Central Kupreanof Timber 

Harvest 

Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement 

Tongass National Forest 

USDA Forest Service 

Alaska Region 

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service 

Tongass National Forest 

648 Mission Street 

Ketchikan, AK 99901 

Responsible Official: Forrest Cole 

Forest Supervisor 

Tongass National Forest 

For Further 

Information Contact: Tiffany Benna/Planning Team Leader 

Petersburg Ranger District 

P.O. Box 1328 

Petersburg, Alaska 

(907) 772-3871 

________________________________________________________ 

Abstract 

The USDA Forest Service proposes to harvest up to 70.2 million board feet (MMBF) of timber in the 

Central Kupreanof project area on Kupreanof Island, Petersburg Ranger District, Tongass National Forest. 

Timber volume would be offered through the Tongass timber sale program. The actions analyzed in this 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) are designed to implement direction contained in the 2008 

Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) and the Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA). 

The DEIS describes four alternatives, which provide different combinations of resource outputs and spatial 

locations of harvest units. The action alternatives would make between 28.1 and 70.2 MMBF of timber 

available for harvest within the project area. The significant issues addressed by the alternatives and the 

Final EIS include: Timber Economics, Roadless and Road Management/Access. The preferred alternative 

at this point is Alternative 3. However, any of the alternatives may be selected in the Record of Decision 

for the Final EIS. 

Also analyzed in this document are Projects Common to All Action Alternatives. They are analyzed as 

common to all action alternatives and include such possible activities as; culvert replacement, second 

growth thinning, and road, cabin and trail maintenance. These projects will provide potential stewardship 

contracting opportunities in the local area. 
Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Summary i

Summary 

Introduction 

The Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest project area is located 

centrally on the western portion of Kupreanof Island, on the 

Petersburg Ranger District of the Tongass National Forest, Alaska 

Region (Region 10) of the Forest Service, an agency of the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (see Vicinity Map, Figure 1-1). 

This chapter discusses the background of the Central Kupreanof 

Timber Harvest project and tiers to the 2008 Tongass Land and 

Resource Management Plan (referred to as the Forest Plan in this 

document). It includes the steps taken to identify environmental issues 

and public concerns related to implementation of the project. 

Purpose and Need 

The purpose and need for the proposed action responds to the goals 

and objectives identified by the Tongass Land and Resource 

Management Plan, and helps move the area toward the desired 

conditions as described in the Forest Plan. The Forest Supervisor is 

the Responsible Official for this action and will decide whether or not 

to harvest timber from the Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest area, 

and if so, how this timber will be harvested. The decision will be 

based on the information that is disclosed in the environmental impact 

statement. The Responsible Official will consider comments, 

responses, the disclosure of environmental consequences, and 

applicable laws, regulations, and policies in making the decision and 

will state that rationale in the Record of Decision. 

The purpose of the Central Kupreanof Timber 

Harvest project is to: 

 Manage the timber resource for production of sawtimber 

and other wood products from suitable lands made 

available for timber harvest on an even-flow, long-term 

sustained yield basis, and in an economically efficient 

manner. 
DEIS Summary 

ii  Summary Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS

 Seek to provide a timber supply sufficient to meet the 

annual market demand for Tongass National Forest timber 

and the market demand for the planning cycle. 

 Provide for a diversity of opportunities for resource uses 

that contribute to the local and regional economies of 

Southeast Alaska. 

Appendix A of this document provides information on how this project 

relates to the overall Tongass National Forest timber sale program, and 

why the project is being scheduled at this time. 

Proposed Action (Alternative 2) 

The proposed action, as published in the Federal Register, provides for 

multiple timber sale opportunities and would result in the production of 

approximately 40 million board feet (mmbf) of timber from approximately 

2,025 acres of forested land. Up to 11.1 miles of National Forest System 

(NFS) roads and 7.0 miles of temporary roads may be necessary for timber 

harvest. Through two field seasons and the interdisciplinary process, the 

proposed action has been adjusted to respond to on the ground conditions 

and resource concerns while remaining within the scope of the original 

proposed action. The Proposed Action for this project still provides for 

multiple timber sale opportunities and will result in the production of 

approximately 46.8 mmbf (about 39.4 mmbf of sawlog and 7.4 mmbf of 

utility) from 2,506 acres of forested land. Up to 7.3 miles of new NFS and 

up to 3.9 miles of temporary road would be constructed for timber harvest. 

A range of alternatives, responsive to significant issues, has been 

developed and includes a no action alternative. 

The interdisciplinary team has identified several projects within the 

project area that could serve as stewardship opportunities along side the 

timber harvest proposal. These projects consist mainly of trail 

maintenance, pre-commercial thinning opportunities (both for silvicultural 

and wildlife purposes), fisheries and hydrology opportunities, and road 

maintenance activities. These projects will be analyzed as common to all 

action alternatives. (See Chapter 2, pages 8 and 9.) 

Decisions to be Made 

Based on the environmental analysis in this EIS, the Forest Supervisor 

will decide whether and how to implement activities within the Central 

Kupreanof Project Area in accordance with Forest Plan goals, 

objectives, and desired conditions. The decision may include the 

following: 
DEIS Summary 

 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Summary iii

 The location, amount, and method of timber harvest, road 

construction, marine access facilities, and silvicultural 

practices. 

 Road management objectives for constructed, reconstructed 

and existing roads associated with the timber sale. 

 Any necessary project-specific mitigation design, mitigation 

measures and monitoring requirements. 

 Whether to implement the Project Opportunities common to all 

action alternatives. 

 A determination of whether there may be a possibility of a 

significant change in subsistence uses and access. 

 A Microsale program along existing NFS Roads 6030, 6040, 

6314, 6314S, 6326, 6328, 6334, 6336, 6339, and 6367. 

Significant Issues 

Significant issues are used to formulate and design alternatives, 

prescribe mitigation measures, and analyze significant effects. 

Significant issues for the Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest have been 

identified through public and internal scoping. Similar issues are 

combined where appropriate. Issues can arise from a variety of 

sources, including: 

 Issues, concerns, and opportunities identified in the Forest 

Plan, 

 Issues identified for similar projects (past actions), 

 Current internal issues, 

 Changes in public uses, attitudes, values, or perceptions, 

 Issues raised by the public during scoping, and 

 Comments from other government agencies. 

Measures of the significance of an issue are based on the extent of the 

geographic distribution, the duration of the related effects, or the 

intensity of interest or resource conflict surrounding the issue. For an 

issue to be considered significant at the project level, it must be 

relevant to the specific project so that it can be appropriately addressed 

at the project level. Some issues have already been resolved through 

national level direction or analyzed at the Forest Plan level. 

Once a significant issue is identified, measures are developed to 

analyze how each alternative responds to the issue. Measures are 

chosen that are quantitative (where possible), predictable, responsive 
DEIS Summary 

iv  Summary Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS

to the issue, and linked to cause and effect relationships. These 

measures describe how the alternative affects the resource(s) at the 

heart of the issue. Monitoring and mitigation of the anticipated 

environmental effects of the project are also designed to be responsive 

to significant issues. 

These issues are addressed through the proposed action and the 

alternatives. 

Issue statement: 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. 

This issue relates to the viability of the local economies, both on 

Kupreanof Island and within Southeast Alaska. It concerns proposed 

timber sales, the potential employment and revenues generated by the 

project, and the ability of smaller companies to compete for timber 

sales in the project area. It also relates to the availability of a timber 

supply and overall ability to respond to ever-changing future markets. 

This issue addresses both maximizing timber harvest and “best” 

economics. While looking at financial efficiency analysis is one tool to 

gauge economics, a greater number of units/larger volume available 

allows for greater diversity and flexibility in responding to future 

market demands and to appropriately packaging potential sales. Also, 

with the 2008 Forest Plan decision and implementation of the adaptive 

management strategy, timber economics must consider maximizing 

opportunities in the Phase 1 land base. 

Units of Measure 

The unit of measure to compare alternatives will include timber 

volume measured in million board feet (MMBF), logging costs per 

thousand board feet (MBF), indicated bid in dollars per MBF, 

employment in number of direct job years, direct income based on 

projected employment, and logging systems by harvest method (acres). 

The unit of measure will also include a qualitative discussion of an 

alternative’s ability to provide for greater diversity and flexibility in 

responding to future market demands and packaging a variety of 

potential sales. 

Issue statement: Timber harvest and building roads in inventoried 

roadless areas will reduce roadless acres within the project area and 

affect roadless values as identified in the 2003 Tongass Land and 

Resource Management Plan Revision Final Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement – Roadless Area Evaluation for 

Wilderness Recommendations ( 2003 Forest Plan SEIS). 

This issue relates to timber harvest and the related construction of new 

roads to facilitate timber harvest in inventoried roadless areas. 

Issue 1- 

Timber 

Supply/Sale 

Economics 

Issue 2 – 

Inventoried 

Roadless Areas 
DEIS Summary 

 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Summary v

Additional roads and harvest would result in reducing acres of roadless 

area in the project area, and could affect roadless values as identified 

in the 2003 Forest Plan SEIS. Nationally, inventoried roadless areas 

are considered to have valuable qualities. Several comments were 

received from the public concerning management of roadless in the 

project area. Three of the four inventoried roadless areas within the 

project area may be directly affected by proposed activities. 

Unit of Measure 

Comparison of alternatives will include acres of inventoried roadless 

areas affected, percent of inventoried roadless areas affected, and the 

effects to the roadless values of each inventoried roadless area as 

identified in the 2003 Forest Plan SEIS. 

Issue statement: Road building, reconstruction and closures 

associated with the timber sale may change access within the project 

area. 

The construction and use of forest roads is the focus of much concern 

on both a national and local scale. Comments ranged from requesting 

no more new roads and closure of most existing roads to requests to 

increase access by new roads and opening more existing roads. 

Decisions made from the analysis in this EIS will include proposed 

road construction in each alternative (new construction and 

reconstruction), use of existing NFS roads, and the status of these 

roads after timber harvest. 

Roads influence wildlife populations, water quality, subsistence use, 

the type of recreational opportunities available. Concerns were also 

expressed over the ability to maintain open roads. The District will 

look at road management objectives across the district, including the 

entire Kake Road System during the District Road Analysis Process 

(RAP). Recommendations for roads not associated with the proposed 

activities will be carried forward and analyzed through the District’s 

NEPA Access Travel Management (ATM) process by 2009. 

Unit of Measure 

Comparison of alternatives will include miles of road (NFS and 

temporary) constructed, miles of reconstructed road, miles of road to 

be left open, miles of road to be closed associated with timber harvest 

activities, miles of new NFS and temporary road to be constructed in 

inventoried roadless areas, cost of maintenance for open roads, 

reconstruction, and new (NFS and temporary) road construction. 

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 

Issue 3 – Road 

Management/ 

Access 
DEIS Summary 

vi  Summary Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS

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. 

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 

Fisheries/ 

Hydrology 

Recreation 

Invasive Plants 
DEIS Summary 

 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Summary vii

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 on the Kake Road System. 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 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 

Silviculture/ 

Wildlife 

Transportation 

Alternative 1 

(Figure 2-1) 
DEIS Summary 

viii  Summary Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS

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 

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 

Alternative 2 

(Figure 2-2) 

Alternative 3 

(Figure 2-3) 

Alternative 4 

(Figure 2-4) 
DEIS Summary 

 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Summary ix

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

flexibility in the long term. 

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 

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. 

Biodiversity and 

Old Growth 

Beach and 

Estuary Fringe 

Fish and Marine 

Habitats 
DEIS Summary 

x  Summary Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS

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. 

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 

Heritage 

Resources 

Invasive Species 

Karst Resources 

Soils, Water 

Quality and 

Wetlands 
DEIS Summary 

 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Summary xi

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. 

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 

acre 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. 

Scenery 

Roads 

Rock Quarries 

Log Transfer 

Facility (LTF) 

Logging Camp 

Subsistence 
DEIS Summary 

xii  Summary Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS

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. 

Timber Harvest/ 

Helicopter 

Logging 
DEIS Summary 

 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Summary xiii

Table S-1. Comparison of Alternatives by Issue and Effects 

( Note-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 

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 
DEIS Summary 

xiv  Summary Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS

Units of Measure Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

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% 

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 
DEIS Summary 

 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Summary xv

Units of Measure Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

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% 

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% 
DEIS Summary 

xvi  Summary Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS

Units of Measure Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

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 
Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Contents i

Table of Contents 

Volume A 

Chapter 1- Purpose and Need 

Introduction........................................................................................1-1 

Purpose and Need .............................................................................. 1-2 

The Decision Making Process ...........................................................1-3 

Decisions to be Made......................................................................... 1-3 

Proposed Action (Alternative 2) ........................................................ 1-3 

Description of the Project Area..........................................................1-4 

Public Involvement .......................................................................... 1-13 

Consultation with Federally Recognized Tribal Governments and 

Tribal Corporations..........................................................................1-14 

Significant Issues .............................................................................1-15 

Other Issues and Concerns............................................................... 1-17 

Federal and State Permits, Licenses and Certifications...................1-19 

Applicable Laws and Executive Orders........................................... 1-20 

Chapter 2- Alternatives 

Introduction........................................................................................2-1 

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

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

Alternatives Considered in Detail...................................................... 2-3 

Identification of the Preferred Alternative.........................................2-4 

Design Criteria Common to all Action Alternatives..........................2-4 

Mitigation Measures ..........................................................................2-7 

Projects Common to all Action Alternatives .....................................2-8 

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ..........2-9 

Monitoring .......................................................................................2-11 

Comparison of Alternatives...............................................2-12 
Contents 

ii  Contents Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

Chapter 3- Environment and Effects 

Introduction........................................................................................3-1 

Timber Supply and Timber Economics .............................................3-9 

Inventoried Roadless Areas .............................................................3-23 

Road Management/Access...............................................................3-37 

Other Resources Considered............................................................3-53 

Botany.............................................................................................. 3-53 

Wildlife ............................................................................................3-66 

Subsistence....................................................................................... 3-87 

Hydrology/Fisheries......................................................................... 3-94 

Timber and Vegetation ..................................................................3-122 

Soils and Geology.......................................................................... 3-137 

Wetlands ........................................................................................ 3-147 

Scenery...........................................................................................3-157 

Unroaded Areas .............................................................................3-169 

Recreation ......................................................................................3-170 

Heritage Resources ........................................................................3-181 

Findings and Disclosures ............................................................... 3-185 

Chapter 4- References and Lists

Glossary .............................................................................................4-1 

List of Preparers...............................................................................4-28 

List of DEIS Recipients ...................................................................4-30 

References........................................................................................4-34 

Index ................................................................................................ 4-44 
Contents 

 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Summary iii

List of Tables 

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

.......................................................................................................... 2-15 

Table 3-1. Forest Products Industry Employment in Southeast 

Alaska 2002 through 2006............................................................... 3-11 

Table 3-2. Existing and Proposed Miles by Alternative within the 

Project Area............. .................................................................... 3-13 

Table 3-3. Yarding System and Harvest Method (Acres).........3-14 

Table 3-4. Timber Financial Efficiency Analysis ..................... 3-15 

Table 3-5. Estimated Volume in MMBF...................................3-16 

Table 3-6. Timber Financial Efficiency Analysis (if public work 

funds cover system road construction costs). ..................................3-17 

Table 3-7. Estimated Project Employment and Income in Alaska 

................................................................................3-19 

Table 3-8. Comparison of Alternatives .....................................3-22 

Table 3-9. 2008 Forest Plan Development and Non-development 

LUD allocation for project area Inventoried Roadless Areas..........3-25 

Table 3-10. North Kupreanof Inventoried Roadless Area....... . 3-31 

Table 3-11. South Kupreanof Inventoried Roadless Area ........3-32 

Table 3-12. Rocky Pass Inventoried Roadless Area ............. 3-32 

Table 3-13. Miles of Road by Maintenance Levels ....................3-40 

Table 3-14. Proposed New Road Miles in the Central Kupreanof 

Timber Harvest Project Area ...........................................................3-44 

Table 3-15. Exisiting and Proposed Open Road Miles within the 

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest Project Area ............................3-49 

Table 3-16. Planned Road Construction Miles and Cost by 

Alternative...................................................................................... 3-50 

Table 3-17. Determinations for Sensitive Plant Species by 

Alternative...................................................................................... 3-57 

Table 3-18. High priority Invasive Plants on the Kake Road 

System...........................................................................................3-61 

Table 3-19. Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species.......3-67 

Table 3-20. Acres of Productive Old Growth .............................3-82 

Table 3-21. Cumulative Reduction of POG within the 
Contents 

iv  Contents Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

Biogeographic Province and WAA ................................................. 3-86 

Table 3-22. Summary of Timber Harvest Acres in Project Area 

Watersheds (not including road clearings) ......................................3-98 

Table 3-23. Percent of High and Very High Hazard MMI Soil 

Types and Landslide Summary for Project Area Watersheds .........3-99 

Table 3-24. Density of Roads and Streams in Project Area 

Watersheds.................................................................................... 3-100 

Table 3-25. Stream Classes and Lake/Pond Habitat within Project 

Area Watersheds ............................................................................3-102 

Table 3-26. Anadromous Fish Presence in Project Watersheds 3-103 

Table 3-27. Summary of Proposed Timber Harvest by 

Alternative............................................................................... 3-110 

Table 3-28. 30-year Cumulative Harvest Percentage by Alternative 

(Assumes a 2009 Implementation Date, and that all Proposed Acres 

are Harvested) ................................................................................ 3-111 

Table 3-29. Proposed clearcut acreage in Alternative 2 on High 

(MMI-3) or Very High (MMI-4) Hazard Soils..............................3-112 

Table 3-30. Road Miles and New Stream Crossings Proposed in 

Alternative 2...................................................................................3-113 

Table 3-31. Proposed Clearcut Acreage in Alternative 3 on High 

(MMI-3) or Very High (MMI-4) Hazard Soils..............................3-114 

Table 3-32. Road Miles and Number of New Stream Crossings 

Proposed in Alternative 3...............................................................3-115 

Table 3-33. Proposed Clearcut Acreage1 in Alternative 4 on High 

(MMI-3) or Very High (MMI-4) Hazard Soils..............................3-116 

Table 3-34. Road Miles and New Stream Crossings Proposed in 

Alternative 4...................................................................................3-117 

Table 3-35. Land Classification Acres (National Forest Land) Within 

the Project Area..............................................................................3-124 

Table 3-36. Acres of Suitable and Non-suitable Timber Harvested in 

the Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest Project Area by Decade ..3-127 

Table 3-37. Volume Strata on Suitable Forest Acres in the Central 

Kupreanof Project Area .................................................................3-128 

Table 3-38. Acres of Silviculture System and Regeneration Method 

Chosen for the Central Kupreanof Units by Alternative ...............3-131 

Table 3-39. Previous and Proposed Timber Harvest for Each 
Contents 

 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Summary v

Alternative...................................................................................... 3-135 

Table 3-40. Acres of MMI in Proposed Units by Alternative .......3-139 

Table 3-41. Comparison of Landslides within the Central Kupreanof 

Project Area that are associated with Harvested Areas and those that 

Occurred Naturally.........................................................................3-140 

Table 3-42. Estimated Acres of Detrimental Soil Conditions within the 

Proposed Harvest Units as a result of Project Implementation......3-142 

Table 3-43. Summary of Soil Disturbance Currently within the Central 

Kupreanof Project Area and Disturbance that would result from 

Project Implementation..................................................................3-143 

Table 3-44. Miles of Proposed NFS and Temporary Road by 

Alternative and MMI Class within the Central Kupreanof Project Area

........................................................................................................ 3-143 

Table 3-45. Wetland Habitat Types in the Central Kupreanof Project 

Area................................................................................................3-149 

Table 3-46. Wetland Acres Previously Harvested and those Proposed 

for Harvest within the Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest Area .. 3-149 

Table 3-47. Miles of Road Crossing Wetlands within the Project Area

........................................................................................................ 3-150 

Table 3-48. Past, Proposed and Future Foreseeable Acres of Wetlands 

lost to Road Construction............................................................... 3-151 

Table 3-49. Project Area Visibility from Visual Priority Travel Routes 

or Use Areas................................................................................... 3-159 

Table 3-50. Project Area Acres by Scenic Integrity Objective..... 3-159 

Table 3-51. Project Area Acres by Existing Scenic Integrity.......3-161 

Table 3-52. Acres of Harvest in Distance Zones by Alternative ..3-162 

Table 3-53. Acres of Past and Proposed Cumulative Visual 

Disturbance .................................................................................... 3-167 

Table 3-54. Existing Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) Classes 

in the Central Kupreanof Project Area...........................................3-171 

Table 3-55. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) Class Acres in 

the Project Area..............................................................................3-175 

Table 3-56. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) Percentages in 

the Project Area..............................................................................3-175 
Contents 

vi  Contents Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

List of Figures 

Figure 1-1. Figure Vicinity Map...................................................1-5 

Figure 1-2. Land Use Designations on Kupreanof Island ..........1-11 

Figure 2-1. Figure Alternative 1 Map.........................................2-19 

Figure 2-2. Figure Alternative 2 Map.........................................2-21 

Figure 2-3. Figure Alternative 3 Map.........................................2-23 

Figure 2-4. Figure Alternative 4 Map.........................................2-25 

Figure 2-5. Projects Common to all Action Alternatives ...........2-27 

Figure 3-1. Roadless Map.............................................3-35 

Figure 3-2. Veg map of Kupreanof Island..................................3-77 

Figure 3-3. Project-area watersheds and streams .......................3-95 

Volume B 

Appendices 

Appendix A- Reason for Scheduling the Environmental Analysis of 

the Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest..................................A-1 

Appendix B- Activity Cards...............................................B-1 

Appendix C- Catalog of Events...........................................C-1