United States Department of Agriculture

Shelikof Creek Restoration Project

Environmental Assessment

August 2015

SHELIKOF CREEK NEAR SITKA, ALASKA

Forest Service

Alaska Region

 Tongass National Forest

 Sitka Ranger District R10-MB-798 August 2015
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.

Federal Recycling Program

Printed on Recycled Paper
1

Shelikof Creek Stream Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Location

The Shelikof Creek Restoration Project area is located in the central portion of Kruzof Island and is 

located approximately 20 miles northwest of Sitka, Alaska (Figure 1). Restoration work will be 

implemented on the lower 2.5 miles of Shelikof Creek and are generally located in Township 54 South, 

Range 61 East, Sections 21-23, of the Copper River Meridian. Shelikof Creek flows westward across the 

island and drains into Shelikof Bay and the Pacific Ocean. The entire project area is administered by the 

Tongass National Forest and fall within the Modified Landscape and Semi-Remote Recreation Land Use 

Designations (LUDs)

FIGURE 1. VICINITY MAP
2

Shelikof Creek Stream Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Need for the Proposal

There is a need to improve stream habitat conditions for anadromous salmon and trout in Shelikof Creek. 

Shelikof Creek is currently degraded because of past land management activities which include previous 

timber harvest without stream buffers and stream cleaning (removal of Large Wood from the stream 

channel); this has reduced the quality and quantity of spawning and rearing habitat for anadromous 

salmon and trout. Specifically, there is a lack of pool habitat, a lack of stream habitat complexity and a 

lack of high and low water refugia (resting areas for fish).

This project is a key component of the Iris-Shelikof Watershed Action Plan. This project, in combination 

with other restoration activities included in the 2014 Kruzof Island Restoration Project Environmental 

Assessment will provide for a holistic watershed restoration effort within the watershed to provide new

habitat as well as enhancement of existing habitat for aquatic and riparian wildlife species.

Description of Alternatives

Two alternatives were considered for this analysis, No Action and the Proposed Action.

No Action

The No Action alternative would not result in any modification of existing condition in Shelikof Creek.

Shelikof Creek would remain devoid of stable large wood and pool habitat for decades until such time as 

natural recruitment occurs. No ground disturbing activities or vegetation alteration would occur. No 

compensatory benefits of effects to wildlife species would occur.

Proposed Action:

The Proposed Action is to:

 Use of the Mud Bay Marine Access Facility (MAF) and Forest Road 7590 to facilitate equipment 

access to Kruzof Island and the Project Area.

 Clearing of trees along the margin of the Mud Bay MAF to provide room for equipment storage, 

contractor camp and possible helicopter landing.

 Young Growth Trees: Mechanically harvest approximately 150 trees with rootwads attached and 

another 50 trees from roadside stands for mechanical construction of approximately 15 large wood 

(LW) structures.

 Old Growth Trees: Hand harvest approximately 75 live and windblown trees for placement by 

helicopter to construct approximately 25 single and multiple tree LW structures.

 Used Bridge Stringer Logs: Mechanically place 16 stockpiled logs from a replaced bridge to create 

LW structures.

 Reopen up to 1000 feet of decommissioned road to access the stream channel to facilitate restoration 

activities. Reopened roads would be decommissioned upon completion of project;

 Replace two existing culverts that are currently blocking fish passage. Culverts are located at 

Milepost 2.936 and 3.316 of Forest Road 7590.

Heavy equipment such as helicopters, excavators and dump trucks would be utilized in addition to hand 

labor to implement the proposed actions. Heavy equipment would be procured through contracting. The 

amount and extent of implementation would be dependent on budget allocated to this project.

Time and Duration of Activity—the work is anticipated to occur over a two year period, mainly during 

summer months, beginning as early as 2016. 
3

Shelikof Creek Stream Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

FIGURE 2. SHELIKOF CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – RESTORATION FEATURE LOCATIONS.

Design Criteria

Design criteria have been specifically developed for this project to reduce the amount of impact this 

project will have on the environment. Additionally, National and Forest level Best Management Practices 

(BMPs) will be implemented to ensure the least amount of impact occurs. BMPs are a set of standardized 

measures or practices that describe the least impactive methods or operating procedures to ensure 

environmental compliance. 

1. An erosion/sediment control plan would be created prior to project construction.(BMP 14.5).
4

Shelikof Creek Stream Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

2. Contractor should coordinate with District Special Uses Permit Administrator concerning the timing 

of on-the-ground activities, as well as, permitted outfitter and guides in the area on work schedule for 

possible delays to minimize impacts to their operations (preferably the winter before).

3. Contractor will notify public of project timing to reduce interruptions in use in this popular recreation 

area.

4. Limit clearing along road that will create openings that would allow/entice off-road motorized use or 

open views to unnatural features (e.g. rock pits).

5. Align access roads to minimize their presence.

6. Contractor(s) shall not use the Mud Bay Shelter or Mud Bay Mooring Buoy.

7. In-channel construction activities are subject to timing windows and would be determined per the 

Title 16 Memorandum of Understanding with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game—Habitat 

Division. (BMPs 14.6, 18.3)

8. The culvert construction sites should be isolated, and fish must be removed. Sites should be partially 

dewatered to aid removal effort. Fish must be handled in accordance with the Fish Resource Permit 

guidelines and returned to the stream downstream of the work area unless otherwise specified in the 

permit. (BMPs 14.15, 18.3)

9. All access route puncheons shall be fluffed to reduce soil compaction and aid in revegetation.

10. Areas disturbed by mechanical means will be seeded and fertilized using the Tongass National Forest 

approved seed mixture. (BMP 12.17)

11. If activities are interrupted by seasonal or extended shutdowns (greater than 1 month) erosion control 

measures should be completed prior to suspension or shutdown. (BMP 14.11)

12. A Forest Service fisheries biologist, fisheries technician or hydrologist should be on-site during 

construction activities to monitor the project.

13. Vegetable-based hydraulic oils will be used in equipment operating in or near water.

14. Fueling of equipment shall be a minimum of 100 feet from stream channel.

15. All equipment and materials must be cleaned prior to arrival on Kruzof Island to reduce the potential 

for invasive plants.

16. Areas suitable for staging construction materials and equipment will be identified on-site.

17. If any heritage resources are discovered during construction, all construction must cease and Forest 

Service archeologist must be notified.

Environmental Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action 

Alternative

The environmental impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action are described below. The discussion 

focuses on resources most likely to be affected by the alternatives.

Botany

No Action – The No Action Alternative would not affect botanical resources. No ground disturbance 

would occur and there would be no risk of introducing invasive species, or disturbing rare or sensitive 

species. The invasive species presently established would remain.

Proposed Action – The proposed activities have the potential to affect botanical resources. No rare or 

sensitive species were found in past surveys. Should a rare or sensitive species be found, mitigation

measures would be developed to reduce or minimize impacts to that species. Design criteria should 

reduce, but not fully eliminate the potential for introduction and spread of invasive species to places they 

currently are not located. The invasive species presently established would remain.
5

Shelikof Creek Stream Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Fisheries

No Action – The No Action Alternative would not affect the current condition of fisheries resources.

Shallow, cold water with instances of freezing in winter, lack of complex instream habitat, poor quality

riparian vegetation and undesirable levels of fine sediments entering the stream would continue to 

contribute to low utilization and therefore, decreased levels of spawning and rearing success.

Proposed Action – The Proposed Action may result in some short-term (during actual construction) 

adverse effects to Essential Fish Habitat, anadromous and resident fish through sedimentation and 

disturbance. These effects are minimized through the implementation of design criteria such as erosion 

control plans. The effects are not expected to result in long-term degradation of water quality, alter water 

quantity, nor affect any beneficial use of the water. However, a long-term beneficial effect (occurring 

after 1 to 3 years and lasting greater than 5 years) is expected for the following reasons:

1. Increased water depth in existing pools along with creation of new pools should increase rearing 

success for Coho salmon and steelhead trout during low flow periods;

2. Increased habitat complexity offering different habitats for different species and life stages should 

increase rearing and survival of fish;

3. Decreased fine sediments from bank erosion should result in increased spawning and rearing 

success;

4. Establishment large wood structures should provide some overhead cover for fish and may 

contribute to an increase in utilization and survival;

5. Stabilization of habitat features (pools, riffles, gravel bars), as will flows will aid in overwintering 

survival of eggs from all species of anadromous fish (pinks, chums and Coho)

A General Concurrence with National Marine Fisheries Service covers the proposed activities affecting 

Essential Fish Habitat. 

The following ranks the proposed activities in order beneficial effects to fisheries:

1. Increased habitat complexity through addition of large wood structures

2. Create deep water habitat;

3. Reduction of fine sediment in spawning gravels;

Hydrology

No Action – The No Action Alternative would not affect hydrological resources. Existing conditions 

would remain. Stream would remain degraded from past management activities. Lack of large wood 

within the system would continue to allow higher stream velocity during high flow events leading to 

continued stream bank erosion and channel widening. During low water periods, channel drying and/or 

freezing could lead to aquatic species stress or decrease survival.

Proposed Action – The Proposed Action would result in short-term (during actual construction) 

adverse effects to water resources in the form of sedimentation and substrate disturbance. These effects 

are minimized through the implementation of design criteria such as erosion control plans. The effects are 

not expected to result in long-term degradation of water quality, alter water quantity, nor affect any 

beneficial use of the water. From past experiences with similar restoration projects, this reduction in 

water quality will be limited to within a couple hundred feet downstream of work area and last only 

within the timeframe of active work. 

Lands, Special Use

No Action – No work to improve instream habitat and riparian function is proposed under Alternative 1; 

therefore, this Alternative would have no direct or indirect effects on lands or minerals.
6

Shelikof Creek Stream Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Proposed Action – The Action Alternative does not propose to acquire or dispose of any property or 

terminate any special use authorizations. The proposed Shelikof Creek stream restoration project would 

not interfere with the issuance of any easement or any State issued permits and would have no direct or 

indirect effects under the action alternative. There are no current mineral operations.

The reasons noted above demonstrate there are no direct or indirect effects to lands/minerals from either

alternative. Use of the Mud Bay MAF to access the project area, stage equipment and supplies, and 

possibly house contractors the contractor will required a Alaska DNR land use permit from the Division 

of Minerals, Land and Water since the Forest Service does not have a current easement for the Mud Bay 

MAF.

Recreation

No Action – No work to improve instream habitat and riparian function is proposed under this action; 

therefore, this Alternative would have no direct or indirect effects on the existing recreation resource.

Proposed Action – During project implementation, expect the activities to detract from the recreation 

experience for both the guided and unguided user during construction (approximately 3-4 weeks). 

Helicopter operations and equipment mobilization/demobilization would result in temporary closures of 

both the Mud Bay MAF and FDR 7590. Trail access and current private OHV parking would be affected. 

These impacts would be short term in duration. Visual impacts at the Mud Bay MAF and along FDR 

7590 would be fairly short term in nature as Red Alder would quickly reestablish at the sites. 

A contractor camp and possible helicopter landing area located at the Mud Bay trailhead would affect 

Greenling Enterprises permitted operation. Greenling Enterprises has an assigned site at the trailhead 

where they stage their OHVs and associated parts/equipment and it is where they start and conclude their 

OHV tours. Other outfitter/guides and the non-guided public may be impacted to a lesser extent by the 

presence of a temporary camp or landing zone. The contractor camp will only be setup during actual 

construction (approximately 3-4 weeks) and will be located apart from Greenling assigned site and should 

only impact them in a visual sense. The helicopter landing area, if used, will encompass a large portion of 

the Mud Bay MAF, due to safety considerations. If needed, this use will be of a short duration (2-3 days) 

and will require temporary closure (during takeoff, landing and refueling) of the entire MAF for safety. 

Additionally, clearing of some trees and stored OHVs may also be necessary to provide a safe landing 

zone. Contract specifications will require the equipment and helicopter contractors to provide adequate 

notice to the public and outfitter/guides using the area of closure times to minimize impacts to those user 

groups.

In the long term, expect improved fishing and bear viewing opportunities for the guided and unguided 

user as fish populations improve. Visuals along the trail system adjacent to treated areas would likely 

improve provided user created OHV routes are not established.

Soils, Wetlands, Floodplains

No Action – The No Action Alternative would not affect soil, wetland, or floodplain resources because 

no ground disturbance would occur.

Proposed Action – The Proposed Action would result in short-term (1-3 months) adverse effects to 

floodplains and riparian soils in the form of exposing bare soils due to tree tipping and access road 

construction until these areas revegetate. These effects are minimized through the implementation of 

design criteria such as erosion control plans, use of puncheon to minimize soil compaction and post 

construction seeding. The effects are not expected to result in long-term degradation of soils, wetlands or 

floodplains. 
7

Shelikof Creek Stream Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Timber

No Action – The No Action Alternative would not affect the vegetation/timber resources because no 

management activities would take place.

Proposed Action – The Proposed Action would result in a number of trees being removed from an area 

that will likely not see timber management or removal due to the proximity to streams. 

The direct effect would be thinning operations in a riparian area and the presence of machinery to 

remove/place the thinned trees into the project area. A number of trees would be removed to aid in access 

to the project area. The stands from which trees will be taken have previously been thinned to a 14 by 14 

foot spacing. Removal of trees for restoration will widen this spacing closer to a 20 by 20 foot spacing 

which more closely mimics natural riparian tree spacing. These areas will respond with successional 

understory vegetative growth and increased tree diameter growth which will provide a better quality tree 

for future wood recruitment to the stream. 

The indirect effect would be creation of gaps in the overstory vegetation from removal of co-dominant 

trees. Preference would be to take trees with defects and existing blown down trees, further minimizing 

the effects on vegetation and stand health. Presence of machinery would not produce any long term 

negative effects to the spread of invasive species since mitigation standards are in all contracts to reduce 

the potential spread of species via heavy machinery. 

The minimal direct and indirect effects result in a minimal negative cumulative effect to forest health. The 

vegetation would see beneficial effects from the eventual restoration/stabilization of the stream and the 

thinning of the surrounding riparian vegetation.

Wildlife

No Action – The No Action Alternative would maintain existing levels and use of wildlife habitat. 

Current riparian conditions where source trees will be removed consist of tightly spaced conifer trees 

(14’ x 14’), which allows little light for understory vegetation and wildlife habitat. 

Proposed Action – The Proposed Action may result in some short-term (1year) adverse effects to 

wildlife species via disturbance and displacement of a few individuals during project implementation. 

However, a long-term beneficial effect (occurring after 1 year) is expected through improved understory 

and riparian vegetative conditions, as well as, improved instream habitat conditions, which should lead to 

greater species richness across the landscape.

Compliance with Other Laws and Regulations

National Forest Management Act – The Proposed Action is consistent with the 2008 Forest Plan 

standards and guidelines, and all proposed activities are allowed under the Modified Landscape and SemiRemote Recreation Land Use Designations 1. 

The Proposed Action is consistent with the Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for Wetlands2. 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.

 

1

2008 Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan. Pages 3-63 through 3-38 and 3-109 through 3-115.

2

2008 Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan. Page 4-88.
8

Shelikof Creek Stream Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

The design of the Proposed Action was guided by standards, guidelines and direction in the Forest Plan 

and applicable Forest Service Manuals and Handbooks.

Endangered Species Act – Biological evaluations were completed for threatened, endangered, 

proposed and sensitive species. No effect to threatened, endangered or proposed species would occur 

under either alternative.

Bald Eagle Protection Act – Management activities within bald eagle habitat will be in accordance to

a Memorandum of Understanding between the Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

ANILCA Section 810, Subsistence Evaluation and Finding –There is no documented or reported 

subsistence use that would be restricted because of this proposed action. 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) – Proposed activities meet all applicable State of Alaska 

Water Quality Standards. The Forest Service must apply BMPs that are consistent with the Alaska Forest 

Resources and Practices Act (AFRPA) to achieve Alaska Water Quality Standards. The site-specific 

application of BMPs, with a monitoring and feedback mechanism, is the approved strategy for controlling 

nonpoint source pollution as defined by Alaska’s Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Strategy (2007). In 

1997, the State approved the BMPs in the Forest Service Soil and Water Conservation Handbook (FSH 

2509.22, October 1996) as consistent with AFRPA. This handbook is incorporated into the Forest Plan.

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act – This project is a fish 

enhancement project, therefore there will be a beneficial impact to Essential Fish Habitat (EFH).

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 –A Forest Service archeologist has reviewed this 

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

the proposed project.

Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA) of 1990 – Forest Plan riparian Standards and Guidelines 

apply to the project and no commercial timber harvest will occur. The design and implementation 

direction incorporates best management practices (BMPs), 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 

Shelikof Creek but will not impact the functional value of any floodplain as defined by Executive Order 

11988 and will not have negative impacts on wetlands as defined by Executive Order 11990.

E.O. 12962 (Recreational Fisheries) – The project is consistent with Executive Order 12962, in that 

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 affects 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 enhanced and protected as well.

E.O. 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments) – The 

following federally recognized tribal governments and organizations were contacted via the scoping letter

and briefed by the District Ranger during monthly coordination meetings:
9

Shelikof Creek Stream Restoration Project Environmental Assessment 

 Sitka Tribe of Alaska

 Shee Atika, Inc.

 Sealaska Corporation

 Central Council Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska

E.O. 13186 (Migratory Birds) – The project is not anticipated to negatively affect migratory bird 

species in the long-term (> 5 years) utilizing the project area. 

Agencies and Persons Contacted 

An interdisciplinary team of Forest Service of resource specialists was consulted in the development of 

this environmental analysis. 

The Forest Service mailed out a scoping letter requesting scoping comments on February 20, 2015. One 

comment from the State of Alaska was received. 

This EA will be provided to all who commented on this project as well as to all those who remained on 

the electronic mailing list. A legal notice offering a 30-day comment period on the proposed action will 

be posted in the Daily Sitka Sentinel, the newspaper of record, August 2015. The new regulations at 36 

CFR 218 now provide for a pre-decision administrative review rather than a post-decision appeal process. 

After the comment period on the EA, we will release a draft decision and will publish a legal notice 

initiating a 45-day objection period in the Daily Sitka Sentinel. At that point, members of the public 

may file an objection seeking a pre-decisional administrative review of the proposed project and 

activities. No appeal period will be provided after the final decision is made.