United States Department of Agriculture

East Ohmer Creek Restoration

FINAL Decision Notice and Finding of No 

Significant Impact

Forest Service

Alaska Region

Tongass National Forest

Petersburg RangerDistrict R10-MB-802c November 2016
Federal Recycling Program

Printed on Recycled Paper

East Ohmer Creek Restoration

FINAL Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact

___________________________________________________________________________

Lead Agency: United States Forest Service

Petersburg Ranger District

Responsible Official: David Zimmerman

Petersburg Ranger District

PO Box 1328

Petersburg, AK. 99833

For Further Information, Contact: Heath Whitacre

PO Box 1328

(907) 772-3871

hwhitacre@fs.fed.us 

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.

Cover Photo: Streambank erosion and channel widening resulting from unstable banks within the project area.
LJSDA United States 

z:::;;;;;;;;;; Department of iiiilllllll Agriculture 

Forest 

Service 

Tongass National Forest 

Alaska Region 

Petersburg Ranger District 

P.O. Box 1328 

Petersburg, AK 99833-1328 

907-772-3871 

File Code: 1950 

Date: November 23, 2016 

Dear Interested Individuals, Agencies and Organizations: 

The Petersburg Ranger District has released the Decision Notice (DN) and Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI) for the East Ohmer Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment 

(EA). After consideration of the public and agency input, the recommendations ofresource 

specialists, and the applicable laws and regulations, I have selected the Proposed Action for 

implementation, including all project design elements and monitoring described in the EA. 

These documents, in addition to comments received on the project and the Forest Service's 

response to those comments, are available online at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=46654. Printed copies of the EA, DN and FONSI are 

also available for review at the Petersburg Ranger District. 

The East Ohmer Creek Restoration project area is located on Mitkof Island, which is situated 

between the mainland to the east and Kupreanoflsland to the west, approximately 140 miles 

south of Juneau, Alaska. East Ohmer and Lumpy Creeks, the two creeks with stream channels 

proposed for restoration, are approximately 21 miles south of Petersburg, Alaska along Mitkof 

Highway. The wood collection area for the proposed instream structures is located 12.0 miles 

west from the junction ofFS road 6245 and MitkofHighway, west of Woodpecker Cove. 

The purpose of this project is to restore degraded stream habitat by stabilizing stream banks and 

increasing pool area and complexity, and to improve floodplain condition through placements of 

wood within the floodplain for flood resilience and nurse log growth sites. The need for this 

project results from previous disturbance through timber harvest, road building, and the removal 

of stumps and topsoil in the floodplain and alluvial fan from approximately 1959 through 1960. 

These activities resulted in a lack of large wood and reduced soil productivity within the streams 

and floodplain proposed for restoration. 

I want to thank those of you who took the time to review and comment on this project. For more 

information, please contact Heath Whitacre, project team leader, at 907-772-5934 or 

hwhitacre@fs.fed.us. 

Sincerely, 

D~ ~ AN 

District Ranger 

Caring for the Land and Serving People 

If!,. 

Printed on Recycled Paper "' 

— Decision Notice —

Page 1 of 14

DECISION NOTICE & FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

EAST OHMER CREEK RESTORATION

U.S. FOREST SERVICE

MITKOF ISLAND

PETERSBURG RANGER DISTRICT

PETERSBURG, ALASKA

INTRODUCTION

This Decision Notice (DN) contains a brief summary of the environmental analysis completed 

for the East Ohmer Creek Restoration project, my decision regarding which alternative to 

implement, and the rationale for my decision. It also contains findings required by various laws

and regulations. The Environmental Assessment (EA) completed for this project and the 

associated project record are incorporated by reference in this decision document.

DECISION

After consideration of the public and agency input, the recommendations of resource specialists, 

and the applicable laws and regulations, I select the Proposed Action (hereafter called the 

Selected Alternative) for implementation including all project design features listed on pages 14 

and 15 of the EA and the monitoring described on page 2 in the EA’s summary table. 

The purpose of this project is to restore degraded stream habitat by stabilizing stream banks and 

increasing pool area and complexity, and to improve soil productivity, stability, and flood 

resilience within the floodplain through placements of large wood. The need for this project 

results from previous disturbance through timber harvest, road building, and the removal of 

stumps and topsoil in the floodplain and alluvial fan from approximately 1959 through 1960. 

These activities resulted in a lack of large wood and reduced soil productivity within the streams 

and floodplain proposed for restoration. The Selected Alternative will meet the project purpose 

and need by allowing the following activities:

• Improve degraded stream habitat in the active channels of approximately 0.2 miles of 

East Ohmer Creek and up to 0.4 miles of Lumpy Creek by constructing approximately 15 

structures using an excavator or a helicopter to stabilize stream banks and increase pool 

area and complexity

• Improve flood resilience, soil productivity, and stability within the floodplain through the 

addition of logs, whole trees with rootwads attached, rootwad stumps, mounded topsoil, 

and wood from previously-harvested timber unit cull/slash piles.

• Maintain and improve two previously-constructed fish rearing ponds by adding whole 

trees and tree tops to provide cover, and reestablishing flow connection on one of the 

ponds.
— Decision Notice —

Page 2 of 14

• Harvest approximately 110 trees from a roadside source along Forest Service Road 6245 

near Woodpecker Cove for use in these restoration efforts. 

• Construct temporary puncheon trails to access the instream restoration sites by removing 

a small number of young-growth conifer and alder trees. 

• Remove trash including logging cables, rusted 55 gallon drums, a junked truck, and 

miscellaneous debris currently on the site. All trash accessible from equipment access 

trails or transportable by hand would be hauled to a landfill.

This decision incorporates forest-wide standards and guidelines (Chapter 4) and Forest Plan 

direction for Fish, Forest Health, Heritage Resources and Sacred Sites, Invasive Species, Lands, 

Minerals and Geology, Plants, Recreation and Tourism, Riparian, Scenery, Soil and Water, 

Subsistence, Timber, Wetlands, and Wildlife.

Specific project design features and Best Management Practices (BMPs) used to prevent or 

minimize potential negative effects are listed in the EA on pages 14-15. 

DECISION RATIONALE

My decision to implement the Selected Alternative considered how best to meet the purpose and 

need for this project, the existing conditions within the project area, environmental effects, social 

values, and public comments. My conclusion is based on the project-specific environmental 

analysis included in the EA, and a review of the record that shows a thorough analysis using the 

best available science. The Selected Alternative meets the stated purpose and need within the 

framework of existing laws, regulations, policies, and the 2008 Forest Plan in relation to 

information disclosed in the EA and project record. 

I have reviewed the Council of Environmental Quality Regulation for “significance” (40 C.F.R. 

§1508.27) and I have determined that the decision is not an action that would significantly affect 

the quality of the human environment either individually or cumulatively; nor would this 

decision affect the quality of the human environment in either context or intensity. Therefore, an 

environmental impact statement (EIS) will not be prepared. This conclusion and finding is based 

on a Finding of No Significant Impact. 

I chose the Selected Alternative (Proposed Action) because it best meets the purpose and need 

and addresses the relevant concerns identified during project scoping. As a result of the 

comments received, the following modifications were made to the Proposed Action: 

• The number of trees proposed to be harvested for construction of in-stream structures has 

decreased from 130 to 110 (approximately 60 MBF (thousand board feet)).

• The proposed wood stockpile area was moved from the rockpit near the junction of roads 

FS6246 and FS6246 to the open portion of FS40100 nearer the project site.

• A new rearing pond will not be constructed; instead, related activities will focus on 

maintaining and improving cover within the rearing ponds previously constructed.

• The riparian area is no longer proposed for thinning due to ongoing poor soil and 

hydrologic conditions that would limit the benefit of such activity.

• Alternative wood sources will be considered in lieu of harvesting within the identified 

wood collection area
— Decision Notice —

Page 3 of 14

The key issue identified from scoping comments concerned the source location and use of old 

growth trees harvested in support of the restoration efforts. In response to public comments the 

Forest Service will consider additional options for trees intended to be placed in the floodplain 

for flood resilience and as nurse logs for future growth. These options include "cull wood" 

intended to be left onsite at a harvest unit or lower value hemlock from either recently harvested 

timber units or units identified in future timber sales on Mitkof Island if available. Other options 

include local private sources such as contractors or individuals acquiring wood from lot-clearing 

activities. These alternative sources will also be considered for the wood intended for instream 

use. Trees used for instream structures, however, will be free from rot in order to provide the 

highest benefit for the longest length of time within the streams, and will meet pre-determined

size classes and lengths for constructing the restoration structures. 

If alternative wood sources become available these options would be considered in lieu of 

harvesting the wood within the planned harvest area (Figure 2 in the EA). Similarly, if wood 

becomes available through unpredictable, stochastic events such as landslides or natural 

blowdown, the wood would be considered for this project. In such cases, the goals and objectives 

for the particular Land Use Designation (LUD) in which the wood is located would be met, the 

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for resource protection would be applied, and the Project 

Design Features (pages 14-15 in the EA) for wood collection activities would be implemented. If 

these sources are not available or are cost-prohibitive at the time of implementation, the trees for 

the project would be sourced from the currently proposed collection site.

The East Ohmer Creek Restoration EA documents the environmental analysis and conclusions 

upon which this decision is based.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

This action was originally listed as a proposal on the Tongass National Forest Schedule of 

Proposed Actions and was updated periodically during the analysis. The public was invited to 

review and comment on the proposal through a scoping letter posted July 27, 2015 on the 

Tongass National Forest website for the Petersburg Ranger District. The scoping letter was 

circulated to approximately 110 individuals and entities on the project mailing list. A legal notice 

triggering a 30-day comment period on the Proposed Action was published in the Petersburg 

Pilot, the newspaper of record, on July 30, 2015. Seven comment letters were received and 

considered during the environmental analysis. 

The EA was posted on the Tongass National Forest website on March 8, 2016. A public notice 

summarizing the project and requesting public input was placed in the Petersburg Pilot on 

March 10, 2016, which initiated a second 30-day comment period. The notice also provided a 

link to the project’s website where the EA could be viewed. Notification of the EA’s availability 

was circulated electronically and through the US Postal Service to approximately 260 individuals 

and entities on the project mailing list. One comment letter was received during this comment 

period.

The interdisciplinary team’s response to comments, received during initial scoping and following 

the release of the EA, can be found on the project web page: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=46654.
— Decision Notice —

Page 4 of 14

Agencies consulted during project planning and analysis are listed on page 33 of the EA.

The DRAFT decision and EA were available to the public on the project’s website and at the 

Petersburg Ranger District on September 14, 2016. Notification of their availability was

circulated electronically and through the US Postal Service to approximately 500 individuals and 

entities. A legal notice announcing the opportunity to object to the DRAFT decision was

published in the Petersburg Pilot on September 22, 2016 in accordance with 36 CFR 218. The 

objection period ended November 7, 2016. No objections were filed.

See the project record for all documentation of public involvement.

CHANGES AND CLARIFICATIONS TO THE EA

One item was incorrectly presented in the EA. Under “Wood Collection” (Pages 3-4) the last 

paragraph states, “If alternative wood sources become available through local contractors, state 

or private timber sales, or private individuals these options would be considered in lieu of 

harvesting the wood within the planned harvest area (Figure 2).” The sentence should read “state 

“state or future timber sales”. The intent is to ensure that if low-value hemlock can be sourced 

from future timber sale units on Mitkof Island, that option is considered among the other options 

identified.

Under “Compliance with Other Laws and Regulations” in the EA, the Executive Order 12962 

(Recreational Fisheries) was mentioned twice, the second time under “E.O. 12962 (Aquatic 

Systems, Recreational Fisheries) (Page 32). The order is the same and is correctly identified as 

Recreational Fisheries in the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) below.

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

After considering the environmental effects described in the EA, I have determined that these 

actions will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment considering the 

context and intensity of impacts (40 CFR 1508.27). Thus, an environmental impact statement 

will not be prepared. I base my finding on the following:

1. Impacts may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the 

Federal agency believes that, on balance, the effect will be beneficial. Neither adverse 

nor beneficial effects are significant in context or intensity to warrant an EIS for this 

project. My finding of no significant environmental effects is not biased by the beneficial 

effects of the action. 

2. The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety. Based on the 

conclusions in the EA, I have determined that no significant impact would occur to the 

public health and safety. While project operations could have minimal and short-term 

adverse effects on recreational users of the area and may cause short traffic delays, the 

Forest Service would communicate where potential delays could take place. 

3. Unique characteristics of the geographic area, such as proximity to historic or cultural 

resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically 

critical areas. There will be no significant effects on unique characteristics of the area, 
— Decision Notice —

Page 5 of 14

because the project does not enter into any inventoried roadless areas. Additionally, no 

historic properties, park lands or farmlands are located with the area of potential effects 

for the project. No designated Wild and Scenic Rivers or Recreational Rivers occur in the 

project area or are affected by the project. The proposed action would not affect the 

eligibility of any segments recommended for either Wild and Scenic River System or 

Recreational River designation, and no high-value wetlands will be affected by the 

project. Therefore, I have determined there will be no significant effects on any unique 

characteristics of the area.

4. The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be 

highly controversial. The effects on the quality of the human environment are not likely 

to be highly controversial. There is no known credible scientific controversy over the 

impacts of the proposed action. While there is general controversy over old growth 

timber harvest in Southeast Alaska, this project proposes to harvest an estimated 110 

lesser-value and/or defective old growth trees for the purpose of improving stream 

habitat. This project responds to the goals and objectives of the Forest Plan and helps 

move the project area towards conditions described in the Forest Plan. Therefore, I have 

determined that there are no significant impacts based on the evidence found in the EA 

that would be highly controversial.

5. The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain 

or involve unique or unknown risks. The Forest Service has considerable experience with 

the types of activities to be implemented. The analysis shows the effects are not 

uncertain, and do not involve unique or unknown risk. Similar restoration work like what 

is proposed and analyzed in the EA have been successfully implemented on the 

Petersburg Ranger District and elsewhere on the Tongass National Forest. Based on this 

analysis, I have determined there are no unique or unknown risks involved with this 

project, therefore there is no significant impact due to uncertainty or a possible unique or 

unknown risk. 

6. The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with 

significant effects, or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration. This

action is not likely to establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects, 

since the proposed activities are expected to have overall beneficial effects to the 

watershed. I have therefore determined the Selected Alternative would not set precedent 

for future actions with significant impacts, nor would it represent a decision in principle 

about a future consideration. 

7. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but 

cumulatively significant impacts. I have determined the Selected Alternative will have 

individually insignificant impacts and cumulatively insignificant impacts as they relate to 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. All previously harvested stands on the 

District have regenerated. The limited timber harvest contributes minimally to cumulative 

effects, furthermore, no significant cumulative effects were identified for any resource in 

the EA. Stream and floodplain habitat improvements should have long term beneficial 

effects to project area aquatic and riparian habitats and aquatic organisms. 
— Decision Notice —

Page 6 of 14

8. The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, 

or objects listed , or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places or 

may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources.

The Forest Service has determined that a finding of No Historic Properties Affected is 

appropriate for this project. The project meets the provisions stipulated in the 

Programmatic Agreement between the Forest Service, Alaska Region, the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation, and the State Historic Preservation Officer. Therefore, I 

have determined no significant impacts would occur that adversely affect districts, sites, 

highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of 

Historic Places or cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical 

resources.

9. The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species 

or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973. I have determined no significant impacts would occur that adversely affect an 

endangered or threatened species or its critical habitat. 

A Biological Evaluation (BE) for fish and wildlife was completed for the East Ohmer 

Creek Restoration EA (Lombard and Dungan 2015). It was determined the action will not 

adversely affect any endangered or threatened species or critical habitat in the project 

area, and no project work is proposed for the marine environment.

No plants federally listed or proposed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are known or 

expected to occur in the Alaska Region (Johnson 2015); therefore, I have determined no 

significant impacts would occur that adversely affect an endangered or threatened species 

or its habitat. 

10. Whether the action threatens to violate Federal, State, or local law or requirements 

imposed for the protection of the environment. The following findings show that the 

action does not violate Federal, State, or local law requirements imposed for the 

protection of the environment and has been reviewed by Federal and State agencies. The 

action is consistent with the Forest Plan. 

FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS

National Forest Management Act / 2008 Tongass Land and Resources 

Management Plan

This decision is consistent with the 2008 Tongass National Forest Land Management Plan. This 

project incorporates all applicable Forest Plan standards and guidelines and management area 

prescriptions as they apply to the project area and complies with Forest Plan goals and 

objectives. This includes the additional direction contained in the 2008 Record of Decision for 

the Forest Plan Revision. Interagency review and coordination occurred during project scoping 

and review of the EA. Further coordination with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game for 

Title 16 fish habitat concurrence and Department of the Army for application of a Nationwide 
— Decision Notice —

Page 7 of 14

Permit 27 will occur prior to project implementation. Application of Forest Plan direction for the 

East Ohmer Creek Restoration project ensures compliance at the project level. 

Tongass Timber Reform Act

Application of Forest Plan Riparian Standards and Guidelines ensures that no commercial timber 

harvest is allowed within 100 feet horizontal distance either side of Class I (anadromous) or 

Class II (resident fish) streams flowing directly into a Class I stream. No commercial timber 

harvest will occur within the buffer area. The design and implementation direction in the EA 

incorporates best management practices (BMPs), and Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for 

the protection of all stream classes. Therefore, I have determined this project is consistent with 

Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA) direction.

Endangered Species Act (1973, as amended)

Biological evaluations were completed for threatened, endangered, candidate, and sensitive 

species. One sensitive species, the Queen Charlotte goshawk, is expected to experience minor 

adverse effects due to potential human disturbance at undocumented nest sites. These effects 

may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or a loss 

of viability in the Planning Area. In accordance with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, all 

known goshawk nests within the project area have 100-acre + buffers. Any new active goshawk 

nests found before or during the implementation of this project, would receive the required 100-

acre buffer, and timing restrictions would be enforced. Effects were determined to be “No 

Effect” in the EA, therefore I find that no significant effects would occur to federally listed 

threatened and endangered species as a result of this decision.

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (1940, as amended)

Management activities within bald eagle habitat will be in accordance to 50 CFR 22.26, National 

Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (2007). No bald eagle nests are known in the project area. 

Therefore, I determine that no significant effects would occur to bald or golden eagles in the 

project area.

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

The Forest Service program for compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act includes 

locating, inventorying and nominating all cultural sites that may be directly or indirectly affected 

by scheduled activities. This activity has been reviewed by a qualified archeologist and a 

determination was made that no known cultural resources are present in the project area, 

therefore I find that no significant effects would occur to historic resources as a result of this 

decision. 
— Decision Notice —

Page 8 of 14

ANILCA Section 810 and Section 811, Subsistence Evaluation and Finding

The effects of this project have been evaluated to determine potential effects on subsistence 

opportunities and resources. Factors considered include abundance and distribution of 

subsistence resources, access to resources, and competition between rural and non-rural users. 

There is no documented or reported subsistence use that will be restricted as a result of this 

decision. For this reason, neither of the alternatives would result in a significant possibility of a 

significant restriction of subsistence use of wildlife, fish, or other foods. Therefore, I have found 

East Ohmer Restoration Selected Alternative consistent with ANILCA.

Clean Water Act (1977, as amended)

Congress intended the Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended in 1977 and 1987, to protect and 

improve the quality of water resources and maintain their beneficial uses. Section 313 and 

Executive Order 12088 of January 23, 1987 address Federal agency compliance and consistency 

with water pollution control mandates. The site-specific application of best 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 2013). In 1997, the State approved the BMPs as described in the Forest 

Service’s Soil and Water Conservation Handbook (USDA Forest Service 2006) as consistent 

with the Alaska Forest Resources and Practices Regulations (AFRPA). The BMPs are 

incorporated into the Tongass Land Management Plan. The Forest Service issued National Core 

BMPs in 2012 (USDA 2012). The East Ohmer Creek Restoration project would implement the 

most up-to-date BMP guidance to achieve Alaska Water Quality Standards.

I have determined that this project fully complies with the Clean Water Act, and have therefore 

determined that no significant impact to water quality is expected to occur from this decision. 

Clean Air Act (1970, as amended)

Emissions anticipated from the implementation of the Selected Alternative will be minor and of 

short duration and are not expected to exceed State of Alaska ambient air quality standards (18 

AAC 50). Therefore, I have determined that no significant impact to air quality would be 

expected to occur from this decision. 

Marine Mammal Protection Act (1972, as amended)

No marine habitat occurs within the East Ohmer Creek Restoration project area. None of the 

actions authorized in this project would have an effect on marine mammals. Therefore, I have 

determined that no significant impact to marine mammals would be expected to occur from this 

decision. 
— Decision Notice —

Page 9 of 14

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act requires 

consultation with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) for actions or proposed actions that may adversely affect Essential 

Fish Habitat (EFH). This consultation was initiated on October 9, 2015. The East Ohmer Creek 

Restoration project may adversely affect EFH in the short-term, because the project will have 

direct effects to EFH. These short-term negative effects are expected as a result of the 

construction of instream large wood structures. However, these actions will restore and enhance 

habitat and likely contribute to increased fish production in the long term, thus having an overall 

beneficial effect on EFH. Therefore, it is my determination that implementing the Selected 

Alternative, including the application of relevant Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, BMPs, 

and project design features makes it unlikely that any significant adverse effects would occur to 

Essential Fish Habitat. 

Executive Order 11988 – Floodplains

This executive order speaks to the long-term occupancy of floodplains and the avoidance of 

floodplain development. This project is not supporting long-term occupancy of floodplains and is 

in fact improving floodplain function. The essence of the East Ohmer Restoration project makes 

it impossible to avoid all floodplains during project work, and in fact requires access to the 

floodplain in order to implement the project. Temporary access roads may be constructed (or 

reconstructed) in or through riparian areas subject to the design requirements of the BMPs. 

Although the Selected Alternative directly affects floodplains, I determine that no significant 

impacts to floodplains would occur as a result of this decision.

Executive Order 11990 – Wetlands

Approximately one acre of forested wetland is located near the wood harvest area. The project 

would not have negative impacts on high-value wetlands as defined by E.O. 11990. Therefore, I 

determine that no significant impacts to wetlands would occur as a result of this decision.

Executive Order 12962 – Recreational Fisheries

This executive order addresses recreational fishing in the United States. Federal agencies are 

required, to the extent permitted by law and where practicable, and in cooperation with States 

and Tribes, to improve the quantity, function, sustainable productivity, and distribution of U.S. 

aquatic resources for increased recreational fishing opportunities. The potential impacts of the 

project on Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) have been evaluated, and the proposed activities are 

anticipated to have no long-term adverse effect on EFH and/or recreational fisheries. 

This project minimizes the effects on aquatic systems through project design features, 

application of Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, BMPs, and site-specific mitigation 

measures. The potential effects of this project are consistent with E.O. 12962 since it improves 
— Decision Notice —

Page 10 of 14

the quantity, function, sustainable productivity, and distribution of United States aquatic 

resources for increased recreational fishing opportunities. Therefore, I determine that no 

significant impacts to recreational fisheries would occur as a result of this decision.

Executive Order 13112 – Invasive Species

This order directs all Federal agencies to identify actions which may affect the status of invasive 

species; prevent the introduction of invasive species; detect and respond rapidly to and control 

populations of such species; monitor invasive species populations; and to provide for restoration 

of native species and habitat conditions in ecosystems that have been invaded. An invasive plant 

risk assessment has been completed for this project, the findings and recommendations of which

are incorporated into project design and decision. Project design features in the EA (pages 14-15) 

include mitigation measures to reduce the potential for introduction and spread of invasive 

species. Implementation of this project, including treatments and mitigation measures, is 

expected to have a low to moderate risk for potential invasive plant introductions and spread. 

Therefore, I determine that this project will not result in significant impacts from invasive 

species introduction or spread in the project area. The need to treat invasive species presently 

established would remain. 

Executive Order 13007 – Indian Sacred Sites

Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites, provides presidential direction to federal agencies to 

give consideration to the protection of American Indian sacred sites and allow access where 

feasible. In a government-to-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. Tribal 

governments or their authorized representatives have not identified any specific sacred site 

locations in the project area. 

Executive Order 13175 - Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments

Executive Order 13175 directs federal agencies to respect tribal self-government, sovereignty, 

and tribal rights, and to engage in regular and meaningful government-to-government 

consultation with federally recognized tribes on proposed actions with tribal implications. 

Throughout the span of the East Ohmer Creek Restoration project, District archaeologists 

communicated with the Petersburg Indian Association, Wrangell Cooperative Association, 

Central Council Tlingit and Haida Tribes of Alaska (federally recognized tribes), as well as 

Sealaska Corporation and Sealaska Heritage (native corporations). Tribal consultation does not 

imply the tribes endorse the preliminary selected action or any of the alternatives. 
— Decision Notice —

Page 11 of 14

Executive Order 13186 – Migratory Birds

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (amended in 1936, 1974, and 1989) prohibits the taking 

of migratory birds, unless authorized by the Secretary of Interior. Executive Order 13186 

(Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds; 66 FR 3853; January 10, 2001) 

provides for the conservation of migratory birds and their habitats and requires the evaluation of 

the effects of federal actions on migratory birds, with an emphasis on species of concern. Federal 

agencies are required to support the intent of the migratory bird conventions by integrating bird 

conservation principles, measures, and practices into agency activities and by avoiding or 

minimizing, to the extent practicable, adverse impacts on migratory birds when conducting 

agency actions. In 2008, pursuant to Executive Order 13186, the Forest Service and U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU; FS Agreement # 08-

MU-1113-2400-264) which outlines a collaborative approach to promote the conservation and 

reduce the take of migratory birds. 

This project was developed in adherence with the relevant principles and intent outlined in the 

MOU, and the effects to migratory birds were analyzed in the Wildlife Project Level Analysis 

report. The analysis found that the project would have minor effects to migratory birds in the 

short-term due to disturbance during project implementation, beneficial long-term effects for 

migratory bird species associated with riparian habitats, and a small reduction in habitat quality 

for species that rely on old-growth or larger young-growth trees. A negligible loss of nesting and 

foraging habitat for some old-growth dependent species may also occur.

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. The Selected Alternative is expected to 

maintain the current hunting opportunities by adhering to the Forest Plan Standards and 

Guidelines that maintain habitat for hunted species. 

REQUIRED PERMITS AND CONCURRENCE

Prior to implementation of this project, one permit and one concurrence is required from other 

federal and State agencies, as follows:

• A Department of the Army (DA) permit is required because this project involves 

placement of dredged and/or fill material into waters of the U.S. under DA regulatory 

jurisdiction. Fill material is generated by digging trenches to key trees into the banks, 

then re-filling the trench with the same excavated material. An application for a 

Nationwide Permit 27, Aquatic Habitat Restoration, Establishment, and Restoration, will 

occur prior to project implementation.

• Title 16 fish habitat concurrence through the Alaska Department of Fish and Game is 

required prior to any instream work. This concurrence will determine the instream 

construction timing windows to minimize negative effects to fish.
— Decision Notice —

Page 12 of 14

PROCESS FOR CONSIDERING NEW INFORMATION

In the event new information becomes available or changed direction for any resource occurs 

during implementation of the East Ohmer Creek Restoration decision, the following Forest 

Service direction from Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.15, section 18.1 will be used to 

evaluate the previous analysis:

• If new information or changed circumstances relating to the environmental impacts of a 

proposed action come to the attention of the responsible official after a decision has been 

made and prior to completion of the approved program or project, the responsible official 

should review the information carefully to determine its importance. Consideration 

should be given to whether or not the new information or changed circumstances are 

within the scope and range of effects considered in the original analysis.

• Based on further direction in FSH 1909.15 section 18, after interdisciplinary review and 

consideration of the changed circumstances or the new information, the responsible 

official may determine whether or not a correction, supplement, or revision to the EA is 

necessary.

DISTRIBUTION

The East Ohmer Creek Restoration Decision Notice, FONSI, and EA are available on the 

internet at http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=46654. Notification of the availability of this 

Decision Notice was sent to the project mailing list including State and Federal agencies, Indian 

Tribal governments, anyone commenting on the project, and anyone requesting a copy of this 

decision. The project mailing list is available in the project record. The Decision Notice is also 

available in hard copy or on CD, upon request.

IMPLEMENTATION

The 36 CFR 218 regulations provide for a pre-decision administrative review rather than a postdecision appeal process. The pre-decision review, the objection period, ended on November 7, 

2016. No objections were filed. 

Pursuant to 36 CFR 218.12, I may sign the decision notice five (5) business days after the close 

of the objection filing period. Implementation may begin immediately after this decision notice is 

signed.
USDA 

--

CONTACT INFORMATION 

For additional information concerning this decision, contact: Heath Whitacre, 

Hydrologist/Project Leader, Petersburg Ranger District, PO Box 1328, Petersburg, AK 99833, 

907-772-5925, hwhitacre@fs.fed.us. 

Respectfully, 

~--,..., 

DAVID ZIMMERMAN 

District Ranger 

- Decision Notice -

Page 13 of 14 

JI- ) ... :~ -1 (-

Date 
— Decision Notice —

Page 14 of 14

REFERENCES

USDA Forest Service. 2012. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality 

Management on National Forest System Lands. FS-990. April 2012.

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan. R10-MB-603.

Dungan, J. 2016. Unpublished Report. Management Indicator and Other Species Project Level 

Analysis. Tongass National Forest. 11pages.