United States Department of Agriculture

South Fork Saginaw Creek 

Restoration

Environmental Assessment

Forest Service

Alaska Region

Tongass National Forest

Petersburg RangerDistrict R10-MB-814 March 2017
South Fork Saginaw Creek Restoration

Environmental Assessment

___________________________________________________________________________

Lead Agency: United States Forest Service

Petersburg Ranger District

Responsible Official: David Zimmerman

Petersburg Ranger District

PO Box 1328

Petersburg, AK. 99833

For Further Information, Contact: Heath Whitacre

PO Box 1328

(907) 772-3871

hwhitacre@fs.fed.us

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights 

regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions 

participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, 

color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, 

disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance 

program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or 

activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and 

complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information 

(e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible 

Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through 

the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made 

available in languages other than English. 

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint 

Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any 

USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information 

requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your

completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the 

Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-

9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Cover Photo: Channel incision and widening resulting from unstable banks within the project area.
USDA United States 

:??:::77iii Department of iiiiiilllll Agriculture 

Forest 

Service 

Tongass National Forest 

Alaska Region 

Petersburg Ranger District 

P.O. Box 1328 

Petersburg, AK 99833-1328 

907-772-3871 

File Code: 1950 

Date: March 24, 2017 

Dear Interested Individuals, Agencies, and Organizations: 

The Forest Service, Tongass National Forest, Petersburg Ranger District, has prepared an 

Environmental Assessment (EA) for the South Fork Saginaw Creek Restoration project. The 

proposed action would implement stream and floodplain restoration on approximately 0.6 miles 

of South Fork Saginaw Creek and 0.4 miles of Shorty Creek, a tributary of Rowan Creek. Both 

are anadromous fish streams located in the Saginaw Creek and Rowan Bay watersheds .on Kuiu 

Island near Kake, Alaska. Current stream channel and floodplain habitat conditions along 

portions of these streams are degraded as a result of floodplain tree harvest and road building 

activity beginning in 1970, prior to the 1990 Tongass Timber Reform Act which subsequently 

provided buff er protection. 

The goal of this project is to improve instream and floodplain function at these sites through the 

strategic placement of wood. This project would create or maintain quality pools used for cover, 

feeding, and thermal refugia by salmonids; improve spawning and rearing habitat by metering 

and sorting sediment; improve floodplain and side-channel connectivity; and improve structure 

within the floodplain resulting from wood placements for flood resilience and nurse tree habitat. 

No modifications were made to the proposed action as a result of the comments received during 

the public scoping period. However, the following information was included the EA as a result 

of the comments received: 

• A section titled "Wood Recruitment, Abundance, and Depletion" was included in the EA 

in response to questions about historic amounts of wood, and recruitment sources. 

• A section titled "Instream Structures" was included in the EA in response to questions 

about the longevity, or life expectancy of the structures and the need for additional 

treatments until wood begins to recruit to the stream naturally. 

To review the Environmental Assessment visit the project page online: 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=49992 or contact Heath Whitacre [(907) 772-3871 or 

hwhitacre@fs.fed.us] to request a copy in hard copy or CD format. 

To give you the opportunity to learn more about the project and comment on the alternatives 

being considered, there will be a 30-day comment period after the EA is released. Pursuant to 36 

CFR 218.24(a)(l), a legal notice initiating this 30-day comment period for the South Fork 

Saginaw Creek Restoration project will be published in the Petersburg Pilot, the newspaper of 

record for the Petersburg Ranger District, late this month. As the Responsible Official, I am 

seeking your input on the project proposal as presented in the EA. It would be most helpful if 

your comments are site-specific, detailed, and specific to the alternatives. Please provide the 

reason(s) why you are concerned or have suggestions. Individuals who submit specific, written 

Caring for the Land and Serving People 

,.. Printed on Recycled Paper ~, 
comments during any designated opportunity for public comment on this project will have 

standing to particinate in the pre-decisional review and objection process. You may provide 

specific written comments to: 

Heath Whitacre, Project Leader 

USDA Forest Service, Tongass National Forest, Petersburg Ranger District 

PO Box 1328 

12 N. Nordic Drive 

Petersburg, AK 99833 

comments-alaska-tongass-petersburg@fs. fed. us 

(please put "South Fork Saginaw" in the subject line) 

2 

Comments can also be faxed (907-772-5995) or mailed to Heath Whitacre at the PO Box address 

above or hand-delivered to the street address. 

We look forward to your participation. Your input and ideas will help ensure a successful 

project. 

Sincerely, 

--, --Q~ ··.,( __ ~u~-- DA YID ZIMMERMAN 

District Ranger 

,.---~--
South Fork Saginaw Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment

1

SUMMARY TABLE

What action is 

proposed?

The proposed action is to:

• Restore and stabilize anadromous and resident fish habitat by 

constructing approximately 21 large wood structures (logs, 

trees with rootwads attached) into the active stream channels of 

approximately 0.6 miles of South Fork Saginaw Creek and up 

to 0.4 miles of Shorty Creek, a tributary to Rowan Creek on 

Kuiu Island.

• Improve floodplain condition by adding large wood to the 

floodplain of both streams using heavy equipment or 

helicopter.

• Harvest and stockpile approximately 450 trees, including cut 

logs and whole trees with rootwads attached. 

• Construct temporary puncheon trails to access the restoration 

sites using cull1 and small diameter trees to facilitate access by 

heavy equipment.

Why is this 

action proposed?

Current stream channel and floodplain conditions along portions of 

South Fork Saginaw Creek and Shorty Creek, a Rowan Creek 

tributary, are degraded as a result of floodplain tree harvest beginning 

in 1970. Stream and floodplain function is expected to further degrade 

with time without project implementation. 

Current conditions include:

• Wide, shallow channels and active channel braiding along 

portions of each stream resulting from previous floodplain 

harvest;

• Old, remnant wood within the channel responsible for most 

beneficial habitat features will not be replaced in the near 

future due to lack of future wood recruitment from the 

floodplain to the streams;

• Lack of large, key pieces of wood within the channels 

compared to reference conditions. 

This project would improve stream habitat by creating pools, 

improving the connection between the stream and its floodplain, and 

stabilizing excessively eroding streambanks through strategic wood 

placement. Habitat quality within the floodplain would improve 

through the addition of wood for flood resilience and as growth sites 

for conifers. 

What other action 

would meet the 

same need?

None
South Fork Saginaw Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment

2

What would it 

mean not to meet 

the need?

Stream channel condition would degrade as the remaining “legacy” 

wood in both channels decays or is naturally exported out of the reach 

without any near-term replacement from the floodplain, due to 

floodplain harvest in 1970 (South Fork Saginaw) and 1980 (Shorty 

Creek). Floodplain condition would continue to degrade along portions 

of the streams due to braiding and lack of stream connection resulting 

from previous harvest activity. Continued degradation of these stream

and floodplain areas would result in poor habitat conditions typified by 

wide, shallow channels lacking deep pools and quality spawning or 

rearing habitat. Without the addition of large trees as proposed in this 

project, stream and floodplain habitat function would decline, 

potentially affecting spawning and rearing salmon, until trees within 

the floodplain grow old enough to die and recruit to the streams’

channels, a timeframe of many decades. 

What factors will 

be used when 

making the 

decision?

Any adverse environmental consequences of the proposed action will 

be compared to the benefit of improved habitat conditions in the 

streams and floodplain. This environmental assessment does not 

identify any significant environmental consequences from the 

proposed action.

Are there any 

ways to mitigate 

adverse effects?

The primary method for reducing adverse effects is by implementing 

specific design criteria included in the proposed action, and applying

best management practices prior to and during project implementation. 

What monitoring 

is required?

Tongass National Forest Tier II stream habitat surveys would be 

conducted before implementation, then repeated at 1-, 2-, and 5-year 

intervals after project implementation. Photo points would be gathered 

before and after implementation. Permanent cross-sections would be

established for long-term monitoring of channel dimensions in sitespecific locations. Reed canarygrass and creeping buttercup 

populations will be monitored and treated following Forest Service 

protocols prior to restoration and for a minimum of 3 years postimplementation. Early detection, rapid response (EDRR) directives 

would be followed.

1 Trees that are/were less than one-third sound (capable of producing lumber) and are therefore not utilized in a 

current or previous timber sale are considered cull wood. This wood is often decked onsite at the harvest unit.
South Fork Saginaw Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment

3

INTRODUCTION

The Petersburg Ranger District of the Tongass National Forest proposes implementing 

instream and floodplain restoration on approximately 0.6 miles of South Fork Saginaw Creek 

and up to 0.4 miles of Shorty Creek, a medium-sized tributary to Rowan Creek on Kuiu 

Island. These streams support populations of pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha), chum 

salmon (O. keta), coho salmon (O. kitsuch), steelhead (O. mykiss), coastal cutthroat trout (O. 

clarki clarki), and Dolly Varden char (Salvolinus malma). 

LOCATION

The South Fork Saginaw Creek Restoration project area is located on the northern portion of 

Kuiu Island, approximately 12 air miles southeast from the town of Kake and 39 miles 

northwest of Petersburg, Alaska. The project area includes the instream and floodplain 

restoration areas, as well as the wood collection and access areas for both streams (Figure 1; 

Figure 2; Figure 3). South Fork Saginaw Creek is located within the 8,386-acre 6th HUC 

Saginaw Creek watershed (#190102100602), and Shorty Creek is within the 13,543-acre 6th

HUC Rowan Bay watershed (#190102100703). These areas are managed according to 

prescriptions defined for the Timber Production Land Use Designation (LUD) in the Forest 

Plan (USDA Forest Service 2016). 

NEED FOR THE PROPOSAL

The riparian areas of a number of streams on Kuiu Island were harvested in the 1960s, 1970s, 

and 1980s, prior to the 1990 Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA), which subsequently 

provided stream buffer protection for all fish-bearing streams. A recent national Watershed 

Condition Framework (WCF) assessment categorized the Saginaw Creek watershed as 

“functioning at risk” (USDA Forest Service 2011). The Tongass National Forest identified 

this as a “priority” restoration watershed in 2011 based on current habitat conditions, known 

management history, status as a salmon producer, and the WCF classification. Watershed 

condition indicators associated with the national assessment highlighted concerns for longterm health and function of aquatic and riparian habitat in this watershed. Relatively high 

watershed harvest levels in the past, as well as RMAs harvested to the banks of fish-bearing 

streams prior to the TTRA, were primarily responsible for this rating (Table 1). In 2014, a 

large-scale restoration project was implemented along approximately 1.5 miles of West Fork 

Saginaw and Mainstem Saginaw Creeks within this watershed. While South Fork Saginaw 

Creek has a similar harvest history, restoration has not yet occurred along this reach.
South Fork Saginaw Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment

4

Figure 1. South Fork Saginaw Creek vicinity map.
South Fork Saginaw Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment

5

Figure 2. Shorty Creek vicinity map
South Fork Saginaw Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment

6

Figure 3. Shorty Creek restoration sites and access location
South Fork Saginaw Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment

7

Rowan Creek Watershed, in which Shorty Creek is located, was not identified as a Tongass 

“priority” watershed. However, specific stream restoration sites are found both within and 

outside priority watersheds. Shorty Creek was harvested to the banks in 1980 along a 0.4 

mile reach upstream of its confluence with Rowan Creek. This reach lacks large, key pieces 

of wood in the channel and floodplain, and is characterized by unstable streambanks and 

declining numbers and quality of pool habitat. Shorty Creek is considered a medium-scale 

restoration project on a site with degraded habitat resulting from previous riparian harvest. 

The goal of this project is to improve instream and floodplain function at these sites through 

the strategic placement of wood. Project success will be measured through repeat habitat 

surveys at intervals of 1, 2, and 5 years post-restoration, as well as with photo-point 

documentation at permanent sites throughout both reaches. We expect improvements in the 

number and quality of pool habitat (with resultant benefits to rearing and spawning habitat), a 

reduced pool head width, improved bank stability in areas of excessive erosion, improved 

floodplain connectivity and side-channel maintenance, and improved structure within the 

floodplain resulting from wood placements for flood resilience and nurse tree habitat. 

Table 1. Summary of timber harvest within project area watersheds 

Watershed 

Watershed Size 

(acres)

Total Harvested 

(% watershed)

Riparian 

Harvest on 

Class I & II 

Streams 

(acres)

Riparian Harvest 

on Class I & II 

streams (% 

watershed)

Saginaw Creek 8,386 28.3 247 3.0

Rowan Creek 13,543 17.1 284 2.1

BACKGROUND

Floodplain timber harvest occurred in 1970 on South Fork Saginaw Creek and 1980 on 

Shorty Creek, and some of the wood within the channel, as well as streamside trees, were

extracted via the stream corridor. These activities resulted in a lack of large, key pieces of 

wood in the stream channels and floodplains, and limited natural recruitment of large wood 

from the floodplain due to tree harvest. 

Scientific literature continues to highlight the benefits of wood within streams and 

floodplains. Large wood helps stabilize and regulate the storage and routing of sediment, 

particulate organic matter and nutrients; dampens high flow events by providing structure 

within the floodplain; regulates water temperature by increasing residence time and exchange 

with hyporheic flow (surface/groundwater mixing); improves water quality by stabilizing 

streambanks and increasing residence time; creates deep pools thereby maintaining rearing 

and habitat fish use for cover and overwintering; and increases the biotic diversity of a 

system by serving as substrate for aquatic insect production (Bryant 1983; Bilby 1984; Bilby 

and Ward 1989; Murphy and Meehan 1991; Jones et al. 2014). 

Recent studies have also recognized the benefits of creating and maintaining the processes 

that sustain habitat heterogeneity within floodplains (Beechie et al. 2010). A study on the 

Methow River where restoration was proposed to restore side channels in order to recover 
South Fork Saginaw Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment

8

anadromous fishes indicated that although habitats within the floodplain had similar 

invertebrate prey production, the habitats hosted different local food webs (Bellmore et al. 

2013). The study found that carrying capacity estimates based on available prey were 251

percent higher, on average, for anadromous salmonids in side channels than the main 

channel. The authors concluded that overall, heterogeneity of floodplain habitats was 

associated with the occurrence of a mosaic of food webs used by anadromous salmonids, all 

of which may be important to their recovery and persistence (Bellmore et al. 2013). 

Restoration projects which add wood to streams have shown improved physical habitat 

characteristics such as favorable changes in substrate, increased pools, cover and habitat 

complexity (Carah et al. 2014; Roni et al. 2015). Additionally, most studies on the response 

of salmonids to wood additions have shown an increase in fish numbers following wood 

placement (Pierce et al. 2013; Roni et al. 2015). Other studies have shown increases in 

overwintering rearing capacity for juvenile Coho, and that breeding site selection is strongly 

influenced by proximity to pool-tail crests and deeper water (Clark et al. 2014; Jones et al. 

2014; Roni and Quinn 2001; Roni et al. 2015). Studies in the Pacific Northwest have shown 

habitat structures were effective in recruiting and storing gravel in areas where spawning 

gravels were previously absent or of low quality (House and Boehne 1985; Crispin et al. 

1993, House 1996). The addition of wood to a Nova Scotia restoration reach studied from 

1995 to 2004 found the instream structures caused gravels to accumulate that spawning 

adults used to build redds and fry used for shelter, and these reaches had higher spawning 

densities than the control reaches without structures (Floyd et al. 2009). Another study found 

that reaches with artificial structures that mimicked naturally fallen trees had significantly 

more redds (336) than reaches without the structures (280) (MacInnis et al. 2008). The same 

study showed that in the reaches with artificial structures, 48 percent of redds were 

associated with gravel pool tails, and 89 percent of redds were associated with pool tails of 

natural features. The authors concluded that large wood, whether natural or artificial, was an 

important source of spawning habitat for Atlantic salmon, and that the structure sites were 

often the first selected for redd construction, indicating they were preferred spawning 

locations. Many other studies have linked the addition of wood with improved spawning 

habitat, preference of salmonids to spawn directly behind or adjacent to restoration 

structures, and maintenance of spawning gravels (Cederholm et al. 1997; Floyd et al. 2009; 

MacInnis et al. 2008; Shellberg et al. 2010; Roni et al. 2015). No studies were found in the 

literature indicating a detrimental conversion of one habitat type (e.g., riffles) to another 

(pools). 

Wood Recruitment, Depletion, and Abundance

The processes of forest mortality, bank erosion, streamside landslides, debris flows and 

wildfires govern the supply of wood to streams (Benda and Bigelow 2014). These processes 

vary substantially within a watershed due to the diversity in forest composition and age, 

topography, stream size, locations of canyons and tributary junctions, climate and the history 

of natural and human disturbances such as floods, fires, and logging (Benda and Bigelow 

2014). Benda and Bigelow (2014) found average wood volumes on coastal streams in 

northern California were 5 to 20 times greater than inland sites due to higher forest biomass 

and mass wasting, and longer residence times of wood. The study found 90 percent of wood 
South Fork Saginaw Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment

9

recruitment occurred within 10 to 35 meters of the channel in managed and less-managed 

forests, and up to 50 meters in unmanaged forests.

Wood depletion in southeast Alaska streams occurs through decay, transport downstream, 

and/or direct loss from management activities. Murphy and Koski (1989) estimated that on 

logged Southeast Alaska streams similar to the streams in this project, instream large wood

densities would decrease by more than 70 percent within 90 years and would not recover for 

more than 250 years. Bilby and Ward (1989) found that old growth derived wood was

depleted rapidly following logging and that the rate of loss was proportional to stream width, 

with higher losses associated with wider streams. They also found that recruitment of large 

wood pieces that create jams (mean diameter 0.7 meters) was primarily by bank erosion in 

managed forests and by mortality in unmanaged forests. 

Techniques for estimating natural levels of wood abundance and current storage within a 

particular stream include assessing pre-harvest aerial photos and quantifying the amount and 

size of wood as part of a stream habitat survey. These wood counts are compared to Tongass 

reference standards on unmanaged streams of the same channel type for an assessment of 

current condition within a particular reach. Historical wood abundance can also be estimated 

using a reference reach upstream or downstream of the proposed restoration reach and 

conducting wood counts for comparison. If available, this method helps account for wood 

loss within the restoration reach resulting from using the channel as a yarding corridor during 

past harvest operations. Tongass survey protocols for wood counts include an assessment in 

two size classes, scaled to the width of the stream (USDA Forest Service 2001). 

“Key” wood pieces are considered large trees, logs, or rootwads which have the ability to 

influence the functional form of the channel, and represent the most desirable size class for a 

given stream. These pieces can be new trees recruited to the channel through forest mortality 

or bank erosion, or older “legacy” wood maintained in the channel over long periods of time. 

These pieces are generally longer than half the channel width and have a diameter greater 

than half the channel depth (Montgomery et al. 2003). Stream restoration projects such as 

this focus on restoring the larger key pieces to the stream channel and floodplain. 

Current Condition

Wood abundance on portions of South Fork Saginaw Creek and Shorty Creek has been 

depleted through decay, active transport and direct loss through logging in the 1970s and 

1980s. Both streams have legacy wood of various size classes and states of decay within the 

restoration reaches. Wood continues to be actively transported on both streams, but transport 

distance for key pieces is short due to the relative large size of the trees compared with 

smaller (12- to 17-meter) stream widths. South Fork Saginaw Creek will continue to be 

supplied with wood from forest mortality along the east bank, where the old growth canopy 

is still intact along most of the reach. However, wood supply is diminished as a result of

clearcut harvest throughout the reach along the west bank, as well as direct removal of wood 

from the stream when the trees were logged. The riparian areas of both streams have been 

pre-commercially thinned as part of an effort to improve degraded aquatic and floodplain 

habitat within these watersheds (USDA Forest Service 2007; USDA Forest Service 2010). 

Currently, the young growth stand along the east bank of South Fork Saginaw Creek is 

stocked to approximately 170 trees per acre (Parks 2017, personal communication), with tree 
South Fork Saginaw Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment

10

diameters ranging from approximately 14 to 26 inches. The intent of thinning these logged 

riparian areas is to speed the growth of large trees in order to achieve natural wood 

recruitment to the stream more quickly. 

Stream Habitat Surveys

Tongass National Forest Tier II stream habitat surveys indicate lower scores for several key 

measures of habitat quality when compared to Tongass reference standards for similar 

channels (Table 2). Habitat attributes including pool metrics, number of large, key pieces of 

wood, and channel width-to-depth ratio are strong indicators of aquatic habitat condition. 

South Fork Saginaw Creek has seen a decline in several pool metrics and total key wood 

counts since 2008 (Table 2). Metrics for Shorty Creek are mixed, showing an increase in key 

wood (likely from a longer survey length), but general decline in pool metrics. The channel 

also seems to be incising according to the data, as indicated by a wider, deeper, channel with 

larger pebble sizes indicating higher stream power (Table 3). This could potentially lead to a 

lack of stream connectivity to the floodplain, which would diminish floodplain complexity 

and function.

Table 2. Tier II habitat results on South Fork Saginaw Creek compared to Tongass 

reference standards

Habitat 

Variables1

25

percentile2

50

percentile2

75

percentile2

2008 Tier 

II Results

2016 Tier 

II Results

2008 

Rating

2016 

Rating

WD 18.5 20.2 32.8 30.5 28.9 Good Good

TLWD/M 0.31 0.37 0.5 0.66 0.61 Excellent Excellent

TKWD/M 0.06 0.11 0.15 0.07 0.03 Good Fair

POOLS/KM 30 40 60 54 24 Good Fair

POOL SPACE 1.3 1.8 2.2 1.0 2.7 Excellent Fair

RPD/CBW 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.04 Fair Fair

D50 15 19 34 26.2 33 Good Good

PLNGTH/M 0.38 0.54 0.7 0.70 0.58 Fair Good

REL_SUBMRG 26.5 36.9 49.4 14.9 17.8 Fair Fair

POOL_SIZE 0.68 0.84 0.94 1.80 1.12 Excellent Excellent

1 WD = Channel width to depth ratio; TLWD/M = Total large woody debris pieces > 1m long and 0.1 m wide, 

TKWD/M = Total key woody pieces > 3m long x 0.3 m wide, POOLS/KM = # Pools / kilometer, POOL 

SPACE = pool spacing, RPD/CBW = Ratio of residual pool depth to channel bed width; D50 = Median 

substrate particle size; PLNGTH/M = Pool length per meter; REL_SUBMRG = Relative submergence of bed 

particles; POOL_SIZE = Pool size.

2 Percentiles for Tongass reference standards
South Fork Saginaw Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment

11

Table 3. Tier II habitat results on Shorty Creek compared to Tongass reference standards 

Habitat 

Variables

25 

percentile

50 

percentile

75 

percentile

2008 Tier 

II Results

2016 Tier 

II Results

2008 

Rating

2016 

Rating

WD 18.5 20.2 32.8 39.6 23.9 Fair Good

TLWD/M 0.31 0.37 0.5 0.72 1.27 Excellent Excellent

TKWD/M 0.06 0.11 0.15 0.06 0.13 Fair Good

POOLS/KM 30 40 60 63 48 Excellent Good

POOL SPACE 1.3 1.8 2.2 1.3 1.5 Excellent Good

RPD/CBW 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.04 Good Good

D50 15 19 34 23.6 57 Good Fair

PLNGTH/M 0.38 0.54 0.7 0.72 0.71 Fair Fair

REL_SUBMRG 26.5 36.9 49.4 13.4 18.3 Fair Fair

POOL_SIZE 0.68 0.84 0.94 1.68 0.87 Excellent Good

The legacy of previous activities on both of these streams and their floodplains resulted in 

bank erosion, channel widening, and degraded floodplain condition. The trajectory of habitat 

quality is declining as a result and would continue to decline without project implementation. 

Wood Collection

The wood necessary to complete this project includes whole trees with rootwads still 

attached, cut logs, and cull wood (slash, pieces left on the ground or low value trees from

previously harvested timber units). Whole trees would be harvested according to guidelines 

established for similar projects in which excavators are used to push targeted trees over in 

order to maintain the rootwad (Landwehr 2009). Trees with rootwads still attached have 

many benefits when used for instream restoration, primarily by increasing structure stability, 

but also result in improved pool formation, cover, and bank stability due to the greater 

surface area provided by the root fan. 

Wood collection for the South Fork Saginaw Creek site would occur within the young 

growth stand adjacent to the stream on the east bank (Figure 1) (Table 4). This stand was 

harvested in 1970 and has trees of sufficient size for use in building instream structures. 

Approximately 250 whole trees (rootwads attached), equivalent to approximately 136 MBF 

(thousand board feet) would be sourced primarily from the Riparian Management Area 

(RMA). A silvicultural prescription would be developed for thinning the RMA to a wider 

spacing more typical of old growth stand conditions, while protecting trees adjacent to the 

stream for bank stability and promoting growth of the largest trees within the RMA. The 

trees removed from the RMA would be used either for building instream structures or as 

puncheon material for heavy equipment access trails. In locations along the stream where 

sufficiently large young growth trees are not available within the RMA under the conditions 

of the prescription, trees would be sourced in the same stand outside the RMA, within future 

timber harvest units further upslope. Sourcing wood from the proposed stand would be less 

expensive, result in a smaller environmental “footprint” by minimizing transport distance 

onsite and within the stream, and benefit floodplain condition in the long-term by growing 

large trees faster as a result of thinning. These large floodplain trees will ultimately be the 
South Fork Saginaw Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment

12

future source of material to provide habitat benefits to the stream and floodplain as they die 

and are recruited into these environments.

Wood collection for the Shorty Creek site would occur in stands adjacent to NFS roads 6402 

and 46094 (Figure 2) (Table 4). These stands are located in a Timber Production LUD and 

were eliminated as potential timber harvest units in future sales since they are comprised 

primarily of low value, high-defect hemlock. Approximately 200 trees (about 109 MBF) 

would be harvested from these locations and would be a combination of cut logs and whole 

trees. Most of these trees would be harvested from the road prism in these locations. 

If alternative wood sources become available through other avenues such as state timber 

sales, cull wood from a nearby harvest unit, or unpredictable stochastic events such as 

landslides or natural blowdown, these options would be considered in lieu of harvesting the 

wood within the planned harvest area (Figure 2). In such cases, the goals and objectives for 

the particular Land Use Designation (LUD) in which the wood is located would be met, the 

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for resource protection would be applied, and the 

Project Design Features (see section below) for wood collection activities would be 

implemented.

Table 4. Anticipated location of wood collection for the South Fork Saginaw Creek 

Restoration project

Watershed 6th HUC# / Name LUD

Wood 

Description Location

#190102100602 / Saginaw Creek Timber 

Production

Young 

growth / 

Whole tree 

Young growth stand 

adjacent to South Fork 

Saginaw Creek 

#190102100703 / Rowan Bay Timber 

Production

Old Growth / 

Low value, 

high-defect / 

Cut logs & 

whole tree

~ 0.5 miles (NFS Road 

6402) & 1.8 miles (NFS 

Road 46094) north of 

Shorty Creek on NFS 

Road 6402

Site Access

Both streams would be accessed using old, decommissioned temporary roads. The access on

South Fork Saginaw Creek is an old spur road constructed of shot-rock during the original 

harvest in 1970. The spur begins on NFS Road 6413 and ends at the stream where an old 

bridge was removed, then continues on the opposite (east) bank and roughly parallels Stone 

Creek (Figure 1). This would be the primary access for heavy equipment to the stream. The 

young growth trees required to build structures within the South Fork Saginaw reach would

be accessed using constructed puncheon trails, primarily from the stream corridor, but also 

from the spur road paralleling Stone Creek. Puncheon trails have been used successfully in 

previous restoration projects on Kuiu and Prince of Wales Island in southeast Alaska. 

Puncheon in the form of smaller trees, branches, and cull logs along access routes is placed 

on the ground along the access route to prevent detrimental soil damage. In a soil compaction 

monitoring study conducted for the 2014 Kuiu Island Stream Restoration Project, Landwehr 
South Fork Saginaw Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment

13

and Foss (2014) found the use of cull logs and slash to blanket the soil under equipment 

routes to be very effective at preventing detrimental soil compaction. 

The portion of Shorty Creek downstream of the existing bridge on NFS road 6402 would also 

be accessed using an old spur trail, constructed during the original harvest in 1980. A short 

(approximately 200-foot) puncheon trail would be constructed for access from the end of the 

spur to the stream. The portion of Shorty Creek upstream of the bridge would be accessed 

from the bridge site to the stream, using the old shot-rock surface created during bridge 

construction. All upstream sites would be accessed via the stream channel. 

Instream Structures

A total of 21 sites will be constructed on these streams using heavy equipment. A helicopter 

may be used to deliver the wood closer to site locations depending on cost and availability. 

Objectives for each site were determined based on field reconnaissance and integrated into 

site design elements. Individual site objectives will determine the type of structure used at a 

given location. Typical structure types include point bar depositional structures (bar buddies), 

formidable multi-faceted large wood scour structures (FMFs), cross-channel structures,

floodplain wood placements, and combinations of the above. See Appendix A for additional 

information on structures and design considerations. The length of time these structures 

remain in their original location is influenced by a variety of factors. A study in the Pacific 

Northwest assessed the durability of 3,946 structures in 94 streams that had floods with 

return intervals exceeding 5 years and found over 80 percent of the sampled structures 

remained in place (Roper et al. 1998). The same study found structure durability depended on 

flood magnitude, stream size (larger streams 20 times more likely to have structures 

removed), location within the channel, whether the structure was anchored or not, structure 

material, and upslope landslide frequency (Roper et al. 1998). In a performance evaluation of 

engineered log jams (ELJs) similar to those proposed for this project, the authors found that 

out of 129 ELJs constructed, 10 had experienced major change after 13 years (Daley et al. 

2013). They also determined that wood decay was unlikely to be the limiting factor 

determining the longevity of most wood structures and concluded that a reasonable potential 

lifespan of a typical log structure based on wood decay alone was in excess of 50 years.

Thompson (2002) documented wood within streambank structures as being relatively 

functional for as long as 70 years. Decay rates vary as a function of surface area, water 

quality, tree species and amount of wet/dry cycling (Yochum 2016). Larger-diameter logs 

with less surface area per wood volume decay at lower rates, while wood in streams with 

higher nutrient levels decay at higher rates (Diez et al. 2002; Gulis et al. 2004; Spanhoff and 

Meyer 2004).

Even though a structure may experience major structural change or decay, the structural 

elements (logs, trees, rootwads) will continue to perform an ecological function, since the 

wood from the structure is typically retained within the channel (Daley et al. 2013). Only 

structures that have “failed” in fulfilling the original task, in the original location, could be 

considered to have failed strategically. In 2014, following two major flood events (~ 70 year 

and 33 year return intervals) occurring two months apart on Twelvemile Creek in southeast 

Alaska, some of the wood from instream structures placed in 2012-2013 mobilized

downstream. Subsequent monitoring indicated the integrity of most structures was 

maintained, and the majority of the wood mobilized downstream was retained within the 
South Fork Saginaw Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment

14

original restoration reach (USDA Forest Service 2015a). Monitoring indicated the mobilized 

wood often racked on stable, natural or placed structures downstream, and in at least one case 

caused a large, complex channel-spanning log jam. While no logs were observed outside the 

restoration reach immediately following the flood events, approximately five percent (less 

than 30 pieces) of the placed wood moved outside the reach into the tidal zone between 2014 

and 2015 (USDA Forest Service 2015b). Movement of individual pieces of wood from 

placed structures should be expected, but may be minimized by considering the factors 

mentioned above as well as implementing construction techniques proven to increase 

structure durability including burying sill logs within the floodplain, interlocking wood 

pieces with each other and structural components on the floodplain, use of vertical logs or 

“pilings”, and placement of ballast logs above the flood-prone elevation all contribute to 

structural integrity.

The structures proposed for this project are expected to remain functional within these 

reaches for decades. It may become necessary in the future, based on site monitoring results 

to maintain, adjust, or place additional wood within these reaches until the process of natural 

wood recruitment occurs, a timeframe of decades.

DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

Alternative 1 – No Action

Under the no action alternative, no trees would be harvested for the rehabilitation of the 

project area, structures would not be installed in the stream channels, and large wood would 

not be placed within the floodplain. Stream habitat condition would decline with time as the 

existing legacy wood in the streams decays and / or mobilizes downstream without a natural 

source of replacement within the floodplains. As a result of the loss of quality spawning and 

rearing habitat, fish production would decline within these reaches. Replacement of a natural 

source of wood recruitment would take many decades, and habitat quality would remain 

diminished. Nearby management activities including harvest of the nearby young growth 

stands would continue as these stands become viable. Forest Service spur roads 6413_0.123L 

and 6402_12.91R would remain closed until needed for management of the young-growth 

stands adjacent to these roads, at which time they would be reconstructed. 

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action

Alternative 2 proposes the following activities:

• Harvest and stockpile approximately 450 trees for use in restoring portions of two 

streams and their floodplain (Figure 1; Figure 2). Wood would include cut logs and 

whole trees with rootwads attached. The young growth stand adjacent to South Fork 

Saginaw would be used for building structures in that stream, while the majority of 

the old growth wood used on Shorty Creek would be considered high defect, low 

value hemlock and would be sourced from roadside locations approximately 0.5 - 1.8 

miles north of the site (Figure 2). Trees would be stockpiled temporarily prior to 

implementation along open portions of the access roads near the project sites (Figure

1; Figure 2). Whole trees would be harvested according to guidelines established for 
South Fork Saginaw Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment

15

similar projects (Landwehr 2009). Trees intended for stream placement would be 

sound and free of rot to maximize longevity. Road maintenance commensurate with 

impacts from wood collection activities would occur as part of the restoration 

contract. 

• Construct temporary puncheon trails to access the young growth stand adjacent to 

South Fork Saginaw Creek for wood sourcing. Construct a short puncheon trail to 

access instream restoration sites on Shorty Creek. Trails would be constructed by 

removing a small number of young-growth conifer and alder trees, and placing these 

trees in front of a machine to minimize soil disturbance. These trails would be wide 

enough to accommodate the tracks of an excavator and facilitate the transport of cut 

trees and rootwads needed for the project (approximately 30 feet wide). One acre is 

expected to be “cleared” during creation of these access puncheon trails. Trees and 

other native material along the access route would be used as puncheon to minimize 

potential damage to the floodplain resulting from excavator passage (Figure 1; Figure 

3). Puncheon trails would be rehabilitated, with puncheon material decompacted and 

scattered once instream structures are placed and access is no longer needed. No 

rocked roads would be constructed for this project.

• Restore and stabilize anadromous and resident fish habitat by building wood 

structures in the active channels of approximately 0.6 miles of South Fork Saginaw

Creek and 0.4 miles of Shorty Creek (Figure 1; Figure 3). Approximately 21

structures would be built; 9 in South Fork Saginaw Creek and 12 in Shorty Creek.

The purpose of the structures would vary by site, but includes pool creation, bank 

stabilization, side-channel activation, floodplain connection, and reduced pool head 

width compared to reference conditions. No cable, rebar, or cement would be used in 

the construction of structures.

• Improve floodplain condition by adding logs and whole trees with rootwads attached

to the floodplain. If available, a helicopter may be used for staging wood in close 

proximity to restoration sites and for floodplain placements. Helicopter use would 

minimize site disturbance associated with heavy equipment but could result in 

riparian tree damage due to placement within a thick alder canopy. If a helicopter is 

unavailable, heavy equipment would be used for all transport and placement. Wood

placed in the floodplain would improve resilience during flood events by providing 

structure (roughness), and would provide a stable medium for future conifer growth. 

By adding large trees and logs to the stream channels and floodplain as described, this 

alternative would create or maintain quality pools used for cover, feeding, and thermal 

refugia by salmonids; strategic placements of wood would improve spawning and rearing 

habitat by metering and sorting sediment and providing access to the floodplain and side 

channels; and floodplain condition would be improved through wood placements which 

would act as nurse logs for future conifer growth and provide roughness during flooding. The 

long-term goal of this project is to provide these streams with a dynamic stability through

time with placements of large logs and whole trees. The project would provide enough wood 

for a long enough period of time to enable the trees within the previously-harvested 

floodplain to naturally recruit into these streams, providing the benefits of wood as described. 

This project focuses on restoring processes that improve watershed function and long-term 

health, and is consistent with management direction for the Timber Production LUD in which 
South Fork Saginaw Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment

16

the project area is located by applying Fish, Riparian, and Soil & Water Forest-wide 

Standards and Guidelines, among others. One of the primary objectives of these Standards 

and Guidelines is to “Maintain riparian areas in mostly natural conditions for fish, other 

aquatic life, old-growth and riparian-associated plant and wildlife species, water-related 

recreation, and provide for ecosystem processes, including important aquatic and land 

interactions” (USDA Forest Service 2016).

Implementation of this project could coincide with timber sale activities on Kuiu Island in 

order to benefit from heavy equipment mobilized onsite. 

TIME AND DURATION OF ACTIVITY

The work is anticipated to occur during the summer of 2018 and 2019. Once begun, the 

project as described in the proposed action could be completed within a 2 month timeframe. 

Work windows for the instream portion would be developed in consultation with the Alaska 

Department of Fish & Game (ADFG), Title 16 Memorandum of Understanding.

PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES

The following project design features would help prevent potential negative effects of the 

proposed work:

1. A pre-work meeting with contractors would be conducted to review key project 

design features. 

2. Wood harvest activities would adhere to standards and guidelines for the Timber 

Production LUD in which the cut logs and rootwad trees would be harvested. (USDA 

Forest Service 2016). Rootwad trees would be harvested according to guidelines 

established during similar restoration projects on Harris River, 12-Mile Creek and 

Gandlaay Haanaa (formerly Fubar Creek) on Prince of Wales Island; West Fork 

Saginaw Creek, South Fork Kadake Creek, and Josie Creek on Kuiu Island; and 

Sitkoh River near Sitka, Alaska (Landwehr 2009). All harvest locations would be 

rehabilitated with slash following tree removal.

3. Within the wood collection areas, Riparian Standards and Guidelines for stream 

protection would be implemented. Riparian areas and streams would be identified and 

protected according to their associated management objectives (BMP 12.6; 13.16; 

National BMP AqEco-4). There are no known streams within the Shorty Creek wood 

source area. A Silvicultural prescription would be completed for the wood collection 

areas, including a thinning prescription for the young growth stand adjacent to South 

Fork Saginaw Creek. 

4. Oil pollution prevention and contingencies would be in place. Equipment would be 

fueled a minimum of 150 feet from an active stream channel. Detailed equipment 

refueling plans would be considered prior to work commencement (BMP 12.8; 12.9; 

National BMP Road-10).

5. Equipment access trails used during the project would be closed upon project 

completion and would be covered in slash to minimize erosion and soil compaction in 

areas where equipment operates, or where mineral soils are exposed to encourage 
South Fork Saginaw Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment

17

natural regeneration (BMP 12.17; National BMP # Road-2). No roads would be 

constructed for this project. 

6. Areas of bare ground resulting from construction activities where slash or native seed 

sources are not available, as well as disturbed waterways, would be replanted with 

salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) and/or willow (Salix sitchensis) cuttings. 

Salmonberry would be planted throughout the floodplain in the spring prior to 

budburst. Other options for revegetation using local seed sources would be 

considered. (BMP 12.17; National BMP Veg-2).

7. Petroleum-based hydraulic fluid in heavy equipment would be replaced with 

vegetable–based hydraulic fluid to protect water quality in the event of a spill. Spill 

containment kit would be kept on site (BMPs 12.8; 12.9; National BMP AqEco-2; 

Road-3).

8. In-channel construction activities are subject to fish timing windows and would be 

determined in consultation with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Habitat 

Division as per the Title 16 Memorandum of Understanding (BMPs 14.6, 18.3; 

National BMP AqEco-2; Road-3).

9. Equipment use in live streams would be kept to a minimum. To the extent possible, 

equipment would be limited to puncheon trail surfaces and gravel bars, only 

accessing the active flow channel when necessary to perform detailed site-specific 

construction (BMPs 14.6, 14.14; 18.3; National BMP AqEco-2; Road-3).

10. Equipment would not be stored, maintained or repaired within the stream channel or 

floodplain (BMP 14.14; National BMP Road-9; Fac-2).

11. Where feasible or advisable, active flow channel work sites would be dewatered. Fish 

would be removed from the dewatering area prior to dewatering of the site (BMP 

14.15). 

12. An erosion/sediment control plan would be created prior to the project 

implementation as part of the construction contract. Erosion control devices such as 

silt fence would be used to protect water ways from sediment impacts (BMP 14.5; 

National BMP AqEco-2). 

13. All equipment would be cleaned prior to arrival on Kuiu Island to reduce the potential 

for invasive plant introduction (BMP 14.14; National BMP Fac-7; Veg-3.1). During 

implementation, ensure that clothing, footwear, materials, equipment and tools used 

in the project area are free of invasive plants (BMP Veg 8). 

14. Areas suitable for staging construction materials and equipment would be identified 

on site prior to implementation (BMP 12.8; 14.14; National BMP Fac-2). 

15. If previously undiscovered sensitive or rare plants are encountered prior to or during 

implementation, the population would be protected and disturbance would be avoided 

in the area containing the population and similar habitats in that vicinity.

16. Rootwads and rootwad trees would be harvested from a weed free site.

17. Reed canarygrass would be controlled along the access points and bridge abutments 

within the project area prior to, during, and after restoration activities.

18. If heritage resources are discovered prior to or during implementation, the site would 

be protected and a Forest Service archeologist notified. 

19. If any previously undiscovered endangered, threatened, candidate or sensitive species 

or key habitats for any MIS or other species identified in this document are 
South Fork Saginaw Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment

18

encountered prior to or during the implementation of this project, a District Biologist 

would be consulted and applicable measures applied.

20. Goshawk nest buffer: Maintain an area of not less than 100 acres of productive oldgrowth (POG) forest if it exists, or the largest diameter young-growth forest if 

sufficient POG is not adjacent to the nest, generally centered over the nest tree or 

probable nest site to provide for prey handling areas, perches, roosts, alternate nests, 

hiding cover, and foraging opportunities for young goshawks. Vegetative structure 

should include, where available, multi-layered, closed (over 60 percent) canopy 

stands, a relatively open understory, with large trees (usually 20+ inches diameter at 

breast height) and low ground vegetation (Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, p. 4-

95). 

21. Active goshawk nests: Do not allow continuous disturbance likely to result in nest 

abandonment within the surrounding 600 feet from March 15 to August 15. Activity 

restrictions would be removed for active nests that become inactive or unsuccessful 

(Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, p. 4-95).

22. Avoid repeated helicopter flights within 1⁄4 mile of active bald eagle nests from March 

1 to August 31, particularly with large helicopters used for yarding timber. Heliports 

and helicopter logging flight corridors will maintain at least a 1⁄4 mile distance from 

active nests. (National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines; Forest Plan Standards 

and Guidelines, p. 4-88 and p. 5-15).

23. All trash from project activities or discovered onsite which is accessible from 

equipment access trails or transportable by hand would be removed and taken to a 

landfill.

The Forest Service will design, inspect, and monitor construction activities to ensure proper 

implementation and take appropriate action to reduce or eliminate negative effects to 

resources.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE NO ACTION AND 

PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Fisheries 

Alternative 1 - No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

The No Action alternative would result in a continued lack of pool area and complexity, 

continued bank erosion/avulsion, channel widening, streambed incision, and degraded 

floodplain condition. The trajectory of fish spawning and rearing habitat quality would 

decline as a result of the loss of legacy wood in the stream and floodplain and lack of wood 

recruitment from the floodplain. 
South Fork Saginaw Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment

19

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

The analysis area for direct and indirect effects to fisheries includes the areas where proposed 

activities will take place. Adverse effects to fish and aquatic organisms including turbidity 

and disturbance from machinery are expected to be short in duration (hours to days) and 

below lethal levels. The impact to the overall populations is expected to be negligible. It is 

possible this project may result in individual fish being crushed by heavy equipment. The 

more likely short-term outcome is individuals being displaced temporarily. This project is not 

expected to affect overall populations due to construction activities being confined to a 

discrete portion of the stream network, the short timeframe of instream activities, and timing 

the instream work to minimize potential disturbance during critical life stages (eggs in the 

gravel, spawning adults). 

Beneficial direct effects of this project include improved fish habitat through increased 

quantity and quality of pools, improved cover, improved bank stability, and maintenance of 

rearing habitat. Indirectly, improved physical habitat (pools) would benefit rearing and 

resting salmonids during overwintering and migration by providing cover, improved forage

efficiency, and thermal refugia during times of low water and high temperatures. 

Implementation would occur at an appropriate time after fry and smolt emigration and before 

adult migration, in accordance with agreed upon fish timing windows through the Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game Title 16 Concurrence Memorandum of Understanding. The 

USFS would also obtain the required U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permits as appropriate, 

and continue EFH consultations with NOAA Fisheries for the instream portion of the project. 

Cumulative Effects

The analysis area for cumulative effects includes the Saginaw Creek and Rowan Bay 

watersheds described under “Location” above and in Table 2. 

Alternative 1

The floodplain would continue to recover over the course of decades/hundreds of years. 

Eventually, conifers would recover enough to be available for natural recruitment to the 

stream, but this would also occur on a prolonged time scale. The stream environment through 

the restoration reaches would eventually stabilize into a new “dynamic equilibrium,” but 

most likely habitat would be simplified through these sections compared to streams of the 

same channel type. The restoration reaches are short enough that fish populations are 

unlikely to be negatively affected on a watershed scale. 

Alternative 2

While the loss of individual fish is possible during implementation, this loss would have 

negligible effect to overall fish populations. Impacts related to the wood collection portion of 

the project are expected to be minimal, and would not affect fish streams. Potential effects to 

fish are minimized through mitigation measures and project design features discussed above

under Project Design Features. No long-term negative cumulative effects are expected with 

implementation of the proposed action.
South Fork Saginaw Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment

20

Cumulatively, the effects of the proposed action are expected to be beneficial for fisheries 

resources as a result of long-term, stable pools and improved stability of the floodplain and 

instream structures. Benefits to adult and juvenile salmonids from the addition of large wood 

are well documented and result from the improvements discussed above. 

The anticipated effect of harvest of trees in support of this project is minimal and would 

occur according to Tongass Riparian Buffer Standards and Guidelines and project design 

features discussed above. 

Hydrology

Alternative 1 - No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

The analysis area for direct and indirect effects to hydrology includes the areas where 

proposed activities will take place. The No Action alternative would result in a continued 

lack of pool area and complexity, continued bank erosion/channel avulsion, channel 

widening, streambed incision, and degraded floodplain condition. Stream habitat condition 

would decline with time as the existing legacy wood in the streams decays and / or mobilizes 

downstream without a natural source of replacement within the floodplains. Replacement of 

a natural source of wood recruitment would take many decades, and habitat quality would 

continue to decline until a natural source of wood recruitment to the stream and floodplain 

returns.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Aquatic resources are the most likely to be affected by the instream restoration portion of the 

project. The proposed action would result in the short-term (1 month to 1 year) adverse 

effects to water resources in the form of sedimentation and substrate disturbance caused by 

heavy equipment transiting puncheon trails, crossing the streams and operating on the banks 

during stream structure excavation and placement. Fine particles could remain in suspension 

for a short distance downstream for a limited time period, dissipating with time and distance.

Based on monitoring conducted for similar restoration projects on the Tongass (Prussian 

2007), short-term turbidity pulses exceeding the State water quality criteria of 5

Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU) above natural conditions are expected for a short 

period after cessation of stream channel disturbance. In the referenced study, the initial flush 

of turbidity occurred following the diversion of water back into the channel following 3

weeks of instream work in dry conditions; however, turbidity decreased by 87 percent in 3

hours and 96 percent in 15 hours.

Placement of large wood within the floodplain would also cause short-term, adverse effects 

through disturbance of soils. The proposed activities would improve resilience to high flow 

events through increased structure, provide a growth medium for future conifer recruitment, 

and would speed the rate of recovery of the floodplain in the long term.
South Fork Saginaw Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment

21

Cumulative Effects

The analysis area for cumulative effects includes the Saginaw Creek and Rowan Bay 

watersheds described under “Location” above and in Table 2. Reasonably foreseeable future 

activities in the analysis area include potential timber harvest under the North Kuiu Timber 

Sale on National Forest System (NFS) lands, timber harvest on newly-acquired Sealaska 

Corporation lands within the Saginaw Creek watershed, continued pre-commercial thinning 

of previously harvested units within the Saginaw and Rowan Bay watersheds, periodic road 

maintenance, invasive weed treatments, recreational use, subsistence activities, and special 

use permits for outfitter and guide activities. 

Alternative 1

The floodplain would continue to recover over the course of many decades. On streams and 

floodplains such as those in the project area where wood has been removed, hydrologic 

equilibrium is out of balance and aquatic habitat is either degraded or rapidly deteriorating. 

The removal of large wood from the streams and floodplains of the restoration reaches 

initiates a cascading and connected series of processes which eventually lead to long-term 

aquatic habitat and floodplain degradation. Stream habitat conditions along these relatively 

short reaches would continue to deteriorate due primarily to the loss of legacy wood without 

a viable replacement, and the subsequent loss of quality stream and floodplain habitat. 

Alternative 2

Alternative 2 is expected to have long-term, beneficial cumulative effects to the restoration

reaches. Beneficial effects would be expected in sediment transport and metering 

improvements, pool development, pool frequency and quality, improved streambank 

stability, and width-to-depth ratio reduction. These habitat improvements are expected to 

benefit fish as described above under “Fisheries.”

The potential negative effects of this project to water quality (turbidity) and physical stream 

habitat (sedimentation) during the construction phase would be short-term in duration (hours 

to days), and are not expected to have long-term negative cumulative consequences. 

Cumulative harvest effects related to the wood collection portion of the project are expected 

to be minimal within the affected watersheds. An area of approximately 32 acres would 

provide approximately 450 trees for the project, whereas typical stocking rates for oldgrowth timber in this area range from 100-150 trees per acre, and young growth spaced at 16 

feet apart (as is the case in the South Fork Saginaw Creek stand) is approximately 170 tree 

per acre (Parks, personal communication). The majority of the trees within wood collection

areas would therefore be retained. Thirty-year cumulative harvest levels would actually 

decrease from 2016 in the Saginaw Creek watershed due to approximately 296 acres of 

harvest from 1988-1989 no longer included in the 2018 implementation date calculation. 

Cumulative harvest levels in the Rowan Bay watershed would be insignificant (Table 5).

Previous and planned harvest levels within these watersheds were considered and cumulative 

harvest levels are summarized in Table 5. Proposed acres shown are analyzed as if the wood 

collection areas were clearcut, whereas the trees would actually be thinned from a larger area. 

For example, 250 trees would be harvested from an area approximately 20 acres in size for 

the South Fork Saginaw Creek site. Using typical stocking rates for young growth a 

theoretical clearcut of the 20 acre area would yield approximately 3,400 trees. The actual 
South Fork Saginaw Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment

22

harvest would be equivalent to a clearcut area of approximately 1.5 acres. Future foreseeable 

harvest includes the North Kuiu Timber Sale, and a potential Sealaska harvest in which a 100

percent harvest of all Sealaska lands was assumed.

Table 5. Summary of wood collection under Alternative 2 as it affects cumulative harvest 

levels

Watershed 

Proposed Harvest 

Area (acres)

30-Year 

Cumulative 

Harvest in 2016 

(% watershed)

30-Year 

Cumulative 

Harvest in 2018 

w/Restoration 

(% watershed)

30-Year 

Cumulative 

Foreseeable Future 

Harvest by 2018 (% 

watershed)

Saginaw Creek 20 6.5 3.0 18.6

Rowan Bay 12.3 3.0 3.0 4.7

The impacts of the proposed restoration activities are not expected to be significant nor result 

in long-term degradation of water quality, alter water quantity, nor affect any beneficial use 

of the water. The effects are expected to be short in duration and would be mitigated by 

following Forest Plan standards and guidelines, BMPs, and project design criteria 

incorporated into contract design. The proposed activities are addressed under Nationwide 

Permit #27 pertaining to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Implementing the proposed 

action is expected to improve the long-term cumulative condition of stream and floodplain 

habitat within these watersheds. 

Soils

Soils within the proposed stream restoration areas are typically well-drained and developed 

in alluvial sediments. These soils were disturbed to various degrees by prior timber harvest. 

In most cases the duff layer was re-arranged but left on site. Due to an extensive alder seed 

source and regular flooding disturbance, the riparian sites have regenerated to red alder. 

Within the proposed rootwad harvest areas soils range from well- to poorly-drained. The soil 

duff layer is largely intact and the soils support conifer dominated stands, young-growth for 

the South Fork Saginaw site and low volume old-growth for the Shorty Creek site. The 

proposed activities have the potential to disturb soil duff layers, increase soil erosion, 

compact soil, and export (displace) nutrient rich topsoil and duff from large areas.

The analysis area for direct and indirect effects to soils includes the areas where proposed 

activities will take place.

Alternative 1 - No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under Alternative 1 no ground disturbing activities would take place. The soils in proposed 

restoration areas and harvest areas would remain much as they are now. Along stream banks 

soils would continue to erode as the stream meanders in its floodplain. The rate of erosion 

would be slightly higher than in an unharvested riparian area.
South Fork Saginaw Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment

23

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Alternative 2 proposes to harvest logs and rootwad trees from a young-growth, well-drained 

riparian management area adjacent to the South Fork of Saginaw Creek and place those logs 

and rootwad trees in the stream. Moving the logs to the creek requires several short shovel 

trails. Alternative 2 also proposes to harvest old-growth logs and rootwad trees from two 

poorly- to well-drained roadside areas north of the Shorty Creek restoration site and truck 

those logs and trees to Shorty Creek for construction of instream structures. (Figures 1-3). 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Rootwad harvest has the potential to displace large areas of nutrient rich topsoil. Since 2009 

the Forest has been following Root-Wad Harvest Guidelines (Landwehr 2009) developed 

following rootwad harvest for the Fubar Creek and Harris River stream restoration projects. 

Photo point monitoring of vegetation recovery at several rootwad harvest areas is ongoing. 

The Guidelines call for removing individual or small clumps of individual trees on gently 

sloping well-drained soils. One of the sites proposed for wood collection for the Shorty 

Creek restoration is on poorly-drained soils. This site would be used for log only harvest with 

a few rootwad trees taken on the better drained soils on the north end of the area. Under these 

conditions the site will meet Regional Soil Quality Standards. 

Access trails to move logs and rootwad trees from roads or harvest sites to the stream have 

the potential to compact or displace soils. Monitoring of access trails (Landwehr and Foss 

2014) found that soils under heavily used trails were not compacted. On the access trails 

monitored slash and cull logs were used to support the equipment weight over the soils. Soil 

displacement was not present due to the thick layer of slash. The slash and cull logs on the 

access trails were “fluffed” after use was complete. Access trails proposed under Alternative 

2 would be treated the same way and therefore displacement and compaction would be 

minimized. Based on existing monitoring data the access trails would meet Regional Soil 

Quality Standards. 

Cumulative Effects 

The analysis area for cumulative effects to soils are the areas where activities are proposed. 

Foreseeable future activities on northern Kuiu Island include timber harvest, but the proposed 

timber harvest activities will not occur on the same sites as the stream restoration activities. 

Alternative 1

Under Alternative 1 soils in the proposed harvest areas and at the restoration sites would 

continue to slowly recover from the original timber harvest in the area. The proposed oldgrowth harvest sites would not be impacted. 

Alternative 2

Under Alternative 2 soils would be impacted by access trails, rootwad harvest, log only 

harvest and stream restoration activities. Based on existing monitoring data these activities,

when combined with existing soil conditions, would result in soils that meet Regional Soil 

Quality Standards. The instream structures would help stabilize streambanks and wood 

placed on the floodplain would reduce water velocities and allow more sediment to be 

deposited on the floodplain, possibly improving soil conditions. 
South Fork Saginaw Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment

24

Wetlands

The analysis area for assessing the direct and indirect effects to wetlands is the area where 

the proposed activities would take place. 

Forested wetlands are located in the two areas proposed for tree harvest for the Shorty Creek 

restoration (Figure 4). In the southern polygon, the soils are wet and organic soil may be a 

meter or more thick. In the northern polygon, soils are combination of wet and dry mineral 

soils. The southern area is almost entirely very poorly-drained forested wetland supporting a 

scrubby cedar-hemlock-blueberry-skunk cabbage stand. The South Fork Saginaw portion of 

the analysis area is entirely on upland soils. The existing roads next to both wetland areas 

have slightly modified the wetlands but the effects are limited to within a few feet of the 

road. Visible impacts to vegetation are negligible. 

Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 does not propose any activity, therefore the forested wetlands would remain 

intact.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under Alternative 2 log and rootwad harvest would occur on poorly-drained mineral soil 

wetlands and uplands along NFS roads 46094 and 6402. Over time the vegetation 

composition of these harvested forested wetlands will likely change toward more western 

hemlock. Soils may be impacted by equipment use, but the wetland soils would still be 

capable of supporting wetland vegetation. The northern polygon is a mix of forested wetland 

and upland forest (Figure 4). On the wettest site, log only harvest is proposed. The proposed 

activities would not convert wetland to upland.

Cumulative Effects 

The analysis area for wetlands includes the area where activities are proposed. Past road 

construction has slightly modified the wetlands where log and rootwad harvest are proposed 

for the Shorty Creek site. No reasonably foreseeable future harvest activities are proposed in 

the wood collection area for either restoration site, but timber harvest is proposed 

immediately adjacent the southern harvest area for Shorty Creek. No cumulative effects to 

the wetlands in the southern harvest polygon are expected as a result of timber harvest of the 

adjacent upland stand. 
South Fork Saginaw Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment

25

Figure 4. Wetland Habitat Types of the Shorty Creek Wood Collection Areas
South Fork Saginaw Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment

26

Botany

Potential sensitive and rare plant habitat within the project area includes the gravel substrate 

in-stream, stream banks and the western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) old growth. The 

riparian corridor contains marginal habitat for sensitive and rare plant species. This area is 

largely disturbed with a dense salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) and saxifrage (Tolmiea 

menziesii) cover in the South Saginaw restoration area, and sparsely vegetated with 

salmonberry in the Shorty Creek restoration reach. Red alder (Alnus rubra) is the dominant 

tree species along the stream at both locations. The South Fork Saginaw restoration site 

includes young-growth western hemlock and western hemlock-skunk cabbage (Lysichiton 

americanum) stands.

The project area is the analysis area for direct and indirect effects to TES and rare plants 

associated with the proposed activities. Kuiu Island is the analysis area for determining 

cumulative effects. Plant species’ range extends beyond Kuiu Island, and often beyond the 

Tongass National Forest boundary; however, water bodies are largely considered to be a 

barrier to the dispersal of plant material. Limiting the analysis area to Kuiu Island provides a 

more meaningful evaluation of past, present and foreseeable future activities effects on 

sensitive and rare plant species. Based on field surveys and analysis, a “may affect” 

determination was made for two species with potential to occur in the project area: the roundleaf orchid (Platanthera orbiculata) and Unalaska mist-maiden (Romanzoffia 

unalaschcensis).

Additional analysis can be found in the South Fork Saginaw/Shorty Creek Restoration

Botany BE (Johnson 2016a).

Alternative 1 - No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

The no action alternative would have no direct effects on sensitive plants and/or their habitat. 

Indirectly, the degradation in the floodplain could continue to impact plants and/or their 

habitat until the corridor stabilized.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

The action alternative would cause instream disturbance, as well as open up travel corridors 

between the road and the in-stream work sites. Plants could get crushed, buried, or trampled 

by heavy equipment, logs or earth movement. Indirectly, the hydrology would be changed at 

the sites where logs are placed. More light would reach the soil where the canopy is opened. 

Invasive plants could establish within the project area as a result of open travel corridors and 

increased light availability. 

At the wood source site, similar direct effects could occur through the felling and yarding of 

trees. Potential indirect effects include opening up canopy thereby increasing light exposure 

or changing hydrology when logs are yarded off site. Non-native plant species could 
South Fork Saginaw Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment

27

establish and out-compete native plants for preferred habitat. Rootwad removal is of 

particular concern for the spread of non-native plants due to the extent and depth of soil 

disturbance.

Cumulative Effects

Activities related to disturbance in the past, present and future are largely the result of road 

construction, timber harvest and dispersed recreation (including hunting and fishing). 

Additionally, watershed restoration activities have occurred in the Saginaw, Kadake, and 

Rowan Creek watersheds. Thinning of previously harvested stands continues as needed.

Alternative 1

In the no action alternative there would be no disturbance of the old growth or young growth 

riparian forest habitat. No action would likely result in continued degradation of the riparian 

corridor; however, effects would be negligible for both the round-leaf orchid and the 

Unalaska mist-maiden.

Alternative 2

With respect to the proposed restoration activities, a fraction of a percent of current western 

hemlock old growth habitat will be harvested to provide wood for the project. This should 

have no net effect on sensitive species or their habitat. The instream work would be 

completed in previously disturbed habitats. If the intended objective is reached, then 

degradation of the riparian corridor would be reversed and coniferous tree growth should 

accelerate. There is a chance that this could negatively affect sensitive species and their 

habitat; however, habitat stabilization is thought to be positive. Additionally, soils should 

rebuild over time, again with a small chance of negatively affecting plants. Overall, 

restoration activities should have a positive effect on both round-leaf orchid and Unalaska 

mist-maiden habitat and therefore plants. Cumulative effects would be minimal for both 

round-leaf orchid and Unalaska mist-maiden.

Invasive Plants

Seven invasive plant species were found within the project area (Table 6), and of these seven, 

only reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinaceae) is ranked by the Alaska Natural Heritage 

Program as highly invasive (Carlson et al. 2008). Given the proposed activities and habitat 

within the project area, reed canarygrass is determined to be the only species out of the seven 

that is likely to spread within the project area in the long-term. Additional analysis can be 

found in the South Fork Saginaw/Shorty Creek Riparian Restoration Invasive Plant Risk 

Assessment (Johnson 2016b). 

Table 6: Invasive plant species documented within the project area

Species

ANHP 

Ranking

Project 

Area Acres

Kuiu Island 

Acres2 Habitat

Annual bluegrass (Poa annua) 46 1 1 Road/Rock pit

Chickweed (Cerastium fontanum) 36 0.5 0.6 Road/Rock pit

Common plantain (Plantago major) 44 1 1.2 Road/Rock pit
South Fork Saginaw Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment

28

Species

ANHP 

Ranking

Project 

Area Acres

Kuiu Island 

Acres2 Habitat

Reed canarygrass (Phalaris 

arundinaceae) 83 5 2721

Road/Rock 

pit/Riparian/

Second growth

Timothy (Phleum pretense) 54 0.5 3.5 Road/Rock pit

Wall lettuce (Mycelis muralis) 31 1 5.1 Road/Rock pit

White clover (Trifolium repens) 59 0.5 1.5 Road/Rock pit

1 Most of the 272 acres includes the entire road system buffered 5 meters either side of centerline, so the 

reported acreage is an overestimate. 

2 Acreage is the sum of NRIS TESP-IS inventory data. The acreage is better interpreted as presence/absence, 

and possibly as an indicator of abundance on the island.

Direct and indirect effects analyses are bound by the project area. The cumulative effects 

analysis is bounded by Kuiu Island, as saltwater is generally considered a natural barrier to 

dispersal of invasive plants (although humans are largely the culprit for spread between 

islands). Using Kuiu Island as the cumulative effects boundary also makes sense from the 

standpoint of meaningful analysis of past, present and foreseeable future activities. Direct 

effects are considered during the window of activity, whereas indirect and cumulative effects 

look at the long-term response of invasive plants to the activity.

Alternative 1 - No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

There will be no new vectors or ground-disturbance in the no action alternative; therefore, 

direct, indirect and cumulative effects related to the project are nil. 

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect and Cumulative Effects

The proposed action would impact roughly 22 acres of western hemlock-dominated old 

growth forest and 11 acres of young growth riparian forest for sourcing wood. Cut logs 

would be removed from these stands, as well as rootwads. Increased light reaching the soil is 

a direct effect of harvest. Additionally, where rootwads are removed mineral soil is exposed. 

Equipment and personnel working in the area would be a vector from a seed source along the 

road corridor into the stands at the source site for Shorty Creek. Indirectly, removal of timber 

opens up the stand and exposed soil to windblown seed.

The proposed restoration activities within the 0.6 miles of Saginaw Creek and 0.4 miles of 

Shorty Creek would have the direct effect of moving and exposing soil during excavation and 

log placement. Heavy equipment would be moving from access points down into and along 

the stream channel, directly disturbing soil not protected by corduroy. Equipment and 

personnel moving from the road corridor into the stream channel and harvest unit are vectors 

for the dispersal of reed canarygrass and other invasive plant species. Indirectly, the corduroy 

trails create open paths through the forest that wind could transport seed through. Other 

possible indirect effects are positive, in that control efforts are occurring for reed canarygrass 
South Fork Saginaw Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment

29

within the project area. Additionally, stabilizing the stream channel in the long-term would

improve habitat for native plants and decrease the likelihood of non-native plant 

establishment.

The overall risk of spread of reed canarygrass, the ANHP “highly invasive” species, is 

moderate for the Shorty Creek work. Removal of root wads from old growth along the roads 

would allow seed from the road corridor to move in. The risk of spread of reed canarygrass 

for the instream work at both Shorty and South Saginaw Creeks is low to moderate. 

Treatments began along the road corridor at both sites in 2016 to control populations and 

limit the chance of moving material into the stream corridor. The overall risk of spread of the 

remaining invasive plant species identified within the project area is low to moderate. Given 

the habitat and the biology of the species, few are likely to spread into the riparian corridor 

and none are likely to persist in the long-term. Based on the direct and indirect effects, as 

well as the known distribution of invasive species on Kuiu Island, the proposed project 

would have negligible cumulative effects with regard to the spread and establishment of 

invasive plant species.

Wildlife

The full wildlife report and Biological Evaluation are incorporated by reference into this EA. 

Additional descriptions of wildlife species that may occur in the project area and their habitat 

requirements can be found in these reports in the project record.

Analysis Area and Methods

The analysis area for direct, indirect and cumulative effects is Wildlife Analysis Area (WAA) 

5012. Ground disturbance would be focused in two general localities, South Fork Saginaw 

Creek in VCU 3990, and Shorty Creek in VCU 4020.

Effects were quantified where possible and discussed qualitatively. The deer habitat 

capability model was not used to compare the effects of the alternatives for this project. 

While the model can be useful in determining relative impacts of proposed activities and 

alternatives for large projects, it is very limited in its utility for assessing the effects of small 

projects because the calculated outputs would not only vary nominally between alternatives 

but would be especially prone to mapping coarseness or inaccuracies at such small scales.

Alternative 1 - No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

The no action alternative would result in no direct effects to wildlife. The slight benefit to 

old-growth associated wildlife by enhancing the development of mature forest conditions 

through selective removal of trees from the young growth adjacent to South Fork Saginaw 

Creek would not occur.
South Fork Saginaw Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment

30

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Ground-disturbing activities associated with the proposed action would occur in a Timber 

Production Land Use Designation. In the wood collection areas for Shorty Creek, based on 

estimated stocking rates, approximately 12 to 18 percent of the trees would be removed from 

11 acres of productive old-growth. The selective removal of trees from the young growth 

stand adjacent to South Fork Saginaw Creek to be used for restoration of the stream channel 

would enhance the development of mature forest in the long term.

Effects of the proposed action to certain wildlife species and their habitats include the 

following:

• Reduction in the quality of productive old-growth habitat in the wood collection areas 

for Shorty Creek. Approximately 12 to 18 percent of trees would be removed from 11 

acres of productive old-growth comprised primarily of low value, high-defect 

hemlock. Removal of large trees would preclude their recruitment as snags and logs 

in the future, which are key elements of old-growth habitat. The scale of the effects to 

old-growth habitat and associated species would be very small; however, the effects

would last up to or more than 150 years in localized areas.

• Short-term disturbance to wildlife, possibly including goshawks, from project 

activity. Effects would be limited by both the small scale and short duration of 

ground-disturbing activities.

• Mature forest development would be enhanced in the South Fork Saginaw Creek 

wood collection area in the long term, favoring old-growth forest associated species 

such as goshawks, Sitka black-tailed deer, and various migratory bird species.

• There may be a slight increase in the understory vegetation in localized areas within 

wood collection areas where the ground is disturbed and the canopy is opened, which 

could slightly benefit moose in the short term.

• Restoration of stream channel function in restoration areas would improve the 

riparian habitat conditions for migratory birds and other wildlife associated with 

stream or riparian habitats, and those that would indirectly benefit by the improved 

ecosystem function in these areas.

• Improvement of the stream habitats in both creeks would improve fish runs thus 

improving bear foraging opportunities.

There would be no effect to Threatened or Endangered species, no effects to Forest Service 

Alaska Region sensitive species except the northern goshawk, and negligible to minor 

impacts to Management Indicator Species because one or more of the following conditions 

have been met:

• The species does not occur in the analysis area; or,

• The species is restricted to marine environments where the only project effect would 

be short duration and small scale disturbance and noise in marine waters for transfer 

of personnel and equipment that would not add perceptibly to existing disturbance or 

noise; or,

• The species habitat(s) would not be affected to the degree that population changes 

would be likely.
South Fork Saginaw Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment

31

Due to potential human disturbance and negligible effects to habitat, the proposed action may 

affect individual goshawks but would not likely cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of 

viability. There would be negligible adverse effects to Sitka black-tailed deer productive oldgrowth habitat and slightly beneficial effects by selective removal of trees from young 

growth habitat.

For more detail on wildlife species, their habitats, how they would be affected and the 

rationale behind effects determinations, see the Biological Evaluation/Biological Assessment 

for Wildlife (Bakos 2017a) and the Project Level Analysis for Management Indicator Species, 

Migratory Birds, and Subsistence (Bakos 2017b) in the project record.

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects analysis area is the northern portion of Kuiu Island (WAA 5012). A 

recent change within the WAA was the transfer of 4,595 acres of NFS land to the Sealaska 

Corporation in December 2014, which included approximately 3,668 acres of productive oldgrowth. The primary past activity that has affected wildlife habitat in the WAA is timber 

harvest. Based on the 1954 vegetation classification in the Size-Density Model, an estimated 

109,137 acres of POG originally existed in the WAA on current NFS lands. According to the 

Tongass GIS library activities database, 21,226 acres of this (19.4 percent) has been 

harvested on NFS land (this assumes all mapped harvested acres were originally POG). 

Many of the previously harvested units have been pre-commercially thinned over the years to 

promote tree growth. Recent activities include the North Kuiu Stream Restoration Project 

(similar to the proposed action) which was implemented in the WAA within the past 2 years. 

This restoration project also included the harvest of trees from a small number of acres 

adjacent to the road corridor.

On NFS lands, reasonably foreseeable future actions in the analysis area include potential 

timber harvest under the North Kuiu Timber Sale on NFS lands, continued pre-commercial 

thinning of previously harvested units, periodic road maintenance, weed treatments, 

recreational use, subsistence activities, hand-thinning in riparian areas, and special use 

permits typically for small localized facilities or activities such as outfitter and guide 

activities. The North Kuiu Timber Sale contract could harvest 866 acres of POG, of which 

248 acres are high volume and low elevation (elevation less than 800 feet) (USDA Forest 

Service 2015c). Future timber harvest on private lands in the WAA is also expected. There is 

currently a total of 8,125 acres of private land in the WAA, including 4,575 acres recently 

acquired by the Sealaska Corporation, 3,743 acres of which are productive old growth 

(USDA Forest Service. 2015c). Based on the prior harvesting practices of Sealaska, it is 

assumed that all of these acres would be clearcut.

Alternative 1

Since there would be no effects to wildlife habitat, the no action would not contribute to 

cumulative effects on wildlife resources in the analysis area.

Alternative 2

The proposed action prescribes actions that would occur exclusively in a Timber Production 

LUD, where timber harvest is allowed (USDA Forest Service 2016). While the proposed 

action would affect POG habitat for the restoration of Shorty Creek, it would selectively 

remove 12 to 18 percent of the trees from 11 acres out of approximately 87,000 acres of POG 
South Fork Saginaw Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment

32

(0.01 percent) remaining on NFS lands in WAA 5012. Reasonably foreseeable timber harvest 

of POG on private land (3,668 acres) and NFS land (866 acres; North Kuiu Timber Sale) 

could remove an additional 4,534 acres of POG in the WAA. Alternatively, the selective 

removal of trees from the young growth stand adjacent to South Fork Saginaw Creek to be 

used for restoration of the stream channel would enhance the development of mature forest in 

the long term. Overall, considering the effects of the proposed action to POG habitat and 

associated species in the context of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, 

the proposed action would contribute negligible cumulative effects in WAA 5012.

Silviculture

The analysis area for direct, indirect and cumulative effects is the project area described 

under “Location” above and Figures 1 to 3. 

Alternative 1 - No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under Alternative 1, no trees would be cut as a result of this project. There would be no 

direct or indirect effects to forest structure, forest health and productivity, and timber volume 

production.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Stands within the Shorty Creek restoration wood collection area consist primarily of high 

defect western hemlock and Sitka spruce with minor amounts of defective or dead Alaska 

yellow-cedar. The young-growth stands along the South Fork Saginaw Creek were harvested 

in 1970, and are predominantly Sitka spruce and western hemlock. Direct effects of the 

proposed action include harvesting approximately 200 trees singly or in small groups less 

than 2 acres in size throughout the two wood collection areas for the Shorty Creek project 

and approximately 250 trees singly along 0.6 miles of the South Fork Saginaw Creek. This 

would reduce the Shorty Creek wood collection stand’s gross volume by approximately 171 

MBF and the stand along the South Fork Saginaw Creek’s gross volume by approximately 48 

MBF. By targeting decadent low volume hemlock for removal in the Shorty Creek wood 

collection area, the percentage of spruce in the stand would increase, and forest health would 

improve by opening up growing space for younger, more vigorous trees. The stands along the 

South Fork Saginaw Creek would be thinned which would improve the growth of the 

residual trees. The impact to future timber sale volume on Kuiu Island would be minimal.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1

No trees would be cut as a result of this project, therefore there would be no cumulative 

effects to forest structure, forest health and productivity, and timber volume production under 

this alternative.
South Fork Saginaw Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment

33

Alternative 2

Cumulative effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities were 

assessed for timber stands on Kuiu Island. The proposed harvest areas are located within the 

Timber Production LUDs, which allow harvest activities consistent with those proposed 

(USDA Forest Service 2016). 

Large-scale industrial logging began on Kuiu Island in 1965 and started in Saginaw Bay. 

This was followed by more clearcuts and the construction of logging roads. Timber harvest 

has occurred on approximately 10,000 acres of Kuiu Island since 1965. 

Foreseeable future activities that affect the Silviculture resource include pre-commercial 

thinning in the young-growth stands and old-growth timber harvest from the North Kuiu 

Timber Sale EIS. 

Stand composition on Kuiu Island includes a mix of species within young-growth and 

existing old-growth age classes. When the existing condition of these stands are combined 

with the effects of future harvest and pre-commercial thinning activities, they would maintain 

the existing matrix of forest conditions with mixed tree species capable of providing a suite 

of habitat conditions. When considered cumulatively with other projects in the analysis area, 

this project would not lead to a change in the overall species composition or stand structure 

within the project area.

Negative cumulative effects to forest vegetation from the proposed action would be minimal 

due to the limited area and volume of tree removal, and further minimized by adhering to the 

silvicultural prescription developed for this project. Overall, cumulative effects of the 

proposed action would be insignificant.

COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS

National Forest Management Act / 2016 Tongass Land and 

Resources Management Plan

The proposed action is consistent with all Forest Plan standards and guidelines, and all 

proposed activities are allowable under the Timber Production Land Use Designation. No 

Forest Plan amendment would be required.

The proposed action is consistent with the Forest-wide standards and guidelines for 

Wetlands.

The proposed action is consistent with the principles and criteria of the State of Alaska’s 

Policy for the Management of Sustainable Salmon Fisheries (5AAC.39.222); specifically, 

section (c)(1) which identifies the importance of maintaining wild salmon habitat at levels of 

resource productivity that assures sustained yields, and calls for the restoration of degraded 

salmon spawning, incubating, and rearing habitats. 
South Fork Saginaw Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment

34

Endangered Species Act (1973, as amended)

There would be no effects to species listed as threatened or endangered (or candidate species) 

pursuant to Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Therefore, 

consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service is 

not required. 

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (1940, as amended)

Management activities within bald eagle habitat will adhere to 50 CFR 22.26, National Bald 

Eagle Management Guidelines (2007) in accordance with Forest Plan standards and 

guidelines and in compliance with the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. No bald eagle 

nests are known in the project area. Shoreline habitats would not be affected and the potential 

for disturbance to nesting bald eagles from helicopter use would be avoided. 

ANILCA Section 810, Subsistence Evaluation and Finding

In compliance with Section 810 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 

1980 (ANILCA), the effects of the proposed project on subsistence uses and needs were 

evaluated and it was determined that the proposed project would not significantly restrict 

subsistence uses.

Clean Water Act (1977, as amended)

Congress intended the Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended in 1977 and 1987, to protect 

and improve the quality of water resources and maintain their beneficial uses. Section 313 

and Executive Order 12088 of January 23, 1987 address Federal agency compliance and 

consistency with water pollution control mandates. The site-specific application of best 

management practices (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 (ADEC 2015). In 1997, the State approved the BMPs as described 

in the Forest Service’s Soil and Water Conservation Handbook (USDA Forest Service 2006) 

as consistent with the Alaska Forest Resources and Practices Regulations. The BMPs are 

incorporated into the Tongass Land Management Plan.

The Forest Service issued National Core BMPs in 2012 (USDA Forest Service 2012). The 

South Fork Saginaw Creek Restoration project would implement the most up-to-date BMP 

guidance. 

Clean Air Act (1970, as amended)

Emissions from the implementation of the South Fork Saginaw Creek Restoration project 

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

standards (18 AAC 50).
South Fork Saginaw Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment

35

Marine Mammal Protection Act (1972, as amended)

No marine habitat occurs within the South Fork Saginaw Creek Restoration project area. 

None of the actions authorized in this project would have an effect on marine mammals.

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) consultation was initiated on March 13, 2017. The Forest 

Service believes there will be short-term adverse effects such as sediment pulses and 

increased turbidity during instream construction of structures, but there will be no long-term 

adverse effects to EFH. Ultimately, this project will improve EFH by creating and 

maintaining complex fish habitat. 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) sets forth government policy and procedures 

regarding "historic properties"; districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects included in, 

or eligible for, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). 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. A Forest 

Service archeologist reviewed this project and conducted a survey for historic properties and 

cultural resources, as defined in NEPA, in the area of potential effect. The work did not result 

in the discovery of cultural resources or historic properties and the Forest Service has made a 

determination of No Historic Properties Affected for the proposed project.

Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA) of 1990

Forest Plan riparian standards and guidelines apply to the project and no commercial timber 

harvest would occur because of the proposed action. The design and implementation 

direction incorporates best management practices (BMPs), and Forest Plan standards and 

guidelines for the protection of all stream classes.

E.O. 11988 (Floodplains), E.O. 11990 (Wetlands)

The project is located within the floodplain of South Fork Saginaw and Shorty Creeks. The 

project would not negatively impact the functional value of any floodplain as defined by 

Executive Order 11988 and would not have negative impacts on wetlands as defined by 

Executive Order 11990.

E.O. 12962 (Recreational Fisheries)

The project is consistent with Executive Order 12962 since it improves the quantity, 

function, sustainable productivity, and distribution of United States aquatic resources for

increased recreational fishing opportunities. 
South Fork Saginaw Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment

36

E.O. 12898 (Environmental Justice)

Implementation of this project is not anticipated to cause disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects on minority populations and low income populations 

because the proposed activities are not expected to cause any effects to human health or 

result in meaningful adverse environmental consequences. 

E.O. 12962 (Aquatic Systems, Recreational Fisheries)

The project minimizes the effects on aquatic systems through project design, application of 

standards and guidelines, BMPs, and site-specific mitigation measures. Recreational fishing 

opportunities would be protected, are not expected to be negatively affected, and would 

likely be enhanced.

E.O. 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites)

Tribal governments or their authorized representatives are responsible for notifying the 

agency of the existence of a sacred site. No sacred sites were identified within the project 

area. 

E.O. 13112 (Invasive Species)

Design criteria are included to reduce the potential for introduction and spread of invasive 

species. The need to treat invasive species presently established would remain.

E.O. 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian 

Tribal Governments)

The following federally recognized tribal governments and organizations were consulted via 

a formal consultation letter on August 30, 2016.

• Petersburg Indian Association

• Wrangell Cooperative Association

• Sealaska Corporation

• Central Council Tlingit and Haida Tribes of Alaska

• Sealaska Heritage

• Organized Village of Kake

• Kake Tribal Corporation

E.O. 13186 (Migratory Birds)

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (amended in 1936, 1974, and 1989) prohibits the 

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

13186 (Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds; 66 FR 3853; January 

10, 2001) provides for the conservation of migratory birds and their habitats and requires the 

evaluation of the effects of federal actions on migratory birds, with an emphasis on species of 
South Fork Saginaw Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment

37

concern. Federal agencies are required to support the intent of the migratory bird conventions 

by integrating bird conservation principles, measures, and practices into agency activities and 

by avoiding or minimizing, to the extent practicable, adverse impacts on migratory birds 

when conducting agency actions. In 2008, pursuant to Executive Order 13186, the Forest 

Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service entered into a Memorandum of Understanding 

(MOU; FS Agreement # 08-MU-1113-2400-264) which outlines a collaborative approach to 

promote the conservation and reduce the take of migratory birds.

This project was developed in adherence with the relevant principles and intent outlined in 

the MOU. Based on the project level analysis for wildlife, the project would have minor 

effects to migratory birds in the short-term due to disturbance during project implementation, 

beneficial long-term effects for migratory bird species associated with riparian habitats, and a 

small reduction in habitat quality for species that rely on productive old-growth habitats. 

Overall there would be negligible adverse effects to migratory birds from the proposed 

action. 

E.O. 13443 (Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife 

Conservation)

Executive Order 13443 directs federal agencies to facilitate the expansion and enhancement 

of hunting opportunities and the management of game species and their habitat. The 

proposed project would maintain current hunting opportunities, and would have negligible 

effects to game species habitats. 

AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONTACTED

The interdisciplinary team of Forest Service resource specialists was consulted in the 

development of the environmental analysis. Other agencies contacted include the following: 

• Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Habitat – Fish Habitat Title 16 

Concurrence

• Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Petersburg, Alaska

• Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry 

• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries 

Service

• Department of the Army, U.S. Army Engineer District, Alaska 

The following Federal and State agencies would be consulted for permitting purposes prior to 

implementation of instream work as per State and Federal requirements:

• Department of the Army, U.S. Army Engineer District, Alaska 

• Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Habitat – Fish Habitat Title 16 

Concurrence

The project was first listed on the live Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA) in August 2016. 

The listing included a brief description of the project proposal. At the end of the month on 

August 31st, a scoping letter providing a description of the project area, maps, the need for

the proposal and a proposed action was posted on the project website
South Fork Saginaw Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment

38

(https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=49992). To alert the public of this scoping letter 

and to request public input, an email was sent to 443 subscribers to the project, and postal 

letters were sent to approximately 35 contacts. A legal notice announcing a 30-day comment 

period on the Proposed Action was published in the Petersburg Pilot, the newspaper of 

record, on September 1, 2016. Two comment letters were received during the scoping 

process. These comments were addressed in this EA and in a comment response spreadsheet. 

The comments and response spreadsheet are available on the project website above, and in

the project record.
South Fork Saginaw Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment

39

APPENDIX A. LARGE WOOD STRUCTURE DESIGNS

Provided by Brian Bair, TEAMS Hydrologist USDA, Forest Service

The structures are constructed with decreasing cross-sectional area in the streamside 

direction as much as possible to perform the desired effect. By the same token the buried 

portions of the structures will be as large of a cross-section as possible. The sheer bulk of the 

structure may not be as important as cross-sectional area perpendicular to direction of 

hydraulic drag applied. Therefore FMF structures are angled up-stream at 30 degrees or less 

from the bank. The angle of the structure reduces both the cross-sectional area perpendicular 

to flow and the torsional force exerted on the structure from hydraulic drag.

All structures are also strategically placed along historic and predicted channel migration 

patterns in close association with high shear/scour and deposition areas. In addition, and 

perhaps most importantly, cross-sectional area is closely scrutinized and incorporated into the 

construction of all structures. Ignoring cross-sectional area requirements will likely cause a 

channel avulsion through an increased upstream hydraulic gradient. Each of these structures 

is given a high degree of construction oversight; each key piece is individually placed at 

specific angles with subsequent pieces placed to interlock or secure the preceding piece. To 

the greatest extent possible, trees are woven and interlocked to form a cohesive whole 

structure, as opposed to a scattered pile of loose logs acting semi-independently.

The mechanism with the highest risk priority number for possible structure failure is bed 

scour adjacent to the structure. FMF structures are designed to initiate and or increase scour 

along the bed at the base of the structure and therefore the potential for undermining the 

structure exists. The design considers this risk, and mitigates the potential by constructing the 

structure deep enough into the bed so that the risk of failure from scour is significantly 

reduced. Structure depth will exceed the depth of the deepest pool within the reach by at least 

a 25 percent factor of safety, and possibly deeper, depending on site conditions. 
South Fork Saginaw Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment

40

Figure A. Plan View Design for Formidable Multi-Faceted Large Wood Complex.

Figure 1. Plan View Design for Formidable Multi-Faceted Terrace Barbs.
South Fork Saginaw Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment

41

Figure 2. Cross-Section View Design for Formidable Multi-Faceted Large Wood Complexes 

and Terrace Barbs.

Figure D. Plan View Design for Point Bar Structures aka “Bar Buddies”
South Fork Saginaw Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment

42

Figure E. Cross-Section View Design for Point Bar Structures aka “Bar Buddies”
South Fork Saginaw Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment

43

REFERENCES

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). 2015. Alaska’s Nonpoint 

Source Water Pollution Control Strategy. Available online at: 

http://dec.alaska.gov/water/wnpspc/pdfs/NPS_Strategy.pdf (accessed March 24, 

2017).

Bakos, T. 2017a. South Fork Saginaw Creek Restoration, Biological Evaluation/Biological 

Assessment for Wildlife. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, Tongass National 

Forest, Petersburg Ranger District.

Bakos, T. 2017b. South Fork Saginaw Creek Restoration, Project Level Analysis for 

Management Indicator Species, Migratory Birds, and Subsistence. Unpublished 

report. USDA Forest Service, Tongass National Forest, Petersburg Ranger District.

Beechie, T.J., D.A. Sear, J.D. Olden, G.R. Pess, J.M. Buffington, H. Moir, P. Roni and M.M. 

Pollock. 2010. “Process-based Principles for Restoring River Ecosystems.”

Bioscience 60: 209-222. 

Bellmore, J.R., C.V. Baxter, K. Martens and P.J. Connolly. 2013. “The floodplain food web 

mosaic: a study of its importance to salmon and steelhead with implications for their 

recovery.” Ecological Applications 23(1): 189-207.

Benda, L. and P. Bigelow. 2014. “On the patterns and processes of wood in Northern 

California streams.” Geomorphology 209: 79-97. 

Bilby, R.E. 1984. “Removal of woody debris may affect stream channel stability.” Journal of 

Forestry 82 (10): 609-613.

Bilby, R.E., and J.W. Ward. 1989. “Changes in characteristics and function of woody debris 

with increasing size of streams in Western Washington.” Transactions of the 

American Fisheries Society 118: 368-378.

Bryant, M.D. 1983. “The role and management of woody debris in West Coast salmonid 

nursery streams.” North American Journal of Fisheries Management 3: 322-330.

Carah, J.K., C.C. Blencowe, D.W. Wright and L.A. Bolton. 2014. “Low-cost restoration 

techniques for rapidly increasing wood cover in coastal Coho salmon streams.” North 

American Journal of Fisheries Management 34(5): 1003-1013.

Carlson, M. L. 2008. Invasiveness ranking system for non-native plants of Alaska. Vol. 143. 

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Alaska Region.

Cederholm, C.J., R.E. Bilby, P.A. Bisson, T.W. Bumstead, B.R. Fransen, W.J. Scarlett and 

J.W. Ward. 1997. “Response of juvenile Coho salmon and steelhead to placement of 

large woody debris in a coastal Washington stream.” North American Journal of 

Fisheries Management 17(4):947-963.

Clark, S.M., J.B. Dunham, J.R. McEnroe and S.W. Lightcap. 2014. “Breeding site selection 

by Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in relation to large wood additions and 

factors that influence reproductive success.” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 

Aquatic Sciences 71: 1498-1507. 
South Fork Saginaw Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment

44

Crispin, V., R. House and D. Roberts. 1993. “Changes in instream habitat, large woody 

debris, and salmon habitat after the restructuring of a coastal Oregon stream.” North 

American Journal of Fisheries Management 13: 96-102.

Daley, J. and A.P. Brooks. 2013. A Performance Evaluation of Engineered Log Jams in the 

Hunter Valley. Griffith University, 53 pp. ISBN 978-1-922216-23-6. 

Diez, J., A. Elosegi, E. Chauvet and J. Pozo. 2002. “Breakdown of wood in the Aquera 

stream.” Freshwater Biology 47: 2205-2215.

Floyd, T.A., C. MacInnis and B.R. Taylor. 2009. “Effects of artificial woody structures on 

Atlantic salmon habitat and populations in a Nova Scotia stream.” River Research 

and Applications 25: 272-282.

Foss, J. 2015. Soil quality monitoring results from LWD collection site Unit 19, Soda-Nick 

Timber Sale and Photo Point Locations. USDA Forest Service monitoring report. 

Gulis, V., A.D. Rosemond, K. Suberkropp, H.S. Weyers, J.P. Benstead. 2004. “Effects of 

nutrient enrichment on the decomposition of wood and associated microbial activity 

in streams.” Freshwater Biology 49: 1437-1447.

Hicks, B.J., J.D. Hall, P.A. Bisson and J.R. Sedell. 1991. “Responses of Salmonids to Habitat 

Changes.” In Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes 

and Their Habitats.” American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19:17-46. 

Bethesda, Maryland. 

House, R.A. and P.L. Boehne. 1985. “Evaluation of instream enhancement structures for 

salmonid spawning and rearing in a coastal Oregon stream.” North American Journal 

of Fisheries Management 5: 283-295. 

House, R. 1996. “An evaluation of stream restoration structures in a coastal Oregon stream, 

1981-1993.” North American Journal of Fisheries Management 16: 283-295.

Johnson, J. 2016a. Biological Evaluation for Plants. South Fork Saginaw and Shorty Creek 

Restoration EA. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, Tongass National Forest,

Petersburg Ranger District.

Johnson, J. 2016b. South Fork Saginaw/Shorty Creek Riparian Restoration Invasive Plant 

Risk Assessment. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, Tongass National 

Forest, Petersburg Ranger District.

Jones, K.K., K. Anlauf-Dunn, P.S. Jacobsen, M. Strickland, L. Tennant and S.E. Tippery. 

2014. “Effectiveness of instream wood treatments to restore stream complexity and 

winter rearing habitat for juvenile Coho salmon.” Transactions of the American 

Fisheries Society 143: 334-345.

Kahklen, K. and J. Moll. 1999. Measuring effects of roads on groundwater: Five case

studies. USDA Forest Service, Technology & Development Program. #9977 1801 –

SDTDC. 24 pp.

Landwehr, D. 2009. Guidelines for rootwad tree harvest. Unpublished report. USDA Forest 

Service, Tongass National Forest.
South Fork Saginaw Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment

45

Landwehr, D. and J. Foss. 2014. Soil Quality on the Tongass National Forest: Results of 

compaction studies conducted on the Kuiu stream restoration access trails.

Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, Tongass National Forest.

MacInnis, C., T.A. Floyd and B.R. Taylor. 2008. “Large woody debris structures and their 

influence on Atlantic salmon spawning in a stream in Nova Scotia, Canada.” North 

American Journal of Fisheries Management 28(3): 781-791.

Montgomery, D.R., B.D. Collins, J.M. Buffington and T.B. Abbe. 2003. Geomorphic Effect 

of Wood in Rivers. American Fisheries Society Symposium.

Murphy, M.L. and K.V. Koski. 1989. “Input and depletion of woody debris in Alaska 

streams and implications for streamside management.” North American Journal of 

Fisheries Management 9: 427-436.

Murphy, M.L. and W.R. Meehan. 1991. “Stream Ecosystems.” In Influences of Forest and 

Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. American Fisheries 

Society Special Publication 19: 17-46. Bethesda, Maryland.

Parks, R. 2015. Personal communication regarding typical stocking rates for young growth 

and old growth trees on Mitkof Island. 

Pierce, R., C. Podner and K. Carim. 2013. “Response of wild trout to stream restoration over 

two decades in the Blackfoot River Basin, Montana.” Transactions of the American 

Fisheries Society 142: 68-81.

Prussian, K. 2007. Turbidity monitoring of Fubar Creek Restoration. Unpublished paper. 

USDA Forest Service, Tongass National Forest, Craig Ranger District. 

Roni, T., G.P. Beechie and K. Hanson. 2015. “Wood placement in river restoration: Fact, 

fiction and future direction.” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 72: 

466-478.

Roni, P. and T.P. Quinn. 2001. “Density and size of juvenile salmonids in response to 

placement of large wood debris in western Oregon and Washington streams.” 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58: 282-292. 

Roper, B.B., D. Konnoff, D. Heller and K. Wieman. 1998. “Durability of Pacific Northwest 

instream structures following floods.” North American Journal of Fisheries 

Management 18(3): 686-693. 

Shellberg, J.G., S.M. Bolton and D.R. Montgomery. 2010. “Hydrogeomorphic effects on 

bedload scour in bull char (Salvelinus confluentus) spawning habitat, western 

Washington, USA.” Canadian Journal of Fisheries Sciences 67: 626-640.

Spanhoff, B. and E.I. Meyer. 2004. “Breakdown rates of wood in streams.” Journal of the 

North American Benthological Society 23(2): 189-197.

Thompson, D.M. 2002. “Long-term effect of instream habitat-improvement structures on 

channel morphology along the Blackledge and Salmon rivers, Connecticut, USA.” 

Environmental Management 29(1): 250-265.

USDA Forest Service. 2001. Aquatic Habitat Management Handbook. Alaska Region: FSH 

2090.21.
South Fork Saginaw Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment

46

USDA Forest Service. 2006. Soil and Water Conservation Handbook. R10-2509.22-2006-2. 

Chapter 10, Section 14.26. Juneau, Alaska. 117 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2007. Saginaw Watershed Restoration Plan. Unpublished report. 

Tongass National Forest, Petersburg Ranger District.

USDA Forest Service. 2010. North Kuiu Integrated Resource Management Plan.

Unpublished report. Tongass National Forest, Petersburg Ranger District.

USDA Forest Service. 2011. Watershed Condition Framework. FS-977. 24 pp. Available 

online at: http://apps.fs.usda.gov/WCFmapviewer/ (accessed March 24, 2017). 

USDA Forest Service. 2012. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality 

Management on National Forest System Lands Volume 1: National Core BMP 

Technical Guide. FS-990a. Available online at: 

https://www.fs.fed.us/biology/resources/pubs/watershed/FS_National_Core_BMPs_A

pril2012.pdf (accessed March 24, 2017).

USDA Forest Service. 2015a. Twelvemile Creek Restoration Assessment of 2014 Flooding.

Unpublished report. Tongass National Forest, Craig Ranger District.

USDA Forest Service. 2015b. Twelvemile Creek Mainstem Instream Restoration Monitoring 

Summary. Unpublished report. Tongass National Forest, Craig Ranger District.

USDA Forest Service. 2015c. Supplemental Information Report for the Kuiu Timber Sale 

Area EIS and ROD. Unpublished report. Tongass National Forest, Petersburg Ranger 

District.

USDA Forest Service. 2016. Land and Resource Management Plan, Tongass National Forest. 

R10-MB-769j. December.

Yochum, Steven E. 2016. Guidance for Stream Restoration and Rehabilitation. Technical 

Note TN-102.2. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, National Stream and

Aquatic Ecology Center.