United States Department of Agriculture

Raven’s Roost Cabin 

Replacement Project

Final Decision Notice and Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI)

Forest Service Tongass National Forest

Alaska Region Petersburg Ranger District R10-MB-841c July 2020
For More Information Contact: 

Ted Sandhofer

Petersburg Ranger District

12 North Nordic Drive

Petersburg, AK 

Phone: 907-772-3871

Email: ted.sandhofer@usda.gov

Fax: 907-772-5995

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, sex, 

religious creed, disability, age, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity in any 

program or activity conducted or funded by USDA. 

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 Agency (State or local) 

where they applied for benefits. Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities may 

contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may 

be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, 

(AD-3027) found online at: How to File a Complaint, 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.
1

Final Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant 

Impact

Raven’s Roost Cabin Replacement

U.S. Forest Service

Tongass National Forest

Decision

Based upon my review of the Environmental Assessment (EA), a comment received during the 

public comment period, and documentation included in the project record, I have decided to 

implement the Proposed Action as the Selected Alternative, including all project design elements 

described in the EA.

1. Construct an ADA-compliant cabin, deck, outhouse, and route between the cabin and 

outhouse. The proposed site is on Raven’s Ridge, approximately 2.5 trail miles from 

Petersburg. Proposal details include:

• Creating a similar footprint as the existing cabin site with gravel trails radiating out to the 

propane tank and the outhouse gravel pads, and the trail system, roughly 0.25 acre (1,100 

square feet) of disturbance;

• Assembling a pre-engineered structure (16-foot by 20-foot cabin kit) with a loft and 

covered deck constructed of milled timber with glulam timber foundation beams that can 

accommodate six to eight persons;

o My decision includes a minor design modification to add a loft. Based on an 

interdisciplinary review, I determined this minor modification and the possible 

changes in ground disturbance and visitor use patterns are within the scope of the 

environmental effects in the EA and Finding of No Significant Impact and do not 

warrant additional analysis. 

• Installing a direct‐vent propane heater fueled by a 500-gallon tank for primary heat

source;

• Preparing the cabin site, which includes removing the peat, digging holes for the pilings, 

and pouring the concrete pilings on site; and

• Mobilizing materials and equipment to the site via helicopter from the nearby Petersburg 

airport.

2. Remove the existing Raven’s Roost public use cabin and outhouse and restore the site.

Details include:

• Salvaging some parts of the cabin (may include such items as windows and large timbers) 

and demolishing the remainder. Materials will be removed from the site and transported 

to Petersburg by helicopter. 
Raven’s Roost Cabin Replacement Final Decision Notice/FONSI Petersburg Ranger District

2

• Restoring approximately 0.1 acre (500 square feet) of disturbed, compacted peat where 

needed by filling and leveling depressions, and naturalizing with native plants and soil.

Decision Rationale

It is my goal to continue to provide high quality and diverse recreation experiences on the 

Petersburg Ranger District. The Selected Alternative is consistent with this goal, and reflects my 

commitment to providing facilities that meet the needs of a diverse user group, are sustainable, 

and provide for the health and safety of all users. 

The Selected Alternative responds to Forest Plan goals and objectives to enhance recreation 

facilities in locations where they are supported by known use, to remove facilities no longer 

affordable and to provide for the health and safety of all Forest users (Forest Plan, Recreation 

Goals and Objectives, p. 2-4). My decision to replace the Raven’s Roost Cabin supports the 

Tongass National Forest Sustainable Cabin Strategy to build, relocate, and remove cabins to 

increase public access and use, while reducing the cabin program’s operations and maintenance 

costs.

The Selected Alternative achieves the Purpose and Need of this project by reducing deferred 

cabin maintenance costs, providing a site closer to the community of Petersburg, providing an 

ADA-compliant recreation facility that will benefit a more-diverse user group, and retaining a 

public use cabin on the District that is accessible by means other than boat or plane.

Public Involvement

In January of 2018, the Petersburg and Wrangell Ranger Districts distributed a letter, 

questionnaire and map to approximately 1,100 individuals, organizations and agencies seeking 

ideas for projects on National Forest System and adjacent lands. The letter, questionnaire and 

map were publicized in local newspapers (Petersburg Pilot and Wrangell Sentinel), on public 

radio stations KFSK (Petersburg), KSTK (Wrangell) and KCAW (Sitka but within the broadcast 

area for Kake), and on the Tongass webpage. 

A brief project description of the Raven’s Roost Cabin Replacement project was included on the 

Preliminary List of Activities for Proposal and Review in 2020 as part of the Central Tongass 

Project and on a map posted to the Central Tongass Project webpage in July 2019. With the 

timing of a decision on the Central Tongass Project uncertain, the Raven’s Roost Cabin 

Replacement project was proposed separately and was listed on the Tongass National Forest 

Schedule of Proposed Actions in March 2020.

In April, the Forest Service mailed consultation letters to the local tribal agencies and provided a 

combined scoping and 30-day comment period (EA, pp. 12-13). In addition, the Forest Service 

emailed a link to an electronic copy of the scoping letter to businesses, organizations and 

individuals (714 emails sent) via the GovDelivery system and mailed paper copies of the scoping 

letter as requested (19 letters mailed). 

The 30-day comment period on the proposal was advertised in the Petersburg Pilot, the 

newspaper of record, on April 2nd, and listed on the local radio station online community 

calendar for the duration of the comment period. The radio station (KFSK) also provided a 
Raven’s Roost Cabin Replacement Final Decision Notice/FONSI Petersburg Ranger District

3

public service announcement that included the start of the comment period and contacts for 

questions and additional information. 

The Forest Service received one comment during the combined scoping and 30-day comment 

period from the Petersburg Indian Association who wrote in support the proposal.

Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations

2016 Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment

I have reviewed the Forest Plan and have concluded that the Selected Alternative is consistent 

with applicable direction in the Forest Plan in Chapters 2, 3, and 4. Specifically, the Selected 

Alternative is consistent with applicable plan direction in the Municipal Watershed Land Use 

Designation (LUD) in Chapter 3, Management Prescriptions, of the Forest Plan (Forest Plan, pp. 

3-51 to 3-57).

ANILCA Section 810, Subsistence Evaluation and Finding

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

opportunities and resources. There is no documented or reported subsistence use that would be 

restricted as a result of this decision. For this reason, the Selected Alternative would not result in 

a significant possibility of a significant restriction of subsistence use of wildlife, fish, or other 

resources.

Endangered Species Act of 1973

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

animals federally listed or proposed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s 

National Marine Fisheries Service are known or suspected to occur in the project area; therefore,

this activity will have “No Effect” to federally listed threatened and endangered species.

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. There are no known sites in the Area of Potential Effect and the project 

area is located in the low probability zone for cultural resources. Therefore, the Forest Service 

has made a determination of No Historic Properties Affected with project implementation.

Floodplain Management (E.O. 11988), Protection of Wetlands (E.O. 11990)

This activity will not impact the functional value of any floodplain as defined by Executive 

Order 11988 and will not have negative impacts on wetlands as defined by Executive Order 

11990.

Recreational Fisheries (E.O. 12962)

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. As 

required by this Order, I have evaluated the effects of this action on aquatic systems and 

recreational fisheries and documented those effects relative to the purpose of this order. Since 

there are no effects to fisheries resources within the project area there will be no direct, indirect 

or cumulative impacts related to this Order.
Raven’s Roost Cabin Replacement Final Decision Notice/FONSI Petersburg Ranger District

4

Environmental Justice (E.O. 12898)

I have determined that in accordance with Executive Order 12898 this project does not have 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority 

populations and low-income populations.

Invasive Species (E.O. 13112)

An invasive plant risk assessment has been completed for this project, the findings and 

recommendations of which are incorporated into project design. Project design features in the 

EA (pp. 4 and 5) include mitigation measures to reduce the potential for introduction and spread 

of invasive species. 

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 that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). 

Due to the lack of fish and fish habitat within the project area, this consultation was not initiated. 

It is my determination that implementing the Selected Alternative would have no adverse effects 

to EFH.

Finding of No Significant Impact

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

Selected Alternative 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. 

Context

The relevant effects addressed in the EA are defined to the analysis areas for each resource at an 

appropriate scale for the Selected Alternative. All activities described in the EA are consistent 

with applicable Forest Plan direction. Actions described in the Selected Alternative are similar to 

other cabin construction projects that have occurred or are occurring on the Tongass National 

Forest.

The project area is within the Petersburg Ranger District on the Tongass National Forest. It 

consists of two sites on Mitkof Island, both on Ravens Ridge above the Petersburg, Alaska 

airport. Both sites have a similar footprint of less than 0.5 acre of disturbance which includes 

development at the new cabin site, and decommissioning and rehabilitation at the existing cabin 

site.

The project’s scale and location limit its effects on the natural resource values and uses, and does 

not pose significant short- or long-term effects. Forest Plan direction and design features

included in the Selected Alternative mitigate impacts to the extent that impacts to some resources 

are negligible (see Environmental Effects section of the EA).
Raven’s Roost Cabin Replacement Final Decision Notice/FONSI Petersburg Ranger District

5

Intensity

Intensity is a measure of the severity, extent, or quantity of effects, and is based on information 

from the effects analysis of the EA and the documentation in the project record. I have taken a 

hard look at the environmental effects using relevant scientific information and knowledge of 

site conditions gained from field visits. My finding of no significant impact is based on the 

context of the project and intensity of effects using the ten factors identified in 40 CFR 

1508.27(b). 

The intensity of effects was considered in terms of 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. 

Effects of the Selected Alternative were analyzed and disclosed by resource specialists at spatial 

and temporal scales appropriate to that resource. The EA does not identify any adverse or 

beneficial effects significant in context or intensity to warrant an EIS for this project. 

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

Cabins have been replaced on the Forest with no impacts to public health or safety, and no 

circumstances or conditions exist unique to the Selected Alternative that would indicate unusual 

or substantial risks. No concerns were raised during the public scoping period, and contract 

measures will be enforced during implementation to minimize conflicts with recreation users. In 

the long-term, replacing the cabin will improve the health and safety of users by increasing ease 

of public access since the new cabin site is closer to Petersburg and by providing a cabin and 

associated structure that is more accessible to individuals with disabilities.

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. 

The Forest Service has made the determination of No Historic Properties Affected (EA, p. 12).

No parklands, prime farmlands, wild and scenic rivers, or areas of critical ecological importance 

lie within the project area. 

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

highly controversial. 

I have reviewed the comment received during the scoping comment period for the proposed 

project, the analysis documented in the EA, and the information in the project record. Based on 

the level of public outreach, the limited and localized response, and the lack of scientific 

controversy over the impacts of this project, I have determined it is unlikely the effects to the 

human environment from implementing the Selected Alternative 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. 
Raven’s Roost Cabin Replacement Final Decision Notice/FONSI Petersburg Ranger District

6

The Forest Service has considerable experience with the activities included in the Selected 

Alternative. None of the activities are new or unique, and all are reasonably predictable and well 

understood. Based on the analysis in the EA, I believe the possible effects on the human 

environment are not highly uncertain and do not involve unknown risks.

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. 

The scope of my decision is consistent with the Forest Plan and limited to a localized action to be 

undertaken over a specified time period. The effects of the Selected Alternative were considered 

by the interdisciplinary team within the context of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions because the action proposed – decommissioning an existing cabin and replacing 

with a new one – has already occurred on the Petersburg Ranger District without significant 

effects.

Any future action(s) not covered by this project, whether related to the actions in this project or 

not, will consider all relevant scientific, site-specific information available at that time. 

Additionally future actions will be subject to the appropriate environmental analysis that 

considers the direct and indirect effects, and cumulative effects of all other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions.

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 (see the cumulative effects analysis for all resources in the Environmental Impacts 

section of the EA). 

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 action will have no significant adverse effect on districts, sites, highways, structures, or 

objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. A cultural 

resource investigation was initiated to meet the regulations (36 CFR 800) implementing Section 

106 of the Historic Preservation Act, and the Forest Service made a determination of No Historic 

Properties Affected (EA, p. 12).

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 given that no plants or animals federally listed or 

proposed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or animals federally listed or proposed by the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service are 

known or suspected to occur in the project area (EA, p. 11).
Raven's Roost Cabin Replacement Final Decision Notice/FONS/ Petersburg Ranger District 

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

imposed for the protection of the environment. 

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

protection of the environment. The analysis and proposed implementation complies with all 

applicable Federal, State, local laws and regulations, and is consistent with policy pertaining to 

management of National Forest resources. The Selected Alternative follows Best Management 

Practices and includes design features to avoid, minimize, and protect the environment. 

Objection Opportunities 

This decision was subject to objection pursuant to 36 CFR 218 and sent to those who provided 

comments during the project's development. A legal notice of the opportunity to object was 

published on May 21, 2020, in the Petersburg Pilot, the newspaper of record. No objections 

were filed during the 45-day objection filing period. 

Implementation Date 

As per 36 CFR 218.12(c)(2), since no objection was received within the objection filing period, 

this decision may be signed and implemented on, but not before, the fifth business day following 

the close of the objection-filing period. 

Contact 

For additional information conc_eming this decision, contact: Ted Sandhofer, District Ranger, PO 

Box 1328, Petersburg, AK 99833, 907-772-3871 (phone), 907-722-5995 (fax), 

ted.sandhofer(a),usda. gov. 

Ted Sandhofer Date 

Petersburg District Ranger 

7