Historic, Archive Document Do assume not content reflects current scientific knowledge, policies, or practices. ^ |QHA United States I - Chasina Department of Agriculture Forest Service Timber Sale Tongass National Forest R10-MB*365b May 1998 Environ^mentBal HImpHactI Final Statement v> *~rn r&i V Volume Appendices A-K II: >1 Wm, Acronymns And Symbols - Alaska Department ofFish and Game Aquatic Habitat Management Unit Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act AlaskaNational Interest Lands Conservation Act Allowable Sale Quantity One Billion Board Feet Best Management Practice Council on Environmental Quality Commercial Forest Land Code ofFederal Regulations Coastal Zone Management Act of 1976 Diameter at Breast Height Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Protection Agency Existing/Expected Visual Condition Final Environmental Impact Statement Forest Service Handbook Forest Service Manual Geographic Information System Interdisciplinary Team Ketchikan Pulp Company Knutsen-Vandenberg Act Log Transfer Facility Land Use Designation Large Woody Debris (same as LOD) One Thousand Board Feet Multi-Entry Layout Process Management Indicator Species Maximum Modification One Million Board Feet National Environmental Policy Act National Forest Management Act National Marine Fisheries Service Notice ofIntent Primitive Partial Retention Retention Roaded Modified Roaded Natural Record ofDecision Recreation Opportunity Spectrum SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer SPM Semi-Primitive Motorized SPNM Semi-Primitive Nonmotorized TLMP Tongass Land Management Plan TRUCS Tongass Resource Use Cooperative Survey TTRA Tongass Timber Reform Act USDA United States Department ofAgriculture USDI United States Department ofthe Interior USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service VCU Value Comparison Unit VQO Visual Quality Objective WAA Wildlife Analysis Area Acknowledgments Frontcover: ByCindy Ross Barber, 1992. Thedesignillustratestherangeofinterconnectedissuesaddressed in theE1S. Volume II Appendices A-K Reasons for Sc* Project Area Silvicultural Alterm - Study Plan Summary C D Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation LTF Site Guidelines/LTF Evaluation and Dive Report Best Management Practices (BMPs) LSTA Units Not in Unit Pool y n Silviculture Diagnosis and Sale Area Improvement Plan Deer Availability/Deer Demand Maps Part 1 - Unit Card Part 2 - Road Card Public A Appendix Reasons for Scheduling the Environmental Analysis of the Chasina Area Project APPENDIX A Reasons For Scheduling The Environmental Analysis Of The Chasina Project Area Summary Reasons for scheduling the Chasina Project Area at this time may be summarized as follows: 1. The Chasina Project Area contains a sufficient number ofacres allocated to development land use designations (LUDs) to make timber harvest in the area appropriate under the Tongass Land Management Plan (TLMP). Available information indicates harvest ofthe amount oftimber being considered for this project can occur consistent with TLMP standards and guidelines and otherrequirements forresource protection. 2 Areas with available timber will be necessary to consider for harvest in order to 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 market demand from such forest for each planning cycle, pursuant to Section 101 of the Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA). 3 Effects on subsistence resources are projected to differ little according to which sequence these areas are subjected to harvest. Harvesting other areas with available timber on the Tongass National Forest is expected to have similar potential effects on resources, including those used for subsistence, because ofwidespread distribution ofsubsistence use and other factors. Harvest ofthese other areas is foreseeable, in any case, over the forest planning horizon under the TLMP. 4. Providing substantially less timber volume than required to meet TLMP and TTRA Section 101 timber supply and employment objectives in order to avoid harvest in the Chasina Project Area is not necessary or reasonable. 5. It is reasonable to schedule harvest in the Chasina Project Area at the present time ratherthan other areas in terms ofprevious harvest entry and access, level ofcontroversy over subsistence and other effects, and the ability to complete the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process and make timber available to meet the needs ofdependent industries. Other areas that are reasonable to consider forharvest in the near future are the subject ofother project EISs that are currently ongoing or scheduled to begin soon. More detail regarding the scheduling ofthe environmental analysis for the Chasina Project Area is presented in this appendix in three subsections: Southeast Alaska Timber Demand Tongass Land Management Plan Forest Plan Implementation Southeast Alaska Timber Demand Introduction. In general, this section indicates that areas with available timber will be necessary to consider forharvest in order to seek to provide a supply oftimber from the Tongass National Forest which (1) meets the annual market demand for timber from such forest and (2) meets the market demand from such forest for each planning cycle, pursuant to Section 101 ofthe Tongass Timber Reform Act. — Chasina EIS Appendix A 1 APPENDIX A Meeting Market Demand. Timber demand in Southeast Alaska can vary dramatically from year to year. The level ofdemand is dependent on complex interactions among factors that are difficult, ifnot impossible, for the industry or the Forest Service to predict with accuracy. Such factors include fluctuations in interest rates, housing starts, business cycles in the United States and overseas, changes in the value ofthe dollar with respect to foreign currencies, changes in import tariffs, and changes in export policies in other countries. To be responsive to market demand, the Forest Service attempts to provide an opportunity for the industry as a whole to accumulate a supply ofpurchased but unharvested timber (i.e. volume under contract) equal to about three years oftimber consumption. There are a number ofreasons for allowing the accumulation ofvolume under contract. First, this allows the industry ample time to plan an orderly and systematic harvest schedule that meets all timing restrictions and permit requirements. Second, it allows the industry to better manage its financial resources and to secure financing on the basis oflonger term timber supply. Third, it allows time for the necessary infrastructure (roads, log transfer facilities, and logging camps) to be put in place prior to timber harvest. Fourth, it allows the Forest Service to develop an orderly progression oftimbermanagement projects in various stages ofthe planning process. Finally, an ample timber supply gives the industry more opportunity to sustain itselfthrough market cycles. Ifdemand for pulp or lumber in any year suddenly increases, producers will have access to enough timber to respond to the increase in demand without waiting for the Forest Service or the Congress to take action. Normally, the unharvested volume undercontract will be drawn down during high points in the market when mills increase production, and built up when markets are poor and production declines. In response to changes observed in the volume under contract the Forest Service may consider adjusting its budget and timber program. From the initiation ofa timber sale project, through EIS and decision document preparation, and to the sale of timber from the project usually requires three to four years ormore depending on complexity. Such lengthy preparation time means that in order to have a stable timber supply and be able to respond to upswings in the market, there is a need to have ongoing timber management projects in various stages ofthe planning process. It is also necessary to have a supply ofcompleted NEPA projects available for sale ifan increased market demand is to be met. The timber industry in southeast Alaska is now in a period oftransition. Following the closings ofthe timber industry in southeast Alaska is now in a period oftransition. Following the closings ofthe Alaska Pulp Corporation (APC) pulp mill and the Ketchikan Pulp Corporation (KPC) pulp mill, new mills are either under construction or are being proposed, and existing mills are being upgraded. There is currently ajoint venture between KPC and Sealaska for a veneerplant at Ward Cove in Ketchikan. This mill would also use utility grade log for chips. The veneer could be sent to other mills for manufacture into plywood or laminated veneer lumber, or a revamped facility at the former KPC pulp mill site could manufacture the veneer into secondary products. The plant could be on line as soon as the spring of 1999 with a capacity of 150 million board feet annually (Jim Erickson, Sealaska 3/9/98). A new Seley Log and Lumber Company mill opened in February of 1998 on Gravina Island, in the Ketchikan area. The facility will employ 60 people ifrun at full capacity, and will house both a sawmill and secondary and tertiary manufacturing mills. Product outputs will include decking and fencing, and possibly furniture. The operation is expected to process 30 MMBF annually (Alan Monk Seley Inc., March 1998). As for existing southeast Alaska mills, the Viking Lumber sawmill in Klawock, on Prince ofWales Island, recently underwent a modernizing upgrade and re-tooling; computerized equipment and a whole-log chipper were added (USDA Forest Service 1996). Also, the APC sawmill in Wrangell has been purchased by Silver Bay Logging (Wrangell Sentinel 1/15/98) and will be manufacturing wood products in 1998. All ofthese mills will depend to some extent on a supply oftimber from the Tongass National Forest. The market demand analysis in the 1997 TLMP was based on a study by David Brooks and Richard Haynes, research scientists at the Pacific Northwest Research Station. Following the release ofTLMP a final version ofthe Brooks and Haynes report was published, and it is this final report that is referenced and cited throughout this Appendix. Three scenarios (low, medium, and high) were developed in the study to display the demand for Tongass National Forest timber through the year 2010 (Brooks and Haynes 1997). For the low scenario, high timber selling values, harvest costs and manufacturing costs limit Alaska’s share ofmarkets. Under the high scenario, increased harvest and manufacturing efficiency, with resulting lower costs, make Alaskan mills more competitive. Projected annual timber demand for the next decade is 1 13 MMBF for the low scenario, 133 MMBF for the medium, and 156 MMBF for the high scenario. These three scenarios do not consider the Seley mill that is operating on Gravina Island, the proposed KPC veneer plant, or the reopening ofthe APC sawmill in Wrangell. Nor do they account for — 2 Appendix A Chasina EIS