Chapter 2 

Alternatives 
Chapter 2 

Table of Contents 

Introduction........................................................................................... 1 

Development of the Proposed Action................................................... 2 

Development of Alternatives ................................................................ 2 

Alternatives Considered in Detail......................................................... 3 

Identification of the Preferred Alternative............................................ 4 

Design Criteria Common to all Action Alternatives............................. 4 

Mitigation Measures ............................................................................. 7 

Projects Common to all Action Alternatives ........................................ 8 

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ............. 9 

Monitoring .......................................................................................... 11 

Comparison of Alternatives ................................................................ 12 
Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 2 1

 

Chapter 2 

Alternatives 

Introduction 

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered by the 

Forest Service for the Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest project to 

meet the Purpose and Need and to respond to the Significant Issues as 

described in Chapter 1. It includes a description and map of each 

alternative. The following topics are discussed: 

 The development of the Proposed Action and alternatives, 

 A description and map of each alternative considered in detail, 

 An overview of design elements 

 A comparison of the alternatives focusing on the evaluation 

criteria for the Significant Issues, 

 Alternatives eliminated from detailed study, and 

 Mitigation, other proposed projects, and monitoring 

This chapter presents the alternatives in comparative form to inform 

the public and other agencies, and to provide a basis for a decision by 

the responsible official (40 CFR 1502.14). For a complete discussion 

of the effects used to compare alternatives, consult Chapter 3, 

“Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences”. 

A Logging System and Transportation Analysis (LSTA) was 

developed to include all suitable commercial forest land as identified 

by the National Forest Management Act and the Forest Plan. From 

that LSTA, potential timber harvest units were identified. These units 

were field-verified to ensure their suitability, to identify any concerns, 

and to determine which silvicultural prescriptions would be feasible. 

In response to the Significant Issues and comments received during 

scoping, a No-action alternative, the Proposed Action, and two other 

action alternatives were developed. Other alternatives were 

considered but dropped from detailed analysis. The development of 

the alternatives led to deferring several potential timber harvest units 

from further consideration at this time. 
2 Alternatives 

2  Chapter 2 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

Development of the Proposed Action 

The initial unit pool was designed to harvest approximately 40 MMBF 

(estimated from sawlog volume). Preliminary field exams revealed 

much lower volume than expected. Possible units were added to the 

unit pool and a second public involvement letter went out recognizing 

the project could harvest up to 80 MMBF through the development of 

alternatives. 

Units that did not meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines (when all 

the Best Management Practices, project design and mitigations were 

included) were eliminated from the unit pool. The proposed action 

was adjusted to include the remaining second round units and better 

respond to timber economic concerns while remaining within the 

scope of the original proposed action. 

During the development of alternatives, a preliminary deer habitat 

alternative was developed. In comparison, there were few differences 

between this alternative and the proposed action. Design elements of 

the deer habitat alternative were brought forward into the proposed 

action and the deer habitat alternative eliminated from further study. 

Specifically, units in acres of concentrated past and proposed harvest 

were dropped or prescribed with 50 percent retention to facilitate 

potential travel corridors. Also, units were dropped to promote 

additional connectivity between small old growth reserves. In 

response to the reduction of volume, additional units with no deer 

habitat or wildlife issues were added to the proposed action. 

Development of Alternatives 

A group of resource specialists, making up the Interdisciplinary Team 

(IDT), considered varied alternatives to the Proposed Action to 

provide a reasonable range of options for meeting the purpose of this 

project. Alternatives were designed to address the issues identified 

during scoping (See Chapter 1). They were also designed to meet 

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines (2008 Forest Plan) and 

applicable laws. Each action alternative represents a site-specific 

proposal developed through intensive interdisciplinary evaluation and 

field verification. Within the range of options they provide, the 

decision maker can consider various combinations of alternatives in 

determining the Selected Alternative. 
Alternatives 2

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 2 3

Alternatives Considered in Detail 

The No-Action Alternative (Alternative 1), Proposed Action 

(Alternative 2) and two other action alternatives (Alternatives 3 and 4) 

are considered in detail in this chapter. Alternatives 3 and 4 provide 

alternate means of satisfying the Purpose and Need for this project 

than does the Proposed Action. They respond differently to the 

significant issues that are discussed in this chapter. Maps of all 

alternatives considered in detail are provided at the end of Chapter 2. 

The map for Alternative 1, the No-action Alternative, represents the 

current condition of the project area (See figures 2-1 through 2-4, at 

the end of this chapter, for maps of each alternative. Larger-scale 

maps of the alternatives are contained in the project record.) 

Alternative 1 proposes no new timber harvest or road construction in 

the Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest project area at this time. It 

does not preclude future timber harvest or other activities from this 

area. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 

CFR 1502.14d) requires that a “No Action” alternative be analyzed in 

every EIS. This alternative represents the existing condition against 

which the other alternatives are compared. 

Alternative 2 is the Proposed Action and was designed to meet the 

Purpose and Need for this project. It would offer up to 46.8 MMBF 

(sawlog and utility) of timber from 2,506 acres. It would provide 

2,031 acres (81%) of clearcut (CC), 33 acres (1%) clearcut with 

reserves (CCR), and 442 acres (18%) uneven-aged management. 

There would be 7.3 miles of new NFS road constructed, 2.9 miles of 

reconstructed road, and 3.9 miles of temporary road construction to 

access timber. 

Alternative 2 was designed to address concerns related to timber 

economics and deer habitat. 

 

Alternative 3 would provide the largest amount of volume of all the 

alternatives. It proposes harvesting 70.2 MMBF (sawlog and utility) 

from 3,647 acres. It would provide 3,127 acres (86%) of clearcut 

(CC), and 520 acres (14%) uneven-aged management. This 

alternative proposes helicopter yarding for those units where access by 

road construction is not feasible. Ground based systems and 

associated road construction are analyzed for this alternative. There 

would be 25.1 miles of new NFS road constructed, 9.1 miles of 

reconstructed road and 6.1 miles of temporary road constructed. 

This alternative would respond to the direction to maximize timber 

harvest opportunity while meeting Forest Plan standards and 

guidelines (Cole, 2005). It addresses the timber economics issue by 

maximizing the proposed volume available and would allow the Forest 

Alternative 1 

(Figure 2-1) 

Alternative 2 

(Figure 2-2) 

Alternative 3 

(Figure 2-3) 
2 Alternatives 

4  Chapter 2 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

Service the flexibility to respond to current and future market 

demands. 

Alternative 4 was developed in response to public concerns about the 

impacts of increased access, timber harvest, and road building on 

roadless area characteristics. This alternative offers the lowest amount 

of volume at 28.2 MMBF (sawlog and utility) from 1,327 acres. All 

units would be clear-cut (CC). There would be no new NFS road 

construction, 2.6 miles of road would be reconstructed and 2.2 miles of 

temporary road would be built. 

Alternative 4 has been designed to address all of the significant issues 

to some extent. It does not propose harvest and road building within 

the boundary of any inventoried roadless area, although there would be 

effects to the zone of influence. Harvest would be limited to units in 

close proximity to existing roads. No new NFS road and only 2.2 

miles of temporary road are proposed, which addresses concerns 

related to increased access. Less road building equals out to shorter 

haul distances which also satisfies timber economics concerns related 

to today’s market, but does not take into account the need for 

flexibility in the long term. 

Identification of the Preferred Alternative 

At this point in the analysis, Alternative 3 has been identified as the 

Preferred Alternative. The recommendation was based on the 

environmental analysis and public and agency comments received to 

this date. The Responsible Official may select this alternative, another 

alternative, or a modification of one of the alternatives. 

Design Criteria Common to all Action 

Alternatives 

All alternatives are consistent with the 2008 Tongass Land and 

Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). All applicable Forest Plan 

Standards and Guidelines have been incorporated into the design of the 

proposed units and alternatives. While some alternatives have been 

designed to provide a greater measure of protection than is required by 

the Forest Plan for some resources, such as additional consideration 

for potential wildlife travel corridors, all alternatives were designed to 

meet Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for these and all other 

resources. Additional direction comes from applicable laws and Forest 

Service manuals and handbooks. Site-specific descriptions and 

resource considerations for each potential harvest unit are included as 

unit cards and road cards in Appendix B of this Draft EIS. These 

cards serve as the prescription or design narrative for the project as 

Alternative 4 

(Figure 2-4) 
Alternatives 2

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 2 5

well as detail design elements for the construction and reconstruction 

needed for existing National Forest System roads. 

The small old growth habitat reserves were evaluated and redesigned 

in the 2008 Forest Plan and adjustments adopted. Figure 2-1 in this 

chapter outlines these reserves. 

Beach and estuary fringe extend 1,000 feet inland from mean high tide 

along all marine coastlines. The Forest Plan classifies the beach and 

estuary fringe as unsuitable for planned commercial timber harvest 

(Forest Plan pages 4-5). No timber harvest or new roads are proposed 

in beach or estuary fringe. 

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for riparian areas are applied to 

all fish streams (Class I and II) within the project area and to non-fish 

bearing Class III streams. 

Hydrologic and fisheries resource analysis for the project has included 

landscape, watershed, and site-level considerations. Unit cards and 

road cards in Appendix B indicate which streams are likely to need 

special attention during implementation, such as applying timing 

restrictions for in-stream activities, or using larger-than-normal 

culverts or bridges. 

All applicable Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be 

incorporated during sale design and harvest administration. A 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit is still valid 

for the Hamilton Bay LTF. 

This permit provides for protection of water quality by eliminating 

discharge of surface water directly from the working area to the 

environment through the use of settling ponds and a drainage system. 

Areas considered as having a high probability of containing heritage 

resources (cultural sites) have been intensively surveyed by heritage 

resource specialists. No heritage resources have been identified in the 

project area. A detailed Heritage Resource Report was submitted to 

the Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) as per the R10 

Programmatic Agreement with the Alaska State Historic Preservation 

Office and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. If heritage 

resources or items protected by the Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation act are discovered during implementation, 

work should cease in the immediate vicinity. The sale administrator 

should be contacted, who will contact the appropriate archaeologist. 

The Petersburg District Ranger in consultation with the appropriate 

Native organization and the State Historic Preservation Office will 

determine a course of action. 

Biodiversity and 

Old Growth 

Beach and 

Estuary Fringe 

Fish and Marine 

Habitats 

Heritage 

Resources 
2 Alternatives 

6  Chapter 2 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

On October 19, 2007, the Tongass National Forest implemented a 

supplement to the Forest Service Manual 2080 concerning invasive 

plant species (Supplement No.: R10 TNF-2000-2007-1). An invasive 

plant species risk assessment has been completed and 

recommendations to reduce risk of spread are included in Chapter 3. 

All activities have been designed to avoid high-vulnerability karst and 

to meet Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for low and moderate 

vulnerability karst areas. 

Potential harvest units with slopes greater than 72 percent have 

received an on-site analysis of slope and class IV channel stability and 

an assessment of potential down stream effects. At the project 

planning level, the Forest Supervisor may approve timber harvest on 

slopes of 72 percent or more on a case-by-case basis, based on the 

results of an on-site analysis of slope class IV channel stability and on 

an assessment of potential impacts of accelerated erosion on 

downslope and downstream fish habitat, other beneficial uses of water, 

and other resources. Areas with moderate risk are included in the 

proposed units where the potential for downstream effects is low. 

Road locations generally avoid slopes greater than 67 percent, unstable 

areas, and slide-prone areas where it is feasible to do so. Roads on 

slopes in excess of 67% or on unstable soils require geotechnical 

investigation and appropriate designs. 

All roads would be located to avoid wetlands to the extent practicable. 

Where wetlands cannot be avoided, 33CFR 323.4 baseline provisions 

and State approved BMPs are followed to minimize impacts to 

wetlands (see road cards and unit cards, Appendix B). 

Potential harvest units within the viewshed of a Visual Priority Travel 

Route and Use Area were evaluated for consistency with the Scenic 

Integrity Objectives as required in the Forest Plan. Where needed, unit 

boundaries and silvicultural prescriptions were designed to be 

consistent with the Forest Plan. 

Temporary (or NFS) roads were proposed in all units where shovelyarding distances exceeded 500 feet to provide a surface for log 

hauling. Temporary road locations on the maps are estimated. 

Temporary road locations are subject to approval by the Forest 

Service. Temporary road decommissioning will be part of the timber 

sale contract. 

Road closures will occur up to ten years after the completion of timber 

harvest. Road closure, storage and decommissioning are described in 

the Road Management/Access section in Chapter 3 and in the Glossary 

of Chapter 4. 

Invasive Species 

Karst Resources 

Soils, Water 

Quality and 

Wetlands 

Scenery 

Roads 
Alternatives 2

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 2 7

Existing rock quarries may be expanded or new rock quarries may be 

developed to support new road construction and road maintenance. 

Quarry sites would be developed within 500 feet of a road and avoid 

Class I and Class II stream buffers, old-growth habitat reserves, eagle 

and goshawk nest tree buffers and non-developmental LUDs. With 

either the expansion of an existing quarry or the development of a new 

site, the area footprint would not exceed five acres. 

The existing permitted LTF located in Hamilton Bay would be used to 

transport logs by saltwater to a processing facility. The operator has 

the option to barge or raft the logs. Hamilton Bay was placed on the 

1996 Section 303 (d) list for debris. Past dive surveys had indicated 

that excessive bark existed on the bottom of Hamilton Bay as a result 

of logging operations on Kupreanof Island that used the Hamilton Bay 

log transfer facility. Dive survey reports from September 2000 of 0.6 

bottom coverage and the June 2002 of 0.6 acre document that this 

water is compliant with standards. This water was removed from the 

Section 303 (d) list in 2002/2003. 

No land camp is proposed in the project area for any of the 

alternatives. The town of Kake or a floating camp could be used 

during harvest activities. Appropriate permits would need to be 

acquired by the operator for use of a floating camp. 

All alternatives have been evaluated in compliance with ANILCA, 

Title VIII, Section 810 and 811. Alternatives will have no significant 

effects on subsistence. Subsistence hearings will be held as required 

between the Draft and Final EIS for this project. 

A service and staging area for helicopter logging operations would be 

needed in Alternatives 2 and 3. This site would consist of an existing 

developed site adequate for helicopter maintenance and fueling 

operations. This area may require the removal of existing vegetation or 

if a rock pit is used minor expansion may be required for safety or the 

movement of existing material to level the pit floor and clear obstacles. 

Mitigation Measures 

The analysis documented in this EIS discloses the possible adverse 

effects that may occur from implementing the actions proposed under 

each alternative. Many of these effects are reduced or avoided by 

using Forest Plan direction, including management prescriptions, 

standards and guidelines, and Best Management Practices (BMPs), 

which meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act. All unit-specific 

and/or alternative-specific mitigation is identified in Appendix B. 

Rock Quarries 

Log Transfer 

Facility (LTF) 

Logging Camp 

Subsistence 

Timber 

Harvesting/ 

Helicopter 

Logging 
2 Alternatives 

8  Chapter 2 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

Projects Common to all Action Alternatives 

The following projects were identified by the Interdisciplinary Team 

as possible stewardship opportunities within the project area. These 

projects are not design criteria or mitigation measures to reduce the 

effects of the alternatives, but could be used to improve or enhance 

resources or to complete obligations within the project area. These 

project opportunities are common to all action alternatives and are 

suitable for potential stewardship contracting opportunities. 

Funding for project contracting may come from a combination of 

timber receipts and other appropriated dollars. The receipts from the 

value of the timber would be used to finance the contractual 

requirements, and a priority listing of the project area activities would 

be included in the contract. These projects would either be 

accomplished as part of the contract or independently. There will be a 

list of mandatory projects to be completed with timber receipts, 

combined with the possibility of using other appropriated dollars 

available at the time to maximize the number of projects completed. 

See Figure 2-5 for more information regarding Projects Common to 

All Action Alternatives. 

The Road Analysis Process (RAP), updated with decisions made with 

this project, recommends road management objectives for the Kake 

Road System. Ultimate storage/closure of these roads and these 

fisheries/hydrology projects will depend on the analysis and decisions 

made in the District Access and Travel Management Plan. 

Implementation of the recommended road management objectives 

would result in the removal of 19 culverts that do not meet fish 

passage standards. 

Maintain the four recreational hiking trails in the area: Cathedral Falls 

(0.5 mi.), Goose Lake (0.75 mi.), Hamilton Creek (1.0 mi.), and Big 

John Bay (1.75 mi.) The total length of all trails combined is about 

four miles. The work could include annual brushing, condition 

surveys and replacement of gravel as needed. Structure work on the 

trails could also be included depending on the extent and difficulty of 

the work. Gravel for trail maintenance in the past has been obtained 

locally in Kake. 

Conduct annual maintenance for the Big John Bay Cabin including 

preparing it for occupancy in the spring and winterizing it at the end of 

the season. In addition, deferred maintenance and repairs could also 

be considered for this project. The cabin can be accessed by hiking the 

1.75-mile trail off Road 45001or by boating to Big John Bay. 

Fisheries/ 

Hydrology 

Recreation 
Alternatives 2

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 2 9

Hand-pull a small population of spotted knapweed located on the 6337 

Road. Work could involve up to a half-day of work annually for at 

least five years and possibly monitoring and/or hand-pulling beyond 

that depending on how well the plants respond to hand-pulling. Proper 

disposal of the pulled weeds would be specified as part of the project 

design, most likely burning in a controlled manner. Other roadside 

weed populations could also be included, if new populations are 

discovered. 

Currently there are 325 acres of precommercial thinning to accomplish 

in second growth stands that could potentially be done under a 

stewardship contract on the Kake road system. These stands are 

approximately 25 years old. By modifying thinning prescriptions to 

include spacing varying from 14x14 to 18x18 feet, thinning in these 

stands would also benefit wildlife. It would provide cover and allow 

side lighting to reach the forest floor. There is the possibility of using 

the cut material for some type of product if the contractor is interested. 

(See Figure 2-5) 

There are approximately 114 miles of Forest Service System roads in 

the Kake road system, which encompasses the Central Kupreanof EIS 

project area. Of those 114 miles of roads there are approximately 94 

miles of open roads that need maintenance to remain open. This 

maintenance generally includes brush cutting, blading of the road 

surface, ditching and cleaning of culverts to keep proper drainage. Of 

the 94 miles of open road there are approximately 38 miles of mainline 

roads (6040, 6328, 6314, 6314S) that take first priority for 

maintenance. 

Petersburg Ranger District historically has approximately $70,000 per 

year to spend on road maintenance in Kake. On the average it costs 

$2,000 per mile to maintain roads, which equates to 35 miles of road 

per year that can be done in Kake. Generally, two thirds of the 

mainline roads are done and the remaining portion is spent on selected 

side roads. 

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from 

Detailed Study 

Several alternatives were considered during the planning process, but 

have not been included in this EIS for detailed study. These are 

described briefly below, along with the reasons for not considering 

them further. 

 

A few alternatives that addressed subsistence and deer habitat were 

developed. During the first round of alternative development using the 

Invasive Plants 

Silviculture/ 

Wildlife 

Transportation 

Subsistence/ 

Deer Habitat 
2 Alternatives 

10  Chapter 2 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

original unit pool, the team discussed subsistence and deer habitat as a 

potential significant issue. Many comments indicated subsistence use, 

access, and deer were concerns. Units were rated using deer winter 

range data, the highest rated units being removed from the alternative, 

or prescribed for 50 percent retention. Potential travel corridors were 

also considered. This alternative was eliminated from further 

consideration when additional units were added to the unit pool. 

Two more alternatives around deer habitat were developed once the 

unit pool was finalized. Again higher rated units for deer habitat and 

units within potential travel corridors were avoided or prescribed 

retention. One alternative applied these elements to the proposed 

action; the other alternative applied these elements to the entire unit 

pool. Elements of the first alternative were incorporated into the 

proposed action and therefore this alternative was eliminated from 

further study. The later alternative was eliminated from further 

consideration because deer habitat was considered in the design of the 

proposed action. 

An alternative for timber supply and sale economics was developed 

from the first unit pool. This alternative concentrated on the least 

amount of road building and the best economics of “today” as 

identified by the financial efficiency analysis. This alternative was 

eliminated from further study since elements of this alternative were 

ultimately incorporated into the development of Alternative 4. 

While carried forward as a Significant Issue, several preliminary 

alternatives were developed to respond to Inventoried Roadless Area 

concerns. 

Using the first initial unit pool, an alternative was developed that 

avoided inventoried roadless areas completely, at times cutting settings 

and units in half. The alternative proposed only to build roads and 

harvest units that were within the 600-foot buffer of existing units and 

1,200-foot buffer of existing roads. The volume estimated was about 

18 MMBF. It estimated no new miles of system road and 13 miles of 

temporary roads. It was eliminated due to low volume, high costs, and 

effects to future timber management opportunities; it did not meet the 

purpose and need. 

A second alternative was developed at this time that minimally 

impacted Inventoried Roadless Areas (approximately 565 acres would 

have been affected). Existing unit boundaries were considered as well 

as those in close proximity to roaded areas. The alternative proposed 

to build road and harvest units that were within the 600-foot buffer of 

existing units and 1200 foot buffer of existing roads, and some units 

Timber Supply 

and Sale 

Economics 

Inventoried 

Roadless Areas 
Alternatives 2

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 2 11

that were not more than 1500 feet outside the buffers. It offered about 

30 MMBF with approximately 12-19 miles of new road. It was 

eventually eliminated from further study when the unit pool changed. 

Alternative 4 was developed to addresses the issue of Inventoried 

Roadless Areas. 

Monitoring 

Monitoring is a tool which involves gathering data and information 

and observing the results of management activities as a basis for 

evaluation. Monitoring activities can be divided into project-specific 

monitoring and Forest Plan monitoring. The National Forest 

Management Act requires national forests to monitor and evaluate 

their forest plans (36 CFR 219.110). Chapter 6 of the Forest Plan 

includes the monitoring activities to be conducted as part of the Forest 

Plan implementation. 

Forest Plan monitoring items are either contingent on management 

activities, such as those associated with this project, or are based on 

the condition of the Tongass National Forest as a whole. Much of the 

monitoring at the Forest Plan level consists of annually surveying a 

representative sample of harvest units or roads. 

Implementation monitoring is conducted at the project level. The 

selected management activities need to be consistent with the design 

criteria used to analyze the environmental effects during the planning 

stage. 

The IDT prepared unit and road cards to provide site-specific analysis 

and guidance for unit layout, road location during timber harvest, and 

road construction and road reconditioning needs. Unit cards include a 

unit map and a narrative explaining resource concerns and how the 

concerns could be addressed in the design of each unit. Road 

Management Objectives were developed for each NFS road (Road 

Cards, Appendix B). 

Staff members who prepare timber sale contracts are required to 

confirm and certify that the contract is in agreement with the decision 

document. This certification verifies that items such as maps, number 

of acres, location of units, harvest methods, and stand numbers are 

consistent. The certification also ensures that all mitigation measures 

identified in the EIS relation to timber sale contract requirements are 

included in the contract. 

Implementation monitoring continues through harvest and contract 

inspections. As a routine part of project implementation, sale 
2 Alternatives 

12  Chapter 2 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

administrators and road inspectors monitor harvest and construction 

activities. Through provisions contained in the timber sale contract or 

other contracts, contract administrators and inspectors ensure that the 

prescriptions contained on the unit and road cards are implemented. 

Sale administrators and road contract inspectors have the authority to 

initiate action to repair resource damage and suspend operations until 

problems have been corrected. This process ensures that project 

elements and Forest Plan Standards and guidelines are implemented as 

designed. The Contract Administrators monitor all units and roads for 

implementation of the appropriate BMPs. 

Comparison of Alternatives 

This section compares outputs, objectives and effects of the 

alternatives in terms of the Significant Issues for the Central 

Kupreanof Timber Harvest project. The discussions of effects are 

summarized from Chapter 3, which should be consulted for a full 

understanding of these and other environmental consequences. Table 

2-2 below provides an overview comparison of information from the 

alternative descriptions and Chapter 3 relevant to the issues. This 

information will be used in the discussions that follow. 

Optimizing volume and net return on timber harvest will provide for 

flexibility, in both the long and short term, for offering economically 

viable timber sales. 

While Alternative 3 proposes the greatest amount of NFS road and 

temporary road construction, it provides the Forest Service the most 

flexibility in sale packaging and the greatest ability to respond to 

future market conditions. It proposes the most volume at 

approximately 70 MMBF. 

Estimated logging and transportation costs would be $421 per MBF 

with road costs estimated to be $41 per MBF. The indicated bid is 

($122.46) per MBF. Between 234 and 332 direct annualized jobs 

would be supported in Alaska, providing an estimated $9.1 to $12.5 

million in direct income. 

Alternative 4 was developed in response to public concerns about the 

impacts of increased access, timber harvest, and road building on 

roadless area characteristics. Although this alternative proposes the 

lowest volume and the lowest flexibility in sale packaging, it has the 

highest indicated bid under current market conditions. It proposes 

only harvesting stands accessible from the existing road system or 

temporary roads and avoids building new National Forest System 

roads and helicopter yarding. Alternative 4 proposes the least amount 

of volume (28.2 MMBF) of all of the action alternatives. 

Issue 1- Timber 

Supply/ Sale 

Economics 
Alternatives 2

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 2 13

Estimated logging and transportation costs would be $359 per MBF 

with road costs estimated to be $17.00 per MBF. The indicated bid is 

($70.99) per MBF. Between 94 and 143 direct annualized jobs would 

be supported in Alaska, providing an estimated $3.6 to 5.0 million in 

direct income. 

Alternative 2 provides less flexibility than Alternative 3, but still 

provides more flexibility than Alternative 4. It builds the greatest 

amount of road after Alternative 3, and offers the second highest 

amount of volume with 46.8 MMBF. The estimated logging and 

transportation costs would be $382 per MBF with road costs estimated 

to be $19 per MBF. The indicated bid is ($80.96) per MBF. Between 

156 and 221 direct annualized jobs would be supported in Alaska, 

providing an estimated $6.1–8.3 million in direct income. 

Alternative 1 proposes no timber harvest. Timber needed to meet the 

estimated demand would have to be harvested from other areas on the 

Tongass National Forest. Jobs supported by this project and 

manufacturing would not be supported by this project. 

Timber harvest and building roads in inventoried roadless areas would 

reduce roadless acres within the project area and affect roadless values 

as identified in the 2003 Supplemental EIS. 

In all action alternatives, the roadless values would either remain 

unchanged or be minimally influenced by the proposed activities. 

In all alternatives, the North Kupreanof, South Kupreanof, Rocky Pass, 

and Castle Inventoried roadless areas would remain greater than 5,000 

acres in size and eligible for Wilderness consideration in subsequent forest 

planning. In all alternatives the Castle Roadless Area would be unaffected 

by timber harvest, road construction, buffers, or other associated activities. 

No changes to inventoried roadless acres or character would occur as a 

result of Alternative 1. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 include timber harvest within the boundaries of the 

North Kupreanof, South Kupreanof, and Rocky Pass Inventoried Roadless 

Areas. The predominant effect would be to the South Kupreanof 

Inventoried Roadless Area with approximately 341 acres of timber harvest 

and one mile of new NFS road in Alternative 2 and 1,184 acres and 15 

miles of road construction in Alternative 3. In comparison, the North 

Kupreanof Inventoried Roadless Area acres of harvest would vary from 90 

acres in Alternative 2 to 152 acres in Alternative 3. No new roads are 

proposed within North Kupreanof or within Rocky Pass Inventoried 

Roadless Area. Both Alternative 2 and 3 propose three acres of timber 

harvest within the Rocky Pass Inventoried Roadless Area. 

Issue 2- 

Inventoried 

Roadless Areas 
2 Alternatives 

14  Chapter 2 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

Of the three action alternatives, Alternative 3 affects the most total 

inventoried roadless acres. Up to 5,273 acres would be treated as 

developed in the South Kupreanof Inventoried Roadless Area. The 

affected acres represent about two percent of the South Kupreanof 

Inventoried Roadless Area. 

Alternative 4 avoids timber harvest and road building within the boundary 

of inventoried roadless areas. However, the application of the 600 feet and 

1,200 feet around harvest units and roads would overlap into the 

inventoried roadless area boundaries. Alternative 4 affects the least total 

roadless acres of any action alternative. 

Road building, reconstruction and closures associated with the timber 

sale may change access within the project area. 

Construction of new roads and closure of existing roads would affect 

motorized access. The proposed roads in each alternative are necessary 

to meet the purpose and need of the project because they provide 

access to the timber and provide transportation for timber to be hauled 

to a processing facility. Each alternative requires a different level of 

road construction thus having different levels of effects. 

Alternative 1 does not propose any new road construction. Under this 

alternative, current management plans would continue to guide the 

management of NFS roads. All system roads would be managed as 

directed by the Forest Plan, road management objectives, and previous 

NEPA decisions. Access would not increase or decrease for 

recreational or subsistence activities and maintenance would continue 

to be ongoing. 

Alternative 3 (construction of 25.1 miles new NFS road) would have 

the greatest increase for motorized public access to the area. 

Alternative 2 (construction of 7.3 miles new NFS road) would also 

increase motorized public access. Alternative 4 (no new NFS road 

construction) would not increase motorized public access. Any 

increase in new access will occur during the timber sale and for up to 

ten years after timber harvest completion. However, motorized access 

would then decrease as roads are closed and placed in intermittent 

service. Closed roads would still provide a long term increase for nonmotorized access. Alternative 2 and 3, by creating additional 

infrastructure, would enhance opportunities for future timber harvest. 

Alternative 3 reconstructs 9.1 miles of existing NFS road, Alternative 

2 reconstructs 3.9 miles of existing NFS road, and Alternative 4 

reconstructs 2.2 miles of existing NFS road. This reconstruction 

would increase current access. All reconstructed roads would be 

Issue 3- Road 

Management/ 

Access 
Alternatives 2

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 2 15

managed as a maintenance level 2, open to motorized vehicle traffic, 

during timber sale activities and up to ten years thereafter. However, 

motorized access would again decrease as these roads are closed and 

placed into intermittent service. 

Alternatives 3 and 4 close the most existing NFS roads (about 2.0 

miles) while Alternative 2 closes only slightly less miles at 1.1 miles 

of road. This will reduce motorized access and place roads in a 

condition that requires minimum maintenance to protect the 

environment and preserve them for future use. 

Table 2-1. Comparison of Alternatives by Issues and Effects 

 (Numbers may not add up to the totals shown due to rounding) 

Units of Measure Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Issue 1- Timber Supply/Sale Economics 

Indicated Bid Value(MBF) 0 ($80.96) ($122.46) ($70.99) 

Logging/Transportation Cost (MBF) 0 $382.00 $421.00 $359.00 

Road Costs (MBF) 0 $19.00 $41.00 $17.00 

Temporary Road Miles 0 3.9 6.1 2.2 

System Road Miles 0 7.3 25.1 0 

Helicopter Sawlog Volume (MMBF) 0 3.0 3.4 0 

Ground Based Sawlog Volume (MMBF) 0 36.4 55.6 23.6 

Total Volume (MBF) 0 46.8 70.2 28.2 

Direct Jobs 0 156-221 234-332 94-133 

Economic Flexibility Ranking N/A 2 1 3 

Issue 2- Inventoried Roadless Areas 

Acres of Timber Harvest within 

Inventoried Roadless Areas 0 434 1,339 0 

Miles of NFS Roads (closed after harvest) 0 1 13 0 

Miles of Temporary Roads within 

Inventoried Roadless Areas 

(decommissioned after harvest) 

0 0 2 0 

Total Acres Affected Including Buffers 

(600’ for harvest units, 1200’ for roads) 0 1,220 5,674 140 

Percent of Inventoried Roadless Area 

Affected for the Project Area 0 0.9 4.6 0.1 
2 Alternatives 

16  Chapter 2 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

Units of Measure Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Issue 3- Road Management/Access 

Miles of Proposed New NFS Road to be 

Constructed 0 7.3 25.1 0 

Miles of Proposed New Temporary Road 0 3.9 6.1 2.2 

Miles of Reconstructed Existing Closed 

Road to Remain Open after Harvest 0 2.9 9.1 2.6 

Miles of Open Existing NFS Road before 

Harvest 64 64 64 64 

Miles of Road to be Left Open for up to ten 

years after Harvest 64 74.2 98.2 66.6 

Miles of New and Temporary Road to be 

Contructed in Inventoried Roadless Areas 0 1 15 0 

Miles of Existing National Forest System 

Road to be Closed after Harvest 0 1.1 2.0 2.0 

Total Road Cost for all New Temporary, 

New NFS, and Reconstructed Road within 

the Project Area 

$0 $2,039,000 $6,017,000 $416,000

Total Miles of Road Remaining Open after 

Implementation of each Alternative 64 62.9 62 62 

Other Environmental Considerations 

Effects on Wildlife 

Acres of POG Habitat Harvested 0 2,427 3,568 1,261 

Percent Change from Current Condition 

within Project Area (57,628 acres of POG) 0 4.2% 6.2% 2.2% 

Percent change from current condition 

(2008) within WAA (268,611 Acres of 

POG) 

0 0.9% 1.3% 0.5% 

Percent Change from Current Condition 

(2008) within Biogeographic Province 

(307,710 acres of POG) 

0 0.8% 1.2% 0.4% 

Percent Reduction From Historic/Original 

Condition Geographic Province (-28%) 

(431,217 acres of POG) 

-29% -29.8% -30.2% -29.4% 
Alternatives 2

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 2 17

Units of Measure Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Percent Reduction From Historic/Original 

Condition WAA (-27%) (359,445 acres of 

POG) 

-27% -27.9% -28.3% -27.5% 

Effects on Timber and Vegetation 

Total Acres Even-aged Management 

(Clearcut) 

0 2,031 3,127 1,327 

Total Acres Two-aged Management 

(Clearcut with Reserves) 

0 33 0 0 

Total Acres Uneven-aged Management 

(Single-tree Selection) 0 442 520 0 

Total Acres of Harvest by all Silviculture 

Systems 0 2,506 3,647 1,327 

Effects on Soils 

Total Acres Soil Disturbance 0 124.8 257.1 51.4 

Acres of Very High Risk Hazard (MMI-4) 

Soils in Units by Alternative 0 10 17 0 

Effects on Wetlands 

Total Miles of Road (Reconstructed, 

Temporary and NFS) Crossing Wetlands 0 0.8 2.0 .34 

Effects on Heritage Resources None 

Effects on Scenery- Percent of Past and Proposed Visual Disturbance by Viewshed 

Hamilton 5% 7% 7% 6% 

Big John Bay 15% 22% 23% 20% 

Rocky Pass 2% 3% 3% 2% 

Upper Castle 2% 2% 4% 2% 

Upper Duncan 1% 2% 4% 1% 

Effects on Recreation No Significant Effects 

Effects on Hydrology/Fisheries- 30 year Cumulative Harvest Percentage by Watershed 

(assuming a 2009 implementation date) 

Hamilton Creek 1.9% 5.3% 5.4% 4.6% 
2 Alternatives 

18  Chapter 2 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

Units of Measure Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

McNaughton Point 2.9% 13.8% 14.5% 11.9% 

Big John Creek 4.5% 6.8% 7.1% 5.8% 

West Duncan Canal 0.4% 1.3% 2.5% 0.6% 

Keku Creek 0.2% 0.4% 0.4% 0.2% 

Castle River 1.3% 1.5% 2.7% 1.5% 

Tunehean Creek 1.2% 1.9% 1.9% 1.5% 

Total Number of Proposed Stream Crossings by Alternative 

Hamilton Creek 0 22 31 2 

McNaughton Point 0 14 14 1 

Big John Creek 0 6 13 1 

West Duncan Canal 0 5 43 0 

Keku Creek 0 4 4 0 

Castle River 0 4 29 4 

Tunehean Creek 0 4 5 0 

Total 0 59 139 8 

Effects on TES (plants) No 

Effects

May impact individuals but is not 

likely to lead to a Federal listing 

Effects on Subsistence No Significant Effects 
45803

6315

45906

45800

6332

45915

45810

6330

6041

6337

45807

6331

6314S

6328

6326

6314

6040

6336

6030

45808

6339

6333

6367

45803

6334

6327

6318

45001

45002

45806

6366

45805

6329

6326

500

1000

1500

2000 2500

1000

1000

1500

1000

1500

500

1000

500

1500

500

500

500

1000

1500

1000

500

500

500

2000

1000

500

500

500

1000

1000

500

2500

2500

500

1500

1000

500 2000

500

2000

500 1000 1000

1500

1500

500

1000

1000

1500

1000

1000

1500

500

500

500

1000

500

500

1000

500

500

500

500

500

500

1500

500

2000

1000

500

2000

500

1000

500

500

1000

1000

2000

1000

500

500

500

500

500

1000

2000

500

500

2500

1000

1500

2000

500

1000

500

500

500

2000

500

2000

500

500

500

500

500

1000

1500

500

1500

500

500

500

500

1000

1000

1500

500

500

1000

500

1500

500

1500

c:/workspace/ckupre/plots/deis/fig2_1_alt1.mxd 09-20-08 EP

Productive Old-growth

Inventoried Roadless Area

Managed Stands

Lakes

Old-growth Reserve

Existing Open Roads

Roads in Storage (Closed)

Stream Class I & II

100ft Contour Interval

Project Area Boundary ±

0 0.5 1 2 3 4

Miles

Rocky Pass IRA

South Kupreanof IRA

North Kupreanof IRA

45845

6314

South Kupreanof IRA

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest

Figure 2-1

Alternative 1
901

5

207 1

252

314

7

206

250

205

270

903

502

234

284

6

282

219

318

204

501

203

310

209

215

900

235

285

208

224

2

305

202

304

253

320

229

309

3

313

231

307

315

216

201

218

273

232 233

312

316

222

306

904

317

230

214

255

269

6314S

6328

6326

6314

6040

6336

6030

6339

6333

6367

45803

6334

6327

6318

45001

45002

45806

6366

6326

45808

6315

500

1000

1500

2000 2500

1000

1000

1500

1000

1500

500

1000

500

1500

500

500

500

1000

1500

1000

500

500

500

2000

1000

500

500

1000

1000

500

2500

2500

500

1500

1000

500 2000

500

2000

500 1000 1000

1500

1500

500

1000

1000

1500

1000

1000

1500

500

500

500

1000

500

500

1000

500

500

500

500

500

500

1500

500

2000

1000

500

2000

500

1000

500

500

1000

1000

2000

1000

500

500

500

500

500

1000

2000

500

500

2500

1000

1500

2000

500

1000

500

500

500

2000

500

2000

500

500

500

500

500

1000

1500

500

1500

500

500

500

500

1000

1000

1500

500

500

1000

500

1500

500

1500

c:/workspace/ckupre/plots/deis/fig2_2_alt2.mxd 09-20-08 EP

Existing Open Roads

Roads in Storage (Closed)

Proposed Temporary Roads

Proposed System Roads

Reconstructed Road

Stream Class I & II

100ft Contour Interval

Project Area Boundary

0% Retention

10% Retention

50% Retention

60% Retention

Productive Old-growth

Inventoried Roadless Area

Managed Stands

Lakes

±

0 0.5 1 2 3 4

Miles

Rocky Pass IRA

South Kupreanof IRA

North Kupreanof IRA

6314

6337

6041

45894

45800

45899

45915

45891

45890

6330

45888

45807

45898

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest

Figure 2-2

Alternative 2

South Kupreanof IRA

6331

6332

45845

45805

45886

45887

45885

45906
901

314

5

207 1

252

7

206

276

250

205

905

270

903

502

217

265

234

284

258

6

261

282

219

318

204

263

277

248

501

203

275

310

209

215

241

900

235

280

272

221

285

208

243

224

286

279

260

2

313

305

202

304

253

257

320

273

229

309

3

266

264

231

271

307

274

281

246

315

216

201

268

218

232 233 236

312

316

222

306

904

254

317

262

230

239

214

255

269

6314S

6328

6326

6314

6040

6336

6030

6339

6333

6367

45803

6327

6318

45001

45002

45806

6366

6326

45803

45808

6315

45800

45915

45810

500

1000

1500

2000 2500

1000

1000

1500

1000

1500

500

1000

500

1500

500

500

500

1000

1500

1000

500

500

500

2000

1000

500

500

1000

1000

500

2500

2500

500

1500

1000

500 2000

500

2000

500 1000 1000

1500

1500

500

1000

1000

1500

1000

1000

1500

500

500

500

1000

500

500

1000

500

500

500

500

500

500

1500

500

2000

1000

500

2000

500

1000

500

500

1000

1000

2000

1000

500

500

500

500

500

1000

2000

500

500

2500

1000

1500

2000

500

1000

500

500

500

2000

500

2000

500

500

500

500

500

1000

1500

500

1500

500

500

500

500

1000

1000

1500

500

500

1000

500

1500

500

1500

45897

45892

45896

6327

45895

c:/workspace/ckupre/plots/deis/fig2_3_alt3.mxd 09-20-08 EP

Proposed Temporary Roads

Proposed System Roads

100ft Contour Interval

Reconstructed Road

Existing Open Roads

Roads in Storage (Closed)

Project Area Boundary

Stream Class I & II

0% Retention

10% Retention

60% Retention

Inventoried Roadless Area

Productive Old-growth

Managed Stands

Lakes

±

0 0.5 1 2 3 4

Miles

60

North Kupreanof IRA 41

45803

Rocky Pass IRA

South Kupreanof IRA

6314

6337

45894

45899

45891

45890

6330

45807

45898

45899

45886

45888

45805

South Kupreanof IRA

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest

Figure 2-3

Alternative 3

6331

6332

45845

45887

45885

45906
1

7

905

207

502

206

6

318

204

501

250

209

900

2

203

313

304

320

229

309

903

3

231

208

271

307

282

314 205

285

273

312

316

901

310

284

306

305

904

253

317

230

214

45803

45808

6315

45906

45800

6332

45915

45810

6041

6337

6331

6314S

6328

6326

6314

6040

6336

6030

6339

6333

6367

45803

6334

6327

6318

45001

45002

45806

6366

6326

500

1000

1500

2000 2500

1000

1000

1500

1000

1500

500

1000

500

1500

500

500

500

1000

1500

1000

500

500

500

2000

1000

500

500

1000

1000

500

2500

2500

500

1500

1000

500 2000

500

2000

500 1000 1000

1500

1500

500

1000

1000

1500

1000

1000

1500

500

500

500

1000

500

500

1000

500

500

500

500

500

500

1500

500

2000

1000

500

2000

500

1000

500

500

1000

1000

2000

1000

500

500

500

500

500

1000

2000

500

500

2500

1000

1500

2000

500

500

500

500

2000

500

2000

500

500

500

500

500

1000

1500

500

1500

500

500

500

500

1000

1000

1500

500

500

1000

500

1500

500

1500

c:/workspace/ckupre/plots/deis/fig2_4_alt4.mxd 09-20-08 EP

Existing Open Roads

Roads in Storage (Closed)

Proposed Temporary Roads

Proposed System Roads

Reconstructed Road

100ft Contour Interval

Stream Class I & II

Project Area Boundary

0% Retention

10% Retention

Inventoried Roadless Area

Productive Old-growth

Managed Stands

Lakes

±

0 0.5 1 2 3 4

Miles

Rocky Pass IRA

South Kupreanof IRA

North Kupreanof IRA

6330

6314

45807

45808

45845

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest

Figure 2-4

Alternative 4

South Kupreanof IRA
!.

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!( !(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !( !(

!(

!(

!(!(

!( !( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

6040

6030

6314S

6328

6326

6314

6336

45808

45601

6339

6333

6367

6366

45803

6308

6334

6327

6312

6000

6318

45001

45002

45806

45602

45805

6329

6326

6337

c:/workspace/ckupre/plots/deis/fig2_5_projects.mxd 09-20-08 EP

Legend

Pre-commercial/Wildlife Treatment

Non-national Forest

Trails

Existing Open Roads

Closed Road

Project Area Boundary

Stream Class I

#* Cabins

!( Red Pipes

!. Invasive Plant ±

0 1 2 4

Miles

Kake

Seal Point

Little Hamilton 

LTF

Big John

Bay

Ro

cky

Pass

#* Devil's Elbow

Cabin

F r e d e r i c k S o u n d

Portage

Bay

Duncan Canal

Towers Arm

#* West Point

Cabin

#* Portage Bay

Cabin

#*

Salt Chuck 

East Cabin

#*

Towers Arm

Cabin

#* Castle River

Cabin

#*

Castle Flats

Cabin

Castle River

Irish 

Lakes

Kluane

Lake

Towers

Lake

Bohemia Lake

(Jamaica Lake)

Hamil ton Creek

Goose

Lake

#* Big John Bay

Cabin

Cathedral

Falls

K u i u I s l a n d K u i u I s l a n d

K u p r e a n o f I s l a n d K u p r e a n o f I s l a n d

Goose Lake

Trail

Big John Bay Trail

Hamilton CreekTrail

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest

Figure 2-5

Projects Common to all Action Alternatives

Keku

Strait

Port

Camden

Threemile Arm

Keku Strait