United States Department of Agriculture

South Fork Saginaw Creek 

Restoration

DRAFT Decision Notice and Finding of No 

Significant Impact

Forest Service

Alaska Region

Tongass National Forest

Petersburg RangerDistrict R10-MB-814b May 2017
Federal Recycling Program

Printed on Recycled Paper

South Fork Saginaw Creek Restoration

DRAFT Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact

___________________________________________________________________________

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. 

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.

Page intentionally left blank.
— DRAFT Decision Notice & FONSI —

Page 1 of 12

DRAFT DECISION NOTICE & FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

SOUTH FORK SAGINAW CREEK RESTORATION

U.S. FOREST SERVICE

KUIU ISLAND

PETERSBURG RANGER DISTRICT

PETERSBURG, ALASKA

INTRODUCTION

This DRAFT Decision Notice (DN) contains a brief summary of the environmental analysis 

completed for the South Fork Saginaw Creek Restoration project, my intended decision 

regarding which alternative to implement, and the rationale for my intended decision. It also 

contains certain findings required by various laws and information concerning the right to 

Administrative Review of this decision. The Environmental Assessment (EA) completed for this 

project and the associated project record is incorporated by reference in this decision document.

DECISION

After consideration of the public and agency input, the recommendations of resource specialists, 

and the applicable laws and regulations, it is my intention to select the Proposed Action 

(hereafter called the Selected Alternative) for implementation including all project design 

elements and monitoring described in the EA. 

The purpose of this project is to restore degraded stream habitat by increasing pool area and 

complexity, stabilizing stream banks where necessary, and improving floodplain connectivity 

and flood resilience through strategic placements of large wood. The need for this project results 

from degraded habitat conditions caused by timber harvest and road building activities prior to 

the 1990 Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA), which subsequently provided buffer protection 

to fish-bearing streams. These activities resulted in a lack of large wood within the streams and 

floodplains proposed for restoration. The Selected Alternative will meet the project purpose and 

need by allowing the following activities:

• 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. 
— DRAFT Decision Notice & FONSI —

Page 2 of 12

• Construct temporary puncheon trails to access the restoration sites. Puncheon trails would 

be constructed using cull and small diameter trees to facilitate access by heavy 

equipment.

This decision incorporates Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines (Chapter 4) and Forest Plan 

direction for Fish, Forest Health, Heritage Resources and Sacred Sites, Invasive Species, Lands, 

Minerals and Geology, Plants, Recreation and Tourism, Riparian, Scenery, Soil and Water, 

Subsistence, Timber, Wetlands, and Wildlife.

Specific project design features and Best Management Practices (BMPs) used to prevent or 

minimize potential negative effects are listed in the EA on pages 16-18. 

DECISION RATIONALE

My decision to implement the Selected Alternative considered how best to meet the purpose and 

need for this project, the existing conditions within the project area, environmental effects, social 

values, and public comments. My conclusion is based on the project-specific environmental 

analysis included in the EA, and a review of the record that shows a thorough analysis using the 

best available science. The Selected Alternative meets the stated purpose and need within the 

framework of existing laws, regulations, policies, and the 2016 Forest Plan in relation to 

information disclosed in the EA and project record. 

I have reviewed the Council of Environmental Quality Regulation for “significance” (40 CFR 

§1508.27) and I have determined the decision is not an action that would significantly affect the 

quality of the human environment either individually or cumulatively; nor would this decision 

affect the quality of the human environment in either context or intensity. Therefore, an 

environmental impact statement (EIS) will not be prepared. This conclusion and finding is based 

on a Finding of No Significant Impact. 

I chose the Selected Alternative (Proposed Action) because it best meets the purpose and need 

and addresses the relevant concerns identified during project scoping. 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.

Two letters were received during the scoping period for this project. A predominant issue was 

not identified based on the scoping comments received for this project. These comments

primarily requested additional information which was provided in the EA as described above and 

as outlined in the “Response to Comments Received” spreadsheet within the project record. 

Comments received for similar projects identified concerns regarding the location and type of 

wood used for the project. As such, the Forest Service will consider additional options for 

sourcing trees from alternative locations that may not currently be available. These options 

include "cull wood" intended to be left onsite at a harvest unit or lower value hemlock from 
— DRAFT Decision Notice & FONSI —

Page 3 of 12

either recently harvested timber units or units identified in future timber sales on Kuiu Island if 

available. Similarly, if wood becomes available through unpredictable, stochastic events such as 

landslides or natural blowdown, the wood would be considered for this project. 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 (pages 16-18 in the EA) for wood collection activities would be 

implemented. If these sources are not available or are cost-prohibitive at the time of 

implementation, the trees for the project would be sourced from the currently proposed collection 

site.

The South Fork Saginaw Creek Restoration EA documents the environmental analysis and 

conclusions upon which this decision is based.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

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. 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 (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. Also at this time, tribal 

consultation letters describing the project and seeking input were mailed to 7 central Southeast 

Alaska tribal groups and corporations. 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 this comment period. These 

comments were addressed in the EA and in a comment response spreadsheet. The comments and 

response spreadsheet are available on the project website, and in the project record.

In late March, the South Fork Saginaw Creek Restoration Environmental Assessment (EA) was 

made available to the public via the project website at the link above. To alert the public of its 

availability and to request public input, an email was sent to 533 subscribers to the project, and 

postal letters were mailed to 39 contacts. A legal notice announcing a 30-day comment period 

was published in the Petersburg Pilot on March 30, 2017. No additional comments were 

received during this second comment period. 

CHANGES AND CLARIFICATIONS TO THE EA

Updates were made to the section titled “Compliance with Other Laws and Regulations” (see 

below and EA pages 33-37). In addition, minor editorial corrections were made to the document

which did not affect the content of the analyses. 

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

After considering the environmental effects described in the EA, I have determined that these 

actions will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment considering the 

context and intensity of impacts (40 CFR 1508.27). Thus, an environmental impact statement 

will not be prepared. I base my finding on the following:
— DRAFT Decision Notice & FONSI —

Page 4 of 12

1. Impacts may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the 

federal agency believes that, on balance, the effect will be beneficial. Neither adverse nor 

beneficial effects are significant in context or intensity to warrant an EIS for this project. 

My finding of no significant environmental effects is not biased by the beneficial effects 

of the action. 

2. The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety. Based on the 

conclusions in the EA, I have determined that no significant impact would occur to the 

public health and safety. While public use of Kuiu Island is minimal, project operations 

could have short-term adverse effects on recreational users of the area and may cause 

short traffic delays or reroutes. The Forest Service would communicate where potential 

delays could take place. 

3. Unique characteristics of the geographic area, such as proximity to historic or cultural 

resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically 

critical areas. There will be no significant effects on unique characteristics of the area

because the project does not enter any inventoried roadless areas. Additionally, no 

historic properties, park lands or farmlands are located within the area of potential effects 

for the project. No designated Wild and Scenic Rivers or Recreational Rivers occur in the 

project area or are affected by the project. The Selected Alternative would not affect the 

eligibility of any segments recommended for either Wild and Scenic River System or 

Recreational River designation, and no high-value wetlands will be affected by the 

project. Therefore, I have determined there will be no significant effects on any unique 

characteristics of the area.

4. The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be 

highly controversial. The effects on the quality of the human environment are not likely 

to be highly controversial. There is no known credible scientific controversy over the 

impacts of the Selected Alternative. While there is general controversy over old-growth 

timber harvest in Southeast Alaska, this project proposes to harvest an estimated 200

lesser-value and/or defective old-growth trees and 250 young-growth trees for the 

purpose of improving stream habitat. This project responds to the goals and objectives of 

the Forest Plan and helps move the project area towards conditions described in the 

Forest Plan. Therefore, based on the EA, I have determined there are no significant 

impacts that would be highly controversial.

5. The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain 

or involve unique or unknown risks. The Forest Service has considerable experience with 

the types of activities to be implemented. The analysis shows the effects are not 

uncertain, and do not involve unique or unknown risk. Similar restoration work has been 

successfully implemented on the Petersburg Ranger District and elsewhere on the 

Tongass National Forest. Based on this analysis, I have determined that no unique or 

unknown risks occur with this project, therefore there is no significant impact due to 

uncertainty or a possible unique or unknown risk. 

6. The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with 

significant effects, or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration. This

action is not likely to establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects, 
— DRAFT Decision Notice & FONSI —

Page 5 of 12

since the proposed activities are expected to have overall beneficial effects to project area

watersheds. I have therefore determined the Selected Alternative would not set precedent 

for future actions with significant impacts, nor would it represent a decision in principle 

about a future consideration. 

7. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but 

cumulatively significant impacts. I have determined the Selected Alternative will have 

individually insignificant impacts and cumulatively insignificant impacts as they relate to 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. All harvested stands on the District 

have regenerated. The limited timber harvest from this project contributes minimally to 

cumulative effects; furthermore, no significant cumulative effects were identified for any 

resource in the EA. Stream and floodplain habitat improvements should have long-term 

beneficial effects to project area aquatic and riparian habitats and aquatic organisms. 

8. The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, 

or objects listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places or may 

cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources. The 

Forest Service has determined that a finding of No Historic Properties Affected is 

appropriate for this project. The project meets the provisions stipulated in the 

Programmatic Agreement between the Forest Service, Alaska Region, the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation, and the State Historic Preservation Officer. Therefore, I 

have determined no significant impacts would occur that adversely affect districts, sites, 

highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of 

Historic Places or cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical 

resources.

9. The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species 

or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973. I have determined no significant impacts would occur that adversely affect an 

endangered or threatened species or its critical habitat.

A Biological Evaluation (BE) for fish and wildlife was completed for the South Fork 

Saginaw Creek Restoration EA (Bakos 2017). It was determined the action will not 

adversely affect any endangered or threatened species or critical habitat in the project 

area, and no project work is proposed for the marine environment. 

No plants federally listed or proposed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are known or 

expected to occur in the Alaska Region (Johnson 2016); therefore, I have determined no 

significant impacts would occur that adversely affect an endangered or threatened species 

or its habitat. 

10. Whether the action threatens to violate federal, state, or local law or requirements 

imposed for the protection of the environment. The following findings show the action 

does not violate federal, state, or local law requirements imposed for the protection of the 

environment and has been reviewed by federal and state agencies. The action is 

consistent with the Forest Plan. 
— DRAFT Decision Notice & FONSI —

Page 6 of 12

FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS

National Forest Management Act / 2016 Tongass Land and Resources 

Management Plan

I have determined this decision is consistent with the 2016 Tongass National Forest Land 

Management Plan. This project incorporates all applicable Forest Plan standards and guidelines 

and management area prescriptions as they apply to the project area and complies with Forest 

Plan goals and objectives. This includes the additional direction contained in the 2016 Record of 

Decision for the Forest Plan Revision. Interagency review and coordination occurred during 

project scoping and review of the EA. Further coordination with the Alaska Department of Fish 

and Game for Title 16 fish habitat concurrence and Department of the Army for application of a

Nationwide Permit 27 will occur prior to project implementation. Application of Forest Plan 

direction for the South Fork Saginaw Creek Restoration project ensures compliance at the project 

level. 

Tongass Timber Reform Act

Application of Forest Plan Riparian Standards and Guidelines ensures that no commercial timber 

harvest is allowed within 100 feet horizontal distance either side of Class I (anadromous) or 

Class II (resident fish) streams flowing directly into a Class I stream. No commercial timber 

harvest will occur within the buffer area. The design and implementation direction in the EA 

incorporates best management practices (BMPs), and Forest Plan standards and guidelines for 

the protection of all stream classes. Therefore, I have determined this project is consistent with 

Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA) direction.

Endangered Species Act (1973, as amended)

I concurred that there will 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 be in accordance adhere to the 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. Therefore, 

I have determined no significant effects will occur to bald or golden eagles in the project area.

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 
— DRAFT Decision Notice & FONSI —

Page 7 of 12

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 under the provisions of Section 106 of 

the NHPA, I have made a determination of No Historic Properties Affected.

ANILCA Section 810, Subsistence Evaluation and Finding

In compliance with Section 810 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 

(ANILCA), a subsistence evaluation was conducted for the no action alternative and the 

proposed action for this project. The evaluation concluded the South Fork Saginaw Creek 

Restoration project, including the Selected Alternative, will not have a significant possibility of a 

significant restriction to 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 2012). The South Fork Saginaw Creek Restoration project would implement the most 

up-to-date BMP guidance to achieve Alaska Water Quality Standards.

I have determined this project fully complies with the Clean Water Act, and have therefore 

determined no significant impact to water quality is expected to occur from this decision. 

Clean Air Act (1970, as amended)

Emissions anticipated from the implementation of the Selected Alternative will be minor and of 

short duration and are not expected to exceed State of Alaska ambient air quality standards (18 

AAC 50). Therefore, I have determined no significant impact to air quality is expected to occur 

from this decision. 

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. Therefore, I have 

determined no significant impact to marine mammals is expected to occur from this decision. 

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. 
— DRAFT Decision Notice & FONSI —

Page 8 of 12

I have reviewed the potential effects of the Selected Alternative on EFH and have determined 

this project will ultimately improve EFH by creating and maintaining complex fish habitat.

Executive Order 11988 – Floodplains

This executive order speaks to the long-term occupancy of floodplains and the avoidance of 

floodplain development. This project is not supporting long-term occupancy of floodplains and is 

in fact improving floodplain function. The essence of the South Fork Saginaw Creek Restoration 

project makes it impossible to avoid all floodplains during project work, and in fact requires 

access to the floodplain in order to implement the project. Temporary access roads may be 

constructed (or reconstructed) in or through riparian areas subject to the design requirements of 

the BMPs. Although the Selected Alternative directly affects floodplains, I have determined no 

significant impacts to floodplains will occur as a result of this decision.

Executive Order 11990 – Wetlands

Approximately 1 acre of forested wetland is located near the wood harvest area. The project will 

not have negative impacts on high-value wetlands as defined by E.O. 11990. Therefore, I have 

determined no significant impacts to wetlands will result from this decision.

Executive Order 12962 – Recreational Fisheries

This executive order addresses recreational fishing in the United States. Federal agencies are 

required, to the extent permitted by law and where practicable, and in cooperation with states and 

tribes, to improve the quantity, function, sustainable productivity, and distribution of U.S. 

aquatic resources for increased recreational fishing opportunities. The potential impacts of the 

project on Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) have been evaluated, and the proposed activities are 

anticipated to have no long-term adverse effect on EFH and/or recreational fisheries. 

This project minimizes the effects on aquatic systems through project design features, 

application of Forest Plan standards and guidelines, BMPs, and site-specific mitigation measures. 

The potential effects of this project are consistent with E.O. 12962 since it improves the quantity, 

function, sustainable productivity, and distribution of U.S. aquatic resources for increased 

recreational fishing opportunities. Therefore, I have determined no significant impacts to 

recreational fisheries will occur as a result of this decision.

Executive Order 13112 – Invasive Species

This order directs all federal agencies to identify actions which may affect the status of invasive 

species; prevent the introduction of invasive species; detect and respond rapidly to and control 

populations of such species; monitor invasive species populations; and to provide for restoration 

of native species and habitat conditions in ecosystems that have been invaded. An invasive plant 

risk assessment has been completed for this project, the findings and recommendations of which

are incorporated into the project design and decision. Project design features in the EA (pages 

14-15) include mitigation measures to reduce the potential for introduction and spread of 

invasive species. Implementation of this project, including treatments and mitigation measures, is 

expected to have a low to moderate risk for potential invasive plant introductions and spread. 

Therefore, I have determined this project will not result in significant impacts from invasive 
— DRAFT Decision Notice & FONSI —

Page 9 of 12

species introduction or spread in the project area. The need to treat invasive species presently 

established remains. 

Executive Order 13007 – Indian Sacred Sites

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

give consideration to the protection of American Indian sacred sites and allow access where 

feasible. In a government-to-government relationship, the tribal government is responsible for 

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

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

specific, discrete, and delineated location that has been identified by the tribe. Tribal 

governments or their authorized representatives have not identified any specific sacred site 

locations in the project area. I have determined tribal governments or their authorized 

representatives were consulted and they did not identify any specific sacred site locations within 

the project area.

Executive Order 13175 - Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments

Executive Order 13175 directs federal agencies to respect tribal self-government, sovereignty, 

and tribal rights, and to engage in regular and meaningful government-to-government 

consultation with federally recognized tribes on proposed actions with tribal implications. Tribal 

consultation does not imply the tribes endorse the selected action or any of the alternatives.

I have complied with this Order and have consulted with and provided information to the 

following tribal governments about this project: Petersburg Indian Association, Wrangell 

Cooperative Association, Central Council Tlingit and Haida Tribes of Alaska, and Organized 

Village of Kake. In addition, I have consulted with and provided information to the following 

tribal corporations and institute about this project: Kake Tribal Corporation, Sealaska 

Corporation and Sealaska Heritage Institute. 

Executive Order 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 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 will have minor effects to 

migratory birds in the short-term due to disturbance during project implementation, beneficial 
— DRAFT Decision Notice & FONSI —

Page 10 of 12

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, I 

have determined there would be negligible adverse effects to migratory birds from the Selected 

Alternative.

Executive Order 13443 – Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife 

Conservation

Executive Order 13443 directs federal agencies to facilitate the expansion and enhancement of 

hunting opportunities and the management of game species and their habitat. I have determined 

the Selected Alternative will maintain current hunting opportunities, and will have negligible 

effects to game species habitats. 

REQUIRED PERMITS AND CONCURRENCE

Prior to implementation of this project, one permit and one concurrence is required from other 

federal and state agencies, as follows:

• A Department of the Army (DA) permit is required because this project involves 

placement of dredged and/or fill material into waters of the U.S. under DA regulatory 

jurisdiction. Fill material is generated by digging trenches to key trees into the banks, 

then re-filling the trench with the same excavated material. An application for a 

Nationwide Permit 27, Aquatic Habitat Restoration, Establishment, and Restoration, will 

occur prior to project implementation.

• Title 16 fish habitat concurrence through the Alaska Department of Fish and Game is 

required prior to any instream work. This concurrence will determine the instream 

construction timing windows to minimize negative effects to fish.

PROCESS FOR CONSIDERING NEW INFORMATION

In the event new information becomes available or changed direction for any resource occurs 

during implementation of the South Fork Saginaw Creek Restoration Selected Alternative, the 

following Forest Service direction from Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.15, section 18.1 

will be used to evaluate the previous analysis:

• If new information or changed circumstances relating to the environmental impacts of a 

proposed action come to the attention of the responsible official after a decision has been 

made and prior to completion of the approved program or project, the responsible official 

should review the information carefully to determine its importance. Consideration 

should be given to whether or not the new information or changed circumstances are 

within the scope and range of effects considered in the original analysis.

• Based on further direction in FSH 1909.15 section 18, after interdisciplinary review and 

consideration of the changed circumstances or the new information, the responsible 

official may determine whether or not a correction, supplement, or revision to the EA is 

necessary.
— DRAFT Decision Notice & FONSI —

Page 11 of 12

DISTRIBUTION

The South Fork Saginaw Creek Restoration DRAFT Decision Notice, FONSI, and EA are 

available on the internet at http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=49992. Notification of the 

availability of this DRAFT Decision Notice was sent to the project mailing list including state 

and federal agencies, tribal governments, anyone commenting on the project, and anyone 

requesting a copy of this decision. The project mailing list is available in the project record. The 

DRAFT Decision Notice is also available in hard copy or on CD, upon request.

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AND OBJECTION RIGHTS

After this DRAFT decision is made available to the public, a legal notice announcing the 

objection period for this project will be published in the Petersburg Pilot, the newspaper of 

record. The publication date in the Petersburg Pilot is the exclusive means for calculating the 

time to file an objection of this project. Those wishing to object to this proposed project should 

not rely upon dates or timeframe information provided by any other source. 

Objections will be accepted only from those who have previously submitted specific written 

comments regarding the proposed project during scoping or other designated opportunity for 

public comment in accordance with 36 CFR 218.5(a). Issues raised in objections must be based 

on previously submitted timely, specific written comments regarding the proposed project unless 

based on new information arising after designated comment opportunities. Individual members 

of organizations must have submitted their own comments to meet the requirements of eligibility 

as an individual. Objections received on behalf of an organization are considered as those of the 

organization only. If an objection is submitted on behalf of a number of individuals or 

organizations, each individual or organization listed must meet the eligibility requirement (36 

CFR 218.7). Names and addresses of objectors will become part of the public record. 

The objection must be in writing and meet the content requirements at 36 CFR 218.8(d). Written 

objections, including any attachments, must be filed (regular mail, fax, email, hand-delivery, or

express delivery) with the reviewing officer, Earl Stewart, Forest Supervisor, within 45 days 

following the publication date of the legal notice in the Petersburg Pilot. Incorporation of 

documents by reference in any objection is permitted only as provided for at 36 CFR 218.8(b).

Objections may be sent to:

Earl Stewart, Reviewing Officer

Tongass Supervisors Office

Federal Building

648 Mission Street

Ketchikan, Alaska 99901

Fax: 907-228-6301

Email: objections-alaska-tongass@fs.fed.us

The office business hours for those submitting hand-delivered objections are 8:00 am to 4:30 pm, 

Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Electronic objections must be submitted in a format 

such as an email message, .pdf, plain text (.txt), rich text format (.rtf), and Word (.doc or .docx). 

It is the responsibility of objectors to ensure their objection is received in a timely manner (36 

CFR 218.9).
— DRAFT Decision Notice & FONSI —

Page 12 of 12

If objections are received, there is a 45-day objection review period in which the responsible 

official, the reviewing officer and the objectors may meet to attempt to resolve issues. At the end 

of the 45 days, the reviewing officer will issue a written response detailing how the objections 

have been addressed, which may also include instructions to the responsible official (36 CFR 

218.11(b)).

IMPLEMENTATION

A final decision may occur on, but not before, five business days from the close of the objection 

period filing period, if no objections are received (36 CFR 218.12(c)(2)).

If objections are received, a final decision will not be signed until all concerns and instructions 

identified by the reviewing officer in the objection response have been addressed by the 

responsible official (36 CFR 218.12(b)).

Implementation of decisions subject to the objection process may commence immediately after a 

final decision is signed. There is no requirement to publish notification of the decision.

CONTACT INFORMATION

For additional information concerning this DRAFT decision, contact: Heath Whitacre, 

Hydrologist/Project Leader, Petersburg Ranger District, PO Box 1328, Petersburg, AK 99833, 

907-772-5925, hwhitacre@fs.fed.us. 

RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL

David Zimmerman

Petersburg District Ranger

REFERENCES

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 2015. Alaska Nonpoint Source Water 

Pollution Control Strategy. Fiscal Years 2016 – 2020. Available online at: 

http://dec.alaska.gov/water/wqsar/Docs/AlaskaNonpointSourceWaterPollutionControlStr

ategy.pdf. (Accessed: April 20, 2017).

Bakos, T. 2017. Biological Evaluation/Biological Assessment for Wildlife. South Fork Saginaw 

Creek Restoration Project. Unpublished Report. 17 pages.

Johnson, J. 2016. Biological Evaluation for Plants. South Fork Saginaw and Shorty Creek 

Restoration EA. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, Tongass National Forest, 

Petersburg Ranger District.

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. 2012. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality 

Management on National Forest System Lands. FS-990. April 2012.

USDA Forest Service. 2016. Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan. R10-MB-603.