United States Department of Agriculture

Navy Timber Sale

Record of Decision

Forest Service

Alaska Region

Tongass National Forest

Wrangell Ranger District R10-MB-632d August 2015
Key acronyms and other terms used in this Record of Decision:

ADEC: Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

AFRPA: Alaska Forest Resources and Practices Act

ANCSA: Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act

ANILCA: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act

AYC: Alaska yellow-cedar

BA: Biological Assessment

BE: Biological Evaluation

BLM: Bureau of Land Management

BMP: Best management practice

CEQ: Council of Environmental Quality

CFR: Code of Federal Regulation

CZMA: Coastal Zone Management Act

DEIS: Draft Environmental Impact Statement

DHC: Deer habitat capability

DWM: Down woody material

EFH: Essential fish habitat

EPA: Environmental Protection Agency

ESA: Endangered Species Act

FASTR: Financial Analysis Spreadsheet Tool – RV

FEIS: Final Environmental Impact Statement

FIA: Forest Inventory and Analysis

Forest Plan: Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan, 2008

FSM or FSH: Forest Service Manual or Forest Service Handbook

GHG: Greenhouse gas

GIS: Geographic information system

IRA: Inventoried roadless area

IDT: Interdisciplinary team

LTF: Log transfer facility

LUD: Land use designation

MBF: Thousand board feet

MIS: Management indicator species

MMBF: Million board feet

NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

NFMA: National Forest Management Act

NFS: National Forest System

NHPA: National Historic Preservation Act

NMFS: National Marine Fisheries Service

POG: Productive old growth (forest)

RAW: Reasonable assurance of windfirmness

ROD: Record of Decision

SEIS: Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

SIO: Scenic integrity objectives

TTPA: Total trees per acre

TTRA: Tongass Timber Reform Act

USDA: United States Department of Agriculture

USFS: United States Forest Service

USFWS: United States Fish and Wildlife Service

VCU: Value comparison unit

WAA: Wildlife analysis area

Cover photo: View of Navy Peak and Cannery Point
Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper 

Logo Department Name Agency Organization Organization Address Information

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Forest 

Service

Tongass National Forest

Alaska Region

648 Mission Street

Ketchikan, AK 99901

907-225-3101

File Code: 1950 

Date: August 11, 2015 

Dear Planning Participant:

I am pleased to announce that the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Navy Timber Sale project 

on the Wrangell Ranger District, Tongass National Forest has been signed. This ROD replaces 

the decision signed in March 2009. The ROD is available for review at the Ketchikan Forest 

Supervisor’s Office and Wrangell District Office, and online at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=14556. Hardcopies and CDs of the 

document are available upon request. 

This decision makes about 13.1 million board feet of sawlog and utility timber available for 

harvest from about 1,252 acres of commercial forest land on Etolin Island and requires 

construction of about 0.6 mile and reconstruction of 0.8 mile of National Forest System road, and 

construction of 2.7 miles of temporary road. 

The draft ROD was available for public review prior to this final decision, pursuant to the 

Predecisional Administrative Review Process. Two objections were received during the 45-day 

objection filing period. The Reviewing Officer has reviewed the draft decision, in accordance 

with 36 CFR 218.3(a) and provided instructions to the Responsible Official. I have complied 

with the instructions from the Reviewing Officer and signed the ROD. Project implementation 

may commence immediately after the decision is signed.

Copies of this letter have been mailed to those people who have expressed interest in the project 

through scoping, comments, consultation, or requested to be on the mailing list. 

For additional information, please contact Robert Dalrymple, Wrangell District Ranger, at (907)-

874-2323. 

I want to thank you for your interest in the Navy project. 

Sincerely,

M. EARL STEWART

Forest Supervisor, Tongass NF 
This page intentionally left blank
Navy Timber Sale

Record of Decision

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service Alaska Region

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Tongass National Forest

Responsible Official: M. Earl Stewart, Forest Supervisor

Tongass National Forest

Federal Building

Ketchikan, Alaska 99901

For Further Robert Dalrymple, Wrangell District Ranger

Information Contact: Tongass National Forest

P.O. Box 51

Wrangell, Alaska 99929-0051

(907) 874-2323

Abstract:

The Responsible Official has selected Alternative F from the Navy Timber Sale Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). This decision makes about 13.1 million board feet of 

sawlog and utility timber available for harvest from about 1,252 acres of commercial forest land 

on Etolin Island to contribute to the Tongass National Forest timber sale program. The harvest 

of this timber will require construction of about 0.6 mile and reconstruction of 0.8 mile of 

National Forest System road, and construction of 2.7 miles of temporary road. 
This page intentionally left blank
Navy Timber Sale Record of Decision ROD  R-1

Record of Decision

Navy Timber Sale

USDA Forest Service

Wrangell Ranger District, Tongass National Forest, Alaska Region

Introduction

This Navy Timber Sale Record of Decision (ROD) documents my decision to 

select Alternative F (hereafter called the Selected Alternative) from the Navy 

Timber Sale FEIS. The ROD was available as a draft for public review under 

the project-level predecisional administrative review, or “objection process” 

(Title 36 CFR 218, Subparts A and B) from April 24, 2015 to June 8, 2015.

The Record of Decision describes my rationale for the decision, including the 

purpose and need, the key issues I considered in the decision, the environmental 

effects of the Selected Alternative, my consideration of public comments, and 

consistency with the Forest Plan and other applicable laws and regulations. The 

unit cards and road 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 and construction of roads. 

These cards will be used during the implementation process to ensure that the 

project is implemented within applicable Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines 

and that resource effects will not be greater than those described in the FEIS. 

Similar cards will document any changes to the planned layout which may occur 

during implementation.

Decision 

The Selected Alternative makes about 13.1 million board feet of sawlog and 

utility timber available for harvest from about 1,252 acres of commercial forest 

land in the Navy Timber Sale project area on central Etolin Island, 

approximately 22 miles south of Wrangell, Alaska, to contribute to the Tongass 

National Forest timber sale program. The harvest of this timber will require 

construction of about 0.6 mile and reconstruction of 0.8 mile of National Forest 

System road, and construction of 2.7 miles of temporary road. See vicinity map 

(Figure ROD-1, below), and Selected Alternative map (Figure ROD-2 on page 

R-31).
Record of Decision

R-2  ROD Navy Timber Sale Record of Decision

Figure R-1

Navy Timber Sale Vicinity Map
Record of Decision

Navy Timber Sale Record of Decision ROD  R-3

I released the Navy Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) with a Record 

of Decision in 2009. That decision was subsequently appealed and remanded. 

This 2015 Record of Decision replaces my previous decision for this project. 

I postponed the release of this ROD until now for several reasons. I wanted to 

know the outcome of the litigation regarding the Tongass National Forest 

exemption to the roadless rule. I felt that delaying the decision until the new 

objection process was in place would give the interested public an opportunity to 

participate in a collaborative decision-making process before the ROD was

signed. The delay also allowed for a careful review of any new information 

since the FEIS was released in 2009.

Based upon my review of public comments, the analysis contained in the FEIS, 

the project record and the new information documented in Appendix ROD-3, I 

have selected Alternative F as the Selected Alternative. The Selected 

Alternative is displayed in Figure ROD-2 at the end of this Record of Decision. 

I am incorporating the project design criteria and measures to minimize adverse 

environmental effects of the Selected Alternative as part of my decision. These 

are described in the Unit Cards (Appendix ROD-1) and Road Cards (Appendix 

ROD-2). I am satisfied that these are practicable and effective in avoiding or 

minimizing environmental effects. 

Additional goshawk surveys done in the project area in July 2015 disclosed the 

presence of two juvenile goshawks in Unit 75. As a result, Unit 75 will be 

deferred from initial sale offerings until additional surveys can be completed in 

2016 to determine if a nest is nearby. If any new nests are discovered, the 

appropriate Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines will be applied and any timber 

sale contract implementing the project will be modified through appropriate 

provisions, if warranted.

Features of the Selected Alternative

The Selected Alternative will harvest timber on approximately 1,252 acres of 

commercial forest land, which is expected to contribute approximately 13.1

million board feet (MMBF) of sawlog and utility volume to the Tongass 

National Forest timber sale program. 

Timber harvest will occur under even-aged management prescriptions (clearcuts 

or clearcuts with reserves) or uneven-aged management prescriptions (singletree selection) using cable, shovel, or helicopter yarding. Design features for

timber harvest units in this decision are described in detail on the Unit Cards in 

Appendix ROD-1 and incorporated into this decision. 

The harvest of this timber will require construction of approximately 0.6 mile 

and reconstruction of 0.8 mile of National Forest System road, and construction 

of 2.7 miles of temporary road. The existing road system and the Anita Bay log 

transfer facilities will be used to transport the timber off the island. Design 

features of the National Forest System roads for this decision are described in 
Record of Decision

R-4  ROD Navy Timber Sale Record of Decision

detail on the Road Cards in Appendix ROD-2 and incorporated into this 

decision. Temporary roads are included on the Unit Cards in Appendix ROD-1.

All new National Forest System roads will be placed in storage and closed to 

public motorized use after timber sale activities are completed. Temporary 

roads will be decommissioned and allowed to revegetate after harvest.

All timber harvest and road construction will occur outside of 2001 inventoried 

roadless areas. 

Summary of Decision Rationale

The Selected Alternative meets the stated purpose and need for the project. It 

will produce a supply of timber for the timber industry with minimal effects to 

the environment. It addresses the key issues as a whole by providing a supply of 

timber, maintaining old-growth forest habitat, and not entering any 2001 

inventoried roadless areas.

The Selected Alternative meets the Forest Plan direction and conforms to the 

National Forest Management Act as well as all other applicable laws, 

regulations, and policies. The direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental

effects from project activities are consistent with the goals, objectives, and 

standards and guidelines in the Forest Plan. I have found that the protection and

mitigation measures in Appendix ROD-1, Unit Cards, and design criteria in 

Appendix ROD-2, Road Cards are effective in reducing environmental impacts 

based upon the Forest Plan analysis and experience in using these measures. 

In summary, I find that the Selected Alternative provides the best mix of 

beneficial resources for the public, within a framework of existing laws, 

regulations, policies, public needs and desires, and the capabilities of the land. 

None of the alternatives can provide benefits for and meet the needs of all 

members of the public. My decision includes the evaluation of the trade-offs 

between effects to resources, desired products, and social values.

A detailed discussion of the factors I considered in making my decision is 

presented below.

Purpose and Need

I looked at how each alternative responded to the purpose and need for action 

(fully described in the FEIS Chapter 1) of offering timber for harvest to meet the 

needs of the industry. I have determined that the Selected Alternative best meets 

the purpose and need within Forest Plan direction without entering any 2001 

inventoried roadless areas (IRAs). The purpose and need is to respond to goals 

and objectives of the Forest Plan, and help move the project area toward the 

desired conditions. The Selected Alternative will:

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

local and regional economies of Southeast Alaska.
Record of Decision

Navy Timber Sale Record of Decision ROD  R-5

• Support a wide range of natural resource employment opportunities 

within Southeast Alaska’s communities.

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

products from suitable forest lands made available for timber harvest, on 

an even-flow, long-term sustained yield basis and in an economically 

efficient manner.

• Contribute an estimated 13.1 MMBF of timber in order to seek to meet 

the annual market demand for Tongass National Forest timber and the 

market demand for the planning cycle.

Key Issues 

An important consideration in making my decision is how each alternative 

addressed the key issues developed from public scoping. After carefully 

reviewing the issues (FEIS Chapter 1), I find that the Selected Alternative best

addresses these key issues when considered as a whole.

Issue 1: Timber Supply and Demand 

I considered the need to manage the timber resource in the Navy analysis area in 

order to produce an even-flow of sawtimber and other wood products on a 

sustained yield and economical basis from the Tongass National Forest. The 

Selected Alternative provides about 13.1 MMBF toward meeting annual market 

demand. 

I evaluated the concerns for providing for economical timber sale offerings

within the context of fluctuating timber markets, the amount of timber volume 

currently available for offer from the Tongass National Forest, and the relative 

effects of the Selected Alternative, and find that the Selected Alternative 

provides the best balance overall.

The current timber industry in Southeast Alaska is in a state of transition to 

young-growth harvest. The Selected Alternative will contribute timber volume 

to meet industry needs. Although there is currently no young-growth timber 

mature enough for harvest in the Navy project area, the Selected Alternative 

contributes to the supply of timber needed to maintain the timber industry during 

the transition to young-growth management. A reliable supply of economically 

viable timber is critical to maintain the expertise and infrastructure of the 

existing timber industry during the transition to young-growth management.

The Selected Alternative could support an estimated 52 to 63 annualized jobs, 

including logging, sawmilling, transportation and other services. Although it 

provides the lowest timber volume of the FEIS action alternatives and supports 

the least number of jobs, it is the most economical alternative because it 

primarily uses the existing road system, builds the fewest miles of road, and uses 

the least amount of costly helicopter yarding. 

The financial efficiency analysis used for the Navy project provides only a 

relative comparison of values between the alternatives. The financial efficiency 
Record of Decision

R-6  ROD Navy Timber Sale Record of Decision

analysis at the planning stage relies on past markets and costs and may not 

reflect future market conditions at the time of offer, since timber markets and 

values are extremely volatile. The value of the timber will only be known at the 

time the appraisal is completed and contract offered.

The results of the financial efficiency modeling using historical timber costs and 

values in the Financial Analysis Spreadsheet Tool – RV (FASTR) model

indicate a deficit value based on past market performance for all alternatives.

However, the Selected Alternative is the most economical of the action 

alternatives and it is likely to have a positive value if current market conditions 

continue to improve. 

It is important to have this timber volume available to offer as market conditions 

improve. Navy timber sales will not be advertised until they appraise with 

positive values.

Issue 2: Wildlife Habitat Fragmentation

I carefully considered the effects to wildlife habitat. Some commenters 

expressed concern that further timber harvest may reduce the large patches of 

old-growth forest in the project area, thereby reducing the preferred habitat for 

old-growth associated species. They also had specific concerns for habitat 

connectivity in the area between Anita Bay and Burnett Inlet. 

I chose Alternative F as the Selected Alternative because it has the least effect 

on interior habitat and coarse canopy, and large patches of old-growth habitat of 

all the FEIS action alternatives, since it harvests the fewest acres of habitat. It 

will result in an estimated 1.4 percent reduction in productive old-growth forest 

(POG) within wildlife analysis area (WAA) 1901. No harvest or roads occur 

within the beach buffer, which will retain its integrity as wildlife habitat. 

Fifty-five percent of the harvest area (692 of the 1,252 acres) in the Selected 

Alternative will be partially harvested using a single-tree selection prescription 

removing approximately 30 percent of the basal area. This leaves the remaining 

70 percent to continue to provide habitat components and retain old-growth 

characteristics within the stand. 

The Selected Alternative design reduces impacts to wildlife habitat in the area 

between Anita Bay and Burnett Inlet, as compared to Alternatives B, C, and D. 

Alternative E did not propose harvest in this area. This area has experienced 

timber harvest and road construction and use since the early 1980s. While the 

Selected Alternative will harvest some timber in the area, it contains features to 

minimize the negative effects to wildlife. Reserve trees within the harvest units 

will create future multi-layered forest habitat. Tree retention in Unit 67 is 

increased, and a portion of Unit 70 is deleted, in comparison to Alternatives B, 

C, and D, to maintain part of the low-elevation corridor.

Because of the continuing concerns about additional timber harvest in this area, I 

reviewed the area and found that it consists of a mosaic of vegetation types. 

When the remaining old-growth forest stands, the unmanaged lowerproductivity old-growth forest stands, and the partial-harvest stands in the 
Record of Decision

Navy Timber Sale Record of Decision ROD  R-7

Selected Alternative are all considered together, I find that this area provides

wildlife habitat connectivity. This area will continue to function as wildlife 

habitat and serve as a travel corridor with implementation of the Selected 

Alternative, as much of the natural habitat remains. 

I have also determined that the Selected Alternative maintains enough oldgrowth forest to provide the full range of matrix functions in order to meet the 

Tongass Conservation Strategy.

Issue 3: Inventoried Roadless Areas

I considered the effects to roadless area values, which were analyzed by 

alternative in the FEIS. These included direct effects from proposed units and 

roads within the IRA boundaries, and indirect effects such as temporary sight 

and noise disturbance and the loss of interior habitat values within the IRAs 

from activities occurring outside of but adjacent to the IRAs. 

The FEIS analysis used the Forest Plan 2008 roadless inventory because the 

Tongass exemption from the roadless rule was in place during the FEIS analysis. 

In 2011, the Alaska Federal District Court vacated the Tongass exemption from 

the Roadless Rule. To comply with the roadless rule, the alternatives were 

reassessed in the new information analysis (Appendix ROD-3) using the 2001 

Roadless Rule inventory boundaries. The differences between the 2008 Forest 

Plan roadless inventory and the 2001 Roadless Rule inventory are also discussed 

in Appendix ROD-3.

In March 2014, the District Court’s ruling was reversed by the Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeals, remanding the case back to the District Court. In August 

2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted another hearing, held in 

December 2014 before an eleven-judge panel to rehear the appeal of the 2011 

District Court decision. The Ninth Circuit Court has issued its en banc decision 

in Organized Village of Kake v. USDA, 11-35517, upholding the Alaska District 

Court’s reinstatement of the roadless rule, which remains in effect and applies to 

the Tongass. 

I chose the Selected Alternative because it does not have any direct effects on 

IRAs, since it does not harvest timber or build roads within any IRA under either 

the 2001 or the 2008 inventory. Approximately 1 percent of the IRAs could be 

indirectly affected by sights and sounds of activities occurring outside of, but 

adjacent to, the IRAs, although these are expected to be minor and of short 

duration. 

Environmental Effects 

I considered the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the alternatives in 

making my decision. All alternatives are consistent with the Forest Plan. The 

Selected Alternative has the least overall effect of the action alternatives, since it 

harvests the least timber volume and builds the fewest roads. The FEIS and 

project record display the effects, both positive and negative, resulting from the 

action alternatives. 
Record of Decision

R-8  ROD Navy Timber Sale Record of Decision

While I reviewed all of the resource effects in addition to the key issues, the 

public raised some specific concerns, which I will address below. More 

information on these effects is summarized in Appendix ROD-3 and the FEIS.

Alaska yellow-cedar decline: There is concern for Alaska yellow-cedar decline 

and the regeneration and persistence of Alaska yellow-cedar in stands where it is 

present. I have examined the silvicultural prescriptions and determined that 

appropriate measures are provided by the Selected Alternative to ensure 

establishment of Alaska yellow-cedar in regenerated stands where appropriate. 

These measures include the retention of cedar seed-trees and cedar interplanting. This information has been clarified on the unit cards in Appendix 

ROD-1 and in the addendum to the Silviculture resource report. Recent research 

publications regarding Alaska yellow-cedar decline have been considered and 

are included in the project record. The Alaska yellow-cedar is currently in a 12-

month review period by the USFWS for potential listing under the Endangered 

Species Act.

Windthrow: There is concern for windthrow following harvest. I have reviewed

the unit design and silviculture prescriptions and find that the risk of future 

windthrow will be minimized with the use of clearcutting, windfirm buffers, or 

the use of single-tree selection harvest that retains 70 percent of the basal area to 

maintain a wind-resistant canopy.

Areas with high windthrow concerns are identified on the unit cards. 

Reasonable assurance of windfirmness (RAW) buffers will be designed for 

riparian management areas if needed for protection during implementation. 

Watershed effects: I considered the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of 

the Selected Alternative combined with past harvest on watershed resources. 

The Selected Alternative has the fewest acres of harvest and miles of road 

construction in true watersheds (an area that contributes surface and subwater to 

a single point) of the action alternatives. The project design and implementation 

guidelines will limit watershed effects.

Goshawk nesting habitat: The Selected Alternative has the least effect on highprobability goshawk nesting habitat of any action alternative. The Biological 

Evaluation determination for the goshawk is “May adversely affect individuals 

but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area nor cause a trend 

toward federal listing.” A 233-acre buffer surrounding a group of three inactive 

goshawk nests adjacent to harvest units 67, 72, 73, and 74 exceeds the Forest 

Plan Standard and Guideline of 100 acres of POG, providing additional 

protection for that nest area. The Selected Alternative also avoids harvest near 

the other known goshawk nesting areas in WAA 1901. 

Deer habitat: The Selected Alternative has a minor effect on deer habitat, 

having the least effect of the action alternatives. The 2011 direction for the deer 

model was used to estimate the effects on deer habitat and the results are similar 

to those in the FEIS. The reanalysis using the 2011 direction for the deer model 

estimates that deer habitat capability will be reduced by about 2 percent from the 

existing condition due to activities in the Selected Alternative, with a cumulative 
Record of Decision

Navy Timber Sale Record of Decision ROD  R-9

reduction of 13 percent from historical capability in WAA 1901. Deer deepsnow winter habitat would be reduced directly and indirectly by approximately 2 

percent and cumulatively by 24 percent from historic conditions.

Wolf population sustainability: In order to assess the effects on wolves, three 

analyses were recalculated: 1) Deer density to estimate the effects on the 

wolves’ primary food source; 2) Road density to evaluate the effect of increased 

roads on the potential hunting/trapping pressure; and 3) Harvest of wolves to 

estimate current hunting/trapping pressure on wolves. Based on the results of 

these analyses (summarized in Appendix ROD-3), the Selected Alternative 

would have the least effect on wolf populations of the action alternatives. Even 

during the life of the sale, road densities in WAA 1901 would meet the Forest 

Plan wolf road density standard and guideline. Wolf populations would remain 

sustainable on Etolin Island with the implementation of the Selected Alternative.

Soil stability: The Selected Alternative has the least effect on steep slopes of the 

action alternatives, since it has the fewest potentially affected acres. All areas 

with slopes greater than 72 percent will have a site stability analysis prior to 

implementation, and unstable slopes will be avoided to minimize adverse 

impacts to soil and water resources. 

Botany: The Selected Alternative has the least effect on sensitive plants of the 

action alternatives since it affects the fewest acres of habitat. There may be 

minor effects to rare plants and Alaska Region sensitive plants. The Biological 

Evaluation finding is “May adversely affect individuals but not likely to result in 

a loss of viability in the planning area nor cause a trend toward federal listing” 

for several species. Detailed information is in the Biological Evaluation and 

summarized in the FEIS, Chapter 3. Measures are included in this decision,

described in Appendix ROD-1, Unit Cards, to reduce the possibility of invasive 

plant species that may compete with native species.

Recreation: The Selected Alternative would have the least effect to recreation 

and scenery resources of the action alternatives. Implementation of the Selected 

Alternative would not noticeably decrease or change the current recreational 

opportunities or scenery. 

Climate change: Climate change is an important consideration, however, the 

magnitude of this project is so small compared to the factors that contribute to 

climate change that foreseeable effects would be small if measurable at all for all 

alternatives. The Forest Plan FEIS discusses climate change factors (p. 3-11 to 

3-20) and discloses the risk of possible effects. The Tongass National Forest 

will continue to monitor potential effects of climate change through the existing 

Forest Plan monitoring programs, and other studies that are occurring regionally 

and nationally. Appendix ROD-3 describes some of the climate change 

considerations and studies which are ongoing at various levels across the 

nation’s forests, including the Tongass. 
Record of Decision

R-10  ROD Navy Timber Sale Record of Decision

Alternatives

Alternatives Considered in Detail

Five action alternatives and the no-action alternative were considered in detail in 

the FEIS. These alternatives were designed to address key issues developed 

from scoping comments. I found these alternatives provided a reasonable range 

of alternatives for the analysis. 

Each action alternative was designed with different emphases to address the key 

issues, while meeting the purpose and need of providing timber volume. 

Alternative F was designed to avoid harvest and road building in inventoried 

roadless areas. Each of the alternatives is summarized below and described in 

detail in the FEIS Chapter 2. Table R-1 provides a summary comparison of the 

alternatives.

During the analysis of new information since the FEIS was published, each 

action alternative was analyzed with higher-resolution GIS mapping data which 

resulted in minor acreage differences from those published in the FEIS. Timber 

volumes in the FEIS were estimated from stand exam plots, which provide a 

general gross volume estimate. More-intensive timber cruise plots were done 

since the FEIS, which provided more-precise defect information with moreaccurate net timber volume estimates. This resulted in new net volume 

estimates for the action alternatives. In addition, road reconstruction completed 

since the FEIS has reduced the amount of reconstruction under the alternatives 

(Table R-1).

Alternative A - No Action, proposed no new timber harvest or road 

construction in the project area. It does not preclude timber harvest from other 

areas or from the project area in the future. This alternative represents the 

existing condition and serves as a baseline for comparing the action alternatives. 

This alternative displays the effects from the current condition of the area. 

Alternative B was the proposed action. Alternative B responded to Issue 1, 

Timber Supply and Economics, by providing logical extensions to the existing 

Anita Bay road system and using uneven-aged management in helicopter units 

to improve economics. This alternative proposed timber harvest on 

approximately 3,212 acres. The use of higher-resolution GIS data resulted in an 

8-acre reduction, for a total harvest area of approximately 3,204 acres. This 

alternative produced 45.5 MMBF of timber volume estimated from stand exam 

data, and 31.4 MMBF of net cruised timber volume. This alternative proposed 

timber harvest and road building within 2001 IRAs. 

Alternative C emphasized Issue 1 by focusing on timber supply, maximizing 

the available amount of timber while meeting Forest Plan Standards and 

Guidelines, and using uneven-aged management in helicopter units. This 

alternative proposed timber harvest on approximately 6,107 acres. The use of 

higher-resolution GIS data resulted in a 13-acre reduction, for a total harvest 

area of approximately 6,094 acres. This alternative produced 87.5 MMBF of 

timber volume estimated from stand exam data, and 62.0 MMBF of net graded 
Record of Decision

Navy Timber Sale Record of Decision ROD  R-11

cruised timber volume. This alternative had the most harvest units and roads 

within 2001 IRAs. 

Alternative D, identified as the preferred alternative in the DEIS, also 

emphasized Issue 1, by focusing on economics. This alternative proposed 

timber harvest on approximately 2,369 acres. The use of higher-resolution GIS 

data resulted in an 8-acre reduction for a total harvest area of approximately 

2,361 acres. This alternative produced 37.2 MMBF of timber volume estimated 

from stand exam data, and 26.6 MMBF of net cruised timber volume. This 

alternative proposed more-economical units, with greater use of conventional 

yarding methods, than the proposed action. This alternative proposed timber 

harvest and road building within 2001 IRAs. 

Alternative E responded to Issue 2, Wildlife Habitat Fragmentation. This 

alternative proposed timber harvest on approximately 3,326 acres. The use of 

higher-resolution GIS data resulted in a 2-acre increase for a total harvest area of 

approximately 3,328 acres. This alternative produced 38.4 MMBF timber 

volume estimated from stand exam data, and 24.5 MMBF of net cruised timber 

volume. No harvest was proposed in the area between Anita Bay and Burnett 

Inlet. It proposed only small-sized clearcut units and uneven-aged management 

on most of the units. Road construction was minimized by using a higher 

proportion of helicopter yarding. This alternative proposed timber harvest and 

road building within 2001 IRAs. 

Alternative F is the Selected Alternative as described above. Alternative F was 

designed to avoid harvest and roadbuilding in inventoried roadless areas. It 

proposed timber harvest on 1,251 acres. The use of higher-resolution GIS data 

resulted in a 1-acre increase for a total harvest area of approximately 1,252 

acres. This alternative produced 18.3 MMBF of timber volume estimated from

stand exam data, and 13.1 MMBF of net cruised timber volume. This alternative 

responded to Issue 3, Inventoried Roadless Areas, by not harvesting timber or 

constructing roads in inventoried roadless areas. 
Record of Decision

R-12  ROD Navy Timber Sale Record of Decision

Table R-1

Comparison of Alternative Design and Issues by Alternative (updated 2014)

Category Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Sel. Alt. F

Estimated harvest acreage and volume:

Total acres of harvest 0 3,204 6,094 2,361 3,328 1,252

Acres of cable/shovel yarding 0 1,282 2,519 1,255 554 643

Acres of helicopter yarding 0 1,922 3,575 1,106 2,772 609

Total net cruise volume (saw/utility, MMBF)1 0 31.4 62.0 26.6 24.5 13.1

Cable/shovel yarding (sawlog only, MMBF) 0 18.4 36.6 18.2 8.0 8.6

Helicopter yarding (sawlog only, MMBF) 0 9.6 18.8 5.6 13.9 3.1

Acres harvested by silvicultural system2

Even-aged management 0 1,207 2,185 1,180 487 559

Two-aged management 0 0 268 0 0 0

Uneven-aged management 0 2,005 3,654 1,189 2,839 692

Roads and log transfer facilities (LTFs):

Miles of NFS road construction 0 6.6 12.1 4.8 2.2 0.6

Miles of temporary road construction 0 5.8 13.6 5.0 2.7 2.7

Miles of proposed road reconstruction 0 0.8 2.1 0.4 0.8 0.8

Proposes construction of Mosman Inlet LTF No No Yes No No No

Issue 1: Timber supply and economics

Total net cruise volume MMBF) 0 31.4 62.0 26.6 24.5 13.1

Indicated bid value ($/MBF3) 0 ($75.68) ($56.73) ($51.56) ($42.90) ($14.16)

Direct employment (job equivalent)4 0 126-151 248-298 107-128 98-117 52-63

Road costs (construction/reconstruction)/MBF 0 $83 $82 $77 $42 $59

Logging costs (stump to mill costs) ($/MBF) 0 $574 $563 $548 $555 $513

Issue 2: Wildlife habitat fragmentation

Acres of POG habitat in WAA 1901 post harvest 60,750 59,169 57,689 59,263 59,889 59,906

% reduction in POG habitat for WAA 1901 0 2.6% 5.0% 2.4% 2.4% 1.4%

Acres of interior POG in WAA 1901 post harvest 24,642 23,051 22,013 23,280 23,702 24,044

Acres of coarse canopy old growth in WAA 1901 

post harvest 3,654 3,286 3,255 3,341 3,421 3,583

Issue 3: Inventoried roadless areas (2001 IRAs)

Acres of timber harvest within the IRAs 0 2,200 4,463 1,094 2,219 0

Total miles of road construction within the IRAs5 0 6.3 16.8 4.3 1.7 0

Acres of IRA affected (direct and indirect effects)

6 0 5,963 12,117 3,120 6,272 566

% Acres of IRA affected 0 11% 22% 6% 12% 1% 1 MMBF = million board feet; sawlog and utility. 2 Estimated acres by silvicultural system, as shown in the FEIS. Total acres by silviculture 

system vary slightly from total harvest acres by 1 to 13 acres due to GIS updates.

Even-aged includes: clearcut; clearcut w/ 15% reserves; clearcut w/ 50% reserves; 

Two-aged includes: clearcut w/ 15% reserves; Uneven-aged includes: single-tree selection. 3 MBF = thousand board feet

4 Based on a range of volume from all allowable export to markets outside Alaska, to all sawlogs 

(hem/spruce) processed locally. 5 Includes NFS and temporary road construction

6 Acres affected by alternative includes the zone which is 1,200 feet from existing and proposed 

roads, and 600 feet from all harvest units including the helicopter units. Alt F only has indirect 

effects since no project activities occur within IRAs. 

Source: GIS; FASTR v 10212013
Record of Decision

Navy Timber Sale Record of Decision ROD  R-13

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis

Nine alternatives were considered but eliminated from detailed analysis 

throughout the planning process. These are presented in the FEIS Chapter 2, 

pages 2-17 through 2-20, under Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from 

Detailed Study. Three additional proposals by appellants were considered 

during the 2009 informal appeal resolution but also eliminated from detailed 

analysis. These are described in Appendix ROD-3. 

After the March 4, 2011 Federal District Court, District of Alaska ruling that the 

Tongass is no longer exempt from the 2001 Roadless Rule, I also considered 

modifying Alternatives B through E by dropping proposed units and roads 

within 2001 inventoried roadless areas, but chose to eliminate this from detailed 

analysis. The volume and economic results of modifying Alternatives B through 

D would not address any additional issues not already addressed by Alternative 

F, and modifying Alternative E was most similar to the TWS and SEACC 

proposals, which were considered but eliminated during the informal appeals 

resolution process. 

Environmentally Preferred Alternative 

The Council on Environmental Quality defines the environmentally preferred 

alternative as “the alternative that will promote the national environmental 

policy as expressed in NEPA's Section 101”. Ordinarily, this means the 

alternative that causes the least damage to the biological and physical 

environment; it also means the alternative which best protects, preserves, and 

enhances historic, cultural, and natural resources.” 40 CFR 1505.2(b) requires 

that one or more environmentally preferable alternatives be disclosed. The 

environmentally preferable alternative is not necessarily the alternative that will 

be implemented, and it does not have to meet the underlying need for the 

project. It does, however, have to cause the least damage to the biological and 

physical environment and best protect, preserve, and enhance historical, cultural, 

and natural resources. I have reviewed the direct, indirect, and cumulative 

effects of each alternative. I have determined that Alternative A, the no-action 

alternative, is the environmentally preferable alternative. This alternative is 

environmentally preferable because it would result in no environmental effects 

and thereby best protects, preserves, and enhances historical, cultural, and 

natural resources on the National Forest. Alternative A does not meet the 

purpose and need, but it does provide me with a baseline to measure the direct 

and indirect effects of the action alternatives.

Of the action alternatives, I have identified Alternative F as the environmentally 

preferred alternative because it has the fewest acres of timber harvest, constructs 

the fewest miles of road, and would result in the fewest environmental impacts. 

In addition, it does not enter any 2001 IRAs.

Public Involvement

The Navy Timber Sale project included an extensive public involvement 

process, as documented in the FEIS Chapter 1 and in the project record. I want 
Record of Decision

R-14  ROD Navy Timber Sale Record of Decision

to thank the individuals, organizations and agencies that participated and 

provided comments that helped to shape this analysis. The public and agency 

comments received during scoping helped me to define the key issues, which in 

turn helped to develop the alternatives. Public comments on the DEIS were 

addressed in the FEIS and responses to those comments are presented in FEIS 

Appendix B. These responses were also reassessed in light of any new 

information and documented in Appendix ROD-3. 

Appeals to the 2009 Decision

Some members of the public also exercised their rights to an administrative 

review of the 2009 Record of Decision through the appeal process. Four appeals 

to the 2009 Record of Decision on this project were submitted under the 36 CFR 

215 appeal regulations. These raised a variety of appeal points, including range 

of alternatives, habitat connectivity and fragmentation, yellow-cedar, 

highgrading, clearcutting, climate change, deer model and wildlife, market 

demand and financial analysis, Forest Plan, old-growth reserves, roads and 

roadless areas, subsistence, and watershed, among others. I offered to meet with 

the appellants to see if an informal resolution could be reached that would 

resolve their concerns and still meet the objectives of this project. One appellant 

declined to participate. The other appellants and interested parties participated 

in discussions and provided some proposals. However, a mutually agreeable 

resolution was not reached and no appeals were withdrawn. The appeals then 

went to formal resolution.

I carefully reviewed the points raised during the 2009 appeal period and 

reviewed the Forest Service responses to the appeals. Further analysis was 

included to address or clarify issues raised in the 2009 appeal points pertaining

to activities in this 2015 Record of Decision, and resource reports have been 

updated accordingly. This information is summarized in Appendix ROD-3 and 

updated reports were added to the project record. Information on the unit and 

road cards for the Selected Alternative (Appendices ROD-1 and ROD-2) has 

been clarified as well. The project record includes all of the 2009 appeals points 

and responses. 

In making my decision, I considered the proposals presented by some of the 

appellants during the informal appeal resolution discussions in 2009. These 

proposals focused on deleting timber harvest units that 1) were within 

inventoried roadless areas, 2) were within the area between Anita Bay and 

Burnett Inlet, and 3) had an Alaska yellow-cedar component. Also proposed 

was 4) removing all culverts when putting roads into a storage status rather than 

using waterbars for erosion control. I feel that the Selected Alternative best 

responds to these concerns while still providing timber volume. The Selected 

Alternative avoids harvest and roadbuilding within inventoried roadless areas. 

The Selected Alternative partially addresses the Anita Bay/Burnett Inlet concern 

by increasing retention in Unit 67 and dropping a portion of Unit 70 as 

compared to Alternatives B, C, and D. All alternatives, including the Selected 

Alternative, include seed tree retention in some units to help maintain or 

increase the cedar component in regenerating stands, as shown on the unit cards.
Record of Decision

Navy Timber Sale Record of Decision ROD  R-15

I considered the appellants’ fourth proposal point – the suggestion to remove all 

culverts from roads that will be put into storage. I have decided that the best 

time to determine whether to remove culverts from roads is at the time of road 

storage activity to best address site-specific conditions. In some cases, leaving 

the culvert in place with supplemental erosion control will cause less disturbance 

than pulling culverts from the roadbed. Roads with Objective Maintenance 

Level 1 planned for road storage after timber harvest activities are complete will 

be evaluated for erosion potential, and measures will be implemented to reduce 

sediment delivery and reduce the risk of crossing failure and stream diversion. 

This may include the removal of drainage structures and bridges, or construction

of water bars, rolling dips or other measures necessary to protect resources. See 

Appendix ROD-2, Road Cards. This method has been successfully employed on 

the Tongass and is consistent with best management practices (BMPs). 

Predecisional Administrative Review Process (Objection Process)

On January 21, 2014, I sent a letter to the people on the project mailing list 

notifying them that the Navy Timber Sale decision was now subject to the 

project-level predecisional administrative review process under Title 36 CFR 

Part 218. The project-level predecisional administrative review process gives 

the public an opportunity to object to the proposed decision prior to it being 

finalized. This process replaced the appeals process that was previously in place 

for the 2009 Record of Decision, and is further described under Pre-decisional 

Administrative Review Process (Objection Process) on page 24 of this ROD.

Mitigation

The analysis documented in the FEIS disclosed the possible adverse effects of 

implementing the actions proposed under each alternative. These effects were 

mitigated or reduced through the use of Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. 

Specific mitigation measures are listed on the unit and road cards in Appendix 

ROD-1 and Appendix ROD-2. These are also discussed in FEIS Chapter 2, pp. 

15-17 and Chapter 3, pp. 57-58.

Monitoring

Monitoring of the Selected Alternative will be done both during implementation 

(project-specific monitoring) and as part of the Forest Plan monitoring program. 

Project-specific monitoring is identified in Appendix ROD-1, Unit Cards and 

Appendix ROD-2, Road Cards. The Navy FEIS Chapter 2, pp. 16-17 and 

Chapter 3, pp. 58 and 107 also describes project-specific monitoring activities. 

Project Record

The project record for this project includes the DEIS and FEIS, the Forest Plan, 

reports containing analyses by resource with supporting documentation, public 

communication and comments, all material incorporated by reference and other 

critical materials produced during the environmental analysis of this project. 
Record of Decision

R-16  ROD Navy Timber Sale Record of Decision

The project record is available electronically upon request from the Wrangell 

Ranger District. 

Map Disclaimer

The USDA Forest Service makes no warranty, expressed or implied, including

the warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, nor

assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, reliability,

completeness or utility of these geospatial data, or for the improper or incorrect

use of these geospatial data. These geospatial data and related maps or graphics

are not legal documents and are not intended to be used as such. The data and

maps may not be used to determine title, ownership, legal descriptions or

boundaries, legal jurisdiction, or restrictions that may be in place on either

public or private land. Natural hazards may or may not be depicted on the data

and maps, and land users should exercise due caution. The data are dynamic and

may change over time. The user is responsible to verify the limitations of the

geospatial data and to use the data accordingly and use constraints information.

Consistency with the Forest Plan and other 

Applicable Laws and Regulations

As the Responsible Official, it is my responsibility, prior to making a decision,

to ensure that this project is consistent with the Tongass National Forest Land 

and Resource Management Plan, as amended, and other applicable laws and 

regulations. The Forest Plan describes in detail Forest-wide management 

direction, goals, objectives, research needs, desired conditions, and standards.

I have determined that the Selected Alternative is consistent with the Forest Plan

and other applicable laws and regulations. The Selected Alternative will meet 

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, and will contribute toward reaching 

Forest Plan goals and objectives. The Selected Alternative is consistent with all 

land use designation standards and guidelines. I also find that my decision to 

implement the Selected Alternative is consistent with all applicable laws and 

regulations including NFMA, NEPA, ANILCA, ESA, and the other laws 

presented in more detail below.

My decision is consistent with Forest Service policy outlined in agency 

directives. By providing timber for offer and supporting jobs, the Selected 

Alternative also contributes to the USDA Investment Strategy for Creating Jobs 

and Healthy Communities in Southeast Alaska.
Record of Decision

Navy Timber Sale Record of Decision ROD  R-17

Findings Required by Law and Regulation

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) of 1980; 

Section 810 

Subsistence Evaluation: The decision on the Forest Plan concluded that 

“implementation of the Forest Plan may result in a significant restriction to 

subsistence use of deer due to the potential effects of projects on the abundance 

and distribution of these resources, and on competition for these resources” 

(ROD p. 61). This is based on the Forest Plan’s cumulative effects analysis of 

resource development on subsistence resources under full implementation of the 

Forest Plan, including this project. A subsistence evaluation was conducted for 

the six alternatives in accordance with Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act (ANILCA) Section 810. An ANILCA 810 subsistence 

hearing was conducted in Wrangell Alaska in June 2008. 

Based on the information in the FEIS and the new information analysis, effects 

within the foreseeable future from this project alone would not result in a 

significant possibility of a significant restriction on any subsistence resources. 

Finding: In accordance with Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act 

(ANILCA) Section 810, I have made a determination for the subsistence 

evaluation that the direct effects of the project will not result in a risk of a 

significant restriction on the subsistence use of any resources, including deer 

(FEIS p. 3-122). Cumulatively, since additional timber harvest may occur at 

some future time in the development LUDs in WAA 1901, there may be a 

significant possibility of a significant restriction on subsistence use of deer in 

WAA 1901 in the future due to additional reductions in habitat capability. This 

is consistent with the Forest Plan finding that full implementation of the Plan 

could lead to a significant possibility of a significant restriction on subsistence 

use of deer. The potential foreseeable effects, directly and cumulatively, from 

the Selected Alternative will not have a significant possibility of a significant 

restriction on subsistence uses for other resources including bears, furbearers, 

marine mammals, waterfowl, salmon, other finfish, shellfish, and other foods 

such as berries and roots.

The evaluation determined that:

• Necessary and Consistent with Sound Management of Public Lands: 

I have determined that the Selected Alternative is necessary and 

consistent with sound management of public lands. In this regard, I have 

evaluated this project against the National Forest Management Act, the 

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, the Tongass Timber 

Reform Act, the Wilderness Act, the Tongass Land and Resource 

Management Plan, and the Alaska State Forest Resources and Practices 

Act. Based on the analysis presented in the Navy Final EIS, the findings 

I have made in this ROD and the analysis for the Forest Plan, I have 

determined that the Selected Alternative strikes a balance between 

meeting the resource needs of the public and protecting the forest 

resources.
Record of Decision

R-18  ROD Navy Timber Sale Record of Decision

• Amount of Public Land Necessary to Accomplish the Proposed 

Action: I have determined that the amount of land necessary to 

implement the Selected Alternative is, considering sound multiple-use 

management of public lands, the minimum necessary to accomplish the 

purpose of this project. The entire forested portion of the Tongass is 

used by at least one rural community for subsistence purposes for, at a 

minimum, deer hunting. It is not possible to avoid all of these areas in 

implementing resource use activities, such as timber harvesting and road 

construction, and attempting to reduce effects in some areas can mean 

increasing the effects in other areas. The current Forest-wide Standards 

and Guidelines and LUD prescriptions provide for management or limit 

activities in many of the area’s most important for subsistence uses, such 

as beaches and estuaries, and areas with high fish and wildlife habitat 

values. 

• Reasonable Steps to Minimize Adverse Impacts to Subsistence Uses 

and Resources: Subsistence use is addressed specifically in a Forestwide Standard and Guideline, and subsistence resources are covered by 

the Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for wildlife, fish, riparian 

areas, and biological diversity, among others. I have determined that fish 

and wildlife habitat productivity will be maintained at the highest level 

possible for the Selected Alternative, consistent with the overall 

multiple-use goals and improved protection of the Forest Plan.

Bald Eagle Protection Act

I have determined that the Selected Alternative complies with the most recent 

information for the protection of bald eagle protection requirements in 50 CFR 

Part 22.26. These are described in Appendix ROD-3.

Clean Air Act of 1970 (as amended)

I have determined that emissions from the implementation of the Selected 

Alternative will be of short duration and are not expected to exceed State of 

Alaska ambient air quality standards (18 AAC 50). This includes any smoke 

associated with biofuels used for heating commercial buildings and residences.

Clean Water Act (1977, as amended)

I have determined that the project activities meet all applicable State of Alaska 

Water Quality Standards. Section 313 of the Clean Water Act and Executive 

Order 12088 of January 23, 1987 addresses 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. 

Compliance is to be in line with "all Federal, State, interstate, and local 

requirements, administrative authority, and process and sanctions respecting the 

control and abatement of water pollution." 

Clean Water Act Sections 208 and 319 address nonpoint source pollution caused 

by activities such as timber harvest. Soil and water conservation practices are 

recognized by EPA as the primary control mechanisms for nonpoint source 

pollution on National Forest System lands. The site-specific application of best 
Record of Decision

Navy Timber Sale Record of Decision ROD  R-19

management practices (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 (ADEC 2007). In 1997, 

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

Conservation Handbook (USFS 2006) as consistent with the Alaska Forest 

Resources and Practices Regulations. The BMPs are incorporated into the 

Tongass Land Management Plan. My finding is based in part on the fact that 

annual Tongass National Forest BMP monitoring results consistently report a 

high success rate at applying BMPs (USFS 2005-2012).

A discharge of dredge or fill material from normal silvicultural activities such as 

harvesting for the production of forest products is exempt from Section 404 

permitting requirements in waters or the United States, including wetlands 

(404(f)(1)(A)). Forest roads, as defined by US Army Corps of Engineers 

guidance, are exempt from Clean Water Act Section 404 permitting if they are 

constructed and maintained in accordance with BMPs to assure that flow and 

circulation patterns and chemical and biological characteristics of the waters are 

not impaired (404(f)(1)(E)). The BMPs that must be followed are specified in 

33 CFR 323.4(a). These specific BMPs are incorporated into the Alaska Region 

BMPs under BMP 12.5. I have determined that all roads approved in this 

project are exempt from Section 404 permitting requirements in waters of the 

United States, including wetlands (404(f)(1)(A)). 

The Forest Service has issued National BMPs (April 2012). Directives for using 

these BMPs are currently in development. Currently, this project cites the 

Alaska Region BMPs, which are fully described in FSH 2509.22. A crosswalk 

between the current Alaska Region BMPs and these National BMPs has been 

placed in the project record for reference. The Navy Timber Sale will 

implement the most up-to-date BMP guidance.

Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (as amended)

A biological assessment was prepared for this project. I concur with the finding 

of “May affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” the federally listed species. 

An updated biological assessment was sent to the National Marine Fisheries 

Service as part of the Section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act. 

NMFS concurred with the findings on September 7, 2012. 

Two fish species, the lower Columbia River coho salmon and the green 

sturgeon, were added as Threatened to the Alaska list on March 2013. A finding 

of “no effect” was made for these species since no critical habitat occurs in 

Alaska; NMFS concurred that therefore no consultation was required for these

species. On November 4, 2013, a Final Rule was published in the Federal 

Register, delisting the eastern distinct population segment Steller sea lion, 

effective December 4, 2013 (78 FR 66139). This species will continue to be 

protected under provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. 

Federal Cave Resource Protection Act of 1988

I have determined that the activities of the Selected Alternative will not have a 

direct, indirect, or cumulative effect on any significant cave resource in the Navy 
Record of Decision

R-20  ROD Navy Timber Sale Record of Decision

project area, since these features do not exist. There are minor occurrences of 

carbonate rock and associated cave resources in the Navy project area, but these 

will not be adversely affected by the Selected Alternative. 

National Forest Transportation System Final Administrative Policy 

and Final Rule

The Final EIS and this ROD are prepared to be consistent with the National 

Forest System Transportation Final Administrative Policy and Final Rule 

(2001), as well as the Tongass National Forest Level Road Analysis (2003), the 

2005 Travel Management Rule (36 CFR 212) (FEIS p. 3-133), the Wrangell 

Ranger District Road Analysis (2006), and the Wrangell Ranger District Access 

and Travel Management Plan (ATM) (2007). I have determined the proposed 

road system is “the minimum road system needed for safe and efficient travel 

and for administration, utilization, and protection of National Forest System 

lands" (36 CFR 212.5).

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

The Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation Act requires the Forest Service 

to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service on projects that may affect 

essential fish habitat (EFH). The potential effects of the project on EFH are 

discussed in Chapter 3 of the Final EIS. Chapter 3 also includes a description of 

the EFH in the project area, a description of the proposed activities, and a 

description of the measures that will protect these essential habitats (FEIS pp. 3-

154 to 156). I have reviewed the potential effects of the project on EFH 

discussed in the FEIS Chapter 3 and have determined that this project may 

adversely affect EFH (FEIS p. 3-155). 

National Marine Fisheries Service was formally consulted on the project. They 

concurred with my findings that the Navy Timber Sale “May adversely affect 

EFH because of cumulative effects of past harvest” and submitted 

recommendations. These recommendations were considered in evaluating the 

potential effects of all of the alternatives on EFH. Information on applicable 

BMPs, standards and guidelines, and design measures and criteria to minimize 

effects to EFH are presented in Appendices ROD-1 and ROD-2, and in Chapter 

3 of the FEIS. I have reviewed Appendix ROD-3 and there is no new 

information that would prompt a reevaluation of EFH. 

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972

Actions authorized in the Selected Alternative will not have a direct, indirect, or 

cumulative effect on marine mammals. All marine wildlife guidelines, including 

special prohibitions on approaching humpback whales in Alaska as defined in 50 

CFR 224.103 will be followed during project implementation. These marine 

mammal viewing guidelines are administered by the National Marine Fisheries 

Service and enforced by the Coast Guard, and are deemed sufficient for their 

protection.

National Forest Management Act of 1976 (as amended)

The National Forest Management Act requires several specific determinations in 

the Record of Decision. These are consistency with the governing Forest Plan, a 
Record of Decision

Navy Timber Sale Record of Decision ROD  R-21

determination of clearcutting as the optimal method of harvesting, if used, and 

specific authorizations to create openings over 100 acres in size. 

Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan (as amended)

Based on the discussion that follows, I have determined that this decision is 

consistent with the Forest Plan as amended.

The Forest Plan was completed with the signing of the Record of Decision on 

January 23, 2008 after the issuance of the Navy Draft EIS (November 2, 2007). 

The decision for the Forest Plan contains transition language for the Navy 

Timber Sale project, which was already being planned, referred to as Category 2 

projects. Category 2 projects are projects that the Responsible Official reviewed 

and determined “are consistent with the goals and objectives of the amended 

Plan”. The environmental effects of the Navy project have been disclosed to the 

public through site-specific project-level environmental documents. Navy and 

the other projects in Category 2 were also assumed to be implemented in the 

environmental analysis.

I have reviewed the Navy project and incorporated the new direction and 

analysis for the amended Forest Plan to the extent this can be done without 

causing major disruptions in the implementation of the project.

Clearcutting as the Optimal Method of Harvesting

Based on the information presented in the FEIS and Forest Plan direction, I have 

determined that clearcutting is the optimal method of harvesting where it is 

applied. Site-specific information and rationale where clearcutting is optimal is

presented in the silvicultural prescriptions. Clearcutting (an even-aged method) 

has been prescribed in this project to preclude or minimize the occurrence of 

potentially adverse impacts from windthrow where the potential is moderate to 

high, to remove or reduce mistletoe infestations, and to reduce wounding due to 

logging damage to adjacent trees.

Harvest Openings Over 100 Acres in Size

I have determined that there will be no created openings in excess of 100 acres 

with the harvest of the Selected Alternative units.

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (as amended)

Under the provisions of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, I 

have made a determination of “No Historic Properties Affected”. There will be 

no effects to sites listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of 

Historic Places. Heritage resource surveys were conducted in the analysis area 

in accordance with the Regional Inventory Strategy. By following the 

provisions of the Programmatic Agreement between the Forest Service, Alaska 

State Historic Preservation Officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation, this action complies with Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. No effects on known heritage resources are anticipated. 

The State Historic Preservation Officer was consulted, in accordance with 

Section 106 of the NHPA and 36 CFR Part 800. Therefore, I have complied 

with the consultation process with the State Historic Preservation Officer. 
Record of Decision

R-22  ROD Navy Timber Sale Record of Decision

Native communities have been contacted during this process and reports 

provided for comment. 

Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA) of 1990

I have determined this project is in compliance of the relevant provisions of

TTRA. Any timber harvested under the Selected Alternative will provide part of 

the timber supply to the Tongass National Forest’s timber program as stated in 

Section 101 of TTRA - “... the Secretary 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 annual market demand from such forest for each planning cycle.”

No commercial timber harvest will occur within 100 feet of any Class I stream 

or any Class II stream flowing directly into a Class I stream, as required in 

Section 103 of the TTRA. 

Applicable Executive Orders

Executive Order 11988 (Floodplains)

Per Executive Order 11988, I have determined that the Selected Alternative

avoids all floodplains. 

Executive Order 11990 (Wetlands)

I have determined that the long- and short-term adverse effects associated with 

the destruction or modification of wetlands in the implementation of the Navy 

Timber Sale will be avoided to the extent possible. The techniques and practices 

required by the Forest Service serve to maintain the wetland attributes, including 

values and functions. In some areas, soil moisture regime and vegetation 

composition or structure may be altered; however, these altered acres would still 

be classified as wetlands and would function as wetlands in the ecosystem. 

Where wetlands cannot be avoided, road construction will adhere to BMPs, 

which include at a minimum the Federal baseline provisions in 33 Code of 

Federal Regulation (CFR) 323. There will be approximately 5 acres loss of 

wetlands due to road construction for the Selected Alternative. 

Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)

The FEIS analyzed environmental justice to determine whether a 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental impact on 

minority populations, low-income populations, or Indian tribes was likely to 

result from the proposed action and any alternatives. The Executive 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 no communities are identified as being adversely affected in this area and 

that none of the alternatives would have a disproportionately high and adverse 

effect on the health of the environment of the minority, low-income, or Indian 

populations that use the Navy Timber Sale area.
Record of Decision

Navy Timber Sale Record of Decision ROD  R-23

Executive Order 12962 (Aquatic Systems, Recreational Fisheries)

Per Executive Order 12962, I have determined that the Selected Alternative 

minimizes the effects on aquatic systems through project design, application of 

standards and guidelines, BMPs, and site-specific mitigation measures. In the 

Navy project area, opportunities for recreational fishing are limited. For the 

Selected Alternative, recreational fishing opportunities would remain essentially 

the same as the current condition, because aquatic habitats are protected through 

implementation of BMPs and riparian standards and guidelines.

Executive Order 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites)

Executive Order 13007 directs Federal agencies to consider the protection of 

American Indian sacred sites and allow access where feasible. In a governmentto-government relationship, the tribal government is responsible for notifying 

the agency of the existence of a sacred site. A sacred site is defined as a site that 

has sacred significance due to established religious beliefs or ceremonial uses, 

and which has a specific, discrete, and delineated location that has been 

identified by the tribe. I have determined that tribal governments or their 

authorized representatives were consulted and they did not identify any specific 

sacred site locations in the project area.

Executive Order 13112 (Invasive Species)

A risk assessment completed for the FEIS evaluated the status of invasive 

species in the project area and the effects from the proposed activities on them. I 

have included specific measures in Appendix ROD-1, Unit Cards to minimize 

the introduction and spread of invasive plant species in the Selected Alternative. 

Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian 

Tribal Governments)

Executive Order 13175 directs Federal agencies to respect tribal selfgovernment, sovereignty, and tribal rights, and to engage in regular and 

meaningful government-to-government consultation with tribes on proposed 

actions with tribal implications. I have complied with this Order and have 

consulted with and provided information to the following federally recognized 

tribal governments about this project: 

• Wrangell Cooperative Association

• Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska

• Organized Village of Kake

• Petersburg Indian Association

In addition, I have consulted with and provided information to the following

corporations about this project:

• Sealaska Corporation

• Kake Tribal Corporation

A detailed list of this consultation is in Chapter 1 of the FEIS.
Record of Decision

R-24  ROD Navy Timber Sale Record of Decision

Executive Order 13186 Migratory Birds

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (amended in 1936 and 1972) prohibits 

the taking of migratory birds, unless authorized by the Secretary of Interior. The 

law provides the primary mechanism to regulate waterfowl hunting seasons and 

bag limits, but its scope is not just limited to waterfowl. The migratory species 

that may stay in the area utilize most, if not all, of the habitats described in the 

analysis for breeding, nesting, and raising their young. The effects on these 

habitats were analyzed for this project. I have determined that the decision will 

not have a significant direct, indirect, or cumulative effect on any migratory bird 

species in the project area. There may be moderate direct effects on individuals 

or small groups and their nests from the harvest of timber or the disturbance 

caused by harvest and related activities. 

Executive Order 13443 (Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife 

Conservation)

Executive Order 13443 directs Federal agencies to facilitate the expansion and 

enhancement of hunting opportunities and the management of game species and 

their habitat. The analysis considered and disclosed the effects on hunting 

activities. I have determined that the Selected Alternative will maintain hunting 

opportunities by adhering to the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines that 

maintain habitat for hunted species. 

Federal and State Permits

Federal and State permits necessary to implement the authorized activities are

listed at the end of Chapter 1 in the FEIS.

Results of the Objection Process Pursuant to 36 

CFR 218

As this project implements a land management plan, the Navy Timber Sale draft 

ROD was subject to review and objection pursuant to 36 CFR 218, Subparts A 

and B regulations (the objection process). Notification of the availability of the 

Navy draft ROD (online or hard copy), as well as the 2009 FEIS, was mailed to 

all people and organizations that commented during any prior designated 

opportunity for public comment. A legal notice of opportunity to object was 

published on April 24, 2015 in the Ketchikan Daily News, the Forest’s 

newspaper of record. Two objections were received during the objection filing 

period - one from Greenpeace/Cascadia Wildlands Project, and one from 

Southeast Alaska Conservation Council/Wrangell Resource Council. One letter 

supporting the project was received.

Twenty-one objection points were identified, covering a broad range of issues, 

including changes to the Wrangell economy, timber demand and related 

calculations, limited export policy, local economies, Queen Charlotte goshawks, 

analysis of deer habitat capability and wolves, fragmentation and OGRs, 

transportation and BMPs, marine fisheries, and climate change. Objectors also
Record of Decision

Navy Timber Sale Record of Decision ROD  R-25

felt that the draft ROD did not adequately consider potentially new information 

available since the 2009 FEIS was completed, including recent wildlife studies 

and economic circumstances, among others.

The Forest Service’s review of the objection points focused on ensuring the 

Navy Timber Sale meets current requirements and determining whether changes 

are warranted to improve upon the analysis and decision based on the objections 

submitted.

Review of Literature Submitted

The objectors to the Navy draft Record of Decision submitted additional 

literature as exhibits with their objections for the Forest Service to consider. 

Navy IDT personnel reviewed this literature to determine the applicability of the 

submitted documents, including any information that may not have previously 

been considered in the FEIS or draft Record of Decision to the project area, 

proposed activities, and potential effects to project area resources. In summary, 

the literature review resulted in the following: some references submitted were 

already used by resource specialists in their analysis; others, while potentially

relevant at a Forest-level scale, were not applicable at the project level and 

therefore had not been used; and finally the majority were deemed not applicable 

for various other reasons. 

Documentation of this review and evaluation of the references submitted, and 

our determination of their applicability to the project area and analysis is in the 

project record. In summary, although some of the literature was applicable, it

had already been used to inform the analysis, and I found that the literature 

submitted did not contribute additional insight or data relevant to a projectspecific analysis, or constitute relevant information not previously considered in 

the FEIS or updated information upon which this decision is based.

Attempts to Resolve Objections – Objection Resolution Meeting

After receiving the objections to the Navy Timber Sale draft ROD, the 

Responsible Official extended an invitation to the objectors for a resolution 

meeting to discuss their objections and potential solutions. The objectors 

declined to participate in a resolution meeting, either in person or via conference 

phone. As such, no resolution was reached with the objectors at that time.

Full objection content and the Forest Service responses to objections are 

available in the project file and on the Tongass National Forest website 

(http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=14556). Further 

detail regarding Forest Service responses to, and attempts to resolve, the 

objections are discussed in the Reviewing Officer’s letter to the objectors. I am 

satisfied we have adequately addressed the concerns raised to date regarding 

potential effects of the project on the resources in the project and analysis areas. 

These public comments helped to improve the analysis, ultimately resulting in a 

better-informed final decision.
Record of Decision

R-26  ROD Navy Timber Sale Record of Decision

Written Response to Objections and Instructions to Forest

After a deliberative and extensive review of concerns raised by objectors, on 

July 23, 2015 the Reviewing Officer, Regional Forester Beth Pendleton, issued a 

letter to the objectors that responded to their objection points. 

The letter also provided me with instructions to address and update certain areas 

in the analysis that were brought up during the objection process. Specifically, 

this letter instructed me on the following:

1) Prepare a supplement/addendum to the BA/BE for the Navy project that 

includes the following items:

a. Documentation and review of the updated survey and nest monitoring 

information obtained during the 2015 season.

Forest response: An updated BE which includes updated survey and nest 

monitoring information was completed and is in the planning record. The 

BE determination of “may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result 

in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal 

listing” has not changed. As documented in the updated BE, goshawk 

monitoring was conducted in the project area from 2004 through 2007 with 

additional monitoring in 2009. As part of ongoing monitoring, in July 2015 

surveys were conducted along the road for Alternative F units, including 

monitoring of two historic (inactive) nest sites within the Camp Carl 

goshawk buffer in the Anita Bay/Burnett Inlet area. A third inactive nest in 

a dead tree in the same area is now missing. While no new goshawk nests 

were discovered, two large fledglings were found in Unit 75, which is west 

of the Camp Carl territory. In addition, a new nest belonging to a sharpshinned hawk was found in within the Starfish goshawk buffer. Forest Plan 

Raptor Nest Protection Standards and Guidelines apply; however, the nest is 

already protected due to its location within the goshawk buffer and no units 

were affected.

These areas will continue to be monitored in 2016 along with Selected 

Alternative roads. I am deferring Unit 75 in the Selected Alternative from 

implementation until the follow-up surveys in 2016 are completed. If any 

new nests are discovered, the unit will be dropped, the appropriate Forest 

Plan Standards and Guidelines will be applied, and any timber sale contract 

implementing the project will be modified through appropriate provisions, if 

warranted. 

This updated information is included in the Navy project record.

b. A review of the relevance of the new literature cited by the objectors 

(Sonsthagan 2012 and Smith 2013). 

Forest response: The Sonsthagen 2012, and Smith 2013 reports submitted 

by the objectors have been reviewed for relevance to the project.

Sonsthagen 2012 studied metapopulation characteristics and trends 

throughout coastal British Columbia (BC) and Southeast Alaska. 

Sonsthagen concludes that assemblages of northern goshawk within the 
Record of Decision

Navy Timber Sale Record of Decision ROD  R-27

Alexander Archipelago and BC exhibit characteristics of both source-sink 

and rescue-effect models, indicating the availability of sufficient habitat 

connectivity at a landscape level.

The Smith 2013 paper evaluates the Tongass Conservation Strategy, and 

raises questions regarding the sufficiency of Forest Plan conservation 

measures in contributing to viable populations. These points are being 

considered at a wider, regional scale for the Forest Plan Amendment; 

however, this paper was not applicable at the project scale to inform the 

analysis or decision.

Although these two reports were not available prior to the FEIS for Navy, I 

find that this literature did not provide additional relevant data or 

information applicable to the Navy project-specific analysis. The reports 

have been placed in the project record.

c. Revised maps of the Etolin Island W AAs, current harvest units, POG, and 

designated nest buffers should be developed for the project record and 

referenced in the BA/BE.

Forest response: This information was already considered and in the 

planning record, but was not presented in a single map. The updated BE 

includes maps showing POG and the buffers surrounding goshawk nest 

locations, as well as land use designations, value comparison units, wildlife 

analysis areas, roadless areas, Etolin Island wildlife corridors, managed 

stands and ROD units. While the 2015 goshawk surveys disclosed the 

possibility of a new nest in Unit 75, I find that the updated BE did not result 

in additional information and conclusions not previously evaluated in the 

FEIS or considered in this decision.

d. An update to the cumulative effects analysis for goshawks, based on all of 

the above information.

Forest response: The cumulative effects analysis for goshawks was 

reviewed based on the updated BE. Information from 2015 surveys, and 

consideration of additional recent literature did not result in any changes to 

the cumulative effects analysis or conclusions for Navy, as presented in the 

BE, FEIS, or ROD.

2) Validate the habitat connectivity information in the Anita Bay pinch point 

area after review of the goshawk nest buffers and partial harvest prescriptions 

for the harvest units in this area.

Forest response: Habitat connectivity in the Anita Bay/Burnett Inlet area 

has been of particular interest throughout the Navy project. I have validated 

the habitat connectivity information in the FEIS. Additional maps included 

in the updated BE depict the location of the partial-harvest units in relation 

to the goshawk buffers, and the type of POG in this area. The goshawk nest 

buffer area between Anita Bay and the head of Burnett Inlet contains about 

233 acres surrounding two known, inactive nests. As shown on the map in 

the updated BE, over half this buffer is comprised of high-POG (129 acres), 
Record of Decision

R-28  ROD Navy Timber Sale Record of Decision

with lesser amounts of medium-POG (34 acres) and unproductive forest (61 

acres) and a very small amount of low-POG and young growth (3 and 5 

acres respectively). The rest of the area does contain other old growth, 

including low-productivity old growth that provides connectivity for other 

species as well, except perhaps during times of severe snow events.

Units 70, 72, 73, and 74 in the area north of the Anita Bay/Burnett Inlet nest 

buffer will implement partial-harvest prescriptions, with either 15 percent or 

50 percent retention. Unit 67 east of the nest buffer has 50 percent retention 

to retain part of the low-elevation POG corridor. Unit 75, west of the Anita 

Bay/Burnett Inlet nest buffer, will implement a single-tree-selection 

prescription. However, I am deferring Unit 75 from implementation until 

additional goshawk surveys establish that there is no nest in the area. 

Partial-harvest prescriptions, as well as the 233-acre nest buffer, will help 

retain connectivity in the Anita Bay/Burnett Inlet area. As seen on the maps 

in the updated BE, much of the existing connectivity will remain through the 

combination of the goshawk buffer and remaining old-growth stands, 

unmanaged lower-productivity old-growth stands, and the partial-harvest 

prescriptions, and I find that this retains habitat connectivity for both 

goshawks and other species in the Anita Bay/Burnett Inlet area. 

3) Review any new reports or other publications relative to wolves in Southeast 

Alaska for relevancy to the Navy project, and update any supporting documents 

if warranted.

Forest response: I reviewed the new reports and publications for new 

information relative to wolves for relevancy during the preparation of the 

draft ROD and during the response to objections on the draft ROD. 

Besides the literature referenced in the draft ROD, recent information 

included ADFG management reports, personal contacts, and exhibits 

provided by the objectors during the objection period. 

The results of this review are in the Navy project record. No new 

information was disclosed that changed the analysis or conclusions for the 

Selected Alternative; rather, where information was relevant to Etolin 

Island, the Navy conclusions were validated by the updated information.

Summary

In response to this letter and instructions, I have completed the addendum to the 

Biological Evaluation (BE) and updated the identified information. As a result 

of updated information, I am deferring the implementation of Unit 75 pending 

the results of additional goshawk surveys. I have reviewed connectivity 

information related to goshawk nest buffers and harvest prescriptions in the 

Anita Bay/Burnett Inlet area, and reviewed available information relating to 

wolves on Etolin Island. I have followed the procedures set forth in FSH 

1909.15, Section 18.1 in my review and consideration of the information in the 

addendum and its effect on my decision. I have concluded that this review of 

new information did not disclose any significant new information or changed 

circumstances relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed 
Record of Decision

Navy Timber Sale Record of Decision ROD  R-29

action or its impacts in a manner not previously considered, and a correction, 

supplement, or revision to this environmental document and decision is not 

necessary.

Process for Implementation

Appendices ROD-1 and ROD-2 contain the Selected Alternative unit and road 

cards, respectively. 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 and construction of 

roads, and are hereby incorporated into this decision. These cards will be used 

during the implementation process to ensure that the project is implemented 

within applicable standards and guidelines and that resource effects will not be 

greater than those described in the FEIS. Similar cards will document any 

changes to the planned layout, which may occur during implementation. 

Minor changes are expected during implementation to better meet on-site 

resource management and protection objectives. Minor adjustments to unit 

boundaries are also likely during final layout to improve logging system 

efficiency. This usually entails adjusting the boundary to coincide with logical 

logging setting boundaries. Proposed changes to the authorized project actions 

will be subject to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act the 

National Forest Management Act, and other laws concerning such changes. 

This project will be implemented in accordance with Forest Service Manual 

(FSM) 2430 and Forest Service Handbook FSH 2409.18 direction for timber 

sale project implementation. This direction provides a bridge between project 

planning and implementation and will ensure execution of the actions, 

environmental standards, and mitigations approved by this decision, and 

compliance with the Forest Plan and all applicable laws, policy and direction. 

The current applicable BMPs will be applied to the Selected Alternative. 

Changes made during implementation will be reviewed, documented, and 

approved by the Responsible Official through the Tongass Supplement to FSH 

1909.15-2009-1. In determining whether and what kind of NEPA action is 

required for changes during implementation, the Forest Supervisor will consider 

the criteria in the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 1502.9(c)), and Forest 

Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.15, sec. 18 to determine whether to supplement 

or revise an existing environmental impact statement. I will determine whether 

the proposed change is a substantial change to the Selected Alternative as 

planned and already approved, and whether the change is relevant to 

environmental concerns. I will consider connected or interrelated changes to 

particular areas or specific activities in making this determination. The 

cumulative impacts of these changes will also be considered. 

The implementation unit and road cards (Appendices ROD-1 and ROD-2), as 

approved by this process, are incorporated into the timber sale contract. The 

sale administrators and road inspectors then enforce the contract requirements 

with the operators. 
Record of Decision

R-30  ROD Navy Timber Sale Record of Decision

The implementation record for this project will display the following:

• Each harvest unit, transportation facility, and other project components as 

actually implemented,

• Any proposed changes to the design, location, standards and guidelines, 

or other mitigation measures for the project, and

• Authorization of the proposed changes.

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 

FEIS.

Implementation Date

Implementation of this decision may commence immediately after the decision 

is signed. There is not a requirement to publish notification of the final decision. 

Contact Information

For additional information concerning this decision, contact Robert Dalrymple, 

District Ranger, Wrangell Ranger District, P.O. Box 51, Wrangell, AK 99929, or 

call (907) 874-2323.

Responsible Official

___________________________________________ ______________________

M. EARL STEWART DATE

Forest Supervisor
Record of Decision

Navy Timber Sale Record of Decision ROD  R-31
Record of Decision

R-32  ROD Navy Timber Sale Record of Decision
Federal Recycling Program

Printed on Recycled Paper

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and 

policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA 

programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity 

(including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived 

from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program 

or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing 

deadlines vary by program or incident. 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large 

print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at 

(202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. 

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, 

found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed 

to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, 

call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office 

of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: 

(202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov .

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