Table Of Content

Historic, Archive Document Do not assume content reflects current scientific knowledge, policies, or practices. aSb 1? - i3 it Alaska Pulp United States Department of Agriculture Corporation Long-Term Forest Service Tongass National Forest Timber Sale Contract R10-MB-139 June 1991 Kelp Bay Draft Environmental Impact Statement Summary Summary Overview of Project In compliance with Federaland State regulations, theU.S. Forest Service has preparedthis draftEnvironmental Impact Statement (DraftEIS) on theeffects ofimplementing the provisionsoftheAlaskaPulp Corporation Long-Term Timber SaleContract Number 12-11- 010-1545 in theKelp Bay Project Area. The National EnvironmentalPolicy Act(NEPA) requires that (1) arange ofalternatives forachieving theproject’s goal beput forth, (2) an analysis oftheenvironmental impacts ofeach alternativebe conducted, (3) measures to mitigate adverse impactsbediscussed, and finally, (4) the views ofinterested members of thepublicbe soughtand incorporated into the final plan. This DraftEIS accomplishes the first three objectives. The process ofachieving thefinal objective-seeking public interests and concerns-began with the issuance on March 1, 1990oftheNotice ofIntent toproceed with theprojectandconduct the environmentalanalysis. Public scoping was conducted during March and April in 1990to define the issues to be addressed in the DraftEIS. After this DraftEIS is published,a45-day public commentperiod will take place during which written and verbal commentson the alternatives willbe sought. During this same time, subsistence hearings, asrequired by the Alaska National InterestLands Conservation Act of 1980, willbe held in Sitkaand Angoon, to hearfrom those whose subsistence use ofre- sources may be affectedbyproposed activities. Purpose and Need for Action Thepurpose ofthe Kelp Bay Project is to make timberavailable in accordance with the AlaskaPulp Corporation Long-Term Timber Sale Contractand applicable laws and regulations such as theNational Forest Management Act, NationalEnvironmental Policy Act, and the Tongass TimberReform Act. Theactionsanalyzed in this DraftEIS aredesigned to implementdirection contained in theTongassLandManagementPlan (TLMP). The environmental effects considered in this analysis includethe effects oftimberharvestand roadconstruction on otherresources. Opportunities forenhancement offish and wildlife habitatandrecreational opportunitiesassociated with each alternative have alsobeen identified. Based on the environmentalanalysis, theResponsibleOfficial (Michael A. Barton,Regional Forester, U. S. Forest Service, AlaskaRegion) will decide whetherandhow to maketimber available from theKelp Bay ProjectAreato meet contractual timbercommitments. His decisions will include: KelpBay DraftEIS printed on 50% recycled paper SUMMARY 1 Summary How much volume to make available under thecontract in this area in one or more “timber offerings;’’ • The location anddesign oftimber harvestunits; • The location and design ofmainlineand localroad systems; • The location anddesign ofLog TransferFacilities (LTFs); • Necessary standards and guidelines, mitigation measures, and enhancement opportunities forresourcesother than timber, and • Whetherthere may be a significantrestriction on subsistence lifestyles. Affected Area The Kelp BayProject area is located in the northeastcornerofBaranofIsland, approxi- mately 25 air miles northeast ofSitka, and about 65 airmiles southwestofJuneau. The ProjectAreaencompasses the following Management Areas (MA) and VCUs described in the TongassLand ManagementPlan; apart ofMA C-41, whichare VCUs 293 and 294; MA C-42, which is VCU 295; and, MA C-43, which includes VCUs 296, 297, 298, 314, and315 (Figure 1-1 in Chapter 1). Documents Availability of Documents upon which this DraftEIS wasbased,as well as files andplanning records which are incorporatedby reference into the Draft EIS, areavailable forreview during regular business hours at theU.S. Forest Service,Tongass NationalForest, Chatham Area, 204 SiginakaWay, Sitka, Alaska. A limited numberoftheDraftEIS are availableon request. Background In 1956, theForest Serviceand AlaskaLumberand Pulp, now the AlaskaPulp Corporation (APC), enteredinto a timbersale contract fora 50-yearperiod between 1961 and 2011. Between 1971 and 1990, the Forest Service specificallyplanned and authorized logging, road construction, and relatedactivities for successive 5-yearperiods. TheForest Service deter- minedthat these 5-yearOperating Plans were majorFederal actions significantly affecting the human environment, thus requiring preparation ofan EIS underNEPA. EISs have been prepared for5-yearperiods from 1976 to 1990. During the 1980s, aseries ofcourtchallenges interrupted implementation ofthe 1981 to 1986 and 1986 to 1990 APC Long-Term Timber Sale ContractEISs. During this time, controversy over management ofthe Tongass NationalForestalsobecamea national issue. In August 1989, the Forest Serviceand the APC renegotiated the termsofthe APC contract. Theresult was two importantchanges in the methodofenvironmental analysis for the 1990s: (1) the Forest Service isrequired to designate individual operating areas within the contractarea boundary, and (2) minimum and maximum limits havebeen set forthe timbervolume tobe 2 SUMMARY Kelp Bay DraftEIS Summary madeavailable each year to the APC from all operating areas. For the period 1991 through 1996, the minimum volumeavailableeach year wouldbe 240 million boardfeet (MMBF). After 1996, the minimum volume rises to 360MMBFavailable on an annual basis. TheTongassTimberReform Act, signed into law on November28, 1990, makescertain unilateralchanges in the long-term timbersalecontract with APC to make it more consistent with independent national foresttimbersaleprograms. These changes will ensurethat: • Timber sale planning and environmental assessments regarding thecontracts will be consistent with procedures forindependent national foresttimbersales; • Harvestinga disproportionate amountofold-growth timber will berestricted; • All timberofferings undereach contractwill be substantially harvested within 3 years, unless delayedby thirdparty litigation; • TheResponsible Official will determine the location and size oftimbersale units and the timing oftimberharvest; • APC mayreject timberoffered under the contract; • Utility logs offered underthecontracts are counted against contract volumerequire- ments; • Purchaserroad credits are providedin a mannerconsistent with independent national forest timbersaleprocedures; • Thepriceoftimberoffered under thecontracts is adjusted to be comparable with thatofindependent national forest timbersales; and • Timberoffered underthe contracts meetseconomic criteriaconsistent with that of independent National forest timbersales. In addition, theTongass TimberReform Act requires that abuffer zonebeestablishedofno less than 100 feet in width on each sideofallClass I streams andon Class II streams that flow directly into a Class I stream in theTongass National Forest. Class I streams provide habitat to anadromous fish and Class II streamsprovide habitat forresident fish. Commer- cial timber harvesting isprohibited within these buffers. Finally, Best ManagementPrac- ticesas defined in theForest Service Region 10 Soil and WaterConservation Handbook (Forest Service, 1990e) will be used to protect riparian habitat on streams orportions of streams notprotected by such buffer zones. Underthese changes mandatedby court decisions and law, timber is madeavailable for harvest from smaller, contiguousoperating areas. This is in contrast to preparing asingle EIS for the entire contract areaas had previously been the case for the5-yearoperating periods. The Kelp Bay Project Area was scheduled to be the first to be analyzedbecause (1) it was notbeing consideredin legislation forwilderness orspecialLUD IIdesignation; (2) sufficienttime had elapsed sincethe earlier harvests in the Project Area, (3) fewerproblems forsubsistence users wereanticipated in this area than in others, and (4) the areaappeared to have sufficient volume to meet APC long-term contractcommitments. Kelp Bay DraftEIS SUMMARY 3 Summary Issues As aresultofpublic scoping meetingsand consultation with municipal. State, andFederal agencies, the following issues wereidentified as requiring analysis in the DraftEIS: 1. Social and Economic Stability - whateffects timber harvest activities will have on community employmentand income,population, community stability, and lifestyles. 2. WaterQuality and Fish Habitat - what effects harvestactivities will have on water quality in streams which provide habitatto anadromous andresident fish. 3. Subsistence - whetherproposed activities may significantly restrict theuse of wildlife,marinelife, andplants forsubsistencepurposes required under theAlaska National InterestLands Conservation Act. 4. Wildlife - how proposedactivities will affectkey wildlife species and the habitats required to maintain wildlife populations. 5. Scenic Quality - whetheractivities will negatively affect areas viewed from popular recreation use areas and marine travelroutes. 6. Recreation - how increased developmentwould change the remotecharacterofthe Kelp Bay Project Areawhich makes itattractive to visitors. 7. Marine Environment- how the location oflog transferfacilities, logging camps, andassociated log sort yards wouldaffect the marine environment. 8. Timber - how much timber isproposed forharvest, thecondition ofpreviously harvested stands, and theeconomic implication ofentry into new stands. Development of Alternatives At the heartofthe development ofthealternatives is aconceptknown as“New Perspec- tives.” NewPerspectives is an attempt through using new silvicultural strategies and re- evaluating old ones to mimic natural ecologicalprocesses. New perspectives looks at forestmanagementon two levels: (1) the landscape level, which may bea VCU, watershed, or viewshed; and (2) the stand level, which deals with individual harvest units. Some tools employed at the landscape level may include maintaining large tracts ofundisturbed old-growth by concentrating timberharvest in certain areas, minimizing the“edge-effect”by designing largerharvest units,and using beach fringeand stream buffers forcorridors between blocks ofold-growth wildlife habitat. Some tools employed atthe stand level may include reducing harsh edges by unitplacementand feathering edges of cutting units, looking foropportunities toretain small patches ofuncut timber in harvestunits (where feasible and practical), leaving snags in harvest units (where safety regulations allow), and using group selection cuts. All ofthese concepts were considered and used in final individual harvest unitandroad design and selection ofharvestunits for the alternatives. Which tools willbe used in which harvest unit will be determined at the time thedetailed silvicultural prescription is written foreach harvestunit. 4 SUMMARY Kelp Bay DraftEIS Summary Summary of Alternatives Five alternatives weredevelopedbased on public issues: fouraction alternatives and theNo- action Alternativeagainstwhich theothersare measured. Alternative 1 This is the No-action Alternative. This alternative would notmake additional timbervolume available from the Kelp BayProject Area for 1992. Italso assumes thata similartimber volume would notbe available from somewhere else within the APC Long-term Timber Sale Contract areafor 1992. Selection ofthis alternative would notallow the Forest Service to meet minimum contract volume requirements. Alternative 2 Under this alternative, new harvest would be distributed as widely aspossible throughoutthe Kelp BayProject Area. It confines harvestsolely to areas notprevious harvested. This approach seeks to minimize adverse impacts on non-timberresourcesby providing distance between harvest units. Implementation ofthis alternative would schedule harvestof5,094 MMBF acres in 130harvest units forapproximately 136,209 oftimber, with an average unit sizeof39 acres. Ten harvestareas wouldconsistofharvestunits orcombinations ofharvest units over 100acres. Under thisalternative, 90 milesofnew road would beconstructedand 30 miles ofroadwouldbe reconstructed along with seven LTFs. This wouldresult in an average of 1.1 MMBF/mile ofroad. Alternative 3 This alternative focuses developmentactivities in the VCUs adjacent toPeril Strait (except forLakeEvaVCU), while maintaining theprimitive and semi-primitive characterofCosmos Cove,The Basin, South Arm, Middle Arm, and the southern two-thirds ofCatherine Island andPortage Arm. Developmentactivities wouldbe concentrated in fewerVCUs. Underthis alternative,4,537 acres wouldbescheduled forharvest in 109 harvest units, forapproxi- MMBF mately 121,073 oftimber, indicating an average unit size of42 acres. Eleven harvest areas would consistofharvest units orcombinationsofharvest units over 100 acres. Sev- enty-two miles ofnew road wouldbe constructed and 23 miles would be reconstructedalong with threeLTFs. This would average out to 2.3 MMBF/mile ofroad. Alternative 4 Thisalternativeemphasizes protecting non-timberresources. Itprotects recreation and fisheries values in theTwin Lakes andLittleLakeEvaareas ofVCU 296 by deferring timber harvest. Only those activities which wouldresult in alow riskofadverse impacts wouldbe proposed. Implementationofthis alternative would schedule harvest of3,291 acres in 102 MMBF units forapproximately 86,355 oftimber,averaging 32 acres perunit size. Three harvestareas wouldconsistofharvestunits orcombinationsofharvest units over 100 acres. Forthis level ofharvest, 61 milesofnew road wouldbe constructed and 25 miles reconstructed along with six LTFs. This would result in an averageof 1.1 MMBF/mile ofroad. Kelp Bay DraftEIS SUMMARY 5 Summary Alternative 5 This alternative would harvest as much timberwithin theProjectAreaaspossible, while still meeting project standards and guidelines. Underthis alternative, 8,419 acres wouldbe MMBF harvested in 205 harvest units forapproximately 229,739 oftimber, indicating an average unitsizeof41 acres. Eighteen harvestareas would consist ofharvestunits or combinationsofharvest units over 100acres. To implement this level ofharvest, 116 miles ofnew road wouldbeconstructedand 34 miles reconstructed, foran average of 1.5 MMBF/ mile ofroad. NineLTFs wouldbeconstructed. Table S-l shows the volumeoftimberby thousandsofboard feetand acres to beharvested undereach action alternative: Table S-1 Volume of Timber (MMBF) To Be Harvested Under Each Alternative Alternative Volume (MBF) Total Acres Alternative 1 0 0 Alternative 2 136,209 5,094 Alternative 3 121,073 4,537 Alternative4 86,355 3,291 Alternative 5 229,739 8,419 Comparison of Alternatives Thecomparison ofalternativespresents the conclusions from the materialspresented throughoutthe DraftEIS and summarizes theresults oftheanalysis. This section focuses on acomparisonofthe alternatives issue-by-issue, based on the issues describedin Chapter 1 of the DraftEIS. Chapter4 contains the detailed evaluation ofthe potential effects ofthe action alternatives on each ofthese issues. Issue 1: Social and Thebaseline forcomparing the alternatives is Alternative 1, the No-action Alternative. This Economic Effects alternativewould notpermit the Forest Service to meet minimum contract timber volume of Timber Harvest requirements to APC. Table S-2 displays the employment (jobs) andpersonal income (salaries) that wouldbe associated with each alternative. Thejobs and salaries listed include Activities both thosedirectly andindirectly dependenton the timberindustry. The volume oftimber harvestforeach alternativeresults in alevel ofjobs and salaries associated with that volume. Employment is basedon awage valueof$23,200 perjob. However, since Alternative 2 through 5 provide sufficient volume to maintain current milloperations, thejobs andsalaries 6 SUMMARY Kelp Bay DraftEIS