United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest Service 

Tongass 

National 

Forest 

R10-MB-496 

September 2003 

Woodpecker 

Project Area

2003 Record of Decision 



Woodpecker 

Project Area

2003 Record of Decision

Tongass National Forest 

Petersburg Ranger District 

USDA Forest Service 

Alaska Region 

 Lead Agency: Tongass National Forest 

648 Mission Street 

Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 

 

 Responsible Official: Forrest Cole 

Forest Supervisor 

Tongass National Forest 

 

 For Further 

Information Contact: 

Patricia Grantham, District Ranger 

or 

Cynthia Sever, Interdisciplinary Team 

Leader 

Tongass National Forest 

PO Box 1328 

Petersburg, Alaska 99833 

(907) 772-3871 

Woodpecker Project Area 2003 Record of Decision - Page 1

Woodpecker Project Area 

2003 Record of Decision 

Introduction 

This Record of Decision (ROD) documents my decision to implement activities from 

the Woodpecker Project Area Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) 

published in August 2001. This decision augments the Record of Decision signed for 

the Woodpecker Project Area on December 24, 2002. The 2002 Record of Decision 

(2002 ROD) included only the activities within roaded areas as defined by the U.S. 

District Court, District of Alaska in Sierra Club v. Rey (J00-0009 CV (JKS). The 

activities in the 2002 ROD included timber harvest units, temporary road 

construction, dispersed recreation sites, and parking turnouts. This Record of 

Decision would implement timber harvest and units and roads within areas that were 

considered unroaded at that time, including those activities within the Crystal 

Inventoried Roadless Area. This is consistent with the Roadless Area Conservation 

Rule (36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 294.14(d)) which allows projects on the 

Tongass National Forest to be implemented if a notice of availability for a draft 

environmental impact statement that includes timber harvest or road construction in 

an inventoried roadless area has been published in the Federal Register prior to 

January 12, 2001. The notice of availability for the Woodpecker Project Area Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement was published on August 18, 2000. 

The Woodpecker Project Area is located on Mitkof Island in southeast Alaska, 

approximately 27 miles southwest of Petersburg, Alaska, on the Petersburg Ranger 

District of the Tongass National Forest (Figure ROD-1). This project area, which is 

approximately 32,590 acres, is adjacent to Sumner Strait and the Wrangell Narrows. 

This decision includes the specific location and design of timber harvest units and 

roads, and resource protection requirements. Timber from this decision may be sold 

in multiple sales of varying sizes. In addition, this decision includes the 

implementation of road management objectives, including intended use and 

maintenance levels. 

Decision 

This Record of Decision documents my decision to implement forest management 

activities in the Woodpecker Project Area. My decision consists of: 

• the location and method of timber harvest, road construction and 

reconstruction, log transfer facilities, and silvicultural practices, 

• road management objectives, 

• mitigation measures and monitoring requirements, and 
2003 Record of Decision 

Page 2 - 2003 Record of Decision Woodpecker Project Area 

• whether there may be a significant possibility of a significant restriction on 

subsistence uses. 

I have decided to issue another Record of Decision for the Woodpecker Project Area 

that selects the timber harvest units and road construction within the unroaded areas 

as analyzed in Alternative 6 of the Woodpecker Project Area Final EIS and to 

authorize the actions necessary to implement this decision. The combination of these 

activities with the activities approved in the 2002 Record of Decision result in the 

same effects to the environment as determined for Alternative 6, which are fully 

disclosed in the Woodpecker Project Area Final EIS.

The timber harvest units and road construction for this decision include: 

• Units 88, 88b, 90, 90a, 90c, 90d, 90e, which are entirely within the Crystal 

Inventoried Roadless Area. 

• Units 109, 110, 117a, 117b, 117c, 117d, 118, 119, 119a, 122, 122a which are 

all or partially outside the area which is 1200 feet from existing roads which 

was defined as unroaded for the injunction associated with the Forest Plan 

SEIS. 

• Unit 35a at the end of Road 6245 which is partially within the Inventoried 

Roadless Area and the temporary road needed for access. 

• The portion of Unit 98 that is within the Crystal Inventoried Roadless Area. 

• Classified Road 40822 and Road 40821 and associated temporary roads 

needed to access the harvest units. 

• The extension of Road 6282 to create a loop road with Road 6245. The 

section of this road that was part of the 2002 Record of Decision would be 

constructed as a classified road instead of a temporary road. 

This decision is based on the environmental analysis in the Woodpecker Project Area 

Final EIS (August 2001) and takes into consideration the comments received on the 

Draft EIS, the issues raised on the appeal of the 2001 Record of Decision, the 

supplemental information report prepared in 2002, the 2002 Record of Decision, and 

all comments received prior to the date of this decision. This decision meets the 

purpose and need for the project and is consistent with the 1997 Record of Decision, 

as amended, for the Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

(Forest Plan) and the 2003 Record of Decision for the Supplemental EIS for the 

Forest Plan (Forest Plan SEIS). The Forest Plan was developed under the 1982 

planning regulations (36 CFR 219). The Forest Service also elected to prepare the 

SEIS under these regulations. 

Highlighted Features of this decision: 

1) Timber will be harvested from approximately 900 acres in the project area. 

This harvest will provide an estimated 10.9 million board feet (mmbf) 

[22,296 hundred cubic feet (ccf)] of sawtimber and utility volume based on 

estimates of unit volume (actual cruised volume may vary). Design features 
2003 Record of Decision 

Woodpecker Project Area 2003 Record of Decision - Page 3

and mitigation measures for the 20 harvest units are described in detail on the 

unit card narratives in the Appendix of this Record of Decision. Of these 

harvest units, four units totaling 100 acres will be managed as two-aged 

stands with a retention of 20 to 30 percent of the stand basal area. Sixteen 

units totaling 800 acres will be managed as uneven-aged stands with the first 

entry retaining 50 to 75 percent of the stand basal area. 

2) Approximately 4.8 miles of classified roads designed for long term use will 

be constructed. Approximately 1.3 miles of temporary roads will be 

constructed to facilitate harvest within the units. All of the temporary roads 

constructed will be decommissioned as soon as practicable after timber 

harvest activities are completed. Decommissioning of roads that are not 

needed for long-term management will include stabilization and restoration 

to a more natural state. To achieve this, actions may include blocking the 

entrance to a road, installing waterbars, removing culverts, restoring 

vegetation, and reestablishing former drainage patterns. 

3) An existing log transfer facility will be used for timber transport, or the 

timber may be transported by road and processed in Petersburg. There may 

be a floating logging camp to facilitate the timber harvest, but no land-based 

camp is being considered at this time. The operator of the camp will be 

responsible for securing appropriate permits from state and federal agencies. 

4) This Record of Decision incorporates the Forest Plan standards and 

guidelines, project design elements, and mitigation measures to reduce or 

eliminate adverse environmental effects of timber harvest specified in the 

Woodpecker Project Area Final EIS. These mitigation measures are listed in 

Chapter 2 and in Appendices B and D of the Woodpecker Project Area Final 

EIS. Chapter 2 also contains the implementation and effectiveness 

monitoring planned to determine how well resource management objectives 

have been met. 

5) The direct effects from this decision combined with the 2002 ROD do not 

present a significant possibility of a significant restriction of subsistence uses 

of any wildlife, fish and shellfish, marine mammals, other foods, and timber 

resources in the project area. The potential foreseeable future and cumulative 

effects from implementing the Forest Plan, including the selection of the 

activities to be implemented, do not present a significant possibility of a 

significant restriction of subsistence uses of resources other than deer. 

However, there may be a significant possibility of a significant restriction of 

subsistence use of Sitka black-tailed deer based on projected past, present 

and reasonably foreseeable activities in the Woodpecker Project Area. This 

is true for any alternative, including the no-action alternative. Measures for 

minimization of impacts to subsistence resources suggested through agency 

and public scoping have been incorporated into the design elements of the 

Selected Alternative. A subsistence hearing was held in Petersburg, Alaska, 
2003 Record of Decision 

Page 4 - 2003 Record of Decision Woodpecker Project Area 

which is in the vicinity of the project area, to determine the extent of the use 

of the area for subsistence resources. 

Reasons for the Decision 

In making this decision, I considered the many issues raised during the development 

and scoping of this project. These issues were raised in comments on the 

Woodpecker Project Area Draft EIS, in the appeal of the 2001 Record of Decision, 

and during a public teleconference to discuss the results of the supplemental 

information report. Many divergent public and agency opinions were expressed 

during the analysis. I took into account competing interests and values of the public. 

These comments have helped me make a better informed decision. I have considered 

all views that have been expressed, and have used these contributions where feasible 

and consistent with the purpose and need of the project. 

1. The Selected Alternative provides a beneficial mix of resources for the public 

within the framework of the existing laws, regulations, policies, public needs 

and desires, and capabilities of the land, while meeting the stated purpose and 

need for this project. This decision is suited to this project area at this time. 

This project provides the opportunity to provide wood fiber to society, 

supports the part of the local economy that is based on timber resources, and 

still protects the other resources within the project area. Providing an even 

flow of timber products, along with resource protection, is one of several 

multiple-use goals of the Forest Plan (see Chapter 2 of the Forest Plan). 

Without obtaining decisions on environmental analyses in a timely manner, an 

even flow of timber products cannot be obtained (see Appendix A of the 

Woodpecker Project Area Final EIS). 

2. This project has been accomplished with thorough public involvement and has 

gained local public support. I acknowledge that some comments opposed this 

project (and some opposed any timber harvest on all National Forest System 

land), and some recommended that the no-action alternative or Alternative 3 

be chosen. However, in my reevaluation of the previous decision, I decided 

that implementing the rest of the timber harvest and adding the construction of 

the roads from Alternative 6 of the Woodpecker Project Area Final EIS was 

warranted for this project for the reasons outlined above and below. 

3. During the environmental analysis, I recognized that less than complete 

knowledge exists about many relationships and conditions of wildlife, fish, 

forests, jobs, and communities. The ecology, inventory, and management of a 

large forest area is a complex and developing science. The analysis of 

wildlife species prompts questions about population dynamics and habitat 

relationships. The interaction between resource supply, the economy, and 

communities is not an exact science. 

4. The data and level of analysis used in the EIS are commensurate with the 

magnitude of the possible impacts (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 
2003 Record of Decision 

Woodpecker Project Area 2003 Record of Decision - Page 5

1502.15). When encountering a gap in information, the interdisciplinary team 

(IDT) took one of two approaches: (1) the missing information was collected, 

or analysis necessary to identify important relationships was conducted, or (2) 

the IDT concluded that although the missing information would have added 

precision to estimates or better specified a relationship, the basic data and 

central relationships are sufficiently established in the respective sciences so 

that new information would be very unlikely to reverse or nullify understood 

relationships. Where relevant, the project analysis tiered to the information 

from the Forest Plan (40 CFR 1502.20). 

5. I have carefully considered the timing of this decision in view of ongoing 

changes in agency regulations and ongoing litigation. The previous decision 

(2002 ROD) to modify the Selected Alternative even though the analysis 

proved to be valid was made to provide more timely timber sale offerings on 

Mitkof Island. The timing of this 2003 decision is affected by recent changes 

in regulations and ongoing appeals and litigation. Some of the factors I 

considered in making this decision include: 

• The 1997 Forest Plan allows for the activities approved by this decision to 

take place. These activities are further supported by the analysis and 

decision for the Forest Plan SEIS. 

• In recent years, analysis requirements stemming from litigation and 

administrative actions have created delays in normal timber sale planning 

schedules. Many projects have been cancelled or deferred long-term due 

to constantly changing legal and regulatory requirements and limitations. 

Other projects that were started in the last few years, and were near 

completion but were deferred due to the changing legal and policy 

environment, are being re-started with the associated one- to two-year 

timeline to completion. Since the Woodpecker Project Area Final EIS and 

the supplemental information report have been recently completed, this 

project presents an excellent opportunity to make additional harvest 

volume available to the timber industry. 

• The Tongass National Forest will continue to be managed in compliance 

with Section 101 of the Tongass Timber Reform Act of 1990 (TTRA), 

which modified the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act 

(ANILCA). This states that the Secretary of Agriculture “...shall, to the 

extent consistent with providing for the multiple use and sustained yield of 

all renewable forest resources, 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.” In order to provide a steady flow of timber 

harvest volume, timber sale projects need to be completed through the 

NEPA process each year to meet current and future market demand. 

• This project has received good support from the local community and is 

relatively uncontroversial. The Petersburg City Council passed a 

resolution on February 17, 1998 in support of small timber sales from 

National Forest Service System lands. On June 3, 2002, another 
2003 Record of Decision 

Page 6 - 2003 Record of Decision Woodpecker Project Area 

resolution was passed by the City Council to support the Southeast Timber 

Task Force proposal which addresses the issue of sustaining a viable forest 

products industry in Southeast Alaska. A third resolution, passed on 

August 9, 2002, supported the No-action Alternative (Alternative 1) of the 

Forest Plan SEIS, which would allow the management activities currently 

authorized by the Forest Plan to continue. 

6. My decision conforms to the Forest Plan and the principles of sound National 

Forest management. I have considered the need to help provide a sustained 

level of timber supply to meet annual and Forest Plan planning cycle market 

demand, and to provide diverse opportunities for natural resource 

employment, consistent with multiple use and sustained yield of all renewable 

forest resources. The timber volume from this project area will help meet the 

needs for society and for a steady supply for the timber industry in Southeast 

Alaska. 

7. The unit designs and harvest prescriptions in this decision reflect the best 

possible balance of the physical conditions and economic opportunities 

characteristic of this project area. These conditions cannot be directly 

compared to projects in different locations with different land use designations 

and different environmental and social concerns. The terrain, stand 

conditions, scenery, economic opportunities and the Forest Plan guidance for 

the Woodpecker Project Area are, in their combination, unique to this area. 

8. The effects to high value deer winter habitat were taken into consideration. 

Much of the 3,370 acres of high value deer winter habitat in the Woodpecker 

Project Area is already unavailable for timber harvest because of Forest Plan 

land use designations or standards and guidelines. Other stands available for 

timber harvest were not proposed for timber harvest for this entry due to 

concerns about availability of high value deer winter habitat, as discussed in 

the Woodpecker Project Area Final EIS. This decision does propose harvest 

within high value deer winter habitat in Units 122, Unit 122a, and portions of 

Units 90 and 90d. The effects of harvesting these units will be reduced by 

using uneven-aged management with a silvicultural prescription of group 

selection with 75 percent tree retention. This prescription will remove trees in 

two-acre patches. Combined with timber harvest with the same silvicultural 

prescriptions for Units 121 and 161a from the 2002 Record of Decision, this 

will be an estimated total of 35 acres harvested in two-acre patches within the 

high value deer winter habitat. The harvested patches may have beneficial 

effects by creating more forage adjacent to good winter cover. 

9. Many comments were received about road access for non-timber harvest uses, 

the effects of road construction on other resources, and the lack of road 

maintenance funds. These comments were carefully considered. Road 

construction facilitates the harvest and transport of timber, and is safer and 

more economically feasible and less dependent on optimum weather 

conditions than the use of helicopters. 
2003 Record of Decision 

Woodpecker Project Area 2003 Record of Decision - Page 7

10. About 4.8 miles of classified roads designed for long term use and 1.3 miles 

of temporary roads will be constructed. Of the 4.8 miles of classified roads, 

1.8 miles will remain open for use. All classified roads, whether to be left 

open or closed, are part of the National Forest road system that has been 

identified to be necessary for current and future management, including 

timber harvesting. All temporary roads will be decommissioned and returned 

to a more natural state. This will reduce the amount of road maintenance 

needed for the area, as explained in the Mitkof Island Road Analysis. 

11. The two primary recreational uses of the Woodpecker Project Area are deer 

hunting and recreational driving. The area is also used for subsistence deer 

hunting purposes. The construction of a loop road by extending Road 6282 to 

connect to the Woodpecker Road (Road 6245) and the previous decision 

(2002 ROD) to upgrade the Woodpecker Road and the Snake Ridge Road for 

all vehicle access (Maintenance Level 3) will also improve the driving 

experience and public access. These improvements will also reduce the 

potential for conflicts between passenger vehicles and log truck traffic. 

12. The existing road system provides access to many of the areas currently 

favored for activities such as hiking and hunting. About four percent of the 

acres that are currently in semi-primitive recreation settings will change to a 

roaded setting in the Woodpecker Project Area with the construction of Roads 

40821 and 40822. This is within the direction for Forest Plan land use 

designations that allow development activities. About 8,445 acres within the 

project area, in addition to areas adjacent to or near the project area, will 

continue to provide opportunities for these semi-primitive recreation types of 

activities. 

13. The Woodpecker Project Area includes about two-thirds of the 18,320-acre 

Crystal Inventoried Roadless Area. The activities associated with this 

decision will not substantially alter the wilderness characteristics of the area 

or its eligibility for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. 

Partial harvest will occur on 370 acres within the roadless area. There will be 

two miles of classified road construction designed for long-term use and 0.8 

miles of temporary road construction within the roadless area. Of this road 

construction, 0.8 miles of classified road will remain open for public use after 

timber harvest. The temporary roads will be decommissioned after timber 

harvest and the remaining 1.2 miles of classified roads will be closed and put 

into storage. These acres do not contribute significantly to the wilderness 

character of the area because of the proximity to the sights and sounds of the 

existing road system. Due to the mountainous terrain, habitat types, and 

current wildlife and human uses, the portion of the roadless area containing 

the most important roadless area values is located outside the Woodpecker 

Project Area to the north, around Crystal Mountain and Blind Slough. 

14. All of the timber harvest units that are included in this decision employ a 

method of partial harvest that will leave a percentage of the forest stand 

remaining after timber harvest. Uneven-aged harvest prescriptions that retain 

at least 50 percent of the trees per acre within stands are prescribed for 89 
2003 Record of Decision 

Page 8 - 2003 Record of Decision Woodpecker Project Area 

percent of the timber harvest acres. The rest of the units will have green tree 

retention of 20-30 percent, which will create two-aged stands with large 

legacy trees and stand structure. A 200-year rotation for even-aged 

management stands and the cutting cycles scheduled for uneven-aged 

management stands that were prescribed for this project area will help 

maintain the values of the area for deer, marten, and recreation. This extended 

rotation combined with tree retention will; (1) enable the harvested stands to 

advance beyond the stem exclusion phase and retain large trees longer, (2) 

create more forage for deer under the canopy, (3) benefit cavity nesters and 

marten, and (4) retain a more natural-appearing landscape. The prescriptions 

chosen are based on consideration of many factors which are described in 

Chapter 3 of the Final EIS and on a unit-by-unit basis in the Appendix of this 

ROD. 

15. Significant adverse effects to soils, water, or fisheries are not anticipated due 

to the locations of the roads and units and the implementation of the Forest 

Plan standards and guidelines. 

16. One issue that was raised during the appeal of the August 2001 decision for 

this project was the perception that the Forest Service is targeting specific tree 

species for harvest, in particular, high value Alaska yellow-cedar and western 

redcedar. The area with the most western redcedar, along the Snake Ridge 

Road, was avoided for this entry (except for several small units designated for 

small sales) due to previous harvest and the high amount of personal use 

timber harvest in this area. Western redcedar does occur as a small percentage 

of the stand in other units. The percentages of Alaska yellow-cedar and 

western redcedar to be harvested will not be disproportional to their natural 

stand composition. Details are provided in the silvicultural prescriptions, 

which are filed in the project planning record. 

17. Windthrow has been, and will continue to be, a natural disturbance in the 

project area. Windthrow risk was determined using the best possible 

information. Measures to reduce windthrow are listed on the activity cards in 

Appendix B of the Final EIS, and in the Appendix of this ROD. This leads 

me to conclude that the unit locations, designs, and harvest prescriptions used 

will reduce the possibility of catastrophic windthrow. Much of the area that is 

exposed to severe winds, such as the areas adjacent to Sumner Strait, will not 

be harvested in this entry because they are either located within small oldgrowth habitat reserves and are unavailable for timber harvest, or they have 

been previously harvested, in some cases to salvage blowdown trees. 

18. The effects on marten habitat capability will be reduced by leaving large trees 

and stand structure within all units with high value marten habitat. These 

measures will meet or exceed the Forest Plan standards and guidelines. 

19. Wildlife travel corridors are retained between the medium old-growth habitat 

reserves on Mitkof Island and adjacent areas with the placement of the small 

old-growth habitat reserves on the perimeter of the project area. The area 

within the 1,000-foot beach fringe that is not available for commercial timber 
2003 Record of Decision 

Woodpecker Project Area 2003 Record of Decision - Page 9

harvest according to the Forest Plan is mostly in old-growth forest, which 

further provides connectivity. This is strengthened by the modification of the 

small old-growth habitat reserve adjacent to the Wrangell Narrows, as 

described in Non-significant Forest Plan Amendment, Appendix 1 (2002 

Record of Decision). 

20. The Visual Quality Objectives adopted by the Forest Plan will be met or 

exceeded. The effects to scenery from the Visual Priority Travel Routes and 

Use Areas designated in Appendix F of the Forest Plan have been reduced by 

unit selection, harvest prescriptions, unit design, and an extended timber 

harvest rotation. Timber harvest viewed from Sumner Strait, Wrangell 

Narrows, South Blind Slough, and Crystal Mountain will not be evident to the 

casual observer, or will appear as a natural occurrence within the surrounding 

area. 

21. This decision allows the use of existing log transfer facilities as permitted. 

Either the Woodpecker Cove LTF or Olson’s Landing LTF may be used, or 

the timber may be processed in Petersburg. Permitting the use of rafts instead 

of barges is the responsibility of the State of Alaska. The purchaser of the 

timber sale is required to submit a request to the State for all applicable 

permits associated with either activity. All log transfer facility use will be 

monitored to ensure that bark accumulation remains within thresholds 

specified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and the State of 

Alaska. 

 

Purpose and Need for the Project 

The purpose and need for this project is to respond to goals and objectives identified 

by the Forest Plan and to move the project area toward the desired future condition 

for all resources. The Forest Plan identifies the following goals and objectives, which 

are applicable to the Woodpecker Project Area: 

• Manage the timber resource for production of sawtimber and other wood 

products from suitable lands made available for timber harvest on an evenflow, long-term sustained yield basis and in an economically efficient manner. 

• Seek to provide a timber supply sufficient to meet the annual market demand 

for the Tongass National Forest and the demand for the planning cycle. 

• Provide Forest visitors with visually appealing scenery in areas along the 

Alaska Marine Highway, State highways, major forest roads, and from 

popular recreation places; recognize that in other areas where the landscape is 

altered by management activities, the activity may visually dominate the 

characteristic landscape. 
2003 Record of Decision 

Page 10 - 2003 Record of Decision Woodpecker Project Area 

• Provide a range of recreation opportunities consistent with public demand, 

emphasizing locally popular recreation places and those important to the 

tourism industry. 

• Maintain a Forest-wide system of old-growth forest habitat to sustain oldgrowth associated species and resources and ensure that the reserve system 

meets the minimum size, spacing, and composition criteria identified in the 

Forest Plan. 

• Provide a diversity of opportunities for resource uses that contribute to the 

local and regional economies of Southeast Alaska; support a wide range of 

natural resource employment opportunities within local communities. 

• Develop and manage roads to support resource management activities and to 

provide access for forest users. 

Public Involvement 

Public involvement has been instrumental in the identification and clarification of 

issues for this project. This has been helpful in the formulation of alternatives and 

has assisted me in making a more informed decision for the Woodpecker project. 

Public meetings, Federal Register notices, newspaper and radio news releases, open 

houses, the Tongass National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions, and group and 

individual meetings were used to solicit input for this project. 

Mitkof Landscape Design: The possibility of a timber harvest project in this area 

was identified in the Mitkof Landscape Design in 1995 and documented in the letter 

of recommendation for projects on Mitkof Island. 

Scoping Letters: In June 1999 and January 2000, scoping letters were sent to 

everyone that requested to be on the project mailing list. 

Notice of Intent: A Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement 

was published in the Federal Register on January 18, 2000. 

Open Houses: Multiple open houses and public meetings were held in Petersburg 

and Kake during the environmental analysis process in 1999, 2000, and 2001. 

Federally-recognized Tribal Governments: The Petersburg Indian Association, the 

Organized Village of Kake, and the Wrangell Cooperative Association, which are the 

tribal governments within or near the Petersburg Ranger District, were consulted to 

identify any potential impacts or concerns during the project analysis and 

development of alternatives. 

Public Comment received for the Draft EIS: Availability of the Draft EIS was 

announced in the Federal Register on August 18, 2000, with a due date for public 
2003 Record of Decision 

Woodpecker Project Area 2003 Record of Decision - Page 11

comments listed as October 15, 2000. This document was available at public libraries 

and Forest Service offices throughout Southeast Alaska and copies were mailed to 

everyone who requested them. The Forest Service responses to the letters received 

during the comment period were included in the Final EIS (Appendix C). 

Subsistence Hearing: In accordance with Section 810 of the Alaska National 

Interest Lands Conservation Act, a subsistence hearing for the Woodpecker Project 

Area was held in Petersburg, Alaska, on October 4, 2000 at the Petersburg City 

Council Chambers. The date, time, and location of the subsistence hearing were 

publicized in the local media. An open house to describe the analysis process and to 

answer public questions was held in conjunction with the subsistence hearing. Public 

comments on the Draft EIS were also accepted at that time. 

Analysis and Incorporation of Public Comments into the Final EIS: Public 

comments and subsistence comments were analyzed and incorporated into the Final 

EIS. For an analysis of public comment and the Forest Service response to public 

comment, see Appendix C of the Final EIS. 

The Final EIS was filed with the Environmental Protection Agency and was made 

available for public review in September 2001. 

Final EIS and 2001 Record of Decision: The Woodpecker Project Area Final EIS 

Notice of Availability was placed in the Federal Register on September 21, 2001, 

after the Record of Decision was signed. Alternative 6 was the Selected Alternative. 

A public notice, which started the 45-day appeal period, was placed in the Juneau 

Empire, the newspaper of record, on September 21, 2001. The decision was appealed 

on November 6, 2001, and on December 20, 2001, the decision was reversed. 

Supplemental Information Report: A supplemental information report was 

prepared to document that the information used in the analysis leading to the 2001 

Decision was correct. This report was mailed to the appellants and filed in the project 

planning record. In June 2002, a project update letter explaining the results of the 

supplemental information report was sent to everyone on the project mailing list. The 

letter included an invitation to participate in a public teleconference to discuss the 

project. The notes from this teleconference, which was held on June 18, 2002, are 

located in the project planning record. 

2002 Record of Decision: The 2002 Record of Decision was signed on December 

24, 2002. This decision included only the roaded portion of Alternative 6, as 

modified, due to the court’s injunction that was in place at that time. No appeals were 

received. 
2003 Record of Decision 

Page 12 - 2003 Record of Decision Woodpecker Project Area 

Coordination with Other Agencies 

 

From the time scoping was initiated, meetings and site visits with all interested 

federal and State of Alaska agencies have occurred. Issues were discussed and 

information was exchanged. Personnel from the Alaska Division of Governmental 

Coordination, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Alaska Department of 

Environmental Conservation, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service visited the 

project area during the environmental analysis. 

Coordination meetings were held with the State of Alaska, including the Department 

of Fish and Game and the Department of Environmental Conservation. The Alaska 

Coastal Management Plan (ACMP) consistency review process was initiated upon 

publication of the Draft EIS through the offices of the Alaska Division of 

Governmental Coordination, now the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, 

Office of Program Management and Planning. 

A Biological Assessment was prepared and sent to the National Marine Fisheries 

Service as part of the Section 7 consultation process under the Endangered Species 

Act. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concluded that no 

terrestrial threatened or endangered wildlife species are present in the project area. 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (1977, as amended) requires a permit from the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers before filling or dredging in wetlands and tidelands. 

A permit has been obtained for the Woodpecker Cove Log Transfer Facility. Any 

404 permits needed for roads or other uses will be obtained. 

The Final EIS identifies the agencies that were informed of and/or involved in the 

planning process (see List of Agencies, Organizations, and Individuals Sent Copies of 

this Statement in Chapter 4 of the Final EIS). 

How Significant Issues are Addressed 

In making my decision, I considered four major issues identified during the planning 

process. In the following summary, I disclose how this decision addresses each of the 

significant issues. Tables ROD-1 and ROD-2 and Chapter 3 of the Final EIS provide 

additional information for the following discussion and provide a comparison of the 

alternatives. 

Issue 1: Deer Hunting 

This issue centers around the popularity of the Woodpecker Project Area for deer 

hunting by the residents of Mitkof Island, and the concern that any timber harvest on 

the island will affect deer populations. Mitkof Island has traditionally been used by 

residents of Petersburg for subsistence deer hunting. The Woodpecker Project Area 

is the most heavily used part of Mitkof Island for deer hunting, due to the 
2003 Record of Decision 

Woodpecker Project Area 2003 Record of Decision - Page 13

accessibility provided by the road system that connects to Petersburg, and the higher 

numbers of deer inhabiting the area. The number of deer is higher in the Woodpecker 

Project Area because of good forage and less snow accumulation found on the southfacing slopes near saltwater. 

This decision includes Units 90, 90d, 122 and 122a, which contain high value deer 

winter habitat. The silvicultural prescription for these units will retain 75 percent of 

the basal area of the stands to help maintain old-growth characteristics. All proposed 

timber harvest units will contain residual trees, and many areas will be managed with 

uneven-aged management on an extended harvest cycle, which should maintain 

higher deer winter habitat values over time. The majority (96 percent) of the 3,370 

acres of high value deer winter habitat (habitat suitability index greater than 0.9) 

within the project area will not be impacted by this action. 

Issue 2: Recreation 

This issue addresses concerns for outdoor recreation opportunities including scenic 

values offered in and around the Woodpecker Project Area and the effects timber 

harvest may have on these opportunities. 

The Selected Alternative maintains existing recreation uses, both roaded and 

unroaded, within the Woodpecker Project Area. These uses include deer and moose 

hunting, berry-picking, sightseeing, camping, and freshwater fishing. The 

improvement and/or creation of eight dispersed camping/picnic sites and four parking 

turnouts were included in the 2002 Decision. These sites are accessible from existing 

roads. This decision includes the development of a loop road by the construction of 

approximately 0.8 miles of classified road between the end of existing Road 6282 and 

milepost 11 of Road 6245, the Woodpecker Road. 

Recreation use may be temporarily displaced in some areas during timber harvest 

operations. Recreation use may increase with the improvement of dispersed 

recreation sites and turnouts, and the improvements to the Woodpecker Road (Road 

6245) and the Snake Ridge Road (Roads 6246/40006) that were approved with the 

2002 Record of Decision. 

Unit location and design were carefully considered to minimize impacts to scenery 

and meet or exceed the visual quality objectives (VQOs) that were adopted by the 

Forest Plan. Forest Plan Visual Priority Travel Routes and Use Areas include Sumner 

Strait, Wrangell Narrows, South Blind Slough, and Crystal Mountain. The use of 

silvicultural systems that use partial harvest treatments (two-aged management and 

uneven-aged management) will result in textural changes, but these changes are not 

expected to be noticeable to the casual observer. The silvicultural prescriptions meet 

a higher level of VQOs than is specified for the Visual Priority Travel Routes and 

Use Areas, as described in the Forest Plan. Views from the existing ferry route were 

considered during unit selection and design, and during selection of harvest 

treatments. 
2003 Record of Decision 

Page 14 - 2003 Record of Decision Woodpecker Project Area 

In coming to this decision, I did consider the future South Mitkof Island ferry 

terminal that is proposed as part of the Alaska Marine Highway System. Although 

the new ferry terminal is still in the design stage, a site outside the Woodpecker 

Project Area has been identified as the preferred location, and any proposed activities 

in the Woodpecker Project Area will not be visible from that location. Studies have 

predicted that there will be little increased road use in the project area associated with 

this proposed ferry terminal. Traffic on Road 6245, as well as on other roads on 

Mitkof Island, is monitored as part of the District’s road management plan. 

Issue 3: Economics 

This decision will provide an estimated 10.9 million board feet (22,296 CCF) of 

timber that will contribute to the Forest Service's efforts to meet market demand in a 

manner consistent with the Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan and the 

standards and guidelines for all resources. This volume was calculated using stand 

exam information combined with Forest Plan volume strata information. Timber 

from this project is needed as a component of the timber sale schedule to provide 

timber to industry in an even flow over the ten-year planning cycle. The harvest 

economic analysis for the units in this decision using the Transaction Evidence 

Appraisal (TEA) method used for the analysis displayed in the Final EIS resulted in a 

stumpage value of -$26.19 per hundred cubic feet (-$26.19/CCF or -$53.45/MBF) 

during high markets and -$42.60/CCF (-$86.94/MBF) during low markets. The 2nd

quarter 1999 data used for TEA was the same as that used for the analysis in the 

Woodpecker Project Area Final EIS. 

Additional analysis based on the NEPA Economic Analysis Tool (NEAT) program 

which was developed after the analysis was completed for the Final EIS was 

conducted for the alternatives prior to the 2002 ROD. The ranking of alternatives in 

the NEAT analysis was similar to the original analysis, although the values per CCF 

were lower. This was expected due to lower timber values in recent years. The 

NEAT analysis using the data from 1st quarter 2003 appraises the timber volume for 

the 2003 decision at -$38.42/CCF (-$78.41/MBF). The documentation for both 

economic analyses is located in the project planning record. 

These are lower values than the values for the analysis done for Alternative 6 since 

the timber that was the most economical to log adjacent to roads was included in the 

2002 Record of Decision. Options to increase the value of the timber may be used at 

the time of offer. These options may include (1) using construction of a lower 

standard of road, (2) using a different utilization standard to leave smaller timber in 

the woods, or (3) deferring less economic units. The appraised value of the timber at 

the time of the sale will depend on the markets at that time and which units are 

chosen for that sale. 

Stumpage values actually received on timber sales are highly variable and are subject 

to market conditions at the time the sale is offered. The risk of changing market 
2003 Record of Decision 

Woodpecker Project Area 2003 Record of Decision - Page 15

conditions is reflected in the bid for timber, which is calculated by the purchasers 

who understand and track that risk. The values will also differ depending on the 

amount of volume and unit locations of that particular sale. It is expected that some 

of the sales offered will be more economical and will generate more revenue than 

others due to the composition of the stand in terms of tree species and value of trees, 

haul length, and topography. 

The timber harvest from the Woodpecker Project Area is scheduled to be sold in 

multiple sales. Some sales may be less financially appealing to prospective bidders 

during low markets due to the necessity of road construction, distance from the mill, 

inclusion of helicopter logging, or the mix of timber species and size. However, units 

and logging systems will be configured to create the most economical sales possible. 

The permitted outfitters and guides operating within the project area use the 

Woodpecker Cove Log Transfer Facility and the road system. Effects to this use will 

be minor due to the low level of use, based on information from the permits issued in 

the past few years. Outfitter-guide use is not expected to increase much beyond the 

few permits currently issued. 

Issue 4: Crystal Inventoried Roadless Area 

About two-thirds of the Crystal Inventoried Roadless Area (#224) is within the 

Woodpecker Project Area. During the analysis for the revision of the Forest Plan, 

Inventoried Roadless Areas were reevaluated for their value as undeveloped areas or 

for potential inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System (Forest Plan 

Final EIS, Appendix C). The portion of the Crystal Inventoried Roadless Area that is 

within the Woodpecker Project Area has been allocated to development land use 

designations, which allow timber harvest and road construction. 

The analysis for the Crystal Inventoried Roadless Area focused on the effects on the 

values of the unroaded characteristics on the ground, regardless of whether the area is 

specifically labeled as an inventoried roadless area. The IDT for this project updated 

the Forest Plan inventory to reflect on-the-ground conditions and changes in land 

ownership. Documentation of the inventory used and the analysis are found in the 

project planning record. During the analysis for the Woodpecker Project Area, 

several alternatives that would not affect the Crystal Inventoried Roadless Area were 

considered along with alternatives that proposed timber harvest and road construction 

within the Inventoried Roadless Area. 

Due to the mountainous terrain, habitat types, and current wildlife and human uses, 

the portion of the roadless area containing its most important roadless area values is 

located outside the Woodpecker Project Area to the north, around Crystal Mountain 

and Blind Slough. This area is designated for non-development by the Forest Plan. 

Therefore, the most important values of the Crystal Inventoried Roadless Area will be 

minimally affected by this project and the remaining roadless acreage (greater than 

5,000 acres) will continue to make this area eligible for inclusion in the National 

Wilderness Preservation System. 
2003 Record of Decision 

Page 16 - 2003 Record of Decision Woodpecker Project Area 

This decision includes timber harvest on 370 acres within the roadless area. The 

silvicultural prescriptions retain from 50 to 75 percent of the stand structure in these 

units. There are two miles of classified road construction planned and 0.8 miles of 

temporary road construction within the roadless area. Only 0.8 miles of classified 

road will remain open for public use and the remaining classified roads will be closed 

and put into storage. The temporary roads will be decommissioned after timber 

harvest. 

An updated inventory of the Inventoried Roadless Areas was done for the Forest Plan 

SEIS (2003). Based on the criteria used in this inventory, which more closely 

adhered to the 600-foot influence zone from previously harvested units, the Crystal 

Inventoried Roadless Area is 19,069 acres in size. The description and reevaluation 

of the Crystal Inventoried Roadless Area for suitability for designation as Wilderness 

is in the Forest Plan SEIS (Appendix C1-239 through C1-249). The biological and 

social values of the area remain the same, since the general shape and location of the 

roadless area do not change regardless of the inventory used to define its boundaries. 

Using the SEIS criteria, the number of planned timber harvest acres within the 

roadless area increases by ten acres and the area within the 600-foot influence zone 

increases from 770 to 996 acres. The remaining unaffected size of the roadless area is 

18,585 acres. 

As previously explained, the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule, 36 

CFR 294.10, January 12, 2001) generally prohibits timber harvesting and road 

building in roadless areas with a period of transition for the Tongass. This transition 

period makes an exception for projects where a notice of availability for a draft 

environmental impact statement was published prior to January 12, 2001. Since the 

notice of availability for the Woodpecker project was published on August 18, 2000, 

this project is exempted from the prohibitions in the Roadless Rule. The Woodpecker 

project is consistent with the Forest Plan and the SEIS. Further details on the 

decisions and litigation that have occurred since the Draft EIS was issued are 

available in the project planning record.

Alternatives Considered in Detail 

The Woodpecker Project Area Draft EIS considered five alternatives in detail. 

Alternative 2 was identified as the Preferred Alternative at that time. After reviewing 

the public comments, the Preferred Alternative identified in the Draft EIS 

(Alternative 2) was modified to create Alternative 6. These changes to the preferred 

alternative were described in the Final EIS (August 2001). 

Six alternatives were considered in detail in the Final EIS. Alternative 6 was chosen 

as the Selected Alternative. Each action alternative considered during the analysis 

process is consistent with the Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan. Refer 

to Chapter 2 of the Woodpecker Project Area Final EIS for a complete description of 

these alternatives. The alternatives developed in the Final EIS are: 
2003 Record of Decision 

Woodpecker Project Area 2003 Record of Decision - Page 17

Alternative 1 - This No-action Alternative represented the existing conditions in the 

Woodpecker Project Area, and served as the baseline against which the effects of the 

other alternatives were measured. This alternative proposed no timber harvest, road 

construction, or other activities within the Woodpecker Project Area. There would be 

no new resource outputs associated with this alternative. There would be no changes 

to scenery, recreation, subsistence, wildlife, or fisheries resources. 

This alternative was not selected since environmental analysis showed that the 

desirable outputs of the purpose and need could be achieved with reasonable effects 

to the ecological and human environments. These effects are described in Chapter 3 

of the Final EIS. 

Alternative 2 – This alternative was the Proposed Action presented during public 

scoping and identified as the Preferred Alternative for the Draft EIS. The theme of 

this alternative responded to the comments in favor of ground-based logging systems, 

small timber sale opportunities, and a new loop road connection. 

In Alternative 2, an estimated 1,140 acres would be partially harvested while 

retaining various amounts of trees within the stands. The amount of timber volume is 

estimated to be 12 million board feet (about 24,490 CCF), to be sold in multiple sales, 

including some sales of less than one million board feet. Approximately 4.8 miles of 

new classified road would be built to access the timber, of which about 1.8 miles 

would remain open after harvest. Approximately 6.1 miles of temporary road would 

also be built for timber access. All of the temporary roads would be decommissioned 

and allowed to return to a more natural state after harvest. About ten miles of 

existing classified roads that would be needed for future management would be 

closed and put into storage to reduce resource damage. Improvement of fish passage 

through five existing stream crossings along Road 6245 would occur. 

This alternative would also improve dispersed recreation opportunities, parking areas 

for hunting and recreation access, and watershed conditions through revegetation. 

This alternative would connect Roads 6282 and 6245 to form a loop road. 

Alternative 2 was not chosen in order to mitigate some of the effects to the deer 

winter habitat and landscape connectivity in the southeastern part of the project area 

(Watershed 2) by not harvesting units 128 and 129, and to mitigate possible scenery 

concerns for Unit 125 as viewed from Sumner Strait, a Visual Priority Travel Route. 

Alternative 3 – This alternative was focused on providing only small timber sale 

opportunities and on the use of the existing road system with no construction of new 

classified roads designed for long-term use. It was designed to have the least impact 

on resources other than timber management within the project area. 

An estimated 500 acres would be partially harvested while retaining various amounts 

of trees within the stands. The amount of timber volume provided is estimated to be 
2003 Record of Decision 

Page 18 - 2003 Record of Decision Woodpecker Project Area 

6 million board feet (about 12,245 CCF) to be sold in multiple sales. Existing roads 

and approximately four miles of new temporary road would be used to access the 

timber. All of the temporary roads would be decommissioned and allowed to return 

to a more natural state as soon as practicable after harvest is complete. About ten 

miles of existing classified roads needed for future management would be closed and 

put into storage to reduce resource damage. Improvement of fish passage through 

five existing stream crossings along Road 6245 would occur. No other resource 

activities were incorporated with this alternative. 

Several commenters identified this alternative as the one that should be chosen rather 

than one that harvests more timber. However, the Selected Alternative provides for a 

more equitable mix of resource protection and resource use that is consistent with the 

Forest Plan land use allocations. 

Alternative 4 – This alternative was designed to respond to the request for helicopter 

logging while still providing small sale opportunities that could be harvested using 

ground-based systems. 

This alternative would harvest approximately 16.8 million board feet (about 32,286 

CCF) of timber from approximately 1,850 acres. About 1,390 acres would be 

harvested by helicopter yarding and approximately 460 acres would be harvested by 

cable or shovel yarding. No new classified road would be constructed, but 3.1 miles 

of temporary road would be built within the project area. All of the temporary roads 

would be decommissioned and allowed to return to a more natural state after harvest. 

About ten miles of existing classified roads needed for future management would be 

closed and put into storage to reduce resource damage. Improvement of fish passage 

through five existing stream crossings along Road 6245 would occur. 

This alternative, as with Alternative 2, would also improve dispersed recreation 

opportunities, parking areas for hunting and recreation access, and watershed 

conditions through revegetation. 

The primary reason that Alternative 4 was not chosen was because of its emphasis on 

helicopter logging. Although helicopter logging can be economically viable, many of 

the proposed helicopter units could be roaded, which is preferable from an economic 

viewpoint and for long-term timber management of the area. 

Alternative 5 – The theme of this alternative was to provide more timber volume to 

seek to meet market demand by fully complying with, but not exceeding, Forest Plan 

standards and guidelines. 

This alternative would harvest approximately 26.8 million board feet (about 54,694 

CCF) of timber using ground-based and helicopter yarding from approximately 1,730 

acres. Most of the acres would have less than 50 percent of the trees remaining after 

harvest, resulting in even-aged or two-aged stands. This alternative would require 

construction of about 3.5 miles of classified roads and 4.1 miles of temporary road. 
2003 Record of Decision 

Woodpecker Project Area 2003 Record of Decision - Page 19

About one mile of new classified road would remain open after harvest. All of the 

temporary roads would be decommissioned and allowed to return to a more natural 

state after harvest. About ten miles of existing classified roads needed for future 

management would be closed and put into storage to reduce resource damage. 

Improvement of fish passage through five existing stream crossings along Road 6245 

would occur. 

This alternative would improve dispersed recreation opportunities to a slightly greater 

degree than Alternatives 2 and 4. Parking areas for hunting and recreation access 

would be improved, and watershed conditions would be improved through 

revegetation. 

Alternative 5 was not chosen since, although it would meet the standards of the Forest 

Plan, more protection for various resources was desirable because of the road 

connection to the city of Petersburg, and due to the human uses of the area and the 

surrounding waters. 

Alternative 6 – The effects of the activities in Alternative 6 as displayed in the Final 

EIS are the same as the combination of the effects of the 2002 Decision and this 

decision. 

An estimated 1,300 acres would be partially harvested while retaining various 

amounts of trees within the stands. The amount of timber volume provided was 

estimated to be 16 million board feet (32,653 CCF) to be sold in multiple sales, 

including sales less than one million board feet. 

Alternative 6 includes both new road construction and helicopter logging from 

existing roads. Approximately 4.8 miles of new classified road would be built to 

access the timber. About 1.8 miles of this new classified road would remain open, 

and three miles would be placed in storage after harvest is completed. Temporary 

road segments, which total 3.8 miles, would be built for timber access. All of the 

temporary roads would be decommissioned after harvest. About ten miles of existing 

road would be closed to motorized vehicles and placed in storage. A short 300-foot 

section of unclassified road that junctions with Road 40004 would be 

decommissioned and allowed to return to a more natural state with respect to 

vegetation and natural drainage patterns. Logs would be transported to an existing 

log transfer site or processing yard. 

Several recreation sites were proposed for development. Improved or new road 

turnouts would be developed to provide additional safe parking areas. A segment of 

road would be constructed to create a loop by connecting the Woodpecker Road with 

another existing road to provide a new recreation opportunity. The Woodpecker 

Road, the Snake Ridge Road and the access to the Snake Ridge Road would be 

improved for standard passenger vehicle use. 
2003 Record of Decision 

Page 20 - 2003 Record of Decision Woodpecker Project Area 

Comparison of Alternatives 

The following two tables display the proposed activities by alternative and the effects 

on the significant issues and other resources by alternative. For a complete 

discussion, refer to Chapter 3 of the Woodpecker Project Area Final EIS (August 

2001). 
2003 Record of Decision 

Woodpecker Project Area 2003 Re

Table ROD-1. Comparison of Alternatives by Proposed Activity

 Selected 

Proposed Activity Alternative 

1 

Alternative 

2 

Alternative 

3 

Alternative 

4 

Alternative 

5 

Alternative 

61

De

Acres of timber harvest by harvest treatment

75% retention 0 570 140 740 200 380 

50-66% 

retention 0 350 200 990 530 680 

20-30% 

retention 0 220 160 120 940 240 

0% retention 0 0 0 0 60 0 

Acres of timber harvest by logging systems

Cable 0 990 350 310 640 750 

Shovel 0 150 150 150 150 150 

Helicopter 0 0 0 1,390 940 400 

Road construction

Miles of new 

classified roads 0 4.8 0 0 3.5 4.8 

Miles of new 

classified roads 

left open

0 1.8 0 0 1.0 1.8 

Miles of 

temporary roads 

(closed after 

harvest)

0 6.1 3.9 3.1 4.1 3.8 

Number of recreation projects

Picnic/Campsites 0 7 0 7 8 8 

Turnouts 0 4 0 4 4 4 

1 Alternative 6 was the Selected Alternative for this project in the 2001 Record of Decision. This column shows the combined activities 

the 2003 Decision. 

2 This column shows the activities in the 2002 Record of Decision (Alternative 6, as modified). This included activities in the roaded po
2003 Record of Decision 

Page 22 - 2003 Record of Decision 

Table ROD-2. Comparison of Alternatives by Effects 

Units of Measure Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6

Issue 1 –Deer HuntingChange in deer carrying capacity year 20033 0% -1.5% -.9% -1.8% -2.4% -1.4Change in deer carrying capacity year 20434 -9.6% -11.3% -10.5% -11.2% -12.7% -11.2Effect on historical levels of subsistence deer harvest? yes yes yes yes yes yeEffect on current levels of deer harvest? no no no no no no Issue 2 – Recreation Acres changed from semi-primitive to roaded settings5 0 1270 260 2280 2230 136% of area changed from semi-primitive to roaded settings 0 4% <1% 8% 7% 4% Issue 3 – Economics Amount of volume (mbf) 0 12,300 5,700 16,800 26,800 16,30Amount of volume (ccf) 0 25,200 11,600 34,200 54,200 30,87Appraised value ($/ccf) (High Market values) 0 $15.38 $35.24 $5.63 $15.31 $12.3Appraised value ($/ccf) (Low Market values) 0 -$6.12 $17.37 -$20.24 -$6.16 -$10.Issue 4 – Crystal Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA)8Acres within the IRA affected by timber harvest 0 310 acres 0 830 acres 800 acres 370 aMiles of new classified road within the IRA 0 2.0 miles 0 0 1.4 miles 2.0 mAcres affected by timber harvest, including areas within 600 ft of harvest units 0 850 acres 140 acres 1,910 acres 1,860 acres 84

acr

Remaining size of IRA excluding acres within 600 ft of harvest units 

18,320 

acres 

17,470 

acres 

18,180 

acres 

16,410 

acres 

16,460 

acres 

17,4

acr

Other Environmental Considerations Biodiversity Acres of old-growth habitat maintained 14,250 13,820 14,020 13,920 13,170 13,8Effects on TES Species None None None None None NonOther Wildlife Percent change in marten carrying capacity by year 20033 0% -1.8% -1.1% -2.4% -3.3% -1.9% Percent change in marten carrying capacity by year 20434 -1.7% -3.2% -2.5% -2.9% -4.7% -3.1% Water Quality Number of new Class I stream crossings 0 0 0 0 0 0 Number of new Class II stream crossings 0 2 1 1 2 2 Number of new Class III stream crossings 0 13 1 1 11 13 Number of new Class IV stream crossings 0 2 0 0 2 2 
2003 

Woodpecker Project Area 2003 Re

Table ROD-2. Comparison of Alternatives by Effects (cont’d) 

Units of Measure Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 (Alt. 

Wetlands Miles of new classified road on wetlands 0 1.1 0 0 1.1 1.1 Effects on Subsistence other than deer None None None None None NonEffects on Heritage Resources None None None None None NonEffects on Land Status None None None None None NonEffects on Karst None None None None None NonTransportation Miles of new classified roads 0 4.8 0 0 3.5 4.8 Miles of new classified roads left open 0 1.8 0 0 1.0 1.8 Miles of temporary roads (decommissioned after harvest) 0 6.1 3.9 3.1 4.1 3.8 Road density for Mitkof Island (mi/mi2)11 0.68 0.69 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.69 Effects on Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers None None None None None Non1 Alternative 6 was the Selected Alternative for this project in the 2001 Record of Decision. 

2 This column shows the activities in the 2002 Record of Decision (Alternative 6, as modified). This included only the activities in the roade

3 For the purposes of alternative comparison and analysis for the deer and marten models only for the environmental impact statement compl

that all harvest would occur by 2003. This has been delayed due to legislation and litigation. 

4 Approximately 40 years after harvest at year 2043, the canopies of the existing second-growth stands will close, reducing forage. This scen

effects of any future thinning, which may increase or maintain forage. 

5 For total acreages in each Recreation Opportunity Spectrum class for each alternative refer to Table 3-4 in Chapter 3 of the Final EIS. 6 The total of the cubic volumes from the 2002 ROD and the 2003 ROD do not equal the cubic volume of Alternative 6. The volume for the 

alternatives) was calculated prior to the economic analysis using thousand board feet (mbf). The volumes for the 2002 Decision and the 2

by the TEA analysis process. All volume figures are estimates. A volume for each sale offered from this project will be determined by a s

to appraisal. 

7 These values are not cumulative since they represent the value of the timber for the units in each decision. Alternative 6 shows the value o

combined. Units from both decisions may be combined when offered for sale. 

8 1996 Roadless Area Inventory, adjusted for project analysis (see Final EIS, Chapter 3, page 3-71). 9 Although there are approximately 70 acres within the Crystal Inventoried Roadless Area that are within 600 feet of a proposed timber harv

timber harvest for the 2002 ROD will occur outside any roadless area and within 1200 feet of an existing road. 

10 Includes the effects of the 2002 decision. 11 Road density is determined after the roads constructed for this project are either put into storage or decommissioned.
2003 Record of Decision 

Page 24 - 2003 Record of Decision Woodpecker Project Area 

Environmentally Preferred Alternative 

Based on a comparison of the alternatives and the discussion contained within Chapter 3 

of the Final EIS, Alternative 1, the No-Action Alternative, would cause the least 

environmental disturbance and is therefore the environmentally preferred alternative of all 

the alternatives considered in detail. 

Alternatives Not Considered in Detail 

In addition to the alternatives described above, several other alternatives were considered 

during the analysis but eliminated from detailed study. These alternatives were discussed 

during the development of the alternatives. Some of them were suggested by comments 

received through public scoping. Some of the aspects of the ideas were modified and used 

in conjunction with the alternatives considered in detail. Other alternatives would not 

meet Forest Plan direction for this project. A summary of these, and the reasons they were 

not analyzed in detail, can be found in Chapter 2 of the Final EIS. Further information is 

available in the project planning record. 

Planning Record 

The planning record for this project includes the Draft EIS, Final EIS, 2001 Record of 

Decision, the appeal and appeal decision letter, the Supplemental Information Report, the 

2002 Record of Decision, material incorporated by reference, and all materials produced 

during the environmental analysis of this project. The planning record is available for 

review at the Petersburg Ranger District. 

Mitigation 

Mitigation measures are prescribed to avoid, reduce, minimize or eliminate the adverse 

effects of proposed actions. These measures were applied in the development of the 

project alternatives, including the Selected Alternative, and in the design of the harvest 

units and road corridors. The “Mitigation Measures” section of Chapter 2 and Appendix 

B of the Final EIS discuss mitigation measures for all alternatives. 

Mitigation measures applicable to the Selected Alternative include measures contained in 

the standards and guidelines of the Forest Plan, and applicable Forest Service manuals and 

handbooks. The Appendix of this ROD describes site-specific mitigation measures for the 

Selected Alternative. These measures are adopted as part of this decision and will be 

implemented. 
2003 Record of Decision 

Woodpecker Project Area 2003 Record of Decision - Page 25

Monitoring 

A monitoring program is the process by which the Forest Service can evaluate whether the 

resource management objectives of the final environmental documents have been 

implemented as specified and whether the steps identified for mitigating the 

environmental effects were effective. Project-level monitoring is specified in Chapter 2 of 

the Final EIS. These monitoring items are part of this decision and will be implemented. 

Each monitoring item describes the objective of the monitoring, what will be done, how it 

will be done, and the approximate cost of the monitoring. Monitoring activities may 

reveal results that deviate from planned effects, in which case corrective actions are 

prescribed. The Petersburg District Ranger is responsible for ensuring that project 

implementation, mitigation, monitoring, and enforcement are accomplished as specified in 

the Final EIS. 

Findings Required By Law 

National Forest Management Act 

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires specific determinations in this 

Record of Decision: consistency with the existing Forest Plan, a determination of 

clearcutting as the optimal method of harvesting, if used, and specific authorizations to 

create openings over 100 acres in size. Specific information and rationale used to develop 

unit prescriptions are summarized in this Record of Decision and are included in the unit 

card narratives in the Appendix. More information is available in Chapter 3 of the Final 

EIS, and in the project planning record. 

• Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan - This decision is consistent 

with the Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan. I have reviewed the 

management direction, standards and guidelines, and the schedule of activities for 

the project area, and find the Selected Alternative to be consistent with these 

elements. The activities authorized in this decision are consistent with the 

standards and guidelines and management prescriptions of the Forest Plan. 

• Clearcutting as the Optimal Method of Harvesting – In order to comply with 

Forest Plan standards and guidelines and to mitigate effects on wildlife and 

scenery, no units in the 2003 Selected Alternative are proposed for traditional 

clearcutting where all trees would be removed. 

• Harvest Openings Over 100 Acres in Size - There are no harvest openings over 

100 acres proposed for this project. 

Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA) 

Harvest units were designed and located to maintain a minimum 100-foot buffer zone for 

all Class I streams and Class II streams that flow directly into Class I streams as required 

in Section 103 of the TTRA. The actual widths of these buffer strips will often be greater 
2003 Record of Decision 

Page 26 - 2003 Record of Decision Woodpecker Project Area 

than the 100-foot minimum. The design and implementation direction for the Selected 

Alternative incorporates Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the protection of all 

streams. 

Endangered Species Act 

Actions authorized in the Selected Alternative are not anticipated to have a direct, indirect, 

or cumulative effect on any threatened or endangered species in the Woodpecker Project 

Area. The National Marine Fisheries Service has concurred that the actions described 

within the proposed project are not likely to adversely affect threatened and endangered 

species. A complete biological assessment is included in the planning record for this 

project. Consultation was done with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. No terrestrial 

threatened or endangered species are known to occur in the Woodpecker Project Area. I 

have determined that this action will not have any adverse impacts on any threatened or 

endangered species. 

Bald Eagle Protection Act 

The Selected Alternative is not anticipated to have a significant direct, indirect, or 

cumulative effect on any bald eagle habitat. Management activities are restricted within 

330 feet of an eagle nest site by a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the 

Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. No proposed activities are within 

330 feet of a known bald eagle nest. If any nests are discovered that would be affected by 

any activity, the MOU and Forest Plan guidelines will be followed. 

Clean Water Act 

The design for the harvest units and roads for the Selected Alternative were guided by 

standards, guidelines and direction contained in the Forest Plan and applicable Forest 

Service manuals and handbooks. The Clean Water Act of 1972 (as amended in 1977 and 

1987) was intended to protect and improve the quality of water resources and maintain 

their beneficial uses. Section 313 of the Clean Water Act and Executive Order 12088 of 

1987 address Federal agency compliance and consistency with water pollution control 

mandates. Agencies must be consistent with requirements that apply to “any 

governmental entity” or private person. 

In 1997, the State of Alaska approved the BMPs in the Forest Service’s Soil and Water 

Conservation Handbook (FSH 2509.22, October 1996) as consistent with the Alaska 

Forest Resources and Practices Regulations. The site-specific application of BMPs, with a 

monitoring and feedback mechanism, is the approved strategy for controlling nonpoint 

source pollution as defined by Alaska’s Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Strategy 

(October 2000). The Unit Cards and Road Cards in the Appendix contain details on 

specific practices prescribed to prevent or reduce non-point sediment sources. 

Essential Fish Habitat 

The potential effects of the project on Essential Fish Habitat are discussed in Chapter 3 of 

the Draft EIS. A determination that the project was unlikely to affect Essential Fish 

Habitat was made and an Essential Fish Habitat Assessment was presented. In the Final 
2003 Record of Decision 

Woodpecker Project Area 2003 Record of Decision - Page 27

EIS, some of this information was updated to include more complete descriptions of the 

Essential Fish Habitats, the proposed activities, and the mitigation measures incorporated 

into the project that will minimize adverse effects on these habitats. These measures are: 

1. Retention of green standing trees will occur in all units. This will lessen the 

impact on soil resources and minimize sedimentation in Class I streams. 

2. No roads will be constructed across Class I streams. This will eliminate the need 

for any in-stream work that would directly affect anadromous fish habitat. 

3. All harvest units adjacent to Class I streams employ no-harvest buffers at least 100 

feet wide and generally wider according to Forest Plan standards and guidelines. 

This will protect anadromous fish streams from bank erosion and stream 

temperature increases. 

4. All harvest units adjacent to Class II and Class III streams will employ no-harvest 

buffers and windfirm buffers according to Forest Plan standards and guidelines. 

This will minimize the amount of sediment that flows downstream to anadromous 

fish streams. 

5. Five culverts not meeting the current fish passage standards along Road 6245 were 

identified during environmental analysis and have been corrected. 

6. No new log transfer facilities (LTFs) will be built. Logs will be transported to 

existing permitted LTFs or hauled by road to Petersburg. All log transfer facility 

use will be monitored to ensure that bark accumulation remains within thresholds 

specified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. 

7. Best Management Practices described on the unit and road cards provide for 

aquatic habitat and water quality protection for all freshwater streams and marine 

waters affected by the project. 

The Draft EIS and the Final EIS were sent to the National Marine Fisheries Service and 

they were contacted by telephone. No conservation recommendations or comments on the 

Essential Fish Habitat Assessment were received, and the consultation concluded. 

National Historic Preservation Act 

Heritage resource surveys of various intensities were conducted in the project area, 

following protocols approved by the State Historic Preservation Officer. The Section 106 

review for all proposed timber harvest units and roads has been completed. The State 

Historic Preservation Officer has been consulted, and the project complies with the 

provisions of 36 CFR Part 800. No known heritage resources are in the area of potential 

effects. Forest Service timber sale contracts contain enforceable measures for protecting 

any undiscovered heritage resource that might be encountered during sale operations. I 

have determined, consistent with Forest Service direction on heritage resources, that no 

sites eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic places would be affected. 

Federal Cave Resource Protection Act of 1988 

No cave resources have been documented within the project area and no caves were 

discovered during field work done for this analysis. The Selected Alternative will not 
2003 Record of Decision 

Page 28 - 2003 Record of Decision Woodpecker Project Area 

have a direct, indirect, or cumulative effect on any significant cave or karst resources in 

the Woodpecker Project Area. 

ANILCA Section 810, Subsistence Evaluation and Findings 

A subsistence evaluation was conducted for the alternatives considered in detail, in 

accordance with ANILCA Section 810. An open house followed by an ANILCA 810 

hearing was conducted in Petersburg, Alaska, during the comment period for the 

Woodpecker Project Area Draft EIS. 

The review of the subsistence hearing testimony, comments from the public, and the 

analysis conducted for the Final EIS indicate that there is no significant possibility of a 

significant restriction on subsistence uses of wildlife (other than Sitka black-tailed deer), 

salmon, other finfish, shellfish, marine mammals, plant foods such as berries, and personal 

use timber resources as a result of this project. (For more information, see the Subsistence 

section of Chapter 3 of the Final EIS.) Analysis does indicate that there may be a 

significant possibility of a significant restriction of the historical subsistence use of deer 

for all of the alternatives including the no-action alternative. However, implementation of 

the Selected Alternative by itself does not present a significant possibility of a significant 

restriction to the current level of subsistence use of deer. The effects solely from the 

decisions on this project on the subsistence use of deer are minimal, with a reduction of 

less than two percent in deer habitat capability. Rather, there may be a significant 

possibility of a significant restriction when this decision together with other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable actions, are considered in a cumulative manner. This 

possibility exists regardless of which alternative is implemented, including the No-Action 

Alternative presented in the Final EIS. (For more information, see the Issue 1, Deer 

Hunting section in Chapter 3 of the Final EIS.) This restriction, if it occurs, would be a 

result of (1) a cumulative decrease in habitat capability when existing second-growth 

forest stands mature and shade out forage that could decrease the abundance or 

distribution of deer, (2) a very severe winter, which does occur periodically, causing high 

deer mortality as happened in the late 1960’s, (3) an increase of predator populations, 

especially wolves, due to less aggressive predator harvests, and (4) anticipated human 

population growth, with its associated increase in subsistence hunter demand when 

compared to the habitat capability to produce deer. 

Subsistence Determinations 

Section 810 (a)(3) of ANILCA requires that when a use, occupancy, or disposition of 

public lands may result in a significant possibility of a significant restriction, a 

determination must be made whether (1) such a restriction is necessary, consistent with 

sound management principles for the utilization of public lands, (2) the proposed activity 

involves the minimum amount of public lands necessary to accomplish the purposes of the 

use, and (3) reasonable steps will be taken to minimize adverse impacts on subsistence 

uses and resources resulting from the actions. 

Necessary, Consistent with Sound Management of Public Land – The Selected 

Alternative has been examined to determine whether the associated potential restriction to 

subsistence use is necessary, consistent with the sound management of public lands. In 
2003 Record of Decision 

Woodpecker Project Area 2003 Record of Decision - Page 29

this regard, the laws and direction that have been considered include: (1) the National 

Forest Management Act of 1976 and its implementing regulations, (2) the Alaska National 

Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) of 1980, (3) the Tongass Land and Resource 

Management Plan (1997, as amended), (4) the Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA) of 

1990, (5) the Alaska State Forest Practices Act, (6) the Alaska Coastal Management 

Program, (7) the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act (1960), and (8) USDA Forest Service 

Subsistence Management and Use Handbook (FSH 2609.25). 

Management activities on National Forest System lands must provide for the multiple use 

and sustained yield of renewable forest resources in accordance with the Multiple-Use 

Sustained Yield Act of 1960. Multiple use is defined as “the management of all the 

various renewable surface resources of the National Forest System so that they are utilized 

in the combination that will best meet the needs of the American people” (36 CFR 219.3). 

The alternatives presented in the Final EIS represent different ways of managing the 

resources of the Woodpecker Project Area in combinations that are intended to meet these 

needs. Each provides a different mix of resource uses and opportunities, and each has 

some potential to affect subsistence uses. Given the framework and emphasis of the 

Selected Alternative, the possibility of a restriction is necessary, consistent with sound 

management of public land. 

ANILCA Title VIII places an emphasis on the maintenance of subsistence resources and 

lifestyles. However, the Act also provides for adequate opportunity for satisfaction of the 

economic and social needs of the State of Alaska and its people and recognizes that public 

lands are necessary and appropriate for more intensive uses. The Act also required the 

Forest Service to make available 4.5 billion board feet per decade from the Tongass 

National Forest. The TTRA removed the 4.5 billion board foot requirement, but directs 

the Forest Service to seek to meet market demand for timber to the extent consistent with 

providing for the multiple use and sustained yield of all renewable forest resources, and 

subject to applicable law. 

As described in Appendix A of the Final EIS, this project is necessary as a component of 

the timber management program designed to implement the Forest Plan and to meet 

TTRA direction. There is currently a market demand for timber, a limited timber supply 

from other sources, and an under-utilized mill capacity in the region. The volume from 

the Selected Alternative is a component of the 10-year timber sale schedule which 

attempts to provide timber to industry in an even flow over the planning cycle. The timber 

volume for this project was also designed to be sold in multiple small sales over a period 

of several years in order to offer sales for timber operators with small businesses in the 

area. The Selected Alternative can help meet these Forest Plan and TTRA objectives, 

while also providing reasonable protection measures for forest resources, especially for 

subsistence. It is consistent with the Forest Plan, laws, regulations, policies, public needs, 

and the capabilities of the land. 

Based on a review of the subsistence hearing testimony and the analysis conducted in the 

Final EIS, it is apparent that all of the alternatives may involve some potential impact to 

subsistence deer use in the future. Due to the cumulative effects of past, present and 
2003 Record of Decision 

Page 30 - 2003 Record of Decision Woodpecker Project Area 

reasonably foreseeable actions, there is no alternative, including the no-action alternative, 

that would meet Forest Plan and TTRA objectives and yet completely avoid a significant 

possibility of a subsistence restriction somewhere in the Tongass National Forest. From 

the analysis of the information presented in the Final EIS and this ROD, and the guidance 

provided by the documents and laws listed above, I have determined that the actions 

involved in the implementation of the Selected Alternative are necessary, consistent with 

sound management of public lands and strike the best balance between meeting the needs 

of the public and protecting the forest resources. 

Amount of Land Necessary to Accomplish the Purpose of the Proposed Action – The 

amount of public land involved to implement the Selected Alternative (considering sound 

multiple-use management of public lands) is the minimum necessary to accomplish the 

purpose of the project. Most of the Tongass National Forest is used by one or more rural 

communities for subsistence deer hunting purposes. It is not possible to reduce timber 

harvest in one area and concentrate it in another locale without impacting one or more 

rural communities’ important subsistence use areas. In addition, harvestable populations 

of subsistence wildlife species could not be maintained in a natural distribution across the 

forest if harvest were concentrated in specific areas. A well-distributed population of 

species is required by the National Forest Management Act and is one of the objectives of 

the Forest Plan. 

The Forest Plan allocated many of the important subsistence use areas to land use 

designations that do not allow timber harvest. Other areas that are important to 

subsistence use were protected through standards and guidelines, such as the 1,000-foot 

beach and estuary buffers and the streamside Riparian Management Areas that do not 

allow timber harvest. Of the 28,440 acres of National Forest System lands within the 

Woodpecker Project Area, the Forest Plan allocated 17 percent of the area to the nondevelopment land use designation of Old-growth Habitat, which does not allow timber 

harvest, and 83 percent to development land use designations such as Timber Production, 

Modified Landscape, and Scenic Viewshed. These designations provide for resource use 

and development for commodity resources such as timber. 

The minimum amount of land and road construction was used to meet the purpose and 

need for this project while resolving resource concerns in a practical and efficient manner. 

This decision allows timber harvest from only three percent of the total Woodpecker 

Project Area. When combined with the 2002 Decision, timber harvest would occur on 4.6 

percent of the project area. All of these acres will have some tree retention after harvest. 

Two-aged and uneven-aged silvicultural systems are prescribed for all units. Because 

these methods remove less timber than a traditional clearcut unit of the same size, the 

effects for many resources will be less than the effects from clearcutting. Resources are 

protected to the maximum extent practicable and the Selected Alternative meets or 

exceeds the Forest Plan standards and guidelines. 

Past harvest practices of clearcutting in the Woodpecker Project Area will also affect the 

future deer habitat capability. By the year 2043, a decrease in deer habitat capability for 
2003 Record of Decision 

Woodpecker Project Area 2003 Record of Decision - Page 31

the no-action alternative is predicted to be 9.6 percent when compared to conditions 

before large-scale timber harvesting occurred in the project area. This decline will occur 

when the existing second-growth stands reach complete canopy closure, which will result 

in a reduction of forage for deer. The 2003 decision will result in an additional decrease 

of 1.4 percent by year 2043 for a cumulative decrease of 11.2 percent when considering 

the effects of the activities proposed in the 2002 decision. The use of partial harvest, as 

designed for the Woodpecker Project Area, will not create the large openings that past 

clearcutting did, and future changes in habitat capability will not be as great as with the 

timber harvest that has already occurred. 

The greatest risk to meeting subsistence demand in the future is primarily related to the 

anticipated human population growth and its associated increase in subsistence hunter 

demand when compared to the habitat capability to produce deer. This anticipated 

population growth will happen regardless of this proposed project. 

Management activities cannot completely avoid all subsistence areas, which are broadly 

distributed across the Forest. Other areas that could be harvested may be limited by 

additional resource concerns such as soil and water protection, high-value wildlife habitat, 

economics, scenic quality, or unfeasible unit and road design. The impact of viable timber 

harvest projects usually includes the alteration of old-growth habitat which reduces habitat 

capability for old-growth associated species. 

The Woodpecker Project involves the minimum amount of public land necessary and 

strikes a balance between meeting the needs of the public and protecting forest resources. 

Choosing any alternative, including the no-action alternative, or locating harvest in 

another location on Mitkof Island would not avoid or substantially lessen the risk to 

subsistence use in the future. 

Reasonable Steps to minimize Adverse Impacts Upon Subsistence uses and 

Resources – The Forest Plan took considerable steps to minimize adverse impacts to 

subsistence uses and resources. Forest Plan standards and guidelines protect important 

deer winter habitat. Other reasonable steps taken to minimize adverse impacts to 

subsistence resources include: the overall Forest Plan land use designation strategy, the 

old-growth habitat reserve strategy, travel and access management planning, Forest Plan 

standards and guidelines for stream, beach and estuary buffers, and the use of silvicultural 

systems that maintain components of overstory tree canopy, such as two-aged and unevenaged management. 

In 1995, during the analysis for the Mitkof Landscape Design, small habitat conservation 

areas that encompassed important wildlife habitat were recommended for Mitkof Island. 

These were later incorporated into the Forest Plan (1997, as amended) as small old-growth 

habitat reserves. Much deliberation occurred during the Mitkof Landscape Design 

analysis and the environmental analysis for the Woodpecker Project Area regarding the 

protection of high value deer habitat on Mitkof Island and especially within this project 

area. The deer habitat is relatively poor on Mitkof Island compared to many other areas of 

the Tongass National Forest. Most of the higher value deer winter habitat on Mitkof 
2003 Record of Decision 

Page 32 - 2003 Record of Decision Woodpecker Project Area 

Island is located within the Woodpecker Project Area. Because of this, the small oldgrowth habitat reserves within this area were designed to include much of the high value 

deer winter habitat. For more information, see the Biodiversity section in Chapter 3 of the 

Final EIS. 

Approximately 4.8 miles of classified roads will be constructed, of which three miles will 

be closed. All temporary roads will be closed after timber harvest. The road construction 

for this project will increase the current road density from 0.68 to 0.69 miles per square 

mile for Mitkof Island. Therefore, the level of access to subsistence uses will increase 

slightly with the loop extension of Road 6282 and the part of Road 40822 that will remain 

open. This includes the effects of placing ten miles of classified roads into storage to 

reduce maintenance costs as approved by the 2002 Decision. For more information, see 

the Transportation Section in Chapter 3 of the Final EIS. 

Most of the high value deer winter habitat that is available to be harvested is not proposed 

for timber harvest as part of the Woodpecker Project. In the units where harvest is 

proposed, only two-acre patches will be harvested and 75 percent of the stand will remain. 

The other units contain deer winter habitat of varying values. The effects on this habitat 

will be reduced by the use of varying amounts of tree retention. For more information, see 

the Issue 1, Deer Hunting section of Chapter 3 in the Final EIS. 

The Selected Alternative reflects a reasonable balance between the projected need for 

timber from the project area to help meet the Forest Plan, ANILCA, and TTRA timberrelated objectives, and the continued protection of subsistence uses and resources. 

Impacts on subsistence use have been minimized through the selection and design of the 

individual harvest units and road management objectives. I have determined that 

reasonable measures to minimize impacts on subsistence have been adopted to the 

maximum extent practicable while still meeting the purpose and need for this project. 

Coastal Zone Management Act 

The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA), while specifically excluding 

Federal lands from the coastal zone, requires that a Federal agency's activities be 

consistent with the enforceable standards of a State's coastal management program to the 

maximum extent practicable when the agency's activities affect the coastal zone. 

The enforceable standards for timber harvest activities are found in the State Forest 

Practices Act. The standards and guidelines for timber harvest activities in the 

Woodpecker Project Area meet or exceed the standards in the State Forest Practices Act. 

I have determined that the proposed activities are consistent with the Alaska Coastal 

Management Program to the maximum extent practicable. The State of Alaska has 

concurred with my determination. 

Consumers, Civil Rights, Minorities and Women 

No negative impacts to the civil rights of individuals or groups, including minorities and 

women, are anticipated to be associated with this project. Additional information can be 
2003 Record of Decision 

Woodpecker Project Area 2003 Record of Decision - Page 33

found in Chapter 3 and Appendix H of the Forest Plan Final EIS, Part 2, as well as 

Chapter 3 of the Woodpecker Project Area Final EIS. 

Executive Orders 

EO 11593 (Historic Protection) - Executive Order 11593 directs Federal agencies to 

provide leadership in preserving, restoring and maintaining the historic and cultural 

environment of the Nation. The consultation required in accordance with Section 106 of 

the National Historic Preservation Act for the Woodpecker Project Area meets the intent 

of this Executive Order. 

EO 11988 (Floodplains) - Executive Order 11988 directs Federal agencies to take action 

to avoid, to the extent practicable, the long and short-term adverse impacts associated with 

the occupancy and modification of floodplains. No roads will be constructed across 

floodplains, and timber harvest will not occur on any floodplain. 

EO 11990 (Wetlands) - Executive Order 11990 requires Federal agencies to avoid, to the 

extent practicable, the long and short-term adverse impacts associated with the destruction 

or modification of wetlands. The ground-disturbing activities avoid most identified 

wetlands; however, many small wetlands or muskegs occur as inclusions within forested 

areas. These areas may be altered by timber harvest or temporary road construction. 

Techniques and practices required by the Forest Service serve to maintain the wetland 

attributes, including values and functions. It is estimated there will be only minimal loss 

of wetlands with any of the alternatives. Soil moisture regimes and vegetation on some 

wetlands may be altered in some harvest units; however, these altered acres would still be 

classified as wetlands and would still function as wetlands in the ecosystem. 

Because wetlands are found throughout the project area, it is not feasible to avoid all 

wetland areas. However, there are no development activities planned on the more 

biologically significant wetlands. 

EO 12898 (Environmental Justice) - Executive Order 12898 directs Federal agencies to 

identify and address the issue of environmental justice, i.e. adverse human health and 

environmental effects of agency programs that disproportionately impact minority and 

low-income populations. The order specifically directs agencies to consider patterns of 

subsistence hunting and fishing when an agency action may affect fish or wildlife. I have 

determined that implementation of this project will not cause adverse health or 

environmental effects that would disproportionately impact minority and low-income 

populations. 

EO 12962 (Recreational Fisheries) - Executive Order 12962 directs Federal agencies to 

conserve, restore and enhance aquatic systems to provide for increased recreational fishing 

opportunities nationwide. Section 1 of the Executive Order is most pertinent to the 

proposed activity. Section 1 directs Federal agencies to evaluate effects on aquatic 

ecosystems and recreational fisheries, develop and encourage partnerships, promote 
2003 Record of Decision 

Page 34 - 2003 Record of Decision Woodpecker Project Area 

restoration, provide access, and promote awareness of opportunities for recreational 

fishery resources. 

The effects of this project have been evaluated throughout the Final EIS, including effects 

to freshwater and marine resources. Partnerships continue to be used to leverage Federal 

project funds to address water quality concerns in some areas of the Tongass National 

Forest, although none have been proposed for recreational fisheries in conjunction with 

this project. 

The effects on aquatic systems are minimized through project design, application of Forest 

Plan standards and guidelines, BMPs and site-specific mitigation measures. Recreational 

fishing opportunities will remain essentially the same because aquatic habitats are 

protected through implementation of BMPs and riparian buffers, and may result in slightly 

increased opportunities. I have determined that this project will have no significant effect 

on recreational fisheries. 

Federal and State Permits 

Federal and State permits necessary to implement the authorized activities are listed in 

Chapter 1 of the Final EIS. 

Implementation Process 

Implementation of any part of this decision may occur no sooner than 50 days following 

publication of the legal notice of the decision in the Juneau Empire, published in Juneau, 

Alaska, if no appeal is received. 

This project will be implemented in accordance with Forest Service Manual (FSM) and 

Handbook (FSH) direction for Timber Sale Project Implementation in FSM 2431.3 and 

FSH 2409.24. This direction provides a bridge between project planning and 

implementation and will ensure execution of the actions, environmental standards, 

mitigation approved by this decision, and compliance with TTRA and other laws. All 

applicable Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be applied. 

Implementation of all activities authorized by this Record of Decision will be monitored to 

ensure that they are carried out as planned and described in the Final EIS. 

The Appendix of this ROD contains the harvest unit design cards and road cards for this 

decision. These cards are an integral part of this decision because they document the 

specific resource concerns, management objectives, and mitigation measures to govern the 

layout of the harvest units. These cards will be used during the implementation process to 

assure that all aspects of the project are implemented within applicable standards and 

guidelines and that resource impacts will not be greater than those described in the Final 

EIS. Similar cards will be used to document any changes to the planned layout as the 

actual layout and harvest of the units occurs with project implementation. 
2003 Record of Decision 

Woodpecker Project Area 2003 Record of Decision - Page 35

The implementation record for this project will display: (1) each harvest unit as actually 

implemented, (2) any proposed changes to the design, location, standards and guidelines, 

or other mitigation measures for the project, and (3) authorization of the proposed 

changes. 

Procedure for Changes During Implementation 

Proposed changes to the authorized project actions will be subject to the requirements of 

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Forest Management Act of 

1976 (NFMA), Section 810 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, the 

Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA), the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), and 

other laws concerning such changes. 

In determining whether and what kind of NEPA action is required, the Forest Supervisor 

will consider the criteria set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 1502.9(c)), 

and FSH 1909.15, Sec. 18 for determining whether to supplement an existing 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). In particular, the Forest Supervisor will 

determine whether the proposed change is a substantial change to the unit or road as 

planned and approved, and whether the change is relevant to environmental concerns. 

Connected or interrelated proposed changes regarding particular areas of specific activities 

will be considered together in making this determination. The cumulative impacts of 

these changes will also be considered. 

The intent of field verification is to confirm inventory data and to determine the feasibility 

and general design and location of a unit or road, not to locate final boundaries or road 

locations. Minor changes are expected during implementation to better meet on-site 

resource management and protection objectives. Minor adjustments to unit boundaries are 

likely during final layout for the purpose of improving logging system efficiency. This 

will usually entail adjusting the boundary to coincide with logical logging setting 

boundaries. Many of these minor changes will not present sufficient potential impacts to 

require any specific documentation or other action to comply with applicable laws. Some 

minor changes may still require appropriate analysis and documentation to comply with 

FSH 1909.15, sec. 18. 
2003 Record of Decision 

Page 36 - 2003 Record of Decision Woodpecker Project Area 

 
2003 Record of Decision 

Woodpecker Project Area 2003 Record of Decision - Page 37

Record of Decision Map (467 KB jpg file)