United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest Service 

Tongass National Forest 

R10-MB-704 

February 2011 

Central 

Kupreanof 

Timber Harvest

Record of Decision 

Petersburg Ranger District 

Petersburg, Alaska
Abbreviations and Common 

Acronyms 

ANILCA 

Alaska National Interest 

Lands Conservation Act 

ASQ Allowable Sale Quantity 

BMPs Best Management 

Practices 

CCF Hundred Cubic Feet 

CEQ 

Council on Environmental 

Quality 

DBH Diameter at Breast Height 

DEIS 

Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement 

EFH Essential Fish Habitat 

FEIS 

Final Environmental 

Impact Statement 

Forest Plan 

Tongass Land and 

Resource Management 

Plan 2008 

GIS 

Geographic Information 

System 

HSI Habitat Suitability Index 

IDT Interdisciplinary Team 

LTF Log Transfer Facility 

LUD Land Use Designation 

MBF Thousand Board Feet 

MIS 

Management Indicator 

Species 

MMBF Million Board Feet 

MMI Mass Movement Index 

NEAT_R NEPA Economic 

Analysis Tool 

NEPA 

National Environmental 

Policy Act 

NFMA 

National Forest 

Management Act 

NFS National Forest System 

POG Productive Old Growth 

RMA Riparian Management 

Area 

RMO Road Management 

Objective 

ROS Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum 

SHPO State Historic 

Preservation Office 

VCU Value Comparison Unit 

WAA Wildlife Analysis Area 

 

 
United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest

Service

Alaska Region

Tongass National Forest

648 Mission Street

Ketchikan, AK 99901

Phone: (907) 225-3101

Fax: (907) 228-6215

 Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper 

File Code: 1950

Date: February 4, 2011

Dear Reader,

Enclosed is your copy of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of 

Decision (ROD) for the Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest. The ROD documents the reasons I 

selected a modified a version of Alternative 3 from the FEIS as the Selected Alternative and the 

factors considered in reaching this decision. The effective date of implementation for the 

decision and the Notice of Right to Appeal is also specified in the ROD. 

The Central Kupreanof FEIS was printed and slated for release in October 2009. On October 10, 

2009 the Chief of the Forest Service issued a news release specific to Central Kupreanof stating; 

"We will be reviewing the FEIS and the range of alternatives presented as part of that analysis.

Our decision, when it is made, will be the alternative which best accelerates transition from old 

growth to young growth harvest on the Tongass to achieve restoration objectives, provide jobs 

and economic activity. Our decision will thoroughly address the environmental aspects of the 

project, including protection of roadless values." 

I have incorporated the USDA goals and objectives associated with the Transition Framework 

for Economic Diversification in Southeast Alaska into this decision. The Secretary of 

Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, has directed USDA agencies in Alaska, led by the Forest Service and 

Rural Development, to work together as partners to help communities in Southeast Alaska 

transition to a more diversified economy by identifying and using USDA programs to support 

local opportunities for job creation and expansion. Components of the transition will include 

renewable energy, forest restoration and young growth management, fisheries and mariculture, 

tourism and recreation, and subsistence, while sustaining a viable timber economy. This 

decision incorporates viable timber harvest opportunities, forest restoration projects, recreation 

enhancement projects, and the opportunity to pursue implementing these projects through 

stewardship contracts. 

The Final EIS analyzed three action alternatives for harvesting timber, including an alternative 

that does not propose harvest or road building in Inventoried Roadless Areas, and one no-action 

alternative. The action alternatives would make available approximately 28.2 to 70.2 million 

board feet (mmbf) of timber for harvest from the Central Kupreanof project area. The proposed 

harvest includes even-aged and uneven-aged management using shovel, cable and helicopter 

yarding systems. 

The District worked with the community of Kake to identify projects where existing equipment 

and infrastructure could be used to accomplish work such as: culvert replacement, road closure, 

trail maintenance, and invasive plant control. These projects are labeled as “Projects Common to 

Record of 

Decision 

Central Kupreanof 

Timber Harvest 

Lead Agency: Tongass National Forest 

 648 Mission Street 

 Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 

Responsible Official: Forrest Cole 

 Forest Supervisor 

 Tongass National Forest 

For Further 

Information Contact: Christopher Savage, District Ranger 

 Petersburg Ranger District 

 PO Box 1328 

 Petersburg, Alaska 99833 

 (907) 772-3871 

Abstract: The Responsible Official has selected a modified version of 

Alternative 3 from the Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest FEIS, which will 

make approximately 26.3 million board feet of timber available for harvest from 

1,329 acres of commercial forest land. 

Table of Contents 

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

Decision ................................................................................................................. 1

The Selected Alternative ....................................................................................... 2

Reasons for the Decision ....................................................................................... 4

Public Involvement ............................................................................................. 13

Mitigation ............................................................................................................ 14

Monitoring ........................................................................................................... 15

Findings Required By Law ................................................................................. 15

Implementation Process and Process for Considering Changes and New 

Information .......................................................................................................... 24

Right to Appeal ................................................................................................... 26

Appendix 1 Unit Cards 

Introduction ..................................................................................................... A1-1

Unit Card Header Information ........................................................................ A1-1

Harvest Treatments ......................................................................................... A1-2 

Resource Concerns and Responses ................................................................. A1-2

Stream Protection Categories .......................................................................... A1-3 

Best Management Practices ............................................................................ A1-4 

Process Group and Channel Types .................................................................. A1-6

Unit Cards ..................................................................................................... A1-12

Appendix 2 Road Cards 

Introduction ..................................................................................................... A2-1

Operational and Objective Maintenance Levels...................................A2-3

AFRPA ............................................................................................................ A2-4 

Road Cards ...................................................................................................... A2-6 

Appendix 3 Supplemental Information 

Introduction ..................................................................................................... A3-1

Issue 1/Timber Supply and Sale Economics ................................................... A3-3

Issue 2/Inventoried Roadless Areas .............................................................. A3-13 

Issue 3/Road Management/Access ................................................................ A3-19

Wildlife .......................................................................................................... A3-20 

Hydrology/Fisheries ...................................................................................... A3-30 

Updated Appendix A ..................................................................................... A3-33

Response to Comments ................................................................................. A3-41

 

Record of 

Decision 

Central Kupreanof 

Timber Harvest 

Introduction 

The Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest project area is located on Kupreanof 

Island, on the Petersburg Ranger District, about 30 air miles northwest of 

Petersburg, Alaska, and nine miles southeast of Kake, Alaska (see Figure R-1), 

and is connected to the community of Kake. The Central Kupreanof project area 

is about 152,520 acres. 

Decision 

This Record of Decision (ROD) documents my decision to implement a 

modified Alternative 3, hereafter referred to as the Selected Alternative, from the 

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest Final Environmental Impact Statement 

(FEIS). This ROD also documents my decision to implement the projects 

analyzed as common to all action alternatives (stewardship projects) and any 

project-level mitigation measures (see “Mitigation” section in this ROD) as 

specified in the invasive plant species analysis of the FEIS. 

In making this decision I considered: 

 implementing the new USDA objectives associated with the Transition 

Framework for Economic Diversification in Southeast Alaska and providing 

economic opportunities to the community of Kake; 

 offering economic timber that currently meets local demand, while 

addressing watershed and deer issues that were identified through issue 

development; 

 following the 2008 Forest Plan and responding to the Tongass Adaptive 

Management Strategy; 

Central Kupreanof Record of Decision ROD • 1
 

 responding to the public concerns such as harvesting within the headwaters 

of the Castle River watershed, and 

 retaining forest structure and wildlife cover in timber harvest units by 

reducing the need to harvest smaller, low-value trees. 

The Selected Alternative 

My decision includes a modification of the timber harvest units and associated 

roads and rock quarries from Alternative 3 as displayed on the Selected 

Alternative map (Figure R-2) with units listed in Table A1-3 of Appendix 1. 

The Selected Alternative would harvest about 26.3 million board feet (MMBF) 

from approximately 1,329 acres. 

 

The following modifications were made to Alternative 3 in creating the Selected 

Alternative: 

Economic efficiency and flexibility were increased by including harvest units 

that meet the needs of a variety of operators. Included are all harvest units 

within the project area that are closest to the community of Kake, and adjacent 

to the existing Kake road system requiring only ground based harvesting 

systems; eliminating the need for more expensive helicopter logging systems. 

Portions of units specifically requiring a helicopter were also dropped (Units 5, 

203, 208, and 901). 

The following units were ranked as the least economical at this time (according 

to the NEAT_R analysis tool) and dropped to improve the overall economics of 

the project. Several factors including the high cost of road building to access 

some units, the need for a helicopter logging system to harvest volume, and long 

haul distances attributed to the low ranking of the following units: 216, 217, 

230, 232, 233, 234, 236, 239, 249, 257, 258, 260, 261, 262, 263, 265, and 286. 

In response to public comments all units in the headwaters of the Castle River 

watershed were dropped, specifically Units 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 279, 

280 and 281. 

The prescription was changed from clearcut (Even Aged) to a clearcut with 

reserves (30 percent retention) or a Two Aged prescription on 532 acres to retain 

stand structure for wildlife and reduce visual impacts. Economic efficiency was 

also improved by retaining lower value trees; specifically retention of standing 

trees was increased from 30 percent in unit 314 and changed from clearcut to 30 

percent in Units: 2, 205, 207, 305, 306, 310, 313, 320, 501, 502 and 903. 

Merchantable trees of 9 inches or greater will be harvested in patches or 

individually. 

By increasing retention in Unit 314 to 30 percent, the Selected Alternative 

includes design features of the proposed action to ensure connectivity. 

Description of the 

Selected Alternative 

(Figure R-2) 

2 • ROD Central Kupreanof Record of Decision Record of Decision
The Selected Alternative includes construction of 1.8 miles of National Forest 

System (NFS) road and 2.3 miles of temporary road and the associated rock 

quarries necessary for construction. About 1.0 mile of NFS road would be 

reconstructed. All newly constructed and reconstructed NFS roads will be 

closed following timber sale activities. 

Due to the high cost of road building, those units, or portions of units, requiring 

extensive new NFS road construction for access were dropped. Specifically the 

extensions of NFS Road 6327 accessing unit 201, and the extension of NFS 

Road 6334 accessing settings of unit 5. The construction of new NFS Road 

45889 accessing unit 202, NFS Road 45890 accessing the upper settings of unit 

5, and NFS Road 45891 accessing the upper settings of unit 901 were also 

dropped from the project area. 

Temporary roads will be decommissioned and allowed to revegetate after 

harvest. The Road Management Objectives (RMOs) for design features and 

maintenance of the new NFS roads and the existing roads associated with this 

project are described in detail on the road cards in Appendix 2 of the ROD. 

Temporary roads are included on the unit cards in Appendix 1. If needed, the 

existing Little Hamilton LTF will be used to transport the timber from 

Kupreanof Island to other locations by barging and/or rafting as the permit 

allows. 

This decision includes a variety of projects, in association with the proposed 

timber harvest activities. The District has been and is currently working with the 

community of Kake and other partners to identify projects where existing 

equipment and infrastructure from Kake could be used to accomplish the work. 

These projects could become part of a stewardship project that includes timber 

harvest. 

The projects listed below are only the projects that require a decision to be 

implemented through stewardship contracting. The FEIS has identified other 

stewardship opportunities through the implementation of previously completed 

District NEPA documents, as well as implementing projects categorically 

excluded from NEPA. Also, as additional projects are identified and considered, 

the appropriate level of NEPA would be completed prior to implementation, and 

the projects would be added to the stewardship contract. In addition, projects 

that already have a decision (for example, road storage considered in the 

Petersburg Ranger District Access and Travel Management Plan) could be 

added. 

In my consideration of the economic opportunities for Kake and this project as a 

package, I have decided to implement the following projects: 

Fisheries/ Hydrology 

Reduce the number of culverts that do not meet fish passage standards (red 

pipes) along the Kake road system. Currently, an estimated 63 red pipes exist on 

Forest Service Roads that will remain open following the implementation of the 

Stewardship 

Projects (Figure R-3) 

Central Kupreanof Record of Decision ROD • 3

Record of Decision
 

Petersburg Ranger District Access Travel Management Plan. These culverts 

will be prioritized for replacement based on site specific habitat assessments. 

Recreation 

Perform trail maintenance and reconstruction work on 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 would include annual brushing, 

condition surveys and replacement of gravel as needed. Structure work on a 

dock, bridges, and culverts associated with the trails would also be included. 

Gravel for trail maintenance in the past has been obtained locally in Kake. 

Reconstruction work is needed along the Big John Bay trail and Cathedral Falls 

trails where trail relocation would be required. Site specific assessments would 

be done when final trail locations have been determined. 

Silviculture/Wildlife 

Currently there are 325 acres of precommercial thinning to accomplish in young 

growth stands that would be done under a stewardship contract on the Kake road 

system. These stands are approximately 25 years old. Thinning prescriptions 

would vary between traditional thinning methods that include spacing from 14 x 

14 to 18 x 18 feet, to more varied spacing that would benefit wildlife, as it would 

provide cover and allow side lighting to reach the forest floor. 

A Microsale is a timber sale consisting of dead or down timber which has been 

proposed by a prospective purchaser. The District Ranger then agrees to offer 

the sale for bidding using an informal advertisement and short bid form. The 

maximum size of a Microsale is 50 MBF. Microsales are generally associated 

with a small number of trees. Dead or down trees within a distance of 

approximately 200 feet from one of the listed roads below, and are harvestable 

under Forest Plan (2008) Standards and Guidelines, may be eligible as a 

Microsale opportunity within the project area. 

On site evaluation will be conducted when trees have been identified for 

Microsale opportunities. The Selected Alternative includes the following roads 

in which Microsales may be authorized by the District Ranger; NFS roads 6314, 

6326, 6328, 6334, 6336, 6339 and 6040. 

Reasons for the Decision 

In making my decision, I considered the objectives to meet the purpose and need 

for this project as well as the issues and concerns that arose during scoping and 

comments on the Draft EIS, both in support and opposition of this project. I 

considered Forest Plan direction relevant to this project and the competing 

interests and values of the public. I considered all viewpoints and incorporated 

them where feasible and consistent with the purpose and need of the project. 

I evaluated the trade-off between resource protection and social values. The 

Selected Alternative provides a beneficial mix of resources for the public, within 

Microsales 

4 • ROD Central Kupreanof Record of Decision Record of Decision
a framework of existing laws, regulations, policies, public needs and desires, and 

the capabilities of the land, while meeting the stated purpose and need for this 

project. My decision to implement the Selected Alternative conforms to the 

Forest Plan and National Forest Management Act (NFMA). 

I have incorporated the USDA goals and objectives associated with the 

Transition Framework for Economic Diversification in Southeast Alaska into 

this decision. The Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, has directed USDA 

agencies in Alaska, led by the Forest Service and Rural Development, to work 

together as partners to help communities in Southeast Alaska transition to a 

more diversified economy by identifying and using USDA programs to support 

local opportunities for job creation and expansion. Components of the transition 

will include renewable energy, forest restoration and young growth 

management, fisheries and mariculture, tourism and recreation, and subsistence, 

while sustaining a viable timber economy. 

I considered the needs of the community of Kake and the opportunity to 

potentially provide some economic benefits with this project. The “Projects 

Common to all Action Alternatives” were developed, in part, to use stewardship 

contracting with timber harvest. The Petersburg Ranger District has been 

working with the community of Kake and other partners to identify these 

projects where existing equipment and infrastructure could be used to 

accomplish the work. A stewardship workshop was conducted in Kake the first 

week of October 2010 to identify projects as well as get a understanding on 

Kake’s capacity to implement some of these stewardship projects. I have 

included these projects within the Selected Alternative to provide this 

opportunity. While these projects were designed to be part of a stewardship 

contract, they might also be accomplished independently as funds become 

available. This decision incorporates timber opportunities, forest restoration 

projects, recreation enhancement projects and the opportunity to pursue 

implementing these projects through stewardship contracts. These projects have 

the purpose of resource restoration and protection, Forest user benefits, and 

providing job opportunities for the community of Kake. 

I considered the need to manage this timber resource on the Tongass in order to 

produce an even-flow of sawtimber and other wood products. Appendix A of 

the Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest FEIS, as updated in Appendix 3, 

describes the process that maintains a steady supply of timber and how each 

project goes through a series of steps before timber can be offered from the 

National Forest. I considered the concerns for providing economical timber sale 

offerings and the need to meet annual demand for timber. This decision 

provides about 26.3 MMBF of timber volume for the Southeast Alaska timber 

industry. I considered the effects on wildlife habitat, timber economics and 

aquatics as presented in the FEIS as well as the additional information provided 

in Appendix 3 of this ROD. All information contained in Appendix 3 is within 

the scope of effects presented to the public for comment in the DEIS. Appendix 

3 presents updated information and explains how that updated information fits 

Central Kupreanof Record of Decision ROD • 5

Record of Decision
 

with the analysis presented in the FEIS, and how it relates to the Selected 

Alternative. 

I realize that the financial efficiency of the Selected Alternative shows this 

alternative as being negative as a whole. However, the development of 

economic sales appears to be possible even though there continues to be a 

current downward trend in the timber markets. At this time, when not all of the 

timber may be economical to offer, I also needed to consider the fluctuation of 

timber markets, the length of time that it takes to do field review and analyses on 

a project of this size, the timber volume available, and the relative effects of 

each alternative. The Selected Alternative will provide opportunities for a 

variety of sale sizes appealing to small local operators as well as larger operators 

in Southeast. In addition, as part of this decision, Microsales could be offered at 

a purchaser’s request as described in the previous section. 

All units in the headwaters of the Castle River watershed were dropped in the 

Selected Alternative in response to public comments. The Castle River was 

identified as a high-value watershed by The Nature Conservancy and the 

Audubon Society. 

Proposed harvest levels in all watersheds are lower for the Selected Alternative 

than all other action alternatives. Cumulative watershed effects are minimized in 

the Selected Alternative, which proposes no harvest in four of the seven 

watersheds analyzed for the FEIS. The Selected Alternative will increase 

cumulative harvest levels in the Hamilton Creek and Big John watersheds, 

which may result in increased water yield and sediment delivery to streams. 

However, trends in 30-year cumulative harvest levels are declining in all 

watersheds due to the ongoing re-growth of trees harvested over a period of 

decades. For example, 30-year cumulative harvest levels in the McNaughton 

Point watershed have decreased even though 465 acres are proposed for harvest 

in the Selected Alternative. Total number of stream crossings, as well as those 

on Class I and Class II streams has also decreased (Table R-1). This reflects 

fewer miles of new NFS and temporary road building associated with the harvest 

units chosen in the Selected Alternative. 

I have considered the effects on wildlife habitat by looking at the reduction of 

Productive Old Growth (POG) which provides a way to measure effects to 

wildlife as well as display the amount of habitat no longer available to a variety 

of wildlife species. Since the existing habitat condition of Central Kupreanof is 

primarily associated with deer forage during the winter months, a limiting factor, 

this habitat component provides an accurate description of effects to wildlife 

species. 

The harvest of the Selected Alternative would result in 2.2 percent reduction of 

POG within the project area (1,265 acres), 0.5 percent reduction within multiple 

Wildlife Analysis Areas (WAA) (5012, 5013, 5018, 5130, 5131, 5032, and 

5133), and 0.4 percent reduction within the Mitkof-Kupreanof Biogeographic 

6 • ROD Central Kupreanof Record of Decision Record of Decision
Province. Many of the larger blocks of old-growth habitat are to the west of the 

project area within non-development LUDs and will remain indefinitely. Also, 

by maintaining 30 percent retention in Unit 314 and not including Unit 272 and 

273, I have incorporated several features from the proposed action to ensure 

connectivity. 

Table 3-19, Wildlife Species Screen Analysis, in Chapter 3 of the FEIS (page 3-

73) includes wildlife species from the Regional Foresters 2002 and 2009 

Sensitive Species List. Since the publication of the FEIS, this list has been 

updated; therefore additional analysis was needed to reflect this change. The 

updated effects are discussed in Appendix 3, as well as in the Biological 

Evaluation (BE). I have considered this correction, as well as the BE that 

evaluates effects to these species, in my decision. 

During the DEIS scoping period, comments were received requesting an 

expanded discussion relating to deer habitat capability, including running the 

Forest Plan deer model. To accommodate this request, the deer model was run 

for each alternative. This helps show the relationship between the deer model 

and the newer alternative analysis as presented in the DEIS and the FEIS. The 

deer model is necessary for comparative purposes as well as it is what the public 

is accustomed to seeing. 

I have thoroughly reviewed the results of the deer model (see Appendix 3) and 

have found them to be consistent with the Wildlife Productive Old Growth 

(POG) analysis. The ranking of alternatives did not change. 

I am aware that Kake residents use the project area for subsistence deer hunting. 

Because the amount of habitat reduction (productive old growth) estimated to 

occur is relatively low (0.5 percent) in the primary hunting areas on Kake and 

Kupreanof Islands (WAAs 5012, 5013, 5018, 5130, 5131, 5132, 5133), a large 

reduction in abundance or a major redistribution of deer populations is not 

expected. The Subsistence analysis in the FEIS and review for the Selected 

Alternative shows that even with the access changes in the Petersburg Ranger 

District Access and Travel Management decision, there will be no substantial 

interference with harvestable access to active subsistence-use sites. Finally, no 

major increase or change in competition with non-rural resident hunters is 

expected. Therefore, I have determined there will not be a significant possibility 

of a significant restriction of deer, or any other subsistence resource, with 

implementation of the Selected Alternative. 

Finally, I considered the effects of this project on other resources, including 

soils, wetlands, scenery, climate change, recreation, and heritage. These 

resources were analyzed in the FEIS and in the review of the Selected 

Alternative. The comparison table (Table R-1) discloses the effects of many of 

these resources. A full discussion of effects for each resource can be found in the 

FEIS and project record. 

Central Kupreanof Record of Decision ROD • 7

Record of Decision
 

Effects of the Selected Alternative on Significant 

Issues 

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 everchanging future markets. This issue addresses both maximizing timber harvest 

and trying to achieve the most economical timber sales. 

The Selected Alternative responds to this issue by targeting the most-economic 

units within the project area by removing units requiring expensive helicopter 

yarding systems, and by dropping units where access requires the construction of 

lengthy road extensions. Retention of lower-value old growth also improves 

economics on a stand-by-stand basis where it is safe to do so. Retention of these 

trees changed the prescription from clearcut on 578 acres to clearcut with 

reserves (30 percent retention) on shovel and cable logging units. 

The project area yields an estimated 22.3 MMBF of sawlog and 4 MMBF utility 

volumes. The estimated logging and transportation costs are $387 per thousand 

board feet (MBF) with road costs estimated to be $27.00/MBF. The indicated 

bid is ($51.17) per MBF. Between 88 and 125 direct annualized jobs would be 

supported in Alaska, providing an estimated $3.42 to $4.7 million in direct 

income (see Appendix 3). 

Though the overall indicated rate per MBF of the selected alternative remains 

negative, the selected alternative will provide enough flexibility for small sales 

and Microsales that typically improve economics. Interest to purchase small 

sales and microsales exist within the community of Kake. Microsales would be 

allowed to occur along existing NFS roads 6314, 6326, 6328, 6334, 6336, 6339 

and 6040 within the project area. Larger offerings may be offered in the future 

to meet the timber demands of the region as economics improve. 

Once cleared by this decision, units from the Selected Alternative may be 

packaged and sold to a variety of different operators locally and throughout 

Southeast Alaska, depending on the market and demand at the time of purchase. 

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

facilitate timber harvest in inventoried roadless areas. 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. 

Issue 1: Timber 

Supply and 

Economics 

Issue 2: Inventoried 

Roadless Areas 

8 • ROD Central Kupreanof Record of Decision Record of Decision
The Selected Alternative dropped all units in roadless areas due to primarily 

timber economics and wildlife concerns. The proposed activities do not affect 

inventoried roadless areas. 

The Central Kupreanof FEIS roadless analysis was based on the 2008 roadless 

inventory. The Selected Alternative and activities associated with this decision 

do not include any road construction or timber harvest within inventoried 

roadless areas as identified in the 2001 Roadless Rule or the 2008 Roadless 

Inventory (see Figure R-2). 

A complete comparison of all of the FEIS Action Alternatives using the 2001 

Roadless Rule is located in Appendix 3 of this document under the heading 

Inventoried Roadless Areas. Table R-1 displays the effects of the 2001 Roadless 

Rule on all Action Alternatives and the Selected Alternative for the roadless 

issue. 

Road building, reconstruction and closures associated with the timber sale may 

change access within the project area. Roads influence wildlife populations, 

water quality, subsistence use, and the type of recreational opportunities 

available. Comments ranged from requesting no more new roads and closure of 

most existing roads, to requests to increase access by building new roads and 

opening more existing roads. Concerns were also expressed over the ability to 

maintain open roads due to lack of funding. 

The Selected Alternative will construct 1.8 miles of NFS road, reconstruct 1.0 

mile of NFS road and build about 2.3 miles of temporary road to access timber. 

All newly constructed and reconstructed NFS roads will be closed after timber 

harvest activities. Specific information regarding these roads can be found in 

Appendix 2 of this ROD. Temporary roads will be decommissioned after timber 

harvest. See unit cards in Appendix 1 for temporary road site-specific details. 

Road costs are expected to be about $696,700. The Selected Alternative will use 

the Little Hamilton Bay Log Transfer Facility. 

All resources were evaluated for the effects of the Selected Alternative; none of 

the effects for any resource were outside the range of the alternatives analyzed in 

detail for the Central Kupreanof FEIS. Updated analysis for timber economics, 

wildlife, roadless, and watershed are included as appendices. Analyses of the 

effects on other resources for the Selected Alternative, including the cumulative 

effects with other projects, are located in the project record. 

Table R-1 displays a comparison of the Selected Alternative with the 

alternatives analyzed in the Central Kupreanof FEIS. 

Traditionally the Forest Service has offered two distinct types of contracts: 

timber sales (designed to sell government property), and service contracts 

(designed to purchase goods and services from businesses). As the Forest 

Service has shifted its focus to restoration activities, new stewardship 

contracting formats have been developed that combine the purchase of goods 

and services with the sale of timber. In 1998 Congress authorized stewardship 

Issue 3: Road 

Management / 

Access 

Other Environmental 

Consequences 

Stewardship 

Contracting 

Opportunities 

Central Kupreanof Record of Decision ROD • 9

Record of Decision
 

end result contracting, commonly referred to as stewardship contracting, on a 

limited demonstration basis, to perform services to achieve land management 

goals for the national forests that meet local and rural community needs. This is 

a flexible implementation tool suited to accomplish restoration work. 

Funding for project contracting may come from a combination of timber receipts 

and other appropriated dollars. The receipts from the value of the timber could 

be used to finance the contractual requirements, and a priority listing of the 

project area activities could be included in the contract. These projects would 

either be accomplished as part of the contract or independently. There would be 

a list of mandatory projects to be completed with timber receipts, combined with 

the possibility of using other appropriated dollars available to maximize the 

number of projects completed. 

The Decision Notice for the Petersburg Ranger District Access and Travel 

Management Environmental Assessment was signed September 11, 2009. The 

road management decisions in this ROD are consistent with the ATM decision. 

Appendix 2 in this ROD contains the road management objectives for the NFS 

roads associated with the timber harvest proposed in the Selected Alternative. 

Petersburg Ranger 

District Access and 

Travel Management 

10 • ROD Central Kupreanof Record of Decision Record of Decision
Project Area Boundary

Non-National Forest

Salt Water

Existing Roads

Figure R-1

Central Kupreanof

Vicinity Map

0 4 8 12 16 2

Miles ±

c:/workspace/ckupre/plots/rod10/fig_r1_prd.mxd 09-25-09 MP

Kake

Kupreanof Island

Kuiu Island

Mitkof

Island

Petersburg

Prince of Wales

Island

Zarembo

Island

F R E D E R I C K S O U N D

S U M N E R S T R A I T

Hamilton LTF

PETERSBURG RANGER DISTRICT

PROJECT AREA SHOWN IN GREY

Petersburg

Central Kupreanof Record of Decision ROD • 11 Record of Decision
 

Alternatives Considered 

Four alternatives were considered in detail in the Draft EIS released for public 

comment. All alternatives, with the exception of Alternative 1, respond to the 

purpose and need for this project. All action alternatives respond to the issues 

identified, in varying degrees, as displayed in Table R-1, the Central Kupreanof 

Final EIS, and Appendix 3 of this document. 

The NEPA Economic Analysis Tool Residual Value (NEAT_R version 2.16) is 

the Forest Service, Alaska Region, financial efficiency and economic analysis 

program for use in timber planning. NEAT_R updates have resulted in slight 

volume differences between alternatives from what was published in the FEIS. 

These updates to the NEAT_R program were utilized in the analysis of the 

Selected Alternative and have resulted in a subtle increase of the overall 

estimated volume across all alternatives (see the Timber Supply/Sale Economics 

section in Appendix 3 of this document for more information). 

The Final EIS analyzed the following alternatives in detail: 

This alternative proposed no new timber harvest or road construction in the 

project area. It does not preclude timber harvest from other areas or from the 

project area in the future. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations 

[40 CFR 1502.14(d)] require that a “No Action” alternative be analyzed in every 

EIS. This alternative represents the existing condition. It serves as a baseline 

for comparing the action alternatives for resources like wildlife habitat and soil 

disturbance. Alternative 1 also responds to the issue of no timber harvest in 

Inventoried Roadless Areas. This alternative does not meet the purpose and 

need of supplying timber. If the need for timber production in the project area is 

not met, then timber would need to be supplied from other areas. 

 This alternative proposed to harvest 2,506 acres, producing 50.0 MMBF of 

timber. This alternative was designed to address concerns related to timber 

economics and deer habitat. This alternative was not selected because it did not 

provide the flexibility in targeting units and adjusting prescriptions to improve 

economics. 

This was the preferred alternative for the Draft EIS. This alternative includes 

proposed harvest of 3,647 acres, producing 75.8 MMBF of timber and was 

designed to maximize timber volume. This alternative was not selected as 

designed in the Final EIS. Instead it was modified to focus on the units closest 

to the community of Kake, and to address public comments about harvest within 

the headwaters of the Castle River. Therefore this was chosen as the Selected 

Alternative. 

This alternative proposed to harvest 1,327 acres, producing 29.8 MMBF of 

timber. This alternative was developed in response to public concerns about the 

effects of increased road access, timber harvest, and the effects to Inventoried 

Alternative 1 - No 

Action 

Alternative 2- 

Proposed Action 

Alternative 3 

Alternative 4 

12 • ROD Central Kupreanof Record of Decision Record of Decision
Roadless Areas. This alternative was not selected in order to focus on the more 

economic units closest to the community of Kake. 

Alternative 1, the No-action Alternative, would result in no environmental 

disturbance and is therefore the environmentally preferred alternative. Of the 

action alternatives, Alternative 4 is the environmentally preferred alternative for 

the project area. This alternative retains the most productive old growth and 

retains the most connectivity, has the least increase in total road density, and 

cause the least amount of soil disturbance. 

Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration 

Several additional alternatives were proposed internally and by the public during 

scoping and review of the Central Kupreanof Draft EIS. More discussion of 

these alternatives is located in Chapter 2 of the Final EIS, Alternatives 

Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study, and Appendix D, Responses to 

Comments. 

Alternatives suggested during scoping that were considered during the 

alternative development stage of the project include: alternatives that address 

subsistence and deer habitat, alternatives that only produce small sales and 

Microsales, and a range of alternatives that address the Inventoried Roadless 

Areas. The Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) considered these alternatives to 

address all these concerns. Rationale for eliminating from detailed analysis is 

included in Chapter 2 of the Draft EIS and Final EIS. A comprehensive 

description and review is in Chapter 2 of the FEIS. 

Additionally, Southeast Alaska Conservation Council (SEACC) submitted a 

proposal called the “Community Alternative” in May 2008 after the close of the 

comment period for the Draft EIS in February 2008. When the community 

alternative was compared to the previously analyzed alternatives it was found to 

be very similar to Alterative 4. It addressed the concerns about Inventoried 

Roadless Areas proposing no units or roads within Inventoried Roadless Areas. 

Other projects on Kupreanof Island (Kake Small Sales CE, for example) 

specifically address the need for supply to the small mills on the island; this 

project is designed to provide a larger-volume sale in addition to small sales. 

Because of this, the construction of roads was needed to access the timber as 

efficiently, economically, and safely as possible. Therefore, the community 

alternative was eliminated from detailed analysis, as discussed in Chapter 2 of 

the Final EIS. 

Public Involvement 

Public involvement has been instrumental in identifying issues and creating 

alternatives for this project and assisting me in making a more-informed 

decision for the Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest project. Public meetings, 

Federal Register notices, newspaper ads, government-to-government 

Environmentally 

Preferred Alternative 

Central Kupreanof Record of Decision ROD • 13 Record of Decision
 

consultation, group and individual meetings, and the Tongass National Forest 

Schedule of Proposed Actions were used to seek input for this project. 

Open houses were held in Petersburg on May 5, 2008, and in Kake July 7, 2008. 

Meetings were also held with the City of Kake on July 7, 2008 to discuss 

potential stewardship opportunities and with the Organized Village of Kake 

(OVK) in May of 2008, and again March 25, 2009. See Chapter 1 of the Central 

Kupreanof Final EIS for more information, and the timing of public involvement 

activities. A complete list of all members of the public, groups, and agencies 

that received a copy of the Draft EIS for review is in Chapter 4 of the Central 

Kupreanof Draft EIS. 

The Notice of Intent for the Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest project was 

published December 27, 2006. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

(DEIS) Notice of Availability was published in the Federal Register on 

December 19, 2008. The 45-day public comment period ended on February 2, 

2009. Subsistence hearings were held in Kake and Petersburg, Alaska in March 

2009. 

Comments received regard subsistence, roads and access, wildlife species and 

habitat (especially deer), fish passage at road crossings, cumulative effects, 

roadless areas, timber supply, demand and economics, soil stability, water 

quality, wetlands, old-growth habitat and reserves, recreation, harvest methods 

and prescription, and windthrow. Testimonies from the subsistence hearings are 

located in the project record. Responses to comments on the Draft EIS are in 

Appendix D of the Central Kupreanof Final EIS. 

The project record for this project includes the Draft EIS and Final EIS, Forest 

Plan, all material incorporated by reference and other critical materials produced 

during the environmental analysis of this project. The project record is available 

for review at the Petersburg Ranger District. 

Mitigation 

The analysis documented in the Final EIS discloses the possible adverse effects 

of implementing the actions proposed under each alternative. Forest Plan 

Standards and Guidelines were formulated to mitigate or reduce these effects. 

This direction was applied in the development of the project alternatives, 

including the Selected Alternative, and in the design of the harvest units and 

roads. Appendix 1 (Unit Cards) and Appendix 2 (Road Cards) of this Record of 

Decision discuss any specific mitigation measures for the Selected Alternative. 

The only project-level mitigation measures are for invasive plants. These 

include: 

 Require contractors to use Forest Service approved rock sources. The 

existing rock quarries in the project area were surveyed in 2006 and no 

high-priority invasive species were found. This will require an inventory 

Project Record 

14 • ROD Central Kupreanof Record of Decision Record of Decision
of rock sources prior to implementation and documentation in the 

Tongass Change Analysis that the rock sources are still approved for use. 

 If any rock sources become contaminated with high-priority invasive 

species and treatment to remove the plants is not an option, consider the 

use of the contaminated rock for reconstruction of existing roads only. 

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. 

Monitoring of the Selected Alternative will be done during implementation and 

as part of the Forest Plan monitoring program. Specific monitoring item are 

outlined in Chapter 2 of the FEIS. These monitoring items are part of this 

decision and will be implemented. 

Findings Required By Law 

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) of 1980; 

Section 810 

Subsistence Evaluation and Findings: The decision on the Forest Plan 

concluded that “implementation of the Forest Plan may result in a significant 

restriction to subsistence use of deer due to the potential effects of projects on 

the abundance and distribution of these resources, and on competition for these 

resources” (2008 Forest Plan Amendment ROD p. 61). However, a subsistence 

evaluation was conducted for the alternatives in this specific project, in 

accordance with Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) 

Section 810. The evaluation concluded that Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest 

project, including the Selected Alternative, would not have a significant 

possibility of a significant restriction of subsistence uses for deer, bear, 

furbearers, marine mammals, waterfowl, salmon, other finfish, shellfish, and 

other foods such as berries and roots (Chapter 3, Subsistence section, in the 

Final EIS). 

ANILCA 810 subsistence hearings were conducted in Kake, Alaska on March 

17, 2009 and Petersburg, Alaska on March 25, 2009. A total of 18 people 

signed in and 12 people testified. A transcript of this testimony is located in the 

project record. 

The evaluation determined that this project has complied with ANILCA by 

considering: 

Central Kupreanof Record of Decision ROD • 15 Record of Decision
 

Necessary and Consistent with Sound Management of Public Lands: The 

Selected Alternative has been reviewed to determine whether it is necessary and 

consistent with sound management of public lands. In this regard, the National 

Forest Management Act, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, 

the Tongass Timber Reform Act, the Wilderness Act, the Tongass Land and 

Resource Management Plan, the Alaska State Forest Resources and Practices 

Act, and the Alaska Coastal Zone Management Program have been considered. 

ANILCA placed an emphasis on the maintenance of subsistence resources and 

lifestyles. However, this Act also required the Forest Service to make timber 

available for harvest from the Tongass National Forest. The Forest Plan 

determined which uses are suitable for various areas of land within the Tongass 

National Forest through land use designation and management prescriptions. 

The Forest Plan allocated many important subsistence use areas to land use 

designations that do not allow timber harvest. The Forest Plan has determined 

that the Central Kupreanof project area should be managed mostly for varying 

levels of timber production (Timber Production LUD and Modified Landscape 

LUD) but with recognition of the other resource uses (see Forest Plan, Chapter 

3). The Selected Alternative will help achieve some of these multiple-use 

management objectives in the Forest Plan. 

Based on the analysis presented in the Central Kupreanof Final EIS, the findings 

in this ROD and the analysis for the Forest Plan, I have determined that the 

Selected Alternative strikes a balance between meeting the resource needs of the 

public and protecting the forest resources. 

Amount of Public Land Necessary to Accomplish the Proposed Action: The 

amount of land necessary to implement the Selected Alternative is, considering 

sound multiple-use management of public lands, the minimum necessary to 

accomplish the purpose of this project. The entire forested portion of the 

Tongass is used by at least one rural community for subsistence purposes for, at 

a minimum, deer hunting. It is not possible to avoid all of these areas in 

implementing resource use activities, such as timber harvesting and road 

construction, and attempting to reduce effects in some areas can mean increasing 

the use of others. The current Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines and LUD 

prescriptions provide for management or limit activities in many of the areas that 

are most important for subsistence uses, such as beaches and estuaries, and areas 

with high fish and wildlife habitat values. 

Reasonable Steps to Minimize Adverse Impacts to Subsistence Uses and 

Resources: Subsistence use is addressed specifically in a Forest-wide Standard 

and Guideline, and subsistence resources are covered by the Forest-wide 

Standards and Guidelines for wildlife, fish, riparian areas, and biological 

diversity, among others. Fish and wildlife habitat productivity will be 

maintained at the highest level possible for the Selected Alternative, consistent 

with the overall multiple-use goals and improved protection of the Forest Plan. 

16 • ROD Central Kupreanof Record of Decision Record of Decision
The extent and location of the subsistence use areas in the Central Kupreanof 

project area make it impossible to completely avoid subsistence areas during 

timber harvest. However, large areas of deer habitat are protected in old-growth 

habitat reserves, riparian, beach buffers and other non-development LUDs. Fish 

habitat is protected in each alternative through the application of Forest Plan 

Standards and Guidelines. Existing roads and logged areas are currently used 

for subsistence hunting and food-gathering activities. All temporary roads will 

be decommissioned following harvest. All NFS roads reopened, and new NFS 

roads built for harvest activity will be closed after harvest is completed. Please 

refer to the Road Management Objective for each road, located in Appendix 2 

and the project record. 

Bald Eagle Protection Act 

The Selected Alternative complies with the Bald Eagle Protection Act. No bald 

eagle nests have been located in the project area. However, there is a bald eagle 

nest near the Little Hamilton LTF on the west end of the island and appropriate 

protection measures will be applied as necessary. 

Clean Air Act of 1970 (as amended) 

Emissions from the implementation of the Selected Alternative will be of short 

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

standards (18 AAC 50). 

Clean Water Act (1977, as amended) 

Project activities meet all applicable State of Alaska Water Quality Standards. 

Congress intended the Clean Water Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-500) as 

amended in 1977 (Public Law 95-217) and 1987 (Public Law 100-4) to protect 

and improve the quality of water resources and maintain their beneficial uses. 

Section 313 of the Clean Water Act and Executive Order 12088 of January 23, 

1987 addresses Federal agency compliance and consistency with water pollution 

control mandates. Agencies must be consistent with requirements that apply to 

"any governmental entity" or private person. Compliance is to be in line with 

"all Federal, State, interstate, and local requirements, administrative authority, 

and process and sanctions respecting the control and abatement of water 

pollution." 

The Clean Water Act (Sections 208 and 319) recognized the need for control 

strategies for nonpoint source pollution. The National Nonpoint Source Policy 

(December 12, 1984), the Forest Service Nonpoint Strategy (January 29, 1985), 

and the USDA Nonpoint Source Water Quality Policy (December 5, 1986) 

provide a protection and improvement emphasis for soil and water resources and 

water-related beneficial uses. Soil and water conservation practices (BMPs) are 

recognized as the primary control mechanisms for nonpoint source pollution on 

National Forest System lands. The EPA supports this perspective in their 

guidance, "Nonpoint Source Controls and Water Quality Standards" (August 19, 

1987). 

Central Kupreanof Record of Decision ROD • 17 Record of Decision
 

The Forest Service must apply BMPs that are consistent with the Alaska Forest 

Resources and Practices Act (AFRPA) to achieve Alaska Water Quality 

Standards. The site-specific application of BMPs, with a monitoring and 

feedback mechanism, is the approved strategy for controlling nonpoint source 

pollution as defined by Alaska’s Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Strategy 

(2007). In 1997, the State approved the BMPs in the Forest Service Soil and 

Water Conservation Handbook (FSH 2509.22, July 2006) as consistent with 

AFRPA. This handbook is incorporated by reference into the Forest Plan and 

this project. 

A discharge of dredge or fill material from normal silvicultural activities such as 

harvesting for the production of forest products is exempt from Section 404 

permitting requirements in waters of the United States, including wetlands 

(404)(f)(1)(A). Forest roads qualify for this exemption only if they are 

constructed and maintained in accordance with Baseline Provisions to assure 

that flow and circulation patterns and chemical and biological characteristics of 

the waters are not impaired (404)(f)(1)(E). The Baseline Provisions that must be 

followed are specified in 33 CFR 323.4(a). These specific BMPs are 

incorporated into the Soil and Water Conservation Handbook under BMP 12.5. 

The design of harvest units for the Selected Alternative was guided by standards, 

guidelines and direction in the Forest Plan and applicable Forest Service 

Manuals and Handbooks. The unit cards and road cards (Appendices 1 and 2) 

contain specific details on practices prescribed to prevent or reduce nonpoint 

sediment sources. 

Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972 (as amended) 

Under the Coastal Zone Management Act, Federal activities that affect any land 

or water use or any natural resource of the coastal zone must be conducted in a 

manner that is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the 

enforceable policies of the applicable state coastal management program. On 

December 4, 2006, the State of Alaska issued a final consistency response 

concurring with the Forest Service's General Consistency Determination (GCD) 

for Tongass National Forest Timber Sales (State I.D. No. AK 0608-10J). Under 

this GCD, all timber harvest and associated activities conducted on the Tongass 

National Forest, except for those that require State or Federal permits, have been 

determined to be consistent with the enforceable policies of the Alaska Coastal 

Management Program (ACMP). Aside from possible use of the Hamilton Bay 

LTF, the Selected Alternative for the Central Kupreanof project area does not 

include any activities that require a State or Federal permit. The Projects 

Common to all Action Alternatives are considered outside the scope of the 

GCD. However, in consultation with the State it has been determined that these 

activities, except the potential removal or fixing of culverts to ensure fish 

passage, do not affect the coastal zone and do not require any individual ACMP 

consistency determination or review. All of these activities were assessed in the 

Petersburg Ranger District Access Transportation Management Decision Notice. 

18 • ROD Central Kupreanof Record of Decision Record of Decision
All instream work implemented in the Selected Alternative will undergo review 

by Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) personnel, according to the 

2009 Memorandum of Understanding between the Forest Service and ADF&G. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (as amended) 

The Selected Alternative is not anticipated to have any direct, indirect or 

cumulative effect on any threatened or endangered species in or outside the 

project area. A Biological Evaluation (BE) was completed to analyze threatened, 

endangered and candidate species and was published in Appendix E of the FEIS. 

The BE is also located in the project record. 

Federal Cave Resource Protection Act of 1988 

There are 279 acres of carbonate rock and associated cave resources in the 

Central Kupreanof project area. Field reconnaissance identified these areas as 

low vulnerability karst in Units 309, 310 and 320. Forest Plan Standards and 

Guidelines will be applied. The activities of the Selected Alternative will not 

have a direct, indirect, or cumulative effect on any significant caves in the 

Central Kupreanof project area. 

Forest Service Transportation Final Administrative Policy (Roads 

Rule) 

This ROD, and the Final EIS, have been prepared to be consistent with the 

Forest Service Transportation Final Administrative Policy and the Tongass 

National Forest Level Road Analysis (January 2003) and the Kake Road 

Analysis Report (September 2000, updated 2008). I have determined that the 

proposed road system is “the minimum road system needed for safe and efficient 

travel and for administration, utilization, and protection of National Forest 

System lands" (36 CFR 212.5). 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

The potential effects of the project on Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) were 

included in Chapter 3 of the Draft EIS. This discussion includes reference to the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation Act that requires the Forest Service 

to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service on projects that may affect 

EFH. It also includes a description of the EFH in the project area, a description 

of the proposed activities, and a description of the measures that will protect 

these essential habitats. 

The Draft EIS was provided to the National Marine Fisheries Service to formally 

initiate the consultation process according to the agreement dated June 26, 2007 

between the Forest Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. NMFS 

concurred with the findings that the Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest may 

adversely affect EFH because of cumulative effects of past harvest and provided 

conservation recommendations (February 2009). These recommendations and 

the responses are located in the project record and summarized in the Final EIS. 

Information on the mitigation measures and applicable standards and guidelines 

to minimize effects to EFH are discussed in Chapter 3 of the Final EIS and 

Appendices 1 and 2 of this ROD. A copy of the Final EIS was sent to NMFS. 

Central Kupreanof Record of Decision ROD • 19 Record of Decision
 

This satisfied the EFH consultation requirement based on the 2007 Agreement 

with NMFS. 

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 

Actions authorized in the Selected Alternative will not have a direct, indirect, or 

cumulative effect on marine mammals. Marine mammal viewing guidelines 

administered by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and enforced by 

the Coast Guard are sufficient for their protection. Contractors, purchasers and 

employees will be required to follow provisions on marine wildlife guidelines, 

including special prohibitions on approaching humpback whales in Alaska as 

defined in 50 CFR 224.103. NMFS administers the Marine Mammal Protection 

Act (MMPA), which prohibits the “take” of all marine mammal species in U.S. 

waters. “Take” is defined as “to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to 

harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.” Harassment is defined in the 

MMPA as “any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which has the potential to 

injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild; or has the 

potential to disturb a marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of 

behavior patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, 

breeding, feeding, or sheltering.” 

National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 (as amended) 

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires specific determinations 

in the Record of Decision: consistency with existing Forest Plans, a 

determination of clearcutting as the optimal method of harvesting, if used, and 

specific authorizations to create openings over 100 acres in size. Information 

and rationale used to develop unit prescriptions is shown on unit cards 

(Appendix 1 of the ROD), in Chapter 3 of the Final EIS, and in the project 

record. 

2008 Forest Plan Amendment 

The 2008 Forest Plan Amendment was completed with the signing of the Record 

of Decision (ROD) on January 23, 2008. Central Kupreanof is a Category 3 

project as listed in the Transition to the Amended Forest Plan, which includes 

“Timber sale projects for which a Draft Environmental Impact Statement has not 

been released for public comment before the effective date of this Plan. These 

projects shall be based on the amended Plan and will be consistent with all 

applicable management direction” (Forest Plan ROD, p. 70). 

The ROD for the 2008 Forest Plan Amendment adopts the Timber Sale Program 

Adaptive Management Strategy, under which portions of the suitable land base 

become available for project-level planning in three phases. The Central 

Kupreanof project area is within the Phase 1 portion of the suitable land base. 

I have determined that this decision and the Central Kupreanof Final EIS are 

consistent with the 2008 Forest Plan. 

 

20 • ROD Central Kupreanof Record of Decision Record of Decision
Clearcutting as the Optimal Method of Harvesting: 

The 2008 Forest Plan (pgs.4-71 to 4-72) and 1997 Forest Plan EIS (Appendix G, 

p. G-7 to G-9) give guidance on when to use even-aged management. 

Clearcutting (an even-aged method) is used in this project to preclude or 

minimize the occurrence of potentially adverse impacts such as to remove or 

reduce mistletoe infestations, logging damage or other factors affecting forest 

health. Specific information and rationale for use of this prescription is shown 

in the silvicultural prescriptions (which are a part of the project record), in the 

introduction to the unit cards and the individual unit cards (ROD Appendix 1), 

and in Chapter 3 of the Final EIS. Where used, this prescription has been 

deemed optimal related to site-specific considerations as described above. 

 

Harvest Openings Over 100 Acres in Size: There will be no even-aged 

management created openings over 100 acres. Unit 314 is 120 acres but has a 

two-aged silviculture prescription and will have 30 percent of the area retained. 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (as amended) 

Heritage resource surveys of various intensities were conducted in the analysis 

area in accordance with the Regional Inventory Strategy. A finding of “no 

historic properties affected” was recommended for all alternatives for the 

Central Kupreanof project. Under the terms of the existing Programmatic 

Agreement with the Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer and the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation (USDA FS 2002, as amended 2007) “the 

Forest may proceed with the undertaking in lieu of a consensus determination of 

eligibility pursuant to 36 CFR 800.4.” 

Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA) of 1990 

Forest Plan Riparian Standards and Guidelines apply to the Selected Alternative, 

and no commercial timber harvest will occur within 100 feet of any Class I 

stream or any Class II stream flowing directly into a Class I stream, as required 

in Section 103 of the TTRA. The design and implementation direction for the 

Selected Alternative incorporates best management practices (BMPs) and Forest 

Plan Standards and Guidelines for the protection of all stream classes. 

Timber harvested under the Selected Alternative will provide part of the timber 

supply to the Tongass National Forest’s timber program as stated in Section 101 

of TTRA “... the Secretary shall, to the extent consistent with providing for the 

multiple use and sustained yield of all renewable forest resources, seek to 

provide a supply of timber from the Tongass National Forest which (1) meets 

the annual market demand for timber from such forest and (2) meets the annual 

market demand from such forest for each planning cycle.” 

Executive Orders 

Executive Order 11988 (Floodplains) 

Executive Order 11988 directs Federal agencies to take action to avoid, to the 

extent possible, the long- and short-term adverse effects associated with the 

Central Kupreanof Record of Decision ROD • 21 Record of Decision
 

occupancy and modification of floodplains. The Selected Alternative does not 

affect floodplain occupancy. The numerous streams in the Central Kupreanof 

project area make it essentially impossible to avoid all floodplains during timber 

harvest and road construction. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines limit 

riparian harvest to the extent feasible to facilitate road construction and logging 

operations. The amount of road in floodplains will be minimized whenever 

possible as stated in the BMPs. Roads may be constructed in or through 

floodplains subject to BMPs, which minimize floodplain modification. 

Executive Order 11990 (Wetlands) 

Executive Order 11990 requires Federal agencies to avoid, to the extent 

possible, the long- and short-term adverse effects associated with the destruction 

or modification of wetlands. Techniques and practices required by the Forest 

Service serve to maintain the wetland attributes including values and functions. 

There will be minimal loss of wetlands with the Selected Alternative, primarily 

due to road construction. In some areas, soil moisture regime and vegetation 

composition or structure may be altered; however, these altered acres would still 

be classified as wetlands and function as wetlands in the ecosystem. 

Road construction through wetlands is avoided to the extent practicable. Where 

wetlands cannot be avoided, road construction will adhere to State-approved 

BMPs, which include at a minimum the Federal baseline provisions in 33 Code 

of Federal Regulation (CFR) 323. 

Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice) 

Executive Order 12898 directs Federal agencies to address whether a 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental impact on 

minority populations, low-income populations, or Indian tribes is likely to result 

from the proposed action and any alternatives. Although the community of 

Kake does include low-income and minority households, no disproportional 

adverse effects are expected to occur solely to those people. Efforts were made 

during the public participation process to inform everyone of the project and 

possible effects through notices in local papers, local meetings, and contacting 

tribal governments. 

The Executive Order directs agencies to consider patterns of subsistence hunting 

and fishing when an agency action may affect fish or wildlife. Although lowincome and minority people are not the sole users of these resources in Alaska, 

the effects on these resources are addressed in Chapter 3 of the Final EIS. 

Executive Order 12962 (Aquatic Systems, Recreational Fisheries) 

Executive Order 12962 requires Federal agencies to evaluate the effects of 

proposed activities on aquatic systems and recreational fisheries. The Selected 

Alternative minimizes the effects on aquatic systems through project design, 

application of standards and guidelines, BMPs, and site-specific mitigation 

measures. In the Selected Alternative, recreational fishing opportunities would 

22 • ROD Central Kupreanof Record of Decision Record of Decision
remain essentially the same as the current condition because aquatic habitats are 

protected through implementation of BMPs and riparian buffers. 

Executive Order 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites) 

Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites, provides presidential direction to 

Federal agencies to give consideration to the protection of American Indian 

sacred sites and allow access where feasible. In a government-to-government 

relationship, the tribal government is responsible for notifying the agency of the 

existence of a sacred site. A sacred site is defined as a site that has sacred 

significance due to established religious beliefs or ceremonial uses, and which 

has a specific, discrete, and delineated location that has been identified by the 

tribe. Tribal governments or their authorized representatives have not identified 

any specific sacred site locations in the project area. 

Executive Order 13112 (Invasive Species) 

Executive Order 13112 requires Federal agencies (in part) to evaluate whether 

the proposed activities will affect the status of invasive species; and to not carry 

out activities that promote the introduction or spread of invasive species unless it 

has determined that the benefits of such action outweigh the potential harm 

caused by invasive species; and that all feasible and prudent measure to 

minimize risk of harm will be taken in conjunction with the actions. The 

Selected Alternative includes the control of a known population of spotted 

knapweed and specific mitigation measures to minimize the introduction and 

spread of invasive species (see Mitigation section). 

Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian 

Tribal Governments) 

Executive Order 13175 directs Federal agencies to respect tribal selfgovernment, sovereignty, and tribal rights, and to engage in regular and 

meaningful government-to-government consultation with tribes on proposed 

actions with tribal implications. 

Throughout the span of the Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest project, the 

District Ranger and archaeologists communicated with the Organized Village of 

Kake, Petersburg Indian Association, Wrangell Cooperative Association, 

Sealaska Corporation, Tlingit/Haida Central Council, and Kake Tribal 

Corporation as described in Chapter 1 of the Final EIS. Tribal consultation does 

not imply that the tribes endorse the Selected Action or any of the alternatives. 

Executive Order 13186 (Migratory Birds) 

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (amended in 1936 and 1972) prohibits 

the taking of migratory birds, unless authorized by the Secretary of Interior. The 

law provides the primary mechanism to regulate waterfowl hunting seasons and 

bag limits, but its scope is not just limited to waterfowl. The migratory species 

that may stay in the area utilize most, if not all, of the habitats described in the 

analysis for breeding, nesting, and raising their young. The effects on these 

habitats were analyzed for this project. 

Central Kupreanof Record of Decision ROD • 23 Record of Decision
 

The decision will not have a significant direct, indirect, or cumulative effect on 

any migratory bird species in the project area. There may be direct moderate 

effects on individuals or small groups and their nests from the harvest of timber 

or the disturbance caused by harvest and related activities. 

Executive Order 13443 (Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife 

Conservation) 

Executive Order 13443 directs Federal agencies to facilitate the expansion and 

enhancement of hunting opportunities and the management of game species and 

their habitat. The analysis considered and disclosed the effects on hunting 

activities. The Selected Alternative will maintain the current hunting 

opportunities by adhering to the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines that 

maintain habitat for hunted species. 

Federal and State Permits 

Federal and State permits necessary to implement the authorized activities are 

listed at the end of Chapter 1 in the Final EIS. 

Implementation Process and Process for 

Considering Changes and New Information 

Implementation of this decision may occur no sooner than 50 days following 

publication of the legal notice of the decision in the Ketchikan Daily News, the 

newspaper of record, published in Ketchikan, Alaska. The timber may be 

offered in one or more sales. 

This project will be implemented in accordance with Forest Service Manual 

(FSM) and Forest Service Handbook (FSH) direction for Timber Sale Project 

Implementation in FSM 2430 and FSH 2409.18. This direction provides a 

bridge between project planning and implementation and will ensure execution 

of the actions, environmental standards, and mitigations approved by this 

decision, and compliance with the TTRA and other laws. All applicable best 

management practices (BMPs) will be applied to the Selected Alternative. 

Implementation of activities authorized by this Record of Decision will be 

monitored to ensure that they are carried out as planned and described in the 

Final EIS. 

Appendices 1 and 2 to this Record of Decision contain the unit and road cards 

for the Selected Alternative. These cards are an integral part of this decision 

because they document the specific resource concerns, management objectives, 

and mitigation measures to govern the layout of the harvest units and 

construction of roads. These cards will be used during the implementation 

process to ensure that all aspects of the project are implemented within 

applicable standards and guidelines and that resource effects will not be greater 

than those described in the Final EIS. 

24 • ROD Central Kupreanof Record of Decision Record of Decision
Proposed changes to the authorized project actions or new information will be 

subject to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 

the National Forest Management Act of 1976, Section 810 of the Alaska 

National Interest Lands Conservation Act, the Tongass Timber Reform Act, the 

Coastal Zone Management Act, and other laws concerning such changes. Unit 

and road cards will be updated to document any changes or new information to 

the planned unit and road cards (Appendices 1 and 2) which may occur during 

implementation. Any proposed changes to the design, location, standards and 

guidelines, or other mitigation measures for the project will also be documented 

at the time of implementation. 

The Forest Supervisor will determine whether the proposed change is a 

substantial change to the Selected Alternative as planned and already approved, 

and whether the change is relevant to environmental concerns. Connected or 

interrelated changes to particular areas or specific activities will be considered in 

making this determination. The cumulative impacts of these changes will also 

be considered. In determining if any NEPA action is required for changes 

during implementation, the Forest Supervisor will consider the criteria in the 

Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 1502.9(c)), and Forest Service Handbook 

(FSH) 1909.15, sec. 18. 

Minor changes are expected during implementation to better meet on-site 

resource management and protection objectives. Minor adjustments to unit 

boundaries are also likely during final layout to improve logging system 

efficiency. This will usually entail adjusting the boundary to coincide with 

logical logging setting boundaries. Changes made during implementation will 

be reviewed, documented, and approved by the Responsible Official through the 

Tongass Change Analysis process (Tongass National Forest Supplement FSH 

1909.15-2009-1). 

Central Kupreanof Record of Decision ROD • 25 Record of Decision
26 • ROD Central Kupreanof Record of Decision Record of Decision
Table R-1 

Comparison of Alternatives by Issues and Effects including the Selected Alternative 

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Selected 

Alternative 

Issue 1- Timber Supply/Sale Economics 

Indicated bid value $/MBF 

1

 () indicates negative value 0 ($75.99)1 ($116.63) ($62.44) ($51.17) 

Logging/transportation cost $/MBF 0 $420.00 $458.00 $398.00 $387.00 

Road costs $/MBF 0 $18.00 $48.00 $17.00 $27.00 

Helicopter sawlog volume (MMBF) 0 3.7 4.8 0 0 

Ground-based sawlog volume (MMBF) 0 38.7 59.1 25.0 22.3 

Total volume (sawlog and utility) (MMBF) 0 50.0 75.8 29.8 26.3 

Direct jobs 0 168-238 254-360 99-141 88-125 

Economic flexibility ranking N/A 3 1 4 1 

Issue 2- Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) (2001 Roadless Rule) 

Acres of timber harvest within IRAs 0 896 1,933 268 0 

Miles of NFS roads 0 2.57 19.37 0 0 

Miles of temporary roads within IRAs 

(decommissioned after harvest) 0 1.7 3.54 0.7 0 

 

Central Kupreanof Record of Decision ROD • 27 Record of Decision
 

Table R-1 

Comparison of Alternatives by Issues and Effects including the Selected Alternative (continued) 

Percent of IRA affected (includes Rocky Pass IRA, 

North Kupreanof IRA, and South Kupreanof IRA 

acres) 

0% 0.2% 0.5% <0.1% 0% 

Issue 3- Road Management/Access 

Miles of open existing NFS road before harvest 64 64 64 64 64 

Miles of proposed new NFS road construction 0 7.3 25.1 0 1.83 

Miles of proposed new temporary road 0 3.9 6.1 2.2 2.3 

Miles of NFS and temporary road to be constructed 

in Inventoried Roadless Areas 0 1 15 0 0 

Total miles of road remaining open after 

implementation 64 62.3 62.3 62.3 56 

Miles of reconstructed existing closed road to remain 

open after harvest 0 2.9 9.1 2.6 0 

Miles of road to be left open after harvest 64 74.2 98.2 66.6 66.8 

Total road cost for all new temporary, new NFS, and 

reconstructed road within project area (includes 

maintenance costs)

$0 $2,039,000 $6,017,000 $416,000 $696,700 

Other Environmental Considerations 

Effects on Wildlife 

Acres of POG harvested 0 2,427 3,568 1,261 1,265 

Percent change from current condition (2008) within 

project area (57,628 acres of POG) 0 4.2% 6.2% 2.2% 2.2% 

Percent change from current condition (2008) within 

multiple WAAs (269,593 acres of POG) 0 0.9% 1.3% 0.5% 0.5% 

Percent change from current condition (2008) within 

biogeographic province (307,710 acres of POG) 0 0.8% 1.2% 0.4% 0.4% 

Percent cumulative reduction from historic/original 

condition biogeographic province -29% -29.8% -30.2% -29.4% -29.4% 

Percent cumulative reduction from historic/original 

condition WAA -26% -26.9% -27.3% -26.5% -26.5% 

28 • ROD Central Kupreanof Record of Decision Record of Decision
Table R-1 

Comparison of Alternatives by Issues and Effects including the Selected Alternative (continued)

Effects on Timber and Vegetation 

Total acres even-aged management (clearcut) 0 2,031 3,127 1,327 718 

Total acres two-aged management (clearcut with 

reserves) 0 33 0 0 617 

Total acres uneven-aged management (single-tree 

selection) 0 442 520 0 0 

Total acres of harvest by all silviculture systems 0 2,506 3,647 1,327 1,329 

Effects on Soils 

Total acres soil disturbance 42 167 299 93 107 

Acres of very high risk hazard (MMI-4) soils within 

units 0 10 17 0 0 

Effects on Wetlands 

Total miles of road (reconstructed, temporary and 

NFS) crossing wetlands 0 2.83 7.06 1.17 0.61 

Effects on Scenery 

Percent of Past and Proposed Visual Disturbance by Viewshed 

Hamilton 5% 7% 7% 6% 6% 

Big John Bay 15% 22% 23% 20% 20% 

Rocky Pass 2% 3% 3% 2% 2% 

Upper Castle 2% 2% 4% 2% 2% 

Upper Duncan 1% 2% 4% 1% 1% 

 

Central Kupreanof Record of Decision ROD • 29 Record of Decision
 

Table R-1 

Comparison of Alternatives by Issues and Effects including the Selected Alternative (continued)

Effects on Hydrology/Fisheries 

30 year Cumulative Harvest Percentage by Alternative 

(Assuming a 2011implementation date and that all proposed acres are harvested) 

Hamilton Creek 

2

Values indicated under Alternative 1 reflect cumulative percentages 

in 2011 assuming no timber harvest. 

1.9%2 4.0% 4.1% 3.2% 3.5% 

McNaughton Point 2.9% 7.8% 8.6% 5.9% 7.4% 

Big John Creek 4.5% 6.8% 7.1% 5.8% 5.2% 

West Duncan Canal 0.4% 1.3% 2.5% 0.6% 0.4% 

Keku Creek 0.2% 0.4% 0.4% 0.2% 0.2% 

Castle River 1.3% 1.5% 2.7% 1.5% 1.3% 

Tunehean Creek 1.2% 1.9% 1.9% 1.5% 1.2% 

Total Number of Proposed Stream Crossings by Alternative 

Hamilton Creek 0 22 31 2 5 

McNaughton Point 0 14 14 1 7 

Big John Creek 0 6 13 1 1 

West Duncan Canal 0 5 43 0 0 

Keku Creek 0 4 4 0 0 

Castle River 0 4 29 4 0 

Tunehean Creek 0 4 5 0 0 

Total 0 59 139 8 13 

Total Number of New Class I Crossings 0 4 4 0 1 

Total Number of New Class II Crossings 0 5 12 4 1 

30 • ROD Central Kupreanof Record of Decision Record of Decision
1

204

2

304 320

309

307

306

904

214

6332

45800

6330

6337

6041

6331

6328

6326

6314

6040

6336

6339

45808

6333

6334

6327

6318

45001

6367

45002

6041

6329

500

1000

1500

2000

500

500

500

500

1000

1500

1500

1000

1000

500

2000

1000

1000

1000

1500

500 1000

1000

2000

500

1000

1000

500

500

500

500

500

1000

500

1000

500

1500

500

500

500

500

500

1000

1000

500

500

1000

500

1000

500

1000

c:/workspace/ckupre/plots/rod2/fig_r2_selected.mxd 09-13-10 EP

Project Area Boundary

Roads in Storage (Closed)

Proposed System Roads

Proposed Temporary Roads

Reconstructed Road

Stream Class I & II

Selected Alternative 0% Retention

Selected Alternative 15% Retention

Selected Alternative 30% Retention

Past Harvest Stands

Lakes

Roadless Rule (2001)

Inventoried Roadless Area (2008)

Existing Open Roads

±

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Miles

Rocky Pass IRA

South Kupreanof IRA

North Kupreanof IRA

South Kupreanof IRA

45886

45887

45885

316

45807

6326

206

1

205

203

5

207

3

901

209

208

6314

314

315

905

313

310 312

317

6

501

502

900

45810

6315

6314S

318

45888

305

903

Frederick Sound

KKuu pp rr ee aa nn oo ff

II ss ll aa nn dd

KKuu ii uu

II ss ll aa nn dd

Petersburg

Central Kupreanof

Project Area

Kake

Map Extent

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest

Figure R - 2

Selected Alternative

Legend

45889

45809
Backside of map 
!.

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!( !(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !( !(

!(

!(

!(!(

!( ! !( (

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

6040

6030

6314S

6328

6326

6336

45808

45601

6339

6367

6314

45803

6308

6334

6327

6000

45806

45001

6314

6304

45803

6333

6366

6322

45808

6312

6315

45906

45800

6314

6318

6332

45915

45810

6330

45002

6310

45807

45001 6337

6041

45602

6331

45845

45805

45895

6329

c:/workspace/ckupre/plots/rod10/fig_r3_projects._mp.mxd 08-11-10 EP

0 1 2 4

Miles

Kake

Seal Point

Little Hamilton

LTF

Big John

Bay

R

o

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

#*

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)

Hamilton Creek

Goose

Lake

#*

Big John Bay

Cabin

Cathedral

Falls

KKuu ii uu II ss ll aa nn dd

KKuu pp rr ee aa nn oo ff II ss ll aa nn dd

Goose Lake

Trail

Big John Bay Trail

Hamilton CreekTrail

Keku

Strait

Port

Camden

Keku Strait

#*

Threemile Arm

Legend

Additional Silviculture Stewardship Opportunities

Pre-commercial/Wildlife Treatment

Non-national Forest

Trails

Existing Open Roads

Decommissioned Road (ATM)

Closed Road (ATM)

Project Area Boundary

Stream Class I

#* Cabins

!( Red Pipes

!. Invasive Plant ±

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest

Figure R-3

Stewardship Opportunities
Backside of map