United States Department of Agriculture 

East Ohmer Creek Restoration

Environmental Assessment

Forest Service 

Alaska Region 

Tongass National Forest 

Petersburg RangerDistrict R10-MB-802 March 2016 
 

East Ohmer Creek Restoration

Environmental Assessment

___________________________________________________________________________ 

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. Additionally, program information may be made 

available in languages other than English. 

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. 


 East Ohmer Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment 

1 

SUMMARY TABLE

What action is 

proposed? 

The proposed action is to: 

 Restore and stabilize anadromous and resident fish habitat by 

constructing approximately 15 large wood structures (logs, 

trees with rootwads attached) into the active stream channels of 

approximately 0.2 miles of East Ohmer Creek and up to 0.4 

miles of Lumpy Creek using heavy equipment. Many of these 

structures would bolster structures placed in 2000; 

 Improve floodplain condition by adding large wood to the 

floodplain with an excavator or helicopter; 

 Create micro-sites within the floodplain for improved growth 

conditions by adding logs, whole trees with rootwads attached, 

rootwad stumps, and topsoil if available; 

 Harvest and stockpile approximately 110 trees, approximately 

80 with rootwads attached to build instream structures; 

 Collect additional wood (slash, stumps, cull1 pieces) from 

previously harvested timber units, local contractors, or private 

sources for placement within the floodplain; and 

 Construct temporary puncheon trails to access the restoration 

sites. Puncheon trails would be constructed using cull and 

small diameter trees to facilitate access by heavy equipment. 

Why? Current stream channel and floodplain condition along approximately 

1.1 miles of East Ohmer Creek (0.2 miles) and Lumpy Creek (0.9 

miles) is degraded as a result of floodplain tree harvest and excavation 

of floodplain gravels for road building during the construction of 

Mitkof Highway in the early 1960s. Stream and floodplain condition is 

expected to further degrade with time without project implementation. 

Current conditions include: 

 Unstable banks from previous harvest and gravel excavation 

resulting in high stream width to depth ratios (shallow, wide 

channels) and active channel braiding; 

 Lack of future wood recruitment from the floodplain to the 

streams resulting from floodplain timber harvest and continued 

active loss of small trees into the streams from excessively 

eroding banks; 

 Lack of geomorphic features within the floodplain from 

previous timber harvest and removal of stumps, as well as 

grading the floodplain flat following excavation activities; and 

 Trash within the floodplain including an old vehicle, fuel 

barrels, and miscellaneous litter. 
 East Ohmer Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment 

2 

This project would improve stream habitat by stabilizing excessively 

eroding streambanks and creating pools through strategic wood 

placement. Habitat quality within the floodplain would improve 

through the addition of wood for flood resilience and to act as growth 

sites for conifers. 

What other action 

would meet the 

same need? 

None 

What would it 

mean not to meet 

the need? 

Poor floodplain condition would continue into the foreseeable future 

due to a lack of structure in the form of natural geomorphic features 

and lack of large wood in the floodplain. The excessively eroding 

streambanks would continue to result in poor habitat conditions 

typified by wide, shallow channels lacking deep pools and quality 

spawning or rearing habitat. The current lack of floodplain wood 

would continue to limit the natural progression of riparian forest 

growth and extend the timeframe of recovery of this area by decades 

and potentially millennia. The streams would continue to have limited 

fisheries value. 

What factors will 

be used when 

making the 

decision? 

This environmental assessment does not identify any significant 

environmental consequences from the proposed action. Any adverse 

environmental consequences of the proposed action are compared to 

the benefit of improved habitat conditions in the streams and 

floodplain. 

Are there any 

ways to mitigate 

adverse effects? 

The primary method for reducing adverse effects is by implementing 

specific design criteria included in the proposed action, and applying 

best management practices prior to and during project implementation. 

What monitoring 

is required? 

Tongass National Forest Tier II stream habitat surveys would be 

conducted before implementation, then repeated 1 year and 3 years 

after project implementation. Photo points would be gathered before 

and after implementation. Permanent cross-sections would be 

established for long-term monitoring of channel dimensions in sitespecific locations. Monitor and treat reed canarygrass and creeping 

buttercup populations following Forest Service protocols prior to 

restoration and a minimum of three years post-implementation. EDRR 

directives shall be followed. 

1

 Cull wood is considered trees that are/were less than one-third sound (capable of producing lumber) and is 

therefore not utilized in a current or previous timber sale. This wood is often decked onsite at the harvest unit. 
 East Ohmer Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment 

3 

INTRODUCTION

The Petersburg Ranger District prepared this environmental assessment (EA) to determine 

whether effects of the East Ohmer Creek Restoration project may be significant. No 

significant effects were determined through this analysis. The results are summarized in the 

finding of no significant impact (FONSI); therefore an environmental impact statement is not 

needed. For this project, the Responsible Official is District Ranger David Zimmerman. 

The Petersburg Ranger District of the Tongass National Forest proposes implementing 

instream and riparian restoration on approximately 0.2 miles of East Ohmer Creek and up to 

0.4 miles of Lumpy Creek, a medium-sized tributary to East Ohmer. These streams support 

populations of pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha), chum salmon (O. keta), coho salmon 

(O. kitsuch), steelhead (O. mykiss), coastal cutthroat trout (O. clarki clarki), and Dolly 

Varden char (Salvolinus malma). 

LOCATION

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

between the mainland to the east and Kupreanof Island to the west, approximately 140 miles 

south of Juneau, Alaska. East Ohmer and Lumpy Creeks are approximately 21 miles south of 

Petersburg, Alaska along Mitkof Highway (Figure 1). The project area includes the instream 

and floodplain restoration area, and the wood collection area (Figure 2). The instream portion 

of the project is located within the 2,876 acre Upper Ohmer Creek watershed, which is nested 

within the larger 8,375 acre 6th HUC Ohmer Creek – Frontal Blind Slough watershed. This 

area is managed according to prescriptions defined for the Old Growth Reserve Land Use 

Designation (LUD) in the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2008). 

Wood collection would occur west of Woodpecker Cove, within a 4,088 acre 7th HUC 

watershed nested within the larger Woodpecker Cove – Frontal Sumner Strait watershed. 

This area is managed according to prescriptions for a Scenic Viewshed LUD (USDA Forest 

Service 2008). Approximately 1.1 miles of stream channel, 0.6 of which is proposed for 

restoration, as well as approximately 20 acres of floodplain occur within the project area 

(Figure 1). 

WOOD COLLECTION

The wood necessary to complete this project includes whole trees with rootwads still 

attached, cut logs, and cull wood (slash, pieces left on the ground at previously harvested 

timber units). An area of approximately 7 acres located 12.0 miles west from the junction of 

FS road 6245 and Mitkof Highway (Table 1; Figure 2) has been identified as the source for 

the required wood harvest. Approximately 110 trees equivalent to approximately 60 MBF 

(thousand board feet) is anticipated for the project (Figure 2). 

The wood collection area is located adjacent to stands harvested from 1989-1993 and is 

bound by a rockpit to the northeast. Trees within this area are predominantly high-defect 
 East Ohmer Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment 

4 

hemlock not harvested when the stands were originally cut. A 2-acre gap would be created by 

harvesting the majority of the whole trees and cut logs within the area depicted by 

crosshatching in Figure 2. The remainder of the trees needed for the project would be 

harvested using a single-tree selection prescription, up to the total needed. 

Whole trees would be harvested according to guidelines established for similar projects in 

which excavators are used to push targeted trees over in order to maintain the rootwad 

(Landwehr 2009). Trees with rootwads still attached have many benefits when used for 

instream restoration, primarily by increasing structure stability, but also result in improved 

pool formation, cover, and bank stability due to the greater surface area provided by the root 

fan. 

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). 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 (see section below) for wood collection activities would be implemented. 

Table 1. Anticipated location of wood collection and temporary storage areas for the East

Ohmer Creek Restoration project  

Watershed HUC# / Name LUD Wood

Description Location

19010210120304 / Woodpecker

Cove ‐ Frontal Sumner Strait

Scenic

Viewshed

Whole Tree /

Cut Logs  

12.0 miles along

FS road 6245

19010210120203 / Ohmer Creek ‐ 

Frontal Blind Slough

Modified

Landscape

Temporary

wood

storage area

Perpendicular to

the road surface

on FS road 40010

near the

restoration site
 East Ohmer Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment 

5 
 East Ohmer Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment 

6 
 East Ohmer Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment 

7 

NEED FOR THE PROPOSAL

The riparian areas of a number of streams on Mitkof Island were harvested in the 1960s, 

1970s, and 1980s, prior to the 1990 Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA), which 

subsequently provided stream buffer protection for all fish-bearing streams. A recent 

Watershed Condition Framework (WCF) score of 1.4 (on a scale from 1 to 3) indicates the 

Ohmer Creek watershed is “functioning properly” (USDA Forest Service 2015). Nested 

within that score, however, the watershed received a rating of “fair” for riparian/wetland 

vegetation condition, aquatic habitat condition, and road and trail condition. Lower scores in 

riparian vegetation and aquatic habitat are a result of previous harvest within the riparian 

area. Approximately 22 percent of the watershed has been harvested, with approximately 21 

percent of the available riparian area harvested (Table 2). While no harvest has occurred 

within this watershed since 1986, previous disturbance within the 20-acre project area has 

resulted in ongoing degraded habitat conditions. 

The watershed assessments leading to the WCF score help the Tongass National Forest select 

“priority” watersheds to focus watershed-scale restoration (USDA Forest Service2011). 

However, specific stream restoration sites are found both within and outside of these 

watersheds. The East Ohmer Creek restoration project is not located in a Tongass “priority” 

watershed. Regardless, it is a small-scale project with a demonstrated restoration need as 

described below. 

Table 2. Summary of timber harvest within project area watersheds   

6th HUC

Watershed

7th HUC

Watershed              

Watershed

Size (acres)

Total

Harvested (%

watershed)

Total

Harvested

since 1986 (%

watershed)

Riparian

Harvest (%

total

watershed)

Ohmer

Creek‐

Frontal Blind

Slough

19010210120203 3,990 9.7 3.7 2.2

19010210120205 1,509 13.6 2.3 2.0

Upper Ohmer

Creek1 2,876 22.3 0 21.2

Woodpecker

Cove‐ 

Frontal

Sumner

Straight

19010210120304 4,092 10.8 2.4 0.3

1

 Upper Ohmer Creek is one of three 7th HUC watersheds within the larger Ohmer Creek – Frontal Blind Slough 

watershed, and the location of the restoration sites. 

Background

Previous disturbance at this site included timber harvest and removal of stumps and topsoil in 

the floodplain and alluvial fan from approximately 1959-1960. Streamside trees along the 

East Ohmer Creek restoration reach were extracted via the stream corridor, resulting in a lack 

of large wood throughout this reach. Gravel and sand were excavated from the project area in 
 East Ohmer Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment 

8 

support of construction of Mitkof Highway, primarily from the alluvial fan created by Lumpy 

Creek, but also in lower portions of the floodplain below the fan. Most of the excavated area 

on the alluvial fan is characterized by steep-banked pits, old access roads, and channels 

created by recent surface flow, while the majority of the lower floodplain was graded flat 

after the gravel was removed. Following gravel extraction the soils on the site consist of a 

thin layer of sand (less than 20 centimeters) over dense glacial till. In 1986, Forest Service 

(FS) road 40010 was constructed through the area to access a timber unit on the hillslope to 

the northeast. These activities resulted in a lack of large, key pieces of wood in the stream 

channels and floodplain, limited natural recruitment of large wood from the floodplain due to 

tree harvest and diminished soil productivity, and altered the natural hydrology and flood 

regime of the site due to the loss of excavated floodplain topsoil, gravels, and sand. 

Tongass National Forest Tier II stream habitat surveys indicate lower scores for several key 

measures of habitat quality when compared to Tongass reference standards for similar 

channels (Table 3). Habitat attributes including pool metrics, number of large, key pieces of 

wood, and channel width-to-depth ratio are strong indicators of aquatic habitat condition. The 

legacy of previous activities on these streams and their floodplain resulted in a lack of pool 

area and complexity, bank erosion, channel widening, altered hydrology, and degraded 

floodplain condition. The trajectory of habitat quality is declining in the restoration reaches 

due to past activities and would continue to decline without project implementation. 

Table 3. Tier II habitat results compared to Tongass standards for one of three surveys

within the restoration reaches. All surveys had overall ratings of “Fair”  

Habitat

Attribute1

Percentiles for Tongass

Standards   EOhmer_R1

Results

Site

Percentile Rating

25 50 75

WD 18.5 20.2 32.8 46 75‐100 Fair

TLWD/M 0.31 0.37 0.5 0.52 75‐100 Excellent

TKWD/M 0.06 0.11 0.15 0.01 0‐25 Fair

POOLS/KM 30 40 60 26 0‐25 Fair

POOL SPACE 1.3 1.8 2.2 2.7 75‐100 Fair

RPD/CBW 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.03 0‐25 Fair

D50 15 19 34 45.3 75‐100 Fair

PLNGTH/M 0.38 0.54 0.7 0.56 50‐75 Good

REL_SUBMRG 26.5 36.9 49.4 8.2 0‐25 Fair

POOL_SIZE 0.68 0.84 0.94 1.07 75‐100 Excellent

1

 WD = Channel width to depth ratio; TLWD/M = Total large woody debris pieces > 1m long and 0.1 m wide, 

TKWD/M = Total key woody pieces >3m long x 0.3 m wide, POOLS/KM = # Pools / kilometer, POOL 

SPACE = pool spacing, RPD/CBW = Ratio of residual pool depth to channel bed width; D50 = Median 

substrate particle size; PLNGTH/M = Pool length per meter; REL_SUBMRG = Relative submergence of bed 

particles; POOL_SIZE = Pool size. 

Soil productivity is severely altered in the areas where topsoil removal and gravel extraction 

occurred. The removal of topsoil also removed most of the nutrients available for plant 

growth. Red alder and Sitka spruce currently occupy the site, but both species are small in 
 East Ohmer Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment 

9 

height and diameter when compared to other young-growth stands on floodplain soils where 

gravel extraction did not occur. Adjacent undisturbed floodplain soils have a thicker organic 

mat over well-developed soils, whereas the duff layer in the disturbed area is thin and 

overlies poorly developed soils or sand over dense glacial till. The combination of poorly 

developed soils over poorly drained glacial till (water table near the surface) has resulted in 

inhibited growth of floodplain conifers. An estimated 1 to 3 meters of soil was removed from 

the site. The deeper removals occurred in the alluvial fan area where cobble accumulation 

would have been thicker. 

Murphy and Koski (1989) estimated that on logged Southeast Alaska streams similar to the 

streams in this project, instream large wood densities would decrease by more than 70 

percent within 90 years and would not recover for more than 250 years. The abundance of 

salmonid species is often closely linked to the abundance of woody debris, particularly 

during winter when deep pools created by the wood protect fish when ice forms (Hicks et al. 

1991). Strategic placement of engineered large wood structures would maintain and restore 

instream habitat through pool creation, stabilized eroding banks, and improved floodplain 

condition. Organic matter in the form of nurse logs and topsoil is needed to fully restore the 

area where gravels were excavated and dense till remains. However, the quantities of topsoil 

required to replace what was removed is beyond the scope of this project. Instead, addition of 

large wood to the floodplain would provide structure to help dampen high flow events and 

provide nurse logs for future conifer recruitment. 

The benefits of large wood are well-established. Large wood helps stabilize and regulate the 

storage and routing of sediment, particulate organic matter and nutrients; improves water 

quality by stabilizing streambanks; dampens high flow events by providing structure within 

the floodplain; regulates water temperature by increasing residence time and exchange with 

hyporheic flow (surface/groundwater mixing); creates deep pools thereby maintaining 

rearing and overwintering habitats fish use for cover and overwintering; and increases the 

biotic diversity of a system by serving as substrate for aquatic insect production (Bryant 

1983; Bilby 1984; Bilby and Ward 1989; Murphy and Meehan 1991; Jones et al. 2014). 

Restoration projects which add large wood to streams have shown improved physical habitat 

characteristics such as favorable changes in substrate, increased pools, cover and habitat 

complexity (Carah et al. 2014; Roni et al. 2015). Additionally, most studies on the response 

of salmonids to wood additions have shown an increase in fish numbers following wood 

placement (Roni et al. 2015). Other studies have shown increases in overwintering rearing 

capacity for juvenile Coho, and that breeding site selection is strongly influenced by 

proximity to pool-tail crests and deeper water (Clark et al. 2014; Jones et al. 2014; Roni and 

Quinn 2001; Roni et al. 2015). 

A restoration project implemented in 2000 improved habitat condition within the project area 

by adding wood structures to both streams, as well as excavating two rearing ponds near the 

confluence of East Ohmer and Lumpy Creeks. This project would maintain and improve 

many of the structures built in the past by placing additional wood for habitat complexity and 

structural integrity, as well as building new structures to improve instream habitat and 

floodplain condition. This project focuses on restoring processes that improve watershed 

function and long-term health, and is consistent with management direction for the Old 

Growth Reserve LUD in which it is located to “Emphasize the protection and restoration of 

fish habitat, fish production, and aquatic biodiversity” (USDA Forest Service 2008). 
 East Ohmer Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment 

10 

Implementation of this project could coincide with timber harvest activities on Mitkof Island 

in order to benefit from harvesting equipment and a supply of cull material not harvested 

from a potential timber sale. A helicopter, for example, could be used to transport and stage 

wood at the restoration site immediately prior to implementation more efficiently. However, 

the project design is also flexible enough to be implemented without a helicopter, 

independent of timber sale activities. 

DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

Alternative 1 – No Action

Under the No Action alternative, current management activities would continue to guide the 

management of the project area. No trees would be harvested for the remediation of the 

project area, structures would not be installed in the stream channels, large wood would not 

be placed within the floodplain, and rearing ponds would not be maintained. Forest Service 

road 40010 would remain closed until needed for management of the young-growth stand to 

the northeast, at which time it would be reconstructed. 

Alternative 2 ‐ Proposed Action

Alternative 2 proposes the following activities: 

 Harvest and stockpile approximately 110 trees for use in restoring portions of two 

streams and their floodplain (Figure 3). Wood would include cut logs and whole trees 

with rootwads attached. The majority of the wood would be considered high defect, 

low value hemlock and would be sourced from a roadside location approximately 

12.0 miles from Mitkof Highway on FS road 6425, past Woodpecker Cove (Figure 

2). These trees would be stockpiled prior to implementation along the open portion of 

FS road 40010 near the project site (Figure 1). Whole trees would be harvested 

according to guidelines established for similar projects (Landwehr 2009). Trees 

intended for stream placement would be sound and free of rot to maximize longevity. 

Road maintenance commensurate with impacts from wood collection activities would 

occur as part of the wood collection contract. 

 Collect additional wood from previously harvested timber unit cull/slash piles, local 

contractors, or private sources for placement within the floodplain. The amount of 

floodplain wood would depend on locating pieces sound enough to be transported 

safely by helicopter, should one become available, once stockpiled near the 

restoration site. The volume of wood to be added to the floodplain would be a fraction 

of the volume removed originally, and would be limited by availability and funding. 

 Construct temporary puncheon trails to access the instream restoration sites by 

removing a small number of young-growth conifer and alder trees, and placing these 

trees in front of a machine to minimize soil disturbance. These trails would be wide 

enough to accommodate the tracks of an excavator and facilitate the transport of cut 

trees and rootwads needed for the project (approximately 30 feet wide). An estimated 

0.6 acres is expected to be “cleared” during creation of these access puncheon trails. 

Trees and other native material along the access route would be used as puncheon to 
 East Ohmer Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment 

11 

minimize potential damage to the floodplain resulting from excavator passage (Figure 

3). Puncheon trails would be rehabilitated, with puncheon material decompacted and 

scattered once instream structures are placed and access is no longer needed. No 

rocked roads would be constructed for this project. 

 Restore and stabilize anadromous and resident fish habitat by building structures 

using the stockpiled wood in the active channels of approximately 0.2 miles of East 

Ohmer Creek and up to 0.4 miles of Lumpy Creek (Figure 3). Approximately 15 

structures would be built; 9 in East Fork Ohmer Creek and 6 in Lumpy Creek. The 

purpose of the structures would vary by site, but includes pool creation, bank 

stabilization, and improved channel width-to-depth ratio compared to reference 

conditions. No cable, rebar, or cement would be used in the construction of structures. 

 Improve floodplain condition by adding logs, whole trees with rootwads attached, or 

rootwad stumps, to the floodplain. A helicopter may be used for staging wood in 

close proximity to restoration sites and for these floodplain placements if possible. 

Helicopter use would minimize site disturbance. If a helicopter is unavailable, the 

wood would be placed using heavy equipment, with floodplain placements being 

limited to areas immediately adjacent to the instream sites or to areas along existing 

or planned access routes. The wood would improve resilience during flood events by 

providing structure in the floodplain, and would provide a stable growing medium for 

conifers. The wood would act as nurse logs and improve resilience during flood 

events by providing structure in the floodplain. 

 Improve floodplain condition by mounding topsoil in specific areas disturbed by 

activities and outside of areas prone to flooding. Mounds would be created by placing 

topsoil over logs, stumps, and rootwads. The topsoil would help restore soil 

productivity by providing an elevated surface with deeper rooting substrate and 

nutrients to sites that currently have dense till close to the soil surface. Soil would 

only be sourced opportunistically and may originate from road maintenance or 

construction activities, previous overburden sites, or private contractors. All sources 

would be required to be weed-free. 

 Reduce soil compaction via subsoiling (shallow trenches) to help restore productivity 

to the site. This activity would only occur on or adjacent to equipment access trails. 

 Create micro-sites for conifer growth through additions of rootwad stumps and 

puncheon (slash) material in portions of the floodplain used to access stream sites. 

 Maintain two previously-constructed rearing ponds by providing additional cover in 

the form of whole trees and tree tops, as well as reestablishing flow connection on 

one of the ponds. 

 Remove a substantial amount of trash including logging cables, rusted out 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 alternative would restore degraded stream habitat by stabilizing streambanks, increasing 

pool area and complexity through placements of large wood, would improve rearing habitat 

through maintenance of two previously-excavated ponds, and improve floodplain condition, 

soil productivity, and stability through placements of wood. An excavator would be used to 

implement the proposed actions, and would be procured through contracting. 
 East Ohmer Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment 

12 

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT ANALYZED

The upper portion of Lumpy Creek flows from a canyon which naturally constricts the 

channel. When the stream emerges from the canyon it dissipates its energy across an alluvial 

fan. These dynamic landforms are crossed and formed by streams, which over time occupy 

many positions on the fan surface. An alternative considering stream and floodplain 

restoration in all portions of the project area, including the alluvial fan was considered but 

not selected. The previous excavation of gravel, sand, and cobble in support of Mitkof 

Highway construction resulted in steep-banked pits in the upper portions of the alluvial fan. 

Recent evidence indicates a new channel being formed upstream of these areas, terminating 

in a beaver pond complex to the north. Consideration was given to building large wood 

structures designed to trap sediment and route flows back to the original channel during times 

of high flows. However, the size, number, and cost of the structures required to achieve this 

goal along the steepened landform was considered too high when weighed with a lower 

probability of long-term success resulting from the legacy of past activities combined with 

the dynamic nature of the alluvial fan. This alternative would have required sourcing 

approximately 350 trees and importing large quantities of topsoil to replace topsoil excavated 

in support of Mitkof Highway construction. 

For these reasons, active restoration of 0.5 miles of the portion of Lumpy Creek flowing 

through the alluvial fan was eliminated from consideration in the proposed action. 

Similarly, thinning trees within the riparian area was originally included in the proposed 

action as part of the overall restoration strategy. Thinning previously harvested riparian areas 

to speed the growth of large conifers is a common treatment under “normal” conditions. 

However, the additional removal of stumps, topsoil and gravel within the floodplain in the 

project area resulted in soil and hydrologic conditions that are not conducive to a beneficial 

response to thinning. Most of the soils within the floodplain are no longer capable of 

supporting the growth of large trees. While thinning might benefit individual trees growing 

on productive microsites, a stand-level riparian treatment would likely be ineffective and has 

therefore been removed from consideration as a restoration treatment. 
 East Ohmer Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment 

13 
 East Ohmer Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment 

14 

Time and Duration of Activity

The work is anticipated to occur during the summer of 2017. This project would potentially 

be completed in phases, depending on the acquisition of the required wood for the project, 

channel development and response on the alluvial fan, partner involvement, and budget 

considerations. Once begun, the project as described in the proposed action could be 

completed within a 1 month timeframe. If the work is phased into subsequent years, each 

phase would be completed in less than 1 month. Work windows for the instream portion 

would be developed in consultation with the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADFG), 

Title 16 Memorandum of Understanding. 

Project Design Features  

The following project design features would help prevent potential effects of the proposed 

work: 

1. A pre-work meeting with contractors would be conducted to review key project 

design features. 

2. Wood harvest activities would adhere to standards and guidelines for maintaining the 

scenic integrity objectives within the Scenic Viewshed LUD in which the cut logs and 

rootwad trees would be harvested. (USDA Forest Service 2008). Rootwad trees 

would be harvested according to guidelines established during similar restoration 

projects on Harris River, 12-Mile Creek and Gandlaay Haanaa (formerly Fubar 

Creek) on Prince of Wales Island, West Fork Saginaw Creek, South Fork Kadake 

Creek, and Josie Creek on Kuiu Island, and Sitkoh River near Sitka, Alaska 

(Landwehr 2009). All harvest locations would be rehabilitated with slash following 

tree removal. 

3. Within the wood collection area, no trees would be sourced within 100 feet of fishbearing streams. Trees may be removed for access and to construct the restoration 

sites within 100 feet of East Ohmer and Lumpy Creeks as described below. Riparian 

areas and streams would be identified and protected according to their associated 

management objectives (BMP 12.6; 13.16; National BMP AqEco-4). No streams 

were identified in the wood sourcing area. Crossing streams while sourcing wood for 

the stockpile is not anticipated. 

4. Oil pollution prevention and contingencies would be in place. Equipment would be 

fueled a minimum of 150 feet from an active stream channel. Detailed equipment 

refueling plans would be considered prior to work commencement (BMP 12.8; 12.9; 

National BMP Road-10). 

5. Equipment access trails used during the project would be closed upon project 

completion and would be covered in slash to minimize erosion and soil compaction in 

areas where equipment operates, or where mineral soils are exposed to encourage 

natural regeneration (BMP 12.17; National BMP # Road-2). No roads would be 

constructed for this project. 

6. Areas of bare ground resulting from construction activities where slash is not 

available, and all disturbed waterways would be replanted with salmonberry (Rubus 

spectabilis) and willow (Salix sitchensis) cuttings. Replant salmonberry throughout 
 East Ohmer Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment 

15 

the floodplain in the spring prior to budburst. Consider other options for revegetation 

using local seed sources. (BMP 12.17; National BMP Veg-2). 

7. Subsoiling (shallow trenching) would only be used in areas where the risk of 

intercepting subsurface flow is minimal. 

8. Petroleum-based hydraulic fluid in heavy equipment is replaced with vegetable–based 

hydraulic fluid to protect water quality in the event of a spill. Spill containment kit 

would be kept on site (BMPs 12.8; 12.9; National BMP AqEco-2; Road-3). 

9. In-channel construction activities are subject to fish timing windows and would be 

determined in consultation with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Habitat 

Division as per the Title 16 Memorandum of Understanding (BMPs 14.6, 18.3; 

National BMP AqEco-2; Road-3). 

10. Equipment use in live streams would be kept to a minimum. To the extent possible, 

equipment would be limited to puncheon trail surfaces and gravel bars, only 

accessing the active flow channel when necessary to perform detailed site-specific 

construction (BMPs 14.6, 14.14; 18.3; National BMP AqEco-2; Road-3). 

11. Equipment would not be stored, maintained or repaired within the stream channel or 

floodplain (BMP 14.14; National BMP Road-9; Fac-2). 

12. Where feasible or advisable, active flow channel work sites would be dewatered. Fish 

would be removed from the dewatering area prior to dewatering of the site (BMP 

14.15). 

13. An erosion/sediment control plan would be created prior to project construction as 

part of the construction contract. Erosion control devices such as silt fence would be 

used to protect water ways from sediment impacts (BMP 14.5; National BMP AqEco2). 

14. All equipment would be cleaned prior to being brought on site to reduce the potential 

for invasive plant introduction (BMP 14.14; National BMP Fac-7). During 

implementation, ensure that clothing, footwear, materials, equipment and tools used 

in the project area are free of invasive plants (BMP Veg 8). 

15. Areas suitable for staging construction materials and equipment would be identified 

on site prior to implementation (BMP 12.8; 14.14; National BMP Fac-2). 

16. If heritage resources are discovered during construction, all construction must cease 

and a Forest Service archeologist must be notified. 

17. All trash accessible from equipment access trails or transportable by hand would be 

removed to a landfill. 

18. If previously undiscovered sensitive or rare plants are encountered prior to or during 

implementation, protect the population and avoid disturbance in the area containing 

the population (and similar habitats in that vicinity). Notify a Forest Service 

Botanist/Ecologist immediately to evaluate the population and recommend further 

avoidance or mitigation measures. 

19. Rootwads and rootwad trees would be harvested from a weed free site. 

20. Significantly control reed canarygrass and creeping buttercup populations along the 

access road and old roadbed within the project area prior to restoration activities. 

21. Thoroughly evaluate topsoil if imported from outside the project area to ensure the 

source is weed-free. 

22. Consider implementing restoration activities from June to early July to minimize the 

potential for transporting viable invasive seed sources to the restoration site. 
 East Ohmer Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment 

16 

Furthermore, a Forest Service fisheries technician, fisheries biologist, or hydrologist would 

be on-site during the implementation of the proposed activities. These individuals would 

inspect and monitor construction activities to ensure proper implementation and take 

appropriate action to reduce or eliminate negative effects to resources. 

Environmental Impacts of the No Action and Proposed

Action Alternative

Fisheries  

Alternative 1 ‐ No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

The No Action alternative would result in a continued lack of pool area and complexity, 

continued bank erosion/avulsion, channel widening, streambed incision, altered hydrology, 

and degraded floodplain condition. The trajectory of fish spawning habitat quality, while 

minimal through the restoration reach is anticipated to continue to decline as a result of poor 

channel and floodplain condition. Rearing habitat within the previously excavated ponds is 

expected to remain intact in the larger of the two, but habitat in the smaller pond is expected 

to diminish due to the loss of flow connection at lower water levels from siltation of the 

excavated channel. 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Adverse effects to fish and aquatic organisms including turbidity and disturbance from 

machinery are expected to be short in duration (hours to days) and below lethal levels. The 

impact to the overall populations is expected to be negligible. It is possible this project may 

result in individual fish being crushed by heavy equipment. The more likely short-term 

outcome is individuals being displaced temporarily. This project is not expected to affect 

overall populations due to construction activities being confined to a discrete portion of the 

stream network (~2.3 percent of known fish streams in the watershed), the short timeframe of 

instream activities, and timing the instream work to minimize disruption to fish. 

Beneficial direct effects of this project include improved fish habitat through increased 

quantity and quality of pools, improved cover, improved bank stability, and maintenance of 

rearing habitat. Indirectly, improved physical habitat (pools) would benefit rearing and 

resting salmonids during overwintering and migration by providing cover, improved forage 

efficiency, and thermal refugia during times of low water and high temperatures. 

Implementation would occur at an appropriate time after fry and smolt emigration and before 

adult migration, in accordance with agreed upon fish timing windows through the Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game Title 16 Concurrence Memorandum of Understanding. The 

USFS would also obtain the required U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permits as appropriate, 

and continue EFH consultations with NOAA Fisheries for the instream portion of the project. 
 East Ohmer Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment 

17 

Cumulative Effects

The analysis area for cumulative effects includes the two watersheds in which project 

activities occur, as described above. 

Alternative 1

The floodplain would continue to recover over the course of hundreds/thousands of years. 

Eventually, soils will recover enough to support large trees which will be available for 

natural recruitment to the stream, but this will also occur on a similar, prolonged time scale. 

The stream environment through the restoration reaches will eventually stabilize into a new 

“dynamic equilibrium,” but most likely habitat will be simplified through these sections 

compared to streams of the same channel type. The restoration reaches are short enough that 

fish populations are unlikely to be negatively affected on a watershed scale. 

Alternative 2

While the loss of individual fish is possible during implementation, this loss would have 

negligible effect to overall fish populations. Impacts related to the wood collection portion of 

the project are expected to be minimal, and would not affect fish streams. Potential effects to 

fish are minimized through mitigation measures and project design features discussed above. 

No long-term negative cumulative effects are expected with implementation of the proposed 

action. 

Cumulatively, the effects of the proposed action are expected to be beneficial for fisheries 

resources as a result of long-term, stable pools and improved stability of the floodplain and 

streambanks. Benefits to adult and juvenile salmonids from the addition of large wood are 

well documented and result from the improvements discussed above. 

Harvest of trees in support of this project is minimal and would occur according to Tongass 

riparian buffer standards and guidelines, ensuring buffer protection for streams. No fish 

streams have been identified within the proposed harvest area. 

Hydrology

Alternative 1 ‐ No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

The No Action alternative would result in a continued lack of pool area and complexity, 

continued bank erosion/channel avulsion, channel widening, streambed incision, altered 

hydrology, and degraded floodplain condition. The trajectory of habitat quality is currently 

declining in the floodplain and many portions of these streams and would continue to decline 

without project implementation. 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Aquatic resources are the most likely to be affected by the instream restoration portion of the 

project. The proposed action would result in the short-term (1 month to 1 year) adverse 

effects to water resources in the form of sedimentation and substrate disturbance caused by 

heavy equipment transiting puncheon trails, crossing the streams and operating on the banks 
 East Ohmer Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment 

18 

during stream structure excavation and placement. Fine particles could remain in suspension 

for a short distance downstream for a limited time period, dissipating with time and distance. 

Based on monitoring conducted for similar restoration projects on the Tongass (Prussian 

2007), short-term turbidity pulses exceeding the State water quality criteria of 5 NTUs above 

natural conditions are expected for a short period after cessation of stream channel 

disturbance. In the referenced study, the initial flush of turbidity occurred following the 

diversion of water back into the channel following 3 weeks of instream work in dry 

conditions, however turbidity decreased by 87 percent in 3 hours and 96 percent in 15 hours. 

Placement of large wood and creation of micro-sites within the floodplain would also cause 

short-term, adverse effects through disturbance of soils. The proposed activities would 

improve resilience to high flow events through increased structure, provide a growth medium 

for future conifer recruitment, and would speed the rate of recovery of the floodplain in the 

long term. 

Cumulative Effects

The analysis area for cumulative effects includes the Upper Ohmer Creek watershed and the 

#19010210120304 7th HUC watershed as described under “Location” above and in Table 2. 

Alternative 1

The floodplain would continue to recover over the course of centuries. On streams and 

floodplains such as those in the project area where wood has been removed, hydrologic 

equilibrium is out of balance and aquatic habitat is either degraded or rapidly deteriorates. 

The removal of large wood and subsequent excavation of floodplain sand, gravel, and 

cobbles has initiated a cascading and connected series of hydrologic events which is leading 

to long term aquatic habitat and floodplain degradation within the instream project area. 

Large trees will continue to be affected by poor growing sites due to poor soil conditions and 

lack of woody (or other) floodplain structure providing microsites for growth. Stream habitat 

conditions along these relatively short reaches would continue to deteriorate due primarily to 

a lack of streambank stability resulting from the loss of wood. 

Alternative 2

Alternative 2 is expected to have long-term, beneficial cumulative effects to the restoration 

reaches. Beneficial effects would be expected in sediment transport and metering 

improvements, pool development, pool frequency and quality, improved streambank 

stability, and width-to-depth ratio reduction. These habitat improvements are expected to 

benefit fish as described above under “Fisheries.” 

The potential negative effects of this project to water quality (turbidity) and physical stream 

habitat (sedimentation) during the construction phase would be short-term in duration (hours 

to days), and are not expected to have long-term negative cumulative consequences. 

Cumulative harvest effects related to the wood collection portion of the project are expected 

to be minimal within the affected watersheds. An area of approximately 7 acres would 

provide approximately 110 trees for the project, whereas typical stocking rates for oldgrowth timber in this area range from 100-150 trees per acre (Parks, personal 

communication). The majority of the trees within this area would therefore be retained. 
 East Ohmer Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment 

19 

Cumulative harvest levels would increase 0.2 percent in the Woodpecker Cove-Frontal 

Sumner Strait watershed with Alternative 2 (Table 4). 

Old-growth tree harvest associated with this project would not occur in the Ohmer Creek – 

Frontal Blind Slough watershed where the proposed restoration streams are located. The 

effect of removing a small number of young-growth conifer and alder trees along the access 

routes to the streams (approximately 0.6 acres) does not appreciably add to cumulative 

harvest levels in this watershed. Use of these trees for puncheon material would help 

minimize the potential effects of excavator passage through the floodplain (see “Project 

Design Features” for description). 

Previous and planned harvest levels within these watersheds were considered and cumulative 

harvest levels are summarized in Table 4. The 2015 Mitkof Island EA proposed a maximum 

of 11.5 percent of this watershed to be harvested under Alternative 2 of that document (2.5 

percent in Upper Ohmer Creek Watershed). The Mitkof Island EA project has since been 

retracted and is therefore not reflected below in Table 4. 

Table 4. Summary of wood collection under Alternative 2 as it effects cumulative harvest

levels

6th HUC

Watershed

7th HUC

Watershed              

Total %

Watershed

Harvested

Total %

Harvested

since 1986

Foreseeable

Future

Harvest  

(% watershed)

Alternative 2

Cumulative

Harvest

(% increase)  

Ohmer

Creek‐

Frontal Blind

Slough

Upper Ohmer

Creek 22.3 0.0 0.0 0.0

Woodpecker

Cove‐ 

Frontal

Sumner

Straight

19010210120304 10.8 2.4 1.0 0.2

The impacts of the proposed activities are not expected to be significant nor result in longterm degradation of water quality, alter water quantity, nor affect any beneficial use of the 

water. The effects are expected to be short in duration and would be mitigated by following 

Forest Plan standards and guidelines, BMPs, and project design criteria incorporated into 

contract design. The proposed activities are covered under Nationwide Permit #27 pertaining 

to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Implementing the proposed action is expected to 

improve the long-term cumulative condition of stream and floodplain habitat within the 

watershed. 
 East Ohmer Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment 

20 

Soils

Alternative 1 ‐ No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Soils on the site are in a degraded condition. Topsoil, including duff layers and woody 

detritus has been removed from the site. The productivity of the site is much less than sites 

on similar landscape positions where the topsoil has not been removed. One to 3 meters of 

sands, gravels and topsoil were removed. That soil allowed hyporheic flows of water through 

the sands and gravels, and the soils supported a productive floodplain and alluvial fan forest. 

Currently, hyporheic flow is severely limited through the dense till and water flows over the 

till rather than through it. 

Under Alternative 1, soils would remain in a degraded condition. Natural recovery would 

require centuries if not millennia of sediment deposition from upstream areas. Hyporheic 

flows across the floodplain and alluvial fan would continue to be impaired. 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

The addition of large woody debris and topsoil would help the site recover more quickly, but 

there would still be many areas in a severely degraded condition. The woody debris and 

topsoil/rootwad areas would be nutrient hotspots and if the topsoil piles are well drained, 

they would support larger trees than the severely disturbed areas. Hyporheic flow would not 

be restored unless stabilized sands and gravels are brought to the site and floodplain 

connectivity restored. Alternative 2 as currently designed would not fully restore floodplain 

soil function. It would supply elevated microsites on the floodplain where conifer growth 

would not be inhibited by a dense till substrate. An engineered floodplain soil over the 20 

acres of severely disturbed soils is outside the scope of this project. 

Subsoiling of the dense till would loosen the soil and allow root and water penetration. 

However subsoiling may have an undesired effect of creating preferential flow paths in the 

soil and scour could occur during flood events, in essence creating new stream channels. 

Therefore subsoiling should only be used in areas where the risk of intercepting subsurface 

flow is minimal. 

Alternative 2 proposed to use wood from a seven acre roadside stand near Woodpecker 

Cove. The stand is mostly within 200 feet of the 6245 road, but yarding distance ranges up to 

450 feet in one corner. Soils on the site are mostly well drained and support a western 

hemlock dominated stand. A one acre area within the stand is on poorly and somewhat 

poorly drained soils. The well drained soils are suitable for root-wad harvest. The more 

poorly drained areas of the stand are better suited for log only harvest. 

Rootwad harvest can severely displace nutrient rich duff layers and upper soil horizons, 

negatively affecting soil productivity at the site. Rootwad harvest guidelines (Landwehr 

2009) were written to minimize effects to soils and maintain soil productivity. Initial 

monitoring of rootwad harvest areas indicates that soil quality standards and tree stocking 

requirements are met but growth of trees and other vegetation is likely slower than on 

adjacent conventional shovel yard sites (Foss 2015). Monitoring is ongoing, and it will be 
 East Ohmer Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment 

21 

several years before more definitive results (regarding plant growth and community 

composition) can be obtained. The effect of the rootwad removal would depend on how 

much topsoil, duff and slash is left on the site and how the topsoil, duff and slash is 

distributed across the site. Given the use of the rootwad harvest guidelines, relatively short 

yarding distances, gentle slopes, and avoidance or rootwad harvest on poorly or somewhat 

poorly drained soils, the effects to soils at the Woodpecker Cove rootwad harvest area are 

expected to be within soil quality standards. 

Cumulative Effects  

The analysis area for cumulative effects is the affected floodplain and alluvial fan. Impacts to 

soils are site specific and off-site effects from soil impacts (other than sedimentation) do not 

occur. Sedimentation is discussed in the hydrology section. The timeframe used is the 

estimated recovery times for soils under the various alternatives. Past activities are discussed 

in the affected environment section. There are no reasonably foreseeable activities associated 

within the analysis area for soils. 

Alternative 1

Under Alternative 1 the soils would slowly recover. The soils are supporting vegetation and 

as that vegetation advances, dies and decays soil productivity would slowly be improved. 

Hyporheic function across the severely disturbed area would take millennia or more to 

recover to pre-disturbance conditions. 

Alternative 2

Under the proposed action (Alternative 2) the changes in the stream may allow more water to 

access the degraded soils on the floodplain and alluvial fan. Because the soils on the 

floodplain consist of dense till near the surface more water on the floodplain may cause more 

flooding and wetland development and /or scour and erosion. Therefore care should be taken 

to prevent re-routing water to already wet areas of the floodplain. The creation of nurse log 

microsites and soil mound (topsoil or rootwad additions) would provide a rooting and 

growing medium that should be capable of supporting large conifers. Large conifers would 

help restore floodplain vegetation productivity and provide large woody debris that can add 

habitat complexity to the floodplain and streams. 

Wetlands

The analysis area for wetlands includes the floodplain and alluvial fan area where activities 

are proposed at the confluence of Ohmer and Lumpy Creeks and the wood harvest area near 

Woodpecker Cove. 

About 1 acre of forested wetland on a poorly drained organic soil exists in the wood harvest 

area adjacent to the 6245 road. The wetland is forested near the road and grades into a nonforested type north of the road. More forested wetland occurs south of the proposed harvest 

area. The forested wetland supports a hemlock and cedar-dominated stand. 

Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

No wood harvest is proposed, therefore no wetlands would be affected. 
 East Ohmer Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment 

22 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

The wetland is suitable for stem only harvest and the effects to the wetland would be minor 

as long as slash is used to support the equipment removing the logs. Timber harvest on many 

similar areas of wetland has resulted in minimal impacts to the wetland soils and hydrology 

and regeneration and growth is expected to be rapid, albeit slower than on well-drained sites. 

Cumulative Effects  

The analysis area for cumulative effects includes the wetlands in the vicinity of the proposed 

activities. A 15-year foreseeable future is the time boundary for the analysis. 

Past activities have impacted the wetland near the proposed wood harvest area. The 6245 

road has altered soil hydrology in the area causing a flush of woody vegetation (shore pine) 

north of the road. Given the low hydraulic conductivity of the organic soils in the wetland, 

the vegetation indicators, and the results of at least one road and soil water study on nearby 

Wrangell Island (Kahklen and Moll 1999) effects on soil hydrology are limited to within a 

few meters of the road. There is little evidence of a change in soil hydrology in the wetland 

area proposed for wood harvest. 

Although the Decision Notice (DN) for the Mitkof Island Environmental Assessment (EA), 

approving 28.5 MMBF of timber harvest on about 4,117 acres was retracted in 2015, a 

similar project may be proposed in the future. Under the 2015 Mitkof DN, no timber harvest 

was planned within the wetland where wood harvest is proposed for this project. 

The construction of the 6245 road changed the soil hydrology within a few meters of the 

road, including in the wetland where wood harvest is proposed in Alternative 2. The road 

improved soil drainage slightly. The area is still a forested wetland, but the area near the road 

is slightly dryer than before the road was built. The East Ohmer Creek Restoration Project 

proposes to harvest logs from this wetland using conventional shovel yard methods. The 

effects are described above. The area will remain wetland into the foreseeable future. The 

harvest would remove wood from about 1 acre of a 5-acre forested wetland. A similar 

undisturbed 26-acre forested wetland lies just north of the road. 

Botany

Potential effects are analyzed for the proposed project, stream channel and floodplain work 

as well as the harvest of source wood, to threatened, endangered, sensitive (TES), and rare 

plants. Additionally, the risk of spreading invasive species, or leading to the establishment of 

invasive species, is evaluated with respect to the proposed project activities. The area of 

analysis for the direct and indirect effects to populations of sensitive and rare plants is the 

project area. Mitkof Island is the area of analysis for cumulative effects. 

No rare or sensitive plant species were documented within the project area. Only one species, 

the lichen Lobaria amplissima is found in the vicinity of the project area. There is no suitable 

habitat within the project area, however. See Botany Resource Report and the Botany 

Biological Evaluation (BE) in the project record for additional information. 
 East Ohmer Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment 

23 

Alternative 1 ‐ No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

No ground disturbing activities would occur; therefore, there would be no direct effects. 

Indirectly, the no action alternative could contribute to the continued spread of non-native 

plants (reed canarygrass and creeping buttercup are currently present). These invasive plant 

species could out-compete native vegetation over time, further slowing down the recovery of 

the system to a natural state and impacting sensitive and rare plant habitat. 

Alternative 2 ‐ Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

The habitat is marginal for the occurrence of sensitive and rare plants due to the level of 

disturbance. The soils are saturated (with the exception of berms paralleling Lumpy Creek), 

the alder canopy shades the understory, and the soils are shallow and poorly developed. Instream, scouring of the riverbed and banks appears to occur regularly. The project area does 

have a fair amount of habitat variability: shallow ponds, creeks and streams, saturated red 

alder/skunk cabbage (Lysichiton americanum) floodplain, well-drained berms along the 

creek, Western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla)/Blueberry (Vaccinium) forest, and an old 

logging road. 

Plants and their respective habitats may be directly affected by installation of wood, thinning, 

felling trees, or associated activities. These effects could be adverse; however, given the 

disturbed nature of the restoration site, the effects could be positive in the long-term. The 

indirect impacts from changing hydrology or changing the light regime could again be either 

positive or negative. Any indirect effects related to the introduction of non-native plants 

would likely be negative. 

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1

The cumulative effect of doing nothing in this area could lead to invasive plants continuing 

to spread and alter habitat. 

Alternative 2

The cumulative effects of the East Ohmer Creek restoration project upon the sensitive and 

rare plant species and their habitat is evaluated based on knowledge of plant biology, 

preferred habitat, and the proximity of plant populations to past, present and future activities 

on Mitkof Island. Habitat on the Tongass is protected to some degree through Forest Plan 

wetland, riparian and beach standards and guidelines, as well as in non-development land use 

designations and old-growth reserves. Past management activities have likely had an effect 

on some populations; however, due to the low likelihood of sensitive/rare plant presence, the 

proposed action is not expected to contribute significantly to overall success of populations 

in the long term. 

For sensitive and rare plant species, the project may adversely impact individuals, but is not 

likely to result in a loss of viability in the Tongass or cause a trend toward federal listing 

(FSM 2672.42.2005). The likelihood of sensitive or rare species occurring in the project area 
 East Ohmer Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment 

24 

is low. Moreover, the habitat is highly degraded, so the installation of woody material in the 

floodplain may improve sensitive and rare plant habitat. 

Invasive Plants

The risk of spreading invasive species, or leading to the establishment of invasive species, is 

evaluated with respect to the proposed project activities. The area of analysis for the direct 

and indirect effects to populations of sensitive and rare plants is the project area. Mitkof 

Island is the area of analysis for cumulative effects. 

See the Invasive Plant Risk Assessment in the project record for additional information. 

Alternative 1 ‐ No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

The present conditions provide an opening for steady colonization by invasive plants. 

Creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens) is currently spreading via stoloniferous clones along 

the old logging road, and reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinaceae) is moving in to the pond 

habitat from FS Road 601400. No action would indirectly allow for the spread of these nonnative plants. 

Alternative 2 ‐ Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

The proposed action would contribute directly, as well as indirectly, to the spread of invasive 

plants as the seed source is already present. Increased foot and vehicular traffic, disturbed 

soil, a change in light regime, and a change in hydrology would all contribute to the 

colonization by plants. The already disturbed habitat from historical logging activities 

increases the likelihood of infestation. 

The establishment and spread of invasive plants would depend on the implementation and 

success of the project design features for this project. The overall risk is high if the current 

reed canarygrass and creeping buttercup populations are left alone. Opening the canopy 

would benefit both the reed canarygrass and the creeping buttercup, both of which are 

present on site. With no project design features in place to control invasives, reed canarygrass 

is likely to spread within the understory in the floodplain, along the pond edge, and on the 

old road bed – essentially anywhere within the project area that has an open canopy allowing 

sunlight to reach the ground. Creeping buttercup would likely continue to spread vegetatively 

on the drier sites that have partial sun exposure. 

The overall risk of invasive plants spreading as a result of the project is low to moderate if 

project design features are followed. The direct and indirect effects do not change; however, 

removing seed source and vegetative material from the site prior to restoration, as well as 

ensuring that tools and equipment are weed free, would greatly decrease the chance that the 
 East Ohmer Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment 

25 

non-native plants spread beyond where currently established. 

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1

No action would allow for the spread of reed canarygrass and creeping buttercup. The 

cumulative effect would be an increased potential for dispersal on Mitkof Island. 

Alternative 2

Recreation and subsistence use would continue within the project area. If project design 

features are not implemented, the project would likely contribute to the spread of invasive 

plants on Mitkof Island. The proposed design features would serve to decrease the spread of 

invasive plants locally. 

Wildlife

The full wildlife report is incorporated by reference into this EA and additional descriptions 

of wildlife species that may occur in the project area and their habitat requirements can be 

found in the wildlife report in the planning record (East Ohmer Creek Restoration Project 

Record, Petersburg Ranger District). 

The analysis area for direct, indirect and cumulative effects is Wildlife Analysis Area (WAA) 

2007. This area encompasses all project activities and also overlaps the Mitkof Island EA 

(MIA) project area. All of the effects for this project would occur within VCU 4520. 

The majority of trees used for this project are expected to come from the area with the 

highest volume class (i.e., SD5S-Volume Class 5). Based on a stocking rate of 100 – 150 

trees per acre for productive old growth (POG), removal of 110 trees would reduce POG by 2 

acres in the project area. Wildlife models were not applied to this analysis because at the 

spatial scale analyzed (WAA 2007), the removal of 2 acres of POG would be unmeasurable. 

Analyses are qualitative rather than quantitative; however, maximum effect to wildlife 

habitat would be the removal of 110 trees (2 acres of POG) from the identified wood 

collection area. 

Alternative 1 ‐ No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

The No Action alternative would result in no additional direct or indirect effects beyond the 

existing condition because no ground disturbing activities or habitat changes would occur. 

No additional old- or young-growth habitat would be affected. 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Direct and indirect effects of the proposed action would include both detrimental and 

beneficial effects. Detrimental effects would include the following: 

 Short term disturbance to wildlife from presence of humans during restoration 

activities; 
 East Ohmer Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment 

26 

 Reduction or redistribution of large woody debris that may provide nesting, denning, 

or foraging habitat for some wildlife species such as marten; 

 Reduction in old growth habitat where mature old growth trees are removed for 

instream treatments. 

Beneficial effects would include the following: 

 Increased understory forage associated with young growth harvest; and, 

 Improved or maintained stream habitat which may ensure productivity for fish that 

serve as prey species for predators such as wolves and bears. 

There would be no effect for Threatened or Endangered species, no impact for most sensitive 

species (excluding goshawks), and negligible to minor impacts to Management Indicator 

Species because one or more of the following conditions have been met: 

 The species does not regularly occur in the analysis area; or, 

 The species is restricted to marine environments, which would not be affected by the 

proposed activities; or, 

 The species habitat(s) would not be affected to the degree that population changes 

would be likely. 

Due to potential human disturbance at undocumented nest sites, this project may impact 

individual goshawks but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability. 

For more detail on species, their habitats, how they would be affected and the rationale 

behind effects determinations, please see the Biological Evaluation and associated wildlife 

resource reports in the planning record. 

Cumulative Effects  

Mitkof Island is among the most heavily harvested Islands on the Tongass National Forest. 

The same high level of harvest that has led to the need for instream treatment to improve or 

maintain fish habitat has also reduced wildlife habitat capability for species associated with 

old growth forest in the uplands. 

The MIA project proposes harvest of both old-growth and young-growth forest in WAA 

2007 (i.e., Mitkof Island) (USDA Forest Service 2015). There is no overlap between the 

wood collection area proposed for the East Ohmer Creek Restoration project and old-growth 

and young-growth harvest units in the MIA. 

While roughly 18 percent (14,561 acres) of the original POG in WAA 2007 has been 

harvested, the MIA project proposes to harvest an additional 843 acres of POG from this 

WAA, further reducing the percent original POG remaining by roughly 2 percent. High 

Volume POG and High Volume POG below 800 feet have been highly reduced in abundance 

in this area, and are proposed under the MIA project to be reduced to 62 percent and 56 

percent of their original (circa 1954) acres, respectively (USDA Forest Service 2015). 

Cumulative effects include impacts from possible future timber harvest both on federal and 

non-federal lands on Mitkof Island. Additional reduction of POG would reduce habitat, and 

thus would have negative effects to old growth dependent species. Impacts would be 

localized and would not impact the viability of old growth dependent species on the Tongass. 
 East Ohmer Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment 

27 

Management activities considered in the cumulative effects determinations for wildlife in 

association with the MIA project can be found in the Biological Evaluation and Fish and 

Wildlife Resource Report in the MIA planning record. 

Alternative 1

This alternative would not contribute to cumulative effects on wildlife resources in the 

analysis area because no disturbance activities would occur as a result of this alternative. 

Alternative 2

Activities proposed in the East Ohmer Creek Restoration project would include minimal 

harvest of live, standing old growth trees (~ 2 acres POG), resulting in a small reduction in 

habitat quality for species that rely on old-growth. This minimal harvest would not contribute 

measurably (i.e., ≤ .01 percent) to cumulative effects associated with old-growth harvest as 

described in the MIA project. Using old-growth trees for instream treatments may contribute 

to a reduction in mature forest stands, or structural changes to these stands. Depending on the 

configuration of harvest, these structural changes may benefit wildlife. Instream wood 

treatments should benefit wildlife through improved or maintained fish habitat and 

populations of fish prey species for wildlife. 

Timber

Alternative 1 ‐ No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

No timber would be harvested to provide large wood for this project. 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

The wood collection area is proposed to provide a source of material for the Ohmer Creek 

restoration project (Figure 2). Live green trees of low value, high defect, with and without 

rootwads attached would be selected. Trees used in the East Ohmer Creek / Lumpy Creek 

restoration project would be selected not for their commercial value, but for their value to 

provide woody material towards the formation of instream structures. 

The wood collection area is within a Scenic Viewshed LUD, making this area suitable for 

development activity. This area consists of low value defective, predominantly Western 

hemlock with minor amounts of defective or dead Alaska yellow-cedar. For this reason, the 

proposed wood collection area is suited for providing the needed woody material, while 

minimizing the impact to the commercial timber base. 

The amount of volume and acres of trees needed for this project is estimated about 60 Gross 

MBF (thousand board feet). This assumes 110 trees with an average diameter of 24 inches 

and a total height of 100 feet. The proposed wood collection area is about 7 acres. Of these 7 

acres, a 2-acre opening would be created where most of the harvested trees with rootwads 

attached would originate. 

The remaining 5 acres are located adjacent to existing FS road 6245. Individual trees would 

be selected, as needed, along an estimated 1,400 foot segment south/southwest of the road. 
 East Ohmer Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment 

28 

Wood would be transported by truck along existing Forest Service and State of Alaska roads 

to the restoration project site, where it would be temporarily decked along FS road 40010 

until construction of instream structures begins. 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects include impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

activities in the vicinity where wood sourcing would occur. Foreseeable future actions that 

could affect forest resources include pre-commercial thinning in the adjacent young-growth 

stands as well as old-growth timber harvest from small sale activity nearby. 

The continued development and treatment of existing young-growth combined with new 

harvest from future timber sales and existing old-growth stands would create a matrix of 

shifting forest conditions within the wood sourcing area and vicinity. This matrix would be 

composed of newly regenerating young-growth stands; young-growth stands moving into and 

progressing through the stem exclusion phase; young-growth stands outside of suitable 

timber lands that will begin to move into the understory re-initiation phase of development; 

and, ultimately, old-growth forest conditions. The cumulative effect of these conditions 

create a forested condition with a variety of stand structures of mixed tree species capable of 

providing a variety of habitat conditions within the project area. 

The proposed wood sourcing area includes acres that were not considered commercially 

viable for timber production when past logging occurred nearby between the late 1980s to 

early 90s and to date no microsale harvest activity has occurred within the proposed area. 

The Mitkof Island EA with Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was signed March 9, 

2015 and approved the harvest of an estimated 28.5 MMBF of timber on about 4,117 acres 

across Mitkof Island. After agency review, the EA, DN and FONSI were retracted. Future 

timber sales, however could be planned in the vicinity at a later date and under new direction. 

The Woodpecker Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) with Record of Decision (ROD), 

signed December 24, 2002, cleared about 5.4 MMBF within 400 acres. Additional harvest of 

dead and down trees was cleared under the Mitkof Microsales Categorical Exclusion, signed 

September 27, 2010. 

Past, present and reasonably foreseeable future small sales generated from the Woodpecker 

EIS can be found in the project record (Mitkof Island Catalog of Thinning, Small Sales and 

Salvage by VCU and the Mitkof Island Catalog of Timber Harvest by VCU). 

Alternative 1

No timber would be harvested to provide large wood for this project; therefore, this 

alternative would not cumulatively effect timber resources within the analysis area. 

Alternative 2

The harvest of low value high defect trees from two acres and individual tree removal along 

5 acres of existing road 6245 is considered negligible to the commercial timber base and not 

expected to have a significant effect. Further mitigation to the impact to the timber base 

would be achieved through consultation with foresters and the silviculturist to identify low 

value defective trees at the time of harvest. 
 East Ohmer Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment 

29 

Silviculture

Alternative 1 ‐ No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under Alternative 1, no new timber harvesting would occur. There would be no direct, or 

indirect effects to forest structure, forest health and productivity, and timber volume 

production under this alternative. 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Stands within the wood collection area consist primarily of high-defect Western hemlock 

with minor amounts of defective or dead Alaska yellow-cedar. Nearby young-growth stands 

were harvested from 1989 to 1993, and are predominantly Sitka spruce mixed with Western 

hemlock and Alaska yellow-cedar. Direct effects of the proposed action include harvesting 

approximately 110 trees, singly and in one group up to 2 acres in size, thus reducing the 

stand’s volume in the short-term by approximately 60 MBF. By targeting decadent low 

volume hemlock for removal, the percentage of spruce in the stand would increase, and forest 

health would improve by opening up growing space for younger more vigorous trees. The 

impact to future timber sale volume in the area would be minimal. 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities were 

assessed for stands within the two watersheds where project activities occur (see “Location”). 

The proposed harvest area is located within a Scenic Viewshed LUD, which allows harvest 

activities consistent with those proposed (USDA Forest Service 2008). 

Large-scale industrial logging began in the project area in 1954 and started with a clearcut 

along the beach in the south end of the Wrangell Narrows. This was followed by more 

clearcuts along the beach and the construction of logging roads in 1962. There has been 

approximately 13,000 acres of timber harvested since 1909 on Mitkof Island, approximately 

500 acres of which was within the Woodpecker Cove – Frontal Sumner Strait watershed. 

Past and present activities in this watershed include harvest cleared in the Woodpecker EIS 

and ROD, harvest of dead and down trees cleared under the Mitkof Microsales CE, and precommercial thinning activities in young-growth stands. 

Foreseeable future activities that affect the Silviculture resource include pre-commercial 

thinning in the adjacent young-growth stands and old-growth timber harvest from small sale 

activity near the wood collection source area (Figure 2). The 2015 Mitkof Island EA 

approved harvest of approximately 28.5 MMBF of timber on about 4,117 acres on Mitkof 

Island. The Mitkof Island decision was since retracted, but future timber sales may be 

planned in the vicinity within the next 10 years. 

Additional past, present and reasonably foreseeable future small sales generated from the 

Woodpecker EIS can be found in the project record (Mitkof Island Catalog of Thinning, 

Small Sales and Salvage by VCU and the Mitkof Island Catalog of Timber Harvest by VCU). 
 East Ohmer Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment 

30 

Alternative 1

Under Alternative 1, no new timber harvesting would occur; therefore, there would be no 

cumulative effects to forest structure, forest health and productivity, and timber volume 

production. 

Alternative 2

Stand composition within the Woodpecker Cove – Frontal Sumner Strait watershed includes 

a mix of species within young-growth and existing old-growth that when combined with 

harvest from future timber sale and pre-commercial thinning activities would maintain the 

existing matrix of varied forest conditions. The cumulative effect of implementing the 

proposed action would maintain a variety of stand structures, with mixed tree species capable 

of providing a suite of habitat conditions. This project would not lead to a change in the 

overall species composition or stand structure within the project area. 

Negative cumulative effects to forest vegetation from the proposed action would be minimal 

due to the limited area and volume of tree removal, and further minimized by adhering to the 

silvicultural prescription developed for this project. Overall, cumulative effects of the 

proposed action would be insignificant. 

Compliance with Other Laws and Regulations

National Forest management Act / 2008 Tongass Land and

Resources Management Plan

The proposed action is consistent with all Forest Plan standards and guidelines, and all 

proposed activities are allowable under the Modified Landscape Land Use Designation. No 

Forest Plan amendment would be required. 

The proposed action is consistent with the Forest-wide standards and guidelines for 

Wetlands. 

The proposed action is consistent with the principles and criteria of the State of Alaska’s 

Policy for the Management of Sustainable Salmon Fisheries (5AAC.39.222); specifically, 

section (c)(1) which identifies the importance of maintaining wild salmon habitat at levels of 

resource productivity that assures sustained yields, and calls for the restoration of degraded 

salmon spawning, incubating, and rearing habitats. 

Endangered Species Act (1973, as amended)

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

species. There would be no effect on any threatened, endangered or proposed species under 

either alternative. 

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

No bald eagle nests have been documented within the project area. Management activities 

with comply with 50 CFR 22.26. 
 East Ohmer Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment 

31 

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, this action would not result in a 

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

foods. 

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. The BMPs are 

incorporated into the Tongass Land Management Plan. 

The Forest Service issued National Core BMPs in 2012 (USDA Forest Service 2012). The 

East Ohmer Creek Restoration project would implement the most up-to-date BMP guidance. 

Clean Air Act (1970, as amended)

Emissions from the implementation of the East Ohmer Creek Restoration project would be of 

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

(18 AAC 50). 

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. 

Magnuson‐Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) consultation was initiated on October 9, 2015. No comments 

were received. 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

A Forest Service archeologist has reviewed this project under the provisions of Section 106 

and has made a determination of No Historic Properties Affected in the area of potential 

effect for the proposed project. 
 East Ohmer Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment 

32 

Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA) of 1990

Forest Plan riparian standards and guidelines apply to the project and no commercial timber 

harvest would occur because of the proposed action. The design and implementation 

direction incorporates best management practices (BMPs), and Forest Plan standards and 

guidelines for the protection of all stream classes. 

E.O. 11988 (Floodplains), E.O. 11990 (Wetlands)

The project is located within the floodplain of East Ohmer and Lumpy Creeks and about one 

acre of the proposed wood harvest area. The project would not negatively impact the 

functional value of any floodplain as defined by Executive Order 11988 and would not have 

negative impacts on wetlands as defined by Executive Order 11990. 

E.O. 12962 (Recreational Fisheries)

The project is consistent with Executive Order 12962 since it improves the quantity, 

function, sustainable productivity, and distribution of United States aquatic resources for 

increased recreational fishing opportunities. 

E.O. 12898 (Environmental Justice)

Implementation of this project is not anticipated to cause disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects on minority populations and low income populations 

because the proposed activities are not expected to cause any effects to human health or 

result in meaningful adverse environmental consequences. 

E.O. 12962 (Aquatic Systems, Recreational Fisheries)

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

standards and guidelines, BMPs, and site-specific mitigation measures. Recreational fishing 

opportunities would be protected, are not expected to be negatively affected, and would 

likely be enhanced. 

E.O. 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites)

Tribal governments or their authorized representatives are responsible for notifying the 

agency of the existence of a sacred site. No sacred sites were identified within the project 

area. 

E.O. 13112 (Invasive Species)

Design criteria are included to reduce the potential for introduction and spread of invasive 

species. The need to treat invasive species presently established would remain. 

E.O. 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
 East Ohmer Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment 

33 

Governments)

The following federally recognized tribal governments and organizations were contacted via 

a scoping letter and briefed by the district ranger during coordination meetings: 

 Petersburg Indian Association 

 Wrangell Cooperative Association 

 Sealaska Corporation 

 Central Council Tlingit and Haida Tribes of Alaska 

 Sealaska Heritage 

E.O. 13186 (Migratory Birds)

The project is anticipated to enhance habitat for migratory birds using the project area and to 

have a long-term beneficial effect. 

E.O. 13443 (Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife

Conservation)

The project would have no effect on hunting opportunities in the East Ohmer Creek 

Restoration project area. 

Agencies and Persons Contacted

The interdisciplinary team of Forest Service resource specialists was consulted in the 

development of the environmental analysis. Other agencies, entities, and individuals 

contacted include the following: 

 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Habitat – Fish Habitat Title 16 

Concurrence 

 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Petersburg, Alaska 

 Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry 

The following Federal and State agencies would be consulted prior to implementation of 

instream work as per State and Federal requirements: 

 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries 

Service 

 Department of the Army, U.S. Army Engineer District, Alaska 

 Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Office of Project Management and 

Permitting 

The project was listed on the Petersburg Ranger District Schedule of Proposed Action 

(SOPA) beginning March 27, 2015. A scoping letter was posted on July 27, 2015 on the 

Tongass National Forest website for the Petersburg Ranger District requesting public input. 

A legal notice offering a 30-day comment period on the Proposed Action was posted in the 

Petersburg Pilot, the newspaper of record, on July 30, 2015. 
 East Ohmer Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment 

34 

REFERENCES

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. 2013. Alaska’s Nonpoint Source Water 

Pollution Control Strategy. 

http://dec.alaska.gov/water/wnpspc/pdfs/NPS_Strategy.pdf 

Bilby, Robert E. 1984. Removal of Woody Debris May Affect Stream Channel Stability. 

Journal of Forestry Vol. 82, #10: 609-613. 

Bilby, R.E., and J.W. Ward. 1989. Changes in Characteristics and Function of Woody Debris 

with Increasing Size of Streams in Western Washington. Transactions of the 

American Fisheries Society 118:368-378. 

Bryant, M.D. 1983. The Role and Management of Woody Debris in West Coast Salmonid 

Nursery Streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 3:322-330. 

Carah, Jennifer K., Christorpher C. Blencowe, David W. Wright and Lisa A. Bolton. 2014. 

Low-Cost Restoration Techniques for Rapidly Increasing Wood Cover in Coastal 

Coho Salmon Streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 34:5. 

1003-1013. 

Clark, Steven M., Jason B. Dunham, Jeffrey R. McEnroe, and Scott W. Lightcap. 2014. 

Breeding Site Selection by Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in Relation to 

Large Wood Additions and Factors that Influence Reproductive Success. Canadian 

Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 71: 1498-1507. 

Foss, Jacqueline. 2015. Soil Quality Monitoring Results from LWD collection site Unit 19, 

Soda-Nick Timber Sale and Photo Point Locations. USDA Forest Service monitoring 

report available in the project record and by request. 

Hicks, B.J., J.D. Hall, P.A. Bisson, and J.R. Sedell. 1991. Responses of Salmonids to Habitat 

Changes. In Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes 

and Their Habitats. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19: 17-46. 

Bethesda, Maryland. 

Jones, Kim K., Kara Anlauf-Dunn, Paul S. Jacobsen, Matt Strickland, Lora Tennant, Sharon 

E. Tippery. 2014. Effectiveness of Instream Wood Treatments to Restore Stream 

Complexity and Winter Rearing Habitat for Juvenile Coho Salmon. Transactions of 

the American Fisheries Society 143: 334-345. 

Kahklen, Keith and Jeffry Moll. 1999. Measuring Effects of Roads on Groundwater: Five 

Case Studies. USDA Forest Service, Technology & Development Program. #9977 

1801 – SDTDC. 24 pp. 

Landwehr, Dennis. 2009. Guidelines for Rootwad Tree Harvest. White paper available by 

request. 9/16/2009. 

Murphy, Michael L. and K V. Koski. 1989. Input and Depletion of Woody Debris in Alaska 

Streams and Implications for Streamside Management. North American Journal of 

Fisheries Management 9: 427-436. 
 East Ohmer Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment 

35 

Murphy, M.L., and W.R. Meehan. 1991. Stream Ecosystems. In Influences of Forest and 

Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. American Fisheries 

Society Special Publication 19: 17-46. Bethesda, Maryland. 

Parks, Renaker. 2015. Personal communication regarding typical stocking rates for young 

growth and old growth trees on Mitkof Island. 

Prussian, Katherine. 2007. Turbidity Monitoring of Fubar Creek Restoration. USDA Forest 

Service, Tongass National Forest, Craig Ranger District. White paper available upon 

request. 

Roni, Philip, Tim Beechie, George Pess and Karrie Hanson. 2015. Wood Placement in River 

Restoration: Fact, Fiction and Future Direction. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 

Aquatic Sciences. 72: 466-478. 

Roni, Philip and Thomas P. Quinn. 2001. Density and size of juvenile salmonids in response 

to placement of large wood debris in western Oregon and Washington streams. 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 58: 282-292. 

USDA Forest Service. 2006. Soil and Water Conservation Handbook. US Forest Service 

Alaska Region 10: R10-2509.22-2006-2. Chapter 10, Section 14.26. Juneau, Alaska. 

117 pp. 

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. 

R10-MB-603. 

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

Management on National Forest System Lands. FS-990. April 12. 

USDA Forest Service. 2015. Watershed Condition Framework website: 

http://apps.fs.usda.gov/WCFmapviewer/. Accessed 07/21/15. 

USDA Forest Service. 2015. Mitkof Island Environmental Assessment, Decision Notice and 

Finding of No Significant Impact. R10-MB-760a. March 2015. 40 pp. Website 

access: http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=29099.