USFS open house highlights timber sale alternatives

The local district of the United States Forest Service invited public comment on different options for a proposed timber sale on Monday.

An open house was held at the Wrangell Ranger District office to discuss five alternatives put forward in the project's draft environmental impact statement (DEIS), released at the beginning of this month.

Of four action alternatives and a no-action alternative being proposed, the district expressed its support for Alternative 2, which would see the harvest of 65.1 million board feet (MMBF) across 5,309 acres of land on the island.

Under Alternative 2, approximately 3,528 acres would be partially harvested, close to a third of the total volume. The remaining acreage would be clearcut. Harvesting would be achieved using conventional cable, shovel and helicopter logging systems.

The project also recommends construction of approximately 32 miles of road, with about 15 to be decommissioned after harvest. Five miles of new road would become part of the permanent system, and six miles of off-road vehicular trail would be added.

Ranger Bob Dalrymple and staff specialists met with Wrangell residents at the open house to answer questions and address any concerns with the envisioned sale. Coinciding with Monday's open house, environmental watch group Southeast Alaska Conservation Council issued a statement critical of the Wrangell Island sale being proposed.

"We were confused by the preferred alternative," commented Emily Ferry, acting executive director for the group.

SEACC had worked with Wrangell Resource Council five years ago to put forward a plan which called for the harvest of 2,000,000 board feet annually over a 30-year timeframe. Dubbed the "Small Mill and Wildlife Alternative," it emphasized use of the existing road system and maintaining the island's deer population throughout the process.

"We were disappointed to see that wasn't even considered," said Ferry.

SEACC was also critical of the timber sale proposal's impact on wildlife, citing its projected effects on deer, fish and other wildlife. The DEIS identifies Alternative 2 as the proposal with the greatest effect, both to the surrounding scenery and the winter habitat for local species. The group viewed unfavorably the proposal's inclusion of the Thoms Creek area for harvest. The salmon producing stream shares a value comparison unit (VCU) with Skip Creek, which is included in the harvest area.

At Monday's open house, USFS hydrologist Karen Endres explained Skip Creek does not share the same watershed with Thoms, however, and that streams classified as fish-producing are afforded a riparian buffer in an effort to minimize impact. The primary effects from logging to salmon in particular comes from increased runoff, which raises sediment levels and peak flow for spawning rivers. Roads to be built to facilitate the sale would cross Class I fish-producing streams two times, though secondary and tertiary streams would be crossed more often than under other proposals.

Attendees to the meeting also were present to share concerns. At the subsistence meeting held directly after the open house, resident David Rak expressed his concerns for the island's deer population. Though also an employee of USFS, as a longtime resident and hunter he wanted to let the district know the scale of the harvest and the prospective timeline could pose a threat to his subsistence.

As a reference, he pointed out that from 1954 to the present some 7,200 acres of National Forest land had been logged from the island. In contrast, nearly two-thirds that amount would be harvested in as few as three or four years and as long as a decade under Alternative 2.

"That level of impact is too great and would harm my access to subsistence deer harvest," Rak commented.

Another criticism of the plan SEACC put forward is that the four action alternatives are economically infeasible according to USFS' own figures, running at a loss to taxpayers.

According to the DEIS, road construction under Alternative 2 itself would cost around $5,400,000. Under current allowable export rates, the DEIS estimates the sale's indicated advertised rate could run at a total net loss of between $3,720,000 and $14,212,000.

On that issue, USFS forester Nate Stern explained that on a conceptual level Alternative 2 demonstrated how much wood could be supplied within current forest management guidelines. The area's parceling out and the timeframe over which it would be harvested would depend on market conditions. While currently the sale would not pay for itself, Stern pointed out that may not be the case later, but that the Forest Service was bound not to proceed with advertising a sale at a loss.

"If it doesn't then we'd have to hold out until better market conditions," he said.

Even if the sale were to proceed at a net positive, Ferry pointed out current export policy for Region 10 allows for the shipping out of up to half of harvested spruce and hemlock, and potentially all red and yellow cedar, without value-added manufacturing done locally.

"If you are going to cut trees you might as well get some jobs out of it," she commented. She expressed hope that the USFS reconsiders its current proposal, redesigning the sale instead to better suit the local market rather than an export-driven one.

Appendix A of the DEIS lays out the market approach of the Department of Agriculture, of which USFS is a component. While foreign exports remain a component of the demand for local timber, the department emphasizes the importance of assisting the diversification and development of the forestry sector in Southeast Alaska. As an example, it cites investment of over $1,000,000 in the Southeast Alaska Cluster Initiative since 2010.

A copy of the 314-page DEIS as well as a full complement of tables, maps, and other data related to the sale are available to view at http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=34831. The public comment period ends on July 18, and members of the public are encouraged to reply. Written comments may be submitted via e-mail to comments-alaska-tongass-wrangell@fs.fed.us, with 'Wrangell Island Project' in the subject line. These can also be faxed to 874-7595, or mailed to Ranger Robert Dalrymple, Wrangell Ranger District, PO Box 51, Wrangell, AK 99929.