Summary

Final EIS 1

Forest Service

Alaska Region Tongass National Forest R10-MB-769k December 2016

Tongass Land and Resource

Management Plan

Final Environmental

Impact Statement

Plan Amendment

SUMMARY

United States Department of Agriculture
Summary

Final EIS 1

Welcome

This Summary accompanies a Final Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) and Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), 

which have been prepared to document the analysis of alternatives 

for the 2016 Tongass Forest Plan Amendment. A Final Record 

of Decision (ROD) and Final EIS errata are also included. Most 

planning participants will be receiving an electronic version of these 

documents on a CD. The CD contains a cover letter, ROD, Final EIS 

(two volumes), Final EIS errata, Forest Plan, and supporting maps. 

Please note that some map corrections were made in December 2016. 

The Final EIS is available as a complete bookmarked version in one 

¿OHDVZHOODVVSOLWLQWRIRXUSDUWVLQVPDOOHU¿OHVIRUHDVLHURSHQLQJ

We recommend you start your review by reading the cover letter. 

To view additional information and documents related to the Forest 

Plan Amendment, please visit the Tongass National Forest Plan 

Amendment Web site at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/R10/Tongass/

PlanAmend.

The Web site includes a variety of products developed in support of 

this project and provides convenient access to other associated Web 

sites. 

The ROD documents the rationale for approving the Forest Plan 

$PHQGPHQWDQGLVFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKH5HYLHZLQJ2I¿FHU¶VUHVSRQVH

to objections and instructions. The effective date of the Forest Plan 

Amendment is 30 days after publication of notice of Forest Plan 

Amendment approval in the newspaper of record, the Ketchikan 

Daily News. A supplemental notice will be published in the Juneau 

Empire.

Tongass National Forest
2 Final EIS

Summary

How to Use the CD

The CD-ROM has an “autostart” feature that should start 

the application when you put the CD in your computer. If 

the application starts correctly, a Welcome page containing 

links to the documents should open up. If the CD does not 

start by itself shortly after you insert it in your CD drive, then 

VLPSO\GRXEOHFOLFNRQWKH,QGH[KWP¿OHRQWKH&'
Summary

Final EIS 3

Introduction

Forest land and resource management planning is a process for 

developing, amending, and revising land and resource management 

plans for each of the National Forests in the National Forest System 

(NFS). Forest plans are required by the National Forest Management 

$FWRI1)0$8QLWHG6WDWHV&RGH>86&@SDUWV

7KHPLOOLRQDFUH7RQJDVV1DWLRQDO)RUHVWZDVWKH¿UVW

forest to complete a Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest 

Plan) under the NFMA in 1979. That Forest Plan was amended 

LQDQGDQGUHYLVHGLQ$¿QDO6XSSOHPHQWDO

Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) was completed in 2003, 

which further evaluated roadless areas for their wilderness potential. 

The Forest Plan was amended again in 2008 in response to a Ninth 

&LUFXLW&RXUWUXOLQJDQGD<HDU3ODQ5HYLHZFRPSOHWHGLQ7KH

revised Plan was amended 24 times between the 1997 revision and the 

DPHQGPHQWSULPDULO\WRDGMXVWVPDOOROGJURZWKKDELWDWUHVHUYH

boundaries and for electronic/communication site designations. Since 

the 2008 amendment, the plan has been amended to establish the Héen 

/DWLQHH([SHULPHQWDO)RUHVWGLVHVWDEOLVKWKH<RXQJ%D\([SHULPHQWDO

Forest, add communication sites to the list in Appendix E, modify 

VPDOOROGJURZWKKDELWDWUHVHUYHVDQGPDNHPLQRUFRUUHFWLRQVWRWKH

plan. 

On July 2, 2013, Secretary of Agriculture, Thomas Vilsack, issued 

0HPRUDQGXPAddressing Sustainable Forestry in Southeast 

Alaska (U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA] 2013), which 

expressed the Secretary’s intent to transition the Tongass National 

Forest to a young growth–based timber program in 10 to 15 years, 

more rapidly than considered in the 2008 Forest Plan. The Secretary 

asked that the Forest Service “[s]trongly consider whether to pursue 

an amendment to the Tongass Forest Plan. Such an amendment would 

evaluate which lands will be available for timber harvest, especially 

young growth timber stands, which lands should be excluded, and 

DGGLWLRQDORSSRUWXQLWLHVWRSURPRWHDQGVSHHGWUDQVLWLRQWR\RXQJ

growth management.” Recognizing the importance of retaining 

expertise and infrastructure, the Secretary also stated that the Forest 

Service “will continue to offer a supply of old growth timber while 

increasing the supply of young growth to provide industry in Alaska 
4 Final EIS

Summary

the opportunity to develop new markets, learn new skills, and acquire 

new equipment.” The Secretary also asked that a determination of 

whether to initiate an amendment be completed by September 30, 

2013. 

7KH)RUHVW6HUYLFHFRPSOHWHGD)LYH<HDU5HYLHZRIWKH)RUHVW3ODQ

LQ6HSWHPEHU7KHUHVXOWVRIWKH)LYH<HDU5HYLHZDQGWKH

Secretary’s Memorandum led to the Tongass Forest Supervisor making 

a determination that “...conditions on the land and demands of the 

public require the Tongass to modify the 2008 Forest Plan” (USDA 

Forest Service 2013a). A Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS 

was published in the Federal Register on May 27, 2014 (79 Federal 

5HJLVWHU>)5@LQLWLDWLQJDGD\VFRSLQJSHULRG$PRQJWKH

FRPPHQWVIURPWKH)LYH<HDU5HYLHZDQGIURPVFRSLQJZHUHWKRVH

WKDWUHTXHVWHGDWUDQVLWLRQWR\RXQJJURZWKWLPEHUKDUYHVWLQJZD\VWR

make renewable energy projects easier to implement, and a review of 

the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule) inventoried 

roadless areas (IRAs). All comments were taken into consideration in 

identifying the scope of this Forest Plan amendment.

This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) is a programmatic 

analysis prepared by the Forest Service that describes and analyzes 

FKDQJHVWRWKH)RUHVW3ODQWRDFFRPSOLVKWKHWUDQVLWLRQWR\RXQJ

growth management as provided in the Secretary’s Memorandum. This 

FEIS evaluates which lands will be suitable for timber production, 

HVSHFLDOO\\RXQJJURZWKWLPEHUVWDQGVDQGDQ\FKDQJHVRUDGGLWLRQV

to management direction needed to promote and speed the transition to 

\RXQJJURZWKPDQDJHPHQWZKLOHPDLQWDLQLQJDYLDEOHWLPEHULQGXVWU\

in Southeast Alaska. This FEIS also describes and analyzes changes 

related to renewable energy development. The scope of the analysis is 

limited to these changes. 

This FEIS analyzes in detail four action alternatives for amending 

the Plan, in addition to a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1). The 

analysis is published in two volumes. Volume 1 contains the FEIS, and 

Volume 2 contains the FEIS appendices. A complete Forest Plan Land 

Use Designation (LUD) map is provided for each of the alternatives in 

the Map Packet which accompanies the FEIS.
Summary

Final EIS 5

A separate document titled Tongass Land and Resource Management 

Plan (i.e., the Forest Plan) is published along with the FEIS and 

represents the selected alternative (Alternative 5). Chapter 2 and 

Appendix F in the FEIS describe how the other alternatives compare to 

Alternative 5. Instead of repeating all of the changes in management 

GLUHFWLRQFRPPRQWR$OWHUQDWLYHVDQG$OWHUQDWLYHPDQDJHPHQW

GLUHFWLRQRIWKHDOWHUQDWLYHVLVGLVSOD\HGLQDVLGHE\VLGHFRPSDUDWLYH

format to demonstrate how and where direction differs from 

Alternative 5.

This FEIS describes and analyzes changes to the 2008 Forest Plan 

and tiers to and incorporates by reference the 1997 Tongass Land 

Management Plan Revision FEIS (1997 FEIS), the 2003 Final 

6XSSOHPHQWDO(,66(,6IRU5RDGOHVV$UHD(YDOXDWLRQIRU:LOGHUQHVV

Recommendations (2003 FSEIS), and the 2008 Tongass Land and 

Resource Management Plan Amendment FEIS (2008 FEIS), and 

WKH5HFRUGRI'HFLVLRQ52':KHUHDSSURSULDWH

information in these documents that is relevant to analysis in this FEIS 

is cited and incorporated by reference.

Purpose and Need

The Forest Service determined that it is necessary to amend the 

2008 Forest Plan. Amending the Forest Plan originates from 

the July 2013 memo from the Secretary of Agriculture directing 

the Tongass National Forest to transition its forest management 

program to be more ecologically, socially, and economically 

sustainable, while also being responsive to comments from the 

)LYH<HDU5HYLHZRIWKH)RUHVW3ODQ7KHSXUSRVHRIWKLVSODQ

amendment is to:

 Review lands within the plan area to determine suitability for 

WLPEHUSURGXFWLRQHVSHFLDOO\\RXQJJURZWKWLPEHUVWDQGV

 Identify the projected timber sale quantity (PTSQ) and the 

sustained yield limit (i.e., the ecological yield of timber that can be 

removed annually on a sustained yield basis).

 Establish plan components (e.g., standards and guidelines) 
6 Final EIS

Summary

IRU\RXQJJURZWKIRUHVWPDQDJHPHQWDQGUHQHZDEOHHQHUJ\

GHYHORSPHQWWRJXLGHIXWXUHSURMHFWGHFLVLRQPDNLQJ

 &RQVROLGDWHPRGL¿FDWLRQVPDGHWRWKH)RUHVW3ODQVLQFHLWV

approval.

An amendment is necessary for responding to the July 2013 

direction from USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack outlined in the 

6HFUHWDU\¶V0HPRUDQGXP7KHPHPRUDQGXPGLUHFWV

management of the Tongass National Forest to expedite the 

WUDQVLWLRQDZD\IURPROGJURZWKWLPEHUKDUYHVWLQJDQGWRZDUGVD

IRUHVWSURGXFWVLQGXVWU\WKDWXVHVSUHGRPLQDQWO\VHFRQGJURZWK

±RU\RXQJJURZWK±IRUHVWV6HFUHWDU\9LOVDFN¶VPHPRUDQGXP

also directs that the transition must be implemented in a manner 

that preserves a viable timber industry that provides jobs and 

opportunities for Southeast Alaska residents. USDA’s goal is to 

effectuate this transition, over the next 10 to 15 years, so that at the 

end of this period the vast majority of timber sold by the Tongass 

ZLOOEH\RXQJJURZWK7KLVWLPHIUDPHZLOOFRQVHUYHROGJURZWK

forests while allowing the forest industry time to adapt. The 2008 

Forest Plan provides for a transition to young growth over time, but 

WKHUHDUHFKDOOHQJHVLQHVWDEOLVKLQJDQHFRQRPLFDOO\YLDEOH\RXQJ

growth forest management program due to the relatively young 

age of the available stands, market conditions, and other factors. 

Secretary Vilsack’s direction requires Forest Plan amendments to 

guide future management of NFS lands and allocation of resources 

RQWKH7RQJDVV1DWLRQDO)RUHVWXQGHUWKHPXOWLSOHXVHDQGVXVWDLQHG

yield mandate. 

7KHQHHGWRDPHQGWKHSODQLVIXUWKHUFRUURERUDWHGE\WKH)LYH<HDU

Review of the Forest Plan, completed in 2013, which concluded 

that conditions on the land and demands of the public necessitate 

the Tongass National Forest to make changes to the Forest Plan. 

&RQFHUQVZHUHFRQVLVWHQWO\H[SUHVVHGGXULQJWKH)LYH<HDU5HYLHZ

regarding the impact of rising fossil fuel prices and increasing 

climate change on the quality of life in Southeast Alaska. Changes 

to the Forest Plan are needed to make the development of renewable 

energy resources more permissible, including considering access 

and utility corridors to stimulate economic development in 
Summary

Final EIS 7

6RXWKHDVW$ODVNDFRPPXQLWLHVDQGSURYLGHORZFDUERQHQHUJ\

alternatives, thereby displacing the use of fossil fuel.

6LJQL¿FDQW,VVXHV

The Forest Service used the scoping process to determine the scope 

RILVVXHVWREHDGGUHVVHGDQGLGHQWLI\WKHVLJQL¿FDQWLVVXHVUHODWHGWR

a proposed action.

7KH)RUHVW6HUYLFHLGHQWL¿HGWKHIROORZLQJVLJQL¿FDQWLVVXHVGXULQJ

scoping. 

Issue 1 – Young Growth Transition

The Secretary of Agriculture asked the Forest Service to transition to 

D\RXQJJURZWKEDVHGWLPEHUPDQDJHPHQWSURJUDPRQWKH7RQJDVV

National Forest in 10 to 15 years, which is more rapid than planned. 

This transition is intended to support the Tongass managing its 

forest for an ecologically, socially, and economically sustainable 

IRUHVWPDQDJHPHQWSURJUDPDQGUHGXFHROGJURZWKKDUYHVWZKLOH

still providing economic timber to support the local forest products 

industry.

7KHLVVXHFRQFHUQV¿QDQFLDOHI¿FLHQF\VDODELOLW\DQGYROXPHRI

future timber sales. It also relates to the potential local employment 

DQGUHYHQXHVJHQHUDWHGIRUFRPPXQLWLHVLQWKHORFDODUHD<RXQJ

growth stand growth rates, sustainable harvest rates, the amount of 

ROGJURZWKKDUYHVWQHHGHGGXULQJWUDQVLWLRQWRVXVWDLQWKHWLPEHU

industry, also known as “bridge timber,” and the locations where 

\RXQJJURZWKKDUYHVWZRXOGWDNHSODFHDUHVRPHRIWKHIDFWRUVWREH

considered.

Issue 2 – Renewable Energy

The development of renewable energy projects on the Tongass would 

help Southeast Alaska communities reduce fossil fuel dependence, 

stimulate economic development, and lower carbon emissions in the 

Region.

7KLVLVVXHUHODWHVWRFRPPHQWVUHFHLYHGGXULQJWKH)LYH<HDU

Review of the Forest Plan. The Forest Service should promote the 
8 Final EIS

Summary

development of renewable energy projects to help Southeast Alaska 

communities reduce fossil energy dependence, where it is compatible 

with National Forest purposes and to ensure that the planning, 

construction, and operation of projects protect and effectively use 

NFS lands and resources. 

Issue 3 – Inventoried Roadless Areas

Timber harvest and road building that occurred in roadless areas 

before the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule) 

was enacted and during the Tongass exemption period changed the 

values or features that often characterize inventoried roadless areas in 

some locations.

Issues and concerns received during scoping as well as during the 

)LYH<HDU5HYLHZSURFHVVH[SUHVVHGFRQFHUQVDERXWURDGOHVVDUHDV

on the Tongass; both in favor of protections afforded under the 2001 

Roadless Rule as well as requesting that the forest plan be amended 

WRDGGUHVVWKHVLJQL¿FDQWFKDQJHVEURXJKWDERXWE\LWVUHLQVWDWHPHQW

on the Tongass. 

Some people believe roadless areas on the Tongass should be allowed 

to evolve naturally through their own dynamic processes and should 

be afforded protection that ensures this will occur. Others believe that 

limiting road construction and reconstruction or other management 

actions in roadless areas might restrict the delivery of goods, services, 

and activities that these areas might otherwise provide. 

Roadless areas are considered important because they support a 

diversity of aquatic and terrestrial habitats, species, and communities, 

and play an important role in helping to conserve native plant and 

animal communities and biological diversity. They also provide 

people with unique recreation opportunities. 

During the Tongass exemption period and before the 2001 Roadless 

Rule was enacted, road construction, reconstruction, and the cutting, 

and sale of timber in some IRAs occurred. As a result, these activities 

in some IRAs may have altered the roadless characteristics. 
Summary

Final EIS 9

Issue 4 – Wildlife Habitat and the Conservation Strategy

2OGJURZWKWLPEHUKDUYHVWKDVFKDQJHGWKHFRPSRVLWLRQDQGVSDWLDO

SDWWHUQVRIWHUUHVWULDOZLOGOLIHKDELWDWV+RZWKHUHVXOWLQJ\RXQJ

JURZWKLVPDQDJHGPD\LQÀXHQFHWKHIXWXUHHFRORJLFDOLQWHJULW\

of the landscape at various scales. Changes made to suitable lands 

designated for development, and to plan components (e.g., standards 

DQGJXLGHOLQHVPD\DIIHFWROGJURZWKKDELWDWIRUZLOGOLIHDQGWKH

7RQJDVV2OGJURZWK+DELWDW&RQVHUYDWLRQ6WUDWHJ\DQGFRQWULEXWLQJ

HOHPHQWVWRROGJURZWKUHVHUYHVHJULSDULDQEHDFKDQGHVWXDU\

habitats).

The Tongass National Forest supports an important assemblage 

of wildlife many of which are associated with or at least partially 

GHSHQGHQWRQROGJURZWKIRUHVWLQFOXGLQJRQHRIWKHODUJHVW

populations of brown bears in the world, high densities of breeding 

bald eagles, the Alexander Archipelago wolf, species of high 

LPSRUWDQFHIRUVXEVLVWHQFHHJ6LWNDEODFNWDLOHGGHHUDQ

extensive array of endemic mammals, and other species that are 

GHSHQGHQWRQROGJURZWKKDELWDWVHJPDUWHQDQGJRVKDZN7KH

7RQJDVV2OGJURZWK+DELWDW&RQVHUYDWLRQ6WUDWHJ\LVFRQVLGHUHG

LPSRUWDQWIRUWKHFRQWLQXHGKHDOWKRIROGJURZWKDVVRFLDWHGZLOGOLIH

populations in Southeast Alaska. 

Timber harvest, minerals and renewable energy development, and 

road development can have effects on the habitat and populations of 

many of these species and the diversity and integrity of Southeast 

$ODVNDHFRV\VWHPV/HVVWKDQSHUFHQWRIWKHSURGXFWLYHROG

growth habitat on the Tongass has been converted to young growth, 

the percentage is much higher for certain types of old growth, such as 

ORZODQGDQGODUJHWUHHROGJURZWK,QDGGLWLRQQRQ1)6ROGJURZWK

has generally been harvested at a much higher rate. Therefore, the 

consideration of harvest and road building on wildlife in Southeast 

Alaska are greater than the effects for the Tongass by itself.

Alternatives 

Forest Plan

The current 2008 Forest Plan is associated with the No Action 

Alternative (Alternative 1). However, a number of changes to the Forest 
10 Final EIS

Summary

Plan text are being proposed. These changes are incorporated into a 

Forest Plan (Land and Resource Management Plan), which accompanies 

the EIS. The Forest Plan was developed based on the Preferred 

Alternative (Alternative 5).The individual alternative descriptions on the 

following pages identify the major changes in the Forest Plan.

Timber Demand

In past Forest Plan revisions and amendments, varying demand 

scenarios were used to develop alternatives, including scenarios that 

allowed for growth and expansion of the current industry. In this 

DPHQGPHQWWKHSXUSRVHDQGQHHGLGHQWL¿HVWKHQHHGWRH[SHGLWHWKH

WUDQVLWLRQDZD\IURPROGJURZWKWLPEHUKDUYHVWLQJDQGWRZDUGVD

IRUHVWSURGXFWVLQGXVWU\WKDWXVHVSUHGRPLQDQWO\VHFRQGJURZWK±RU

\RXQJJURZWK±IRUHVWV7KHUHIRUHH[DPLQDWLRQRIDOWHUQDWLYHVDW

levels above projected demand is not warranted because these would 

UHTXLUHH[SDQVLRQRIROGJURZWKKDUYHVWOHYHOVDWOHDVWGXULQJWKH

next 10 to 15 years. However, over the longer term, expansion of the 

timber industry is an option as more and more young growth becomes 

economic to harvest. 

Therefore, Alternatives 1 through 5 were designed to correspond 

with current demand projections and produce a projected timber 

sale quantity (PTSQ)1

 of about 46 MMBF per year during the next 

15 years, with old growth making up a decreasing percentage of the 

WRWDO2OGJURZWKYROXPHZRXOGFRQWLQXHWRGHFUHDVHXQWLOLWUHDFKHV

about 5 MMBF per year and it would remain at that level, to support 

limited small timber operators. As more young growth becomes 

economic to harvest, the PTSQ would be allowed to increase. In no 

case, would the harvest level be allowed to exceed the sustained yield 

OLPLW6</VHH*ORVVDU\DQGWKHTimber section of this EIS).

Even though Alternative 1 (no action) represents current 

management, it is modeled to follow the same volume production 

SDWWHUQ7KH-XO\6HFUHWDU\¶VPHPRLGHQWL¿HGDQHHGWRFKDQJH

direction in the 2008 Forest Plan (see Purpose and Need in Chapter 

1) and without this amendment, the Tongass would be transitioning 

WRZDUG\RXQJJURZWKDQGDZD\IURPROGJURZWKKDUYHVW

1

3764LVDQHZWHUPGH¿QHGLQ)6+&KDSWHU7KHWHUPDOORZDEOH

sale quantity (ASQ) is not used with the 2012 planning rule.
Summary

Final EIS 11

Provisions Common to all Alternatives

8QGHUDOODOWHUQDWLYHVWKHUHLVÀH[LELOLW\LQWHUPVRIZKHQ\RXQJJURZWK

VWDQGVPD\EHKDUYHVWHG8QGHU3XEOLF/DZXSWRDFUHV

of young growth may be harvested from 2016 through 2025, in stands 

OHVVWKDQSHUFHQWRI&0$,7KLV&0$,ÀH[LELOLW\PD\FRQWLQXHDIWHU

2025 (with annual maximums); however, the total acreage harvested 

at less than 95 percent of CMAI cannot exceed 50,000. In addition, 

\RXQJJURZWKVDOHVXQGHUWKLVSURYLVLRQPD\QRWEHRIIHUHGXQOHVVWKH\

UHSUHVHQWQRQGH¿FLWVDOHV2

7KHUHLVÀH[LELOLW\LQ1)0$WRDOORZD

continuation of harvesting at younger ages beyond 2025.

LUD Changes Common to the Action Alternatives

The LUD allocations for each alternative are described in the following 

DOWHUQDWLYHVSHFL¿FGHVFULSWLRQV7KH/8'VIRU$OWHUQDWLYHQR

action) are the same as the LUDs of the current Forest Plan. The 

LUDs of the action alternatives are different from Alternative 1 LUDs 

EHFDXVHRI2OGJURZWK+DELWDW/8'FKDQJHV8QGHU3XEOLF/DZ

DSSUR[LPDWHO\DFUHVRI1)6ODQGZHUHFRQYH\HGWR

Sealaska Corporation and an additional 152,000 acres were converted 

WR/8',,$VDUHVXOWRIWKHODQGFRQYH\DQFHROGJURZWKUHVHUYHV

2*5VLQ9&8VZHUHDIIHFWHG%HJLQQLQJLQ)HEUXDU\DQ

interagency review team of biologists worked to develop a biologically 

SUHIHUUHGRSWLRQIRUPRGLI\LQJWKHVH2*5VWKDWPHHWV)RUHVW3ODQ

Appendix K criteria and to document why other proposals are not 

recommended. In September 2015, the interagency review team 

produced a biologically preferred option (see Appendix E), which was 

LQFRUSRUDWHGLQWRHDFKRIWKHDFWLRQDOWHUQDWLYHV7KHUHIRUHWKH2OG

growth Habitat LUD acres vary between Alternative 1 and the action 

alternatives (Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5).

In addition, the Transportation and Utility Systems LUD would be 

removed under Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5. The LUD management 

prescription would be replaced by plan components under 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 and would provide management direction 

2

 Any sale of trees pursuant to the authority granted under subparagraph (A) shall 

QRW2LLLEHDGYHUWLVHGLIWKHLQGLFDWHGUDWHLVGH¿FLWGH¿QHGDVWKHYDOXHRI

WKHWLPEHULVQRWVXI¿FLHQWWRFRYHUDOOORJJLQJDQGVWXPSDJHFRVWVDQGSURYLGHD

QRUPDOSUR¿WDQGULVNDOORZDQFHXQGHUWKHDSSUDLVDOSURFHVVRIWKH)RUHVW6HUYLFH

when appraised using a residual value appraisal.
12 Final EIS

Summary

for renewable energy and transportation systems corridors (see 

Chapter 5 in the proposed Forest Plan).

Alternative 1 (No Action)

The No Action Alternative represents current management direction 

(2008 Forest Plan) and includes the application of the Roadless Area 

Conservation Rule (2001 Roadless Rule) (36 CFR 294 Subpart B). 

As noted above, it also follows the direction provided in the July 

6HFUHWDU\¶VPHPRZKLFKLGHQWL¿HGDQHHGWRWUDQVLWLRQDZD\

IURPROGJURZWKKDUYHVW8QGHUWKLVDOWHUQDWLYHWLPEHUKDUYHVW

would follow the existing timber sale program adaptive management 

strategy (USDA Forest Service 2008c). A color map showing the 

phases in this strategy is provided along with the FEIS. Timber 

harvest is currently restricted to areas within Phase 1 of the strategy 

and timber harvest would have to reach 100 MMBF for two years 

before harvest could occur in Phase 2 areas. Timber management 

would be restricted to the development LUDs and would remain 

outside of inventoried roadless areas. No commercial harvest would 

be allowed in beach and estuary fringe or RMAs. All other 2008 

Forest Plan management direction would be followed.

$VQRWHGSUHYLRXVO\GXHWR3XEOLF/DZ&0$,UHTXLUHPHQWV

for determining the youngest age for harvest would be eliminated 

RQXSWRDFUHVRI\RXQJJURZWK+RZHYHUEH\RQGWKDWWKH

minimum harvest age would return to 95 percent of CMAI except 

under exemptions provided by the NFMA. 

$OWHUQDWLYHZRXOGUHVXOWLQWKHPRVWROGJURZWKKDUYHVWDPRQJ

WKHDOWHUQDWLYHVRYHUERWK\HDUDQG\HDUSHULRGV7DEOH

VXPPDUL]HVWKHNH\HOHPHQWVRI$OWHUQDWLYHDQG7DEOH

summarizes the LUD acres, mapped suitable acres, and projected 

harvest acres under this alternative for young growth and old growth. 

This alternative would harvest timber at a rate of 46 MMBF per year 

(equivalent to the harvest needed to meet the projected timber demand, 

VHH7DEOH,WZRXOGHPSKDVL]H\RXQJJURZWKDQGPLQLPL]HROG

growth while maintaining 46 MMBF per year. As such, it is expected 

to produce about 8 MMBF of young growth and 38 MMBF of old 

JURZWKSHU\HDUGXULQJWKH¿UVW\HDUV)LJXUH)URP<HDU

WKURXJK<HDULWLVSURMHFWHGWRSURGXFHDERXW00%)RI\RXQJ
Summary

Final EIS 13

JURZWKDQG00%)RIROGJURZWKSHU\HDU$WDERXW<HDUWKH

\RXQJJURZWKKDUYHVWLVH[SHFWHGWRLQFUHDVHWRDERXW00%)DQG

WKHROGJURZWKKDUYHVWZRXOGGHFUHDVHWR00%)SHU\HDU7KH

\RXQJJURZWKKDUYHVWLVH[SHFWHGWRFRQWLQXHWRLQFUHDVHDWDUDSLG

UDWHDIWHU<HDUDQGLVH[SHFWHGWRUHDFKDQXSSHUOLPLWRIDERXW

00%)LQDERXW<HDU7KHROGJURZWKKDUYHVWUDWHZRXOGEHKHOGDW

5 MMBF per year to support small and micro sales.

Key Elements of Alternative 1

Old-growth Harvest

 Follows 2008 Forest Plan Timber Sale Program Adaptive 

Management Strategy for Phases 1, 2, and 3

 No harvest allowed in Inventoried Roadless Areas 

Young-growth Harvest

 Allows harvest in Development LUDs, including Clearcutting

 Allows no harvest in Natural Setting LUDs

 Allows no harvest in Inventoried Roadless Areas

 Allows no commercial harvest in Beach and Estuary Fringe or in 

RMAs

 7KHUHLVÀH[LELOLW\WRKDUYHVWDFUHVDWD\RXQJHUDJHWKDQ

percent of CMAI per Public Law 113-291

 6FHQHU\VWDQGDUGV6,2VZRXOGQRWEHPRGL¿HGIRU\RXQJJURZWK

LUD Changes

 None

Other New Plan Components (Chapter 5)

 None

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)

As in Alternative 1, this alternative would follow the existing timber 

VDOHSURJUDPDGDSWLYHPDQDJHPHQWVWUDWHJ\IRUROGJURZWKKDUYHVW

(USDA Forest Service 2008c) (see color map accompanying the 

)(,6DVDUHVXOWDOOROGJURZWKKDUYHVWZRXOGFRPHIURP3KDVH

DWOHDVWGXULQJWKH¿UVW\HDUVRUVR$IWHUKDUYHVWYROXPHH[FHHGV

00%)IRUWZR\HDUVLWLVSRVVLEOHWKDWOLPLWHGROGJURZWK

KDUYHVWFRXOGRFFXULQ3KDVHDUHDV<RXQJJURZWKKDUYHVWFRXOG
14 Final EIS

Summary

come from any phase of the strategy at any time. The portions of 

inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) that were roaded before the 2001 

Roadless Rule and during the 2001 Roadless Rule exemption period 

IRUWKH7RQJDVVZRXOGEHDYDLODEOHIRU\RXQJJURZWKDQGROGJURZWK

harvest. This would require rulemaking to modify 36 CFR 294.13(b)

(4). If selected, no harvest could occur in IRAs until rulemaking is 

completed. No Roadless Area harvest outside of these roaded areas 

would be allowed.

Alternative 2 would differ substantially from Alternative 1 in terms 

RIODQGVLGHQWL¿HGDVVXLWDEOHIRU\RXQJJURZWKWLPEHUSURGXFWLRQ

<RXQJJURZWKPDQDJHPHQWZRXOGEHDOORZHGLQERWKGHYHORSPHQW

and natural setting LUDs (except for Congressionally designated and 

DGPLQLVWUDWLYHO\ZLWKGUDZQDUHDVVXFKDV:LOGHUQHVVDQGLVODQGV

less than 1,000 acres in size), in beach and estuary fringe, RMAs 

RXWVLGHRI7RQJDVV7LPEHU5HIRUP$FW775$EXIIHUVDQGKLJK

vulnerability karst. 

<RXQJJURZWKPDQDJHPHQWPD\LQFOXGHFOHDUFXWWLQJLQDOODUHDV

H[FHSWLQ50$VDQGRQKLJKYXOQHUDELOLW\NDUVWZKHUHRQO\

commercial thinning (up to 33 percent basal area removal) would be 

allowed. After 15 years, clearcutting would no longer be allowed in 

the beach and estuary fringe and only commercial thinning would 

be allowed. In addition, in beach and estuary fringe, the intent is to 

PDLQWDLQDQDSSUR[LPDWHIRRWZLGHSURWHFWHGFRUULGRUDGMDFHQW

DQGLQODQGRIDQ\HYHQDJHGKDUYHVWXQLWWRIXQFWLRQDVDQDOWHUQDWH

low elevation, natural habitat corridor. 

6FHQHU\VWDQGDUGVIRU\RXQJJURZWKPDQDJHPHQWZRXOGEHUHOD[HG

The SIOs would be designated as Very Low for all LUDs and 

distance zones. 

$VQRWHGSUHYLRXVO\GXHWR3XEOLF/DZ&0$,UHTXLUHPHQWV

for determining the youngest age for harvest would be eliminated 

RQXSWRDFUHVRI\RXQJJURZWK%H\RQGWKDWWKHPLQLPXP

KDUYHVWDJHZRXOGFRQWLQXHWREHÀH[LEOHXQGHUH[FHSWLRQVDOORZHG

by NFMA. 

The Forest Plan would include new management direction that 

LPSURYHVÀH[LELOLW\LQUHQHZDEOHHQHUJ\GHYHORSPHQWXQGHUWKLV
Summary

Final EIS 15

alternative. Scenery standards for renewable energy development 

would be relaxed to Very Low for all LUDs and distance zones.

Among the action alternatives, Alternative 2 would provide the 

largest amount of timber volume (old growth and young growth 

FRPELQHGLQFOXGLQJWKHODUJHVWDPRXQWRI\RXQJJURZWKYROXPH

from lands suitable for timber production. It would result in the 

VPDOOHVWDPRXQWRIROGJURZWKWLPEHUYROXPHRYHUERWK\HDU

DQG\HDUSHULRGV7DEOHVXPPDUL]HVWKHNH\HOHPHQWVRI

$OWHUQDWLYHDQG7DEOHVXPPDUL]HVWKH/8'DFUHVPDSSHG

suitable acres, and projected harvest acres under this alternative for 

young growth and old growth. 

This alternative would harvest timber at a rate of 46 MMBF per 

year (equivalent to the harvest needed to meet the projected timber 

GHPDQGVHH7DEOHHPSKDVL]LQJ\RXQJJURZWKDQGPLQLPL]LQJ

old growth. As such, it is expected to produce an average of about 

22 MMBF of young growth and 24 MMBF of old growth per year 

GXULQJWKH¿UVW\HDUV)LJXUH)URP<HDUVWKURXJK

Alternative 2 is projected to produce an average of 61 MMBF of 

young growth and 5 MMBF of old growth per year. Alternative 2 

would likely reach a full transition harvest of 41 MMBF of young 

JURZWKDERXW<HDU<RXQJJURZWKKDUYHVWLVH[SHFWHGWRFRQWLQXH

WRLQFUHDVHDWDUDSLGUDWHDIWHU<HDUDQGLVH[SHFWHGWRUHDFKDQ

XSSHUOLPLWRIDERXW00%)LQ<HDU7KHROGJURZWKKDUYHVW

rate would be held at 5 MMBF per year to support small and micro 

sales. 
16 Final EIS

Summary

Key Elements of Alternative 2

Old-growth Harvest

 Allows harvest only within Phase 1 of the 2008 Timber Sale Program 

Adaptive Management Strategy.

 The portions of IRAs that were previously roaded would be available 

for harvest after rulemaking.

Young-growth Harvest

 Allows harvest in Development LUDs, including clearcutting, and entry 

into all phases of the Timber Sale Program Adaptive Management 

Strategy without regard to harvest volumes.

 $OORZVKDUYHVWLQQDWXUDOVHWWLQJ/8'VH[FHSWIRU&RQJUHVVLRQDOO\

designated and administratively withdrawn areas and islands smaller 

than 1,000 acres.

 The portions of IRAs that were previously roaded would be available 

for harvest after rulemaking.

 Commercial harvest is allowed in beach and estuary fringe, in highvulnerability karst, and in RMAs outside of TTRA buffers (details below). 

 Clearcutting is allowed on all lands suitable for timber production 

LQFOXGLQJQDWXUDOVHWWLQJ/8'VH[FHSW50$VDQGKLJKYXOQHUDELOLW\

NDUVWZKHUHRQO\FRPPHUFLDOWKLQQLQJLVDOORZHG7KHPD[LPXP

removal in RMAs outside of TTRA buffers is 33 percent (basal area). 

&OHDUFXWWLQJLQEHDFKDQGHVWXDU\IULQJHLVQRWDOORZHGDIWHU\HDUV

 ,QEHDFKDQGHVWXDU\IULQJHWKHLQWHQWLVWRPDLQWDLQDQDSSUR[LPDWH

1,000-foot wide protected corridor adjacent and inland of any evenaged harvest unit.

 7KHUHLVÀH[LELOLW\WRKDUYHVWDWD\RXQJHUDJHWKDQSHUFHQWRI&0$,

throughout the life of the Plan.

 6FHQHU\VWDQGDUGVZRXOGEHUHOD[HGWR9HU\/RZ6,2IRU\RXQJ

growth harvest. 

LUD Changes

 2OG*URZWK+DELWDW/8'VDUHPRGL¿HGWRFRUUHVSRQGZLWKWKH

biologically preferred option in areas where they were adversely 

affected by land conveyances and other changes resulting from 

Public Law 113-291.

 The Transportation and Utility Systems LUD is removed.

New Plan Direction (Forest Plan Chapter 5)

 Young-growth plan components added to Forest Plan.

 Renewable Energy plan components added to Forest Plan (including 

UHOD[DWLRQRI6,2WR9HU\/RZIRUUHQHZDEOHHQHUJ\GHYHORSPHQW

 Transportation Systems Corridors plan components added to Forest Plan.

 Forest-wide plan direction added to Forest Plan.
Summary

Final EIS 17

Alternative 3 

$OWHUQDWLYHZRXOGDOORZROGJURZWKKDUYHVWRQO\LQ3KDVHRIWKH

existing timber sale program adaptive management strategy (USDA 

Forest Service 2008c) (see color map accompanying this FEIS) but 

ZRXOGDOORZ\RXQJJURZWKKDUYHVWLQDOOSKDVHV7KLVDOWHUQDWLYH

ZRXOGDOORZ\RXQJJURZWKDQGROGJURZWKKDUYHVWLQ5RDGOHVV

Rule IRAs. If this alternative were selected, harvest in IRAs would 

EHGHIHUUHGXQWLODJHQF\UXOHPDNLQJPRGL¿HV&)5E

(2001). 

$OWHUQDWLYHLVVLPLODUWR$OWHUQDWLYHLQWKDWLWLGHQWL¿HVODQGVDV

VXLWDEOHIRU\RXQJJURZWKWLPEHUSURGXFWLRQLQERWKGHYHORSPHQW

and natural setting LUDs (except for Congressionally designated 

DUHDVVXFKDV:LOGHUQHVVDGPLQLVWUDWLYHO\ZLWKGUDZQDUHDVDQG

islands less than 1,000 acres in size), as well as in beach and estuary 

IULQJHDQGKLJKYXOQHUDELOLW\NDUVWEXWQRWLQ50$V<RXQJJURZWK

management may include clearcutting in all areas, except in beach 

DQGHVWXDU\IULQJHDQGRQKLJKYXOQHUDELOLW\NDUVWZKHUHRQO\

commercial thinning is allowed.

,QDGGLWLRQIRU\RXQJJURZWKKDUYHVWXQLWVODUJHUWKDQDFUHVLQ

VCUs that have had concentrated past timber harvest, it is intended 

that 30 percent of the young growth stand acres should be left. This 

legacy provision would be described as a Management Approach in 

the Forest Plan. 

Scenery standards for young growth management would be reduced 

by one level relative to the 2008 Forest Plan. SIOs would be reduced 

as follows: High would be reduced to Moderate, Moderate would be 

reduced to Low, and Low and Very Low would become Very Low. 

$VQRWHGSUHYLRXVO\GXHWR3XEOLF/DZ&0$,UHTXLUHPHQWV

for determining the youngest age for harvest would be eliminated 

on up to 50,000 acres of young growth. Beyond that, the minimum 

KDUYHVWDJHZRXOGFRQWLQXHWREHÀH[LEOHXQGHUH[FHSWLRQVDOORZHG

by NFMA. 

The Forest Plan would include new management direction that 

LPSURYHVÀH[LELOLW\LQUHQHZDEOHHQHUJ\GHYHORSPHQWXQGHUWKLV

alternative. The SIO (scenery standard) for renewable energy 

development would Low for all LUDs and distance zones.
18 Final EIS

Summary

Alternative 3 would provide the second largest amount of timber 

volume (old growth and young growth combined). It would result 

LQWKHVHFRQGORZHVWKDUYHVWRIROGJURZWKRYHUERWKWKH\HDU

DQG\HDUSHULRGV7DEOHVXPPDUL]HVWKHNH\HOHPHQWVRI

$OWHUQDWLYHDQG7DEOHVXPPDUL]HVWKH/8'DFUHVPDSSHG

suitable acres, and projected harvest acres under this alternative for 

young growth and old growth. 

This alternative would harvest timber at a rate of 46 MMBF per 

year (equivalent to the harvest needed to meet the projected timber 

GHPDQGVHH7DEOH,WZRXOGHPSKDVL]H\RXQJJURZWKDQG

minimize old growth while maintaining 46 MMBF per year. As 

such, it is expected to produce an average of about 20 MMBF of 

\RXQJJURZWKDQG00%)RIROGJURZWKSHU\HDUGXULQJWKH¿UVW

\HDUV)LJXUH)URP<HDUWKURXJK<HDULWLVSURMHFWHG

to produce an average of 50 MMBF of young growth and about 5 

MMBF of old growth per year. Alternative 3 would likely reach a 

IXOOWUDQVLWLRQKDUYHVWRI00%)RI\RXQJJURZWKDWDERXW<HDU

<RXQJJURZWKKDUYHVWLVH[SHFWHGWRFRQWLQXHWRLQFUHDVHDWD

UDSLGUDWHDIWHU<HDUDQGLVH[SHFWHGWRUHDFKDQXSSHUOLPLWRI

DERXW00%)LQ<HDU7KHROGJURZWKKDUYHVWUDWHZRXOGEH

held at 5 MMBF per year to support small and micro sales. 
Summary

Final EIS 19

Key Elements of Alternative 3

Old-growth Harvest

 Allows harvest only within Phase 1 of the 2008 Timber Sale Program 

Adaptive

 Management Strategy.

 Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) would be available for harvest 

after rulemaking.

Young-growth Harvest

 Allows harvest in Development LUDs, including clearcutting, 

and entry into all phases of the Timber Sale Program Adaptive 

Management Strategy without regard to harvest volumes.

 $OORZVKDUYHVWLQQDWXUDOVHWWLQJ/8'VH[FHSWIRUFRQJUHVVLRQDOO\

designated and administratively withdrawn areas and islands 

smaller than 1,000 acres.

 IRAs would be available for harvest after rulemaking.

 Commercial harvest is allowed in beach and estuary fringe but not 

in RMAs.

 &OHDUFXWWLQJLVDOORZHGLQDOODUHDVH[FHSWEHDFKDQGHVWXDU\IULQJHDQG

high- vulnerability karst, where only Commercial Thinning is allowed.

 Management Approach to provide legacy in young-growth harvest 

XQLWVODUJHUWKDQDFUHVLQFHUWDLQ9&8V

 7KHUHLVÀH[LELOLW\WRKDUYHVWDWD\RXQJHUDJHWKDQSHUFHQWRI

CMAI throughout the life of the Plan.

 6FHQHU\VWDQGDUGVIRU\RXQJJURZWKPDQDJHPHQWZRXOGEHUHOD[HG

SIOs would be reduced by one level relative to the 2008 Forest Plan 

(i.e., High is reduced to Moderate, Moderate is reduced to Low, and 

/RZDQG9HU\/RZEHFRPH9HU\/RZ

LUD Changes

 2OGJURZWK+DELWDW/8'VDUHPRGL¿HGWRFRUUHVSRQGZLWKWKH

biologically preferred option in areas where they were adversely 

affected by land conveyances and other changes resulting from 

Public Law 113-291.

 The Transportation and Utility Systems LUD is removed.

New Plan Direction (Forest Plan Chapter 5)

 Young-growth plan components added to Forest Plan.

 Renewable Energy plan components added to Forest.

 Transportation Systems Corridors plan components added to Forest Plan.

 Forest-wide plan direction added to Forest Plan.
20 Final EIS

Summary

Alternative 4 

/LNH$OWHUQDWLYHWKLVDOWHUQDWLYHZRXOGDOORZROGJURZWKKDUYHVW

only in Phase 1 of the existing timber sale program adaptive 

management strategy (see color map accompanying this FEIS), but in 

FRQWUDVWZLWK$OWHUQDWLYHLWZRXOGDOVROLPLW\RXQJJURZWKKDUYHVW

to only Phase 1. Similar to Alternative 1, this alternative includes the 

application of the 2001 Roadless Rule.

$OWHUQDWLYHZRXOGDOORZ\RXQJJURZWKPDQDJHPHQWRQO\LQWKH

development LUDs. Harvest is allowed in beach and estuary fringe 

DQGRQKLJKYXOQHUDELOLW\NDUVWEXWRQO\FRPPHUFLDOWKLQQLQJ

LVDOORZHG1RKDUYHVWLVDOORZHGLQ50$V<RXQJJURZWK

management may include clearcutting in other areas. 

,QDGGLWLRQIRU\RXQJJURZWKKDUYHVWXQLWVODUJHUWKDQDFUHVLQ

VCUs that have had concentrated past timber harvest, it is intended 

that 30 percent of the young growth stand acres should be left. This 

legacy provision would be described as a Management Approach in 

the Forest Plan. 

No change would occur in scenery standards relative to the 2008 

Forest Plan. 

$VQRWHGSUHYLRXVO\GXHWR3XEOLF/DZ&0$,UHTXLUHPHQWV

for determining the youngest age for harvest would be eliminated 

RQXSWRDFUHVRI\RXQJJURZWK%H\RQGWKDWWKHPLQLPXP

KDUYHVWDJHZRXOGFRQWLQXHWREHÀH[LEOHXQGHUH[FHSWLRQVDOORZHG

by NFMA.

The Forest Plan would include new management direction that 

LPSURYHVÀH[LELOLW\LQUHQHZDEOHHQHUJ\GHYHORSPHQWXQGHUWKLV

alternative. The SIO (scenery standard) for renewable energy 

development would Low for all LUDs and distance zones.

Alternative 4 would provide the smallest amount of timber volume 

(old growth and young growth combined) and the smallest amounts 

RI\RXQJJURZWKYROXPH,WZRXOGUHVXOWLQWKHVHFRQGKLJKHVW

KDUYHVWRIROGJURZWKGXULQJERWKWKH\HDUDQG\HDUSHULRGV

7DEOHVXPPDUL]HVWKHNH\HOHPHQWVRI$OWHUQDWLYHDQG

7DEOHVXPPDUL]HVWKH/8'DFUHVPDSSHGVXLWDEOHDFUHVDQG
Summary

Final EIS 21

projected harvest acres under this alternative for young growth and 

old growth. 

This alternative would harvest timber at a rate of 46 MMBF per 

year (equivalent to the harvest needed to meet the projected timber 

GHPDQGVHH7DEOH,WZRXOGHPSKDVL]H\RXQJJURZWKDQG

minimize old growth while maintaining 46 MMBF per year. As 

such, it is expected to produce an average of about 11 MMBF of 

\RXQJJURZWKDQG00%)RIROGJURZWKSHU\HDUGXULQJWKH¿UVW

\HDUV)LJXUH)URP<HDUWKURXJK<HDULWLVSURMHFWHG

to produce an average of 26 MMBF of young growth and about 20 

MMBF of old growth per year. Alternative 4 would likely reach 

DIXOOWUDQVLWLRQKDUYHVWRI00%)RI\RXQJJURZWKDERXW<HDU

<RXQJJURZWKKDUYHVWLVH[SHFWHGWRFRQWLQXHWRLQFUHDVHDWD

UDSLGUDWHDIWHU<HDUDQGLVH[SHFWHGWRUHDFKDQXSSHUOLPLWRI

00%)DERXW<HDU7KHROGJURZWKKDUYHVWUDWHZRXOGEHKHOGDW

5 MMBF per year to support small and micro sales.
22 Final EIS

Summary

Key Elements of Alternative 4

Old-growth Harvest

 Allows harvest only within Phase 1 of the 2008 Timber Sale Program 

Adaptive Management Strategy.

 No harvest is allowed in IRAs.

Young-growth Harvest

 Allows harvest in development LUDs, including clearcutting, but 

allows entry only in Phase 1 of the Timber Sale Program Adaptive 

Management Strategy.

 Allows no harvest in natural setting LUDs.

 Allows no harvest in IRAs.

 Commercial harvest is allowed in beach and estuary fringe and in 

high-vulnerability karst within development LUDs, but no harvest is 

allowed in RMAs.

 Clearcutting is not allowed in beach and estuary fringe and highYXOQHUDELOLW\NDUVWRQO\FRPPHUFLDOWKLQQLQJLVDOORZHG

 Management Approach to provide legacy in young-growth harvest 

XQLWVODUJHUWKDQDFUHVLQFHUWDLQ9&8V

 7KHUHLVÀH[LELOLW\WRKDUYHVWEHIRUHSHUFHQWRI&0$,WKURXJKRXW

the life of the Plan.

 No changes would occur in scenery standards relative to the 2008 

Forest Plan.

LUD Changes

 2OG*URZWK+DELWDW/8'VDUHPRGL¿HGWRFRUUHVSRQGZLWKWKH

biologically preferred option in areas where they were adversely 

affected by land conveyances and other changes resulting from 

Public Law 113-291.

 The Transportation and Utility Systems LUD is removed.

New Plan Direction (Forest Plan Chapter 5)

 Young-growth plan components added to Forest Plan.

 Renewable Energy plan components added to Forest Plan.

 Transportation Systems Corridors plan components added to Forest 

Plan.

 Forest-wide plan direction added to Forest Plan.
Summary

Final EIS 23

Alternative 5 (Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 5 is the Preferred Alternative. This alternative is based on 

the recommendations from the Tongass Advisory Committee (TAC), 

a formally established Federal Advisory Committee (see Appendix 

B of the Forest Plan). The establishment of the TAC represents 

a turning point in Tongass management seeking new approaches, 

practices, and responses. The TAC offers a regionally focused, 

collaborative path toward an innovative opportunity for a viable 

young growth timber industry while honoring the suite of values – 

economic, ecological, social, and cultural – inherent in the Forest.

/LNH$OWHUQDWLYHVDQGWKLVDOWHUQDWLYHZRXOGDOORZROGJURZWK

harvest only within Phase 1 of the timber sale program adaptive 

management strategy (see color map accompanying this FEIS). As 

in Alternatives 1 and 4, the 2001 Roadless Rule would apply and no 

ROGJURZWKRU\RXQJJURZWKKDUYHVWZRXOGRFFXULQURDGOHVVDUHDV,Q

DGGLWLRQROGJURZWKKDUYHVWLVH[FOXGHGIURPDOO7RQJDVV73

watersheds and TNC/Audubon Conservation Priority Areas (Albert and 

6FKRHQ7KHVHROGJURZWKKDUYHVWH[FOXVLRQDUHDVDUHVKRZQRQ

the large color map for Alternative 5 that accompanies this FEIS.

$VLQ$OWHUQDWLYHVDQG$OWHUQDWLYHZRXOGDOORZ\RXQJ

growth harvest in all three phases of the timber sale program adaptive 

PDQDJHPHQWVWUDWHJ\,WZRXOGDOORZ\RXQJJURZWKPDQDJHPHQWLQ

GHYHORSPHQW/8'VDQGLQWKH2OGJURZWK+DELWDW/8'LQFOXGLQJ

harvest in beach and estuary fringe and RMAs outside of TTRA 

EXIIHUVZLWKLQWKHVHVDPH/8'V+RZHYHU\RXQJJURZWKKDUYHVWLQ

WKH2OGJURZWK+DELWDW/8'EHDFKDQGHVWXDU\IULQJHDQG50$V

RXWVLGHRI775$EXIIHUVZRXOGEHDOORZHGRQO\GXULQJWKH¿UVW

15 years after Plan approval, and created openings for commercial 

harvest (up to 10 acres and a maximum removal of up to 35 

percent of the acres of the original harvested stand) or commercial 

WKLQQLQJZRXOGEHDOORZHG,QEHDFKDQGHVWXDU\IULQJHD

3

 The Tongass 77 (T77) refers to value comparison units (VCUs), which 

approximate major watersheds located on National Forest System lands that Trout 

8QOLPLWHG$ODVND3URJUDPLGHQWL¿HGDVSULRULW\VDOPRQZDWHUVKHGV$VDUHVXOW

of the Sealaska Land Entitlement Finalization in the Carl Levin and Howard P. 

3%XFN ́0F.HRQ1DWLRQDO'HIHQVH$XWKRUL]DWLRQ$FWIRU)LVFDO<HDU3XEOLF

/DZWKHUHZDVDQHWUHGXFWLRQLQWKH7ZDWHUVKHGVIURPWR7R

provide clarity and consistency, the T77 nomenclature will continue to be used in 

this document when referring to these priority watersheds.
24 Final EIS

Summary

IRRWQRFRPPHUFLDOKDUYHVWEXIIHUDGMDFHQWWRWKHVKRUHOLQHZRXOG

EHUHTXLUHG$ORQJODNHVKRUHOLQHVDIRRWQRFXWFRPPHUFLDO

harvest buffer would be established. Scenery standards (SIOs) for 

young growth management would be reduced to Very Low for all 

distance zones in the development LUDs only. This standard would 

DOVRDSSO\ZKHQ\RXQJJURZWKDQGROGJURZWKKDUYHVWVDUHSODQQHG

in the same Viewshed.

$VQRWHGSUHYLRXVO\GXHWR3XEOLF/DZ&0$,UHTXLUHPHQWV

for determining the youngest age for harvest would be eliminated 

RQXSWRDFUHVRI\RXQJJURZWK%H\RQGWKDWWKHPLQLPXP

KDUYHVWDJHZRXOGFRQWLQXHWREHÀH[LEOHXQGHUH[FHSWLRQVDOORZHG

by NFMA.

The Forest Plan would include new management direction that 

LPSURYHVÀH[LELOLW\LQUHQHZDEOHHQHUJ\GHYHORSPHQWXQGHUWKLV

alternative. The SIO (scenery standard) for renewable energy 

development would Low for all LUDs and distance zones. 

Alternative 5 would provide the second smallest amount of timber 

volume (old growth and young growth combined) among the 

DOWHUQDWLYHVEXWWKHVHFRQGODUJHVWDPRXQWRIROGJURZWKYROXPH

DPRQJWKHDFWLRQDOWHUQDWLYHV7DEOHVXPPDUL]HVWKHNH\

HOHPHQWVRI$OWHUQDWLYHDQG7DEOHVXPPDUL]HVWKH/8'

acres, mapped suitable acres, and projected harvest acres under this 

alternative for young growth and old growth. 

This alternative would harvest timber at a rate of 46 MMBF per 

year (equivalent to the harvest needed to meet the projected timber 

GHPDQGVHH7DEOH,WZRXOGHPSKDVL]H\RXQJJURZWKDQG

minimize old growth while maintaining 46 MMBF per year. As 

such, it is expected to produce an average of about 12 MMBF of 

\RXQJJURZWKDQG00%)RIROGJURZWKSHU\HDUGXULQJWKH¿UVW

\HDUV)LJXUH)URP<HDUWKURXJK<HDULWLVSURMHFWHG

to produce an average of 28 MMBF of young growth and about 18 

MMBF of old growth per year. Alternative 5 would likely reach 

DIXOOWUDQVLWLRQKDUYHVWRI00%)RI\RXQJJURZWKDERXW<HDU

<RXQJJURZWKKDUYHVWLVH[SHFWHGWRFRQWLQXHWRLQFUHDVHDWD

UDSLGUDWHDIWHU<HDUDQGLVH[SHFWHGWRUHDFKDQXSSHUOLPLWRI

00%)DERXW<HDU7KHROGJURZWKKDUYHVWUDWHZRXOGEHKHOGDW

5 MMBF per year to support small and micro sales. 
Summary

Final EIS 25

Key Elements of Alternative 5

Old-growth Harvest

 Allows harvest only within Phase 1 of the 2008 Timber Sale Program 

Adaptive Management Strategy.

 No harvest is allowed in IRAs.

 No harvest is allowed within the T77 watersheds or the TNC/

Audubon conservation priority watersheds.

Young-growth Harvest

 Allows harvest in Development LUDs, including clearcutting, 

and entry into all phases of the Timber Sale Program Adaptive 

Management Strategy without regard to harvest levels.

 Allows harvest in Old Growth Habitat LUDs, but not in other natural 

setting LUDs or on islands less than 1,000 acres

 No harvest is allowed in IRAs.

 Commercial harvest is allowed in beach and estuary fringe outside 

of a 200-foot buffer and in RMAs outside of TTRA buffers.

 A 100-foot no-cut buffer is established around all lakes.

 In Old Growth Habitat LUDs, Beach Fringe (outside of the 200-foot 

buffer) and in RMAs outside of TTRA buffers, clearcutting is not 

DOORZHGEXWSDWFKFXWVDFUHRSHQLQJVDQGDPD[LPXPRI

percent removal) is allowed, along with commercial thinning. Harvest 

LVDOORZHGLQWKHVHODQGFDWHJRULHVRQO\GXULQJWKH¿UVW\HDUVDIWHU

plan approval.

 7KHUHLVÀH[LELOLW\WRKDUYHVWDWD\RXQJHUDJHWKDQSHUFHQWRI

CMAI throughout the life of the Plan.

 7KHVFHQHU\VWDQGDUGV6,2VZRXOGEHUHGXFHGWR9HU\/RZLQ

development LUDs only.

LUD Changes

 2OG*URZWK+DELWDW/8'VDUHPRGL¿HGWRFRUUHVSRQGZLWKWKH

biologically preferred option in areas where they were negatively 

affected by land conveyances and other changes resulting from 

Public Law 113-291.

 The Transportation and Utility Systems LUD is removed.

New Plan Direction (Chapter 5)

 Young-growth plan components added to Forest Plan.

 Renewable Energy plan components added to Forest Plan.

 Transportation Systems Corridors plan components added to Forest 

Plan.

 Forest-wide plan direction added to Forest Plan.
26 Final EIS

Summary

Comparison of the Alternatives

7KLVVHFWLRQEULHÀ\FRPSDUHVWKHHQYLURQPHQWDOFRQVHTXHQFHVRI

WKH¿YHDOWHUQDWLYHVZLWKUHVSHFWWRWKHVLJQL¿FDQWLVVXHVGHVFULEHG

in Chapter 1. This comparison is based on the effects analyses 

presented in Chapter 3. 

Issue 1 – Young-growth Transition

The purpose and need for this project is primarily based on a 

memorandum from the Secretary of Agriculture (see Chapter 1) that 

directs management of the Tongass National Forest to expedite the 

WUDQVLWLRQDZD\IURPROGJURZWKWLPEHUKDUYHVWLQJDQGWRZDUGVD

IRUHVWSURGXFWVLQGXVWU\WKDWXWLOL]HVSUHGRPLQDQWO\VHFRQGJURZWK

±RU\RXQJJURZWK±IRUHVWV6HFUHWDU\9LOVDFN¶VPHPRUDQGXP

also guides that the transition should be implemented in a manner 

that preserves a viable timber industry that provides jobs and 

opportunities for Southeast Alaska residents. USDA’s goal is to 

effectuate this transition, over the next 10 to 15 years, so that at the 

end of this period the vast majority of timber sold by the Tongass will 

be young growth. This timeframe will conserve old growth forests 

while allowing the forest industry time to adapt.

Because of the Secretary’s memorandum, the existing condition 

HPSKDVL]HVDWUDQVLWLRQWR\RXQJJURZWKDQGPLQLPL]HVROGJURZWK

harvest, but does this within the constraints of the 2008 Forest 

Plan. Alternative 1 (no action) would result in full transition to a 

SUHGRPLQDQWO\\RXQJJURZWKEDVHGLQGXVWU\LQDERXW\HDUVZHOO

beyond the 15 year goal presented in the Secretary’s memorandum. 

In contrast, all of the action alternatives would result in a full 

transition in about 12 to 16 years. Because these timeframes 

represent full transition, the period in which the “vast majority of 

timber sold by the Tongass will be young growth” is expected to 

be about 10 to 15 years for the action alternatives. Of the action 

alternatives, the fastest transition (12 years) would occur with 

Alternative 2 and the slowest transition (16 years) would occur with 

Alternatives 4 and 5.

All of the alternatives are expected to support from 184 to 231 

DQQXDOL]HGGLUHFWMREVGXULQJWKH¿UVWGHFDGHGHSHQGLQJRQWKH
Summary

Final EIS 27

portion of total harvest that is exported. Total estimated jobs are 

very similar across the alternatives, with the highest number of direct 

jobs supported by Alternative 2 and the lowest number of direct jobs 

supported by Alternative 1. In addition, each alternative is expected 

to meet the projected demand for Tongass timber. Therefore, each 

alternative is expected to meet the criterion of maintaining a viable 

industry. However, it is unclear how quickly industry will be able 

to “retool” mills and harvesting equipment and how markets will 

UHDFWWRFKDQJLQJIURPROGJURZWKWR\RXQJJURZWKIRUHVWSURGXFWV

thus, this criterion is associated with a relatively high degree of 

uncertainty.

Under all alternatives, the harvest of old growth would diminish over 

time and the harvest of young growth would increase. Therefore, all 

RIWKHDOWHUQDWLYHVZRXOG3FRQVHUYHROGJURZWKIRUHVWV ́7KHODUJHVW

ROGJURZWKKDUYHVWLQWKH¿UVW\HDUVZRXOGEHDERXWDFUHV

with Alternative 1. Each of the action alternatives would harvest less 

old growth, ranging from 15,000 acres with Alternative 2 to 24,000 

acres with Alternative 5. The same pattern among the alternatives 

RFFXUVZLWKWKH\HDUKDUYHVWDVZHOO

Issue 2 – Renewable Energy

Another important part of the purpose and need for this project 

is the purpose of establishing new direction in the Forest Plan so 

that renewable energy development is more permissible. There is 

a need to stimulate economic development in Southeast Alaska 

FRPPXQLWLHVDQGSURYLGHORZFDUERQHQHUJ\DOWHUQDWLYHVWKHUHE\

displacing the use of fossil fuel. Under the 2008 Forest Plan, 

siting of energy projects is limited in certain LUDs, and it would 

remain that way under Alternative 1. Under each of the action 

alternatives (Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5), changes would be made to 

WKH)RUHVW3ODQWKDWZRXOGUHVXOWLQLPSURYHGÀH[LELOLW\LQVLWLQJDQG

development of renewable energy projects.

Issue 3 – Inventoried Roadless Areas 

Under Alternatives 1, 4, and 5 IRAs are withdrawn from timber 

production and not suitable for timber production (FSH 1909.12, 
28 Final EIS

Summary

chapter 60, section 61.11). In Alternative 2, IRAs that were 

previously roaded would be available for road construction and 

timber harvest and in Alternative 3, all IRAs would be available for 

road construction and timber harvest. In both Alternatives 2 and 

3, entry into IRAs would not be permitted without rulemaking or, 

in the case of Alternative 3, if the 2003 Tongass Exemption (68 FR 

75136) is reinstated. Estimated acres of timber harvest in IRAs over 

100 years would range from 0 acres for Alternatives 1, 4, and 5, to 

11,000 acres for Alternative 2, to 29,000 acres for Alternative 3. The 

protection of roadless characteristics would be directly proportional 

to the projected acres of timber harvest with Alternatives 1, 4, and 

5 providing the most protection, Alternative 2 providing the second 

most protection, and Alternative 3 providing the least protection.

Issue 4 – Wildlife Habitat and the Conservation 

Strategy

5HODWLYHWRROGJURZWKKDELWDWFRQVHUYDWLRQ$OWHUQDWLYHZRXOG

KDYHWKHKLJKHVWKDUYHVWSHUFHQWRIH[LVWLQJ32*IROORZHGE\

$OWHUQDWLYHSHUFHQWRIH[LVWLQJ32*IROORZHGE\$OWHUQDWLYH

SHUFHQWRIH[LVWLQJ32*IROORZHGE\$OWHUQDWLYHVDQG

SHUFHQWRIH[LVWLQJ32*7KHFKDQJHLQWKHSHUFHQWRI

RULJLQDO32*UHPDLQLQJDIWHU\HDUVZRXOGIROORZWKHVDPH

SDWWHUQ&XUUHQWO\SHUFHQWRIRULJLQDO32*LVUHPDLQLQJXQGHU

all alternatives this percentage would drop by about 1 percent 

after 100 years. Alternative 1 would result in about 90 percent 

remaining and the action alternatives would each result in about 

91 percent remaining. This same pattern would continue for the 

SHUFHQWUHGXFWLRQLQKLJKYROXPH32*7KHH[LVWLQJSHUFHQWRI

RULJLQDOKLJKYROXPH32*UHPDLQLQJZRXOGEHUHGXFHGWRDERXW

SHUFHQWIRUDOODOWHUQDWLYHVDIWHU\HDUV)RUODUJHWUHH32*

about 79 percent of the original acres exist. Alternative 1 would 

result in about 78 percent remaining after 100 years, while the action 

alternatives would maintain about 79 percent.

<RXQJJURZWKKDUYHVWLQWKHEHDFKDQGHVWXDU\IULQJHZRXOG

be lowest under Alternative 1 (no harvest). Under the action 
Summary

Final EIS 29

DOWHUQDWLYHVQRKDUYHVWRI32*ZRXOGRFFXUEXWLPSDFWVUHVXOWLQJ

from young growth harvest would be highest under Alternative 2, 

ZKLFKZRXOGLQFOXGHWKHVHFRQGKLJKHVWDPRXQWRI\RXQJJURZWK

acres and would allow clearcutting. Under Alternatives 3 and 

FRQVLGHUDEOH\RXQJJURZWKDFUHDJHZRXOGEHKDUYHVWHGEXW

using commercial thinning, which would result in less effects than 

clearcutting. Alternative 5 would have the lowest effect on beach 

DQGHVWXDU\IULQJHDPRQJWKHDFWLRQDOWHUQDWLYHVEHFDXVH\RXQJ

growth acreage would be lowest and only patch cutting (with created 

openings up to 10 acres and a maximum removal of up to 35 percent 

of the acres of the original harvested stand) or commercial thinning 

ZRXOGEHDOORZHGDQGRQO\GXULQJWKH¿UVW\HDUVDIWHU)RUHVW3ODQ

DSSURYDOZLWKDRQHWLPHHQWU\UHVWULFWLRQ

For RMAs, the lowest effects would be associated with Alternatives 

1, 3, and 4, which would permit no harvest in RMAs. Alternative 2 

would have the greatest harvest impacts in RMAs because it would 

include the highest amount of acreage and would allow clearcutting 

GXULQJWKH¿UVW\HDUVRI)RUHVW3ODQDSSURYDODQGFRPPHUFLDO

thinning thereafter. Effects to RMAs would be lower under 

Alternative 5 due to a lower amount of acres harvested and only 

patch cutting or commercial thinning would be permitted and only 

GXULQJWKH¿UVW\HDUVDIWHU)RUHVW3ODQDSSURYDOZLWKDRQHWLPH

entry restriction. 

,QWKH2OGJURZWK+DELWDW/8'$OWHUQDWLYHVDQGZRXOGDOORZQR

\RXQJJURZWKKDUYHVW7KHJUHDWHVWDPRXQWRI\RXQJJURZWKKDUYHVW

LQWKH2OGJURZWK+DELWDW/8'ZRXOGRFFXUXQGHU$OWHUQDWLYH

followed by Alternatives 3 and 5. Effects would be greatest under 

Alternative 2 because it would allow clearcutting and have the 

largest harvest acreage, and less under Alternative 3 because only 

commercial thinning would be allowed, followed by Alternative 5 

which would allow only patch cutting or thinning and only during 

WKH¿UVW\HDUVDIWHU)RUHVW3ODQDSSURYDODQGZLWKDRQHWLPHHQWU\

restriction.
30 Final EIS

Summary

Average total road density across the Forest (NFS lands only) under 

all alternatives would be approximately 0.23 mile per square mile 

after 100 years, an increase of 0.03 to 0.04 mile per square mile 

DERYHH[LVWLQJOHYHOV$SSUR[LPDWHO\SHUFHQWRI:$$VZRXOG

have total road densities ranging between 0.0 and 0.7 mile per 

square mile under all alternatives. Total roads are conservatively 

GH¿QHGWRLQFOXGHRSHQURDGVFORVHGURDGVDQGGHFRPPLVVLRQHG

roads. Average open road density across the Forest (NFS lands only) 

would be approximately 0.09 mile per square mile, an increase of 

approximately 0.005 mile per square mile under all alternatives. 

$SSUR[LPDWHO\SHUFHQWRI:$$VZRXOGKDYHRSHQURDG

densities ranging between 0.0 and 0.7 mile per square mile under all 

alternatives. Therefore, any potential increase in hunter access or 

risk of overharvest for wildlife species would be minor and localized, 

DQGZRXOGQRWEHPHDVXUDEOHDWWKHIRUHVWZLGHVFDOHXQGHUDQ\RI

the alternatives. 

7KHWUDQVLWLRQWR\RXQJJURZWKPDQDJHPHQWZRXOGVORZWKHORQJ

term decrease in deer habitat capability due to the reduction in 

32*KDUYHVW%DVHGRQ,QWHUDJHQF\'HHU+DELWDW&DSDELOLW\PRGHO

outputs, deer habitat capability under all of the alternatives would 

GHFOLQHDERXWSHUFHQWRYHU\HDUV)RUHVWZLGHDOODOWHUQDWLYHV

would maintain about 99 percent of the existing deer habitat 

capability. Results based on the Forage Resource Evaluation System 

IRU'HHURU)5(6+GHHUPRGHODUHYHU\VLPLODU)RUHVWZLGHWKH

existing level of habitat quality would be decline about 1 percent 

after 100 years under all alternatives.

&XPXODWLYH32*KDUYHVWRQDOOODQGRZQHUVKLSVZRXOGEHJUHDWHVW

under Alternative 1, followed by Alternatives 4, 5, 3, and 2 (in that 

order). Cumulative effects would be least under the alternatives that 

SURSRVHWKHVKRUWHVW\RXQJJURZWKWUDQVLWLRQWLPH$IWHU\HDUV

RI)RUHVW3ODQLPSOHPHQWDWLRQDQGQRQ1)6KDUYHVWVDSSUR[LPDWHO\

SHUFHQWRIWKHRULJLQDOWRWDO32*IRUHVWDERXWSHUFHQW

RIWKHRULJLQDOKLJKYROXPH32*DQGWRSHUFHQWRIWKHRULJLQDO

ODUJHWUHH32*ZRXOGEHPDLQWDLQHGRQDOOODQGRZQHUVKLSVXQGHUDOO

of the alternatives. 
Summary

Final EIS 31

Cumulative road densities (all land ownerships) would be similar 

among alternatives (about 0.45 mile per square mile), representing 

an increase of about 0.11 to 0.12 miles per square mile above current 

conditions. Open road densities for all land ownerships would 

increase from about 0.22 mile per square mile to about 0.24 mile per 

square mile after 100 years under all alternatives.
32 Final EIS

Summary

This page is intentionally left blank.
Summary

Final EIS 33

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department 

of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the 

86'$LWV$JHQFLHVRI¿FHVDQGHPSOR\HHVDQGLQVWLWXWLRQV

participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited 

from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, 

VH[JHQGHULGHQWLW\LQFOXGLQJJHQGHUH[SUHVVLRQVH[XDO

orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, 

income derived from a public assistance program, political 

beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any 

program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases 

DSSO\WRDOOSURJUDPV5HPHGLHVDQGFRPSODLQW¿OLQJGHDGOLQHV

vary by program or incident. 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of 

communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large 

print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact 

the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 

720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the 

Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program 

information may be made available in languages other than 

English. 

7R¿OHDSURJUDPGLVFULPLQDWLRQFRPSODLQWFRPSOHWHWKH86'$

Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online 

DWKWWSZZZDVFUXVGDJRYFRPSODLQWB¿OLQJBFXVWKWPODQG

DWDQ\86'$RI¿FHRUZULWHDOHWWHUDGGUHVVHGWR86'$DQG

provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. 

To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. 

Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. 

'HSDUWPHQWRI$JULFXOWXUH2I¿FHRIWKH$VVLVWDQW6HFUHWDU\IRU

Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 

ID[RUHPDLOSURJUDP

intake@usda.gov. 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender. 

Federal Recycling Program

Printed on Recycled Paper
34 Final EIS

Summary

Main Cover Photo: Photograph taken looking northwest from above Neets 

Bay on north Revillagigedo Island. An unnamed cove and timber harvest on 

the peninsula lie in the foreground with Gedney Pass and Hassler Island in the 

background (right). 

Inset Photo on Back: Blue Lake Hydroelectric Project (courtesy Desiree Brandis)