Chapter 3 

Environment and 

Effects 
Chapter 3 

Table of Contents 

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

Timber Supply and Timber Economics ................................................ 9 

Inventoried Roadless Areas ................................................................ 23 

Road Management/Access.................................................................. 37 

Other Resources Considered............................................................... 53 

Botany................................................................................................. 53 

Wildlife ............................................................................................... 66 

Subsistence.......................................................................................... 87 

Hydrology/Fisheries............................................................................ 94 

Timber and Vegetation ..................................................................... 122 

Soils and Geology............................................................................. 137 

Wetlands ........................................................................................... 147 

Scenery.............................................................................................. 157 

Unroaded Areas ................................................................................ 169 

Recreation ......................................................................................... 170 

Heritage Resources ........................................................................... 181 

Findings and Disclosures .................................................................. 185 
 

 

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 1 

Chapter 3 

Environment and 

Effects 

Introduction 

This chapter provides information concerning the existing 

environment of the Central Kupreanof project area, and potential 

environmental consequences of the proposed action and alternatives to 

it. It also presents the scientific and analytical basis for the 

comparison of alternatives presented in Chapter 2. Each resource 

potentially affected by the proposed action or alternatives is described 

by its current condition and uses. 

Following each resource description is a discussion of the potential 

environmental effects to the resource associated with the 

implementation of environmental effects to the resource associated 

with the implementation of each alternative. All significant or 

potentially significant effects, including direct, indirect and cumulative 

effects, are disclosed. Effects are quantified where possible, and 

qualitative discussions are also included. The means by which 

potential adverse effects will be reduced or mitigated are described 

(see also the unit and road cards in Appendix B of this DEIS) 

The discussions of resources and potential effects take advantage of 

existing information included in the Forest Plan Final EIS, other 

project EISs, project specific resource reports and related information, 

and other sources as indicated. Where applicable, such information is 

briefly summarized and includes all project-specific information, 

including resource reports and other results of field investigations. 

The record also contains information resulting from public 

involvement efforts. The project record is located at the Petersburg 

Ranger District Office in Petersburg, Alaska, and is available for 

review Monday through Friday, from 8 am to 4:30 pm, except 

holidays. 
3 Environment and Effects 

2  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

Ecological and Administrative Land 

Divisions 

The land area of the Tongass National Forest has been divided in 

several different ways to describe the different resources and allow 

analysis of how they may be affected by Forest Plan and project-level 

decisions. These divisions vary by resource since the relationship of 

each resource to geographic conditions and zones also varies. The 

allocation of Forest Plan land use designations (LUDs) is one such 

division. Other divisions important for the present effects analysis are 

described briefly here. 

The project area is identified by the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) to 

define the boundary of the area in which the project will occur. For 

the Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest, the area includes Value 

Comparison Units 4260, 4271, 4380, 4290, and 4360. 

These are distinct geographic areas, each encompassing a drainage 

basin containing one or more large stream systems. The boundaries 

usually follow major watershed divides. Chapter 1 includes a map 

showing the VCUs location (See Figure 1-2). 

These are land divisions that correspond to the “Minor Harvest Areas” 

used by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game to report community 

harvests of selected wildlife species. Approximately 190 apply to the 

Tongass National Forest. The project area includes portions of WAAs 

5130, 5131, 5132, and 5133. 

Watershed refers to the area that contributes water to a drainage or 

stream, or to that portion of a landscape in which all surface water 

drains to a common point. Watersheds can range from tens of acres 

that drain a single small intermittent stream to many thousands of 

acres for a stream that drains hundreds of connected intermittent and 

perennial streams. Seven watersheds were analyzed in the Central 

Kupreanof project area. 

Inventoried roadless areas are undeveloped areas typically exceeding 

5,000 acres that met the minimum criteria for wilderness consideration 

under the Wilderness Act and that were inventoried during the Forest 

Service’s Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (Rare II) process, 

subsequent assessments, or forest planning. The Central Kupreanof 

project falls within four Inventoried Roadless Areas: North Kupreanof, 

South Kupreanof, Castle, and Rocky Pass. 

This designation refers to 21 ecological subdivisions of Southeast 

Alaska that are identified by generally distinct ecological, 

physiogeographic, and biogeographic features. Plant and animal 

species composition, climate, and geology within each province are 

generally more similar within than among adjacent provinces. 

Project Area 

Value 

Comparison Units 

(VCUs) 

Wildlife Analysis 

Areas (WAAs) 

Watershed 

Inventoried 

Roadless Area 

Biogeographic 

Province 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 3 

Historical events (such as glaciers and uplifting) are important to the 

nature of the province and to the barriers that distinguish each 

province. Central Kupreanof is part of the Kupreanof/Mitkof Islands 

biogeographic province. 

Analyzing Effects

Environmental consequences are the effects of implementing an 

alternative on the physical, biological, social and economic 

environment. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) includes a number of specific categories to use for the 

analysis of environmental consequences. Several are applicable to the 

analysis of the proposed project and alternatives, and form the basis of 

much of the analysis that follows. 

Direct environmental effects are those occurring at the same time and 

place as the initial cause or action. Indirect effects are those that occur 

later in time or are spatially removed from the activity. Cumulative 

effects result from incremental effects of actions, when added to other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of 

what agency or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative 

effects can result from individually minor, but collectively significant, 

actions taking place over a period of time. 

An analysis of cumulative effects must also include “reasonably 

foreseeable future actions” (40 CFR 1508.7) This can include 

National Forest System timber sales and other management activities 

as well as land management activities of other landowners on nearby 

lands. Reasonably foreseeable future actions are those that are 

currently planned or scheduled to occur appear on the Schedule of 

Proposed Actions (SOPA). 

Implementation of any action alternative would cause some adverse 

environmental effects that cannot be effectively mitigated or avoided. 

Unavoidable adverse effects often result from managing the land for 

one resource at the expense of the use or condition of other resources. 

Many adverse effects can be reduced, mitigated or avoided by limiting 

the extent or duration of effects. 

 The interdisciplinary procedure used to identify specific harvest units 

and roads was designed to eliminate or lessen significant adverse 

consequences. The application of Forest Plan Standards and 

Guidelines, Best Management Practices, project-specific mitigation 

measures, and monitoring are all intended to further limit the extent, 

severity, and duration of potential effects. Such measures are 

discussed throughout this chapter. Regardless of the use of these 

measures, some adverse effects will occur. The purpose of this 

chapter is to fully disclose these effects. 

Direct, Indirect 

and Cumulative 

Effects 

Reasonably 

Foreseeable 

Future Actions 

Unavoidable 

Adverse Effects 
3 Environment and Effects 

4  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

Short-term uses, and their effects, are those that occur annually or 

within the first few years of project implementation. Long-term 

productivity refers to the capability of the land and resources to 

continue producing goods and services long after the project has been 

implemented. Under the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act, and the 

National Forest Management Act, all renewable resources are to be 

managed in such a way that they are available for future generations. 

The harvesting and use of standing timber can be considered a shortterm use of a renewable resource. As a renewable resource, trees can 

be reestablished and grown again if the long-term productivity of the 

land is maintained. 

 This long-term productivity is maintained through out the application 

of the resource protection measures described in Chapter 2, in 

particular those applying to the soil and water reserves, and described 

in more detail in the unit and road cards, Appendix B of this DEIS. 

These protection measures are also discussed throughout this chapter, 

in particular for soils, water quality, biodiversity and economics. 

Irreversible commitments describe a loss of future options. Irreversible 

applies primarily to the effects of use of nonrenewable resources such 

as minerals or cultural resources, or to those factors, such as soil 

productivity, that are renewable only over long periods of time. Once 

these resources are gone, they cannot be replaced. 

 Irretrievable commitments apply to the loss of production, harvest or 

use of natural resources. For example, some or all of the timber 

production from an area is lost irretrievably while an area is serving as 

a winter sports site. The production lost is irretrievable, but the action 

is not irreversible. If the use changes, it is possible to resume timber 

production. 

Where they occur related to the Central Kupreanof project, irreversible 

or irretrievable commitments are identified; those commitments are 

summarized here. Roads built on wetlands are an irreversible and 

irretrievable commitment of wetlands. Loss of timber productivity in 

areas proposed for new specified road construction is considered an 

irretrievable commitment. Timber harvest is an irretrievable 

commitment of POG forest in development LUDs scheduled for 100-

year timber harvest rotation under the current Forest Plan. Harvested 

stands would alternate between stand initiation and stem exclusion 

phase. The 15 to 20 years that it takes for the helicopter units to fully 

regenerate is an irretrievable recreation resource lost to that generation. 

The same is true for the 40 to 50 years for clearcut or shovel unit 

except it would be for two generations instead of one. 

Much of the Tongass National Forest resource data resides in an 

electronic database formatted for a geographic information system 

(GIS). The Forest uses GIS software to assist in the analyses of these 

Short-term Use 

and Long-term 

Productivity 

Irreversible and 

Irretrievable 

Commitments 

Available 

Information 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 5 

data. GIS data is available in tabular (numerical) format, and as plots 

displaying data in map format. For this DEIS, all the maps, and most 

of the numerical analyses, are based on GIS resource data supported 

by field inventories. 

There is incomplete knowledge about many of the relationships and 

conditions of wildlife, fish, forests, jobs and communities. The 

ecology, inventory and management of a large forest area is a complex 

and developing science. The biology of wildlife species prompts 

questions about population dynamics and habitat relationships. The 

interaction of resource supply, the economy, and communities is the 

subject matter of an inexact science. However, the basic data and 

central relationships are sufficiently well established in the respective 

sciences for the deciding official to make a reasoned choice between 

the alternatives, and to adequately assess and disclose the possible 

adverse environmental consequences. 

Community Profiles 

Kake is the nearest community to the Project Area and is the most 

likely to be affected socially and economically by the project in terms 

of subsistence, recreation, tourism, and general local use of the area. 

Other nearby communities include Petersburg, and Wrangell. The 

information gathered for the community profiles came from the Alaska 

Department of Commerce Community and Economic Development 

web page (ADCED 2004). 

The potential impact to nearby communities with processing facilities 

that may utilize the timber will depend on many elements associated 

with the competitiveness and efficiency of individual operations. Such 

factors are dependent upon private business decisions as well as 

market conditions for forest products. The Forest Service cannot 

predict which firms will successfully bid for a timber sale, thus 

potential community benefits relating to jobs and incomes associated 

with a sale will not be predicted specifically, but in a regional 

summary. 

Data collected at the census area level may not reflect specific 

community trends in Kake but is useful in subdividing the region into 

smaller study areas. Where it is possible, community-level data has 

been displayed. 

Kake is a Tlingit village and was the first Alaska Native village to 

organize under federal law in the early 1900s. The Organized Village 

of Kake (OVK), a federally recognized tribe, is located in the 

community and has a tribal membership of 480. Traditional customs 

are very important to the community. Kake residents are dependent 

upon subsistence opportunities as economic supplements. 

Kake 
3 Environment and Effects 

6  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

The population of Kake grew steadily over the last century until 2000 

when the population began to decline. In 1990 and 2000, the 

population of Kake was reportedly 700 and 710, respectively. By 

2003 the population had fallen to 682, and by 2007 the population was 

estimated to be 536, which is a 16 percent decline in six years. The 

population of the community is nearly 75 percent American Indian 

(Alaska Native) with the remaining residents mostly White American. 

In Kake, the city, school district, Organized Village of Kake (OVK) 

and Southeast Alaska Regional Health Consortium (SEARHC) are the 

largest employers. Approximately 32 percent of the employed 

population of Kake work for a government entity, about 60 percent are 

privately employed, and the remaining are sole proprietors. Fishing 

contributes considerably to the economy. Sixty-seven residents hold 

commercial fishing permits. The non-profit Gunnuk Creek Hatchery 

has assisted in sustaining the salmon fishery. 

Kake’s economy was hit hard after 2003 when two of their major 

employers, Kake Tribal Logging and Timber and Kake Foods, 

virtually eliminated their workforce. Kake Tribal reduced its number 

of jobs by 97 percent while Kake Foods reduced it employment by 90 

percent. Kake has since been deemed a “distressed community” by the 

Denali Commission. According to the commission, a distressed 

community is one that meets the following criteria: 

 Per capita market income not greater than 67 percent of the 

U.S. average: and 

 Poverty rate at 150 percent of the U.S. average or greater: and 

 Three-year unemployment rate at 150 percent of the U.S. 

average or greater; or 

 Twice the U.S. poverty rate and either (1) or (3) above. 

Based on the 2003 data, the Denali Commission estimates Kake’s 

average market income as below the threshold level and estimates that 

more than 70 percent of residents aged 16 and over earn less than the 

threshold. Recreation and tourism opportunities are increasing in 

some parts of the region but it appears some further development and 

infrastructure is needed to strengthen these sectors and increase higher 

wage employment. Kake is currently pursuing tourism income and 

opportunities, but has not experienced the increase in tourism that 

larger communities in the region have. 

Petersburg is situated on the northwest shore of Mitkof Island at the 

north end of Wrangell Narrows approximately 20 miles southeast of 

the Project Area. The 2007 population estimate for Petersburg was 

3,072. 

Other 

Communities 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 7 

Wrangell is on the northern tip of Wrangell Island, approximately 60 

mile southeast of the Project Area. The 2007 population estimate was 

2,062. The community began as an important Tlingit village primarily 

because of its proximity to the Stikine River. Today timber, fishing 

and fish processing dominate Wrangell’s economy and tourism has 

been a growing economic sector in recent years. 

Other Resources 

Several resources and uses of the project area are likely to remain 

unaffected by the proposed action or alternatives. Resources or uses 

for which no measurable effects were identified are discussed briefly 

here. 

All of the action alternatives would have limited, short-term effects on 

ambient air quality. Such effects, in the form of vehicle emissions and 

dust, are likely to be indistinguishable from other local sources of 

airborne particulates, including other motor vehicle emissions, dust 

from road construction and motor vehicle traffic, residential and 

commercial heating sources, marine traffic, and emissions from 

burning at sawmills. The action alternatives could result in supplies of 

raw wood products to local mills. It is the responsibility of the mill 

owner or sort yard operator to ensure that mill emissions are within 

legal limits. 

Forest-wide analysis conducted for the 2008 Forest Plan discusses the 

risk of possible effects and the considerable uncertainty concerning 

specific predictions of how the climate may change, and even more 

uncertainty regarding the effects of climate change on the resources of 

the Tongass National Forest. In this context, climate change is not 

essential to a reasoned choice among the alternatives considered in the 

Central Kupreanof project analysis. The Tongass National Forest will 

continue to monitor potential effects of climate change through the 

existing Forest Plan monitoring programs, and other studies that are 

happening regionally and nationally. Any need for a different course 

of action that might affect the Central Kupreanof project will be 

addressed through existing planning procedures to determine whether 

changes in the Central Kupreanof project management are warranted

 

Under the Alaska Statehood Act of 1959, the State of Alaska is 

entitled to a certain amount of Federal land. The State was also 

allowed to identify for selection more acreage than would ultimately 

be conveyed to State ownership. There are no State-selected lands 

within the project area. Other legislation granted Alaska Native 

corporations similar selection rights. The CEQ regulation 

implementing NEPA require a determination of possible conflicts 

between the proposed action and the objectives of Federal, State, and 

Air Quality 

Climate Change 

Land Status 
3 Environment and Effects 

8  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

local land use plans, policies, and controls for the area. The major land 

use regulations of concern are Section 810 of the Alaska National 

Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), the Coastal Zone 

Management Act (CZMA), and the State of Alaska's Forest Practices 

Act. See the "Findings and Disclosures" section of Chapter 3 for 

discussion of compliance with these laws. State compliance is also 

discussed at the end of Chapter 1. ANILCA Section 810 requirements 

pertain to subsistence; these are also discussed in the Subsistence 

section of this chapter. 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 9 

Issues 

Issue 1- 

Timber Supply/Sale 

Economics 

Timber harvest economics is an issue involving the ability of 

Southeast Alaska’s timber purchasers to make a profit and stay in 

business, and the ability to maintain the economic health of 

communities in the region. Timber purchasers and affected 

communities are concerned about the quantity, quality, reliability, and 

profitability of the timber offered for sale from the Tongass National 

Forest. 

Comments received during the scoping period offered suggestions for 

improving overall timber harvest economics on the Tongass National 

Forest and for the Central Kupreanof project. Suggestions included: 

stop building roads; all roads required for the sale should be temporary 

roads; build new roads to provide for long-term timber management; 

volumes should be large enough to amortize the cost of mobilization; 

and consider small and micro sales. 

Optimizing volume and net return on timber harvest will provide for 

flexibility, over the life of the project, for offering economically viable 

timber sales across fluctuating market conditions. If proposed timber 

harvest is not designed to be economically viable across fluctuating 

market conditions, there is a concern that the forest products industry 

in Southeast Alaska and in the local area may not remain viable. The 

amount of timber available for sale from national forests and a stable 

supply affects local employment and revenues. Operators need 

economical timber to stay in business and loss of those operators 

would negatively impact local economies. 

There are many factors that can increase the cost of timber harvest. 

These costs may carry significant economic risk for potential 

purchasers as well as the ability of the Forest Service to offer timber 

sales. Road construction, helicopter yarding, silvicultural prescriptions 

other than clearcutting, setting size and other factors may increase 

costs. Those increased costs will then affect the timber value for the 

alternatives. The value of the timber offered must be sufficient to 

cover this cost and offer a potential for profit to purchasers. Because 

markets fluctuate, volume made available with the Central Kupreanof 
3 Environment and Effects 

10  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

project should allow the Forest Service to respond to these conditions 

when packaging timber sales. Alternative design and volume levels 

affect sale packaging flexibility for offering the most economically 

viable timber sales. Also, the larger the timber sale volume, the greater 

the ability an operator has to respond to market conditions with the 

volume they have under contract. 

Measurement: 

The unit of measures to compare alternatives will include 

 Total volume (sawlog and utility) measured in million board 

feet (MMBF), 

 Logging costs per thousand board feet (MBF), 

 Indicated bid - dollars per MBF 

 Employment in number of direct jobs 

 Direct income based on projected employment and 

 Logging systems by harvest method (acres). 

 Looking at NEPA Economic Analysis Tool Residual Value 

(NEAT_R) model runs is one tool to gauge current economics for an 

alternative, but it does not provide a complete picture. It has also been 

shown that a greater number of units, and the more volume made 

available, allows greater diversity and flexibility, as well as the ability 

to respond to future market conditions. 

The following discussion and analysis of timber sale economics is 

based on referenced sources including the NEPA Economic Analysis 

Tool Residual Value (NEAT_R) version 2.13 (NEAT_R User’s Guide, 

2008). More information about NEAT_R and the methodology is 

located in the project record. 

The effects analysis area is the Central Kupreanof project area which 

encompasses VCUs 4290, 4380, 4260, 4360, and 4271. 

Timber Supply and Economics-Affected 

Environment 

About 70,000 people live in towns, communities, and villages located 

on islands and coastal lands of Southeast Alaska (DCCED, 2007). The 

Southeast Alaska region accounts for about 12 percent of the State's 

population and 6 percent of the land base. Federal lands comprise 

about 95 percent of Southeast Alaska, 80 percent within the Tongass 

National Forest. Southeast Alaska communities, which are within or 

adjacent to the Tongass National Forest, are largely dependent on the 

forest to provide natural resources for employment. This includes 

Employment in 

Southeast Alaska 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 11 

commercial fishing, timber harvest and processing, tourism, and 

mining. The forest is also needed for recreation and subsistence use. 

Forest Products Employment 

The forest products industry has been an important part of the 

economy of Southeast Alaska since settlement, with sharp growth in 

the 1950s due to the start of the pulp mills. Mill employment declined 

considerably in 1997 primarily due to the closure of the Ketchikan 

Pulp Company pulp mill. Recent forest products employment data are 

presented in Table 3-1. 

Table 3-1. Forest Products Industry Employment in Southeast Alaska 

2002 through 2006 

Year1 Tongass 

Logging2

Tongass 

Sawmill

Pulp 

Mill

Tongass- Related 

Employment3 Other 

Sawmill

Other 

Logging

Total Industry

Employment

2002 63 1104

 - 173 40 299 512 

2003 108 91 - 199 64 298 561 

2004 82 95 - 177 53 220 450 

2005 88 96 - 184 52 263 499 

2006 81 77 - 158 46 217 421 

Source: Timber Supply and Demand: 2001 to 2005. Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act Section 706(a) Repot to Congress. US Forest Service Alaska 

Region Report 21. 

1

 Reported in calendar years. Federal fiscal years were used. 2

 Tongass National Forest logging estimated based on the ratio of Tongass timber 

harvest to total timber harvest in Southeast Alaska. 

3

 Through 2001, assumes all sawmill and pulp mill employment is dependent upon 

Tongass National Forest timber supply. From 2002 to 2004, this assumption no 

longer held. Data from Kilborn and others (2004) and from subsequent mill studies 

show that Federal timber supplied 73 percent of the wood sawn in Southeast Alaska 

mills in 2002, 59 percent in 2003, 64 percent in 2004, 65 percent in 2005, and 62 

percent in 2006. Tongass National Forest sawmill employment from 2002 through 

2006 is estimated based on sawmill employment numbers and the ratio of sources of 

wood (Federal versus the total) reported by Kilborn and others (2004) and in 

subsequent mill studies by Juneau Economic Development. 

4

 Beginning in 2001, employment estimates are being published under a new 

classification system. The Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system has been 

replaced by the North American Industrial (NAI) Classification system. “Sawmill” 

in this table is reported by the Alaska Department of Labor as “wood manufacturing” 

which in the NAI system includes sawmills, wood preservation, veneer, plywood, 

engineered wood, and other wood products. In southeast Alaska, this category is 

assumed to represent only sawmill employment. Beginning in 2001, sawmill 

employment figures are adjusted based on regional mill studies, which take into 

account self employed mill owners. 
3 Environment and Effects 

12  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

Past, Current and Reasonably Foreseeable 

Future Timber Harvest in the Project Area 

Considerable timber harvest has occurred in VCUs 4250 and 4271 and 

on private Native Corporation lands to the north. Past timber 

management activities in the Central Kupreanof area began in 1975 

using clearcut cable yarding. Larger-scale clearcut logging began in 

1979 and continued through 2003 resulting in approximately 4,600 

acres of clearcut harvest on National Forest System lands. For more 

detailed information regarding past harvest in the project area, refer to 

the Central Kupreanof, Catalog of Events, in Appendix C. Currently, 

no large-scale harvest is occurring on either private or Forest System 

lands. Two to three small sales associated with the 6367 Small Timber 

Sale CE, consisting of approximately 60 total acres of partial harvest 

on Forest System lands, just north of the project area, will likely occur 

in 2008 through 2010. Microsales are expected to occur along NFS 

road 6040 in the project area beginning in the fall of 2008. In 

following years, Microsales may also occur along open NFS roads or 

NFS roads adjacent to the project area depending on demand. 

Timber Supply and Market Demand 

A description of timber supply and demand on the Tongass National 

Forest and the rationale for considering timber harvest in the Central 

Kupreanof project area at this time can be found in the 1997 Forest 

Plan Final EIS, Part 1 (pp. 3-248 to 3-307), and the Forest Plan 

Supplemental EIS (2003a), as well as in Appendix A of this document. 

The Forest Plan Amendment Final EIS and Record of Decision (ROD) 

(USDA Forest Service 2008) describe the latest timber demand 

analysis and projections. 

There are several factors that enhance the economic potential of the 

Central Kupreanof project area and may in turn affect the timber 

supply to the forest products industry. These factors include an 

existing road system, Log Transfer Facility (LTF) infrastructure and 

feasibility of cost-effective logging systems. The amount of timber 

volume will have an effect on employment as shown in Table 3-7 

which displays the support to direct employment that will result from 

logging and milling the volume in the timber sale. 

The Central Kupreanof project will use the existing road system and 

the existing Little Hamilton LTF. Approximately 79 miles of National 

Forest System Road (NFS) exist in the project area. All the 

alternatives will require additional road segments to access timber. In 

some cases these new roads will shorten helicopter yarding distances. 

Table 3-2 shows the amount of existing and proposed roads by 

Timber Sale 

Economics 

Road Access and 

Marine Access 

Facility 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 13 

alternative within the project area. More information about roads and 

the LTF is found in the Transportation section and resource report. 

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

Project Area 

Miles by Alternative 

1 2 3 4 

Existing NFS Road 79 79 79 79 

Proposed NFS Road 0 7.3 25.1 0 

Proposed NFS Road Reconstruction 0 2.9 9.1 2.6 

Proposed Temporary Road 0 3.9 6.1 2.2 

Source: Tongass GIS 2008 

Generally, the less complex a silvicultural prescription the more cost 

efficient it is to implement. Even-aged management using the clearcut 

prescription usually results in less cost associated with logging 

because it is more efficient due to increased production and the ability 

to use less expensive equipment. 

All action alternatives propose primarily even-aged clearcut 

prescriptions. Alternatives 2 and 3 include uneven-aged single tree 

selection prescription where helicopter yarding is proposed. 

Alternative 2 includes a minor amount of two-aged, clearcut with 

reserves prescription. See the Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest, 

Silviculture and Vegetation section and resource report for more 

information. 

The single tree selection prescription is only used in conjunction with 

helicopter yarding for this project. Single tree selection will allow the 

selection harvest of certain diameter classes and species of trees in 

order to improve harvest economics associated with helicopter 

yarding, address resource concerns related to Forest Plan standards and 

guidelines, and allow access to areas that are considered otherwise 

inaccessible for typical road construction. 

Effects on Timber Economics 

The action alternatives include the use of ground-based cable or shovel 

yarding systems, and helicopter yarding systems. Table 3-3 displays 

the acres by yarding system for each alternative. 

Cable yarding systems are best suited for steep slopes and are most 

efficient using the clearcut harvest method. The average cost of cable 

yarding for all alternatives in this analysis is $192 per MBF. 

Silvicultural 

Prescriptions 

Logging Systems 
3 Environment and Effects 

14  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

Shovel yarding is the least costly yarding method used in this analysis. 

Shovel yarding is best suited for slopes less than 30 percent. Normal 

yarding distance is less than 400-500 feet. Depending on slope and 

ground conditions, longer distances are possible. Shovel yarding does 

provide some flexibility in the selection of trees to be harvested. This 

makes shovel yarding more suitable for partial harvest prescriptions 

than cable yarding systems. The average cost of shovel yarding for all 

alternatives in this analysis is $119 per MBF. 

Helicopter yarding is the most expensive yarding method. Yarding 

distance, turn time (the time it takes the helicopter to make a round trip 

from landing to the unit and return), weight of each turn and the value 

of timber yarded influence the economic viability of helicopter 

yarding. Helicopter yarding is used where roads are not constructed to 

access the timber harvest units. Helicopter yarding works well for a 

variety of prescriptions; however, it is commonly used with partial 

harvest prescriptions due to costs. The average cost of helicopter 

yarding for all alternatives in this analysis is $357 per MBF. 

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

Yarding System - Harvest Method Alternatives 

 Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 

Cable - clearcut 0 981 1,638 567 

Cable - clearcut with 10% Retention 0 90 90 26 

Shovel - clearcut 0 934 1,373 721 

Shovel - clearcut with 10% 

Retention 0 26 26 13 

Shovel - clearcut with reserves (50% 

Retention) 0 33 0 0 

Helicopter - Single Tree Selection 0 442 520 0 

Source: Tongass GIS 2008 

The Central Kupreanof alternatives were evaluated using NEAT_R 

Version 2.13 based on an appraisal point of Wrangell (FSH 2409.18, 

45.11). The results are displayed in Table 3-4. The values used 

reflect data updated for the 2nd Quarter of 2006 and incorporate cost 

estimates updated in April, 2008 and the limited shipment policy 

(Regional Forester 2400 memo, March 14, 2007). Because costs and 

values may change, these will be updated in the Final Environmental 

Impact Statement to reflect more up-to-date information. 

Logging costs evaluated in the NEAT_R financial analysis included 

truck hauling of logs to the Little Hamilton LTF, and barging to the 

Silver Bay Mill in Wrangell which is the closest appraisal point. On 

average, barging costs were estimated to be approximately $99/MBF. 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 15 

Table 3-4. Timber Financial Efficiency Analysis 

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 

Volume - Sawlog (MBF) 

 Sitka Spruce 0 7,051 10,425 3,960 

 Hemlock 0 26,487 40,057 16,449 

 Western red cedar 0 125 191 79 

 Alaska Yellow-Cedar 0 5,733 8,400 3,119 

Total Sawlog Volume 

(MBF) 0 39,396 59,073 23,606 

 

Pond Log Value $/MBF1 $0 $302 $298 $288 

Stump to Mill Cost 

$/MBF2 $0 $382 $421 $359 

Indicated Value 

($millions) $0 ($3.2) ($7.2) ($1.7) 

Indicated Rate $/MBF $0.00 ($80.96) ($122.46) ($70.99) 

Source: NEAT_R Version 2.13 (April, 2008 output) 

1

 Numbers may not add up to the totals shown due to rounding. 

2

 ( ) indicates negative value; no sales would be offered at this time if they appraise 

deficit. 

3

 NEAT_R Version 2.13 incorporating the limited interstate shipping policy. 

 

The harvest volumes, indicated value, costs and net stumpage values 

used in this document are current estimates and useful for comparing 

relative differences between alternatives and are not meant to reflect 

absolute values. Merchantable timber within units and any road rightof-way located on National Forest System lands will be cruised to 

determine the quantity, quality and value of timber for the contract 

under which that volume of timber is offered. The final sale appraisal 

will include current quarter selling values, current cost information and 

a normal profit and risk allowance to determine the minimum 

advertised stumpage value at the time of offering. Under current 

Congressional direction (Public Law 110-161, House Report 110-497) 

no timber sale in the Alaska Region shall be advertised if the indicated 

rate is deficit. Sales with volumes under 250 MBF do not require an 

appraisal and can be advertised using established standard rates. 

The difference in indicated bid rates among the action alternatives can 

be attributed to multiple factors, including: 

 Differences in species composition, volume per acre harvested, 

and timber quality 

 Difference in harvest prescriptions 

 Proportion of cable, shovel and helicopter yarding systems 
3 Environment and Effects 

16  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

 Amount of road construction and reconstruction 

 Differences in haul distances 

Total unit net volumes by alternative were calculated using NEAT_R 

Version 2.13 and average per acre volume for the high, medium and 

low volume strata. Volume strata averages are based on 2006 and 2007 

stand exam data. Volumes for the alternatives are displayed in 

thousand board feet (MMBF) in Table 3-5. 

Table 3-5. Estimated Volume in MMBF 

Alternatives Estimated Volume 1 2 3 4 

Sawlog 0 39.4 59.1 23.6 

Utility 0 7.4 11.2 4.5 

Total 0 46.8 70.2 28.2 

Source: NEAT_R Version 2.13 April, 2008 output 

One method to compare the effects of the different alternatives is 

through a financial efficiency analysis which is a comparison of those 

costs and benefits that can be quantified in terms of actual dollars 

spent or received within the project area. This type of analysis does 

not account for non-market benefits, opportunity costs, individual 

values, or other values, benefits, and costs that are not easily 

quantifiable. This is not to imply that such values are not significant 

or important, but to recognize that non-market values are difficult to 

represent by appropriate dollar figures. Therefore, financial efficiency 

should not be viewed as a complete answer but as one tool decision 

makers can use to gain information about resources, alternatives, and 

trade-offs between costs and benefits. Although individual harvest 

units may or may not be economical to harvest by themselves, the 

management of less productive land, or land containing a high 

percentage of defective timber will help to increase future timber 

yields. The harvest of units with higher value can help compensate for 

less economical harvest units. 

The costs used in the NEAT_R model incorporate the same current 

costs used in the Alaska Region’s appraisal program. Those costs 

reflect actual cost data collected from timber sale purchasers in 

Southeast Alaska, as well as production studies. At times, certain 

situations and sales may have higher or lower costs than the regional 

averages, based on site specific circumstances. 

For example, in the Central Kupreanof project area, local estimates for 

logging costs may be lower for felling and bucking, shovel yarding, 

and hauling, while cable yarding costs may be estimated to be higher. 

Some of the reasons why local costs may be lower include: a nearby 

Timber Volume 

Calculations 

Timber Financial 

Efficiency 

Analysis 

Opportunities to 

Improve 

Economics 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 17 

town (Kake) with an experienced and available workforce, a well 

developed Log Transfer Facility (LTF), and an existing road system. 

Utility volume could be left in the woods under the optional removal 

contract provision. NEAT_R also amortizes all costs of road 

construction over the timber volume removed. Additionally, in some 

years, public works funds are available to pay for all, or a portion of, 

road construction or reconstruction costs in a timber sale for roads that 

will be used in the long-term administration of the national forest. 

Table 3-6 displays the stump to mill costs, indicated value and the 

advertised rate for each alternative if public work funds paid for all 

road construction or reconstruction costs. 

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

cover system road construction costs). 

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 

Stump to Mill Cost 

$/MBF2 $0 $376 $385 $354 

Indicated Value 

($millions) $0 ($3.0) ($5.1) ($1.6) 

Indicated Rate $/MBF $0 ($74.93) ($86.55) ($65.96) 

Source: NEAT-R version 2.13 April, 2008, 

The mix of species harvested may also enhance the economic potential 

of the Central Kupreanof project area and may in turn affect the timber 

supply to the forest products industry. The amount of timber volume 

will have an effect on employment as shown in Table 3-7, which 

displays estimated direct employment that will result from logging and 

milling the volume in the timber sale. 

A number of individuals from Kake with small sawmills, have 

contacted the Forest Service and expressed interest in purchasing small 

sales from the project area. The timber volume associated with the 

smaller units along the existing road system may be considered for 

small sale opportunities. Each of the three action alternatives include 

these small units and provide for numerous small sale opportunities 

from the project area. This may have a slight positive effect to the 

overall economics of the project as volume from small sales would 

likely be processed locally. Local processing avoids the cost of 

barging the timber to a larger mill, thus reducing logging costs and 

increasing the indicated bid amount for the volume harvested through 

small sales. Potential small sales however, would not change the 

project’s estimated total volume, number of jobs, direct income, or 

logging systems by harvest method. Alternatives 2 and 3 would 

enhance opportunities as these alternatives propose new road access 

through suitable timber lands. This would open additional areas for 

future small sale projects currently not feasible for small operators; 

Opportunities for 

Small Sales 
3 Environment and Effects 

18  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

however, this future opportunity would have no effect on the timber 

economics for the Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest Project. 

Individuals from Kake have expressed interest in the Tongass micro 

sale program. For all action alternatives, micro sales approved by the 

District Ranger would be allowed to occur along NFS roads 6040, 

6314, 6314S, 6326, 6328, 6334, 6336, 6339 and 6367. A microsale is a 

timber sale consisting of dead or down timber which has been 

proposed by a prospective purchaser, and the District Ranger agrees to 

offer for bidding using an informal advertisement and short bid form. 

The maximum size of a microsale would be 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, and are harvestable under Forest Plan (2008) standards and 

guidelines, may be eligible as a micro sale opportunity within the 

project area. Alternatives 2 and 3 would enhance opportunities as these 

alternatives propose new road access through suitable timber lands. 

This would open additional areas for future micro sale projects while 

new roads are open. Potential microsales would not affect the logging 

costs, indicated bid amount, logging systems by harvest method for the 

Central Kupreanof Timber Sale Project alternatives. Microsales would 

however, have the potential to slightly increase the total volume, direct 

jobs, and direct income generated from the project. 

This project also proposes Projects Common to all Action Alternatives 

which may be implemented through stewardship contracts, further 

providing economic opportunity and benefiting local communities. 

The proposed projects include trail and cabin maintenance to meet 

current recreation use, manual invasive plant species control, wildlife 

enhancements, silviculture treatments, and regular road maintenance. 

Road storage or decommissioning is also a possibility for inclusion 

within a stewardship contract, as is the prioritization of pulling 

culverts. However, this is dependent on road management decisions 

analyzed and made in the ATM process. There would be no direct 

effects to timber sale economics. However, indirect effects from using 

stewardship contracts may include an increase in employment and 

benefit local economies. Stewardship contracts also provide 

opportunities for potential timber sale operators to amortize costs over 

various contracts requiring similar skills. This could indirectly effect 

project logging costs and ultimately indicated bid values. 

Projected Employment and Income 

The action alternatives would have direct and indirect impacts to the 

economies of the local communities. 

Direct employment and income likely to result from timber harvest is 

estimated by converting board feet to jobs and income. Table 3-7 

Opportunities for 

Microsales 

Projects Common 

to all Action 

Alternatives 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 19 

displays estimated direct logging and sawmilling-related employment 

and income. Alternative 1 would not generate timber-related jobs 

since no timber would be sold. 

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

Employment1 Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 

Logging2 0 91 136 55 

Sawmills3 0 65-130 98-196 39-78 

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

Direct Income 

(in millions) 0 $6.1–8.3 $9.1–12.5 $3.6-5.0 

Source: NEAT_R Version 2.13 April, 2008 output. 

1

Number of Job years 

2 Annualized jobs per MMBF based on net sawlog volume sold. 

3 Sawmill jobs range based on 50 percent of net volume shipped to markets outside 

Alaska to all sawlogs processed in Alaska 

The number of sawmill jobs and related income is provided as a range 

in Table 3-7 to reflect the variety of options the timber purchaser has 

under the limited interstate shipping policy. The purchaser may elect 

to process all the sawlogs locally or to ship up to 50 percent of the 

total sawlog volume and 100 percent of the utility volume to markets 

outside Alaska in the lower 48 states. The limited interstate shipping 

policy allows shipment to the lower 48 states of unprocessed Sitka 

spruce and western hemlock sawlogs smaller than 15 inches in 

diameter at the small end of a 40-foot log, and grade 3 or 4 logs of any 

diameter. Shipments are limited on each sale to a maximum of 50 

percent of total sawlog contract volume harvested of all species, 

including western redcedar and Alaska yellow-cedar. 

The upper end of this range assumes all of the timber sold, including 

Alaska yellow-cedar is processed in southeast Alaska. The lower end 

of this range assumes that the maximum of 50 percent of total sawlog 

volume is shipped to markets outside Alaska. The number of jobs and 

related income will likely fall somewhere between the high and low 

end of this calculated range, based upon factors such as current timber 

markets and mill configuration. 

Effects on other employment opportunities, such as those for tourism 

and commercial fishing are not included in the financial efficiency 

analysis. Because of the regional nature of these occupations, this 

analysis is done at the Forest planning level and is included in the 

analysis for the 2008 Forest Plan Amendment FEIS (USDA Forest 

Service 2008). Information on the effects to tourism and commercial 

outfitters and guides is found in the recreation section. Effects on the 

commercial fish species was done through the Essential Fish Habitat 

Assessment as required by the Magnuson/Stevens Fisheries 

Other 

Employment 

Opportunities 
3 Environment and Effects 

20  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

Conservation Act (2000), found in the Fisheries section of the project 

record. 

Indirect calculations are not included with this analysis. Robertson 

(2003) found that even in small communities where shifts in basic 

employment may be extreme, the economic base hypothesis 

(sometimes referred to as indirect job effects) is not supported by the 

empirical evidence. Linear indirect impact multipliers derived from 

modeling are, therefore, not applicable in small communities 

(Alexander, 2006). Effects on other employment opportunities, such 

as those for tourism and commercial fishing are not included in the 

financial efficiency analysis. Because of the regional nature of these 

occupations, this analysis is done at the Forest planning level and is 

included in the Forest Plan FEIS (January 2008). 

Direct and Indirect Effects on Timber 

Economics Summarized by Alternative 

No timber income would be created from this project. Timber needed 

to meet the estimated demand would have to be harvested from other 

areas on the Tongass National Forest. 

This alternative would offer up to 46.8 MMBF of timber (sawlog and 

utility volume) for harvest. This alternative proposes the second 

highest volume of timber using ground based and helicopter logging 

systems. Alternative 2 would provide the Forest Service with less 

flexibility at the time of sale packaging than Alternative 3 given that 

fewer units and less volume would be available to offer for sale. 

However, Alternative 2 would provide more flexibility than 

Alternative 4. Flexibility in sale packaging allows greater 

opportunities to respond to fluctuations in market conditions. For 

instance, if market conditions were to change from the current low 

market condition for wood products, to a strong market including a 

significant increase in fuelwood values, more volume from the project 

area would be feasible for offering. 

The estimated logging and transportation costs would be $382 per 

MBF with road costs estimated to be $19 per MBF. The indicated bid 

is ($80.96) per MBF. Between 156 and 221 direct annualized jobs 

would be supported in Alaska, providing an estimated $6.1–8.3 million 

in direct income. 

This alternative would offer up to 70.2 MMBF of timber (sawlog and 

utility volume) for harvest. This alternative has the highest volume of 

timber. This alternative proposes harvesting all the units in the project 

unit pool. This alternative proposes helicopter yarding for those units 

where access by road construction is not feasible, otherwise ground 

based systems and associated road construction are analyzed for this 

Alternative 1 

Alternative 2 

Alternative 3 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 21 

alternative. Consequently, Alternative 3 proposes the greatest amount 

of NFS road and temporary road construction. Alternative 3 provides 

the Forest Service the most flexibility in sale packaging and the 

greatest ability to respond to future market conditions. 

Estimated logging and transportation costs would be $421 per MBF 

with road costs estimated to be $50 per MBF. The indicated bid is 

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

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

million in direct income. 

This alternative would offer 28.2 MMBF of timber (sawlog and utility 

volume) for harvest. 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 

proposes the lowest volume and the least flexibility in sale packaging. 

This alternative has the highest indicated bid under current market 

conditions, as it proposes only harvesting stands accessible from the 

existing road system or temporary roads and avoids building new 

National Forest System roads and helicopter yarding. 

Estimated logging and transportation costs would be $359 per MBF 

with road costs estimated to be $17.21 per MBF. The indicated bid is 

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

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

direct income. 

Alternative 4 
3 Environment and Effects 

22  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

Table 3-8. Comparison of Alternatives 

1

 adjusted for interstate shipment of 50% of total sawlog volume (Housley et al. 

2007). 

2

 NEAT_R Version 2.13 April, 2008 Outputs. Total volume is slightly different then 

table 3-6 due to rounding 

Cumulative Effects on Timber Supply and 

Timber Economics 

Economic effects are analyzed in the 1997 Forest Plan FEIS, 2003 

Forest Plan SEIS, and most recently in the analysis for the 2008 Forest 

Plan Amendment FEIS. Alternatives 2 through 4 would contribute to 

the timber related economy of Southeast Alaska. Alternative 1 would 

not and timber from other areas on the Tongass would have to be used 

to provide a supply. Presently, other timber sale projects in the 

vicinity include volume analyzed for the Kuiu Timber Sale EIS, the 

Scott Peak EIS, the Bohemia EIS, the 6367 Small Sale categorical 

Exclusion (CE) and the Kake Microsale I CE. Appendix A of the 

Central Kupreanof EIS includes information about how the Tongass 

timber program is structured. 

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Indicated Bid 

Value/MBF1 0 ($80.96) ($122.46) ($70.99) 

Logging/Trans

Cost/MBF 0 $382 $421 $359 

Road 

Costs/MBF 0 $19 $41 $17 

Temp Road 

Miles 0 3.9 6.1 2.2 

System Road 

Miles 0 7.3 25.1 0 

Helicopter 

Sawlog Volume 

MMBF2

0 3.0 3.4 0 

Ground Based 

Sawlog Volume 

MMBF2

0 36.4 55.6 23.6 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 23 

Issue 2- 

Inventoried Roadless Areas 

Timber harvest and building roads in Inventoried Roadless Areas will 

reduce roadless acres within the project area and may 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). 

Comments were received from the public concerning management of 

the inventoried roadless areas in the project area. Several comments 

expressed the desire to avoid roads and harvest in Tongass inventoried 

roadless areas because of the potential to affect their roadless 

characteristics and size. The Central Kupreanof project area includes 

portions of four inventoried roadless areas: North Kupreanof, South 

Kupreanof, Rocky Pass and Castle Inventoried Roadless Areas (See 

Figure 3-1). 

Units of Measure: 

 Acres of timber harvest and miles of new and temporary road 

construction, total effected acres, percent of IRA affected, 

including the 600-foot and 1,200-foot buffers. 

 Relative change in the roadless characteristics of each 

individual inventoried roadless area. 

Inventoried roadless areas are contiguous blocks of land over 5,000 

acres in size in essentially pristine condition that meet the minimum 

criteria for potential inclusion into the National Wilderness 

Preservation system using the Wilderness Attribute Rating System 

(WARS). Although these areas are not currently under consideration 

for wilderness designation, they contain values that may include 

pristine watersheds, diversity of native plant and animal communities, 

habitat for threatened, endangered or sensitive species, primitive and 

remote recreational opportunities, scenic values, cultural or historic 

features, unique wetlands or geologic formations, or highly valued 

subsistence opportunities. These characteristics are evaluated in detail 

in individual resource reports (see Wildlife, Subsistence, Watershed, 

Fisheries, Soils and Geology, Heritage, Scenery, and Recreation 

reports). This section in the EIS specifically considers the relative 

change to these values for each inventoried roadless area potentially 

affected by the Central Kupreanof project. 
3 Environment and Effects 

24  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

The Roadless Area Conservation Rule was enacted in January 2001 

and following that date the subject of numerous lawsuits. In a recent 

ruling affecting the Tongass National Forest (September 20, 2006), the 

court re-instituted the rule as it appears in the July 1, 2004 edition of 

36 CFR Chapter II, Parts 200 to 299, and includes the text: "this 

subpart does not apply to road construction, road reconstruction, or the 

cutting, sale or removal of timber in inventoried roadless areas on the 

Tongass National Forest" (294.14(d)). 

During the analysis conducted in the 2008 Forest Plan Amendment, 

inventoried roadless areas were identified as a key issue. The issue 

responded to the protection of high value inventoried roadless areas 

from road development and timber harvest, particularly for wildlife, 

biodiversity, recreation, and tourism. The Tongass National Forest is 

currently more than 90 percent roadless, including wilderness. Seeing 

a balance between the protection of inventoried roadless areas deemed 

to have high qualitative value and timber market demand in the 2008 

Forest Plan development of Alternatives, the Record of Decision 

selected Alternative 6. Alternative 6 retains 76% of the roadless 

acreage in natural setting Land Use Designations (LUDs) and deems 

only 3.2% suitable for timber harvest. 

As an additional step, the 2008 Forest Plan incorporated the Timber 

Sale Program Adaptive Management Strategy in response to concerns 

that an overestimate of timber demand would lead to timber harvest in 

areas perceived by many as more environmentally sensitive, such as 

higher value inventoried roadless areas, that would not have to be 

developed if the Plan were based on a lower estimate of timber 

demand (See Forest Plan, Record of Decision, page 17, and pages 37-

43). 

All of the inventoried roadless area acres within the Central Kupreanof 

project area have been identified to be within the Phase 1 suitable land 

base. 

The resource analysis area for IRAs include all the affected IRAs 

within the project area. 

Affected Environment 

In the evaluation of inventoried roadless areas in the 2003 Forest Plan 

SEIS, all Tongass National Forest lands were assessed to determine if 

they were suitable for wilderness based on the Wilderness Act and the 

procedures in the Forest Service planning directives. Appendix C 

(2003 Forest Plan SEIS Volumes II and III) includes documentation of 

the analysis and evaluation for each roadless area, describing 

qualitative resource attributes and the relative contribution each 

roadless area would make to the National Wilderness Preservation 

System. These characteristics included the wilderness potential or 

Regulatory 

Framework 

Resource 

Analysis Area 

Reference 

Condition 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 25 

wilderness attribute rating (WARS), the opportunity for solitude and 

serenity, scenic value, recreational values, ecologic values, cultural or 

historic values, and research values. These descriptions serve as the 

reference condition and will be used in this analysis to describe the 

degree of change that would occur by the implementation of the 

Central Kupreanof EIS to the affected inventoried roadless areas. 

While Roadless Area boundaries and acreages did not change from the 

2003 Forest Plan SEIS during the analysis conducted for the 2008 

Forest Plan Amendment, the distributions of LUD acres were modified 

to achieve Plan objectives. Acres of development and nondevelopment LUD allocations within inventoried roadless areas were 

redistributed. Table 3-9 shows the current LUD acres as allocated in 

the 2008 Forest Plan. 

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

allocation for project area Inventoried Roadless Areas 

Roadless 

Area 

Roadless 

Area 

number 

Nondevelopment 

LUD 

Acres 

Development 

LUD 

Acres 

2003 SEIS 

NonDevelopment LUD 

Acres 

2003 

Develop

-ment 

LUD 

Acres 

Total acres 

in Roadless 

Area 

North 

Kupreanof 211 53,107 46,456 39,214 60,352 99,566 

South 

Kupreanof 214 48,060 165,067 43,825 169,297 213,122 

Rocky Pass 243 73,181 5,921 73,960 5,143 79,103 

Castle 215 29,815 22,621 29,824 22,608 52,432 

Total Acres 204,163 240,065 186,823 257,400 444,223 1

 Total acres are from SEIS. Addition of non-development and development LUD 

acres do not equal total SEIS acres due to slivers resulting from unmatching 

shorelines in GIS layers. 

The North Kupreanof Inventoried Roadless Area (99,566 acres) is 

located at the north end of Kupreanof Island and lies along the 

southern shore of Frederick Sound. Approximately 29,054 acres of 

this inventoried roadless area are within the project area. 

North Kupreanof Inventoried Roadless Area is generally characterized 

by uniformly rolling lowlands with considerable muskeg. The 

Bohemia Range rises to an elevation of over 2,200 feet to the east, 

providing topographic relief to essentially flat terrain. Three major 

drainage systems, Hamilton Creek, Big Creek and Cathedral Falls 

Creek, wind across much of the area. There are also many small lakes. 

The area is mostly unmodified; however, it is influenced by 

development on the east and west sides, as well as by two roads which 

nearly divide the area. The overall area has moderate natural integrity 

Existing 

Condition 

North Kupreanof 

Inventoried 

Roadless Area 
3 Environment and Effects 

26  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

and relatively high apparent naturalness. None of the landscape in the 

area is considered distinctive for the character type from a scenery 

standpoint. While a small portion of this roadless area located in 

Hamilton Creek drainage is part of the Kake Municipal Watershed, 

this area is outside of the project boundary. Also, the small area of 

karst near Hamilton Creek north of Towers Lake lies outside of the 

project boundary. 

The South Kupreanof Inventoried Roadless Area (213,122 acres) 

occupies most of the southern half of Kupreanof Island. 

Approximately 93,804 acres of this inventoried roadless area are 

within the project area. 

Landforms in this area are characterized by uniformly rolling to 

moderately-steep hills, typically less than 1,500 feet in elevation, 

though some peaks are over 2,000 feet. The ridges parallel each other 

in a roughly northwest to southeast direction. The area contains 

approximately 107 miles of shoreline on saltwater. 

This relatively large roadless area is mostly unmodified and natural 

appearing. However, the extension of the road system from the north 

influences the area to some degree. The natural integrity and apparent 

naturalness are rated very high. None of the area is rated as distinctive 

for the character type from a scenery perspective. There is a small area 

of karst north of Taylor Creek along the shore of Towers Arm. Stone 

columns comprised of columnar basalt form the “totems” at the head 

of Totem Bay, outside of the project area. 

Rocky Pass Inventoried Roadless Area (79,103 acres) includes many 

small islands and is divided into two portions separated by the Rocky 

Pass saltwater channel. The western portion lies on the eastern edge of 

Kuiu Island, and the eastern portion lies on the western edge of 

Kupreanof Island, just south of Kake. Approximately 251 acres of this 

inventoried roadless area are within the project area boundary. 

Landforms within this area are characterized by rolling to moderately 

steep hills, typically less than 1,500 feet in elevation. The roadless 

area is bordered to the west by the Camden Inventoried Roadless Area, 

and South Kupreanof Inventoried Roadless Area to the east. 

The area is natural appearing. The natural integrity is very high and the 

apparent naturalness is outstanding. Approximately nine percent of the 

landscape is considered distinctive for the character type from a 

scenery standpoint. This area has very high cultural, historic, and 

recreational values. The area is prized for its geologic diversity and is 

a prime area for rock hounds to visit. These unique features of the 

Rocky Pass Inventoried Roadless Area are located outside of the 

Central Kupreanof project area boundary. 

South Kupreanof 

Inventoried 

Roadless Area 

Rocky Pass 

Inventoried 

Roadless Area 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 27 

Castle Inventoried Roadless Area (52,432 acres) lies along the 

southwest shore of Duncan Canal in the southeast corner of the main 

lobe of Kupreanof Island. It is mostly northwest of Kah Sheets Bay 

and includes Castle River estuary and flats, and the lower 1/3 of the 

watershed. The roadless area also includes the Castle Islands in 

Duncan Canal, Kah Sheets and Lung Islands in Kah Sheets Bay, the 

Level Islands south of Kah Sheets Bay, and several other small 

islands. 

The area is mostly unmodified; however, some of the shoreline along 

Kah Sheets Bay and areas along Little Duncan Bay are outside the 

roadless area boundary due to the presence of roads constructed for 

timber management in the mid 1970s. The older harvested areas are 

mostly natural appearing as they mature. 

Approximately 188 acres of the roadless area are within the project 

boundary; however, there are no proposed or reasonably foreseeable 

future activities within this roadless area. Therefore this inventoried 

roadless area will not be discussed further. 

Environmental Consequences 

The 2003 Forest Plan SEIS GIS layer as incorporated by the 2008 

Forest Plan reflects the best and most current information for the 

Tongass inventoried roadless areas and was used for summarizing the 

information required for the analysis. No changes have been made to 

these roadless area boundaries since the 2003 Forest Plan SEIS 

inventory. The analysis boundary for direct and indirect effects 

includes the entire North Kupreanof, South Kupreanof, and Rocky 

Pass Inventoried Roadless Areas. 

Effects will be measured by acres of harvest and miles of road 

construction within roadless area boundaries as well as total acres 

affected by proposed activities. Total acres affected will include the 

600-foot buffer around harvest units and 1,200-foot buffer placed 

around roads (2003 Forest Plan SEIS). For the 2003 Forest Plan SEIS 

inventory, helicopter –logged units that were not adjacent to a road or 

associated cable unit were included as part of the inventoried roadless 

areas. In accordance, helicopter units for this project will not receive 

the 600-foot zone of influence buffer (2008 FEIS, p. 3-443). 

Castle Inventoried 

Roadless Area 

Methods 
3 Environment and Effects 

28  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

Direct and Indirect Effects of the 

Alternatives 

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

Pass Inventoried Roadless Areas would remain greater than 5,000 

acres in size and eligible for Wilderness consideration in subsequent 

forest planning. Areas are rated using the Wilderness attribute Rating 

System (WARS). WARS ratings for each inventoried roadless area are 

not expected to change with implementation of any alternative. 

This area, especially the southern half, is predominantly unmodified 

and undeveloped. The area was rated 26 out of a possible 28 points 

using WARS and ranked 5th along with 6 other Tongass inventoried 

roadless areas. 

This area is influenced by development on the east and west sides, as 

well as by roads which nearly divide the roadless area. The area was 

rated 19 out of a possible 28 points using WARS and ranked 70th along 

with 13 other Tongass inventoried roadless areas. 

This area has an existing road corridor extending halfway through the 

interior from the and partially into the upper Castle River watershed. 

The southern half of this area is predominantly unmodified and 

undeveloped. The area was rated 24 out of a possible 28 points using 

WARS and ranked 24th along with 4 other Tongass inventoried 

roadless areas among the 109 on the forest. 

 In all alternatives the Castle Roadless Area would be unaffected by 

timber harvest, road construction, buffers, or other associated 

activities. 

While helicopter units will not receive the 600-foot buffer, this 

analysis does consider that helicopter units will influence roadless 

characteristics, although effects to wildlife and other resources would 

be less than clearcut units since 60 percent of the stand will remain. 

Temporary roads and NFS roads were given the same buffer (1,200 

feet) and are similarly treated in this analysis although temporary and 

closed system roads may have a lower degree of influence on wildlife, 

watershed and recreation resources after the timber harvest is 

complete. Temporary roads in particular will continue having a 

diminishing effect on inventoried roadless areas over time as natural 

revegetation and water drainage are established. 

While the overall roadless characteristic of each inventoried roadless 

area would remain unchanged, individually identified roadless values 

would either remain unchanged or be minimally influenced by the 

proposed activities. Soil, water and air quality would remain 

unchanged. There would be no effect to public drinking water. Each 

roadless area would still be able to support a diversity of plant and 

Effects Common 

to all Action 

Alternatives 

Rocky Pass 

Inventoried 

Roadless Area 

North Kupreanof 

Inventoried 

Roadless Area 

South Kupreanof 

Inventoried 

Roadless Area 

Castle River 

Inventoried 

Roadless Area 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 29 

animal communities and provide habitat for sensitive species (no TES 

exist within the project area). All areas would continue to provide for a 

variety of recreation experiences including primitive, semi-primitive 

non-motorized and semi-primitive motorized classes. All inventoried 

roadless areas would still provide large areas in natural settings that 

could serve as reference landscapes. While there would be limited 

visible changes to the inventoried roadless areas, overall scenic 

qualities would not change. No traditional or cultural properties or 

sacred sites would be affected by the proposed activities. No identified 

unique characteristic of any inventoried roadless area would be 

affected the implementation of any of the action alternatives. 

Comparison of Alternatives 

Alternatives 2 and 3 include timber harvest within the boundaries of 

the North Kupreanof, South Kupreanof, and Rocky Pass Inventoried 

Roadless Areas. The predominant effect would be to the South 

Kupreanof Roadless Area with approximately 341 acres of timber 

harvest and one mile of new NFS road in Alternative 2 and the harvest 

of 1,184 acres and 15 miles of road construction in Alternative 3. In 

comparison, the North Kupreanof Inventoried Roadless Area acres of 

harvest would vary from 90 acres in Alternative 2 to 152 acres in 

Alternative 3. No new roads are proposed within the North Kupreanof 

or Rocky Pass Inventoried Roadless Areas. Both Alternative 2 and 3 

propose three acres of timber harvest within the Rocky Pass 

Inventoried Roadless Area. 

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

roadless acres. Up to 5,273 acres would be treated as developed in the 

South Kupreanof Inventoried Roadless Area. The affected acres 

represent about two percent of the South Kupreanof Inventoried 

Roadless Area. 

Alternative 4 avoids timber harvest and road building within the 

boundary of inventoried roadless areas. However, the application of 

the 600 feet and 1,200 feet around harvest units and roads would spill 

into the inventoried roadless area boundaries. Alternative 4 affects the 

least total roadless acres of any action alternative. 

Tables 3-10 through 3-12 display the effects to inventoried roadless 

areas by Alternative. 

This alternative does not propose road construction or timber harvest 

and would have no effect on any inventoried roadless areas. 

In the North Kupreanof Inventoried Roadless Area timber harvest 

would total approximately 90 acres, with no NFS or temporary road 

construction. Unit 216 would total approximately 32 acres of harvest 

by single tree selection and helicopter yarding. Harvest proposed by 

Alternative 1 

Alternative 2 
3 Environment and Effects 

30  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

clearcut methods and conventional yarding include Units 215 and 903, 

totaling approximately 58 acres. Approximately 294 total roadless 

acres (0.3%) would be affected with the 600-foot delineation around 

harvest units. 

Alternative 2 proposes approximately 341 acres of timber harvest and 

one mile of NFS road construction in the South Kupreanof Inventoried 

Roadless Area. Units 218, 219, 222, 223, 224, 232, 233, 234, 235, and 

249 would remove approximately 211 acres by single tree selection 

and helicopter yarding. Harvest proposed by clearcut methods and 

conventional yarding include Units 250, 252, 253, 270, 282, 284, and 

285, which total approximately 130 acres. Approximately 881 total 

acres (0.4%) would be affected with application of 600' around harvest 

units and 1200' for road construction. 

Approximately three acres of timber harvest (Unit 310 by clearcut 

methods) is proposed in the Rocky Pass Roadless Area. No road 

construction would occur inside the roadless area boundary. A total of 

approximately 45 acres (0.05%) would be affected. 

For all inventoried roadless areas in Alternative 2, the characteristic 

values for availability as wilderness would remain unchanged. No 

unique attributes would be affected. The biological value of oldgrowth forest would be reduced proportionally by the amount of 

timber harvest in each inventoried roadless area. The scenic 

conditions to the Rocky Pass Inventoried Roadless Area would only be 

slightly changed by timber harvest activities outside the inventoried 

roadless area. 

Alternative 3 proposes approximately 152 acres of timber harvest and 

no road building within the North Kupreanof Inventoried Roadless 

Area. Approximately 32 acres (Unit 216) of harvest would be by 

single tree selection and helicopter yarding. Harvest proposed by 

clearcut methods and conventional yarding include Units 215 and 903, 

totaling approximately 58 acres. Approximately 356 total acres 

(0.4%) would be affected. 

Alternative 3 proposes about 1,184 acres of timber harvest, 13 miles of 

NFS road, and two miles of temporary road within the South 

Kupreanof Inventoried Roadless Area. All or portions of Units 218, 

219, 221, 222, 223, 224, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 239, 241, 243, 246, 

248, 249, 250, 252, 253, 254, 257, 258, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 

266, 267, 268, 270, 272, 274, 275, 276, 277, 279, 280, 281, 282, 284, 

285, and 286 would be within the roadless area. Approximately 5,273 

total acres (2.4%) would be affected with application of the 600-foot 

and 1,200-foot around harvest units and roads. 

Under Alternative 3, the Rocky Pass roadless area would be affected 

by the three acres of timber harvest proposed in Unit 310 by clearcut 

Alternative 3 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 31 

methods. No road construction would occur inside the inventoried 

roadless area boundary. Approximately 45 total acres (0.05%) would 

be affected. 

For all inventoried roadless areas in Alternative 3, the characteristic 

values for availability as wilderness would remain unchanged. No 

unique attributes would be affected. The biological value of oldgrowth forest would be reduced proportionally by the amount of 

timber harvest in each roadless area. The scenic conditions to the 

Rocky Pass Roadless Area would only be slightly changed by timber 

harvest activities outside the inventoried roadless area. 

Alternative 4 proposes no timber harvest or road building within the 

North Kupreanof, South Kupreanof, or Rocky Pass Inventoried 

Roadless Areas. However, when the 600-foot and the 1,200-foot 

buffers are applied to harvest units and roads proposed outside and 

adjacent to the inventoried roadless areas, the inventoried roadless 

areas would be influenced by proposed activities. Total acres affected 

would include 24 acres (0.02%) in the North Kupreanof Inventoried 

Roadless Area, 103 acres (0.04%) in the South Kupreanof Inventoried 

Roadless Area, and 13 acres (0.01%) in the Rocky Pass Inventoried 

Roadless Area. 

 For all inventoried roadless areas in Alternative 4, the characteristic 

values for availability as wilderness would remain unchanged. No 

unique attributes would be affected. The biological value of oldgrowth forest would not be reduced as no timber harvest would occur 

within any inventoried roadless area. 

Table 3-10.North Kupreanof Inventoried Roadless Area (99,566) 

Measure of Direct and Indirect 

Effects By Alternative 1 2 3 4 

Acres of timber harvest 0 90 152 0 

Miles of NFS roads (closed after 

harvest) 0 0 0 0 

Miles of temporary roads 

(decommissioned after harvest) 0 0 0 0 

Total acres affected including 

buffers (600' for harvest units, 1200' 

for roads) 

0 294 356 24 

Percent of North Kupreanof 

Roadless Area affected 0% 0.3% 0.4% 0.02%

Alternative 4 
3 Environment and Effects 

32  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

Table 3-11. South Kupreanof Inventoried Roadless Area (213,122 acres) 

Measure of Direct and Indirect 

Effects By Alternative 1 2 3 4 

Acres of timber harvest 0 341 1,184 0 

Miles of NFS roads (closed after 

harvest) 0 1 13 0 

Miles of temporary roads 

(decommissioned after harvest) 0 0 2 0 

Total acres affected including 

buffers (600' for harvest units, 1200' 

for roads) 

0 881 5,273 103 

Percent of South Kupreanof 

Roadless Area affected 0% 0.4% 2.4% 0.04%

Table 3-12.Rocky Pass Inventoried Roadless Area (79,103 acres) 

Measure of Direct and Indirect 

Effects By Alternative 1 2 3 4 

Acres of timber harvest 0 3 3 0 

Miles of NFS roads (would be 

closed after harvest) 0 0 0 0 

Miles of temporary roads (would 

be closed after harvest) 0 0 0 0 

Total acres affected including 

buffers (600' for harvest units, 

1200' for roads) 

0 45 45 13 

Percent of Rocky Pass 

Inventoried Roadless Area 

affected 

0% 0.05% 0.05% 0.01%

Direct and Indirect Effects of Associated 

Timber Harvest Activities 

Utilization of the existing Little Hamilton LTF for log transfer, 

storage, and camp operations would have no direct effects as they 

occur outside inventoried roadless area boundaries. However, use of 

the LTF, across the bay from Rocky Pass Inventoried Roadless Area 

would indirectly affect users as water traffic in the Hamilton Bay and 

mouth of Rocky Pass would temporarily increase (although logging 

traffic would most likely avoid the shallow waters of the Rocky Pass). 

Sights and sounds of logging operations would also temporarily affect 

roadless recreation in the adjacent portion of the roadless area. Effects 

from other ground disturbing activities necessary to implement the 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 33 

Central Kupreanof project such as rock pit development are included 

in the footprint and total effect of road construction. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects analysis boundary for inventoried roadless 

areas includes the entire inventoried roadless area both inside and 

outside of the project area, since any effect outside the project area 

may have the potential to reduce the size of the roadless area and 

represent a cumulative effect. The Catalog of Events for Kupreanof 

Island was referenced in determining cumulative effects. 

The Petersburg Ranger District is currently analyzing Access Travel 

Management. Road management decisions will become part of the 

District’s Motor Vehicle Use Map to be published in 2009. Road 

closures adjacent to roadless area boundaries would influence the 

quality of the North Kupreanof, South Kupreanof, and Rocky Pass 

Inventoried Roadless Areas by reducing the adjacent sights and sounds 

of vehicle traffic at current levels while roads remain closed. 

Harvest of the remaining NEPA cleared units from the Bohemia EIS 

and ROD will harvest an additional 58 acres within the North 

Kupreanof Roadless Area. With delineation of the 600 feet and 1,200 

feet, total acres affected would be about 104. Remaining units from 

Shamrock EIS have been incorporated into the Central Kupreanof unit 

pool and would not be harvested separately. 

Cumulative effects on inventoried roadless areas were reanalyzed in 

the 2008 Forest Plan Amendment. In the Selected Alternative of the 

Record of Decision, allocations were made in inventoried roadless 

areas to either development or non-development LUDs. During this 

analysis for the Forest, the unique characteristics and values of the 

inventoried roadless areas, their location, and proximity to other 

inventoried roadless areas, especially Congressionally-designated 

Wilderness Areas, was evaluated to determine the allocations for 

development. 

There are currently 9.6 million acres of land that are considered 

inventoried roadless areas on the Tongass National Forest. Even with 

full implementation of activities allowed under the 2008 Forest Plan 

Amendment and no further Wilderness designation, 80 percent of the 

Tongass would remain in an undeveloped condition without roads 

after 100 years. None of the alternatives for the Central Kupreanof 

Timber Harvest project would affect the future Wilderness eligibility 

of any affected inventoried roadless area after implementation. 

It is reasonable to assume that timber harvest and associated road 

management will continue on Kupreanof Island. Although in all 

alternatives for the Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest project roads 
3 Environment and Effects 

34  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

affecting inventoried roadless areas will be closed within ten years 

after the completion of timber harvest activities, it is intended these 

roads will be used and additional roads be planned for future access to 

the suitable timber within inventoried roadless areas. 

Since timber harvest and associated road building and major facilities 

are not allowed within non-development LUDs, a considerable portion 

of the inventoried roadless areas on Kupreanof Island would remain in 

a natural state for the life of the Forest Plan. 

Effects of Projects Common to all Action 

Alternatives 

The Big John Trail and Cabin are located with the Rocky Pass 

Inventoried Roadless Area. Maintenance of these recreation facilities 

would continue to enhance the current recreation experience; however, 

because these are existing developed recreation facilities and 

maintenance will occur within the existing footprint, no additional 

direct or indirect effects are expected to the roadless area. 

Opportunities to pull or replace red fish culverts are dependent on 

decisions made in the District ATM process; however any road 

closures adjacent to roadless area boundaries would influence the 

quality of the North Kupreanof, South Kupreanof, and Rocky Pass 

Inventoried Roadless Areas by reducing the adjacent sights and sounds 

of vehicle traffic from current levels while roads remain closed. There 

would be no other direct, indirect or cumulative effects from the 

Projects Common to all Action Alternatives as none of these activities 

enter into inventoried roadless area boundaries or influence their 

roadless characteristics. 

Microsales 

There would be no significant effect from a Microsales program to 

inventoried roadless areas as these activities would occur on roads 

open for long term management 6030, 6040 and 6314, 6314S, 6326, 

6328, 6334, 6336, 6339, 6367. 
901

314

207

252

5 1

7

206

276

250

205

905

270

903

502

217

265

234

284

258

282

219

6

318

204

263

261

277

248

501

203

275

310

209

215

241

900

235

280

272

221

285

208

243

224

286

279

260

313

305

2

202

304

253

257

320

273

229

309

3

264

231

266

271

307

274

281

246

315

216

201

268

218

232 233 236

312

316

222

306

904

267

254

249

317

262

230

223

239

214

255

269

c:/workspace/ckupre/plots/deis/fig3_1_roadless.mxd 09-20-08 EP

Legend

Unit Pool

Developed Areas

Inventoried Roadless Area

Unroaded area > 1000 and < 5000 acres

Wilderness

Private Land

Project Area Boundary

Existing Open NFS Road

Existing Closed NFS Road

Portage and Tonka Existing NFS Road

SOUTH KUPREANOF IRI

NORTH KUPREANOF IRI

SOUTH KUPREANOF IRI

SOUTH KUPREANOF IRI

0 1 2 4

Miles

 ̄

Duncan

Canal

Big John 

Bay

R o c k y

P a s s

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest

Figure 3-1

Inventoried Roadless Areas

ROCKY PASS IRI

CASTLE IRI

LINDENBERG

IRI
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 37 

Issue 3- 

Road Management/Access 

The construction, reconstruction and use of forest roads associated 

with this timber sale may change access within the project area. Roads 

influence wildlife populations, water quality subsistence use, the type 

of recreational opportunities available and the ability to maintain open 

roads. 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. This analysis considers the 

effects of the new construction and reconstruction of roads used to 

access the proposed timber harvest. It will also analyze the status of 

these roads after timber harvest (open or close). 

National Forest Transportation System roads are constructed to 

provide access to NFS lands and are included in the Forest 

Development Transportation Plan (see Transportation Standards and 

Guidelines in Chapter 4 of the Forest Plan). They are considered NFS 

roads as are other roads that are wholly or partially on NFS lands and 

are intended to be maintained for the long term (see Chapter 4 for a 

glossary with transportation terms). Most forest roads are single lane, 

constructed with blasted quarry rock, and designed for off-highway 

loads. 

For the Tongass, the demand for roads has primarily been a function of 

the demand for access to timber resources. The maintenance and 

reconstruction requirements of the existing system depend mainly on 

the volume of timber hauled and, to a lesser extent, on recreational 

use. Road maintenance consists of periodic repairs to an existing road 

surface, brushing, cleaning, and repairing drainage features. These 

tasks are performed to keep the roads in the safe and useful condition 

for which they were designed. Repairs may be accomplished as annual 

maintenance. The amount of future construction is anticipated to be 

largely determined by the need to access timber resources. 

Roads have the potential to affect fish habitat, soils, and water quality 

by increasing erosion and landslide potential, changing recreation 

settings and opportunities, altering scenery, and increasing wildlife 

harvest. These types of effects are discussed in the subject resource 

sections. 

 Miles of new NFS road constructed 

 Miles of temporary road construction 

 Miles of reconstructed NFS road 

Units of Measure: 
3 Environment and Effects 

38  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

 Miles of road to remain open to motorized vehicle traffic 

 Miles of road to be closed associated with this timber harvest 

activities 

 Miles of road of new and temporary road construction in 

inventoried roadless areas 

 Cost including maintenance of open roads, reconstruction, and 

new (NFS and temporary) road construction 

Affected Environment for Roads 

Forest roads are classified as NFS roads, Unauthorized Roads, and 

Temporary Roads by 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 212.1. 

The definitions of roads are found in the Glossary in Chapter 4 of this 

DEIS; additional defining information is shown below. 

 An NFS road is “a forest road other than a road which has been 

authorized by a legally documented right-of-way held by a State, 

county or other local public road authority.” NFS roads are generally 

required to provide long-term or intermittent motor vehicle access. 

These roads receive constant or intermittent use depending upon the 

timing of the timber harvest(s) and other activities. NFS roads form 

the primary transportation network in the project area. NFS roads 

have in the past been referred to as “Forest Development Roads,” 

“classified,” “system” roads, or “specified” roads. 

Unauthorized roads include unplanned roads, abandoned travel ways, 

and off-road vehicle tracks that have not been designated and managed 

as a trail. Roads that are no longer under permit or other authorization 

and have not been decommissioned are also considered unauthorized. 

 “A road or trail necessary for emergency operations or authorized by 

contract, permit, lease, or other written authorization that is not a forest 

road or trail and that is not included in a forest transportation atlas.” 

Temporary roads are intended for short-term use and maintained for a 

limited time usually to access a timber harvest unit. Temporary roads 

are decommissioned by removing culverts and bridges after a timber 

harvest. Temporary roads have also been called “spur” roads. 

Road decommissioning activities result in the stabilization and 

restoration of unneeded roads (in the long-term) to a more natural 

state. The term generally refers to temporary roads constructed for 

timber harvests that have had stream courses restored, culverts 

removed, waterbars added where needed, and cut and fill slopes 

revegetated. Decommissioning can occur for all three types of roads. 

For NFS roads, decommissioning removes the road from the long-term 

forest road transportation system. Otherwise, the act of 

decommissioning is the same for all roads. Action on the ground for 

 NFS Road 

Unauthorized 

Road 

Temporary Road 

or Trail 

Road 

Decommissioning 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 39 

decommissioning ranges from blocking the entrance and removing 

drainage structures to obliterating the road, returning the natural 

contours, and replanting vegetation. The end result is the stabilization 

and restoration of unneeded roads to a more natural state (36 CFR 

212.1). 

A motor vehicle travel way over 50 inches wide, unless National 

Forest System and managed as a trail. A road may be National Forest 

System, unauthorized, or temporary (36 CFR 212.1). 

The existing roads in the Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest project 

area are connected to a contiguous road system consisting of 

approximately 114 miles of NFS roads on the northern portion of 

Kupreanof Island know as the Kake Road System. There are 

approximately 79 miles of existing NFS roads within the Project Area, 

64 miles are currently open to motorized vehicles (see Table 3-15). All 

roads within the project area fall under Forest Service jurisdiction. 

The National Forest Service (NFS) roads were constructed as part of 

previous timber sale contracts for the purpose of timber haul and 

administration. Most of the road use on the island is administrative, 

logging traffic or because of the proximity of the Kake, by the public. 

Traffic is primarily seasonal; roads are usually closed December thru 

April by snow. 

Project area roads may be accessed from the community of Kake by 

NFS Road 6040 or from the existing Log Transfer Facility (LTF) at 

Little Hamilton Bay. Located outside of the project area at the end of 

NFS Road 6000, the Little Hamilton LTF is the only LTF that can be 

used for this project. 

NFS roads 6000, 45006, portions of 6030 and 6040 are not located 

within the Project Area, but would be used by administration traffic for 

access and for haul of harvested timber. 

Kupreanof Island’s transportation system is accessible by the Alaska 

Marine Highway. An additional road system operated by Local Alaska 

Native Corporations connects to the city of Kake. 

Road 
3 Environment and Effects 

40  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

Table 3-13. Miles of Road by Maintenance Levels 

System Miles 

of Road By 

Maintenance 

Level 

1- Basic 

Custodial 

Care 

2- High 

Clearance 

Vehicles 

3- Suitable 

for 

Passenger 

Cars 

Total 

Miles 

Project Area 

National 

Forest 

System Road 

14.7 32.7 31.7 79.1 

NFSROutside 

Project Area 

Used For 

Haul to LTF 

0 1.3 6.1 7.4 

Decommission Former Temporary Roads Miles 10.1 

There is a need for a rock source during the construction of the new 

system and temporary roads, reconstruction, and maintenance of the 

existing NFS roads in this project. It is preferred that the rock source 

is close to the site of road construction or maintenance, usually within 

two miles is best. 

There are numerous rock quarries throughout the project area and 

usually there is one within a few miles of the proposed site. The easy 

accessibility of existing rock quarries may eliminate the need to 

develop some new rock quarries. Existing rock quarries in the project 

area that are available for future expansion and use are shown on 

Figure B-1. 

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 nondevelopmental 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 transfer of harvested timber requires that logs be hauled directly to 

mills by trucks, or removed from trucks, transferred to salt water or 

barges at the Little Hamilton LTF, then towed to a mill. 

Approximately 4 miles outside of the project area, Little Hamilton 

LTF is a steel piling and concrete dock facility. The timber would be 

removed from the trucks and lowered into the saltwater with a crane 

that would be supplied by the timber contractor. 

All action alternatives would use the sort yard adjacent to the Little 

Hamilton LTF. This sort yard is approximately 2 1⁄2 acres in size 

Rock Quarries 

Log Transfer 

Facility (LTF) 

Sort Yard 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 41 

located next to the LTF on Road 6000. Presently the sort yard is in 

good condition with a clean surface of rock aggregate. 

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

alternatives. National Forest Lands across the Kake administrative 

facility has been used as a logging camp in the past. A special use 

permit would have to be approved before this site could be used. 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. 

There are no Forest Service administrative sites in the project area. 

The Kake administration site is located approximately 9 miles 

northwest of the Project Area Boundary. 

The desired condition for the forest transportation system is guided in 

part by 36 CFR 212.5 - Road System Management. Part b provides 

guidance for determining the minimum road system needed. Among 

other direction, the Roads Rule requires that an area-specific roads 

analysis be completed and a determination of need for amendment or 

revision of the Forest Plan be made if any roads are to be constructed 

or reconstructed in inventoried roadless or contiguous unroaded areas, 

until forest-wide roads analysis has been completed (FSM 7712.16(c)). 

No amendment would be required to the Forest Plan with 

implementation of any alternative. 

For the Central Kupreanof project area, “The Kake Road Analysis 

Report” was completed in September 2000 for the Kake area. 

Analyzing this area is a logical unit since the road system is not 

connected to any other island or the mainland, except by water or air 

transportation. In April 2008, this road analysis was updated by the 

Central Kupreanof interdisciplinary team. The Road Analysis Process 

(RAP) for the Kake Road System is a science-based system of analysis 

and tiered to the Tongass Forest-wide RAP (USDA Forest Service 

2003). 

The Kake Road System RAP consists of a report and accompanying 

maps and tabular information located in the Central Kupreanof project 

record. While this road analysis does not contain any road 

management decisions, it does make recommendations for road 

management objectives (RMOs). For those roads associated with 

proposed timber harvest activities, the recommendations have been 

analyzed in this EIS and decisions for those roads will be made in the 

Record of Decision. Recommendations for roads not used with this 

timber sale proposal will be carried forward and analyzed in the 

District’s Access Travel Management NEPA document. 

Logging Camp

 

Forest Service 

Facilities 

Roads Analysis 

Process 
3 Environment and Effects 

42  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

Methods 

The analysis area for the transportation system includes the project 

area and road segments leading into the project area. Roads extending 

from within the project area and terminating outside the project area 

are also included as travel within the project area is required to reach 

these road segments. Information sources for transportation analysis 

include the transportation GIS records which house the spatial data for 

road locations. An inventory of road attributes for NFS roads is 

maintained on National Forest through the I-Web database. A 

complete list of road attributes and definitions of these attributes is 

located in the project record. Forest Service personnel have conducted 

road condition surveys on many of the existing roads in the project 

area. These surveys supply site specific detailed information about 

each road (and section of road) surveyed, including: 

 Whether the road, or a particular section of the road, is 

drivable; 

 Number, size, and condition of drainage structures and bridges; 

 Barriers to vehicle access (e.g., vegetation, barrier ditches, 

pulled bridges, slides); 

 Maintenance requirements; and 

 Barriers to fish passage through road drainage structures 

The detailed road condition surveys can be found in the project record. 

Proposed new road construction routes are field reviewed by resource 

specialists. Specific comments and concerns along with site-specific 

mitigation measures are discussed in the respective resource reports 

and the design criteria on the road cards. Cumulative effects are 

discussed jointly at the end of the direct and indirect effects analysis 

for alternatives. All road mileage is approximate. 

Environmental Consequences and 

Effects Common to all Action Alternatives 

The effects of roads and access management on resources are 

discussed in their respective resource sections and reports. Site 

specific design criteria can be found on the road cards. 

Under alternatives 2, 3, and 4, road maintenance would occur on roads 

used for timber haul associated with this project. Maintenance 

activities could include road grading, brushing, ditch cleaning, and 

culvert cleaning. Other repairs would take place during timber haul 

operations on an as needed basis. 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 43 

All road construction would follow the applicable BMPs and meet or 

exceed Forest Plan standards and guidelines. 

The amount and level of maintenance and repair is dependent upon 

traffic management objectives and maintenance criteria. Road 

reconditioning is heavier maintenance on an existing road such as 

culvert replacement, surface rock replacement, and subgrade repair. 

Road reconstruction is an activity that results in improvement or 

realignment of an existing National Forest System road. Road 

improvement results in an increase of an existing road’s traffic service 

level, expansion of its capacity, or a change in its original design 

function. Road realignment results in a new location of an existing 

road or portions of an existing road and treatment of the old roadway 

(36 CFR 212.1). 

Maintenance of existing NFS roads is an ongoing process that occurs 

on a periodic basis. Normally this kind of road work is determined to 

fit the category of routine repair and maintenance of roads that do not 

individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the quality of 

the human environment and may be categorically excluded (FSH 

1909.15, 31.12). The maintenance of NFS roads in the project area 

may occur before, during, and after the project analysis. This work is 

done through separate service contracts to reduce the backlog of 

deferred maintenance, comply with best management practices, 

maintain the existing infrastructure for the proposed timber sale or any 

future harvest entries, and other National Forest management 

activities. The timing of this work may coincide with this project's 

analysis but is not part of the proposed action or alternatives being 

considered. Any effects from the road maintenance work are included 

in the cumulative effects analysis for this project. 

In addition to using the existing roads, some new NFS and temporary 

road construction would be needed to access harvest units within the 

project area for silvicultural activities. All new construction would be 

off of the existing road system. All newly constructed NFS road will 

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

traffic, during timber sale activities. These roads would be 

constructed, or, after completion of the timber sale activities be placed 

in, a self-maintaining hydrologic status as they may remain open an 

additional five to ten years for other activities such as regeneration 

surveys and firewood removal. This would include the placement of 

drivable water bars or dips at all drainage culvert locations to direct 

water across the road in event that the culvert plugs. Other design 

elements like oversized culverts may be used to help reduce the need 

for routine drainage maintenance. 

These roads would be intermittent service roads (maintenance level 

one) within ten year and would be physically blocked or natural 

Road 

Maintenance 

Proposed New 

Roads 
3 Environment and Effects 

44  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

vegetation allowed to eliminate motorized access. Drainage structures 

would remain in place with additional cross drains (water bars and 

dips), and the road would be considered stored. A review will be 

conducted at the time of closure for any additional resource concerns 

needing addressed. 

NFS roads are needed for long term management of the National 

Forest to access future timber lands or have resource concerns that 

require engineering controls in construction. Closed NFS roads 

needed in the future would be re-opened by filling in the trenches and 

re-installing stream structures. Each of the closed NFS roads would be 

needed periodically in the future for timber salvage and/or expansion 

into timber production LUDs. 

Temporary roads are not needed for long term management of the 

National Forest. Temporary Roads do not access future Timber Lands 

and do not have resource concerns that require engineering controls in 

construction. All temporary roads would be decommissioned after 

timber harvest. This involves removing culverts and bridges, restoring 

natural drainage patterns, and allowing the roadway to re-vegetate. 

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

Harvest Project Area 

Alternative 

1 

Alternative 

2 

Alternative 

3 

Alternative 

4 

Proposed 

New NFS 

Roads 

0 7.3 25.1 0.0 

Proposed 

Temporary 

Road 

0 3.9 6.1 2.2 

Roads proposed for reconstruction are existing NFS roads currently in 

storage; most drainage structures have been removed to restore natural 

drainage patterns and the roadway has re-vegetated with alders 4” to 

8” diameter. Reconstruction activities would include brushing, 

clearing of alders and drainage structures replaced. Reconstruction 

would keep the roads in a safe and useful condition for which they are 

managed, while meeting Forest plan standard and guidelines and 

following the applicable BMPs (See RMO road cards for road site 

specific items). 

When developing a transportation system to support timber harvest, 

the Forest Plan directs to perform an integrated logging system and 

transportation analysis to determine the least-cost facility (considering 

cost of construction, maintenance, and hauling) and design standards 

necessary to meet LUD objectives. This is accomplished on an 

Roads 

Proposed for 

Reconstruction 

Road Costs 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 45 

alternative by alternative basis through the NEPA Economic Analysis 

Tool – Residual Value (NEAT_R) version 2.13 program. This 

analysis is discussed further in the Timber Supply and Sale Economics 

section in this chapter. 

Table 3-15 summarizes the proposed road construction and 

reconstruction by alternative. Road Management Objectives (RMOs) 

are included as part of Appendix B. The RMOs specify the design 

criteria, best management practices, resource concerns, and mitigation 

for each NFS road. Temporary roads are displayed on the unit cards 

along with narrative information. 

Estimated average cost of new NFS road is $200,000 per mile, average 

road reconstruction cost of $50,000 per mile, and average cost of new 

temporary road of $130,000 per mile. NFS roads in Southeast Alaska 

are more expensive to build than in other parts of the nation. The 

major factor that contributes to higher costs is obtaining the rock for 

the roadbed. Rock is obtained by blasting bedrock, which is then 

hauled and shaped into a road over typically soft uneven terrain. Other 

factors that contribute to the high cost of constructing roads include 

the higher costs of shipping and labor, the numerous drainage 

structures needed, and complex logistics. 

An analysis was completed for the location of all new roads to 

minimize impacts to soils, water and associated resources in 

accordance with BMPs. Road location will be completed to avoid 

wetlands whenever practicable. Wetlands were unavoidable on some 

portions of the location due to safety, engineering design constraints 

and consideration for other resources. Alternatives to the location on 

wetlands would mean longer, higher-cost roads that may have 

impacted similar areas of wetlands. High value wetlands were 

particularly avoided wherever practicable. 

There are approximately 114 miles of NFS roads in the Kake road 

system, which encompasses the Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest 

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

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

maintenance generally includes brush cutting, blading of the road 

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

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

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

maintenance. 

Petersburg Ranger District historically has approximately $70,000 per 

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

about $2,000 per mile to maintain roads which equates to 

approximately 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 some selected side roads. 

Wetlands 

Avoidance 

Project 

Opportunities 
3 Environment and Effects 

46  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

The only direct, indirect or cumulative effects from the transportation 

projects would be improved access due keeping roads open. The 

hydrology/fisheries proposals are dependent on the analysis and 

decisions made in the District’s ATM NEPA document. The Projects 

Common to all Action Alternatives that were proposed by other 

resources would have no effects on the transportation system. 

A microsales program located along existing roads open for long-term 

use would have no effects on the transportation system as no new 

roads (NFS or temporary) would be built or closed in association with 

microsale activities. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative 1 does not propose any new road construction. This is the 

no action alternative. 

Under this alternative, current management plans would continue to 

guide the management of NFS roads. All system roads would be 

managed as directed by the Forest Plan, road management objectives, 

and previous NEPA decisions. This alternative would not increase, 

nor decrease, access to this area for recreation or subsistence activities. 

The 64 miles of currently open NFS road would remain open and 

maintenance would continue to be ongoing. 

Alternative 2 proposes construction of approximately 7.3 miles of NFS 

road. About 1.0 mile of construction would enter the South Kupreanof 

Inventoried Roadless Area. Future harvest along these roads is a 

possibility, as well as future extensions. This alternative would 

enhance opportunities for other timber harvest projects by providing 

access through suitable timber lands. 

Alternative 2 proposes about 2.9 miles of reconstruction of existing 

NFS road to access timber harvest. This would include activities such 

as culvert replacement, surface rock replacement, and sub grade repair. 

Roads 45803, 45805, 45807, 45808, 45810, 45885, 45886, 45887, 

45888, 45889, 45890, 45891, 45893, 45894, 45898, 45899, 6000, 

6040, 6314, 6314S, 6315, 6326, 6327, 6328, 6330, 6333, 6334, 6336 

and 6339 would be used in this alternative. 

This alternative proposes approximately 3.9 miles of temporary road. 

All of the temporary roads would be decommissioned after timber 

harvest. See unit cards for temporary road site specific detail. 

This alternative would use Little Hamilton LTF (Log Transfer 

Facility) and incur approximately $2,039,000 in road costs. 

New road construction crosses five streams that may require sitespecific design consideration for volume of flow, fish habitat, or other 

design complexity. All fish streams would be crossed with a bridge or 

Microsales 

Alternative 1 

Alternative 2 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 47 

culvert structure. There would be new stream crossings on roads 

45891 (3) and 6327 (2). See road cards for site specific detail. 

An additional 1.1 miles of NFS Road 6327, used in the proposed 

timber harvest, would be closed and placed in storage up to ten years 

after the timber sale. Any red fish crossings would be pulled at the 

time of storage. 

Motorized access would temporarily increase during the timber sale 

and for up to ten years after the completion of timber sale activities. 

Approximately 74.2 miles of road will remain open for up to ten years 

after the timber sale. Motorized access would then decrease in the long 

term as roads are closed and put in intermittent service. Approximately 

62.9 miles of road would ultimately remain open with this alternative. 

Closed roads would still provide a long term increase in non-motorized 

access. 

Roads in storage would remain in a self-maintaining state making 

more road maintenance funds available. Having more maintenance 

funds available and less miles open to maintain would help maintain 

the open roads to their operating standards and reduce deferred 

maintenance cost. 

Alternative 3 proposes construction of approximately 25.1 miles of 

NFS road. About 13 miles of new NFS would enter the South 

Kupreanof Inventoried Roadless Area. Future harvest along these 

roads is a possibility as well as future extensions. This alternative 

would enhance opportunities for other timber harvest project by 

providing access through suitable timber lands. 

This alternative proposes about 9.1 miles of reconstruction of existing 

NFS roads to access timber harvest. This would include activities such 

as culvert replacement, surface rock replacement, and sub grade repair. 

Roads 45800, 45803, 45805, 45806, 45807, 45808, 45810, 45885, 

45886, 45887, 45888, 45889, 45890, 45891, 45892, 45893, 45894, 

45895, 45896, 45897, 45898, 45899, 45915, 6000, 6040, 6314, 6314S, 

6315, 6326, 6327, 6328, 6330, 6333, 6334, 6336 and 6339 would be 

involved in this alternative. 

This alternative proposes 6.1 miles of temporary road of which about 

2.0 miles would enter the South Kupreanof Inventoried Roadless Area. 

All temporary roads would be decommissioned after timber harvest. 

See unit cards for temporary road site specific detail. 

This alternative has all the timber transported to Little Hamilton LTF 

and would incur approximately $6,017,000 in road costs. 

New road construction crosses five streams that may require sitespecific design consideration for volume of flow, fish habitat, or other 

design complexity. All fish streams would be crossed with a bridge or 

Alternative 3 
3 Environment and Effects 

48  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

culvert structure. There would be new stream crossing on roads 45891 

(3) and 6327 (2). See road cards for site specific detail. 

An additional 2.0 miles of NFS roads used in the proposed timber 

harvest (6327 and 6330) would be closed and placed into storage up to 

ten years after the timber sale. Any red fish crossings would be pulled 

at the time of storage. 

This alternative would have the greatest temporary increase for 

motorized public access to the area. The project area would provide 

about 98.2 miles of roads open for motorized vehicle use for up to ten 

years after the timber sale. Motorized access would then decrease as 

roads are closed and put into intermittent service. Ultimately, 

approximately 62.0 miles of road would remain open with 

implementation of this alternative. Closed roads would still provide a 

long term increase in non-motorized access. 

Roads in storage would remain in a self-maintaining state making 

more road maintenance funds available. Having more maintenance 

funds available and less miles open to maintain would help maintain 

the open roads to their operating standards and reduce deferred 

maintenance cost. 

Alternative 4 proposes no new NFS roads and no new road 

construction in any inventoried roadless areas. Approximately 2.6 

miles of reconstruction of existing NFS road would be needed to 

access timber harvest. This would include activities such as culvert 

replacement, surface rock replacement, and sub grade repair. Roads 

45803, 45805, 45807, 45808, 45810, 6000, 6040, 6314, 6314S, 6315, 

6326, 6327, 6328, 6330, 6333, 6334, 6336 and 6339 would be 

involved in this alternative. 

This alternative proposes 2.2 miles of temporary road. All temporary 

roads would be decommissioned after timber harvest. See unit cards 

for temporary road site specific detail. 

This alternative has all timber transported to Little Hamilton LTF and 

incur approximately $416,000 in road costs. 

An additional 2.0 miles of NFS roads used in the proposed timber 

harvest (6327 and 6330) are listed in the RMOs to be closed and 

placed in storage up to ten years after the timber sale. Any red fish 

crossings would be pulled at the time of storage. 

This alternative changes access the least of all action alternatives. 

While Alternative 4 does not create any new access with the 

construction of any NFS roads, motorized access would be slightly 

increased with the 2.6 miles of existing NFS road reconstruction. 

Approximately 66.6 miles of road would remain open for up to ten 

years after the timber sale. Motorized access would then decrease in 

Alternative 4 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 49 

the long-term as roads are closed and put in intermittent service. About 

62.0 miles would ultimately remain open with implementation of this 

alternative. 

Roads in storage would remain in a self-maintaining state making 

more road maintenance funds available. Having more maintenance 

funds available and less miles open to maintain would help maintain 

the open roads to their operating standards and reduce deferred 

maintenance cost. 

Comparison of Alternatives Tables 

All roads, both existing and proposed would be located, designed, 

constructed or reconstructed, and maintained following Best 

Management Practices (BMPs), and other applicable laws, regulations, 

and specifications. Refer to the road cards in Appendix B for more 

information on specific BMPs. 

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

Kupreanof Timber Harvest Project Area 

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Miles of Open Existing NFS Road 64 64 64 64 

Miles of Proposed New NFS Road 

Construction 

0 7.3 25.1 0 

Miles of Proposed Temporary 

Road Construction 

0 3.9 6.1 2.2 

Miles of Reconstruction of 

Existing NFS Road 

0 2.9 9.1 2.6 

Total Miles of NFS Road Left 

Open for up to 10 Years after 

Harvest 

64 74.2 98.2 66.6 

Miles of Proposed Existing NFS 

Road to Close within 10 Years of 

Harvest 

0 1.1 2.0 2.0 

Total Miles of NFS Road 

Remaining Open with 

Implementation of Alternative 

64 62.9 62.0 62.0 
3 Environment and Effects 

50  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

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

Alternative New 

Temporary 

Road Miles

New 

National 

Forest 

System 

Road 

Miles 

Reconstruction 

National 

Forest System 

Road Miles 

Total 

Road 

Costs* 

1 0 0 0 $0 

2 3.9 7.3 2.9 $2,039,000

3 6.1 25.1 9.1 $6,017,000

4 2.2 0 2.6 $416,000 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects boundary includes the Kake Road System. The 

Catalog of Events for Kupreanof Island was referenced for this 

analysis. 

While the number of open miles may temporary increase for up to ten 

years after timber sale activities with any action alternative, the overall 

open road miles associated with this project would decrease slightly. 

Up to approximately two miles would be closed within the project (see 

Table 3-17). Closure of roads includes mainly side roads and no main 

access routes are proposed for closure. 

The Petersburg Ranger District is presently working on the Access and 

Travel Management Plan and analysis for the District that will affect 

access on the Kake Road System by potentially closing some roads, 

restricting class of vehicle use, or decommissioning roads. However, 

the RAP for this project only proposes an additional closure of about 

seven miles (mostly side roads and roads with resource issues) and 

decommissioning of another about 2.8 miles (which leads into an 

OGR). Road management objectives and use designations for the 

entire Kake Road System will be analyzed and decisions made in the 

District’s ATM NEPA document. Decisions from the Central 

Kupreanof project will be incorporated by the ATM NEPA document 

and analyzed cumulatively. The District’s ATM NEPA document is 

expected to be published in 2009. The Motorized Vehicle Use Map 

will be updated yearly. Maps will be available at the Petersburg 

Ranger District. 

Other potential activities could affect access and open road miles on 

the Kake Road System. Potential activities could include Forest 

Service activities that implement the Forest Plan as well as State or 

Federal Highway projects and the Kake-Petersburg Intertie. Such 

projects could increase access either for the short-term or long-term as 

well as decrease long-term access. 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 51 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments 

of Resources 

Borrow pits and quarries would be needed for road construction and 

reconstruction under all action alternatives. The amounts of shot rock 

and crushed rock would vary with each alternative and miles of 

proposed construction and reconstruction. Location and sites can be 

designed, as well as timing used, to minimize the impacts upon other 

resource values and existing facilities. The extraction of shot rock or 

gravel would be apparent and excavation sites would be evident, 

altering the landscape, even with screening. These resources are not 

replaceable therefore these actions would be irreversible. See Figure 

B-1 for location of existing rock sources proposed to reuse and 

expand. 

Rock quarries are usually developed on a hillside by removing any 

trees and overburden from above the bedrock, which is usually within 

five feet of the surface. The bedrock is then drilled and blasted to 

produce rock in one foot diameter and less size. This rock is then used 

as an overlay to produce the road surface which supports the vehicles. 

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Regulatory 

Direction 

All alternatives comply with Forest Plan standards and guidelines. 

The standards and guidelines relevant to transportation can be found in 

the Tongass Forest Plan beginning on page 4-80. All roads are 

constructed to American Association of State Highway Transportation 

Officials (AASHTO) and Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) standards. Roads are constructed to meet 

Standard Specifications for Construction of Roads and Bridges on 

Federal Highway Projects, FP-03. 

A discharge of dredge or fill material for 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 best management practices (BMPs) to assure that flow and 

circulation patterns and chemical and biological characteristics of the 

waters are not impaired (404)(f)(1)(E). The BMPs that must be 

followed are specified in 33 CFR 323.4(a). All road construction 

would follow the applicable BMPs. 

There are no mining claims in the project area that the road system 

accesses or runs across. 

Clean Water Act 

Minerals and 

Geology 

Resource 
3 Environment and Effects 

52  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

Contracts, permits, road maintenance plans and project design 

documents would contain appropriate provisions concerning the 

prevention and/or spread of invasive species along the road system. 

Best Management Practices (BMPs) are used to assure soil and water 

resources are considered in transportation planning activities. Specific 

BMPs are listed by resource on the road cards. 

In general, resource concerns and mitigation measures identified in the 

road cards consist of the following. 

 Cutslope erosion would be mitigated by timely erosion control. 

 Side slopes of greater than 72% would be mitigated by full 

bench construction and slope stabilization, if necessary. 

 Road construction across muskegs would be mitigated by using 

wetland protection measures. 

 Open road density, road induced sedimentation, road 

maintenance requirements would all be mitigated through 

timely road storage after harvest activities are complete. 

Additional details of specific road construction concerns and 

mitigation measures are shown on the road cards. Site specific 

mitigation measures are listed on the road cards by resource. 

Invasive Species 

Prevention 

Mitigation and 

Monitoring 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 53 

Other Resources 

Considered 

Botany 

This section provides a summary of the botanical work done to 

analyze the potential effects of this project on sensitive, rare, and 

invasive plant species. Detailed information on the survey methods 

and effects analysis for sensitive, rare and invasive plants are found in 

the Botany resource report, Biological Evaluation for Plants and Risk 

Assessment for Invasive Plants (Clemens 2008). 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 

Trail Maintenance and Cabin Maintenance 

There would be no effects to threatened, endangered, sensitive, or rare 

plants from the proposed stewardship project of maintaining the four 

area trails and Big John Bay cabin. 

The risk of spreading invasives plants with these activities is low since 

there would be no new ground disturbance and most of the invasives 

found on the trails were limited to the roadside trailheads. No high 

priority species were found near the trailheads or cabin. Gravel sources 

will be checked before using on the trails to insure no high priority 

invasive weed species were present at the site. 

Invasive Plant Control 

There would be no effects to threatened, endangered, sensitive or rare 

plants from the proposed invasive plant control stewardship project. 

This project would help control and limit the spread of invasive plants 

present in the project area, particularly the spotted knapweed. 

Fisheries/Hydrology 

There would be no effects to threatened or endangered plants from the 

proposed fisheries/hydrology stewardship project of pulling culverts 

on fish streams on closed roads. While no known populations of 

sensitive or rare plants would be affected, correcting or pulling 

culverts has the potential to affect unknown populations and habitat at 

stream crossings. 

There is moderate risk of spreading invasive plants into uninfected 

areas if the equipment used to pull the culverts goes from a weeded 

area to a weed-free area. To help mitigate this, the work could be done 

when the high priority plants are not in seed stage or they have been 

pulled or the seed heads clipped before work begins. 

Projects Common 

to All Action 

Alternatives 
3 Environment and Effects 

54  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

Silviculture/Wildlife 

There would be no effects to threatened, endangered, sensitive or rare 

plants from the proposed silviculture stewardship project of precommercial thinning second-growth stands. 

There would be no effects to invasive plants with this project. Secondgrowth stands are not likely habitat for invasive plants due to the thick 

tree growth. While the pre-commercial thinning would allow more 

light into the stands, the ground would not be disturbed. Leaving the 

cut trees on the ground would further inhibit invasive weed growth. 

Transportation 

The proposed transportation stewardship project of maintaining the 

Kake area roads would not adversely affect any known threatened, 

endangered, sensitive or rare plants in the project area. One sensitive 

plant species, Davy mannagrass (Glyceria leptostachya), is sometimes 

found in roadside ditches and could be affected by ditch maintenance. 

However, this species thrives in disturbed areas, so increased 

disturbance could actually enhance its habitat and populations. Also, 

this species is more abundant on the Tongass than once thought, so it 

is being re-evaluated under the current list revision and may be 

dropped from the Alaska Region Sensitive Plant List. 

There is moderate risk of spreading invasive plants into uninfected 

areas with road maintenance if the equipment used goes from a 

weeded area to a weed-free area. To help mitigate this, the work could 

be done when the high priority plants are not in seed stage or they have 

been pulled or the seed heads clipped before work begins. 

Microsales 

The proposed Microsale areas along NFS roads open for long term 

management 6030, 6040 and 6314, 6314S, 6326, 6328, 6334, 6336, 

6339 and 6367 may impact unknown individual rare or sensitive plants 

but would not likely lead to federal listing for any species. 

The proposed Microsale areas would have no significant effects to 

invasive plants. 

Threatened and Endangered Plants 

No threatened or endangered plants are known or suspected to occur in 

Southeast Alaska; therefore federally listed plants were not evaluated. 

Affected Environment for Sensitive Plants 

The analysis area considered for direct and indirect effects, for 

sensitive and rare plants, is the project area. For cumulative effects, 

the area considered is the Tongass National Forest. 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 55 

Botanical surveys were conducted in the major plant communities 

present in the project area. One hundred fifty-five vascular plant 

species were identified from these surveys. Detailed information about 

common forest and wetland types in the project area can be found in 

the Silviculture-Vegetation resource report and the Soils-Wetlands 

resource report. 

Botanical surveys were concentrated in proposed harvest units, where 

populations could be directly affected. Only limited surveys were 

completed in non-harvest areas. Therefore, it is possible sensitive plant 

populations occur in areas within the project area where no harvest and 

road building activities are proposed. 

Units of measure 

 Number of known plant populations affected by proposed 

activities 

 Qualitative discussion of potential effects to unknown 

populations and habitat 

 Determinations from the Biological Evaluation (Clemens, 

2008a) risk assessment 

Nineteen plant species have been designated as sensitive by the 

Regional Forester for the Alaska Region. Recent studies of these 

vascular plants resulted in taxonomic revision of six of them. Based 

on the work of taxonomic authorities, these six plants are now 

included in more broadly distributed or abundant taxa. Because of 

this, they no longer warrant status as being sensitive species and will 

be removed from the list, which is undergoing revision. Nine sensitive 

species, out of the remaining 13, are known or suspected to occur on 

the Petersburg Ranger District. Four of these species are suspected or 

known to occur in the project area since the area contains appropriate 

habitat and is within the known or suspected range of the plants. All 

four of these species are being considered for removal from the 

sensitive plant list because they are more widespread than previously 

thought. Because these species are still on the current list they are still 

considered in the Biological Evaluation for Sensitive Plants (in the 

project record). Two of those species are known to occur on 

Kupreanof Island and two are suspected to occur there. 

Glyceria leptostachya – This species is found in wet habitats often 

where there is natural or human-caused disturbance, including along 

streams, ponds, lake margins and roadside ditches. Roots are often 

submerged. 

Hymenophyllum wrightii –This species is found at the base of trees, 

on downed logs, and rock outcrops in damp, humid woods. The 

Sensitive Plants 

Sensitive Plants 

Known or 

Suspected in the 

Project Area: 
3 Environment and Effects 

56  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

gametophyte form of this species has been found to be fairly common 

in low elevation coastal areas in the southern and central Tongass. 

Poa laxiflora- This species has been found throughout the Tongass, 

typically on upper beach meadows, estuaries, and streamsides. 

Romanzoffia unalaschcensis- This species is known from a few 

widespread areas in Southeast Alaska. It is often associated with 

streamside/riverbank habitats and rock outcrops, often near the ocean. 

Environmental Consequences 

Two sensitive plant species were found in the Central Kupreanof 

project area: Wright filmy fern (Hymenophyllum wrightii) and Davy 

mannagrass (Glyceria leptostachya). Seventeen populations of 

Hymenophyllum wrightii were found during surveys in the area with 

fourteen populations found in nine proposed units, and three in 

locations outside proposed units. 

One population of Davy mannagrass (Glyceria leptostachya) was 

found on the north shore of Kluane Lake east of Unit 254. The 

population would not be directly, or indirectly, affected by timber 

harvest activities since it is outside any proposed units. Disturbance to 

its habitat could have beneficial effects to populations. 

There would be no direct or indirect effects to sensitive plants with 

implementation of Alternative 1. 

In Alternatives 2 and 3, fourteen known populations of Wright filmy 

fern (Hymenophyllum wrightii) would be affected by proposed timber 

harvest activities. Thirteen known populations would be affected in 

Alternative 4. Unknown populations may also be affected. Plants may 

be destroyed and habitat lost in road corridors due to trampling by 

workers, machinery, and deposition of road materials. Plants may be 

destroyed in timber harvest units due to trampling by workers, trees 

falling on the plants, trees dragged over the plants during removal or 

slash deposited on the plants. Plants may also be destroyed from 

operation of shovel yarding equipment and habitat alteration from soil 

compaction. 

Indirect effects on these species in other locations as a result of timber 

harvest and road construction are essentially undocumented at this 

time. However, changes in the habitat condition may have some 

indirect effects such as soils moisture changes, light regime changes 

and increased susceptibility to disturbances (human and natural). 

Some of the possible changes include increased groundwater 

hydrology due to decreased levels of evapotranspiration after harvest; 

alterations due to possible sedimentation caused by landslides or 

windthrow as a result of timber harvest or roading activities; increased 

competition from native or non-native species that may establish as a 

Direct and Indirect 

Effects 

Alternative 1 

Alternatives 2, 3 

and 4 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 57 

result of road building activities and other disturbance; impacts caused 

by changes in the light regime as a result of canopy removal; and 

increased disturbance caused by humans who may access these areas 

for recreation or subsistence use. 

In Alternatives 2 and 3, three populations located within riparian 

buffers or dropped units would remain unaffected. In Alternative 4, 

one additional population would be protected by the changed shape of 

Unit 310. 

Since there would be no direct or indirect effects in Alternative 1, 

there would be no cumulative effects in associated with this project in 

Alternative 1. For Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, the Catalog of Events was 

referenced. The following activities may add to the cumulative effects 

to sensitive species or their habitat within the project area; road and 

trail construction, road storage or decommissioning, gravel extraction, 

timber harvest, subsistence use and recreation. While individual 

populations and areas of potential habitat may be impacted by the 

proposed activities within the project area and across the Forest, 

cumulatively, the effects are not likely to lead to federal listing of any 

species. 

As more sensitive plant surveys are conducted and more potential 

habitats surveyed, specialists are learning better methods on how to 

look for these plants. With this increasing knowledge, more plants are 

being found. Across the Tongass National Forest, from just the 

surveys concentrated in areas of proposed activities, approximately 86 

populations of Hymenophyllum wrightii have been found, seventeen 

populations in the Central Kupreanof proposed activity area alone. The 

regional sensitive plant species list is in the process of being revised 

and it has been indicated that the Hymenophyllum wrightii will be 

removed from the list due to the recent findings of abundant 

populations across the Forest. 

Table 3-17. Determinations for Sensitive Plant Species by Alternative. 

Species 

Known or 

Suspected in 

Project Area 

Alternative 1 Alternatives 2-

4 

Hymenophyllum 

wrightii Known No Impacts *May impact 

Individuals 

Glyceria 

leptostachya Known No Impacts *May impact 

Individuals 

Poa laxiflora Suspected No Impacts *May impact 

individuals 

Romanzoffia 

unalaschensis Suspected No Impacts No impacts 

*May adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the 

Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward Federal listing. 

Cumulative 

Effects 
3 Environment and Effects 

58  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

Affected Environment for Rare Plants 

Two rare plant species were found in the project area and analyzed in 

the Botany Resource Report for the Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest 

EIS (Clemens 2008). Rare plant species considered for this project 

include any plant listed on the Alaska Natural Heritage Program 

(AKNHP) Vascular Plant Tracking List that was found during 

botanical surveys in the project area. One population of Galium 

kamtschaticum and eight populations of Listera convallarioides were 

found in the project area. 

Botanical surveys were concentrated in proposed harvest units, where 

populations could be directly affected. Only limited surveys were 

completed in non-harvest areas. Therefore, it is possible that rare plant 

populations occur in areas within the project area where no harvest and 

road building activities are proposed. 

Units of measure 

 Number of known plant populations affected by proposed 

activities 

 Qualitative discussion of potential effects to unknown 

populations and habitat 

 Determinations from the risk assessment completed for the 

Botany Resource report (Clemens, 2008c) 

Galium kamtschaticum and Listera convallarioides are often found in 

the same habitats: wet lady fern/skunk cabbage/forb communities. 

This community type is common from low to subalpine elevations in 

the Central Kupreanof project area and much of the Tongass National 

Forest. Galium kamtschaticum is also found in better-drained settings, 

such as avalanche slopes, brush fields or broken mountain slopes near 

the subalpine zone. Listera convallarioides is a perennial orchid 

typically found in wetter sites, including forested edges, openings with 

lady fern and skunk cabbage, lady fern and forb communities and fens. 

The assessment of risks to populations of rare plants takes into account 

size, density, vigor, habitat requirements, location of the population, 

and consequence of adverse effect on the species as a whole within its 

range and within the Tongass National Forest. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative 1 is the “no action” alternative and would have no direct or 

indirect impact on rare plant populations or their habitat. 

The direct effects to rare plants are the same in all the action 

alternatives (Alternatives 2, 3, and 4) since they occur in or near units 

Rare Plant Habitat 

Environmental 

Consequences for 

Rare Plants 

Alternative 1 (No 

Action) 

Alternatives 2, 3, 

and 4 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 59 

that are proposed for identical actions in the three alternatives. Also, 

where rare plants were found in or near deferred units or roads, those 

activities were deferred in all three alternatives. The direct and 

indirect effects described under “Sensitive Plants” are the same for 

rare plants and their habitat. 

The known population of Galium Kamtschaticum in Unit 229 would 

be impacted by harvest activities. The consequences of adverse 

impacts to this rare plant due to project activities are moderate. The 

likelihood of adverse effects is high since it is in a unit proposed for 

harvest in all action alternatives. The overall risk to this species is low 

because it occurs in many open-forested and non-forested niches, often 

where management activities are not likely to occur. 

The consequences of adverse impacts to this rare plant due to project 

activities are low to moderate as two of the eight populations identified 

in the Central Kupreanof project area would be directly impacted by 

harvest. Habitat would also be impacted. The likelihood of adverse 

effects is moderate as harvest may change the hydrology and 

microclimate needed by this plant. The overall risk to this plant in the 

Central Kupreanof project area is low because it is often found in 

habitats that will be avoided by harvest activities and foreseeable 

future activities.

The timber harvest activities could also affect some undetected rare 

plants. More Listera convallarioides and Galium kamtschaticum

populations could possibly occur in areas where no harvest is proposed 

since most surveys were concentrated in proposed units and only 

limited surveys were done in non-harvest areas. 

Since there would be no direct or indirect effects in Alternative 1, 

there would be no cumulative effects associated with this project in 

Alternative 1. For Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, the Catalog of Events was 

referenced. The following activities may add to the cumulative effects 

to sensitive species or their habitat within the project area; road and 

trail construction, road storage or decommissioning, gravel extraction, 

timber harvest, subsistence uses, and recreation. Individual 

populations and areas of potential habitat may be impacted by various 

proposed activities (such as, but not limited to, those listed above) 

across the Forest. 

As more rare plant surveys are conducted and more potential habitats 

surveyed, specialists are learning better methods on how to look for 

these plants. With this increasing knowledge, more plants are being 

found. Recent findings across the Tongass National Forest of Listera 

convallarioides and Galium kamtschaticum populations indicate 

population trends may be higher than anticipated and may affect 

overall State rankings in the future. To date, with inclusion of 

populations found in the Central Kupreanof project area, 40 

 Galium 

kamtschaticum 

(Boreal 

bedstraw): 

Listera 

convallarioides 

(Broad-leaved 

twayblade): 

Cumulative 

Effects 
3 Environment and Effects 

60  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

populations of Galium kamtschaticum and 68 populations of Listera 

convallarioides are known on the Tongass National Forest. These 

populations have been found from surveys specifically concentrated on 

proposed disturbance areas, such as in proposed timber harvest units or 

road prisms. While some of these populations and potential habitats 

may be affected by Forest projects, by the number of occurrences 

discovered and the similar habitats in non-development areas, it can be 

suggested that large unknown populations may occur outside proposed 

activity areas and remain unaffected. In fact, much of the primary 

habitat for the known or suspected rare plants is not in productive 

timber stands. The status of these plants on Kupreanof Island, and the 

Tongass, is secure in the foreseeable future. 

Invasive Plants 

The area of analysis for invasive plants includes the project area plus 

the roads outside the project area that connect to Kake. This is 

because roads are the main vector for spreading invasive plants. 

An “invasive plant species” is a plant, including its seeds, spores or 

other biological material that is not native to the ecosystem under 

consideration and whose introduction causes or is likely to cause 

economic or environmental arm or harm to human health (Executive 

Order 13112; USDA Forest Service 004a; USDA Forest Service 

2005). Invasive plant surveys were conducted in the project area in 

2006, primarily on the roads and rock quarries. 

An invasive plant risk assessment for the Central Kupreanof project 

was completed and included in the project record with the Botany 

resource report. This risk assessment clarifies the management 

concerns, objectives and mitigation measures proposed to address 

invasive species for the Central Kupreanof project. 

Units of Measure 

 Qualitative discussion of potential effects and risk of spread 

determinations from Invasive Plant Species Risk Assessment 

(Clemens, 2008b) 

Eight invasive plant species found on the Kake road system are ranked 

moderately to highly invasive, according to the Alaska Natural 

Heritage Invasive Plant Ranking System (2007, Alaska Natural 

Heritage Foundation Weed Ranking Project). 

Three of the high priority invasive species on the Kake road system 

occur in the project area. The other five species occur on non-national 

forest lands within four miles of the City of Kake. Spotted knapweed, 

one of the three high priority species found within the project area, is 

recommended for control. It is a small isolated population found on 

Road 6337. The other two species in the project area, oxeye daisy and 

Priority Invasive 

Plant Species 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 61 

reed canary grass, are not recommended for control because they are 

widespread along most roads in the area and successful control without 

the use of pesticides is not likely. Future control of these species may 

be evaluated in District-wide programmatic decisions. Table 3-18 lists 

the known invasive plant species along the Kake road system. 

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

Species Common Name Status 

Actively controlling these plants where feasible on the Tongass 

Centaurea 

biebersteinii spotted knapweed 

Rd 6337, within 

project area. 

Senecio jacobaea. Tansy ragwort 

On the beach next to 

the ferry terminal in 

Kake 

Sonchus arvensis. 

ssp. uliginosis Perennial sowthistle In City of Kake, 

several locations 

Polygonum 

cuspidatum Sieb & 

Zucc. 

Japanese knotweed In City of Kake and 

one rockpit near town 

Actively controlling these plants only in certain locations on the 

Tongass 

Leucanthemum 

vulgare 

oxeye daisy, white 

daisy 

Occurs commonly 

along Kake roads 

Melilotus alba 

Medikus white sweetclover In rockpit 7 miles 

from project 

Phalaris arundinacea reed canarygrass 

Occurs commonly 

along Kake roads 

including within the 

project area 

Brassica rapa field mustard In the City of Kake 

1 Plants in bold are located on National Forest lands. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Habitat vulnerability is a review of site specific factors that are present 

in the project area which would make the project area vulnerable or 

resistant to invasive plant infestation. For most invasive plants, two 

elements usually exist which promote their spread: open sunlight and 

exposed mineral soil (disturbance). Mineral soils are generally found 

along riparian areas, estuaries, and mountain and hill slopes of forested 

habitats. Therefore, the habitats with the highest vulnerability related 

to soil type is riparian areas, estuaries and other stream corridors 

directly adjacent to road corridors. 
3 Environment and Effects 

62  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

The degree of soil disturbance within forested habitats as a result of 

timber harvest is related to the type of logging system used to remove 

the timber. For example, cable systems using suspension (partial or 

full) will create little or no soil disturbance; however, ground-based 

systems (high lead and shovel) have the potential to create more soil 

disturbance. 

The primary vectors responsible for invasive plant species spread 

within the project area are wind and water, although wildlife and the 

use of vehicles may also play a role to a lesser degree. 

Plants listed in Table 3-18 are considered a high risk to the project area 

either because they are highly invasive species already present in the 

project area or they are moderate to highly invasive species known on 

the Kake road system. While the project invasive plant species risk 

assessment analyzes overall risk of spread, the likelihood of some of 

the individually listed species to spread into the project area is quite 

low. For example, the Japanese knotweed generally spreads through 

movement of contaminated soil. Because the population is outside of 

the project area and will not be disturbed by project activities, there is 

very little risk this invasive will spread to the project area. Also, the 

white sweetclover population is isolated in a rockpit seven miles from 

the project area. Because this rock source will not be used for 

proposed activities, the risk of spread is very low. Due to the distance 

from the project area and haul route, there is a moderately low to low 

risk of spread for both the perennial sowthistle and field mustard 

populations. 

The tansy ragwort is also located outside the project area. It is located 

on the beach next to the ferry terminal in Kake. The primary vectors 

spreading the tansy ragwort are wind and vehicles. Because it is 

unlikely that vehicles will come in contact with the plants the risk of 

spreading due to vehicle traffic is low. 

The small isolated population of spotted knapweed was found along 

Road 6337. This road, while in the project area, would not be used in 

any proposed alternative. Therefore, because the population is not 

located along the haul route or in an area proposed for harvest, and is 

recommended for control through the Projects Common to all Action 

Alternatives, the risk of spread is low. 

While the project area is not an area where the oxeye daisy and reed 

canarygrass are being actively controlled, the risk of spread of these 

invasive plants along the road corridor is moderate. However, with 

implementation of soil erosion best management practices (BMPs) the 

primary habitat vulnerability elements can be limited and the risk 

lessened. For example, immediately reseeding disturbed areas in new 

road construction and reconstruction corridors with standard seed mix 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 63 

can lessen the time mineral soils are exposed and open to sunlight, 

encouraging the establishment of native species. 

There is no increased risk of spreading invasive plants into the project 

area with this alternative. 

Overall this alternative has a low to moderate risk of increasing the 

spread of invasive plants in the project area because there would be 

some ground disturbance with the 11.2 (NFS and temporary) miles of 

new road construction proposed and 2.9 miles of reconstruction. 

Of all action alternatives, Alternative 3 has the highest risk of 

increasing the spread of invasive plants in the project area because it 

proposes the most new road construction (NFS and temporary) of 31.2 

miles and 9.1 miles of reconstruction. 

With the exception of the no action alternative, this alternative has the 

lowest risk of increasing the spread of invasive plants in the project 

area because it only proposes 2.2 miles of temporary road construction 

and 2.6 miles of reconstruction. 

The activities occurring in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 have an overall 

assessment of moderate to low risk for increasing the spread of 

existing invasive plants (Invasive Plant Risk Assessment, Clemens, 

2008) as well as increasing new introductions of other invasive plants 

due to ground disturbance as a result of new and reconstructed road 

development. 

Cumulative Effects 

The Catalog of Events was referenced in identifying cumulative 

effects for along the Kake Road System. Programmatic hand or 

mechanical treatment of weeds and cooperative work with the city of 

Kake, would help to limit the spread of invasive weeds related to past, 

ongoing, and future projects. Road maintenance would continue along 

the road system and depending on measures taken, may continue to 

pose a moderate risk of invasive species spread along the road 

corridor, specifically of the oxeye daisy and reed canarygrass. The 

District Access Travel Management NEPA document will decide 

whether roads remain open (and type of vehicle use), be placed into 

storage, or be decommissioned. The effects of these decisions and risk 

to spread of invasive species will be analyzed in that document; 

however, whenever there are ground-disturbing activities, particularly 

within the road corridor, and the presence of invasive plant species, 

there will be some foreseeable risk of spread. 

Alternative 1 (No 

Action) 

Alternative 2 

Alternative 3 

Alternative 4 

Alternatives 2, 3, 

and 4 
3 Environment and Effects 

64  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

Alternative 1 would have no cumulative effect on weed species as it 

would not cause any new disturbance or additional road construction 

in the project area for weed species to occupy or spread. 

Disturbances caused by road building and timber harvest favor the 

spread of invasive plants. It is likely that some invasive plants would 

be spread or spread naturally into newly disturbed areas. Currently 

most weed species are limited to the road corridor and rock quarries. 

The spotted knapweed population on Road 6337 is recommended for 

control with Projects Common to all Action Alternatives. 

Management Considerations/Mitigation and 

Monitoring 

The invasive plant management goals and strategies for this project 

will follow the guidance contained in the new Forest Service Manual 

supplement (TNF 2000-2007-1) and the Region 10 and Tongass 

Invasive Plant Management Plans. The primary goal for this project is 

prevention and minimization of spreading certain invasive plants 

further into the project area. It will focus on limiting the introduction 

and spread of existing high priority invasive plants into new areas, 

especially in the process of road construction. 

Several factors for management are considered: 

1. Focus efforts on high priority invasive plants that the Tongass N.F. 

has committed to actively control where feasible. In the Central 

Kupreanof area, this means efforts will focus on controlling the 

spotted knapweed population found on Road 6337. This could be 

accomplished by including the work in a stewardship contract or by 

using Forest Service personnel to hand pull the plants annually. 

2. Management considerations for this project will not include those 

high priority invasive plants known in the project area which the 

Tongass N.F. has committed to actively control only in certain 

locations. These include the following species: 

Leucanthemum vulgare – oxeye daisy 

Phalaris arundinacea – reed canarygrass 

The logic for not treating these species at this time is due to their 

widespread distribution along the Kake road system and the low 

likelihood of success in their ultimate control. However, the 

application of soil erosion BMPs will assist in reducing the risk of 

continued spread. Management efforts across the Forest will focus on 

avoiding the introduction of these species into pristine habitats and 

Land Use Designations that are managed for natural and near natural 

conditions. These do not include the Timber LUD, of which this 

project area is located. 

Alternative 1 

Alternatives 2, 3, 

and 4 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 65 

With the above stated management considerations, the following 

mitigation measures are recommended for management to consider in 

lowering the risk of spread of invasives: 

Require contractors to access rock material that is free of any Japanese 

knotweed, perennial sowthistle, spotted knapweed, white sweetclover 

or any other high priority species found from existing quarries prior to 

constructing new roads. 

This will require an invasive species specialist to inventory all rock 

sources prior to use and certify in writing that it is acceptable. The 

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

high priority species were found. 

If any rock sources become contaminated with high priority species 

and certification can not be attained without treatment methods, 

consider the use of contaminated rock for re-constructing existing 

roads only. 

Rock material free from high priority species will be required of all 

new road constructions and new landings. 

Monitor the newly constructed roads, the active quarries, and the 

project area for at least 3 years after the project for new non-native 

plant introductions. 

Eradicate or control any newly introduced high priority invasive plant 

species/populations not currently in the project area after project 

completion, and prior to closing temporary roads as part of the District 

5-year program of work for invasive species management. Prioritize 

controlling any new populations relative to other populations of high 

priority species needing treatment on the District. 
3 Environment and Effects 

66  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

Wildlife 

Resource Analysis Area 

Central Kupreanof is located on the Petersburg Ranger District on the 

Tongass National Forest. The project area is on the Kupreanof Island 

off of the Kake road system. It includes approximately 152,517 acres. 

Its boundaries follow the boundary lines of value comparison units 

(VCUs) 429, 438, 426, 436, 427.1 (Figure 1) which accounts for most 

of the interior portion of Kupreanof Island. An estimated 152,517 

acres of this area are administered by the National Forest Service (FS). 

Within the project area wildlife species habitat can be assessed based 

on different types of geographical areas. Biogeographic Province 

(BPs) or Game Management Unit (GMU) are geographical areas 

defined by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) to 

manage wildlife populations. Wildlife Management Areas (WAAs) are 

subdivisions of GMUs and are used by ADFG for data collection 

purposes. VCUs are National Forest System land divisions that usually 

approximate watersheds. 

Wildlife habitat for this project will be analyzed at the biogeographic 

province level because it is the same scale used for analysis of POG in 

the Forest Plan. The biogeographic province was used in the Forest 

Plan to describe the amount of productive old growth forest (POG) 

remaining on the Tongass and is summarized for the 

Kupreanof/Mitkof biogeographic province. This project is also 

analyzed at the project level and at the WAA. The WAA is used to 

show habitat effects at a smaller scale as a function of the timber 

management activities. It is possible animals move between Kuiu 

Island and Kupreanof Island as a result several WAA’s from Kuiu and 

well as the WAA’s from the Central Kupreanof project area will be 

included in the analysis. 

The amount of productive old-growth (POG) forest remaining as a 

percent of what was existing prior to large-scale and human-caused 

habitat changes with the Tongass are good indicators not only of 

habitat loss but how fragmented the habitat is likely to become.

Methods 

The National Environmental Policy Act directs the Forest Service to 

focus on a full and fair discussion of significant issues and identify and 

eliminate from detailed analysis the issues that are not significant. 

Some elements of wildlife habitat require a detailed analysis and 

discussion to determine potential effects. Other elements may not be 

affected; may be affected at a level that does not influence use, 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 67 

occurrence, or the decision to be made; or can be adequately addressed 

through design of the project. These elements then do not necessarily 

require detailed analysis. 

The species screened for relevancy include at-risk species (threatened, 

endangered and sensitive species) MIS and others identified through 

the scoping process. The appropriate method and level of analysis 

needed to determine potential effects are influenced by a number of 

variables, including presence of species or habitat, the scope and 

nature of the activities associated with the alternatives and the risks 

that are known or expected to occur within the project area. Species 

that may be potentially affected by the proposed actions will receive a 

detailed analysis. However, a detailed analysis was determined to be 

unnecessary for those species considered absent from the project area, 

or where impacts could be avoided or where impacts would be 

inconsequential given the type or magnitude of the action (see Table 3-

19). 

Field surveys were completed by the IRI crews during the 2006 and 

2007 field seasons. Raptor nests were found and buffered according 

to Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. A wolf den was located in 

the project area. The den site was not located near a timber unit so a 

greater area is buffered than is required by the Forest Standards and 

guidelines. Deer quick cruise plots were recorded in the majority of 

the unit pool. Results were analyzed and the habitat with the highest 

total scores was evaluated to make sure connectivity exists on the 

landscape. Connectivity was evaluated in the project area and it is 

determined connectivity would be maintained. See IRI crew survey 

results in project record. 

Table 3-19. Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species 

Species 

Probability of 

occurrence in 

the area of 

potential 

effect? 

Potential for 

Measurable 

Effects to 

Population in 

Analysis Area? 

Need for 

detailed 

further 

analysis? 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Humpback Whale 

(Megaptera novaengliae) Mod No No 

Stellar Sea Lion 

 (Eumetopias jubatus) Mod No No 

Federal Candidate Species 

Kittlitz’s Murrelet 

(Brachyramphus 

marmoratus)

Low No No 

Sensitive 

Trumpter Swan Mod Yes No 
3 Environment and Effects 

68  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

(Cygnus buccinator)

American Osprey 

(Pandion haliaetus 

carolinensis) 

Mod Yes No 

Queen Charlotte goshawk 

(Accipiter gentilis laigni) High Yes No 

Peale’s peregrine falcon 

(Falco peregrinus pealei) Low No No 

MIS 

Red Squirrel 

(Tamiasciurus hudsonicus) High No No 

Black Bear 

(Ursus americanus) High Yes Yes 

Brown Bear3 

(Ursus arctos) Low No No 

Marten 

(Martes americana) High Yes Yes 

River otter4 

(Lutra canadensis) High No No 

Sitka Black-tailed deer 

(Odocoilus hemionus 

sitkensis) 

High Yes Yes 

Mountain goat 

(Oreamnus americana) Low No No 

Gray wolf 

(Canis lupus ligoni) High Yes Yes 

Vancouver Canada goose 

(Cygnus buccinator) Mod No No 

Bald eagle 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus) High No No 

Red-breasted sapsucker 

Brachyramphus brevirostris) High No No 

Hairy woodpecker 

(Piodoies villosus) High No No 

Brown creeper 

(certhia americana) High No No 

Others 

Forest Land Birds High Yes No 

Moose 

(Alces americanus) High Yes Yes 

Table 3-19 explains how this analysis dealt with the species list. The 

humpback whale, Stellar Sea Lion, kittlitz’s murrelet may occur in the 

project area but the potential for measurable effects to the population 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 69 

in the analysis area is very low. For more information about these 

species refer to the Biological Evaluation. The trumpeter swan 

American osprey, Queen Charlotte goshawks have a moderate to high 

probability of occurring in the project area and have a potential for 

measurable effects to population in the analysis area. For more 

information about these species refer to the Biological Evaluation. 

The Peale’s peregrine falcon has a low probability of occurring in the 

project and has a very low potential for measurable effects to the 

population in the analysis area. For additional information about this 

species refer to the Biological Evaluation. 

This section discusses the affected environment of species known or 

suspected to occur in the project area that may be affected by project 

activities. Rationale for excluding other species from detailed 

discussion in the DEIS is included in Table 3-19. The red squirrel, 

river otter, brown bear, mountain goat, Vancouver Canada goose, bald 

eagle, red-breasted sapsucker, hairy woodpecker, brown creeper as 

well as other Forest land birds will not be analyzed further in this 

document as they are already discussed and protected by the Forest 

Plan. These species may be present in the project area (the brown bear 

and the Mountain goat are not known to occur in the project area). 

The species that are present may have a high probability for 

measurable effect to the population in the analysis area. These species 

are protected by Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, the 

Conservation Strategy and Old-growth reserves and beach buffers 

(which provides for the viability of the species). River otters and 

black bear are also protected by Riparian Standards and Guidelines as 

they use the riparian corridors. The Red-breasted sapsucker, hairy 

woodpecker, brown creeper as well as other forest land birds are 

protected by the conservation strategy, old growth reserves and the 

beach buffers. These bird are discussed in the report Neo-tropical 

birds of concern on the Tongass National Forest (Brainard 2008). 

Harvest activities may have direct or indirect effects on these species. 

The maintenance of old-growth reserves, old-growth habitat in other 

non-development LUDs, beach, estuary and riparian buffers, the cavity 

nester standards and guidelines (USDA 2008), as well as structure left 

in the stands due to partial harvests will aid in minimizing the 

cumulative effects to these species. 

The wildlife analysis for this project does not use the deer or marten 

models. Instead the analysis uses a quantitative approach which looks 

at the reduction of productive old-growth (POG). POG is the habitat 

used by many animals. Animals use other habitat but POG is the part 

of the habitat that is being altered Looking at the reduction of POG 

provides a way to measure effects to wildlife and display the amount 

of habitat that is no longer available to a suite of wildlife species. This 

approach provides a clear comparison of alternatives. A brief 
3 Environment and Effects 

70  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

discussion of the relevant species’ habitat preferences and 

requirements is also included. 

Black bear range through all major habitat types found in the project 

area and require large expanses of habitat. Movements and 

distribution of black bear are primarily influenced by food and cover. 

Black bear are opportunistic omnivores that feed on new shoots, 

leaves, berries and spawning salmon (late summer and fall). Estuarine, 

riparian and forested coastal habitats receive the highest use by black 

bear and have the highest habitat values. Within forested areas, both 

early and late (old growth) successional stages provide the best forage 

and/or cover for black bear. Although many of their preferred foods 

grow best in openings, bears prefer not to move very far from cover 

when they are foraging; therefore large openings without cover are 

thought not to be utilized. Black Bear are protected by Forest Wide 

Standards and Guidelines, Conservation Strategy, Old-growth reserves 

and beach buffers. This project may impact part of their habitat due to 

road building and associated timber harvest activities. The impacts 

will be inconsequential as bear are generalists, using a variety of 

habitats and are not exclusively dependent on productive old growth 

(POG). There is currently an open hunting season from September 1, 

to June 30 and during this time a hunter may take two black bear. 

Between 1998 and 2007 an average of 27.7 black bear were taken in 

WAAs 5130, 5131 and 5133 a year with a average range of 15 to 45 

animals harvested annually

The Shiras race of moose originates from the interior of British 

Columbia. Moose prefer shrubs, timber line plateaus, area along 

(glacial riverwash shrub stands) major rivers and post-glacial early 

successional vegetation types. Moose also prefer habitats in shallow 

ponds where lush vegetation is available. Moose are protected by 

Forest Wide Standards and Guidelines, Conservation Strategy, Oldgrowth reserves and beach buffers. This project may impact part of 

their habitat but the impacts will be inconsequential as moose are 

generalists and not rely on POG exclusively. Currently there is an 

open hunting season for moose from September 15, to October 18 

where the hunter may take a bull by permit. Between 1998 and 2007 

an average of 5.9 moose were taken in WAAs 5130, 5131 and 5133 

each year with an average range of 2 to 9 animals harvested annually. 

Marten are naturally occurring on Mitkof, Kupreanof and Kuiu 

islands. The subspecies of Martes caurina is not known to occur in the 

project area. This member of the weasel family depends on mature 

forests with snags and downed logs for denning and prey habitat. The 

quantity of quality winter habitat is considered the most limiting factor 

for marten in Southeast Alaska. Due to lower snow accumulations, 

habitats at lower elevation have higher value for wintering marten. 

High volume old growth coastal habitats (beach fringe) and riparian 

Black Bear 

Moose 

Marten 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 71 

areas have the highest value, followed by upland habitats between 800 

and 1,500 feet in elevation. These stands provide marten with 

important habitat components, including overstory canopy, snags, 

fallen logs, trees with large exposed root systems and a lush 

understory. The fallen logs, decadent trees and large snags in old 

growth forests provide marten with important resting microsites. 

Because marten store little fat, these microsites are important in 

minimizing thermal loss. Large old trees, standing snags and large 

diameter logs provide important sites for marten (Suring 1992). 

Optimum use of habitat occurs when patches of preferred habitat are 

greater than 180 acres. Use declines with decreased patch size; 

becoming zero when patches of preferred habitat are less than 10 acres 

(USDA Forest Service 1991). 

Marten populations are also sensitive to overexploitation for trapping. 

Currently the open road density in the project area is 0.27 miles/miles2 

and the total road density is 0.35 miles/miles2. Road building will 

increase motorized vehicle access during the timber sale and for an 

additional five to ten years after the sale. Currently there is an open 

trapping season for marten from December 1 to February 15 with no 

limit to the number of marten that can be taken. Between 1998 and 

2007 an average of 2.8 marten were taken in WAAs 5130, 5131 and 

5133 each year with an average range of 0 to 9 animals harvested 

annually. 

While there may be localized effects from road building and timber 

harvest, and some individual marten may be displaced, there is not an 

anticipated effect to the marten population. Marten are protected by 

Forest Wide Standards and Guidelines, Conservation Strategy, Oldgrowth reserves and beach buffers. Marten may be affected at a level 

that does not influence use of this habitat. Because of the 

conservation strategy marten are well above the status of maintaining 

viability in the population. 

The Alexander Archipelago wolf ranges through all habitat types 

found within the project area. A wide-ranging, opportunistic predator, 

the wolf does not exhibit a preference for specific habitats or habitat 

characteristics. Wolf presence is more indicative of the availability of 

habitat for its primary prey species, Sitka black-tailed deer, rather than 

land form, climate or vegetation (Suring et al 1993 and Person et al. 

1996). Person et al. (1997) recommends maintaining sufficient 

habitat to support at least 18 deer per square mile in areas where deer 

are the primary prey species. The wolf secondarily preys upon beaver, 

moose and where available, spawning salmon and waterfowl (Person 

et al. 1996). Availability of suitable denning habitat is of secondary 

importance to wolves. Dens are generally located in sites with good 

drainage and within 10 meters of fresh water (Person et al. 1996). 

Gray Wolf 
3 Environment and Effects 

72  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

Wolves tend to have home ranges that cross several wildlife analysis 

areas. The 1997 Forest Plan estimates an average of 17 deer per 

square mile (in the biogeographic province) were available in 1995 in 

the analysis area. The Forest Plan predicts 15 deer per square mile (in 

the biogeographic province) will be available in 2095 with the full 

implementation of the Forest Plan selected alternative (USDA 1997). 

The 2008 Forest Plan recognizes that not all WAAs will maintain 

habitat capable of supporting 18 deer per square miles based on the 

natural habitat composition of some areas as well as effects of 

implementation of the Forest Plan (FEIS, p3-283). With the selection 

of Alternative 6, WAAs within the Kupreanof/Mitkof Island 

biogeographic province are expected to fall below the 18 deer per 

square mile (FEIS, p3-284). The habitat within the Central Kupreanof 

Timber Harvest project area is not capable of supporting large 

numbers of deer. With implementation of any action alternative, deer 

would still average between 17 and 15 deer per square mile. 

Currently the open road density in the project area is 0.27 miles/miles2 

and the total road density is 0.35 miles/miles2. Increased road building 

may provide additional access for hunters/trappers. Wolves are 

protected by Forest Wide Standards and Guidelines, Conservation 

Strategy, Old-growth reserves and beach buffers. This project may 

impact part of their habitat but the impacts will be inconsequential as 

wolves are generalists and do not utilize POG exclusively. Currently 

there is an open trapping season for wolves from November 10 to 

April 30 with no limit to the number of wolves that can be taken. 

Between 1998 and 2007 an average of 2.5 wolves were taken in 

WAAs 5130, 5131 and 5133 each year with an average range of 0 to 

13 animals harvested annually. 

Sitka black-tailed deer is considered a generalist species that ranges 

throughout all major habitats of Southeast Alaska. Deer utilize all 

successional stages at all elevations, including alpine, meadows, and 

subalpine forests, for most of the year. In the winter, deer prefer low 

elevation, high volume old growth forests. The availability of high 

quality winter range is the most limiting habitat factor to deer. 

The capability of winter habitat to support Sitka black-tailed deer is a 

function of forage abundance and quality (Hanley et al. 1989), snow 

interception qualities of the overstory and climate as influenced by 

aspect, elevation and maritime conditions (Suring et al. 1992b). 

Winter snow conditions affect deer greatly through decreased forage 

availability and increased energetic costs. Stands with closed canopies 

minimize the amount of snow accumulation, promoting forage 

availability and movement of deer. The habitat in the project area is 

not capable of supporting large numbers of deer because this area on 

Kupreanof Island lacks large contiguous stands on higher volume 

timber with high quality browse that deer rely on to provide cover and 

Sitka Black-tailed 

Deer 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 73 

forage. The habitat in the project area is made up of POG. POG is 

also the habitat deer utilize as winter habitat. The effects of proposed 

activities on POG are analyzed in the following section. Deer are 

protected by Forest Wide Standards and Guidelines, Conservation 

Strategy, Old-growth reserves and beach buffers. This project may 

impact deer habitat and individual deer will be affected but the 

viability of the deer population is not in question. Currently there is an 

open hunting season for deer from August 1 to November 30 with a 

two buck limit. Between 1998 and 2003 an average of 58 deer were 

taken in WAAs 5130, 5131 and 5133 each year with an average range 

of 18 to 110 animals harvested. 

Connectivity is maintained in the project area. Landscape connectivity 

is maintained by the existence of non-development LUDs, OGRs and 

beach fringe areas. During the Forest Plan amendment, small OGRs 

were re-evaluated and the OGRs within the project area adjusted. 

According to the conservation strategy, these adjustments provide for 

landscape connectivity (Forest Plan FEIS, Appendix D) additionally 

connectivity was addressed within the project area by looking at the 

results of the deer quick cruise plots. Additional consideration for 

connectivity was part of the proposed action’s design. The units with 

the higher total quick cruise plot scores were dropped or given a partial 

harvest prescription to make sure there was additional connectivity 

across the project area. 

The Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) defines endemic as “a 

species native and confined to a certain region; having comparatively 

restricted distribution.” Forest Plan standards and guidelines for 

endemic mammals direct the Forest to “maintain habitat to support 

viable populations ands improve knowledge of habitat relationships of 

rare or endemic terrestrial mammals that may represent unique 

populations with restricted ranges.” 

Due to its historic isolation, ecological complexity and narrow 

distribution between the Pacific Ocean and coastal mountain ranges 

the North Pacific Coast is considered a hot spot of endemism (Cook 

and Mcdonald 2001, Cook et al. 2006). Southeast Alaska has been 

found to be a region with an especially high degree of endemism in its 

small mammal fauna, principally because of the combination of its 

archipelago geography and its highly dynamic glacial history 

(Demboski et al. 1998 cited in USDA 2008). In “Conservation of 

highly fragmented systems: The north temperate Alexander 

Archipelago” (Cook et. al. 2006) Kupreanof Island rated relatively low 

as was not considered a real hotspot in comparison to other southeast 

islands. 

The following species are known to occur in the project area. 

Common Shrew, Dusky Shrew, Red Squirrel, Beaver, Keen’s Mouse, 

Landscape 

Connectivity 

Endemics 
3 Environment and Effects 

74  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

Long-tailed Vole, Porcupine, Muskrat, Wolf, Black Bear, Marten, 

Ermine, Mink, Wolverine, River Otter, Mountain Lynx, Sitka Blacktailed Deer, Moose (Macdonald and Cook 2000). This project does 

not affect other habitats; therefore species not associated with old 

growth are not affected. Species that are associated with old growth 

would be affected because of the harvest of old growth. Old growth 

habitat is being removed causing a change at the stand level. This 

change will remove cover and possible habitat for small mammals they 

may be exposed to a greater degree to predation. The increased side 

light may provide an increase in vegetation that may benefit small 

mammals. This analysis is adequate for all old growth species based 

on site specific old growth and connectivity analysis and the Forest 

Plan analysis. Forest Plan standard and guides are met with this 

analysis. 

Kupreanof Island is a large island compromising of approximately 

664,796 acres. The 2008 Forest Plan increased the quality and 

quantity of the Old-Growth Reserve (OGR) system providing 

landscape connectivity between non-developmental LUDs and larger 

old-growth reserves for both widely distributed and endemic 

mammals. Approximately 102.341 acres on Kupreanof Island are 

protected in large, medium and small OGR’s and a total of 249,798 

acres (38%) in non-development LUDs. The Central Kupreanof 

project area covers approximately 152,517 acres. Up to 3.647 acres 

(2.4% of the project area) are proposed for harvest with proposed units 

spread out along the roaded base and logical extensions. Small OGR’s 

on Kupreanof and specifically with the project area were adjusted 

during the Forest Plan amendment. Landscape connectivity at the 

project area was looked at during this analysis (see landscape 

Connectivity section) and consideration to additional connectivity was 

designed into Alternative 2. 

Affected Environment 

The Central Kupreanof project area is located on the interior portion of 

western Kupreanof Island on the Kake road system. Kupreanof is the 

sixth largest island in Southeast Alaska and is located near the 

geographic center of the Alexander Archipelago, a group of 

mountainous islands lying west of the mainland. The island is 

approximately 1,089 square miles in size, with 313 miles of shoreline. 

The community of Kake on the northwestern shore and Kupreanof on 

the eastern shore are the only two municipalities on the Island. The 

Central Kupreanof project area is characterized by mostly old-growth 

temperate forest and wetland plants. Young growth forest resulting 

from timber harvest occurs along the road system and shorelines. 

Small areas of natural second-growth forest have developed after 

blow-down has occurred (Figure 3-2). 

Characterization 

of Wildlife 

Habitats 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 75 

The forest consists of about 80 percent western hemlock with lesser 

amounts of Sitka spruce, mountain hemlock, Alaska yellow-cedar and 

western red-cedar. Alder grows on exposed and disturbed soil sites 

such as old roads. Dense understory plants grow where enough 

sunlight can penetrate the forest canopy. Understory plants include 

devil’s club, rusty menziesia, skunk cabbage, salmonberry, bunch 

berry and many species of blueberries. The most productive forests 

develop on well drained sites such as along the mountain slopes of 

Missionary Range in the northeast, in the Petersburg-Duncan Salt 

Chuck Wilderness, in the Keku Creek and Big John drainages and in 

the headwaters of the Castle River drainage. 

Kupreanof Island has several large areas of muskeg. The southeast 

corner of the island and the north central area near the Bohemia Range 

are mostly muskeg savannas. Muskeg vegetation is a mixture of 

sedges, deer cabbage, sphagnum mosses and low growing shrubs such 

as Labrador tea and bog laurel. Stunted, slow-growing shore pines 

grow on less saturated muskeg areas. Very small ponds dapple most 

muskegs. 

Due to the low elevations on Kupreanof Island, few areas of subalpine 

or alpine vegetation exist. The few mountaintops where this habitat is 

present are the Missionary Range, in the Bohemia Range, Portage 

Mountain and several ridges higher than 1,500 feet in the middle of the 

island. Plants that grow in subalpine and alpine areas are copperbush 

sedges, cottongrass, mountain hemlock and several species of 

blueberries (USDA 2000). 

For this analysis, the reference condition is the historic or original 

condition and is defined as the habitat condition present before timber 

cutting began. See the GIS report for more information on how this 

was calculated. 

Existing Condition 

The Central Kupreanof project area is located on the interior portion of 

western Kupreanof Island on the Kake road system. Kupreanof is the 

sixth largest island in Southeast Alaska and is located near the 

geographic center of the Alexander Archipelago, a group of 

mountainous islands lying west of the mainland. The island is 

approximately 1,089 square miles in size, with 313 miles of shoreline. 

The Central Kupreanof project area is characterized by mostly oldgrowth temperate forest and wetland plants. Kupreanof Island 

contains a lot of muskeg habitat as well as POG. Within the project 

area there is approximately 57,628 acres of POG. Within the WAA’s 

there is approximately 268,611 acres of POG and within the 

Biogeographic province there is approximately 307,710 acres of POG. 

Reference 

Condition 
3 Environment and Effects 

76  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 
901

314

5 207 1

252

7

206

276

250

205

905

270

903

502

217

265

234

284

258

6

261

282

219

318

204

263

277

248

501

203

275

310

209

215

241

900

235

280

272

221

285

208

243

224

286

279

260

2

313

305

202

304

253

257

320

273

229

309

3

266 264

231

271

307

274 281

246

315

216

201

268

218

232

233 236

312

316

222

306

904

267 254

249

317

262

230

223

239

214

255

269

c:/workspace/ckupre/plots/deis/fig3_2_vegetation.mxd 09-20-08 EP

Legend

Old-growth Reserve

1000ft Shore Buffer

Non-development LUD

Wilderness

Unit Pool

Productive Old-growth

Forested Non-productive

Managed Stands

Project Area Boundary

D u n c a n

C a

n a l

R

o c k

y

P

a s s

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest

Vegetation

Figure 3-2

 ̄
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 79 

Environmental Consequences 

Wildlife use POG as part of their habitat in addition to non-forest 

structure. Because proposed activities primarily alter POG, the effects 

of timber harvest on wildlife habitat will be analyzed by comparing 

changes in Productive Old Growth (POG) using the Size Density 

Model (SDM). Analysis will include comparisons of changes between 

past, present and foreseeable future habitat capability by alternative. 

For the 1997 Forest Plan, the Tongass classified POG on the 

basis of three volume strata (low, medium and high volume). 

These were refined based on using the existing TIMTYP 

inventory, soils and slopes. Since the issuance of the 1997 

Forest Plan, several landscape and timber-sale analyses have 

effectively used the three broad timber-type categories 

delineating non-forest, unproductive old-growth forest, and 

POG forest lands, which were divided further into high-, 

medium- and low volume-strata forest stands (USDA 2008). 

While the three-volume strata approach for POG is useful for 

estimating timber volume for forest planning purposes, it is not 

as useful for describing other important forest elements, 

including forest structure, ecosystem diversity and wildlife 

habitat. Forest structure is defined as the spatial arrangement 

of the components of vegetation and is a function of tree size 

and height, vertical stratification into layers, and horizontal 

spacing of trees. It is important because it reflects the complex 

spatial and temporal interaction between plant growth (e.g., 

dispersal and competition), physiographic factors (e.g., 

geology, soils, slope, aspect, and elevation), climate, and 

disturbance, (e.g., wind, landslides, and human activities). 

Areas of high-structure habitat are typically located in areas of 

well-drained soils on unconsolidated sediments associated with 

alluvial fans, floodplains, or toe slopes. 

Differences in forest structure are more useful because timber 

volume may be misleading when describing wildlife habitat or 

other attributes of the stand. For example, two stands may 

have the same volume but one may be a dense stand of 

medium-sized trees with a single canopy layer while the other 

stand may be a combination of widely-spaced large over story 

trees and two or three lower canopy layers containing small 

and medium sized trees (Caouette et. al. 2000, Caouette and 

DeGayner 2001). 

To move beyond the limitations of timber volume, Forest 

Service managers and planners have begun to revise and refine 

forest mapping on the Tongass by creating a tree size and 

Units of Measure 

and Areas of 

Analysis 
3 Environment and Effects 

80  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

density mapping model for POG forests. Such information is 

more applicable for assessing conservation of biodiversity, 

estimating timber values and developing wildlife habitat 

models. 

One alternative to using volume estimates is using a 

combination of two common forest measurements: tree sizes 

and tree densities (Caouette et. al. 2000). These two measures 

provide a more comprehensive forest measuring system than 

timber volume (Spies and Franklin 1991, Franklin 1995). The 

Forest Service recently published National Guidance on 

vegetation classification and mapping that specifically requires 

tree sizes (expressed as quadratic mean diameter of all live 

dominant/co-dominant trees) and tree densities (expressed as 

canopy closure) for the mapping of forest structure (USDA 

Forest Service 2004d). The Tongass National Forest has 

developed an approach that uses these two measurements to 

model structural diversity in order to better define and describe 

forest structural attributes (Caouette and DeGayner 2005). The 

size-density model (SDM) uses a combination of two common 

forest measurements: tree sizes and tree densities (Caouette et. 

al. 2000). This model has proven to be the best tool for 

representing these other forest elements (USDA 2008). 

Size-density model (SDM) uses timber volume class, hydric 

soil class and aspect to characterize forest structure. These 

attributes were correlated with the stand density index and 

mean quadratic mean to derive the various SDM categories 

(USDA 2008). 

Wildlife was analyzed at the biogoegraphic province 

(Kupreanof/Mitkof). The project level was analyzed as well as the 

Wildlife Analysis Area (WAA) (WAA’s include 5012, 5013, 5018, 

5132, 5131, 5133 and 5130). The WAA was analyzed to provide a 

reference of the impacts at a smaller scale than the biogeographic 

province but larger than the project scale. Some people believe part of 

Kuiu Island should be included in the Central Kupreanof Analysis. 

Three WAA’s on Kuiu Island were included because it is possible for 

animals to move to this area if they are displaced from the Central 

Kupreanof Project Area by harvest activities the habitat reduction 

should be considered. The 2008 Tongass Land and Resource 

Management Plan displays the distribution on existing POG acres by 

SDM category for the Kupreanof/Mitkof biogeographic province. This 

analysis tiers to the Forest Plan and display the reduction of POG acres 

by SDM for each alternative. 

As the SDM is used it is expected the limitations will become evident. 

Much of the SMD is based in theory and the results have not been 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 81 

verified for all areas. As more information is gathered improvements 

may be made. This analysis collapsed the SDM to the basic level of 

POG because this is the level used by the 2008 Forest Plan. 

Differences in Forest Plan Predictions of 

Available Deer Habitat and Project Planning 

The SDM layer that is used for this analysis displays different results 

than the SDM strata that were used in the 2008 Forest Plan. There 

appears to be between a 2 and 4 percent difference in the numbers 

generated. This difference appears to be due to more precise 

information used at the smaller project level than was used at the large 

Forest level. This difference is expected. 

The SDM breaks POG into seven categories. This break down differs 

from the POG that is projected to be harvested by the timber 

economics ands silvicultural analysis. The difference is accounted for 

in the direct effects section. The best way to describe the difference is 

that the SDM describes certain strata of POG and names some habitat 

as non-forested. The POG used for timber projections uses volume 

strata whereas this analysis is using SDM which generates different 

numbers. The difference in the acres of POG is due to the different 

methods of determine POG 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Removal of stream crossings and closures of roads may benefit 

wildlife by limiting road densities and motorized human access. 

Vegetation treatments should benefit wildlife as it helps to restore side 

lighting to the forest floor, increasing the production of forbes and 

shrubs as well helping to promote taller and denser stands of trees that 

can provide shelter (snow interception). Projects involving recreation 

may not benefit wildlife as the projects may increase access 

(improving trails) or encourage people to gather (camp sites, shelters). 

These projects may not harm wildlife directly but it may encourage 

people to be in the area who may indirectly take wildlife as part of 

their experience or opportunity. 

Microsales are planned to occur in the project area on Roads 6030, 

6040, 6314, 6314s, 6326, 328, 6334, 6336, 6339 and 6367. These 

sales are not expected to adversely affect wildlife in the project area. 

Effects Common 

to all Action 

Alternatives 

Microsales 
3 Environment and Effects 

82  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

Table 3-20. Acres of Productive Old Growth 

Alternatives 

1 2 3 4 

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 

(268,611Acres 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% 

This alternative proposes no new activities in the Central Kupreanof 

project area. Currently there are approximately 57,628 acres of POG, 

within the project area. The area displayed in this project area analysis 

is different than the area displayed by other resources because this 

analysis used SDM and the other resources used vol. strata. These 

numbers are different because vol. strata define some area as POG 

where SDM considers some of this habitat as non-forested as a result 

these numbers are slightly different. Wildlife habitat may decline as 

current second-growth stands regenerate and the under story forage is 

shaded. There will be no change in the current road network by these 

actions; however, maintenance activities would continue. This 

alternative will have no affect on wildlife habitat. 

This alternative would directly affect approximately 2,427 acres of 

POG. (This does not include an additional 78 acres of harvest of 

habitat considered by the SDM as non-POG.) The project area will 

directly affect 2,427 acres of POG out of 57,628 acres of POG in the 

project area (as determined by SDM). This would be a reduction of 

approximately 4.2 percent of POG in the project area. This reduction 

in habitat is considered insignificant and is not expected to affect 

wildlife populations. 

This alternative proposes to harvest 3,568 acres of POG in the Central 

Kupreanof Project Area. (This does not include an additional 79 acres 

of harvest of habitat considered as non-POG by the SDM). The 

project area will directly affect 3,568 acres of POG out of 57,628 acres 

of POG in the project (as determined by SDM). This would be a 

Alternative 1 

Alternative 2 

Alternative 3 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 83 

reduction of approximately 6.2 percent of POG within the project area. 

This reduction in habitat is considered insignificant and is not expected 

to affect wildlife populations. 

This alternative proposes to harvest 1,261 acres of POG in the Central 

Kupreanof Project Area. (This does not include an additional 66 acres 

of harvest of habitat considered as non-POG by the SDM.) The project 

area will directly affect 1,261 acres of POG out of 57,628 acres of 

POG in the project area (as determined by SDM). This would be a 

reduction of approximately 2.2 percent of POG within the project area. 

This reduction in habitat is considered insignificant and is not expected 

to affect wildlife populations. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects analysis area for POG habitat is the 

biogeographic province. The province was selected as the analysis 

landscape scale since it is the same scale used for analysis of POG in 

the Forest Plan and is the scale used by animals with large home 

ranges. The historic/original condition, approximately 51 percent of 

the province was POG forest. Currently, approximately 37 percent of 

the province is POG (2008). Historic harvest has reduced POG by 28 

percent in the biogeographic province since the original condition. 

The biogeographic province includes Native Corporation lands near 

Kake as well as other private lands. Due to lack of information about 

these Corporation lands, it is assumed all lands available were clearcut 

harvested. It was also assumed all lands were POG prior to harvest. 

Due to these assumptions, the amount of habitat converted to young 

growth will be overestimated as will the impacts to wildlife habitat 

where harvest has occurred. This will allow a reasonable estimate of 

the reduction of POG in the absence of data. In addition to the 

reduction in habitat on private lands, the analysis also includes those 

lands that are or will be harvested in other timber sales; including 

Bocephus, Scott Peak, Lindenberg, Finger Point, Overlook, and 

Woodpecker timber sales. Assuming these sales harvest the volume 

available, there would be another approximately 1 percent reduction in 

POG habitat for a total of an approximately 29 percent decrease in 

POG habitat in the biogeographic province. Timber sales are planned 

for the Tonka area and the Kake small sales in the near future. A 

detailed analysis of these effects will take place in the planning 

process before any action occurs. Projects Common to All Action 

Alternatives would not contribute to overall cumulative effects to POG 

habitat. The catalogs of events for Kupreanof and Mitkof and Kuiu 

islands were reviewed. 

The conclusions of this analysis are consistent with the 2008 Forest 

Plan. The Forest Plan estimates that in 100 years (2105) alternative 6 

in biogeographic province 10 will retain 70 percent of the original 

Alternative 4 

Biogeographic 

Province 
3 Environment and Effects 

84  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

POG acres The Forest Plan estimates that 30 percent of the POG in 

the province will be cut (USDA 2008). 

This alternative proposes no new activities in the Central Kupreanof 

Project Area. No harvest or road building would occur within the 

project. Wildlife habitat may decline as current second-growth stands 

regenerate and the understory forage is shaded. There will be no 

change in the current road network by this action; however, road 

maintenance would continue. Old growth stands with POG would 

continue to support wildlife at their current capability at least until the 

next planning cycle. Historic/original harvest has reduced POG by 

approximately 27 percent in the WAA and approximately 28 percent 

in the biogeographic province. Cumulatively, including the reasonable 

foreseeable reduction of POG on Forest Service and non-Forest 

Service lands, there would be approximately a 29 percent reduction of 

POG from the historic/original condition within the biogeographic 

province. 

There would be a cumulative reduction of 29.8 percent of the POG 

within the biogeographic province with implementation of this 

alternative. This reduction in habitat due to the action alternative is 

considered insignificant and is not expected to affect wildlife 

populations. 

There would be a cumulative reduction of approximately 30.2 percent 

of the POG within the biogeographic province with implementation of 

this alternative. This reduction in habitat due to the action alternative is 

considered insignificant and is not expected to affect wildlife 

populations. 

There would be a cumulative reduction of approximately 29.4 percent 

of the POG within the biogeographic province with implementation of 

this alternative. This reduction in habitat due to the action alternative is 

considered insignificant and is not expected to affect wildlife 

populations. 

Cumulative effects will also be analyzed at the WAA level as this level 

is more appropriate to analyze the effect of subsistence use. Historic 

harvest has reduced POG by approximately 27 percent in the WAA 

since original condition (including WAA’s 5012, 5013, 5018, 5132, 

5131, 5130 and 5133). The seven WAA’s listed include three WAA’s 

of the WAA’s on Kuiu Island. This analysis includes Native 

Corporation lands near Kake as well as other private lands. Due to 

lack of information about these Corporation lands, it is assumed all 

lands available were clearcut harvested. It was also assumed all lands 

were POG prior to harvest. Due to these assumptions, the amount of 

habitat converted to young growth will be overestimated as will the 

impacts to wildlife habitat where harvest has occurred. This will allow 

a reasonable estimate of the reduction of POG in the absence of data. 

Alternative 1 

Alternative 2 

Alternative 3 

Alternative 4 

WAA 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 85 

In addition to the reduction in habitat on private lands, the analysis 

also includes those lands that may be harvested in other timber sales; 

including the sales at Threemile and Crane Rowan. Including these 

sales on Kuiu island will over estimate the effects but it is better to 

consider these effects than to exclude them. Timber sales are planned 

for the Kake small sales in the near future. A detailed analysis of 

these effects will take place in the planning process before any action 

occurs. Projects Common to All Action Alternatives would not 

contribute to overall cumulative effects to POG habitat. The catalogs 

of events for Kuiu and Kupreanof Islands were referenced in this 

analysis. 

This alternative proposes no new activities in the Central Kupreanof 

Project Area. No harvest or road building would occur within the 

project. Wildlife habitat may decline as current second-growth stands 

regenerate and the understory forage is shaded. There will be no 

change in the current road network by this action; however, road 

maintenance would continue. Old growth stands with POG would 

continue to support wildlife at their current capability at least until the 

next planning cycle. Historic/original harvest has reduced POG by 

approximately 27 percent in the WAA. Cumulatively, including the 

reasonable foreseeable reduction of POG on Forest Service and nonForest Service lands, there would be approximately a 27 percent 

reduction of POG from the historical/original condition within the 

WAA’s. 

There would be a cumulative reduction of 27.9 percent of POG within 

the WAA with implementation of this alternative. This reduction in 

habitat due to the action alternative is considered insignificant and is 

not expected to affect wildlife populations. 

There would be a cumulative reduction of approximately 28.3 percent 

of POG within the WAA with implementation of this alternative. This 

reduction in habitat due to the action alternative is considered 

insignificant and is not expected to affect wildlife populations. 

There would be a cumulative reduction of approximately 27.5 percent 

of POG within the WAA with implementation of this alternative. This 

reduction in habitat due to the action alternative is considered 

insignificant and is not expected to affect wildlife populations. 

Alternative 1 

Alternative 2 

Alternative 3 

Alternative 4 
3 Environment and Effects 

86  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

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

Province and WAA 

Alternatives 

Current 

Condition

1 2 3 4 

Percent Reduction 

From 

Historic/Original 

Condition 

Geographic 

Province 

(431,217 acres of 

POG) 

-28% -29% -29.8% -30.2% -29.4%

Percent Reduction 

From 

Historic/Original 

Condition WAA 

(359,445 acres of 

POG) 

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

Conclusion 

These actions would affect wildlife habitat differently depending on 

the amount and type of POG removed. Alternative 1 would not remove 

any POG and would have the least impact to wildlife habitat. 

Alternative 4 would remove the second lowest amount of POG from 

the area. Alternatives 2 would remove the third lowest amount of POG 

from the area and Alternative 3 would remove the most POG from the 

project area having the greatest impact to wildlife habitat. The action 

alternatives would remove approximately 1 percent of the POG habitat 

or less in the WAA and the biogeographic province and this is 

considered an insignificant impact to POG (wildlife habitat) 

Cumulative impacts would be slightly higher due to the amount of 

harvest on other Forest Service and non-Forest Service Lands. The 

reduction of POG due to the action alternatives is still considered 

insignificant and is not expected to impact wildlife habitat. 

All applicable Forest Plan standards and guidelines were met for this 

analysis. This analysis is in compliance with all direction, policies and 

regulations. Notice was given to appropriate federal and state agencies, 

local committees, recognized tribal governments. 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 87 

Subsistence 

Communities Traditionally Using the Central 

Kupreanof Project Area 

The Forest Plan FEIS includes maps of “community use areas” for 

each of the 32 communities in Southeast Alaska. These maps indicate 

the approximate extent of the areas that are commonly used by many 

of the residents of each community in their day-to-day work, 

recreational, and subsistence activities. 

The Central Kupreanof project area is within part of Kake’s 

community use area (Forest Plan FEIS Part 2, page 3-585) and 

adjacent to Petersburg’s and Kupreanof’s community use areas (Forest 

Plan FEIS Part 2, page 3-623). 

Kake and Petersburg residents are known to use the project area more 

than residents of other communities in Southeast Alaska. This 

opportunity is due to easy access to Central Kupreanof provided by the 

existing road system. Some subsistence activities these residents 

engage in include fishing, deer, bear, moose and waterfowl hunting 

and gathering of shellfish and berries. Traditional Native subsistence 

use also includes gathering medicinal plants, seaweed, spruce roots 

and cedar bark. 

For a detailed discussion of the communities of Kake and Petersburg 

see the Timber Economics section in this chapter and “Community 

Profiles: Kake, Petersburg, Alaska and Environmental Justice” in the 

project record. 

Subsistence Use 

The 1988 Tongass Resource Use Cooperative Survey (TRUCS) study 

found that deer accounted for 24 percent of the total edible pounds of 

subsistence resources harvested by Kake households (Kruse and 

Frazier 1988). Deer accounted for 28 percent of per capita subsistence 

harvest by Kake residents in 1996 (ADF&G 2006). 

Kake residents harvest deer on Admiralty Island and Kupreanof Island, 

which are included in Game Management Unit (GMU) 4 and GMU 3 

respectively. Deer harvest in GMU 4 is considered very high relative 

to other areas of Southeast Alaska, which is indicative of relatively 

high deer populations. Over 1997-2004, there has been no significant 

trend in the number of deer harvested or in the number of hunters 

(ADF&G 2005). Deer harvest in GMU 3 declined from 1998-2002 

and increased between 2002-2004. The number of deer hunters 

Kake 
3 Environment and Effects 

88  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

declined from 2000-2002 and slightly between 2002-2004 (ADF&G). 

This is consistent with Kake’s human population, which increased 

from 1970 to 1990, stayed relatively constant between 1990 and 2000, 

and decreased from 2000 to 2005. In 2005, Kake had an estimated 

population of 598. 

Five WAAs accounted for the majority (76 percent) of deer harvested 

by Kake residents. Three of the five WAAs of greatest importance to 

Kake hunters (WAAs 3939, 3940 and 4041) occur at the south end of 

Admiralty Island. They are currently unroaded and there are no plans 

for future road development in these areas. The other two WAAs of 

importance to Kake hunters (WAAs 5131 and 5132) are located 

surrounding or adjacent to the community on Kupreanof Island. The 

Kake portion ranges from about 19 percent (WAA 3939) to 91 percent 

(WAA 5131) of the total harvest and from 21 percent to 100 percent of 

the rural hunter harvest in the WAAs. About 7 percent of the 

combined harvest in these WAAs is by non-rural hunters, suggesting 

that there is a small harvest buffer that could be restricted, if 

necessary, before restrictions are placed on rural harvest. 

Salmon, other finfish and invertebrate resources account for 52 percent 

of the total edible pounds of subsistence resources harvested by 

Petersburg households (Kruse and Frazier, 1988). Marine resources 

(fish and marine invertebrates) accounted for 65 percent of per capita 

subsistence harvest in Petersburg in 1987. 

The 1988 TRUCS study found that deer accounted for 21 percent of 

the total edible pounds of subsistence resources harvested by 

Petersburg households (Kruse and Frazier, 1988). Deer accounted for 

22 percent of per capita subsistence harvest by Petersburg residents in 

1987 (ADF&G 2006). 

Petersburg residents harvested on and around Mitkof and Kupreanof 

Islands, with the majority of harvest occurring with in GMUs 3 and 4. 

Deer harvest in GMU 3 declined from1998-2002 and increased in 

2002-2004. The number of deer hunters declined from 1998-2002 and 

increased in 2002-2004 (ADF&G 20005). Deer harvest in GMU 4 is 

considered very high relative to other areas of Southeast Alaska, which 

is indicative of relatively high deer population (ADF&G 2005). Over 

1997-2004, there has been no significant trend in the number of deer 

harvested or in the number of hunters (ADF&G 2005). The human 

population of Petersburg declined approximately 2 percent between 

2000 and 2005. In 2005, Petersburg had an estimated human 

population of 3,155. 

Units of Measure and Areas of Analysis 

The Wildlife section talks about wildlife species, such as black bear, 

wolf, deer and marten. The effects of timber harvest on wildlife habitat 

Petersburg 

Wildlife Habitat 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 89 

were analyzed by comparing changes in Productive Old Growth 

(POG) using the Size Density Model (SDM). The analysis included 

comparisons of changes between past, present and foreseeable future 

habitat capability by alternative. This analysis is found in the Wildlife 

section of this chapter and in the Wildlife Resource Report located in 

the project record. 

Based on that analysis, subsistence use of deer by Kake and Petersburg 

residents is not anticipated to be significantly affected by any of the 

action alternatives. In terms of cumulative effects, this project is not 

expected to affect subsistence use of deer in the reasonable foreseeable 

future to the point that some restriction in hunting might be necessary. 

However, the Forest Plan does determine that with full implementation 

of the plan over the long term, a significant possibility of a significant 

restriction on the subsistence use of deer exists. The risk of hunting 

restrictions would be reduced somewhat, through more intensive 

management (e.g. thinning) of the existing and future closed-canopy, 

young-growth forest in the area. 

No significant effect of salmon, other finfish or invertebrate habitat 

capability is expected from implementation of any alternative. Use of 

most subsistence resources by Kake and Petersburg residents (fish and 

marine invertebrates) is not expected to be affected by any of the 

action alternatives. 

Access to Wildlife 

Access to wildlife is analyzed on the project area as this is the area 

where access will be affected by proposed activities and because the 

Kake Road System is not connected to another road system or 

community. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

For a detailed analysis of roads reference the Transportation section in 

this chapter or the resource report in the project record. 

The primary modes of access for harvesting wildlife include boats, 

foot travel, motorized vehicles, and all-terrain vehicles. The Central 

Kupreanof project area is connected to the community of Kake by a 

road system. 

Access by boat and foot would not be restricted by any of the action 

alternatives. Access to areas along the beach fringe would not change. 

Deer populations in Southeast Alaska live at the edge of the species 

range. The Sitka black-tailed deer is a smaller form of mule deer that 

live in the forests of Alexander Archipelago. Food is not a limiting 

factor in deer survival here but available food, especially during winter 

months, can be limited by snow depth. 

Resource 

Analysis Area 
3 Environment and Effects 

90  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

Southeast Alaska lies along the coastal mainland in this archipelago. 

Saltwater influence is readily apparent. Because of this, snow 

conditions differ from what one would expect in other mule deer 

habitats. Constant warming and cooling, caused by the relatively 

warm marine climate, allows the snowpack to create a hard crust that 

deer are able to walk on. While it covers the forbs (generally a snow 

depth of greater than 7 inches (20 cm) it enables the deer to reach 

higher browse plants and arboreal lichens to augment their diets. 

Following a sever winter these new plant shoots are extremely 

important to deer, without them they will starve very rapidly. 

Conditions leading to this condition occur in Southeast Alaska about 

every 20 or so years. 

The last time there was a catastrophic winter event that killed large 

numbers of deer was during the winter of 1971-72. That year total 

snow accumulation was 221.6 feet at the Petersburg Airport. This 

large amount of snow caused problems for the deer but the real 

problem was the persistence of the snow. There was a snow depth 

greater than 7 inches for 156 consecutive days starting in November 

and carrying into May (Brainard 2008).Following this severe winter, 

deer hunting was limited in the project area as well as Kuiu Island. 

This type of event caused many deer to die. This event happened 

before large scale road building and timber harvest occurred in the 

project area. Deer mortality is often considered to be caused by this 

type of activity but in reality deer die across the forest due to severe 

winter conditions. Deer live on the edge of their range in this cold and 

wet climate. Every couple of decades harsh winters cause deer to die 

due to the lack of forge covered by the deep snow. 

All action alternatives would increase open road miles during 

implementation of the project and for up to ten years after the 

completion of timber harvest activities; however, all action alternatives 

would ultimately reduce miles open to motorized vehicle access. 

While new NFS roads may remain temporarily open for an additional 

five to ten years after the timber sale for such use as regeneration 

surveys and firewood gathering, long-term management objectives for 

all new and reconstructed NFS roads are to place them in storage and 

close them to motorized vehicle use. This increase in motorized 

vehicle access is considered temporary and should not be considered 

for long-term use. An additional 1.1 to 2.0 miles of existing open NFS 

road would also be closed after timber harvest activities are completed. 

This closure would ultimately reduce the road density in all action 

alternatives by approximately 1 percent, which is considered 

insignificant. 

Alternative 3 proposes to build the most miles of road and has the 

potential for the most increased access with approximately 25.1 miles 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 91 

of new NFS road, 9.1 of reconstruction and 6.1 miles of temporary 

road. Alternative 4 does not increase long-term access within the 

project area as it only proposes temporary road construction and 

reconstruction of existing NFS roads. The temporary increase in roads 

in all action alternatives would allow users to access some new areas 

with a motorized vehicle and therefore would increase their access (to 

different degrees) until roads are closed within ten years of the 

completion of the timber harvest activities.. 

Projects Common to all Action Alternatives are planned in the Central 

Kupreanof project area. Removal of stream crossings and closures of 

roads would benefit wildlife but may not benefit subsistence users by 

limiting road densities and motorized human access. Implementation 

of this project would be dependent on the analysis and decisions made 

in the District Access Travel Management process. Vegetation 

treatments should benefit wildlife and subsistence users as it helps to 

restore side lighting to the forest floor, increasing the production of 

Forbes and shrubs as well helping to promote taller and denser stands 

of trees that can provide shelter (snow interception). Projects 

involving recreation may not benefit wildlife but benefit subsistence 

users as the projects may increase access (trails) or encourage people 

to gather (camp sites, shelters). These projects may not harm wildlife 

directly but it may encourage people to be in the area who may 

indirectly take wildlife as part of their experience or opportunity. 

Cumulative Effects for Access to Wildlife 

Recommendations for additional road closures, use designations, and 

road decommissioning were developed through the update of the Kake 

Road System RAP. While these road management objective 

recommendations have the potential to affect access, they will be 

carried forward and analyzed during the District Access Travel 

Management process. Implementation of the road management 

objectives will be dependent on the decisions made in the ATM NEPA 

document. 

Competition for Wildlife 

Competition is closely linked to access. Building new roads opens an 

area by increasing access. This may be a favorable development for 

some subsistence users who depend on a road to transport their 

animals from the field. On the other hand, the increased access could 

mean increased competition for subsistence resources and may have an 

adverse impact on subsistence users. Increased access can be 

favorable for subsistence users but may have a long-term adverse 

impact for users if over-harvesting occurs. 

Projects Common 

to all Action 

Alternatives 
3 Environment and Effects 

92  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

None of the action alternatives are expected to have any effect on 

competition between rural and non-rural residents since none of the 

alternatives change the existing access patterns to other communities. 

Potential conflicts among user groups for subsistence resources would 

be the same among alternatives. 

ANILCA Compliance 

The actions proposed in this document have been examined to 

determine whether they are in compliance with the Alaska National 

Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) Section 810 and 811. 

Standards used for the review include: 

 National Forest Management Act of 1976 and its implementing 

regulations 

 Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (1980) 

 Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan (1997) 

 Tongass Timber Reform Act (1990) 

 Alaska State Forest Practices Act (1993) 

 Alaska Coastal Management Program (1997) 

 Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act (1960) 

 USDA Forest Service Subsistence Management and Use 

Handbook (FSH 2609.25) 

The actions have been determined to be in compliance with these 

standards, and with ANILCA. 

ANILCA placed an emphasis on the maintenance of subsistence 

resources and lifestyles. However, the Act also required the Forest 

Service to make timber available for harvest from the Tongass 

National Forest. The Forest Plan determines which uses are suitable 

for various areas of land within the Tongass National Forest. The 

Forest Plan has determined that the Central Kupreanof Project Area 

should be managed for varying levels of timber production. 

The alternatives presented here encompass three action alternatives 

that would help achieve multiple-use management objectives in the 

Forest Plan. None of the action alternatives has a significant 

possibility of a significant restriction to subsistence uses. For 

subsistence deer use, a significant possibility of a significant restriction 

on the current level of subsistence deer harvest on Kupreanof Island 

due to federal forest management activities is not likely under any of 

the alternatives. 

Necessary and 

Consistent with 

Sound 

Management of 

Public Lands 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 93 

Amount of Land Necessary to Accomplish 

the Purpose of the Proposed Action 

The amount of public land necessary to implement each of the 

alternatives is, considering sound multiple use management of public 

lands, the minimum necessary to accomplish the objectives of the 

alternatives. One or more rural communities for subsistence purposes 

use much of the Tongass National Forest. It is not possible to lessen 

timber harvest in one area, and concentrate it in another without 

influencing one or more rural communities’ important subsistence use 

areas. 

Many of the decisions to minimize the amount of public land that 

would be used for timber harvest were made as part of the Forest Plan. 

The Forest Plan allocated many important subsistence use areas to land 

use designations that do not allow timber harvest. 

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 

would be decommissioned following harvest. All NFS roads reopened 

during the harvest activity and new NFS roads would be put into 

storage within ten years of harvest. Please refer to the Road 

Management Objective for each road located in the Appendix B and 

the project record. 
3 Environment and Effects 

94  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

Hydrology/Fisheries 

Analysis area 

Within the project area there are portions of nine watersheds 

corresponding to the 6th level Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 

recognized by the US Geological Survey (USGS) (Figure 3-3). These 

include both “true” watersheds in which all surface water drains to a 

single stream or river, and “frontal” watersheds along coastlines or 

bays having more than one outlet. Of the nine watersheds, seven are 

analyzed in detail, with watershed size, occurrence of high and very 

high hazard soils, natural and management-induced sources of 

disturbance, stream density, timber harvest history, road density, and 

percent of basin as roads summarized in the tables below. East Keku 

Strait, a watershed partially in the project area, had a 13-acre area 

harvested in 1929 and no previous road building. This watershed has 

no planned timber harvest or road building, and will only be 

considered in terms of cumulative effects. The southwest corner of 

Towers Arm Watershed includes 42 acres proposed for harvest in unit 

217 of Alternative 3. There has been no previous harvest and no roads 

in this watershed, and no roads are proposed. The proposed harvest 

prescription is single tree selection and comprises 0.2 percent of the 

watershed area. The effects of harvesting this area would be negligible 

on the watershed scale, and no detrimental hydrological effects are 

expected if implemented, therefore this watershed will also only be 

analyzed in terms of cumulative effects. 

Watersheds 
!.

!.

6030

6314S

6328

6040

6326

6314

6336

45808

45601

6339

6333

6367

6366

45803

6334

6327

6318

45001

45002

45806

6312

45602

45807

6329

6326

c:/workspace/ckupre/plots/deis/fig3_3_ws_streams.mxd 09-20-08 EP

Legend

Analyzed Watersheds

Watershed Boundary

Lakes

Stream Class 1

Stream Class 2

Stream Class 3

Stream Class 4

Existing Open Roads

Roads in Storage (Closed)

Project Area Boundary

!. Fish Pass

±

0 1 2 3 4 0.5

Miles

Hamilton

McNaughton

Big John

West Duncan

Keku

Tunehean

Castle

D u n c a n

C a

n

a

l

R

o

c

k

y

P

a

s

s

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest

Figure 3-3

Stream Class and Watersheds

Irish Creek

Fish Pass

Upper Keku Creek

Fish Pass
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 97 

Affected Environment and Existing 

Condition 

Water quality information on streams within the project area is limited. 

An historical USGS stream gage on Hamilton Creek recorded 

temperatures exceeding the 23 degree maximum standard on two 

occasions. Hamilton Creek is a large, low gradient stream within the 

project area with sections of FP3, FP4, and MM1draining the 

Hamilton Creek watershed. Water temperatures exceeding 23 degrees 

on this creek are likely due to inherent characteristics of the wide 

channel. From approximately mid-June through July the combination 

of high air temperatures and low water conditions can effectively 

overcome shading provided by riparian vegetation along the channel 

margins resulting in higher water temperatures. 

Timber harvest within project area watersheds began in 1929 on the 

beach fringe in the West Duncan Canal watershed. Harvest rates were 

low until the mid-1960s when the Kake road system was built, with 

harvest of suitable timber in valley bottoms and toe slopes easily 

accessible from the road system. There are no watersheds within the 

project area with more than 20 percent of the timber harvested in the 

past 30 years, a conservative estimate of the time needed for 

hydrologic recovery. Full hydrologic recovery in the absence of roads 

is expected to require between 10 and 30 years in the Pacific 

Northwest (Hicks et al., 1991; Jones, 2000; Moore and Wondzell, 

2005). Less than 9 percent of McNaughton Point Watershed has been 

harvested in the past 30 years, the highest of all project area 

watersheds (Table 3-22). 

Water Quality 

Harvest History 
3 Environment and Effects 

98  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

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

Watersheds (not including road clearings) 

Watershed Watershed 

Acres 

Total Acres 

Harvested 

Total 

Percent 

Harvested 

Percent 

Harvested 

Since 

1978 

Hamilton 49,810 2,542 5.1 3.2 

McNaughton 

Pt 10,212 898 8.8 8.8 

Big John 

Creek 12,977 585 4.5 4.5 

West 

Duncan 

Canal 

43,817 844 1.9 0.4 

Keku Creek 30,796 57 0.2 0.2 

Castle River 33,060 425 1.3 1.3 

Tunehean 

Creek 24,734 390 1.6 1.2 

Watersheds in the project area are generally characterized by low relief 

(steepness) of the mainstem channels, with portions of the watershed 

having high concavity profiles where steep mountain slopes meet lowgradient valleys. Landslides and debris flows in these settings typically 

deliver sediment and debris in discrete deposits in the form of large log 

jams and fans at confluences, resulting in patchy disturbance patterns 

(May, 2007; Benda et al., 2004). Watershed factors such as drainage 

efficiency (as measured by stream density), road density, percent of 

basin as roads, time elapsed since timber harvest, steepness of the 

topography, and percent of the watershed with high and very high 

MMI soils (MMI-3 and MMI-4, see Soils report) contribute to 

determining risk of mass movement. Mass movement events such as 

landslides and debris torrents may be accelerated by forest 

management activity if surface or subsurface hydrologic 

characteristics of the site are altered, as can occur with timber harvest 

and road drainage diversions (May, 2007; Swanston and Marion, 

1991). A landslide inventory was completed in December 2003, using 

1998 aerial photos and the Forest Service land surveys completed in 

the 1960s and 1980s. Landslide occurrence in project area watersheds 

is low, reflecting the low percentage of soils within the high and very 

high MMI categories and generally low relief topography (Table 3-

23). 

Natural 

Disturbance 

Processes 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 99 

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

Landslide Summary for Project Area Watersheds1

Hazard Soils 

/ Landslides 

Hamilton 

Creek 

Mc 

Naughton 

Point 

Big 

John 

Creek

W 

Duncan 

Canal 

Keku 

Creek 

Castle 

River 

Tunehean 

Creek 

MMI-3 2 2 4 9 4 6 7 

MMI-4 1 0.5 6 7 1 5 5 

Number of 

Landslides 3 0 4 1 0 8 6 

Landslide 

Area (acres) 3.0 0 21.2 6.0 0.0 11.4 21.0 

1

 Landslide totals include those slides occurring outside the project area but within 

project-area watersheds. 

Windthrow is also a source of natural disturbance in project area 

watersheds. Aerial photo and field assessments of windthrow in 

proposed units within project area watersheds indicate natural riparian 

windthrow is not a significant stream disturbing process, although 

individual tree windthrow is probably an important source of large 

woody debris to stream channels. See Timber and Vegetation section 

for further discussion of windthrow. 

Watersheds within the project area contain nine of ten process groups 

defined in the Channel Type User Guide for the Tongass National 

Forest (USDA Forest Service, 1992). One characteristic that helps 

define each process group is the predominant sediment transport 

regime. Relative proportions of these regimes and their location with 

respect to proposed management activities within a watershed can aid 

in assessing the risk of sediment delivery to streams. Stream densities 

(miles of stream per square mile of area) can be used to indicate how 

efficiently this sediment may be routed through the watershed. 

Generally, the higher the stream density the more efficiently it may be 

routed. Watersheds with high relative stream densities and a greater 

proportion of streams dominated by deposition regimes may be more 

susceptible to sediment-related impacts. 

There are currently 129 miles of roads in project area watersheds. 

This estimate includes all roads ever built, NFS and temporary roads, 

regardless of age. Since maintenance regimes of roads within the 

project area differ (for example some are decommissioned while 

others are suitable for passenger vehicles), varying degrees of 

hydrological effect due to roads can be assumed. Including all road 

miles in each watershed provides the most conservative analysis 

possible for determining the effect of roads on watershed hydrology. 

Percentage of watershed area in roads and density of stream crossings 

have been used to help quantify the risk of flow-related impacts to 

aquatic systems including sediment introduction into streams. 

Fluvial Process 

Groups and 

Stream Density 

Roads and 

Stream Crossings 
3 Environment and Effects 

100  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

Sediment introduction is influenced by many factors including type of 

structure at the crossing, road slope, age, road condition, time since 

last graded, seasonal timing of maintenance activities, hillslope length, 

soil depth, and cutbank depth (Croke et al., 2005; Wemple and Jones, 

2003; Kahklen and Hartsog, 1997; Reid and Dunne, 1984). 

The densities of roads, streams, stream-crossings, and percent basin 

area as roads are low in project area watersheds, with the highest 

values occurring in the McNaughton Point and Big John Creek 

watersheds, respectively (Table 3-24). Studies in Southeast Alaska 

have correlated higher rates of road erosion with heavy traffic and 

poor quality rock surfacing (Kahklen and Hartsog 1999). In 

Washington’s Olympic Peninsula, accumulation of fine sediment in 

streambeds was found to be highest in basins where the road area 

exceeded 2.5 percent of the basin area (Cederholm et al. 1980). A 

statistical relationship between fine streambed sediment and watershed 

disturbance has not been reported in Southeast Alaska studies (Bryant 

et al 2004, Woodsmith et al 2005). Nonetheless, Cederholm’s 

suggested threshold provides a way to evaluate the potential impacts of 

roaded area in the affected watersheds in comparison to findings 

elsewhere in the Pacific Northwest. 

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

Watershed Area 

(mi2) 

Road 

Miles 

Road 

Density 

(mi/mi2)

% 

Basin 

as 

Roads 

Stream 

Density 

(mi/mi2) 

Stream 

Crossing 

Density 

(# x-ing 

/mi2) 

Hamilton 

Creek 77.8 49.7 0.6 0.5 2.1 1.5 

McNaughton 

Point 16 16.8 1.1 0.8 2.6 5.5 

Big John 

Creek 20.3 17.6 0.9 0.7 2.8 6 

West Duncan 

Canal 68.5 19.0 0.3 0.2 2.2 1.2 

Keku Creek 48.1 5.5 0.1 0.1 2 0.5 

Castle River 51.7 13.9 0.3 0.2 2.1 0.6 

Tunehean 

Creek 38.6 6.5 0.2 0.1 2.2 0.7 

Total 320.9 128.9 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 101 

The condition of existing roads, culverts, and drainage features are 

assessed during road condition surveys. As part of these surveys, each 

road crossing structure in a fish stream is assessed for its ability to 

provide unimpeded passage (USDA Forest Service, 2001). Fish 

crossings are categorized red, gray, or green according to passage 

conditions. A red fish crossing has a high certainty of not providing 

juvenile fish passage at all desired stream flows; a green crossing has a 

high certainty of meeting juvenile fish passage at all desired stream 

flows; and a gray crossing requires additional analysis to determine its 

ability to provide juvenile fish passage. 

According to the most current road condition survey data, there are 61 

red crossings, 6 gray crossings, and 56 green crossings within the 

project area and on the haul route between the project area and the 

Little Hamilton LTF. While 19 of these may be corrected through the 

proposed road closures identified through the RAP process the 

remaining culverts will be prioritized on a forest wide level. 

Streams on the Tongass National Forest are divided into value classes 

from I to IV indicating levels of habitat use by fish populations 

(USDA Forest Service, 2001b; see Appendix B for further discussion 

of stream classes). The abundant Class I and Class II habitat in the 

form of streams and lakes indicates high fisheries value within the 

project area (Table 3-25). 

Fisheries 
3 Environment and Effects 

102  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

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

Watersheds 

Stream Class (miles) 

Watershed Area 

(mi2) I II III IV 

Lakes & 

Ponds 

(acres) 

 # 

Lakes 

& 

Ponds 

with 

Fish 

Habitat

Hamilton 

Creek 77.8 111.2 16.3 10.9 26.2 82 18 

McNaughton 

Pt 16 24.9 4.5 2.5 10.1 0 0 

Big John 

Creek 20.3 25.6 11.7 7.1 12.2 98 3 

West Duncan 

Canal 68.5 47.5 47.9 40.3 17.9 313 38 

Keku Creek 48.1 59.1 17.8 18.6 1.5 326 30 

Castle River 51.7 64.9 16 15.2 10.8 70 7 

Tunehean 

Creek 38.6 35.6 24.3 20.6 4.1 189 12 

Total Stream 

Class 320.9 368.9 138.4 115.3 82.8 

1 Miles of stream reflects the best information available from aerial photos and field 

reconnaissance. These numbers do not reflect class 4 streams not visible from aerial 

photos, or those that are not near proposed harvest units 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game maintains a catalog of waters 

important for the spawning, rearing, or migration of anadromous fish. 

The catalog and field verification provide information about the fish 

species found within each watershed (Table 3-26). All project area 

watersheds contain some fish habitat. 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 103 

Table 3-26. Anadromous Fish Presence in Project Watersheds 

Fish 

species 

Hamilton 

Creek 

McNaughton 

Point 

Big 

John 

Creek 

W 

Duncan 

Canal 

Keku 

Creek 

Castle 

River 

Tunehean 

Creek 

coho 

salmon X X X X X X X 

chum 

salmon X X X X X X X 

pink 

salmon X X X X X X 

sockeye 

salmon X 

steelhead X X X X X 

cutthroat X X X X X 

Dolly 

Varden X X X X X X 

1

 Johnson et al., 2004 

Previous fisheries stewardship efforts created two fishpasses in the 

Keku Creek watershed, with resting pools blasted into bedrock at a 

third site that delayed fish. Irish fishpass is low in the watershed and 

outside the project area. This fishpass is a 160-foot long vertical slot 

fish ladder that was built in 1984 to allow coho to bypass a 23-foot 

waterfall. The area above the fishpass was stocked with coho but the 

pass is used by steelhead, pink and chum salmon. 

Keku fishpass, built in 1985, is a 30-foot long steeppass located higher 

in the watershed and within the project area to allow coho to bypass an 

11-foot waterfall. The fishpass is used by coho and steelhead. Over 3 

million coho fry from Crystal Lake Hatchery were released in the 

upper watershed from 1983 through 1986. A natural bedrock cascade 

was identified above the Keku fishpass as partially blocking fish 

migration, and was modified three times to improve fish passage. The 

two fishpasses provided anadromous access to approximately 45 miles 

of stream habitat and 170 acres of lake habitat estimated to produce 

40,000 pink salmon, 16,000 chums, and 29,000 coho. Approximately 

67 acres are proposed for harvest in this watershed, in units containing 

no recorded fish habitat. Minimal effect to the fisheries resources 

enhanced by these fishpasses is expected. 

Watersheds within the project area include some shoreline along 

Duncan Canal and Rocky Pass containing diverse estuarine and tidal 

habitats, areas vital for some commercially important species such as 

Dungeness crab and juvenile salmon. These areas are part of a 

complex and diverse ecosystem that includes shrimp, flatfish, marine 

worms, starfish, sponges, anemones, sea cucumbers, urchins, shellfish, 

plankton, marine algae, and other organisms. 

Keku-Irish Creek 

Fishpasses 

Marine 

Environment 
3 Environment and Effects 

104  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

Log Transfer Facilities are planned points of concentrated activity 

along these shoreline environments, with the remaining shoreline 

protected by a 1,000-foot buffer (Forest Plan, 2008). The Little 

Hamilton Bay LTF would be used to barge or raft the logs for this 

project. The Little Hamilton Bay LTF, located on Little Hamilton 

Island and connected to Kupreanof by a land bridge road, was placed 

on the Section 303(d) list of impaired waters in 1996 due to bark and 

woody debris accumulation on the bottom of Hamilton Bay as a result 

of logging operations. The bay was removed from the list in 

2002/2003 after a dive survey in June 2002 found compliance with 

water quality standards for residues 

(http://dec.state.ak.us/water/wqsar/waterbody/2008FinalIntegratedRep

ort3-19-08.pdf ). 

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to all 

Action Alternatives 

Each of the proposed action alternatives relies on the existing road 

system. Action Alternatives 2 and 3 would require the construction 

and/or reconstruction of NFS roads, while Alternative 4 would only 

require the reconstruction of NFS roads. Constructing roads involves 

the immediate impact of removing rock and debris, placing prism 

material, blading, installing culverts or bridges, and removing timber 

for road clearings. All action alternatives would increase the number 

of crossings on fish-bearing streams. Risk of sediment delivery to 

streams is higher at road crossings, reflecting the potential for culverts 

to become plugged with sediment and debris. Increased sediment 

delivery to streams during construction activities may affect individual 

fish by reducing oxygen levels to developing eggs in spawning gravels 

and/or trapping emerging fry in the gravel, but the effect is expected to 

be short-term (48 hours or less) and the use of seasonal timing 

restrictions will minimize impacts to fish (see the Road Cards in 

Appendix B). 

A direct effect of implementing all action alternatives would be the 

temporary increase in sediment delivery to streams due to new road 

building, road reconstruction, bridge construction, and the installation 

of culverts as discussed earlier. Short-term sediment delivery from 

these activities is not expected to degrade water quality beyond the 

standards established to fully maintain the water body’s designated 

beneficial uses (USDA Forest Service, 2006). These standards are 

addressed directly through mitigation measures described in the unit 

cards and road cards. 

All newly constructed and reconstructed NFS roads would be placed in 

storage within 10 years of harvest activities. Temporary roads would 

be decommissioned with the timber sale contract. Additionally, 1.1 to 

Road 

Construction / 

Reconstruction 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 105 

2.0 miles of currently open NFS road will be stored within 10 years of 

the timber sale depending on the selected alternative (see 

Transportation section in this chapter). 

Storing roads will keep maintenance needs low and decrease the 

potential for sediment delivery to streams from the failure of drainage 

structures. Bridges would be installed at all crossings on streams with 

fish habitat on proposed temporary roads, and would be removed 

following the completion of harvest activities. Fish passage will be 

designed into all streams containing fish habitat as defined by stream 

class (see Road Cards in Appendix B). 

Removal of trees within 200 feet of NFS roads for constructing log 

stringer bridges, expanding existing rock pits, and constructing new 

rock pits will be addressed by applying BMPs and Forest Plan 

Standards and Guidelines. A Pit Development Plan will be reviewed 

prior to construction of new rock pits.

Additional direct effects may include localized increase in annual 

water yield, increased peak flows, and altered timing of water delivery 

in small streams. Timber harvest causes changes in the collection, 

storage, and delivery of water in watersheds primarily by affecting 

evapotranspiration, canopy interception, cloud-water interception, and 

snow accumulation and melt rates. Peak flow increases may be 

undetectable on the watershed scale when harvest levels are below 25 

percent (Jones and Grant, 1996; Beschta et al., 2000). Recent literature 

suggests peak flow increases can only be detected in flows with a 

return period of six years or less, and that effects of forest harvest on 

extreme flows cannot be detected using current technologies and data 

record lengths (Grant et al., 2008). Forest harvest effects are 

maximized in small watersheds, and diminish or remain constant with 

increasing watershed size. Further, when present, peak flow effects on 

channels should be confined to a relatively discrete portion of the 

channel network (Grant et al., 2008). Vegetation regrowth contributes 

to hydrologic recovery in harvested areas over time. 

Potential changes in hydrologic function from this project are not 

expected to occur on the watershed scale, but may occur in 

subwatersheds and tributaries connecting mainstem streams in the 

short term. Qualitative assessments of changes in water yield, peak 

flow, and timing of water delivery to channels for each alternative are 

assumed to be site specific and have negligible effects at the watershed 

scale. 

Protection and maintenance of naturally functioning aquatic 

ecosystems from ground-disturbing activities associated with timber 

harvest is provided through application of Riparian Management Areas 

(RMAs). RMAs are land areas delineated through land management 

planning or watershed analysis that provide for the management of 

Hydrologic 

Function 

Riparian 

Management 

Areas 
3 Environment and Effects 

106  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

riparian resources, and typically occur adjacent to surface water bodies 

such as streams, lakes, and ponds. The Forest Plan Standards and 

Guidelines require that RMAs be delineated according to stream value 

classification and channel type process groups, with minimum 

protection standards defined for harvest activities and activities 

associated with road building. Riparian Management Areas are 

delineated for all Class I, II, and III streams within or adjacent to 

proposed harvest units according to the following guidelines. 

All Class I and II streams are protected from harvest activities within a 

minimum horizontal distance of 100 feet from the bankfull margins. 

Harvest activities near Class I, II, and III streams require trees be 

felled away from the stream and that trees yarded across or along 

stream courses be fully suspended. Additional measures are taken to 

protect streams based on stream type process group classification 

(USDA Forest Service, 2008; Forest Plan, Appendix D-1 through D20). These measures include increased buffer widths of up to 140 feet 

or greater along certain types of Class I, II, and III streams. Under 

these standards, a no-harvest buffer protects all Class III streams 

except those classified as Palustrine. Timber harvest is excluded in all 

v-notches associated with steep side slopes along Class III streams. 

Logging debris introduced into Class IV streams must be removed. 

Harvest prescriptions including single tree selection and those 

requiring a percentage of the available timber in a unit be retained may 

also help diminish the influence of altered peak flows to streams by 

lowering the intensity of the harvest treatment (Grant et al., 2008). The 

Unit Cards and maps show the specific locations of the RMAs and 

provide instructions for specific mitigation measures designed to 

protect aquatic resources. 

Clearcut timber harvest and road building cause an increased risk of 

landslides, debris flows, and debris torrents (Swanston and Marion, 

1991; Brardinoni et al., 2002). The increased risk of landslides is 

considered an indirect effect to streams, because if landslides do occur 

they may or may not deliver sediment to streams (see “Soils” section 

this chapter). GIS indicates 6 of 22 landslides within project-area 

watersheds impacted streams, with 3 occurring in the mountains 

forming the eastern boundary in the Big John Creek watershed. Most 

of these landslides are arrayed to the southwest, and have no proposed 

units nearby. Minimizing the risk of landslides in clearcut harvest units 

and where roads are constructed is addressed by applying BMPs and 

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. Each of the proposed action 

alternatives would increase landslide potential to some degree, with 

relative risk related to the amount of proposed clearcut harvest acres 

on high or very high hazard soils. Comparisons of this risk are 

presented under each alternative. 

Landslides 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 107 

Logs will be hauled to the Little Hamilton Bay LTF for transportation 

by barge or raft to the mill in all action alternatives. Barging the logs 

would have less effect on marine species. Habitat for managed marine 

species and their prey may be diminished due to bark accumulation 

resulting from rafting logs at the LTF. Another effect of log rafting is 

reduced rearing capability for juvenile salmon due to potentially 

reduced water quality from bark leachates and shading beneath log 

rafts and equipment floats. 

Other projects associated with the proposed timber sale having direct 

and indirect effects include silvicultural thinning and pruning 

treatments (precommercial and wildlife habitat enhancements), road 

and trail maintenance, invasive plant removal, and removal of 

structures known to limit fish passage on roads proposed for closure 

through the RAP. The effects upon implementation of these activities 

are similar to those described previously and below, regarding 

potential short-term increases in sedimentation and turbidity. Activities 

associated with these projects are not expected to have long-term 

negative effects on watershed hydrology or fish populations. 

Cumulative Watershed Effects 

Cumulative watershed effects occur both spatially and temporally. The 

6th level HUC watersheds, wholly or partially within the proposed 

project area, provide the spatial boundaries for direct, indirect, and 

cumulative watershed effects in this analysis. The 6th level HUC scale 

is recognized by the U.S. Geological Survey and is the commonly 

accepted scale for determining potential effects of management 

activities (Regional Interagency Executive Committee, 1995). 

Temporally, cumulative watershed effects may be influenced by some 

of the activities summarized above and in the Central Kupreanof 

Catalog of Events. This analysis emphasizes timber harvest activities 

in the past 30 years and road building activities regardless of age, due 

to their potential effect on peak flows and runoff timing, sediment 

delivery to streams, and fisheries resources. 

Management-related and naturally occurring activities influencing 

watershed fisheries and hydrology were considered. These included 

activities summarized in the Central Kupreanof Catalog of Events, 

number and location of known landslides, miles of NFS and temporary 

roads and their respective stream crossings, crossings currently 

impeding fish passage (red fish crossings), and the Irish and Keku fish 

pass project. While there are currently 61 red fish crossings, the Irish 

and Keku fish pass project provided approximately 45 miles of 

anadromous access for Coho, steelhead, pink, and chum salmon. 

Cumulative watershed effects on watershed hydrology from previous 

harvest and road-building activities are diminished as vegetation 

encroaches in these areas. The majority of timber harvest in Hamilton 

Analysis Area 

Past Activities 
3 Environment and Effects 

108  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

Creek and McNaughton Point Watersheds occurred primarily in the 

1970s and 1980s, with hydrologic effects trending toward inherent 

levels. Harvest of previously cleared timber units from the Bohemia 

Timber Sale, as well as approximately 70 acres as part of the Kake 

Small Sales project are not considered in the cumulative effects 

analysis since these are not within the 6th HUC boundaries defining 

this analysis. 

Current activities influencing cumulative effects include maintenance 

of existing roads, revegetation on previously closed roads and open 

roads receiving little traffic, and revegetation in managed stands with 

previous harvest. 

Besides timber harvest and road building activities analyzed in each 

alternative below, activities occurring in the foreseeable future which 

could influence cumulative watershed effects include future closure of 

the newly constructed and reconstructed NFS roads associated with 

this sale, decommissioning temporary roads following the timber sale, 

and closure of additional NFS roads located within the project area but 

not associated with the proposed timber sale. Some roads have been 

recommended for closure through the RAP, and will be addressed in 

the Petersburg Access Travel Management Plan NEPA document 

scheduled in 2009. Newly constructed and reconstructed NFS roads 

could remain open for up to 10 years following timber sale activities 

(see Transportation section this chapter). Decommissioning temporary 

roads and closing some or all NFS roads constructed for the timber 

sale would result in a net decrease in the amount of roads needing 

maintenance. Placing or otherwise ensuring roads are in a selfmaintaining hydrologic condition (i.e. constructing water bars, 

designing rolling dips, drivable water bars, oversized crossing 

structures) would lower the amount of potential groundwater 

interception by road cuts, decrease the number of miles in the stream 

network by removing those portions associated with ditches, improve 

natural drainage patterns, reduce the risk of culvert plugging and 

stream diversion, and lower the risk of road failures at stream 

crossings. 

Since NFS road closures are expected to occur within ten years of 

implementation of the proposed timber harvest, cumulative effects of 

these closures are time-sensitive. When culverts are removed, 

hydrologic recovery is immediate at road crossings; when culverts are 

not removed, there continues to be a risk of the culvert becoming 

plugged with sediment and debris. This risk decreases by placing 

water bars for routing water across the road prism in the case of a 

failure. Sediment delivery from the road surface and ditches continues 

until sufficient vegetation regrowth has occurred. Road closures are 

expected to benefit watershed hydrology and fish passage in the longterm. Short-term increases in sediment delivery associated with road 

Current Activities 

& Processes 

Future Activities 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 109 

building activities are addressed directly through mitigation measures 

described in the Road Cards in Appendix B and through 

implementation of BMPs. These practices are expected to maintain 

water quality and fish passage within standards established by the 

State of Alaska. 

Other projects discussed under “Direct and Indirect Effects” having 

cumulative impacts in the foreseeable future include silvicultural 

thinning and pruning treatments (precommercial and wildlife habitat 

enhancements), road and trail maintenance, invasive plant removal, 

and removal of red fish crossings proposed for closure through the 

RAP. The effects upon implementation of these activities are similar to 

those described previously. Road and trail maintenance activities are 

expected to benefit watershed hydrology in the long-term by 

maintaining drainage efficiency through crossing structures, thereby 

reducing potential sources of stream sedimentation. Activities 

associated with the above-described projects are not expected to have a 

long-term negative effect on fish populations or habitat. While there 

may be incidental death of fish due to these projects, fish populations 

in the project area are expected to remain viable and maintained at 

current levels. 

Rates of timber harvest on Kupreanof Island have varied among 

watersheds but were generally higher in the 1980s. Research suggests 

timber harvest may have caused non-permanent increases in landslide 

potential and water yield during certain time periods, and that recovery 

to pre-harvest conditions is ongoing. Cumulatively, there is a general 

trend toward recovery of slope stability and pre-harvest rates of 

canopy interception and evapotranspiration in the two watersheds with 

the highest levels of proposed harvest (Tables 3-27 and 3-28). 
3 Environment and Effects 

110  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

Effects by Alternative 

Table 3-27. Summary of Proposed Timber Harvest by Alternative

ALT 1 ALT 2 ALT 3 ALT 4 

Watershed ADF&G 

Number 

Watershed 

Size (ac) 

Harvest 

(ac) 

Harvest 

(ac) 

Harvest 

(ac)1

Harvest 

(ac) 

Hamilton 

Creek 

109-42-

10100 49,810 0 1,031 1,078 651 

McNaughton 

Point 

105-32-

10185 10,212 0 509 587 314 

Big John 

Creek 

105-32-

10160 12,977 0 303 336 164 

W Duncan 

Canal 

106-43-

10350 43,817 0 37`5 913 82 

Keku Creek 105-32-

10120 30,796 0 72 72 0 

Castle River 106-43-

10210 33,060 0 62 465 59 

Tunehean 

Creek 

105-32-

10040 24,734 0 153 153 56 

Total 0 2,505 3,604 1326 1

 There is an additional 41.8 acres proposed in Alt 3, located in Towers Arm 

Watershed near the SE corner of Hamilton Watershed in Unit 217. This watershed 

was not analyzed separately. 

None of the project area watersheds have cumulative harvest levels 

approaching 20 percent in the past 30 years (Table 3-28). Under the 

action alternatives, proposed harvest levels would cause increases in 

the 30-year cumulative harvest in all watersheds if implemented in 

2009. The greatest increase in cumulative harvest levels would occur 

in the McNaughton Point watershed, from 8.8 percent to 14.5 percent 

in Alternative 3. Cumulative watershed effects are described below 

under each alternative. 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 111 

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

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

Harvested) 

Watershed Watershed 

Size (Acres) 

Existing 

(2008) 

ALT 

11

ALT 

2 

ALT 

3 

ALT 

4 

Hamilton 

Creek 49,810 3.2 1.9 5.3 5.4 4.6 

McNaughton 

Pt 10,212 8.8 2.9 13.8 14.5 11.9 

Big John Creek 12,977 4.5 4.5 6.8 7.1 5.8 

West Duncan 

Canal 43,817 0.4 0.4 1.3 2.5 0.6 

Keku Creek 30,796 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.2 

Castle River 33,060 1.3 1.3 1.5 2.7 1.5 

Tunehean 

Creek 24,734 1.2 1.2 1.9 1.9 1.5 

1

 Values indicated under Alternative 1 reflect cumulative percentages in 2009 

assuming no timber harvest. 

Alternative 1 

In the no action alternative, no commercial timber harvest would occur 

and no roads would be built. Selection of this alternative would not 

preclude regular maintenance of existing roads, including erosion 

control measures and removal or replacement of culverts. The risk of 

landslides associated with previously-built roads is ongoing and is 

considered an indirect effect, because if landslides do occur, they may 

or may not deliver sediment to streams. Sediment delivery to streams 

from periodic road maintenance is expected to be minor and within 

water quality standards set by the State of Alaska. 

Cumulative effects associated with the no action alternative are limited 

to the growth of trees in managed stands harvested in the past and the 

reestablishment of more natural drainage patterns and vegetation on 

closed roads. Silvicultural thinning and pruning treatments for 

precommercial and wildlife habitat enhancement purposes may occur, 

and are not expected to alter hydrologic function on the watershed 

scale. Under this alternative, no changes in hydrologic function, 

sediment delivery to streams, or fish passage are expected beyond 

those discussed in “Effects Common to all Action Alternatives”, and 

naturally occurring events. Hydrologic function in all watersheds is 

expected to improve in the long-term under this alternative with the 

continued regrowth of vegetation and maintenance of roads and stream 

crossings. Effects of road closures proposed under the district ATM 

were discussed previously and are expected to benefit watershed 

hydrology and fish passage in the long-term. The Irish and Keku fish 

Direct and Indirect 

Effects 

Cumulative 

Effects 
3 Environment and Effects 

112  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

pass project is expected to continue providing habitat to support fish 

populations in the Project Area above naturally occurring levels. 

Alternative 2 

Alternative 2 proposes harvesting 2,505 acres (Table 3-27). Harvest 

systems would include ground-based cable, shovel yarding, and 

helicopter. Two thousand sixty-three acres are proposed to be clearcut, 

of which 266 acres are on slopes with a high mass movement index 

(MMI-3) (Table 3-29). These areas are assumed to have an increased 

susceptibility to potential landslides (see Soils report). 

Table 3-29. Proposed clearcut acreage1 in Alternative 2 on High (MMI3) or Very High (MMI-4) Hazard Soils 

Watershed Proposed 

Clearcut MMI-3 MMI-4 

Hamilton Creek 914 128 0 

McNaughton Pt. 442 56 0 

Big John Creek 181 5 0 

West Duncan 240 62 0 

Keku Creek 72 8 0 

Castle River 61 7 0 

Tunehean 

Creek 153 0 0 

Total 2,063 266 0 1

 Acres in Proposed Clearcut column include clearcut, clearcut with 10 percent, and 

clearcut with 50 percent reserve prescriptions. There are approximately 30 acres in 

McNaughton Point Watershed with a 10 percent reserve prescription in MMI-3 soils. 

Alternative 2 proposes harvesting approximately 112 acres of timber 

for approximately 14.0 miles of newly constructed, reconstructed, and 

temporary roads (Table 3-30). Road building would result in an 

additional 59 stream crossings in project area watersheds, with 41 on 

NFS roads and 18 on temporary roads. New NFS road construction 

would require one Class I crossing. NFS road reconstruction would 

require the replacement of two Class I crossings and four Class II 

crossings. Temporary road construction will require one Class I and 

one Class II crossing. Both crossings on the temporary roads will be 

log stringer bridges. The above NFS roads may remain open up to 10 

years following timber harvest as discussed in the Transportation 

section of this chapter. An additional 1.1 miles of road 6330, including 

removal of one red fish crossing, will be closed within 10 years of 

timber harvest. All temporary roads will be decommissioned after 

timber harvest is complete. 

Direct and Indirect 

Effects 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 113 

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

Alternative 2 

Watershed New NFS Reconstruct Temporary

New 

Stream 

Crossings 

Hamilton Creek 4.1 0.1 0.7 22 

McNaughton 

Point 1.2 0.0 1.4 14 

Big John Creek 0.0 1.3 0.8 6 

W Duncan 

Canal 1.4 1.0 0.4 5 

Keku Creek 0.1 0.0 0.3 4 

Castle River 0.1 0.4 0.1 4 

Tunehean Creek 0.4 0.0 0.2 4 

Total 7.3 2.8 3.9 59 

Harvest of 2,505 acres within the project area would increase 

cumulative harvest levels from current levels in all watersheds (Table 

3-27). The McNaughton Point watershed has the highest current 

cumulative harvest level at 8.8 percent, and would continue to have the 

highest cumulative percent harvest with this alternative. Cumulative 

effects of previous and proposed timber harvest and road-related 

activities were discussed above. In this alternative, the extent of these 

effects would be greater than those in Alternative 4 and lesser than 

Alternative 3 due to the relative amounts of activities proposed. 

Cumulative effects associated with ongoing activities are the same as 

those described in Alternative 1. 

Alternative 3 

Alternative 3 proposes harvesting 3,647 acres via ground-based cable, 

shovel yarding, and helicopter logging systems (Table 3-27). There are 

3,126 acres of proposed clearcut, of which 482 acres are on slopes 

with a high mass movement index (Table 3-31). These areas are 

assumed to be more susceptible to potential landslides (see Soils 

report). The direct and indirect effects of harvest activities were 

discussed under “Effects Common to all Action Alternatives” and 

would occur to the greatest extent in this alternative due to the highest 

number of proposed harvest acres and road miles. 

Cumulative 

Effects 

Direct and Indirect 

Effects 
3 Environment and Effects 

114  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

Table 3-31. Proposed Clearcut Acreage1 in Alternative 3 on High (MMI3) or Very High (MMI-4) Hazard Soils 

Watershed Proposed 

Clearcut MMI-3 MMI-4 

Hamilton River 984 140 0 

McNaughton 

Point 520 56 0 

Big John Creek 299 54 0 

W Duncan 

Canal 664 217 0 

Keku Creek 72 8 0 

Castle River 434 7 0 

Tunehean Creek 153 0 0 

Total 3,126 482 0 1

 Acres in Proposed Clearcut column include clearcut, clearcut with 10 percent, and 

clearcut with 50 percent reserve prescriptions. There are approximately 30 acres in 

McNaughton Point Watershed with a 10 percent reserve prescription in MMI-3 soils. 

Alternative 3 proposes harvesting approximately 341 acres of timber 

for approximately 40.4 miles of newly constructed, reconstructed, and 

temporary roads (Table 3-32). Road building would result in an 

additional 139 stream crossings in project area watersheds, with 101 

on NFS roads and 34 on temporary roads. Most of these crossings 

occur on Class III and IV streams, which are generally dominated by

sediment transport reaches. New NFS road construction would require 

two Class I and five Class II crossings. NFS road reconstruction would 

require the replacement of two Class I and four Class II crossings. 

Temporary road construction would require one Class I and three 

Class II crossings. All the crossings on the temporary roads will be log 

stringer bridges. Road crossings on Class I and II fish streams are 

typically more susceptible to impacts caused by sediment, since these 

streams tend to occur lower in the watershed, and are predominantly 

characterized as sediment deposition reaches. The effects of increased 

sediment delivery to the stream on individual fish and the direct 

hydrological effects of timber harvest and road building were 

previously described, and would occur to the greatest extent in this 

alternative due to higher levels of these activities. An indirect effect of 

this alternative would be the closure of 2.0 miles of NFS Roads 6330 

and 6327 within 10 years of harvest, including removal of two red fish 

crossings. All of the new and reconstructed NFS roads, will be closed 

within ten years of timber harvest. All temporary roads will be 

decommissioned after timber harvest. Effects of road closures were 

described previously, and are expected to benefit fish passage and 

hydrologic function in the long-term. This alternative would have the 

greatest potential for bark accumulation at the Hamilton Bay LTF 

because it harvests the most volume of timber. 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 115 

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

in Alternative 3 

Watershed New 

NFS Reconstruct Temporary

New 

Stream 

Crossings 

Hamilton Creek 5.2 0.9 0.7 31 

McNaughton 

Point 1.2 0.0 1.8 14 

Big John Creek 2.5 2.5 1.0 13 

W Duncan Canal 10.8 2.2 0.9 43 

Keku Creek 0.1 0.0 0.3 4 

Castle River 4.9 2.6 1.2 29 

Tunehean Creek 0.4 1.0 0.2 5 

Total 25.1 9.2 6.1 139 

Harvest of 3,647 acres within the project area would increase 

cumulative harvest levels in all watersheds (Table 3-27). The 

cumulative effects of previous and proposed timber harvest and road 

building are the same as those described in “Effects common to all 

action Alternatives” and Alternative 2, but would occur to the greatest 

extent in this alternative due to higher levels of these activities. 

Alternative 4 

Alternative 4 proposes harvesting 1,326 acres, all of which would be 

clearcut using ground-based cable and shovel yarding. One hundred 

nineteen of these acres are on slopes with a high mass movement index 

(MMI-3) (Table 3-33). 

Cumulative 

Effects 

Direct and Indirect 

Effects 
3 Environment and Effects 

116  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

Table 3-33. Proposed Clearcut Acreage1 in Alternative 4 on High (MMI3) or Very High (MMI-4) Hazard Soils 

Watershed Proposed 

Clearcut MMI-3 MMI-4 

Hamilton 651 73 0 

McNaughton 

Pt. 314 10 0 

Big John Creek 164 5 0 

W Duncan 

Canal 82 31 0 

Keku Creek 0 0 0 

Castle River 59 0 0 

Tunehean 

Creek 56 0 0 

Total 1326 119 0 1

 Acres in Proposed Clearcut column include clearcut, clearcut with 10 percent, and 

clearcut with 50 percent reserve prescriptions. There are no reserve prescriptions in 

the high and very high hazard soils in this Alternative. 

Alternative 4 proposes harvesting approximately 35 acres for 

approximately 4.8 miles of temporary and reconstructed NFS roads 

(Table 3-34). Road building would result in an additional 8 stream 

crossings with 6 on reconstructed NFS roads and 2 on temporary 

roads. There are no new road crossings on Class I streams. Temporary 

road construction would require one log stringer bridge over a Class II 

stream, and NFS road reconstruction will require 3 Class II stream 

crossings. Direct and indirect effects to watershed hydrology and 

fisheries related to timber harvest and road building were described 

under “Effects common to all action Alternatives”, and would occur to 

the least extent in this alternative due to the lowest levels of these 

activities among action alternatives. All of the new and reconstructed 

NFS roads plus the 2.0 miles on NFS Roads 6330 and 6327, including 

two red fish crossings, would be closed within ten years of timber 

harvest. All temporary roads will be decommissioned after timber 

harvest is complete. Effects of road closures were described 

previously. This alternative would have the least potential for bark 

accumulation at the Little Hamilton Bay LTF if the logs are rafted 

because it harvests the least volume of timber. 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 117 

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

Alternative 4 

Watershed New NFS Reconstruct Temporary New Stream 

Crossings 

Hamilton 

Creek 0.0 0.9 0.4 2 

McNaughton 

Point 0.0 0.0 1.0 1 

Big John Creek 0.0 1.3 0.5 1 

W Duncan 

Canal 0.0 0.0 0.2 0 

Keku Creek 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 

Castle River 0.0 0.4 0.1 4 

Tunehean 

Creek 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 

Total 0.0 2.6 2.2 8 

Cumulative harvest levels would increase in all but Keku Creek 

Watershed if this alternative were implemented by 2009 (Table 3-27). 

Cumulative effects of timber harvest and road building, as well as 

those activities occurring in the foreseeable future were described 

previously and are expected to be the same for this alternative, but to 

the least extent of all action alternatives due to the lowest proposed 

levels of these activities. 

Essential Fish Habitat Assessment 

The 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 

and Management Act require the Forest Service to consult with the 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding actions that 

“may adversely affect” essential fish habitat (EFH) for federally 

managed marine and anadromous fish species. EFH consultation has 

been combined with the Forest Service NEPA process. Consultation 

procedures have been documented in an attachment to the June 26, 

2007 NMFS letter to the Regional Forester. 

Federally managed fish species are those species under the jurisdiction 

of the North Pacific Management Council, managed by the NMFS, 

and included in a fishery management plan (FMP). These common 

managed species include: Chinook, chum, pink, and sockeye salmon: 

Walleye pollock; Pacific cod; arrowtooth flounder; yellowfin, rock, 

rex, dover, and flathead sole; Alaska plaice; sablefish, Pacific Ocean 

perch; shortraker, rougheye, northern, thornyhead, yelloweye, and 

dusky rockfish; sculpin; skates; squid; octopus; forage fish; and 

weathervane scallop. Several common species not managed under 

FMP include halibut, ling cod, Pacific herring, Dungeness crab, 

cutthroat trout, steelhead, and Dolly Varden char. 

Cumulative 

Effects 
3 Environment and Effects 

118  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

EFH is defined as “those waters and substrates necessary for fish 

spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.” Marine EFH in 

Alaska includes estuarine and marine areas from tidally submerged 

habitat to the 200-mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Freshwater 

EFH includes streams, rivers, lakes, ponds, wetlands and other bodies 

of water currently and historically accessible to salmon. EFH for 

Pacific salmon recognizes six critical life history stages: (1) spawning 

and incubation of eggs, (2) juvenile rearing, (3) winter and summer 

rearing during freshwater residency, (4) juvenile migration between 

freshwater and estuarine rearing habitats, (5) marine residency of 

immature and maturing adults, and (6) adult spawning migration. 

Habitat requirements within these periods can differ significantly and 

any modification of the habitat within these periods can adversely 

affect EFH. 

The four main steps in the consultation process are the following: 

 The Forest Service determines if the proposed action will have 

“no adverse effect” or if it “may adversely affect” EFH. Only 

the “may adversely affect” determination triggers consultation. 

 An EFH Assessment is prepared by the Forest Service as a 

component of the NEPA and forwarded to the NMFS to initiate 

formal consultation. 

 The NMFS will respond in writing as to whether it concurs 

with the conclusion in the EFH Assessment and may provide 

conservation recommendations to further minimize effects of 

the action on EFH. 

 The Forest Service must provide a written response to NMFS 

within 30 days explaining its evaluation of the conservation 

recommendations. The response may include reasons for not 

following the recommendation. 

The formal consultation will start when NMFS receives a copy of the 

draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) with the EFH 

Assessment. Documentation of the consultation process will be 

included in the FEIS. 

This EFH Assessment satisfies the requirements by providing 1) a 

description of the proposed action; 2) an analysis of the potential 

adverse effects of the action on EFH and the managed species; 3) the 

Forest Service’s conclusions regarding the effects of the action on 

EFH; and 4) a discussion of proposed mitigation, if applicable. 

Description of the Proposed Action 

The Central Kupreanof Timber Sale proposes the harvest of up to 70.2 

MMBF of timber on Kupreanof Island. The project area begins 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 119 

approximately 9 miles southeast of the community of Kake and will 

use the Kake road system. Up to 7.3 miles of new NFS road and up to 

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

All alternatives use the Little Hamilton LTF to barge logs or transfer 

the logs to water to be rafted to the mill. Several projects within the 

project area have been identified that could serve as stewardship 

opportunities. These projects include trail maintenance, precommercial thinning for silviculture and wildlife, road maintenance, 

and the removal of red fish crossings on roads proposed for closure 

through the RAP. A complete description of the proposed action and 

all the alternatives can be found in Chapters 1 and 2. 

Potential Adverse Effects on Freshwater 

EFH 

There are approximately 369 miles of Class I streams in the 7 

watersheds discussed above in the Hydrology and Fisheries section. 

Within the project area there are populations of federally managed 

species of pink, chum, coho, and sockeye salmon as well as 

populations of Dolly Varden, cutthroat trout, and steelhead. 

Potential effects on freshwater EFH include changes in water yield, 

peak flow volume and timing of flow delivery, sediment delivery, and 

fish passage at road crossings. A complete discussion of potential 

adverse effects, including cumulative effects, of the proposed action is 

in the Hydrology and Fisheries section. 

Alternative 2 requires 4 new Class I road crossings on new NFS, 

reconstructed NFS, and temporary road. Alternative 3 requires 5 new 

Class I road crossings on new NFS, reconstructed NFS, and temporary 

road. Alternative 4 does not require any new Class I road crossings. 

Potential adverse effects to freshwater EFH will be minimized due to 

the following: 

 All Class I and II streams within the project area will be 

protected by a no-harvest buffer of 100 feet or more (see Unit 

Cards in Appendix B for site-specific activities). 

 All Class III streams will be protected by no-harvest buffers 

according to the Forest Plan. This minimizes the potential 

impact to downstream Essential Fish Habitat (see Unit Cards in 

Appendix B for site-specific activities). 

 All proposed Class I and Class II road crossings on temporary 

roads will be log stringer bridges. Temporary roads will be 

decommissioned after timber harvest is complete. 
3 Environment and Effects 

120  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

 BMPs will be implemented to protect water quality and aquatic 

habitat for all freshwater streams within the project area 

(Appendix B). 

 The Forest Plan has specific Standards and Guidelines for 

riparian resources (pp 4-50 – 4-54), and riparian buffer criteria 

(Appendix D) (USDA Forest Service, 2008). 

Potential Adverse Effects on Marine EFH 

All alternatives use the Little Hamilton Bay LTF. The LTF is located 

on Little Hamilton Island and is connected to Kupreanof by a land 

bridge road. Hamilton Bay was placed on the Section 303(d) list of 

impaired water bodies in 1996 for bark accumulation. This water body 

was removed from the impaired list in 2002 when the dive survey 

reports showed that the bark accumulation was 0.6 acres. 

Barging the logs would minimize the effect on marine species. One 

potential effect of rafting logs at the LTF on marine species may be 

diminished habitat for managed species and their prey due to bark 

accumulation. Another effect of log rafting is reduced rearing 

capability for juvenile salmon due to potentially reduced water quality 

from bark leachates and shading beneath log rafts and equipment 

floats. 

According to the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council 

database (http://www.fakr.noaa.gov), NMFS has identified Hamilton 

Bay as EFH for arrowtooth flounder, Atka mackerel, capelin, Dover 

sole, eulachon, flathead sole, rex sole, rock sole, sand lance, Greenland 

turbot, octopus, yelloweye rockfish, dusky rockfish, Pacific Ocean 

perch, walleye pollock, sculpin, skates, shark, squid, weathervane 

scallop, yellowfin sole, Pacific cod, Sablefish, shortraker and rougheye 

rockfish, Chinook, chum, coho, sockeye, and pink salmon. 

By following the Standards and Guidelines in the Forest Plan and 

implementing the Best Management Practices (BMPs), the effects on 

EFH will be minimized due to the following: 

All activities at the Little Hamilton LTF will abide by State and 

Federal permit stipulations. 

The Forest Service believes that the Central Kupreanof Timber Sale 

may adversely affect EFH. However, by following the Standards and 

Guidelines in the Forest Plan and implementing the Best Management 

Practices (BMPs), the effects on EFH will be minimized. Impacts to 

EFH are likely to occur only from unforeseen events. A copy of the 

DEIS will be given to NMFS as stated in the agreement, and the Forest 

Service will continue the consultation process with the National 

Marine Fisheries Service. 

Conclusions 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 121 

Unavoidable adverse impacts associated with this project include 

short-term increases in sediment delivery to streams from road 

construction and maintenance activities. 

This project does not propose any irreversible or irretrievable 

commitments of watershed resources. 

Unavoidable 

Adverse Impacts 

Irreversible and 

Irretrievable 

Commitments of 

Resources 
3 Environment and Effects 

122  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

Timber and Vegetation 

Resource Analysis Area 

The analysis area covered by this report is the Central Kupreanof 

Project Area (VCUs 4260, 4271, 4290, 4360, and 4380) and land 

immediately adjacent to the VCUs. Silviculture responds to land 

management activities within the project boundary and is sometimes 

affected by land management activities immediately adjacent to the 

project area. 

Affected Environment 

Initial project area information was obtained from the Petersburg 

District’s Geographic Information System (GIS) library, aerial photos, 

and the Forest Service Activities Tracking System (FACTS). 

During the 2006 and 2007 field seasons, the Petersburg Ranger 

District’s Integrated Resource Inventory (IRI) Crew performed an 

inventory of the Central Kupreanof Project Area. Information 

collected contributed to the development of site specific Silvicultural 

Diagnosis, Logging Systems and Transportation Analysis by timber 

stand for the area. This analysis included stream surveys, wildlife 

information and identification of soils that have a high potential for 

mass wasting. Copies of this information are located within the 

project record. 

Characterization 

National Forest System lands are defined by vegetative cover, soil type 

and administratively designated land use. This classification scheme is 

intended to show the amount of land that is covered by forested 

vegetation with further divisions to show the amount of that land that 

is capable of timber production (Table 3-35). 

Forested Land comprises about 94% of the National Forest Land in the 

Central Kupreanof Project Area. Forested land has at least ten percent 

of the area occupied by forest trees of any size or formerly having had 

such a tree cover and not developed for non-forest use. 

Non-Forest Land comprises about 6% of the National Forest Land in 

the Central Kupreanof Project Area. Non-forested land has fewer than 

ten percent of the area occupied by forest trees of any size, or formerly 

had such a tree cover and is now developed for non-forest use. 

Productive Forest Land comprises about 32% of the National Forest 

Land in the Central Kupreanof Project Area. Productive forest lands 

have timber volumes of greater than or equal to 8,000 board feet/acre 

Methods 

Forest Land 

Classification 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 123 

or have the potential to achieve this volume and are capable of 

maintaining that volume. This land is capable of producing 20 cubic 

feet/acre/year of industrial wood per year or having a site index of 40. 

Productive Forest Land does not necessarily mean that the stand is 

within the timber base of timber that is available for commercial 

timber harvest. 

Non-Productive Forest Land comprises about 68% of the National 

Forest Land in the Central Kupreanof Project Area. Non-productive 

forest land is forested land that does not support enough timber 

volume to meet the criteria for productive forest land. 

Suitable Forest Land is 73% of the productive forest land in the project 

area that is physically suitable for timber harvest, can be adequately 

restocked in five years, not withdrawn from timber production, and has 

been identified in the 2008 Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2008) as 

within a Land Use Designation that has timber available for timber 

management. 

Unsuitable Forest Land includes areas within riparian, beach and 

estuary buffers, land on slopes greater than 72% that have unstable 

soils (harvest is allowed on slopes exceeding 72%, but requires an onsite slope stability analysis to determine suitability), and other lands 

withdrawn from timber production by the 2008 Forest Plan (USDA 

Forest Service 2008). Approximately 27% of the unsuitable forest 

land is in the productive forest land base. 

The Central Kupreanof Project Area is a mosaic of coniferous forests 

interspersed with muskeg, scrubland, and alpine plant communities. 

The forests are primarily western hemlock with a Sitka spruce 

component, scattered Alaska yellow-cedar and western red cedar. 

Higher percentages of Sitka spruce are found along streams and other 

well-drained sites. The understory shrubs are primarily blueberry, 

huckleberry, and rusty menziesia. Many species of vascular plants, 

lichens, and mosses occur throughout all habitat types. Forested 

muskeg with a high percentage of yellow-cedar occurs throughout the 

project area especially in the lower elevations. Alder is found on 

disturbed sites such as roadsides, managed stands and along stream 

banks. Muskegs support shore (lodgepole) pine. 
3 Environment and Effects 

124  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

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

 

National Forest System

152,517 

 

Non-forest Land 

9,188 acres 

 

Forest Land 

143,329 acres

 Productive Forest 

Land 

49,121 acres 

Non-productive Forest Land 

94,208 acres 

 

Suitable Forest Land

35,855 acres 

 

Unsuitable Forest Land

13,266 acres 

 

Harvested Acres

4,233 acres 

Acres Harvested before 

Forest Plan designations

382 acres 

Suitable and Available for 

Harvest 

 31,622 acres

Central Kupreanof Timber 

Sale Project Area 

152,517 acres 

Non-National Forest 

Land 

0 acres 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 125 

Forest Health and Natural Disturbance 

Wind is the major natural disturbance agent affecting forest dynamics 

in Southeast Alaska. It recycles forest stands and maintains and renews 

the forest ecosystem. However, timber harvest has the potential to 

exacerbate the rate of windthrow in adjacent forest stands. The 

severity and frequency of wind disturbance is determined by many 

interrelated factors. These influencing factors include tree size and 

vitality, slope aspect, soil characteristics stand composition, canopy 

structure and the characteristics of the surrounding topography which 

may influence wind flow (Harris 1989). 

Riparian buffers have been monitored on the Tongass for the past 

seven years. “The 2006 Tongass Monitoring and Evaluation Report” 

(USDA Forest Service 2007), states that post harvest windthrow 

within 183 monitored stream buffers is highly variable and ranges 

from 0 to 73 percent. Post harvest windthrow is present in 25 percent 

of the buffers and the average and median cumulative amount of 

windthrow within these buffers is 12 percent and 6 percent 

respectively. 

Survey crews examined leave trees and unit edges of previous harvest 

units and stands within the proposed harvest units for windthrow and 

found only minor amounts. The risk of significant wind disturbance as 

a result of timber harvest in the project area was determined to be low 

due to the insignificant amount of preexisting windthrow and an 

analysis of contributing risk factors. Additional wind protection 

measures are not planned for any of the proposed harvest units. 

Alaska yellow-cedar decline is a disease causing considerable 

mortality in Southeast Alaska. Mortality can be in small patches or 

can cover expansive areas. Affected trees may die more quickly (2 or 

3 years), or more slowly over a 15-year period or longer with crowns 

progressively thinning. The cause of yellow-cedar decline is not 

completely understood but the disease generally occurs on wet poorly 

drained sites at lower and middle elevations. Recent studies theorize 

that mortality could be caused by freeze damage to fine roots (Hennon 

and Shaw). There is approximately 84,000 acres of mapped yellow 

cedar decline on Kupreanof Island and the majority of it occurs at 

elevations below 1,000 feet (Forest Health Protection Report 2008). 

On the Tongass National Forest, Alaska yellow-cedar and western 

redcedar are found in mixed conifer stands, usually as a component of 

the more shade tolerant western hemlock type. The cedars are more 

typically found in the lower volume class strata since they cannot 

compete with western hemlock on higher sites. By volume, Alaska 

Wind Disturbance 

Alaska Yellowcedar Decline 

Cedar 

Composition 
3 Environment and Effects 

126  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

yellow-cedar represents about 10 percent of the growing stock volume 

and is found throughout Southeast Alaska. Western redcedar 

represents about 6 percent of the growing stock volume and is limited 

to the southern half of the Tongass National Forest. 

Current levels of timber harvest on the Tongass are not expected to 

have an adverse affect on the quantity or composition of cedar (or any 

species) in the future. Where single tree selection or two-aged 

management is applied, the amount of residual cedar left is 

proportional to the amount prior to harvest. Since both cedars are 

shade intolerant, removal of a portion of the overstory could release 

cedar if advanced regeneration is present. Silvicultural treatments in 

young growth stands, such as precommercial thinning, pruning, and 

commercial thinning, favor the release of cedars to maintain cedar 

species composition and because they are valuable crop trees for future 

harvest. 

Dwarf mistletoe reduces the vigor and growth rate of hemlock and 

often produces a low quality of timber. Cankerous swellings often 

occur at the point of infection on limbs and main stems. These cankers 

offer an entrance for wood-destroying fungi, which can lead to heart 

rot. 

Dwarf mistletoe progresses relatively slowly in Southeast Alaska; 

however, with stands which are partially harvested, there may be some 

infected trees. Clearcut harvesting is an effective method of 

controlling hemlock dwarf mistletoe if reduction or eradication of the 

disease is consistent with management objectives (USDA Forest 

Service, 2001). Dwarf mistletoe infestation is minor in most trees in 

the Central Kupreanof project area. 

Wood decay fungi play an important role in the structure and function 

of coastal old-growth forests where fire and wind disturbance are 

uncommon. In addition to creating canopy gaps and wildlife habitat, 

decay fungi play an important role in nutrient cycling. The importance 

of wood decay fungi in young managed stands is less well understood. 

There is evidence of decay fungi existing at an endemic level 

throughout the project area. Approximately one third of the oldgrowth timber volume is defective in Southeast Alaska old-growth 

stands (Forest Health Protection Report 2008). Although decay 

develops slowly, the longevity of individual trees allows ample time 

for significant amount of decay to develop. 

Reference Condition 

Prior to 1954 no large scale timber harvest had occurred in the project 

area. 

Dwarf Mistletoe 

Decay Fungi 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 127 

Existing Condition 

The first timber harvest occurred within the Central Kupreanof Timber 

Harvest Project Area in 1967 on a beach unit on the west side of 

Duncan Canal. Large-scale industrial logging began in the project 

area in the 1970s and introduced the area to road construction. During 

the 1970s until the early 1980s timber harvest in the project area was 

used to supply the long-term contract held by Alaska Pulp 

Corporation. From the early 1980s until the present time timber in the 

project area has been sold as independent timber sales. 

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

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest Project Area by Decade 

Harvest 

Period 

Suitable Acres 

Harvested 

Non-suitable Acres 

Harvested 

1960-1969 0 54 

1970-1979 620 40 

1980-1989 1,781 83 

1990-1999 861 153 

2000-present 971 55 

TOTAL 4,233 382 

Note: The numbers in table 3-38 are from the Petersburg GIS library and differ from 

the catalog of past NEPA events by 11 acres due to rounding. 

Volume Strata 

A volume strata was used for estimating the timber volumes and 

providing correlations for determining vegetation structure on the 

Central Kupreanof Project Area. This volume strata combines the 

existing timber inventory with additional information on soils and 

slope to group the strata. These volume strata are grouped as follows: 

 High Volume Stratum. Areas within mapped timber 

inventory volume classes 5, 6, and 7 on non-hydric soils, and 

on hydric soils with slopes greater than 55 percent. 

 Medium Volume Stratum. Areas within mapped timber 

inventory volume classes 5, 6, and 7 on hydric soils with slopes 

less than or equal to 55 percent and areas within 

mapped timber inventory volume class 4 that are either on nonhydric soils, or are on hydric soils with slopes greater than 55 

percent. 

 Low Volume Stratum. Areas within mapped timber 

inventory volume class 4 on hydric soils with slopes less than 

or equal to 55 percent. 

Past Timber 

Harvest 
3 Environment and Effects 

128  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

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

Kupreanof Project Area 

Strata Suitable Forest Acres

Low 4,762 

Medium 14,308 

High 16,354 

Non Volume Strata 431 

Total 35,855 

Silvicultural Systems 

Silvicultural systems are used to manage, harvest, and re-establish 

stands of forest trees for the purpose of meeting defined objectives. 

Silvicultural prescriptions have been developed to produce more 

valuable commercial timber at a faster rate, maintain wildlife habitat, 

and either maintain or enhance scenery values. No single silvicultural 

system for a forest stand can be used to achieve all the desired 

combinations of amenities and products. Instead a variety of 

treatments applied over the Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest project 

area results in a mosaic of stands of different structures. By harvest of 

timber or other treatments such as thinning or pruning, the existing 

stands would be altered by proposed management actions. 

The 2008 Forest Plan (Timber Standards and Guidelines) and USDA 

Forest Service Manual 2400 (Timber Management) provides detailed 

information about the silvicultural systems recommended for the 

Tongass National Forest. Two-aged management will result in a 

seedling stand with varying levels of older-aged residual trees. 

Uneven-aged management will result in a stand with younger trees 

interspersed with older trees, either in clumps or distributed across the 

stand. Even-aged management will result in the conversion of mature 

stands to faster growing stands of a single age. The post-harvest 

conditions of the forest stand for all systems will be dependent upon 

the existing plant community, the retained canopy structure, and 

advanced regeneration. Species composition will be monitored to 

ensure that the mix of species is roughly the same as on the existing 

site. 

The Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest project area analysis used a 

variety of silvicultural systems tailored to site-specific objectives. The 

objectives include: 

 retaining stand structure to maintain biodiversity 

 economics and logging feasibility 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 129 

 protection of the soil, watershed, wildlife habitat, and scenery 

characteristics of the project area 

 production of wood-fiber for future human use 

A complete silvicultural prescription for the entire length of the 

rotation will be written for each stand selected for harvest. These 

prescriptions provide guidance for treatments following the proposed 

timber harvest for this project, including subsequent entries, thinning, 

and pruning. Table 3-38 shows acres by silviculture system and 

regeneration method for each alternative. 

All or the majority of the merchantable trees will be harvested leaving 

10 percent or less of the original stand’s basal area. The objectives of 

this system are to create a fast-growing stand of trees to maximize 

wood fiber production, improve timber sale harvest economics and 

logging feasibility. These stands would regenerate into a mostly 

single-aged stand. Where this treatment is recommended, it has been 

determined that it is optimal for the site and the created openings 

would not exceed 100 acres, to be in compliance with the National 

Forest Management Act. The regeneration method chosen to achieve 

the goals of this system is clearcutting. 

Clearcutting- The cutting of all or the majority of the trees leaving 10 

percent or less of the original stand’s basal area in one harvest entry, 

producing a fully exposed microsite for the development of a new age 

class. 

Justification for clearcutting – Clearcutting is prescribed for all units 

where there are no other conflicting resource issues so that residual 

trees are not damaged by traditional logging systems. When 

competing resource issues are expected, damage to leave trees and 

lower commercial stand productivity can be an acceptable resource 

tradeoff. It allows other resources to be favored that may be impacted 

by clearcutting. 

This system is designed to maintain and regenerate a stand with two 

age classes. The resulting stand may be two-aged or tend towards the 

uneven-aged condition as a consequence of both an extended period of 

regeneration establishment and the retention of reserve trees that may 

represent one or more age classes. This remaining structure provides 

wildlife habitat and reduces visual impacts. These stands will not be 

reentered until the next rotation in approximately 100 years. The 

regeneration method chosen to achieve the goals of this system is 

clearcutting with reserves. 

Clearcutting with reserves – Stands proposed for this system would 

have a minimum of 50 percent of the basal area of the stand remaining 

after harvest. Merchantable trees (trees greater than 9 inches in 

Even-aged 

System 

Two-aged System 
3 Environment and Effects 

130  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

diameter) would be harvested in patches or individually. This will 

create a stand of two or more distinct age (size) classes. 

Reasons for clearcutting with reserves – This system will provide 

foraging areas interspersed with cover. The large trees provide habitat 

for cavity nesters. The appearance of the residual stand mimics natural 

blowdown patches and single trees. Damage to leave trees and lower 

commercial stand productivity are acceptable resource tradeoffs to 

achieve these goals. 

This system regenerates and maintains a multi-aged structure by 

removing some trees in all size classes either singly, in small groups, 

or in strips. The objective of uneven-aged management is to maintain 

a stand with trees of three or more distinct age (size) classes, either 

intimately mixed or in small groups. This remaining structure 

provides wildlife habitat and reduces visual impacts. The next entry 

into these stands will be in approximately 75 years when 30 percent of 

the stands basal area will be removed in patches or in single trees. The 

regeneration method chosen to achieve the goals of this system is 

single-tree selection. 

Single tree selection – Stands proposed for this system would have a 

minimum of 60 percent of the basal area of the trees remaining after 

harvest. This will regenerate and maintain a multi-aged structure by 

removing some trees in various size classes distributed across the 

stand. Trees to be harvested would be selected by species and 

diameter limit. A range of diameters generally between 16” and 36” 

dbh is used to define the trees selected for harvest. Exact harvest 

diameter limits are based on a timber cruise preformed prior to the 

actual sale of the harvest units. The resulting stand may have small 

openings plus individual trees harvested throughout the stand. This 

will maintain or create a stand of three or more distinct size classes 

distributed throughout the stand, resulting in an uneven-aged stand. 

Reasons for single tree selection – Removing trees throughout the 

stand would retain a continuous large tree canopy following harvest. 

The residual stand would have structural diversity that would provide 

wildlife habitat and maintain scenic quality. When these stands are 

harvested with conventional cable logging systems damage to the 

residual trees and lower commercial stand productivity are acceptable 

resource tradeoffs to achieve these goals. In stands where helicopter 

yarding is used single tree selection can improve economics by leaving 

lower value trees with little damage to the residual stand. 

 Uneven-aged 

System 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 131 

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

Chosen for the Central Kupreanof Units by Alternative 

Regeneration 

System 

Basal Area 

Retention Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 

Even-aged Management Silviculture System 

None 1,915 3,011 1,288 Clearcut 10% 116 116 39 

Total Acres of Even-aged 

Management 2,031 3,127 1,327 

Two-aged Management Silviculture System 

Clearcut 

with 

Reserves 

50% 33 0 0 

Total Acres of Two-aged 

Management 33 0 0 

Uneven-aged Management Silviculture System 

Single-tree 

Selection 60% 442 520 0 

Total Acres of Unevenaged Management 442 520 0 

Total Acres of Harvest by all Silviculture Systems 

Total Acres of Harvest by 

Alternative 2,506 3,647 1,327 

Intermediate Treatments 

Following timber harvest, the managed forest goes through distinctive 

developmental stages. Removal of the forest overstory alters the 

microsite conditions that influence density and species composition of 

the understory vegetation. Natural regeneration is used to restock the 

harvest units; areas must be reforested with a minimum of 300 trees 

per acre by the fifth year following harvest. This is monitored with 

regeneration surveys and certification of successful reforestation. 

Different components dominate the stand at different stages, and the 

overall forest structure will change as the new stand develops. The 

level of change will depend on the type of silvicultural treatment 

applied during harvest and subsequent treatments applied during stand 

development. Characteristics such as tree height, diameter, and overall 

stand productivity will vary according to site class. However, secondgrowth stands commonly show less variability in tree diameter and 

height than the old-growth stands they are replacing. Second-growth 

timber has a stand size ranging from seed-saplings, pole-timber, up to 
3 Environment and Effects 

132  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

saw-timber. It is usually the result of clearcut harvest. Currently, 

about 13 percent of the suitable forestland in the Central Kupreanof 

Project Area is second-growth timber. Management of these harvested 

acres will improve stand conditions for future timber production and 

increase forage for deer and moose. Second-growth stands are 

candidates for thinning and pruning. 

Following timber harvest, natural regeneration often results in stands 

with too many trees per acre, reducing individual tree growth and 

shading out understory vegetation that may be valuable to some 

wildlife species. Thinning is designed to improve future tree growth 

by reducing stand density, thus reducing the competition between trees 

for sunlight. Increased sunlight as a result of thinning also allows for 

greater shrub and forb growth, thereby increasing wildlife forage. 

In older harvested stands (35 to 45 years or older), as the canopy 

progressively closes and sunlight is virtually absent, the understory 

vegetation becomes suppressed. In general if stands are not thinned by 

the age of 40 years, the thinning slash is extremely thick due to the 

size of the cut trees (some as large as 6 inches in diameter and 30 feet 

in height). The slash does not come into contact with the ground, and 

decomposes slowly. Consequently, sunlight would still be limited due 

to the accumulation of thinning slash, and germination of forage 

species would be limited for an extended period of time. 

Conversely, it is too early to thin when canopy cover is relatively 

sparse with many open spaces between trees. At this stage, there is 

probably abundant forage, and thinning would probably not provide 

much more forage. In addition, new hemlock regeneration could 

become established after the thinning and suppress some release of the 

forage. When thinned too early, trees have not expressed dominance, 

making it difficult to select which trees to cut while thinning. 

The first thinning program for harvested stands in the Central 

Kupreanof Project Area began in 1987, when stands were 

approximately 10 to 15 years old. Currently stand thinning is 

prescribed at 25 – 30 years of age. Since 1986, stands have been 

periodically surveyed to determine the need for thinning. 

Approximately 1,110 acres of the 4,616 acres (this includes historical 

harvest that took place on land not classified as suitable) that have 

been harvested on all lands in the Central Kupreanof Project Area have 

been thinned to date. The remaining unthinned acres are not eligible 

for thinning at this time because the stands are either too young for 

thinning to be effective or between tree competition has not yet 

developed enough to warrant thinning, due to site conditions. 

It is not known if thinning will have an application in uneven-aged 

stands resulting from partial harvest. Stocking surveys and additional 

analysis will be done as these stands develop. 

Thinning 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 133 

As a harvested stand develops to the point where the trees are too large 

to thin and the understory is stressed but able to be released, pruning 

may be considered. It may provide enough indirect sunlight 

penetration through the canopy to maintain the understory vegetation 

for wildlife forage. Pruning also increases the value of each tree, by 

providing knot-free wood as the tree grows. Pruning will allow the 

maximum volume to be produced in the stand while still maintaining 

the vegetative understory. 

Effects of Alternatives and Environmental 

Consequences 

The structure of the forest will be affected by timber harvest. The 

effects will vary by the silvicultural prescription and the number of 

acres harvested. Removal of trees in patches will result in small 

openings that will regenerate to second-growth forest. Removal of 

trees dispersed throughout the stand will result in older trees 

interspersed with the regeneration of young trees. Clearcut harvest 

will result in the creation of primarily second-growth stands with or 

without older residual trees. Forest health concerns, including the 

removal of trees with disease or that face imminent mortality, can be 

used as factors determining which trees to harvest. The removal of 

trees that are dead or in poor health from the effects of Alaska yellowcedar decline, dwarf mistletoe or other diseases can improve the health 

and vigor of stands. Some minor windthrow will likely occur in and 

around harvested stands. 

Vegetation and forest health would not be affected by management 

activities. Tree growth and mortality would continue to progress 

naturally. Other forestlands with land use designations that allow 

timber harvest would be needed to meet the objective of providing 

timber for public consumption to meet market demand. 

In this alternative 2,031 acres would be converted to even-aged 

management. Forest health and commercial productivity would be 

improved by the removal of dwarf mistletoe-infected trees, trees 

infected by disease, and by creating younger, faster-growing forests. 

Two-aged management will be prescribed on 33 acres in this 

alternative. A minimum of 50 percent of the basal area will be 

retained in patches or individual trees generally located along 

boundaries and setting breaks. This will create a stand of two or more 

distinct age (size) classed. 

An additional 442 acres would be managed with an uneven-aged 

system by removing up to 40 percent of the basal area in individual 

trees dispersed throughout the stand. This would retain some of the 

old-growth characteristics of the forest (older trees, wider variation in 

Pruning 

Alternative 1 

Alternative 2 
3 Environment and Effects 

134  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

tree sizes and spacing, decadent trees, multiple canopy layers), but 

result in a forest with lower net commercial volume. 

This alternative is in the mid range for impacts to the number of acres 

in the action alternatives in the Central Kupreanof Project Area. 

In this alternative 3,127 acres would be converted to even-aged 

management. Forest health and commercial productivity would be 

improved by the removal of dwarf mistletoe-infected trees, trees 

infected by disease, and by creating younger, faster-growing forests. 

An additional 520 acres would be managed in an uneven-aged system 

by removing up to 40 percent of the basal area in individual trees 

dispersed throughout the stand. This would retain some of the oldgrowth characteristics of the forest (older trees, wider variation in tree 

sizes and spacing, decadent trees, multiple canopy layers), but result in 

a forest with lower net commercial volume. 

This alternative would impact the highest number of acres in the action 

alternatives in the Central Kupreanof Project Area. 

In this alternative 1,327 acres would be converted to even-aged 

management. Forest health and commercial productivity would be 

improved by the removal of dwarf mistletoe-infected trees, trees 

infected by disease, and by creating younger, faster-growing forests. 

This alternative would impact the smallest number of acres in the 

action alternatives in the Central Kupreanof Project Area. 

Alternative 3 

Alternative 4 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 135 

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

Alternative 

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 

Proposed Timber Harvest for this Project and Cumulative Effects 

Even-aged 

Management 0 2,031 3,127 1,327 

Two-aged 

Management 0 33 0 0 

Acres of 

harvest 

units 

proposed 

for this 

project 

Uneven-aged 

Management 0 442 520 0 

Effects on Suitable Forest Land 

Acres of Suitable Forest 31,622 31,622 31,622 31,622 

Acres of Previous 

Harvest on Suitable 

Forest 

4,233 4,233 4,233 4,233 

% of Suitable Forest 

Acres Proposed for this 

Project 

0 8 12 4 

Cumulative % of Suitable 

Forest Acres Managed 13 21 25 17 

Cumulative Effects 

The catalog of past events documents a conversion of 4,622 acres from 

old-growth forest to second-growth forest within the Central 

Kupreanof Project Area and approximately 4,233 acres of these lands 

are on forested land within the suitable timber base. Forest-wide, 

existing second-growth forest within the suitable timber base, has been 

scheduled as part of the timber supply. Thinning of second-growth or 

conversion to uneven-aged management may occur. All of the 

proposed harvest units that have an uneven-aged management 

prescription have subsequent entries planned. The Central Kupreanof 

EIS is the only EIS on the current five-year timber sale plan for VCUs 

4260, 4271, 4290, 4360, and 4380. 

Since 1910 there has been approximately 41,511 acres of timber 

harvested on National Forest and Private Lands on Kupreanof Island. 

The Tongass Five Year Sale Plan shows a potential for two additional 

planned EISs on Kupreanof Island. One EIS is planned for the 

Lindenberg Peninsula and the other is planned for the Bohemia 

Mountain area. The Tongass five year sale plan is updated annually. 

The recommendation from the updated Road Analysis Process (RAP) 

includes road closures. The proposed closure of National Forest 

System roads in the project area has the potential to increase the cost 

Past Timber 

Harvest within the 

Study Area 

Past and Future 

Timber Harvest 

on Kupreanof 

Island 

Road Analysis 

Process (RAP) 
3 Environment and Effects 

136  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

of second entries in the stands managed under uneven-aged 

silvicultural systems and could also increase the cost of regeneration 

surveys and intermediate treatments. The road segment that is 

recommended for decommissioning will return to natural vegetation 

over time. These recommendations will be analyzed in the District’s 

ATM process, and final road management decisions will be made. 

The implementation of a Microsale program would have no significant 

effect on Silviculture. 

Currently there are approximately 325 acres of precommercial 

thinning, or pruning to accomplish in young growth stands that could 

potentially be done under a stewardship contract on the Kake road 

system. These stands are approximately 25 years old and an individual 

prescription will be written for each stand to identify species and 

spacing of the leave trees. There is the possibility of using the cut 

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

proposed projects should have no effect on the vegetation resource on 

the suitable forest acres within the project area. 

Microsales 

Effects of Projects 

Common to all 

Action 

Alternatives 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 137 

Soils and Geology 

Introduction 

Soils form the foundation of the forest ecosystem and have evolved 

with the climate and vegetation. The integrity and stability of a soil 

determine the long-term productivity of the vegetation. The region’s 

cool growing season and abundant rainfall greatly influence soil 

characteristics. Under these conditions, organic material decomposes 

slowly and tends to accumulate. Soils are formed in either mineral 

materials (sand, silt, and clay) or organic material (decayed plant 

materials). 

The parent material on Kupreanof Island is largely dominated by 

basaltic and andesitic volcanic materials. Rocks identified include 

breccia, tuff, rhyolite, minor carbonates, and also include 

metamorphosed rocks such as gneiss, greenstone, and greenschist 

(Nowacki et al. 2001). 

The Bureau of Land Management’s mining claim report documents 

many prospects and claims identified on Kupreanof Island. The project 

area has four known prospects or lode sites: an area east of Big John 

Bay, an area south of Kupreanof Mountain, Taylor Creek and Upper 

Taylor Creek, and Indian Point. Within these areas minor amounts of 

precious and base metals have been identified. Included are low levels 

of gold, silver, lead, mercury, pyrite, copper, molybdenum, nickel, 

cobalt, and zinc (Still et al. 2002). 

Using the USFS GIS database 2,685 acres of karst have been identified 

on Kupreanof Island. Ten percent (279 acres) of those acres identified 

exist within the project area. Twelve acres occur in three proposed 

units (309, 310, and 312). Field reconnaissance found no signs of karst 

features (sink holes or caves) in these units; therefore these karst areas 

are classified as low vulnerability and require no special management 

(Forest Plan 2008, Standards and Guidelines, pg 4-23). 

In Southeast Alaska, where sunlight is often limited and temperatures 

are cool, it is not uncommon for 250 years to elapse before a weak soil 

horizon forms (Krosse 1993, pg 39). 

Four soil orders exist in the project area: histosols, spodosols, 

inceptisols, and entisols. Histosols dominate, covering over half of 

the project area. Spodosols account for a third of the area, leaving a 

fraction identified as inceptisols and entisols. 

Histosols are organic soils that are typically poorly drained. Many 

histosols fall within the wetland category. Although these soils 

contain deep organics and nutrients, timber productivity is generally 

Geology 

Minerals 

Karst 

Soil 
3 Environment and Effects 

138  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

low due to poor drainage and anaerobic conditions (Cowardin et al. 

1992). 

From a resource management perspective, soil productivity (i.e., a 

soil’s ability to support vegetative growth) and the potential loss of 

soils or off-site effects from erosion and landslides are the principle 

concerns. The productivity of soils directly or indirectly affects the 

productivity of other forest resources. Tree growth, wildlife and fish 

habitat quality, and recreation uses and potentials depend in part on the 

quality of soils. In Southeast Alaska, soil productivity, in terms of tree 

growth, is high on well-drained soils (e.g., on steep slopes and in karst 

areas) and decreases as latitude and elevation increase and as drainage 

becomes poorer. 

In this project area the most productive sites are associated with 

mineral soils (spodosols, entisols and inceptisols) found on welldrained floodplains. They are also located where slope gradients are 

above 35 percent in the mid and southern sections of the project area. 

Soil disturbance is an unavoidable consequence of timber harvest and 

road construction. The level of disturbance varies with management 

practices and site characteristics. 

Surface erosion occurs when soil is detached and transported by water. 

Most undisturbed soils in the project area are resistant to surface 

erosion due to a relatively thick, organic surface layer, which absorbs 

large quantities of water and protects the soil from displacement. If 

this layer is removed, the underlying soil is subject to erosion. 

Erosion can occur on a minute scale (raindrop splash erosion) or on a 

large scale (mass movement) such as a landslide. The type of yarding 

equipment used will influence the erosion potential. Helicopteryarding causes the least amount of disturbance to the soil surface. 

Shovel-yarding usually does not disturb the soil surface if slash is used 

under the tracks of the machine. Cable-yarding may expose some 

mineral soil where trees are partially suspended, but the effects are 

minimized through log suspension requirements and the application of 

BMP 13.9. 

Mass movement is the dominant process of natural erosion and slope 

reduction in Southeast Alaska (Swanston 1969). Mass movement 

occurs where the topography is steep and the soil materials are 

weakened to the point that they can no longer resist the downslope 

component of gravity. In Southeast Alaska, areas of natural mass 

wasting are associated with steep slopes within narrow V-notch 

tributary drainages and the steep, upper sideslopes of U-shaped 

valleys. 

A slope’s stability is influenced by soil strength, soil depth, 

groundwater accumulation, slope gradient, and vegetation 

Soil productivity 

Soil Disturbance 

Mass Movement 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 139 

characteristics. Visible field indicators of unstable soils include slide 

scarps, jack-strawed trees, and a distinct change to relatively young 

plants or pioneer species. 

Mass movement indices (MMIs) have been assigned to each soil 

mapping unit in the project area according to the relative potential for 

mass movement. The indices are based primarily on slope, but other 

factors such as drainage, bedrock characteristics, soil characteristics, 

existing landslides, and vegetation are also considered. Very high 

hazard soils are subject to additional investigation prior to or during 

the sale preparation. Identified unstable soils are avoided during sale 

preparation. Table 3-40 displays acres of proposed harvest by soil 

mass movement index for each alternative. 

At the Forest Plan level, slope gradients of 72 percent or more are 

removed from the tentatively suitable timber base due to high risk of 

soil mass movement. At the project planning level, the Forest 

Supervisor or District Ranger may approve timber harvest on slopes 

greater than 72 percent or more on a case-by-case basis. Their decision 

is based on the results of a Soil Stability Investigation Report, an onsite analysis of slope stability and an assessment of potential impacts 

of accelerated erosion on downslope and downstream fish habitat. 

To meet Forest Plan requirements, Soil Stability Investigation Reports 

for proposed harvest units with slopes greater than 72 percent have 

been completed and are filed in the project record. As a result of these 

investigations, two unit boundaries were adjusted (Units 6 and 502), 

full suspension was recommended for one proposed timber harvest 

unit (Unit 261), a minimum of partial suspension was recommended 

for three proposed timber harvest units (Units 5, 900 and 901) and 

road locations in or adjacent to four proposed timber harvest were 

modified (Units 233, 234, 275 and 276). 

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

MMI Class Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 

1– Low 0 764 1,295 631 

2 – Moderate 0 1,288 1,701 577 

3 – High 0 442 634 119 

4 – Very Highb 0 10 17 0 

Total Acres 0 2,504 3,647 1,327 

a Variations in acres are the result of rounding. 

 b Soil stability analyses determined these soils to be stable. 
3 Environment and Effects 

140  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

Landslides 

In the project area 16 landslides were identified using the USFS GIS 

landslide database. The slides identified occupy 0.03 percent (42 

acres) of the project area and are inventoried as having occurred 

between 1960 and 1995. Fourteen of the slides are not associated with 

timber harvest and occurred on all MMIs. The two slides that did 

occur after a harvest are smaller in size (traveling less distance) and on 

lower gradients than the naturally induced slides (less than 52 percent 

gradient) (Table 3-41). 

Most landslides occur during or after heavy rainfall when soils become 

saturated (Swanston 1995). The areas typically considered hazardous 

or most prone to landslides are those with steep slopes and soils with 

distinct slip-planes, such as when compacted glacial till or bedrock are 

sloping parallel to the surface (Rib and Liang 1978). During heavy 

rainfall these areas can fail, especially if previously disturbed by 

blasting for rock pits, road pioneering, side casting of excavated 

material, or ground-based logging. 

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

Project Area that are associated with Harvested Areas and those that 

Occurred Naturally 

Number 

of 

Slides 

Total 

Acres 

from 

slides 

Average 

Acres 

per 

slide 

For the 

Central 

Kupreanof 

Project Area

Harvest associated 

slides 2 1.4 0.7 

Natural slides 

(non-harvest) areas 14 40.9 2.9 

Natural 

slides are 4.1 

times larger 

than those 

associated 

with 

harvests. 

Soil quality standards are a means to quantify detrimental soil 

conditions which in turn have long-term effects on soil productivity. 

The Forest Service Manual states that managed activities such as 

timber harvest and temporary road construction cannot cause actual 

ground surface disturbance to more than 15 percent of the activity area 

(FSM 2554). The activity area for this analysis includes the proposed 

harvest units. 

The number of acres disturbed by timber harvest is estimated at three 

percent of the total acres harvested (Landwehr and Nowacki 1999). 

Disturbance due to temporary roads is based on a 40-foot road corridor 

(to account for both cutslope and fillslope) and is equivalent to 4.85 

Soil Quality 

Standards 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 141 

acres per mile of road. Soil disturbances associated with system (NFS) 

road construction are not considered in the calculation of detrimental 

soil conditions because system roads are removed from the productive 

land base (Soil Quality Standards). 

Harvest has occurred on three percent of the project area (4,615 acres). 

Assuming that the soil on three percent of these acres is disturbed due 

to previous harvest, approximately 139 acres of disturbed soils exist in 

the project area. This estimate is based on soil quality monitoring data 

collected on the Tongass as reported by Landwehr and Nowacki 

(1999), which found approximately three percent detrimental soil 

conditions in areas where partial suspension or shovel yarding was 

used. 

Resource Analysis Area 

The proposed harvest units are the spatial analysis area used to analyze 

direct and indirect effects on soil. The project area (VCUs 426, 427.1, 

429, 436, and 438) is the spatial analysis area used to analyze 

cumulative effects on soil. 

The unit of measure used to assess direct, indirect and cumulative 

effects to the soil resource is acres of long-term soil disturbance. Soil 

disturbance may be a result of timber harvest, temporary road 

construction, mass movement or landslides. 

To summarize, effects are estimated based on the following measures: 

 Estimated acres of detrimental soil conditions in harvest units 

due to temporary road construction and yarding activities, 

 Acres of timber harvest on slopes over 72 percent, acres of 

timber harvest by MMI Class and an estimate of future 

landslides acres as a result of management activities, and 

 Cumulative acres of soil removed from productivity by roads, 

detrimental soil conditions within harvest units, and landslides. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Soil productivity would decrease due to construction of roads because 

land is taken “out of production” (i.e., removed, covered over, or 

compacted). Erosion would increase from the construction of roads 

because of the destabilizing effect of cuts, fills, and drainage 

alterations, and the lack of protective vegetation cover on road 

surfaces and other disturbed areas. However, the area of detrimental 

soil disturbance from new temporary road construction within the 
3 Environment and Effects 

142  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

proposed units (7 acres) and timber harvest (104 acres) is estimated to 

be three percent of the harvest unit acres - well below the 15 percent 

standard (FSM 2554).1

 

Rock quarries, similar to system roads, are part of the long-term 

infrastructure and are not considered detrimental soil disturbances. 

However, it is recognized that any new rock quarries developed or 

expanded to support new construction and road maintenance will 

result in an irretrievable loss of soil resources. The area footprint 

created by existing quarry expansion, or the development of a new 

quarry, will not exceed 5 acres. 

The short-term risk of erosion and loss of soil productivity associated 

with temporary road construction and logging would be minimized in 

all alternatives by avoiding unstable slopes and implementing best 

management practices. These practices include: (1) logging system 

designs specific to each unit to minimize soil disturbance and (2) 

intensive timber sale contract administration to ensure compliance. 

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

Proposed Harvest Units as a result of Project Implementation 

Soil disturbance 

activity Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Ground yarding1 0 75 109 40 

Proposed temporary 

road construction 2 0 4 7 3 

Estimated acres of 

landslides3 0 0.8 1.1 0.4 

Total acres of new 

detrimental soil 

conditions 

0 79.8 117.1 43.4 

1 Estimated disturbance acres from ground yarding are calculated by multiplying 

total harvest acres by 3 percent (Landwehr and Nowacki 1999). 

2 Estimated disturbance acres from temporary road construction is calculated by 

multiplying proposed temporary miles by 4.85 (to account for a 40-foot road corridor 

including cutslope and fillslope). 

3Landslide totals are an estimate for the next 35 years. 

 All alternatives are expected to meet or exceed Forest Plan Soil 

Standards and Guidelines. In other words, a minimum of 85 percent of 

the harvest units and project area should be left in a condition of 

acceptable productivity potential for trees and other managed 

vegetation following harvest activities 

 

1

 This is assuming that the alternative proposing the most road construction and 

harvest is selected (Alternative 3) and 3,677 acres are harvested using partial 

suspension or shovel yarding. 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 143 

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

Kupreanof Project Area and Disturbance that would result from Project 

Implementation 

Existing Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 

Detrimental Disturbance (acres) 

Temporary 

road 731

 0 19 30 11 

Yarding 

disturbances2 138 0 71 104 40 

Landslides3 42 0 0.8 1.1 0.4 

Total 

detrimental 253 0 90.8 135.1 51.4 

Other disturbance (acres) 

NFS road 3104

 0 34 122 0 

Total 

disturbance 563 0 124.8 257.1 51.4 

1

Estimate is based on 15 miles of closed road within the project area x 4.85 

acres/mile. 

2

Shovel and cable yarding estimated at 3% disturbance and helicopter yarding 

estimated at 2% based on Landwehr and Nowacki’s work (1999). Existing yarding 

disturbance is acres of past harvest x 3%. 

3

 Landslide totals for Alternatives 1-4 are an estimate for the next 35 years. 

4 Estimate includes 64 miles of existing open road within the project area x 4.85 

acres/mile. 

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

and MMI Class within the Central Kupreanof Project Area 

MMI Class Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 

1 – Low 0 4.6 11.9 1.5 

2 - Moderate 0 5.6 13.8 0.7 

3 – High 0 1.5 5.3 0.1 

4 – Very high1 0 0 0.2 0 

1 Soil stability analyses determined these soils to be stable. 

Under Alternative 1 no timber harvest or road building would take 

place and no soil disturbances would be caused by new management 

activities. Landslides would continue to occur in unharvested areas and 

existing harvested areas. Vegetation in harvested areas would continue 

to grow and add stability to soils on those sites. Detrimental soil 

conditions would remain within Region 10 Soil Quality Standards. 

Of the three action alternatives, this alternative would have the second 

greatest effect to soil productivity. 

Alternative 1 

Alternative 2 
3 Environment and Effects 

144  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

The total area of detrimental soil disturbance within the proposed 

harvest units would be approximately 80 acres due to timber harvest, 

temporary road construction and landslides that result from timber 

harvest activities (Table 3-42). All harvest units would meet Region 10 

Soil Quality Standards. 

Approximately10 acres of harvest is proposed on very high hazard 

soils in Unit 901 (Table 3-40). A slope stability investigation found 

these acres within the unit boundary to be stable. Helicopter yarding is 

proposed on these soils. 

No temporary road construction is proposed on MMI-4 soils and 1.5 

miles are proposed on MMI-3 soils (Table 3-44). 

Of the three action alternatives, this alternative would have the greatest 

effect to soil productivity. 

The total area of detrimental soil disturbance would be about 117 acres 

due to timber harvest, temporary road construction and landslides that 

result from timber harvest activities (Table 3-42). All harvest units 

would meet Region 10 Soil Quality Standards. 

Approximately17 acres of timber harvest is proposed on very high 

hazard soils in Units 261 and 901. Slope stability investigations found 

these acres within the unit boundaries to be stable. Helicopter yarding 

is proposed on these soils. 

Approximately 0.2 mile of temporary road construction is proposed on 

MMI-4 soils and 5.3 miles are proposed on MMI-3 soils (Table 3-44). 

Of the three action alternatives, this alternative would have the least 

effect to soil productivity. 

The total area of detrimental soil disturbance would be about 43 acres 

due to timber harvest, temporary road construction and landslides that 

result from timber harvest activities (Table 3-42). All harvest units 

would meet Region 10 Soil Quality Standards. 

No harvest or temporary roads are proposed on MMI-4 soils in this 

alternative. One-tenth of a mile of temporary road is proposed on 

MMI-3 soils (Table 3-44). 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects analysis area for soils is the project area. The 

Catalog of Events for Kupreanof Island (a list of projects by year and 

VCU that have been implemented on Kupreanof Island) was a tool 

used during this analysis (Appendix C). Cumulative effects of the 

proposed actions on long-term soil productivity are directly related to 

the amount of soil disturbance that occurs through time as a result of 

Alternative 3 

Alternative 4 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 145 

natural events, temporary road construction, and resource 

management. 

Detrimental soil disturbance incurred from past management activities 

(temporary road construction and timber harvest) and natural events 

(landslides) cover approximately 253 acres or less than one percent of 

the project area. Existing road system roads have disturbed about 310 

acres of soil, also less than one percent of the project area. Alternative 

1 proposes no new timber harvest or construction of roads. No 

additional acres of detrimental soil are expected to result from the 

implementation of reasonably foreseeable future actions. The project 

area meets R10 Soil Quality Standards (FSM 2554.03-10). 

Landslide disturbance would continue at an estimated rate of 1.2 

acres/year, totaling 42.3 acres, over a 35-year period in the project area 

(Swanston and Marion 1991). Vegetation in previously harvested areas 

would continue to grow and add root mass and stability to the soil, 

thus landslide frequency would likely decline over time in the 

harvested areas (Brardinoni et al. 2002). 

In addition to the impacts described for Alternative 1, the 

implementation of Alternative 2 would include the effects described in 

the Direct and Indirect Effects section. Cumulative detrimental soil 

conditions from all past, present and future activities would be about 

344 acres (Table 3-43). All harvest units and the project area would 

meet R10 Soil Quality Standards as proposed. 

Based on Swanton and Marion’s (1991) estimate rates, landslide 

disturbance in the project area would continue at an estimated rate of 

0.02 acre/year, totaling about 0.8 acres over a 35-year period. 

In addition to the impacts described for Alternative 1, the 

implementation of Alternative 3 would include the effects described in 

the Direct and Indirect Effects section. Cumulative detrimental soil 

conditions from all past, present and future activities would be about 

388 acres (Table 3-43). All harvest units and the project area would 

meet R10 Soil Quality Standards as proposed. 

Based on Swanton and Marion’s (1991) estimate rates, landslide 

disturbance in the project area would continue at an estimated rate of 

0.03 acre/year, totaling about 1.1 acres over a 35-year period. 

In addition to the impacts described for Alternative 1, the 

implementation of Alternative 4 would include the effects described in 

the Direct and Indirect Effects section. Cumulative detrimental soil 

conditions from all past, present and future activities would be about 

304 acres (Table 3-43). All harvest units and the project area would 

meet R10 Soil Quality Standards as proposed. 

Alternative 1 

Alternative 2 

Alternative 3 

Alternative 4 
3 Environment and Effects 

146  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

Based on Swanton and Marion’s (1991) estimate rates, landslide 

disturbance in the project area would continue at an estimated rate of 

0.01 acre/year, totaling about 0.4 acre over a 35-year period. 

By implementing the BMPs outlined on the unit and road cards, all 

units will meet Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and Regional 

standards. 

Actions common to all alternatives 

In conjunction with the analysis of the project area for timber harvest, 

the Petersburg Ranger District is conducting a road analysis on the 

Kake road system to identify the minimum road system needed for 

safe and efficient travel and for administration, utilization and 

management of National Forest System lands. Recommendations for 

road storage, decommissioning, closure and maintenance schedules 

will be analyzed in a separate NEPA analysis (ATM). 

Effects of Projects Common to all Action 

Alternatives 

The storage of roads and the associated removal of culverts and 

bridges on the Kake road system will help improve drainage patterns 

and eliminate plugged culverts, stream diversions and the risk of road 

failures at stream crossings. Implementation of these projects is 

dependent on the analysis and decisions made in another NEPA 

analysis, the District’s ATM plan. 

The maintenance of four recreational hiking trails should not have any 

negative effects on soil. In contrast, they will likely reduce erosion and 

soil loss. 

No effects to soils are expected as a result of maintenance work on Big 

John Bay Cabin. 

Handpulling invasive plants will disturb soil in the immediate 

proximity, but no long-lasting negative effects are expected. 

Precommerical thinning 325 acres of young growth stands to benefit 

wildlife is not expected to negatively affect soil resources. 

Any new rock quarries developed or expanded to support road 

maintenance will result in an irretrievable loss of soil resources. With 

the expansion of an existing quarry, or the development of a new one, 

the area footprint will not exceed 5 acres. In general, scheduled road 

maintenance will be benefit soil resources by maintaining drainage and 

reducing the risk of road failures. 

The implementation of a Microsale program will have no effects on 

soils due to the program’s limited scale. 

Fisheries/ 

Hydrology 

Projects 

Recreation 

Invasive Plants 

Silviculture and 

Wildlife 

Transportation 

Microsales 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 147 

Wetlands 

Introduction 

Wetlands are sites which generally have both saturated soils for a 

portion of the growing year and vegetation that is adapted to wet sites. 

They are valued for their physical, chemical and biological functions. 

Wetlands moderate flooding, reduce runoff and sedimentation, provide 

wildlife and plant habitat, and may help sustain stream flow during dry 

periods. Physical functions may include flood conveyance, surface and 

ground water regulation, sediment retention, and temperature 

moderation. Chemical functions may include nutrient storage, pH 

moderation, and carbon storage. Biological functions include habitat 

for terrestrial, aquatic, and marine plants and animals. In addition, 

forested wetlands are an important component of the forest land base. 

The Forest Service is required by Executive Order 11990 and Section 

404 of the Clean Water Act to preserve and enhance the natural and 

beneficial values of wetlands wherever practicable when carrying out 

its land management responsibilities. Executive Order 11990 and 

subsequent regulations also require federal agencies to avoid new road 

construction on wetlands whenever there is a practicable, 

environmentally-preferred alternative. 

Due to the extensive nature of wetlands in Southeast Alaska, it is 

impossible to avoid all wetlands during road planning and 

construction. Instead the strategy is to avoid wetland types that are 

scarce in the immediate landscape, and/or those wetlands recognized 

as having high value, such as estuaries and tall sedge fens (TLMP 

2008, 4-88). Where a wetland cannot be avoided, the impacts are to be 

minimized. Best Management Practices (BMP) 12.5 provides guidance 

for wetland identification, evaluation and protection. 

Affected Environment 

The Central Kupreanof project area contains a larger proportion of 

wetlands than much of Southeast Alaska, about 66 percent. Five 

different wetland types make up the 100,333 wetland acres found in 

the project area (Table 3-45). Resource values associated with these 

wetlands vary, depending on biological qualities, proximity to water 

bodies, and the position on the landscape. 

Table 3-45 displays the acres of the five wetland habitat types found in 

the project area. Specific descriptions for the wetland categories are 

briefly described below. 

Regionally, estuarine wetlands are considered high-value wetlands. 

Estuaries are intertidal zones where brackish saltwater mixes with 

Estuarine 

Wetlands 
3 Environment and Effects 

148  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

fresh water from rivers or streams. They provide high value habitat for 

vegetation, fish and wildlife. There are two types of estuarine 

wetlands: emergent wetlands in the upper tidal zone, and intertidal, 

regularly flooded zones. The emergent wetlands are characterized by 

grasses and sedges, especially tufted hairgrass, Lynghy’s sedge and 

dune wild rye in the upper tidal zone. The intertidal, regularly flooded 

zone is comprised largely of aquatic algal beds and rocky or 

unconsolidated shore. The Forest Service only manages the wetlands 

above mean high tide, as it is not chartered to manage ocean area 

(TLMP 2008). 

Sedge fens, characterized by a diverse community of sedges 

dominated by Sitka sedge, with a variety of forbs and occasional 

stunted trees (usually spruce or hemlock,) are considered high-value 

wetlands. Soils are typically deep organic muck, often with thin layers 

of alluvial soil material. They occur in landscape positions where they 

receive nutrient-rich runoff from adjacent slopes creating somewhat 

richer conditions than bogs or sphagnum muskegs. These wetlands 

function as areas for recharge of groundwater and streams, deposition 

and storage of sediment and nutrients, and for waterfowl and terrestrial 

wildlife habitat, including black bear, mink, river otter, and beaver. 

Many sedge fens contain beaver ponds that often provide high quality 

waterfowl and salmon rearing habitat. 

Forested wetlands include a number of forested plant communities 

with hemlock, cedar, or mixed conifer overstory, and a young tree, 

shrub, and herbaceous layer understory. Forested wetlands are 

typically on poorly or very poorly drained hydric mineral soils, but 

generally have woody vegetation that exceeds 20 feet. They are most 

common on broad glacial valley bottoms and on gently sloping hill 

slopes or benches. These wetlands function as recharge areas for 

groundwater and streams, and for deposition of sediment and nutrients. 

Some forested wetlands support merchantable timber stands. 

These wetlands are characterized by small patches of muskegs and 

forested wetlands (as described above) arranged in a mosaic pattern on 

the landscape. These areas have vegetative properties of both muskegs 

and forested wetlands, but function somewhat differently with respect 

to habitat due to their small size and spatial arrangement. 

Moss muskeg wetlands are most commonly found in broad valley 

bottoms and on rounded hilltops. They are dominated by sphagnum 

moss, with a wide variety of other plants adapted to very wet, acidic, 

organic soils and typically contain stunted lodgepole pine and western 

hemlock less than 15 feet tall. These wetlands function as areas for 

recharge of groundwater and streams and for deposition and storage of 

sediment and nutrients. They are a valuable source of biological and 

vegetative diversity. 

Emergent Short 

Sedge Wetlands 

Forested 

Wetlands 

Muskeg/Forested 

Wetland Mosaic 

Moss Muskeg 

Wetlands 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 149 

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

Area. 

Wetland Type Acres in Project 

Area 

Percent of Project 

Area 

Muskeg/forested wetland 

mosaic 62,327 40.9 

Moss muskeg 22,396 14.7 

Forested 14,983 9.8 

Emergent short sedge 605 0.4 

Estuarine 22 0.01 

Total Wetland Acres 100,333 65.81% 

Management Activities on Wetlands 

Many of the forested wetland soils are capable of supporting forests 

suitable for timber production and were included in the suitable timber 

base during the analysis of the Forest Plan. However, site productivity 

for tree growth is generally lower than on sites with better drainage. 

Regeneration is expected to occur within five years, just as with other 

forested sites. 

Harvesting timber from forested wetlands causes a temporary increase 

in soil moisture until equivalent transpiration and interception surfaces 

are reestablished. Table 3-46 displays the number of wetland acres 

previously harvested within the project area as well as the number of 

acres proposed in the harvest units. 

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

Harvest within the Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest Area 

Wetland Type Existing 

Managed 

Stands 

Alt 

1 

Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Emergent short sedge 0 0 0 0 0 

Forested 

wetland/moss muskeg 

mosaic 

163 0 13 13 8 

Forested 391 0 174 310 101 

Moss muskeg 2 0 1 1 0 

Total Harvest 556 0 188 324 109 

Of the 79 existing miles of road in the project area, 9.5 miles (12 

percent) cross wetlands (Table 3-47). This equates to 57 acres of 

Timber Harvest 

Road 

Construction 
3 Environment and Effects 

150  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

wetland being replaced by roads within the project area, assuming a 

40-foot road corridor including cutslope and fillslope (Table 3-48). 

The existing roads do not cross any estuary or tall sedge fen areas (i.e., 

high value wetlands). However, a 0.1 mile section of existing road 

crosses an emergent short sedge fen (0.4 acre). 

The amount, frequency and distribution of wetlands in the project area 

make it impossible to avoid new road construction across forested 

wetlands. 

Table 3-47 displays the miles of proposed road that would cross 

wetlands by alternative and Table 3-48 shows the same data as acres 

lost to road construction. 

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

Road Type Wetland type Existing Alt 

1 

Alt 

2 

Alt 

3 

Alt 

4 

Emergent short 

sedge n/a 0 0 0 0 

Forested n/a 0 0.06 0.16 0.06

Muskeg/forested 

wetland mosaic n/a 0 0.13 0.40 0.13

Reconstructed

Moss muskeg n/a 0 0.04 0.04 0.04

Emergent short 

sedge n/a 0 0 0 0 

Forested n/a 0 0.09 0.21 0.05

Muskeg/forested 

wetland mosaic n/a 0 0.1 0.11 0.05

Temporary 

Moss muskeg n/a 0 0 0 0 

Emergent short 

sedge 0.1 0 0 0 0 

Forested 2.1 0 0.14 0.31 0 

Muskeg/forested 

wetland mosaic 6.5 0 0.1 0.57 0 

System 

Moss muskeg 0.8 0 0.13 0.2 0 

Total miles of road crossing 

wetlands 9.5 0 0.8 2.0 0.34
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 151 

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

lost to Road Construction1

. 

Road Type Wetland type Past 

losses

Alt 

1 

Alt 

2 

Alt 

3 

Alt 

4 

Foreseeable 

losses 

Emergent short 

sedge n/a 0 0 0 0 0 

Forested n/a 0 0.3 0.8 0.3 0 

Muskeg/forested 

wetland mosaic n/a 0 0.6 1.9 0.6 0 

Reconstructed

Moss muskeg n/a 0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0 

Emergent short 

sedge n/a 0 0 0 0 0 

Forested n/a 0 0.4 1.0 0.3 0 

Muskeg/forested 

wetland mosaic n/a 0 0.5 0.5 0.3 0 

Temporary 

Moss muskeg n/a 0 0 0 0 0 

Emergent short 

sedge 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 

Forested 10.2 0 0.7 1.5 0 0 

Muskeg/forested 

wetland mosaic 31.5 0 0.5 2.8 0 0 

System 

Moss muskeg 3.9 0 0.6 1.0 0 0 

Total acres of wetlands lost to 

road construction 46.0 0 3.8 9.7 1.7 0 

1Estimated disturbance acres from road construction is calculated by multiplying 

miles by 4.85 (to account for a 40-foot road corridor including cutslope and 

fillslope). 

Executive Order 11990 and subsequent regulations require federal 

agencies to avoid new road construction on wetlands whenever there is 

a practicable, environmentally-preferred alternative. For instance, 

building road across wetlands is environmentally preferred when 

compared to road construction across steep slopes. The forested 

wetland acres on the Central Kupreanof project area often include 

stands of commercial timber and are managed for their timber 

resources. The most economical way to access this timber involves 

building road. 

All action alternatives and individual road locations avoid wetlands to 

the extent practicable, proposing less than 10 percent of the project 

area’s temporary and NFS road construction on wetlands. More 

specifically, 5.7 percent, 5 percent and 9.1 percent of all proposed 

roads cross wetlands in Alternative 2, 3 and 4, respectively. Site 

specific wetland avoidance is documented on the road cards for NFS 

road segments and the unit cards for temporary road segments. 

Wetland 

Avoidance 
3 Environment and Effects 

152  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

Resource Analysis Area 

The spatial analysis area for direct, indirect and cumulative effects is 

the same as the project area (VCUs 426, 427.1, 429, 436, and 438). 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Each action alternative includes wetlands within proposed harvest 

units (Table 3-46). The effects of timber harvest on the beneficial 

functions of wetlands, in most cases, are expected to be temporary. 

Harvest has occurred and is planned in all but one of the wetland types 

(emergent short sedge) present in the project area. The wetland type 

with the most proposed harvest is forested wetlands (Table 3-46). 

The greatest direct effect to wetlands would be the placement of fill 

material and drainage structures associated with the construction of 

new roads. This is a long-term effect on the wetland area covered by 

the road prism. When possible, roads are located to avoid wetlands. 

Considerations of road location include, cost, existing technology, and 

logistics as they apply to a project (TLMP 2008, pg 4-88). No 

proposed roads are located on high value wetlands within the project 

area. 

Another direct effect of road building on wetlands is the slight 

alteration of soil drainage for several feet on either side of the prism 

evidenced by vegetation changes in these areas. Drainage ditches 

collect and divert overland flow and shallow surface flow to the 

nearest stream channel. This has minimal effect on soil wetness in the 

wetlands above and below the road prism (McGee 2000). 

Expanding existing or creating new rock pits, and selecting logs for 

stringer bridges needed in construction may be necessary to complete 

transportation plans for this project. These activities will follow Forest 

Plan direction with regards to location, design, and construction 

(TLMP 2008, pgs 4-80 through 4-88). 

Proposed roads would cross forested wetlands and muskeg 

forested/wetland mosaics in all three action alternatives (Table 3-46). 

Muskeg/forested wetland mosaics would be crossed by new temporary 

road construction in Alternatives 2 and 3. Proposed system roads 

would cross forested wetlands, muskeg/forested wetland mosaics and 

moss muskeg in Alternatives 2 and 3 (Table 3-46). No system roads 

are proposed for Alternative 4. Changes in wetland flows resulting 

from road construction are expected to be minimal because subsurface 

flows would not be restricted. 

No wetland would be impacted under Alternative 1 as a result of 

harvest or road construction. Vegetation on forested wetlands harvest 

in the past would continue to grow toward hydrologic maturity. 

Alternative 1 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 153 

Wetlands impacted by roads in the past would receive minimal use. 

Vegetation will occupy ditchlines and in the case of closed roads the 

roadbed may be occupied by red alder. The road prism would remain 

in an upland condition. Road ditches, where present, will support a 

variety of upland and wetland vegetation depending on local 

conditions and seed sources. Hydrologic and vegetation effects would 

remain limited beyond the road prism (Glaser 2000). 

Effects Common to all Action Alternatives 

Timber harvest is proposed in wetlands in all action alternatives. 

Harvest activities are expected to have a minimal and short-term effect 

on wetland soil moisture. Removal of timber would lead to a shortterm increase in soil saturation until second-growth establishes 

evapotranspiration surfaces similar to pre-harvest conditions. Effects 

on soil moisture would likely be less in areas where partial cutting is 

utilized. The proposed harvest in all action alternatives would not pose 

a long-term negative impact to wetlands in the project area. 

The effects of road construction on wetland hydrology and vegetation 

depend largely on the landscape position of and the substrate (soil) 

within the wetland. Wetlands located on ridgetops serve to donate 

water downslope. Soils in these landscape positions are typically peat 

soils that are shallow (less than 20 inches thick) over bedrock. Because 

these landscape positions receive more rain than lower slope positions 

and the soils have a higher water holding capacity, the effects of 

constructing a shot rock road across these wetlands is usually limited 

to the area of wetland buried by the shot rock, and effects to vegetation 

are limited to within a few meters of the shot rock (Glaser 2000). 

Road crossings mid-slope and lower slope landscape positions have a 

greater chance of intercepting soil and surface water as the water 

moves downslope. While application of BMPs provide some assurance 

that surface water streams will not be diverted by roads, soil water is 

sometimes captured and diverted to the nearest stream or drainagerelief culvert. However, due to the high levels of precipitation and high 

moisture contents, the intercepted soil water does not translate into 

drier soils downslope. 

In mid-slope and lower slope landscape positions, the effects of roads 

on wetlands can extend just beyond the road prism and substrate plays 

an increasingly important role. Thicker peat and mineral soils occur in 

these landscape positions. Thick peat soils permeate slowly and have 

an extremely high water-holding capacity. Effects on these soils are 

limited to within a few meters of the cutbank and toe of fill (Kahklen 

and Hartsog 1999). Although soil moisture levels beyond the road cut 

slopes and fill slopes would change, the soil moisture levels are not 
3 Environment and Effects 

154  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

expected to change so much that the wetland (outside the disturbed 

soil corridor) would develop into an upland site. 

Alternative 2 proposes to harvest timber from approximately 188 acres 

of wetland with majority of those acres being forest wetland (174 

acres) (Table 3-46). Trees growing on these wetlands would likely 

grow slower than trees on upland sites. Soil moisture would 

temporarily increase as described in Effects Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

Road construction under Alternative 2 would convert approximately 

four acres of wetland habitat to road (Table 3-48). 

Alternative 3 proposes to harvest timber from approximately 324 acres 

of wetland with majority of those acres being forest wetland (310 

acres) (Table 3-46). Trees growing on these wetlands would likely 

grow slower than trees on upland sites. Soil moisture would 

temporarily increase as described in Effects Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

Road construction under Alternative 3 would convert approximately 

10 acres of wetland habitat to road and has the potential to affect the 

most wetland acres of all the action alternatives (Table 3-48). 

Alternative 4 proposes to harvest timber from approximately 109 acres 

of wetland with majority of those acres being forest wetland (101 

acres) (Table 3-46). Trees growing on these wetlands would likely 

grow slower than trees on upland sites. Soil moisture would 

temporarily increase as described in Effects Common to All Action 

Alternatives. 

Road construction under Alternative 4 would convert approximately 

two acres of wetland habitat to road (Table 3-48). 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects analysis area is the project area. The Catalog of 

Events for Kupreanof Island (a list of projects by year and VCU that 

have been implemented on Kupreanof Island) was referenced to 

determine cumulative effects on wetlands in the Central Kupreanof 

project area (Appendix C). 

The cumulative effects analysis considers the past, proposed and future 

foreseeable conversion of wetland to roads. The effects of past wetland 

harvest (approximately 556 acres) and currently proposed harvest 

discussed above are expected to be temporary with wetland function 

and habitat characteristics being restored through the natural processes 

of vegetation growth and succession. The effects to wetlands from 

road construction may be long lasting; however, they are expected to 

be limited due to the low number of wetland acres planned for 

Alternative 2 

Alternative 3 

Alternative 4 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 155 

conversion to road. If the alternative with the most acres of wetland 

conversion were implemented (Alternative 3), the project area would 

have a total of 55.7 acres of converted wetland (9.7 acres of new 

construction in addition to the existing condition). 

Actions Common to all Alternatives 

In conjunction with the analysis of the project area for timber harvest, 

the Petersburg Ranger District is conducting a road analysis on the 

Kake road system to identify the minimum road system needed for 

safe and efficient travel and for administration, utilization and 

management of National Forest System lands. Recommendations for 

road storage, decommissioning, closure and maintenance schedules 

will be analyzed in the District’s ATM NEPA process. 

No other actions, other than Projects Common to all Action 

Alternatives (see the next section), are planned in the foreseeable 

future within the project area. 

Mitigation

Section 313 of the Clean Water Act and Executive Order 12088 

require that Best Management Practices (BMPs) are consistent with 

State Forest Practices and other applicable State Water Quality 

Regulations be used to mitigate the impacts of land-disturbing 

activities. Site-specific application of these BMPs are designed with 

consideration of geology, land type, hydrology, soil type, erosion 

hazard, climate, cumulative effects, and other factors in order to 

protect and maintain soil, water and water-related beneficial uses. 

BMPs considered necessary, that were identified during the planning 

process, are shown on the unit cards. Additional protective measures 

may be applied during timber sale layout or during harvest activities as 

needed. 

Effects of Projects Common to all Action 

Alternatives 

The storage of roads and the associated removal of culverts and 

bridges on the Kake road system are not expected to negatively affect 

wetlands. 

The maintenance of four recreational hiking trails should not have any 

negative effects on wetlands. 

No negative effects to wetlands are expected as a result of 

maintenance work on the Big John Bay Cabin. 

Handpulling invasive plants is not expected to have any negative 

effects on wetlands. 

Fisheries/ 

Hydrology 

Projects 

Recreation 

Invasive Plants 
3 Environment and Effects 

156  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

Precommerical thinning 325 acres of young growth stands to benefit 

wildlife is not expected to negatively affect wetlands. 

Road maintenance and associated rock quarries are not expected to 

have deleterious effects on wetlands. 

The implementation of a Microsale program will have no effect on 

wetlands due to the limited scale of the program. 

Silviculture and 

Wildlife 

Transportation 

Microsales 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 157 

Scenery 

Resource Analysis Area 

The Central Kupreanof project area is located on Kupreanof Island, 30 

air miles west of Petersburg, of approximately 152,517 acres in size 

and situated between upper Duncan Canal and Rocky Pass. An 

existing road system accesses the central portion of the project area. 

The analysis area boundaries include those portions of the project area 

visible from Visual Priority Travel Routes and Use Areas identified in 

the Forest Plan where scenic quality is emphasized. 

Affected Environment 

Southeast Alaska scenery generally includes mountains, glaciers, 

water, sky, weather, trees, animals, boats, people, and development. 

While there are an infinite number of personal interpretations of 

scenery, general preferences are predictable based upon cultural norms 

and the predominant values of society. Recreational visitors expect 

the forest to display natural appearing character from major travel 

routes and use areas. While more of the forest is being managed for 

timber production, the demand for scenic quality has not diminished. 

Methods 

The methods used to evaluate scenic quality for the Central Kupreanof 

project area is described in the Landscape Aesthetics, A Handbook for 

Scenery Management (U.S Forest Service 1995). The Scenery 

Management System provides the framework for the inventory of the 

scenery resource and provides measurable standards for its 

management. 

The Forest Plan has identified specific locations where scenery is 

viewed from locations of high visitor use and where a greater concern 

for scenic quality exists. Visual priority travel routes and use areas are 

used to identify these locations and assess scenic conditions potentially 

affected by management activities. Locations visible from priority 

travel routes and use areas are described in scenery resource terms as 

the “seen area,” while “seldom seen” or “not seen” areas are defined as 

those locations not viewed from any position along a Visual Priority 

Travel Route or Use Area. 

Sensitive viewing locations within the project area where scenic 

quality will be emphasized include the saltwater use area/small boat 

route of Duncan Canal and Towers Arm, Rocky Pass from Beacon 

Island south to Meadow Island, Big John Bay and Big John Bay cabin, 

the dispersed recreation use areas along Hamilton Creek and at Goose 

Visual Priority 

Travel Routes and 

Use Areas 
3 Environment and Effects 

158  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

Marsh Lake, and the Cathedral Falls, Hamilton Creek, and Big John 

Bay trails. 

All the priority travel route and use area destinations surrounding the 

project area receive intermittent to moderate use over the course of the 

year, much of which is seasonal in nature. Those viewing the 

landscapes are primarily individuals involved in activities such as 

camping, hunting, fishing, or subsistence. 

Visibility, mapped in terms of distance zones, is a measure of how 

visual changes are perceived in the landscape. Changes in form, line, 

color, and texture become less perceptible with increasing distance. 

Landscape visibility can also be affected by considerations such as 

how the viewer perceives the landscape, the duration of view, the 

degree of discernible detail, seasonal variations including weather, and 

the number of viewers. The Forest Service Scenery Management 

Handbook describes visibility in terms of three distance zones: 

foreground, middleground, and background. Areas not visible from 

Visual Priority Travel Routes and Use Areas are termed “not seen.” 

Each distance zone describes the level of detail or change that can 

typically be perceived when viewing the landscape. 

The seen area or what is visible of the Central Kupreanof project 

landscape from Visual Priority Travel Route and Use Areas are 

classified into the following categories: 

 Foreground: (0 - 1⁄2 mile) – The portion of the seen area in 

which detail in the landscape becomes noticeable. Foliage and 

fine textural details of vegetation are normally perceptible 

within this zone. Foreground viewing locations include the 

trails, trailheads, and dispersed use areas in the Hamilton 

Creek, Cathedral Falls, Goose Lake, and Big John Bay vicinity. 

 Middleground : (1⁄2 - 3 to 5 miles) - The portion of the seen 

area in which details of foliage and fine textures cease to be 

perceptible and objects in the landscape are perceived mainly 

by their form. Vegetation appears as outlines or patterns. 

Middleground views of the project area are confined to a 

prominent forested ridgeline visible from portions of Big John 

Bay and Rocky Pass. 

 Background: (3-5 miles and greater) - The portion of the seen 

area where texture and color are weak, and landforms become 

the most dominant element. Background views of the 

mountain ranges frame the horizon in this landscape. The 

visual elements of line and form are dominant. Strong color 

contrasts of sufficient size may still be noticeable. Background 

viewing locations within the project area would be prominent 

ridge tops visible from Rocky Pass and Duncan Canal. 

Landscape 

Visibility/ 

Distance Zones 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 159 

 Not Seen: Landscapes that are not visible from Visual Priority 

Travel Routes and Use Areas. Approximately 89% of the 

project area is categorized as not seen from Visual Priority 

Travel Routes or Use Areas. 

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

or Use Areas

Visibility Acres 

Seen 12,868 

Not Seen 139,649 

Central Kupreanof Project 

Area 152,517 

Scenic Integrity Objectives 

Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs) provide measurable standards to 

assess the scenery resource based on the landform characteristics and 

the level of public concern, and are established by incorporating the 

previously defined scenery characteristics: scenic attractiveness, 

landscape visibility, priority viewing locations, and existing scenic 

integrity. In providing a measure by which to describe scenic effects 

these objectives include: 

 High: Changes in the landscape are not visually evident to the 

average forest visitor. 

 Moderate: Changes in the landscape may be evident to the 

casual observer but appear as natural occurrences when 

contrasted with the appearance of the surrounding landscape. 

 Low: Changes in the landscape appear very evident but 

incorporate natural patterns of form, line, color, and texture 

when contrasted with the appearance of the surrounding 

landscape. 

 Very Low: Changes in the landscape appear highly evident 

and may visually dominate the surrounding landscape, yet 

when viewed in the background distance these activities appear 

as natural occurrences. 

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

Scenic Integrity Objective Acres 

High 19,084 

Moderate 16,177 

Low 2,995 

Very Low 114,261 

Central Kupreanof Project Area 152,517 
3 Environment and Effects 

160  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

Existing Scenic Condition 

Existing Scenic Integrity describes the deviation of a landscape from a 

natural forest condition. It excludes the context of whether the 

landscape is seen or not seen from Visual Priority Travel Routes and 

Use Areas and indicates the amount of change that has occurred in the 

past, and what level of change may be acceptable in the future. The 

relevance of Existing Scenic Integrity for this analysis is to use the 

present reference condition of the project area as a baseline to evaluate 

the acceptable desired scenic condition and cumulative effects outlined 

in the Forest Plan management prescription criteria. Six levels are 

used to describe the landscapes existing visual condition ranging from 

pristine to intensively modified: 

 Appears Unaltered: Landscapes where development is not 

typically noticed by the average forest visitor. These 

landscapes have been altered but changes are not perceptible. 

For the purposes of this analysis this represents the reference 

condition from which change can be quantified. 

 Slightly Altered: Landscapes where development is 

noticeable by the average forest visitor, but are natural in 

appearance. Changes appear to be minor disturbances. 

 Moderately Altered: Landscapes where changes are easily 

noticed by the average forest visitor and may attract attention. 

Changes appear as disturbances but resemble natural patterns 

in the landscape. 

 Heavily Altered: Landscapes where changes are very 

noticeable and would be obvious to the average forest visitor. 

Changes tend to stand out, dominating the view of the 

landscape, but are shaped to resemble natural patterns. 

The Existing Scenic Integrity of the project area is primarily unaltered 

in appearance, as most of the project area remains in an undeveloped 

condition. The heavily altered landscapes surrounding the Hamilton 

Creek drainage is more a result of the extent of harvest than the direct 

visual appearance of the trees when viewed in close proximity or from 

visual priority viewing locations, and is reflective of the desired 

condition of the Timber Production land use designation. 

Existing Scenic 

Integrity 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 161 

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

Existing Scenic Integrity Acres 

Appears Unaltered 103,137 

Slightly Altered 4,824 

Moderately Altered 12,250 

Heavily Altered 32,306 

Central Kupreanof Project 

Area 152,157 

Desired Scenic Condition 

The desired scenic condition for scenic quality is indicated by 

management prescriptions in the Forest Plan. All acres of land within 

the National Forest are assigned a LUD, each have varying degrees of 

acceptable alteration assigned by a Scenic Integrity Objective. Seven 

LUDs are located within the project area: Timber, Modified 

Landscape, Semi-Remote Recreation, Remote Recreation, Special 

Interest Area, and Old-growth Habitat Preserve and Wilderness. 

Approximately 72 percent of the project area is allocated to the Timber 

Production LUD. The resulting appearance would reflect activities 

that may appear heavily altered in those areas maximizing timber 

production while maintaining a mostly natural appearing condition 

within the Modified Landscape management prescriptions. The 

Remote and Semi-Remote Recreation, Special Interest Area, and Old 

Growth Habitat Reserve will retain their unaltered appearance where 

no harvest would occur. The Modified Landscape LUD area is located 

in the northeastern portion of the project area and includes the 

landscapes visible from portions of Big John Bay and Rocky Pass. 

Environmental Consequences 

Timber harvest within the project area visible from Visual Priority 

Routes and Use Areas will be designed and implemented to meet the 

Forest Plan adopted scenic integrity objectives. The future scenic 

condition of the affected landscape will be predominantly reflective of 

the Timber Production land use designation, where the primary goal is 

to manage land for the sustained long-term yield of wood. 

The scenic effects will portray a greater visibility of the development 

associated with timber harvest than that characteristic of a natural 

appearing forest environment. Factors contributing to the visual 

magnitude associated with timber harvest include: the size of the unit, 

slope and aspect, distance at which it is observed, time of day and 

lighting conditions, prevailing weather, and the vegetative composition 

of the surrounding landscape. Green tree retention within units will 
3 Environment and Effects 

162  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

reduce the visual effects. Additionally, all of the proposed timber 

harvest of any given alternative will not be seen at one time from a 

single location. Impacts to scenery for all alternatives will remain 

relatively constant over time as harvested areas regenerate and existing 

stands are removed. 

All alternatives would meet the level of scenic quality for the affected 

landscapes desired condition as outlined in the Forest Plan. 

The analysis boundaries for the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects 

includes areas where timber harvest, roads, and other associated 

activities resulting from the implementation of the proposed EIS are 

potentially viewed from any Forest Plan Visual Priority Travel Route 

and Use Area. Landscapes within the project area that are not seen 

from Visual Priority Travel Routes or Use Areas are also included in 

the analysis but have a lesser expectation for scenic quality. 

The unit of measure for direct and indirect effects is the Forest Plan 

scenic integrity objectives, which represent a quantifiable measure of 

change to the natural appearance of the landscape. The unit of 

measure for cumulative effects is the total visual disturbance within a 

viewshed or Value Comparison Unit (VCU). The visual appearance of 

landscapes changes over time, previously harvested areas regenerate 

and return to a more natural appearing condition. It is expected that 

over a period of 30 years timber harvest has visually recovered to 

resemble a natural appearing forest condition and no longer is 

considered a cumulative effect. 

Direct Effects of Timber Harvest and 

Summary of Effects by Alternative 

Each of the action alternatives proposed includes a different selection 

of harvest units that utilizes an existing road system and the 

construction of new and temporary roads. Visibility of harvest units 

from sensitive viewing areas also varies by alternative. The following 

table displays the comparative difference between the alternatives as 

measured by the greatest potential visibility from Visual Priority 

Travel Route or Use Areas. 

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

Distance Zone Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Foreground 0 0 0 0 

Middleground 0 316 384 55 

Background 0 117 336 63 

Not Seen 0 2,073 2,927 1,009 

Total Harvest Acres 0 2,506 3,647 1,327 

Methods 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 163 

The overall scenic effect of the alternatives will vary in comparison to 

the visible harvest area as seen from sensitive viewing locations. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 are nearly identical in effects and would create the 

greatest amount of visible change to the landscape from the 

development of harvest units. Alternative 4 would have the least 

effect, harvesting approximately 118 acres potentially visible from 

priority viewing areas. Both Alternatives 2 and 4 would not harvest 

timber visible from Duncan Canal. 

This alternative defers timber harvest in the project area and maintains 

the existing visual character of the landscape. Previously harvested 

units within the project area would continue to mature and develop the 

visual characteristics of a more natural appearing and undeveloped 

forest. 

Alternative 2 proposes 2,506 acres of timber harvest by clearcut and 

single tree selection methods, utilizing both conventional and 

helicopter yarding. Eleven of the 61 units proposed totaling 

approximately 433 acres would be potentially visible in varying 

degrees from priority travel routes and use areas. Not all units 

however are seen from one location or at one time. Portions of Units 

284 and 285, which have a Very Low Scenic Integrity Objective, 

would be potentially visible at a distance greater than 5 miles from 

locations in the southern end of Rocky Pass. The effects would 

achieve a Very Low SIO adopted under the Forest Plan for Timber 

Production area and likely would not be highly discernable due to the 

distance from Rocky Pass, typical weather conditions, and screening 

by foreground vegetation. From locations along the mid-point of 

Rocky Pass Units 216, and 229 also within a Timber Production LUD 

and a Very Low SIO designation would be potentially visible at a 

distance of three to five miles. Both Units 216 and 229 would likely 

not be highly discernable to most viewers due to the distance at which 

potentially visible, typical weather conditions, and screening by 

foreground vegetation along the shoreline of Rocky Pass. 

In areas of the upper Rocky Pass and Big John Bay, Units 2, 208, 209, 

313, 316, 901 and 905 would be potentially viewed at a distance of 2 

to 5 miles within a Modified Landscape LUD. This designation has a 

slightly higher degree of acceptable alteration having a Low scenic 

integrity objective, where change may appear very evident but 

resemble natural patterns in the landscape. The overall effect of these 

combined units would be lessened by harvest methods of single tree 

selection and helicopter yarding of the most visible locations which 

would achieve the Forest Plan Low SIO designation. 

The remaining units in this alternative are not visible from any Visual 

Priority Travel Route and Use Area and would achieve a Very Low 

Alternative 1 

Alternative 2 
3 Environment and Effects 

164  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

scenic integrity or higher degree of scenic quality than adopted under 

the Forest Plan. 

Alternative 3 proposes 3,647 acres of timber harvest by clearcut and 

single tree selection, utilizing both conventional and helicopter yarding 

methods. This Alternative proposes the greatest amount of harvest 

with approximately 384 acres potentially viewed from Visual Priority 

Travel Routes and Use Areas. Units 2, 208, 209, 313, 316, and 901 

would be all or partially visible at a distance of 2 to 5 miles from the 

waters of upper Rocky Pass and Big John Bay. These units would all 

achieve a Low SIO adopted in the Forest Plan, where timber harvest 

may appear very evident but resemble natural patterns in the 

landscape. 

From locations in upper Duncan Canal north of Indian Point, Units 

258, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, and 265 may be partially evident at a 

distance of 3 to 5 miles. At this distance these units would not draw 

attention from the viewer and resemble natural patterns in the 

landscape achieving a higher degree of visual quality than the Very 

Low scenic integrity objective adopted in the Forest Plan. 

Portions of Units 284 and 285, which have a Very Low SIO, would be 

potentially visible at a distance greater than five miles from locations 

in the southern end of Rocky Pass. The effects would achieve a Very 

Low SIO adopted under the Forest Plan for Timber Production area 

and likely would not be highly visible due to the distance from Rocky 

Pass, typical weather conditions, and screening by foreground 

vegetation. From locations along the mid-point of Rocky Pass Units 

216, and 229 also within a Timber Production LUD and a Very Low 

SIO designation would be potentially visible at a distance of three to 

five miles. Both Units 216 and 229 would likely not be highly visible 

to most viewers due to the distance at which potentially visible, typical 

weather conditions, and screening by foreground vegetation along the 

shoreline of Rocky Pass. 

The remaining units in this alternative are not visible from any Visual 

Priority Travel Route and Use Area and would achieve a Very Low 

scenic integrity or higher degree of scenic quality than adopted under 

the Forest Plan. 

Alternative 4 proposes 1,327 acres of timber harvest by clearcut using 

conventional yarding methods. This Alternative would have the least 

effect upon scenery in harvesting approximately 118 acres potentially 

visible from priority viewing areas. Units 2, 208, 209, 313, 316 901, 

and 905 would be potentially viewed from locations within upper 

Rocky Pass and Big John Bay. A reduction of the total visible acres of 

harvest would be reduced by no helicopter yarding in this alternative. 

These units would all achieve a Low SIO adopted in the Forest Plan, 

Alternative 3 

Alternative 4 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 165 

where timber harvest may appear very evident but resemble natural 

patterns in the landscape. 

Portions of Units 284 and 285, which have a Very Low SIO, would be 

potentially visible at a distance greater than five miles from locations 

in the southern end of Rocky Pass. The effects would achieve a Very 

Low SIO adopted under the Forest Plan for Timber Production area 

and likely would not be highly visible due to the distance at which 

viewed, typical weather conditions, and screening by foreground 

vegetation. Unit 229, also within a Timber Production LUD with a 

Very Low SIO designation, would be potentially visible at a distance 

of three to five miles from locations along the mid-point of Rocky 

Pass. These units would all achieve a Very Low scenic integrity 

objective as adopted in the Forest Plan 

The remaining units in this alternative are not visible from any Visual 

Priority Travel Route and Use Area and achieve a Very Low scenic 

integrity or a higher degree of scenic quality than adopted under the 

Forest Plan. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of Related 

Timber Harvest Activities 

Utilization of the existing Little Hamilton LTF for log transfer, 

storage, and camp operations would result in the developed appearance 

and modification of the scenic environment. The marine access 

facility is visible in the foreground distance zone near the end of the 

45006 spur on the Kake to Seal Point road (FS Road 6040) and in 

Hamilton Bay. For those traveling the inside waters of Hamilton Bay, 

the logging operations at the LTF site would not likely be noticed 

outside of a close proximity to Little Hamilton Island. The sort yard, 

area for log storage, and most equipment at the sites would be partially 

screened from view by foreground vegetation and the island itself. 

Contractors harvesting timber would continue to support their 

operations with either a land or floating camp. Visibility of these 

activities would be a distraction from the natural scenic environment 

but confined to a relatively small area. Camp operations are required 

to obtain and follow the necessary state and federal environmental 

permitting requirements. 

Some of the effects of new and temporary road construction borrow 

pits, and other ground disturbing activities necessary to implement the 

Central Kupreanof project would be visible from Visual Priority 

Travel Routes and Use Areas, however these effects would be far less 

visible than that of timber harvest and would meet the adopted scenic 

integrity objectives of the Forest Plan. Development of new rock 

sources, expansion of existing pits for road construction, and the 
3 Environment and Effects 

166  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

removal of logs within 200 feet on either side of bridge locations for 

use as stringers would also meet scenic integrity objectives. Pit 

Development Plans would be approved prior to implementation and 

mitigation measures for the scenic resource applied if applicable. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of Projects 

Common to All Action Alternatives 

The direct or indirect effects resulting from the proposed Projects 

Common to all Action Alternatives would all meet the Forest Plan 

Scenic Integrity Objectives. Maintenance of the Cathedral Falls, 

Goose Lake, Hamilton Creek, and Big John Bay trails, which are 

identified Travel Routes, would provide for their continued function as 

intended. Annual maintenance of the Big John Bay cabin, an 

identified Use Area, would also provide for the continued function of 

the cabin as a base for recreational activities. Other identified 

activities such as pre-commercial thinning, control of invasive plants, 

vegetative treatment for wildlife, and road maintenance, would have 

no negative effects upon scenery. 

Access Travel Management 

Access Travel Management (ATM) would have no effect as no roads 

proposed for closure are identified visual priority travel routes. The 

section of Forest Road 6040 from Kake to Seal Point is the only Public 

Use Road designated as a Visual Priority Travel Route within the 

project vicinity and will remain open for public use. 

Microsales 

The effects upon Scenery as a result of the Microsale program would 

meet the Forest Plan scenic integrity objectives of low and very low. 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects consider the overall scenic effects expected as a 

result of past, present, and foreseeable future development. These 

effects include timber harvest, roads, borrow pits, associated 

construction activities, and existing effects of adjacent non-National 

Forest lands. Previous development in the project area has modified 

the scenic environment from a natural condition to a condition where 

landscapes appear heavily altered. The past development considered 

with this analysis and listed in the project Catalog of Events 

contributing the overall scenery cumulative effects for the affected 

project area viewsheds are the Pipeline Timber Sale EA, Cathedral 

Timber Sale EA, Hamilton Creek South Timber Sale EA, North Irish 

Creek Timber Sale EIS, and The Shamrock Timber Sale EIS. effects 

of past timber harvest would continue to grow to more natural 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 167 

appearing conditions during the period of reasonably foreseeable 

future and no longer be considered a cumulative effect. 

The scale (spacial extent) from which to consider cumulative effects 

for the scenery resource can be represented as a viewshed, or for the 

purpose of this analysis the Value Comparison Units which have 

similar boundaries. Reasonable foreseeable activities such as the small 

sale program, thinning, and road maintenance would not would not 

add additional scenic effects to the point of changing the overall scenic 

integrity as cumulative effects continually change over time (temporal 

extent) through the regrowth of vegetation. Previously harvested areas 

visually recover over time and after a period of 30 years are no longer 

considered to have a cumulative impact. 

Percent of Allowable Visual Disturbance represents a measurement of 

cumulative effects modeled as the expected visual consequences of 

timber harvest during the Forest Plan analysis, and is described in 

Appendix B of the Forest Plan, Final EIS, page B-23. Visual 

disturbance outcomes vary by the scenic objectives for each of the 

land use designations available for timber harvest. Using this model it 

was assumed for viewsheds within the Timber Production land use 

designation, that up to 50 percent may be under development at one 

time. For viewsheds within the Modified Landscape land use 

designation, up to 25 percent may be under development at one time. 

This is calculated by adding the past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable harvest acres and dividing by the acres of a viewshed or 

VCU. The following table represents a comparison of the expected 

cumulative visual disturbance by alternative. As shown, all 

alternatives are below the total allowable visual disturbance threshold 

of 50% for Timber Production areas and 25% for Modified Landscape 

areas specified under the Forest Plan. 

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

VCU/Viewshed Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

4260 

(Hamilton) 

1,931 

(5%) 

2,948 

(7%) 

3,028 

(7%) 

2,561 

(6%) 

4271 (Big John 

Bay) 

1,116 

(15%) 

1,695 

(22%) 

1,781 

(23%) 

1,505 

( 20%) 

4290 (Rocky 

Pass) 

943 

(2%) 

1,533 

(3%) 

1,567 

(3%) 

1,151 

(2%) 

4360 (Upper 

Castle) 

400 

(2%) 

455 

(2%) 

859 

(4%) 

459 

(2%) 

4380 (Upper 

Duncan) 

225 

(1%) 

489 

(2%) 

1,027 

(4%) 

266 

(1%) 

* (excludes past harvest greater than 30 years old as visually recovered) 

The visual effects of timber harvest are greatest immediately following 

completion of the project. Within 5 years, vegetation would begin to 
3 Environment and Effects 

168  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

grow transitioning a change in color from brown to light green. Green 

tree retention retained in the harvested areas would reduce the overall 

contrast of new growth with the surrounding forest. From 5 to 20 

years after tree removal, young trees become established reaching a 

height of approximately 15 feet and further reducing the color contrast 

with adjacent forested areas. After 50 years, the emerging forest 

would achieve a height of approximately 50 feet. Color contrast at this 

point is near that of a mature forest and only textural differences are 

apparent. Edge lines forming the boundary of harvested areas also 

become less apparent, with the appearance further reduced by 

asymmetrical design. At 80 years after a harvest, stand vegetation 

achieves 75 percent of its mature height. At 100 years, the stand 

would reach approximately 100 feet in height and appearance of the 

past harvest would not be evident. 

Assuming a continuation of the present harvest levels through 

successive Forest Plans, removal of all suitable timber within the 

Central Kupreanof project area is expected to occur within the next 

100 to 120 years. During this period, the forest would be in a 

continuous state of transition towards meeting the desired condition of 

the Timber Production management prescription objectives. The 

landscape would be characterized by regenerating harvested areas of 

mixed age classes from young stands to trees of mature height, 

typically in 40 to 100 acre groups. The appearance of the activities 

associated with timber harvest will present a landscape highly 

modified by this change. 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 169 

Unroaded Areas 

The Forest Roadless Inventory was updated with the 2003 Forest Plan 

SEIS analysis. Unroaded areas were defined as less than 5,000 acres. 

The Central Kupreanof project area includes 366 acres of an unroaded 

area (2,420 total acres in size), which was not recommended in the 

2003 Forest Plan SEIS for wilderness consideration. This area is 

approximately located in the northwest corner of the project area, and 

nearly surrounded on all sides by previously harvested units and 

logging roads. The vegetation is predominantly forest wetland and 

muskeg. No characteristics or values which would be considered 

unique are present. The 2008 Forest Plan Land Use Designation 

encompassing the unroaded area is Timber Production. 

In all alternatives no timber harvest, road construction, or rock quarry 

development is being proposed within the unroaded area. The area 

would remain unaffected. 
3 Environment and Effects 

170  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

Recreation 

Affected Environment 

The existing road system in the Central Kupreanof area connects to 

Kake, Alaska, which is a stop on the Alaska Marine Highway. This 

connection creates relatively easy access to the area for local residents 

and also visitors from other places in Alaska and out of state visitors. 

Most recreation in the project area centers around vehicle access, but it 

also includes some shoreline in Duncan Canal. The Forest Service 

maintains four trails and one public recreation cabin that are accessible 

from the Kake road system. Five other cabins in Duncan Canal are 

located east of the project area but within the vicinity. These are only 

accessible by boat and plane and cannot be reached from the Kake 

road system. The road system is used commonly by local Kake 

residents and visitors. Recreational activities that involve using the 

road system for access include sightseeing, picnicking, hiking, fishing, 

and black bear, moose, and deer hunting. 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum in the 

Central Kupreanof Project Area 

To describe, identify, and quantify recreation settings, the Forest 

Service uses the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS). The ROS 

categorizes areas by their activities, remoteness, access, and 

experiences in a spectrum of classes from Primitive to Urban. The 

Central Kupreanof Project Area has five of the seven ROS classes: 

Roaded Modified, Roaded Natural, Semi-primitive Motorized, Semiprimitive Non-motorized, and Primitive (Table 3-56). The two classes 

not found in the project area are Rural and Urban. See the Glossary 

for definitions of each ROS class. 

Almost half (47%) of the project area is in the Semi-primitive Nonmotorized ROS class. These areas are generally at least half a mile 

from any roads or shorelines and relatively isolated from the sights and 

sounds of human activities. Most of the rest of the area is split 

between Roaded Modified (24%) and Primitive (25%) which are on 

opposite ends of the development scale in the project area. The 

Roaded Modified area encompasses the areas immediately 

surrounding existing units and roads in the area. The Primitive areas 

are the farthest from roads and units in the area and have little if any 

evidence of human presence. 

Minor components of the ROS within the project area are the Semiprimitive Motorized area and the Roaded Natural area. The Semiprimitive Motorized area (2%) is a narrow strip in the eastern part of 

the project area along the shoreline of Duncan Canal. This area is 

Characterization 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 171 

away from roads but it is within the sight and sound of boat traffic 

(and floatplanes landing) in a portion of Duncan Canal. The Roaded 

Natural ROS class (2%) is located on a six-mile portion of Road 6030 

in the northern part of the project area that is very natural appearing 

since it does not have any timber harvest along it. 

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

the Central Kupreanof Project Area 

ROS Class Acres Percent 

Roaded Modified (RM) 36,984 24% 

Roaded Natural (RN) 2,833 2% 

Semi-primitive Motorized 

(SPM) 2,666 2% 

Semi-primitive Nonmotorized (SPNM) 71,427 47% 

Primitive (P) 38,607 25% 

TOTAL ACRES 152,517 100% 

Recreation Places and Sites 

Recreation Places are specific areas identified by the Forest Plan that 

are used for recreation activities. They are geographical areas having 

one or more physical characteristics that are particularly attractive to 

people for recreation activities. These activities can be dispersed 

throughout the Recreation Place or concentrated at specific Recreation 

Sites. A Recreation Site is a specific site and/or facility occurring 

within a Recreation Place. Recreation Sites generally refer to specific 

points like anchorages or developed facilities such as recreation cabins 

and trailheads. Since the majority of the Tongass National Forest is 

undeveloped, it is primarily used for dispersed recreation activities. 

Viewing scenery and wildlife, boating, fishing, beachcombing, hiking 

and hunting are the primary dispersed recreation activities that take 

place. 

In theory, all acres of National Forest have the potential of providing 

recreation opportunities. However, due to terrain considerations (very 

steep, inaccessible areas), user preferences, and presence of certain 

amenities (scenery, good fishing), some areas are more highly valued. 

These key sites are termed “recreation places.” Their selection and 

identification was done by noting what characteristics or qualities of a 
3 Environment and Effects 

172  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

site attract and influence visitor use. A knowledge of these key sites 

aids in the future evaluation of potential effects within the broader 

ROS concepts. The following discussion describes existing recreation 

places and sites in the vicinity of the project area. 

Trail classes range from Class 1, which is the least developed and most 

challenging to hike, to Class 5, which is the most developed and 

easiest to hike. 

This recreation access trail is popular with hunters and anglers. The 

trail is easy (Class 4) with good conditions, dropping 100 feet in 

elevation along the one-mile length. It is good access to trout, salmon, 

and char fishing, and waterfowl hunting. Bears frequently fish there 

during the summer and fall. Picnic tables and fire rings are provided. 

The trailhead is 13 miles from Kake on Forest Road #6314. The trail 

leads from the road to Hamilton Creek. To the west lie the tidal flats 

of Hamilton Bay. The trail continues southeast, meandering upstream 

along the banks of the creek and leading to many fishing and 

waterfowl hunting sites. The trail is suitable for bicycles and there 

was observed bicycle use in 2006. The trailhead is outside the project 

area but about 1.25 miles from the nearest proposed unit. 

 This easy (Class 4) trail is 0.6 miles long and rises 75 feet along its 

length. The trail is good access for trout fishing, waterfowl hunting, 

and cross-country skiing. A boat is provided for fishing at Goose 

Lake. The trail can be used all year and takes about one hour for 

roundtrip hike. It is located about 11 miles from Kake on NFS Road 

6030. The trailhead is located about 3 miles outside the project area 

and 3.25 miles from the nearest proposed unit. Goose Lake itself is 

about 3.5 miles from the project area. 

This recreation access trail leads to the spectacular falls on Cathedral 

Falls Creek. It is only about 0.25 miles and drops sharply 100 feet in 

that distance. It is moderate difficulty (Class 3) and takes about 30 

minutes to hike roundtrip. The trailhead is about nine miles from 

Kake, eight miles on Road 6314 and one mile on Road 6312. The trail 

first passes through a small area thick with berries, then descends 

steeply to the creek. Cathedral Falls is a beautiful spot and popular for 

fishing. Many local Kake residents enjoy spending time there. No 

facilities are provided. The trail accesses trout and salmon fishing and 

photo opportunities at Cathedral Falls. The trail is approximately 2.25 

miles from the project area and 2.5 miles from the nearest proposed 

unit. 

 This trail is often used by hunters and leads to Big John Bay and the 

recreation cabin there. It is 1.75 miles long and takes about two hours 

to hike roundtrip. It is moderate difficulty (Class 3) and accesses 

excellent waterfowl, grouse, and black bear hunting. The trailhead is 

about 16 miles from Kake on NFS Road 6314. It starts in a secondHamilton Creek 

Trail 

Goose Lake Trail 

Cathedral Falls 

Trail 

Big John Bay 

Trail 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 173 

growth stand and then winds its way through old-growth spruce and 

hemlock forest. The trail ends at the beach on the north end of Big 

John Bay where the recreation cabin is located. This trail starts in the 

project area and ends west of the project area. About 0.25 miles are 

within the project area. The nearest proposed unit is 0.25 miles from 

the trailhead. 

Irish Lakes and Kluane Lake have no developed recreation facilities 

but are popular destinations for day use and camping often associated 

with hunting activities. Kluane Lake is not an official U. S. 

Geological Survey name but it is sometimes referred to as Kluane by 

the Forest. It is close to the main road so it is easily accessible without 

a developed trail. Irish Lakes is farther from the road but adventurous 

hikers can reach the lake by hiking about a mile cross-country from 

Road 45806. Actual use data is not available, but it is not believed 

people hike into the lake very often. More commonly, Irish Lakes is 

reached by float plane, either private or chartered. One permitted 

Special Use tent platform sits on the northwest edge of the lake. It is 

used seasonally for hunting and fishing. 

The Kake road system is used to access recreational activities 

including sightseeing, picnicking, hiking, fishing, and hunting for 

black bear, moose, and deer. Black bear hunting on the road system in 

the last 10 years has resulted in harvests from 7 to 37 bears (Pers. 

Communication, Lowell 2008). 

Recreation Opportunities outside the 

Project Area

Duncan Canal to the east of the project area is a popular recreation 

area for boaters, fishers, hunters, and campers. Several Forest Service 

cabins are located here including: Castle Flats Cabin, Castle River 

Cabin, (Castle River Trail connects the two cabins), Breiland Slough 

Cabin, Towers Arm Cabin, and Salt Chuck East Cabin. 

Towers Arm is about five miles from the nearest proposed unit; the 

Castle cabins are about six miles away; Salt Chuck East is about 7.5 

miles and Breiland Slough is over 10 miles from the nearest unit. 

Towers Arm is the least used cabin in Duncan Canal because of its 

limited access due to tides and lack of high quality fishing 

opportunities. 

Rocky Pass to the west of the project area is also popular with boaters, 

kayakers, fishers, and campers. The one recreation cabin there is 

Devils Elbow which is about 3 miles from the project boundary and 

about 9 miles from the nearest proposed unit. 

Irish Lakes and 

Kluane Lake 

Kake Road 

System 
3 Environment and Effects 

174  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

Bohemia Lake (locally known as Jamaica Lake) is located near the end 

of Road 6030 north of the project area. It has some local day use, as 

well as camping and hunting opportunities. 

Towers Lake, east of the project area, had a Forest Service cabin until 

recently when it was decommissioned. The site had very low use with 

few attractions and the cabin was seasonally threatened with flooding 

from the lake. 

Special Use Permits and Outfitter Guides 

One Special Use permit exists within the project area at Irish Lakes for 

a tent platform. It is permitted for personal recreation and hunting 

activities. Other intermittent hunting camps are found in the area but 

they are not permitted for year round storage of gear or materials. No 

outfitter and guiding activity currently takes place within the project 

area. 

Big John Bay and Big John Bay Creek, just outside the project area, 

are popular areas for black bear outfitter/guide activities. In 2004, four 

black bear guides took hunters to Big John Bay and Big John Bay 

Creek. In 2005 and 2006, three guides operated in those areas. Data is 

not yet available for the 2007 operating season. 

Environmental Consequences 

All of the action alternatives would modify the Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum to some degree. In all three action alternatives, some areas in 

the Semi-primitive non-motorized setting would change to Roaded 

Modified with the proposed units and roads. In Alternatives 2 and 4, 

the effects would be minimal and the change in acres from a semiprimitive setting to a roaded setting would be less than one percent of 

the project area. 

Alternative 3 proposes some harvest units and roads in a currently 

primitive setting, so there would be decreases in both semi-primitive 

and primitive areas as well as expanded areas of roaded settings. The 

increase in the Roaded Modified setting would be 5.4% of the project 

area. The semi-primitive and primitive areas would decrease by 1.1% 

and 4.3% respectively. See Tables 3-55 and 3-56 below for changes in 

acres and percentages for each alternative. See Appendix A, in the 

Recreation Resource report, located in the project record, for maps 

showing where the changes would occur to ROS for each alternative. 

Effect to 

Recreation 

Opportunity 

Spectrum (ROS) 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 175 

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

Project Area 

ROS Class Alt. 1 

 Acres 

Alt. 2 

Acres 

Alt. 3 

Acres 

Alt. 4 

Acres 

Roaded Modified (RM) 36,984 38,409 

(+1,425) 

45,347 

(+8363)

37,088 

(+104) 

Roaded Natural (RN) 2,833 2,833 2,833 2,833 

Semi-primitive 

Motorized (SPM) 2,666 2,666 2,666 2,666 

Semi-primitive 

Non-motorized (SPNM) 71,427 70,002 

(-1,425) 

69,617 

(-1,810)

71,323 

(-104) 

Primitive (P) 38,607 38,607 32,054 

(-6,553) 38,607 

TOTAL ACRES 152,517 152,517 152,517 152,517

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

Project Area 

ROS Class 

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 

Roaded Modified 

(RM) 24.3% 25.2% 29.7% 24.3% 

Roaded Natural (N) 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 

Semi-primitive 

Motorized (SPM) 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 

Semi-primitive 

Non-motorized 

(SPNM) 

46.8% 45.9% 45.7% 46.8% 

Primitive (P) 25.3% 25.3% 21.0% 25.3% 

TOTAL 

PERCENTAGES 100% 100% 

 

100% 

 

100% 
3 Environment and Effects 

176  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

Effects to Recreation Places and Sites 

within the Project Area 

The Big John Bay trailhead and approximately 1⁄4 mile of the trail are 

within the Central Kupreanof project area. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 all 

propose harvest within a half-mile of the trailhead on Road 45001. 

Unit 313 would be about 0.25 miles from the trailhead and Units 310, 

312, and 314 are about 0.5 miles away from the trailhead. Trail users 

and cabin users that access the cabin by the trail would be affected by 

the sights and sounds of logging from these units for several weeks to 

a couple months. 

Alternatives 3 and 4 propose to harvest Unit 271 (22 acres) which is 

approximately 1.5 miles northeast of Irish Lakes. During the actual 

logging of Unit 271, the sound of machinery may be heard at Irish 

Lakes and at the permitted tent platform located on the northwest side 

of the lake. This would be a short-term effect lasting approximately 2-

3 weeks. 

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 all propose units within a mile of the lake. 

Alternative 4 would have the least effect with only two units proposed 

near the lake; a 10-acre unit a half mile away (Unit 253) and a 41-acre 

unit one mile away (Unit 250). Alternative 2 would have a moderate 

effect with four units within one mile. Alternative 3 would have the 

most effect on recreation at the lake with seven units proposed within a 

mile and a new road proposed north of the lake. The sounds of 

logging and road building would be most apparent in Alternative 3, 

with nearly 300 acres of timber harvest proposed within one mile of 

the lake. Alternative 2 proposes about 220 acres within one mile of 

the lake and Alternative 4 proposes about 50 acres within one mile of 

the lake. 

During timber harvest and road construction activities in Alternatives 

2, 3, and 4, recreational activities that use the road system may be 

temporarily displaced to areas where no harvest activities are taking 

place. 

Effects to Recreation Opportunities outside 

the Project Area 

The three trails outside the project area (Cathedral Falls, Goose Lake, 

and Hamilton River) would not be directly affected by any of the 

alternatives, but hikers would notice an increase in traffic, especially 

log trucks, as they traveled the roads to the trailheads. This would be a 

short-term effect that would end when logging was complete. The 

increased log truck traffic would also affect access to the Big John Bay 

trail which is partially inside the project area. 

Big John Bay 

Trail and Cabin 

Irish Lakes 

Kluane Lake 

Kake Road 

System 

Trails/Cabins 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 177 

Visitors at Big John Bay Cabin would not be directly affected by the 

proposed timber harvest, especially if they accessed the cabin by water 

and did not use the trail. At the cabin, they may occasionally hear 

some distant sounds of logging. If the cabin users did hike the trail 

then the above effects to the trail could affect them. 

No outfitter/guides currently operate within the project area. The 

black bear hunting guides that operate out of Big John Bay and Big 

John Bay Creek would not be directly affected by any of the proposed 

harvest activities. The distant sound of logging equipment or trucks 

may be apparent occasionally, but it would not noticeably change the 

recreation experience in Big John Bay and Creek. 

Effects by Alternative 

For all alternatives, some Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) 

classes would not change. The Semi-primitive Motorized setting 

along the shoreline of Duncan Canal and the Roaded Natural setting 

along Road 6030 in the northern part of the project area would remain 

the same in all alternatives, including the No Action Alternative. 

Alternative 1 (No Action) proposes no new timber harvest or road 

building in the project area. The recreation in the area would remain 

as it is with no changes to existing Recreation Opportunity Classes 

(ROS). The settings at the existing Recreation Places at Irish Lakes 

and Kluane Lake would remain unchanged as well as the trails and 

cabin in the area. Roaded access in the area would not change from the 

current condition. 

Alternative 2 would have little effect to recreation. Most proposed 

units are within the Roaded Modified setting so the ROS class would 

not change. A few units are located just outside the roaded setting, 

however, causing about 1% of the area to change from a semiprimitive setting to a roaded setting. This alternative would not 

harvest any units near Irish Lake, but would harvest four units within a 

mile of Kluane Lake. This would detract from the recreation 

experience during the few months the logging was taking place. 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 in 

this alternative. This would result in a moderate increase in roaded 

access in the area. However, the increase in motorized access would 

be temporary. All temporary roads would be decommissioned after 

timber harvest and all new and reconstructed NFS roads would be 

closed within ten years of timber harvest activities. An additional 1.1 

miles of existing NFS road would also be closed at this time. 

Alternative 3 proposes the most timber harvest and road building and 

would have the most effect to recreation. Some proposed units are 

within existing semi-primitive and primitive recreation settings, so the 

 Outfitter/Guides 

Alternative 1 

Alternative 2 

Alternative 3 
3 Environment and Effects 

178  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

roaded setting would increase by about 5.5% and the semi-primitive 

and primitive settings would decrease by that amount. Recreationists at 

Kluane Lake would be affected by the nearby sights and sounds of 

timber harvest and road building for several months. Unit 254 (14 

acres) is a few hundred feet from the lake and would be the closest unit 

to the lake. Timber harvest of that unit would be very apparent to 

recreationists at the lake. Four other units within a mile of the lake 

would add to the sights and sounds of logging. One timber harvest 

unit (Unit 271) is also proposed about 1.5 miles from Irish Lakes. The 

sound of logging would most likely be heard at the lake during harvest 

of that unit also. 

The overall experience in the project area would still include a lot of 

semi-primitive and primitive opportunities as well as a slightly 

expanded roaded setting. 

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 proposed the greatest increase in roaded access in the area. 

However, the increase in motorized access would be temporary. All 

temporary roads would be decommissioned after timber harvest and all 

new and reconstructed NFS roads would be closed within ten years of 

timber harvest activities. An additional 2.0 miles of existing NFS road 

would also be closed at this time. 

Alternative 4 would have the least effect to recreation of the three 

action alternatives. 

The recreation settings in the project area would remain essentially the 

same (less than 1/10 of 1% change) with only 104 acres changing from 

a semi-primitive setting to a roaded setting. Irish Lakes would not be 

affected by nearby timber harvest and Kluane Lake would only be 

minimally affected by two small nearby units. Recreationists at the 

lake would be aware of nearby activities for only a few weeks. 

This alternative proposes no new NFS road construction, 2.6 miles of 

road reconstruction and 2.2 miles of temporary road construction. 

This would result in the least increase in roaded access in the area. 

However, the increase in motorized access would be temporary. All 

temporary roads would be decommissioned after timber harvest and all 

new and reconstructed NFS roads would be closed within ten years of 

timber harvest activities. An additional 2.0 miles of existing NFS road 

would also be closed at this time. 

Cumulative Effects 

The Catalog of Past Events for Kupreanof Island was referenced in 

determining cumulative effects. The area analyzed for cumulative 

Alternative 4 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 179 

effects includes the project area plus the nearby recreation destinations 

of the four trails and one cabin. 

Recreation settings in Central Kupreanof Island have changed since 

timber harvest activities began in the late 1960’s (Kupreanof Catalog 

of Past Activities). The area now has numerous roads and timber in 

various age classes. Many of the original primitive and semi-primitive 

recreation settings have changed to more developed settings. People 

expect to see timber harvest in the area now. New harvest would add 

to the developed feel of the area, but would not be a big change from 

its current condition. The proposed activities for this project would 

not significantly change the existing recreation opportunities. 

Past projects that have enhanced recreation in the central Kupreanof 

vicinity include four trails: Goose Lake, Cathedral Falls, Hamilton 

River, and Big John Bay. The cabin at Big John Bay, although outside 

the project area, has enhanced recreation in the area because the 

trailhead to the cabin is within the project area on the road system to 

Kake. Cabin users sometimes use the road system and trail to access 

the cabin. Probably more often cabin users arrive at the Big John Bay 

cabin by boat or floatplane, especially out-of-town visitors. The 

construction of logging roads near Kluane Lake has increased 

recreation use at the lake because of the close access. 

The upcoming road project to reconstruct and improve the Kake to 

Seal Point road is outside the project area, but will enhance recreation 

on the whole road system by improving that section of road which is 

currently in very poor condition. The road improvements include 

paving the road and replacing two bridges on the seven-mile section of 

road. The Kake to Seal Point road is used to access all of the trails in 

the area and also the Big John Bay cabin. 

The Petersburg Ranger District is currently reanalyzing recreation 

carrying capacity and outfitter/guide allocations across the district. No 

significant changes are anticipated; however any effects will be 

analyzed in the Petersburg Outfitter Guide EA. 

The 6367 Small Timber Sale project planned for 2008 is just outside 

the project area on Road 6367. It would not noticeably add to the 

cumulative effects for recreation because it is on an existing road 

within a roaded modified recreation setting. 

The ongoing Access Travel Management process which is analyzing 

which roads to keep open, which roads to close, and which roads to 

allow Off-road Vehicle (ORV) use on, could have some effects on 

recreation in the project area. The current recommendations for the 

Central Kupreanof project area would have minimal effect on 

recreation because the 10 miles of road recommended for closure have 

little or no recreation use. These roads would be closed to vehicle 
3 Environment and Effects 

180  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

traffic but would still allow foot traffic. Road management objective 

recommendations will be analyzed in the District’s ATM process 

Environmental Consequences for Projects 

Common to All Action Alternatives 

The direct effect from the proposed trail maintenance projects would 

be to maintain and improve the recreation experience on the four trails 

in the area. It would also help maintain the safety of the trails for the 

public. Indirect effects could include an increase in traffic on the 

roads with well-maintained trails. 

The effect of maintaining the Big John Bay cabin would also be to 

improve the recreation experience and safety of the cabin users. 

There would be no effects to recreation from the proposed invasive 

plant control project. 

There would be little effect to recreation from the proposed 

fisheries/hydrology project of pulling culverts on fish streams on 

closed roads. Walking the roads after the culverts were pulled would 

be somewhat more difficult, but still a likely activity. 

There would be no effects to recreation from the proposed 

silviculture/wildlife project of pre-commercial thinning second-growth 

stands. 

The proposed transportation project of maintaining the Kake area 

roads would enhance the recreation experience in the area and increase 

the safety of all drivers. 

There would be no significant effects to recreation from the proposed 

microsales program. 

Trail Maintenance 

Cabin 

Maintenance 

Invasive Plant 

Control 

Fisheries/ 

Hydrology 

Silviculture/ 

Wildlife 

Transportation 

Microsales 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 181 

Heritage Resources 

Heritage resources include an array of historic and prehistoric 

archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties. The National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) sets forth Government policy and 

procedures regarding these "historic properties" -- that is, districts, 

sites, buildings, structures and objects included in or eligible for the 

National Register of Historic Places. Section 106 of the NHPA 

requires that Federal agencies consider the effects of their actions on 

such properties, following regulations issued by the Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation (36 CFR 800). 

The Section 106 review process seeks to consider historic preservation 

concerns with the needs of federal actions. Review occurs through 

consultation with Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), Indian Tribes, 

and other parties with an interest in the effects of the undertaking on 

historic properties. One of the goals of consultation is to identify 

historic properties that potentially may be affected by the undertaking, 

assess potential effects and seek ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate 

any adverse effects on historic properties. Forest Service 

archaeologists consulted with the Organized Village of Kake (OVK) 

and the Wrangell Cooperative Association (WCA), the tribal groups 

that are culturally affiliated with the project area. As part of our open 

working relationship with tribal groups regarding the protection of 

heritage resources, we met with OVK about the planned project and 

supplied both tribes with a copy of our Heritage Resource Report for 

comment (Esposito 2006). 

Forest Service archaeologists also conducted a heritage resource 

investigation of the Central Kupreanof project area to ensure that the 

procedural requirements of 36 CFR 800 were met. In accordance with 

the 2002 Programmatic Agreement among the Forest Service Alaska 

Region, the ACHP, and the SHPO, resource reports were submitted 

under modified 36 CFR 800 regulations implementing Section 106 of 

the National Historic Preservation Act. Heritage resource surveys did 

not result in the identification of any new sites and no known historic 

properties would be affected by project activities. 

Area of Potential Effects 

The Area of Potential Effect (APE) is the geographic area within 

which the effects of timber harvest and road construction may cause 

changes in the character or use of historic properties, if such properties 

exist. The APE was defined using the Central Kupreanof Timber 

Harvest’s project area boundary. 
3 Environment and Effects 

182  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

Existing Condition 

According to oral tradition and various ethnographic accounts, the 

Tlingit are the dominant native group of southeast Alaska. A majority 

of the Central Kupreanof project area lays within the traditional 

territory of the Kake Tlingit, who occupied the north half of Kuiu 

Island, the western portion of Kupreanof Island, with sporadic 

occupation along the mainland shore of Frederick Sound as well as 

parts of Baranof Island and Prince of Wales Island. The east side of 

the project area also lies within the traditional territory of the Stikine 

Tlingit, who occupied the mainland coast from Cape Fanshaw to the 

midpoint of Cleveland Peninsula, as well as the eastern portion of 

Kupreanof Island, the east coast of Prince of Wales Island from Red 

Bay to Thorne Bay, and all of Mitkof, Etolin, and Zarembo Islands. 

Prehistoric site types in the region include villages, seasonal camps, 

stone and wood stake fish weirs, as well as pictographs and 

petroglyphs. 

Kupreanof Island archaeological sites represent the typical array of site 

types in central southeast Alaska. These include both prehistoric and 

historic period sites some of which may date to several thousand years. 

Prehistoric site types on the island include camps, villages, forts, 

petroglyphs, as well as fish traps and weirs. Historic period sites 

include cabins, mining claims, fur farms, gardens, canneries, salteries, 

a driftwood canoe, and culturally modified trees (CMTs). Records 

show that there are no sites within the Central Kupreanof Project Area. 

Analysis and Survey Methods 

Prior to field investigation, various historical records and ethnographic 

accounts were examined to determine previous cultural use in the 

project area and its vicinity. We also researched prior heritage 

resource surveys, Petersburg/Wrangell Area heritage files and atlases, 

the Alaska Heritage Resource Survey (AHRS) listings, GIS 

archaeological site covers, and the Tongass Site database. OVK was 

consulted and queried about known or suspected sites in the area. 

There have been 75 heritage resource surveys on Kupreanof Island 

since 1974, five of which were conducted within the Central 

Kupreanof project area. These surveys were conducted between 1974 

and 2000, and include several investigations of proposed timber sales 

as well as a survey for a small mineral exploration project. 

In addition to the background research, archaeologists conducted a 

pedestrian survey of 176 acres of various types of terrain in search of 

undiscovered sites and other heritage resources. Proposed timber 

harvest units, proposed road locations were surveyed while paying 

special attention to fish streams, lake edges, and stands of Alaska 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 183 

yellow cedar, resources that were used by the Tlingit people. Survey 

methods are based on a probability model developed over the past 

several decades. It is further described in the 2002 Programmatic 

Agreement. 

Direct and Indirect Effects by Alternative 

Heritage resource surveys did not result in the identification of any 

new sites and no known historic properties will be affected by project 

activities (Esposito 2006). None of the proposed action alternatives 

will have a direct or indirect effect upon known heritage resources 

within the APE. All of the planned timber harvest units and proposed 

roads are inland and on relatively steep terrain, making them within 

the low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. The existing log 

transfer facility (LTF) at Little Hamilton Bay will be used, and its use 

will not affect any known archaeological sites. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative impacts to heritage resources on the Tongass may result 

from natural erosion, weathering, sedimentation and wind events as 

well as cultural processes such as public use, commercial 

development, timber harvest, and road construction. Logging and road 

access for hunting, subsistence use, and recreation are the primary 

activities that have occurred within the Central Kupreanof project area. 

The project area lies just 10 miles southeast of the city of Kake and is 

easily accessible to Kake residents and visitors via an extensive road 

system. As most of the recorded archaeological sites on the island are 

concentrated near the marine shore, outside of the project area 

boundary, the activities associated with the Central Kupreanof project 

will not have any cumulative effects to heritage resources. Timber 

harvest and increased road access would take place inland and on steep 

terrain. Heritage resource surveys for the project revealed there are no 

sites within the project area, and that site probability in this area is 

low. 

Additional foreseeable activities within the project area include 

Projects Common to all Action Alternatives, timber salvage 

microsales, and the Kake roads analysis process (RAP). The Projects 

Common to all Action Alternatives are proposed to occur within 

previously disturbed areas, such as along the existing road and trail 

system or in harvested timber units, and will not affect heritage 

resources. 

Microsales are not expected to cause effects to heritage resources as 

they would target dead and/or downed trees adjacent to the existing 

road system. In accordance with 36 CFR 800.13(a) and (b)(1), should 

any surface or subsurface heritage resources be encountered during 
3 Environment and Effects 

184  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

land use activities, such activities shall cease immediately and the 

District Ranger shall be notified. If such properties are determined 

potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and the 

project is determined to have adverse effects on the property, the 

Petersburg Ranger District archaeologist will address project effects 

and comply with Section 106 procedures before the project may 

proceed. 

The current RAP recommendations would have minimal effect on 

heritage resources, as there are no known sites within the project area. 

Future recommendations for road storage, decommissioning, closure 

and maintenance schedules will be analyzed in the District’s ATM 

NEPA process. 

Intensive heritage resource surveys and site monitoring have been 

implemented since the 1980s. Current archaeological research and 

survey designs are based on the results of this work as well as more 

modern methodology and technology. These methods are designed to 

preserve and protect significant sites and provide information that will 

help guide future research and resource management. In addition, 

continued public education by the Forest Service to increase awareness 

concerning cultural resources and site stewardship assists the agency 

in effectively managing the region’s heritage sites. 

The Tongass Land Management Plan addresses the desired condition 

of heritage resources through a monitoring and evaluation plan. As 

specified in the Programmatic Agreement (2002), we monitor selected 

areas of direct impact during and/or after the actual ground 

disturbance. If inadvertent discoveries are made during project 

implementation, the Forest Service shall fulfill its consultation 

requirements in accordance with 36 CFR 800.13. Mitigation measures 

would be agreed upon and implemented before project activities may 

proceed. 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 185 

Findings and Disclosures 

Several of the laws and executive orders listed in Chapter 1 require 

project specific findings or other disclosures. These are included here, 

and would be included in the Record of Decision. They apply to all 

alternatives considered in detail in this EIS. 

All project alternatives fully comply with the Forest Plan. This project 

incorporates all applicable Forest Plan Forest-wide Standards and 

Guidelines and management area prescriptions as they apply to the 

project area, and complies with Forest Plan goals and objectives. All 

required interagency review and coordination has been accomplished; 

new or revised measures resulting from this review have been 

incorporated. 

The Forest Plan complies with all resource integration and 

management requirements of 36 CFR 219 (219.14 through 219.27). 

Application of Forest Plan direction for the Central Kupreanof project 

ensures compliance at the project level. Specific NFMA findings 

pertaining to silvicultural systems are included in Chapter 3 and the 

project record. 

None of the alternatives is anticipated to have a direct, indirect or 

cumulative effect on any threatened or endangered species in or 

outside the project area. A Biological Evaluation will be completed to 

analyze threatened, endangered, and petitioned species and is included 

in the project record. Consultation with the FWS and NMFS will be 

contained within that record. 

Application of Forest Plan Riparian Standards and Guidelines ensures 

that 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, TTRA. This proposed project would 

provide timber for the Tongass timber program to seek to meet market 

demand if an action alternative is selected. 

Cultural resource surveys of varying intensities have been conducted, 

following inventory protocols approved by the Alaska State Historic 

Preservation Officer. Native communities have been contacted and 

public comment encouraged. The consultation and concurrence 

process with the State Historic Preservation Officer has begun. No 

effects on known cultural resources are anticipated. 

No known significant caves in the project area will be directly or 

indirectly affected by project activities. Forest Plan Karst and Caves 

Standards and Guidelines are applied to areas known or suspected to 

contain karst resources. 

National Forest 

Management Act 

Endangered 

Species Act 

Tongass Timber 

Reform Act 

National Historic 

Preservation Act 

Federal Cave 

Resource 

Protection Act 
3 Environment and Effects 

186  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

An ANILCA Section 810 and 811 subsistence evaluation was 

conducted. The evaluation can be found in the Subsistence section of 

this chapter. No significant restrictions on the abundance and 

distribution of, access to, or competition for subsistence resources in 

the project area are anticipated. (See the Subsistence Report in the 

project record.) 

However, the Forest Plan Final EIS concluded that Forest-wide, under 

full implementation of the Forest Plan, the only subsistence resource 

that may be significantly restricted in the future by Federal forest 

management activities is subsistence use of deer (Forest Plan Final 

EIS, p. 3-224 to 3-229). Subsistence hearings will be held as required. 

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 address 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 waterrelated beneficial uses. Soil and water conservation practices (BMPs) 

were recognized as the primary control mechanisms for nonpoint 

source pollution on National Forest System lands. The Environmental 

Protection Agency supports this perspective in their guidance, 

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

1987). 

The Forest Service must apply Best Management Practices that are 

consistent with the Alaska Forest Resources and Practices Regulations 

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 

(October 2000). In 1997, the State approved the BMPs in the Forest 

Service’s Soil and Water Conservation Handbook (FSH Handbook 

2509.22, October 1996) as consistent with the Alaska Forest 

Alaska National 

Interest Lands 

Conservation Act 

(ANILCA) 

Clean Water Act 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 187 

Resources and Practices Regulations. This Handbook is incorporated 

into the Tongass Land Management Plan. 

A discharge of dredge or fill material from normal silviculture 

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 best management practices to assure that flow and 

circulation patterns and chemical and biological characteristics of the 

waters are not impaired (404)(f)(1)(E). The BMPs that must be 

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

been incorporated into the Forest Service’s Soil and Water 

Conservation Handbook under BMP 12.5. 

Air quality would diminish on a recurring, temporary basis due to the 

construction of roads, timber harvest, and hauling. Limbs and logging 

slash would be burned at sort yards intermittently throughout the 

logging periods, which would deposit minor amounts of particulate 

matter and smoke into the air. Emissions anticipated from the 

implementation of any project alternative will be of short duration and 

are not expected to exceed State of Alaska ambient air quality 

standards (18 AAC 50). 

To make the process more efficient, categories of activities may be 

evaluated and reviewed together under what is called a "general 

consistency determination" (GCD). Upon approval of a GCD, 

activities within that category do not require an individual consistency 

determination or review. The Forest Service has developed a GCD for 

timber harvest activities conducted on the Tongass National Forest, 

and the State of Alaska has agreed that Tongass timber harvest 

activities are consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the 

enforceable policies of the ACMP. The timber harvest activities and 

use of the currently permitted LTF fall under the GCD. 

Due to limits on the types of activities that qualify for a GCD, and 

provisions of the Alaska Forest Resources and Practices Act (FRPA), 

certain activities are outside the scope of the GCD and will continue to 

require individual ACMP consistency review. The GCD does not 

apply to any activity that requires a State or Federal authorization 

under any authority other than FRPA. Nor does it apply to any activity 

related to the planning, construction modification, or removal of any 

structure or facility intended for use by the general public. 

Specifically, it does not apply to logging camps or construction of log 

transfer facilities that require State or Federal permits, or to 

construction or reconstruction of roads that require such non-FRPA 

permits. Any Tongass timber sale that involves activities not covered 

by the scope of the GCD continues to require an individual 

Clean Air Act 

Coastal Zone 

Management Act 
3 Environment and Effects 

188  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

consistency determination if those activities have reasonably 

foreseeable effects on coastal uses or resources, but the scope of that 

determination and consistency review will be limited to those portions 

of the project not covered by the GCD. 

The Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest EIS also contains Projects 

Common to all Action Alternatives analyzed as common to all action 

alternatives that are outside the scope of the GCD for Tongass timber 

sales. Consequently, only those portions of the analysis related to the 

proposed Projects Common to all Action Alternatives will require 

individual ACMP consistency determination or review. Review will 

be coordinated through the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, 

Division of coastal and Ocean Management to determine if the State 

agencies agree with the Forest Service’s determination of consistency 

with the Alaska Coastal management Program (ACMP). The State’s 

response will be reported in the Final EIS for this project. 

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Act (1996) requires that 

all federal agencies consult with NMFS when any federal action is 

determined by the Forest Service to “may adversely affect” Essential 

Fish Habitat (EFH). The Forest Service’s position is that constructing 

new roads, harvesting timber near Class I streams, and the use of the 

Hamilton LTF may have an adverse affect on EFH. However, by 

following the measures to minimize adverse effects listed in the EFH 

Assessment, other standards and guidelines from the Forest Plan and 

implementing the Best Management Practices (BMPs), the effects on 

EFH will be minimized. A copy of this DEIS, which includes the EFH 

Assessment, will be sent to the National Marine Fisheries Service to 

initiate formal consultation. 

Executive Order 11593 directs federal agencies to provide leadership 

in preserving, restoring and maintaining the historic and cultural 

environment of the Nation. The work accomplished in accordance with 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the Central 

Kupreanof Timber Harvest meets the intent of this Executive Order. 

The numerous streams in the Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest 

project make it essentially impossible to avoid all floodplains during 

timber harvest and road construction. Forest Plan Standards and 

Guidelines for riparian areas exclude most commercial timber 

harvesting from floodplains. Roads may be constructed in or through 

floodplains subject to the design requirements of the Best Management 

Practices. Effects on floodplains from project activities have been 

avoided or minimized as much as possible. 

Executive Order 11990 requires Federal agencies to avoid, to the 

extent possible, the long- and short-term adverse impacts associated 

with the destruction or modification of wetlands. Because wetlands are 

so extensive in Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest project area, it is 

MagnusonStevens Fishery 

Conservation Act 

of 1996 

Executive Order 

11593 

Executive Order 

11988 

Executive Order 

11990 
Environment and Effects 3

Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS Chapter 3 189 

not feasible to avoid all wetlands. Chapter 3 describes the types and 

amounts of wetlands in the project area and how they will be affected 

by this project. Road construction requires the filling-in of wetlands 

and creates permanent loss of wetland habitat. Effects to wetlands are 

minimized through the application of BMPs. 

Road construction through wetlands is avoided where possible. Road 

cards (Appendix B) contain site specific details on road location 

through wetlands and how BMPs will be implemented. Based on the 

analysis in Chapter 3, it is estimated that the alternatives will result in 

the loss of approximately 2 to 10 acres (which equates to a loss of less 

than 1% of wetland acreage in the project area) due to road fill. 

A specific consideration of equity and fairness in resource decisionmaking is encompassed in the issue of environmental justice and civil 

rights. As required by law and Title XI, all federal actions will 

consider potentially disproportionate effects on minority or lowincome communities. Environmental justice issues regarding road 

development and timber harvest are considered by decision-makers. 

Disproportional potential impacts or changes to low-income or 

minority communities in the Project Area due to the proposed action 

should be considered. Where possible, measures should be taken to 

avoid impact to these communities or mitigate the adverse effects. 

Kake, though not in the project area, is adjacent to the project area and 

has a long history of local use. Kake’s population is about 75 percent 

Native and has been considered in the analysis of the proposed 

alternatives for disproportional impacts. The Organized Village of 

Kake was consulted and encouraged to comment at any point in the 

process to ensure their concerns would be addressed. Public meetings 

were also held in Kake to assist people in understanding the 

alternatives and how issues were addressed. These meetings also gave 

the public opportunities to highlight other issues and concerns they 

had. The Heritage Resource Report discusses the cultural environment 

of the area and addresses our responsibilities according to historic 

preservation laws and regulations. There are no known historic 

properties (cultural resources) within the area of potential effect. 

Native traditional values were considered, particularly those associated 

with subsistence use of the project area. Native populations should not 

be disproportionately impacted under any alternative. 

With the application of Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, 

including those for riparian areas, no significant adverse effects to 

freshwater or marine resources will occur. Post-project road closures 

could limit, to foot or permitted off-highway vehicle means, access to 

some recreational fishing opportunities. However, most recreational 

fishing throughout the Tongass occurs by boat in saltwater, and any 

adverse effects would be minimal. 

Environmental 

Justice/Civil 

Rights 

Executive Order 

12962 
3 Environment and Effects 

190  Chapter 3 Central Kupreanof Timber Harvest DEIS 

No prime farm land or range land would be adversely impacted by the 

action alternatives. Forest land would maintain its productivity, except 

for those lands permanently occupied by roads built for long-term 

access for forest management. 

A biological evaluation was completed for TES plants. A biological 

evaluation/assessment will be completed for TES vertebrates and 

consultation will occur between responsible Federal agencies for 

threatened or endangered species potentially affected by the project 

activities. Standards and guidelines have been applied as needed to 

ensure that any listed threatened or endangered species or its habitat 

will not be adversely affected. The Forest Plan contains standards and 

guidelines for each designated sensitive species, and these are 

incorporated into the project as applicable. 

This project is consistent with the Travel Management Rule by 

limiting the transportation system to the minimum amount necessary 

for project activities. 

Effects on Prime 

Farm Land, Range 

Land, and Forest 

Land 

Threatened, 

Endangered and 

Sensitive Species 

(TES) 

USDA Forest 

Service 

Transportation; 

Final 

Administrative 

Policy