Wrangell timber project EIS up for review

The Tongass National Forest supervisor's office announced last week the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) and draft record of decision (ROD) for a prospective timber sale are now available for public review.

Put together by United States Forest Service staff over the past decade, the Wrangell Island Project would open up federal forest for largely selective harvest. Five alternative plans were ultimately presented during the course of its design, with the one selected including the largest acreage for harvest and greatest timber volume.

Supervisor M. Earl Stewart explained in a media release his intention to select Alternative 2 from the FEIS. One of five options outlined in the project packet, including one "no action" alternative, Alternative 2 would make approximately 55,770,000 board feet of timber available, of which over 90 percent would be sawtimber and the rest utility.

The harvest would affect 4,767 acres of USFS-managed land on Wrangell Island. Harvest methods for the selected timber would be by both partial and clear-cut methods, involving helicopters for two-thirds of the logs' extraction. Nearly 3,360 acres would be selectively harvested, while the rest would be clearcut using conventional methods.

As outlined in the alternative, 16.8 miles of National Forest System roads would be constructed for the project. An additional 9.9 miles of temporary road would be added, and 4.4 miles of existing roads would be reconditioned. During harvesting about 15.9 miles of NFS roads would be closed to public motorized use. Eighty-six miles of NFS road and 14.5 miles of motorized trail on the island would still be open to the public.

Alternative 2 is designed to harvest timber in the Timber Production and Modified Landscape land use designations (LUDs), providing timber volume opportunities for both large and small sales within a land base suitable under the 2016 Forest Plan. As proposed, the plan alternative includes harvest in the mill basin area and near Long Lake.

The harvest would focus entirely on old-growth forest, as no young-growth alternatives are mature enough for economical harvest at this time. In his ROD, Stewart explained Alternative 2 was picked to provide enough "bridge timber" needed to maintain the region's timber industry during the transition to young-growth management.

There are some drawbacks to the alternative, posed by economic conditions. Because it requires the highest degree of helicopter yarding of the five plans, Alternative 2 would under current export policy yield net losses in a sale. Under limited export, the timber would lose $59.23 per thousand board feet (MBF). If processed domestically, it is estimated the sale would lose $220.64 per MBF.

The ROD notes that financial analysis of a potential sale is based on past values and costs, and that actual economic values for the project will remain unknown until offered by competitive bid. In any case, timber sales must have a net positive appraisal value before they can be advertised, potentially delaying an actual harvest until market conditions improve.

Of the possible action alternatives, Alternative 2 is estimated to provide the highest number of jobs, supporting 222 annualized jobs, including logging, sawmilling, transportation and other services.

The ROD concedes Alternative 5 would have had the least overall effect on wildlife habitat, besides the non-action alternative. It would have called for more extensive use of partial harvest, but would have yielded about 30 percent less timber volume than Alternative 2. In the preferred plan, harvest unit designs provide for elevational travel corridors where possible. Known or suspected heron rookeries or raptor nests would be protected with no-harvest buffers.

Individuals or organizations who had already submitted specific written comments regarding the proposed project during designated opportunities for public comment may file objections to this draft decision. Issues raised in objections must be based on previously submitted, timely, specifically-written comments regarding the proposed project unless based on new information arising after previous designated opportunities. Objections must be in writing, and be filed with the reviewing officer: Beth Pendleton, Regional Forester USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region 709 W. 9th Street P.O. Box 21628 Juneau, AK 99802-1628. Objections can also be emailed to objections-alaska-regional-office@fs.fed.us, or faxed to 907-586-7840. A complete copy of the draft ROD can be found at http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/11558/www/nepa/75452_FSPLT3_4035388.pdf.