects of the project are implemented within applicable standards and guidelines and that resource effects will not be greater than those described in the Final EIS. Similar cards will be updated to document any changes to the planned unit and road cards, which may occur during implementation. Any proposed changes to the design, location, standards and guidelines, or other mitigation measures for the project will also be documented at time of implementation.

Process for Change During Implementation

Proposed changes to the authorized project actions will be subject to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Forest Management Act of 1976, Section 810 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, the Tongass Timber Reform Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, and other laws concerning such changes.

In determining whether and what kind of NEPA action is required for changes during implementation, the Forest Supervisor will consider the criteria in the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 1502.9(c)), and Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.15, sec. 18 and the Tongass National Forest Supplement to FSH 1909.15, sec. 18 to determine whether to supplement or revise the Logjam Environmental Impact Statement. The Forest Supervisor will determine whether the proposed change is a substantial change to the Selected Alternative as planned and already approved, and whether the change is relevant to environmental concerns. Connected or interrelated changes to particular areas or specific activities will be considered together in making this determination. The cumulative impacts of these changes will also be considered.

Minor changes are expected during implementation to better meet on-site resource management and protection objectives. Minor adjustments to unit boundaries are also likely during final layout to improve logging system efficiency. This will usually entail adjusting the boundary to coincide with logical logging setting boundaries. Changes made during implementation will be reviewed, documented, and approved by the Responsible Official.

Right to Appeal

This decision is subject to administrative review (appeal) pursuant to Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 215. Individuals or organizations who submitted comments during the comment period specified at CFR 215.6 may appeal this decision. The notice of appeal must be in writing, meet the appeal content requirements at CFR 215.14 and be filed with the Appeal Deciding Officer:

Denny Bschor, Regional Forester
Alaska Region
US Department of Agriculture
709 W. 9th Street P.O. Box 21628 Juneau, AK 99802-1628

The Notice of Appeal, including attachments, must be filed (regular mail, fax, e-mail express delivery or messenger service) with the Appeal Deciding Officer at the correct location within 45 calendar days of the date that the legal notification of this decision is published in the Ketchikan Daily News, the official newspaper of record. The publication date in the newspaper of record is the exclusive means for calculating the time to file an appeal. Those wishing to appeal this decision should not rely upon dates or timeframe information provided by any other source.

Hand-delivered appeals will be accepted at the Regional Office during normal business hours (8:00 am through 4:30 pm) Monday through Friday, excluding holidays.

Implementation of decisions subject to appeal pursuant to 36 CFR Part 215, may occur on, but not before, 5 business days from the close of the appeal filing period, if no appeals are received.

For additional information concerning this decision, contact Jason Anderson, District Ranger, Thorne Bay Ranger District, P.O. Box 51, Thorne Bay, AK 99919, or call (907) 828-3304.

Tongass National Forest