United States 

Department of

Agriculture 

Forest Service

Tongass National

Forest 

Alaska Region

R10-MB-616

August 2007

Revised Environmental Assessment 

Sitka Access and Travel 

Management 

Sitka Ranger District, Tongass National Forest, Alaska 
ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS 

ACMP Alaska Coastal Management Plan 

ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish and Game 

ANILCA Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act 

ATM Access and Travel Management 

ATV all-terrain vehicle 

BMP Best Management Practice 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EFH essential fish habitat 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

Forest Plan Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan 

FSH Forest Service Handbook 

FSM Forest Service Manual 

GIS Geographic Information System 

GMU Game Management Unit 

HUC Hydrologic Unit Code 

LUD Land Use Designation 

MIS Management Indicator Species 

ML Maintenance Level 

MP milepost 

MVUM Motor Vehicle Use Map 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NFS National Forest System 

OHV off-highway vehicle 

OML Objective Maintenance Level 

RAP Roads Analysis Process 

RMA Riparian Management Area 

SATP Southeast Alaska Transportation Plan 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture 

WAA Wildlife Analysis Area 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and 

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, 

marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, 

political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public 

assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who 

require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, 

audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To 

file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 

Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or 

(202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 
Table of Contents iii 

Table of Contents 

ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS..................................................................................................ii

DEFINITIONS..................................................................................................................................... iv

Chapter 1 PURPOSE AND NEED ..................................................................................................1-1

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

Background .....................................................................................................................................1-1

Existing Conditions.........................................................................................................................1-2

Purpose and Need for Action ..........................................................................................................1-2

Proposed Action..............................................................................................................................1-2

Decision Framework .......................................................................................................................1-2

Public Involvement .........................................................................................................................1-3

Public Mailing ............................................................................................................................1-3

Local News Media......................................................................................................................1-3

Public Meetings ..........................................................................................................................1-3

Meetings with Native Groups.....................................................................................................1-3

Consultation with Other Agencies..............................................................................................1-3

Issues...............................................................................................................................................1-4

Non-Significant Issues ....................................................................................................................1-4

Chapter 2 ALTERNATIVE 4 AND ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON......................................2-1

Roads on Non-Federal Land.......................................................................................................2-1

Activities and Definitions Common to All Action Alternatives .....................................................2-2

Alternative 4....................................................................................................................................2-4

Passenger Vehicle Access...........................................................................................................2-4

Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Access.........................................................................................2-5

Mitigation Common to All Alternatives .........................................................................................2-8

Monitoring ......................................................................................................................................2-8

Comparison of Alternatives ............................................................................................................2-8

Chapter 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS....................3-1

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

Analyzing Effects............................................................................................................................3-1

Available Information.................................................................................................................3-1

Analysis of the Alternatives by Significant Issue ...........................................................................3-1

Issue 1: Motorized Access for Recreation .................................................................................3-2

Issue 2: Motorized Access for Subsistence................................................................................3-8

Non-Significant Issues..............................................................................................................3-14

Coastal Zone Management Act and Alaska Coastal Zone Management (ACMP)...................3-25

Cumulative Effects........................................................................................................................3-26

Chapter 4 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ...............................................................4-1

Federal, State, and Local Agencies.................................................................................................4-1

Tribes and Native Corporations ......................................................................................................4-1

CHAPTER 5 LITERATURE CITED .............................................................................................5-1

Appendix B Detailed Project Priorities for Passenger Vehicle and Off-Highway Vehicle 

Access

Appendix C Harbor Mountain Snow Conditions
Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment 

iv Table of Contents 

List of Tables 

Table 13. Designated OHV Use Areas for All Alternatives................................................ 2-2 

Table 14. Comparison of Alternatives ................................................................................. 2-9 

Table 15. Comparison of Resource Effects ...................................................................... 2-10 

Table 16. Outfitter/Guide Road Use .................................................................................... 3-3 

Table 17. Documented Deer Harvest by Road System and WAA, 1995 to 2003 ............... 3-9 

Table 18. Maintenance Level and OHV Use Designation in the Old-Growth LUD......... 3-15 

Table 19. Roads in RMAs by Maintenance Levels and OHV Use (miles) ....................... 3-18 

Table 20. Roads within Class I, II, and III RMAs by Maintenance Levels....................... 3-19 

Table 21. Road and Trail Maintenance Costs................................................................... 3-22 

Table 22. Cumulative Effects for MIS Fish Species.......................................................... 3-27 

List of Figures 

Figures are located after the Appendices in a map section 

Figure 1. Vicinity Map is repeated here to provide context for the alternative maps 

Figure 28. Designated OHV Use Area(s) – North Beach 

Figure 29. Designated OHV Use Area(s) – Harbor Mountain 

Figure 30. Designated OHV Use Area(s) – Bear View 

Figure 31. Indian River Analysis Area: Alternative 4 for Passenger and HighClearance Vehicle Access 

Figure 32. Southeast Chichagof Analysis Area: Alternative 4 for Passenger and 

High-Clearance Vehicle Access 

Figure 33. Upper Baranof Island Analysis Area: Alternative 4 for Passenger and 

High-Clearance Vehicle Access 

Figure 34. Lower Baranof Island Analysis Area: Alternative 4 for Passenger and 

High-Clearance Vehicle Access 

Figure 35. Kruzof Island Analysis Area: Alternative 4 for Passenger and HighClearance Vehicle Access 

Figure 36. Indian River Analysis Area: Alternative 4 for OHV Access 

Figure 37. Southeast Chichagof Island Analysis Area: Alternative 4 for OHV Access 

Figure 38. Upper Baranof Island Analysis Area: Alternative 4 for OHV Access 

Figure 39. Lower Baranof Island Analysis Area: Alternative 4 for OHV Access 

Figure 40. Kruzof Island Analysis Area: Alternative 4 for OHV Access 

DEFINITIONS 

Definitions for Forest Road, Road, Passenger Car Road (ML-3 & 4), High-Clearance 

Passenger Vehicle Roads (ML-2), Stored Road (ML-1), Unauthorized Road, Off-Highway 

Vehicle (OHV) Trail, Trail, Closed Pending Repairs, and Decommissioned Road are found 

in the January 2006 Sitka Access and Travel Management EA document after the List of 

Tables. Refer to that document (USDA Forest Service 2006) for those definitions.
Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment 

Purpose and Need 1-1 

CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND NEED 

Introduction 

The U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, prepared this Revised 

Environmental Assessment (EA) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations. This Revised EA discloses 

the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from Alternative 

4, and from additions to the other action alternatives, including the Proposed Action. It also 

provides the supporting information for a determination to prepare either a Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI) or an environmental impact statement. Additional 

documentation, including more detailed analyses of project area resources, may be found in 

the project planning record located at the Sitka Ranger District Office in Sitka, Alaska. 

Background 

An interdisciplinary team (IDT) of resource specialists conducted effects analysis and 

prepared the Sitka Access and Travel Management EA, published in June 2006, to evaluate 

management of the road system on the Sitka Ranger District (Ranger District). In 

accordance with the National Forest Management Act and the National Environmental Policy 

Act, the IDT considered the affected area, formulated alternatives, and estimated 

environmental consequences based on Forest Plan goals, objectives, and standards and 

guidelines, together with issues raised during scoping. The three alternatives addressed the 

issues that closing roads to motorized access, especially Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) access, 

due to resource concerns would reduce important recreational opportunities and access for 

subsistence. Alternatives included: Alternative 1, No Action; Alternative 2, closure/storage 

of forest roads that are not needed for resource management in the short term but are needed 

for long-term management, and decommissioning/converting to trail roads not needed for 

long-term management; and Alternative 3, closure /storage of forest roads, but actively 

working toward making all forest roads on the Ranger District open to OHV use. 

The Sitka Access and Travel Management EA was published in June 2006. Based on a 

projected reduction in the road maintenance budget, a new alternative (Alternative 4) was 

created. Additions related to OHV designated use areas and other off-road access were 

made to Alternatives 2 and 3 to meet the intent of the Travel Management Rule. Alternative 

4 and the additions to the other action alternatives are described in this Revised EA. 

Environmental analysis was completed for Alternative 4 and for the additions to the other 

action alternatives by the IDT and is included in this Revised EA. This Revised EA 

addresses comments received on the 2006 EA; corrections and additions to the June 2006 

EA, based on careful consideration of the comments received during the 30-day comment 

period on the 2006 EA, have been included in this Revised EA. However, where information 

did not change between the 2006 EA and this Revised EA, the information was not repeated 

here, and the reader is referred to the June 2006 EA. 
Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment 

1-2 Purpose and Need 

Existing Conditions 

The Sitka Ranger District of the Tongass National Forest comprises approximately 1.8 

million acres. Part of the Alexander Archipelago, the Ranger District encompasses Baranof 

Island, Kruzof Island, and the southern portion of Chichagof Island, and is bounded on the 

west by the Gulf of Alaska and on the east by Chatham Strait (Figure 1, Map Section after 

the Appendices). 

There are approximately 372 miles of forest roads on the Ranger District (including roads 

that cross private land where the government holds an easement). 

A description of Forest Plan land use designations (LUDs) related to roads and access was 

located in the 2006 EA; refer to the 2006 EA (USDA Forest Service 2006) for those 

descriptions, except for the following correction: 

Wilderness (522,615 acres): Use of snowmachines, motorboats, fixed-wing 

airplanes, and non-motorized methods of surface transportation for traditional 

activities that are legal and for transportation to and from villages and homesites is 

allowed (consult ANILCA, Section 1110 and Wilderness and Rec. & Tourism 

Sections). 

Purpose and Need for Action 

As stated in the 2006 EA, the purpose of this project is to provide sustainable, efficient, and 

safe access to the forest resources and recreational opportunities on the Ranger District, and 

the need for this project is to reduce the number of non-maintained or inadequately 

maintained roads to better match the level of funding available for road maintenance and to 

eliminate or reduce risks of adverse environmental impacts and threats to public safety. 

Refer to the 2006 EA for further information. 

Proposed Action 

The Proposed Action (Alternative 2) would reduce the amount of road open to highway 

vehicles by approximately 45 miles. These roads would be placed in storage, 

decommissioned, or converted to trails. Approximately 14.5 miles of unauthorized roads 

would be added to the Ranger District road system (they would become forest roads) and 

another 4.5 miles of unauthorized road would be converted to OHV trails. Under the 

Proposed Action, six road systems would remain open for OHV use (with certain exceptions 

within each system). A more detailed description of the Proposed Action can be found in 

Chapter 2 of the 2006 EA. 

Decision Framework 

Given the Purpose and Need, the District Ranger for the Sitka Ranger District will review the 

Proposed Action and other alternatives in order to decide how the Ranger District road 

system will be managed to meet Forest Plan objectives, public needs, and budget limitations. 

The decision will include changes in road maintenance levels, access, and the type of access 
Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment 

Purpose and Need 1-3 

that will be permitted on National Forest System roads on the Ranger District. A finding of 

the significance of the effects and consistency with standards, guidelines, goals, and 

objectives of the Forest Plan and other laws and regulations will be included in this decision. 

Public Involvement 

In addition to the public involvement activities described in the 2006 Sitka Access and Travel 

Management EA, the following activities have occurred. 

Public Mailing 

The 2006 EA was mailed to 167 individuals, organizations, institutions, industry 

representatives, federal and state agencies, Alaska Native groups, municipal offices, and 

businesses. A total of 44 responses were received regarding the EA during or after the 30-

day comment period on the EA. 

Local News Media 

An announcement about the project and public meetings was published in the Daily Sitka 

Sentinel on March 28 and March 30, 2007. Public service announcements were also made on 

Sitka’s Raven Radio (KCAW) prior to public meetings. 

Public Meetings 

Alternative 4 was described and discussed at a public meeting in Sitka on April 5, 2007 and 

in Tenakee Springs on March 14, 2007. There were about 20 attendees at the Tenakee 

Springs meeting and about 40 at the Sitka meeting. During the public meetings, maps 

illustrating Alternative 4 were available for public review. Following the presentation, the 

public was provided the opportunity to ask questions. A representative of the Alaska 

Department of Natural Resources was present at the Sitka meeting to answer questions about 

State law and fish stream crossings. 

Subsistence hearings will be held in Tenakee Springs, Angoon, and Sitka after publication 

and dissemination of the Revised EA. 

Meetings with Native Groups 

Forest Service staff met with representatives of the Angoon Community Association on May 

18, 2005, Shee Atika Incorporated on June 15, 2005, and Sealaska Corporation on June 24, 

2005. Forest Service staff also met with representatives of the Sitka Tribe of Alaska for 

informational ATM meetings on May 31, 2005 and November 10, 2005. 

Consultation with Other Agencies 

Several federal and state agencies were sent the 2006 EA for review and many agencies 

provided comments on the EA. 

After further consideration, Sitka Ranger District personnel determined that no permits, 

licenses, and/or certifications from federal or state agencies are needed for this project. 
Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment 

1-4 Purpose and Need 

Issues 

Two significant issues were identified in the 2006 Sitka Access and Travel Management EA. 

Issue 1: Motorized Access for Recreation, Closing Roads to Motorized Access, Especially 

OHV Access, due to Resource Concerns would Reduce Important Recreational Opportunities 

on the Ranger District. 

Issue 2: Motorized Access for Subsistence, Closing Roads to Motorized Access due to 

Resource Concerns would Reduce Access for Subsistence on the Ranger District. 

The issues remain the same as in the 2006 EA; the reader is referred to the 2006 EA for 

further description of the issues. 

Non-Significant Issues 

In addition to motorized access for recreation and for subsistence, the following issues were 

raised through scoping, agency and tribal consultation, and comments on the 2006 EA: 

existing roads in the Old-Growth Habitat LUD, fisheries/water quality, public safety, road 

maintenance costs, the National OHV Plan and the Final Rule, the Southeast Alaska

Transportation Plan Road Corridors, unauthorized access across private land, crossing of 

anadromous streams, funding for proposals, and enforcement of closures. These issues are 

described in more detail below, as are the reasons for considering them non-significant. 

Existing Roads in the Old-Growth Habitat LUD 

This issue is addressed by the Forest Plan, which allows existing roads to remain open if 

needed for future management. Roads not needed may be closed. Many roads within the 

Old-Growth Habitat LUDs have naturally closed due to lack of road maintenance. Some of 

these roads may be used in the future to perform second-growth silvicultural treatments in 

previous timber harvest units to meet LUD goals and objectives. Existing OHV use on the 

existing roads in these LUDs is minimal. The Proposed Action and Alternative 4 preserve 

motorized access to roads necessary for short-term timber management activities; these 

alternatives also place roads into storage that are not needed in the short term, but may be 

necessary for long-term resource uses. See Roads in Old-Growth Habitat Land Use 

Designations in Chapter 3 of the EA for more information about this non-significant issue. 

Fisheries/Water Quality 

Comments on the 2006 EA stated that fish and water quality should be given more analysis, 

and an alternative should be considered to address these resource concerns, and some 

scoping comments stated that roads that do not have adequate stream crossings should be 

closed. An additional significant issue was not generated by scoping comments or by 

comments on the 2006 EA, in part, because protection of fisheries and water quality drove 

the design of all the action alternatives. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would result in a reduction 

in effects of roads on resources by decommissioning or storing roads, and reducing 

motorized use. These alternatives would result in protection of sensitive resources, such as 

water quality, fish habitat, and wildlife habitat, and restoration by removing culverts that 

block fish passage, removing bridges that may collapse and block streams, reducing sediment 
Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment 

Purpose and Need 1-5 

input and delivery into streams and wetlands, and reducing disturbance and fragmentation of 

wildlife habitat. The Forest Service recognizes that fish populations may be negatively 

affected by road sediment introduced at stream crossings, particularly if maintenance has 

been insufficient to meet the standards and guidelines outlined in the Forest Plan. Alaska 

State statute, AS 41.14.870, does not allow motorized vehicle access across anadromous 

streams without adequate stream crossings. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would close roads that 

do not have adequate stream crossings, at least until repairs are made or concerns mitigated. 

See the Roads in Old-Growth Habitat Land Use Designations and the Fisheries section in 

Chapter 3 of the EA for more information. 

Public Safety 

Comments from the public suggest that OHV riders should be allowed to evaluate the safety 

of an area themselves and be allowed to ride at their own risk rather than close unsafe roads. 

The public also feels that it is unclear why motorized access users are considered more at 

risk of using unsafe routes as a result of safety hazards such as landslides than nonmotorized users. Landslides and slumps occur periodically on or near roads in the project 

area, often following storm events. Landslides can block a road or a portion of the road can 

move downhill. People using the road may not be aware that a recent landslide has blocked 

the road or that part of the roadbed has moved downhill. The speed at which motor vehicles 

travel makes occupants of these vehicles much more likely to be injured by crashing into 

logs, earth and rocks deposited on a road by a landslide or driving off the roadbed that has 

been lost by a slump or washout than non-motorized users. Hikers are likely to see the 

problem in time to stop because of their much slower speed. Therefore, motor vehicle users 

are considered to be at a greater risk than other users. In addition, motorized vehicles add 

substantial weight on the road surface compared to non-motorized users. While a failing 

bridge or a culvert could withstand the weight of two hikers (estimated at 400 lbs, but usually 

split up into two locations), it may not be able to withstand the weight of several ATVs plus 

drivers (estimated at between 600 to 200 lbs each, concentrated into a small area). Due to 

weight limits and bridge width, some bridges considered unsafe for the weight and width of 

most OHVs are still considered safe for foot traffic. Additionally, foot traffic may cross 

anadromous fish streams in an effort to bypass unsafe bridges and culverts (according to 

State statute AS 41.14.870) while OHVs may not legally cross anadromous fish streams in an 

effort to bypass unsafe structures. 

Safety standards are set by Forest Service policy. Because of our policies and procedures 

regarding public safety, we must protect public safety; therefore we cannot allow the public 

to use identified unsafe roads and bridges. “Ride at your own risk” signage would not 

absolve the Forest Service of responsibility or liability for allowing use on unsafe roads or 

trails. Consequently, the action alternatives call for certain roads posing threats to public 

safety to be closed to motorized use until they can be repaired or decommissioned. See 

Public Safety in Chapter 3 of the EA for more information. 

Road Maintenance Costs 

Some comments on the 2006 EA suggested that the Sitka Ranger District should seek more 

funding for road maintenance. Reduced funding for road maintenance is a result of many 

factors beyond the Sitka Ranger District’s control, such as the budget deficit and national 

priorities set by Congress, and is a current recognized national trend. The District identifies 
Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment 

1-6 Purpose and Need 

the funding needed to maintain the roads each year but is forbidden by law from lobbying 

Congress for additional funds. The entire Tongass National Forest is faced with reduced 

funding for road maintenance. To address funding issues and the requirements of the Travel 

Management Rule, the other Tongass National Forest Ranger Districts are also completing 

access travel management analyses. This project, including Alternative 4, is being proposed 

because current funding provided for road maintenance is inadequate to prevent further 

resource damage to open roads at their current Objective Maintenance Level (OML). As a 

consequence of the mounting shortfall, under all action alternatives, roads not needed for 

short-term or long-term resource management would be placed in storage, decommissioned, 

or converted to trails. This would reduce the cost of road maintenance and reduce ongoing 

resource damage due to inadequate road maintenance. In addition, the District intends to 

work with volunteers that are willing and able to help maintain Forest roads. For example, 

we intend to seek the help of local groups or communities interested in recreational riding to 

maintain and keep OHV trails open. Road work to open all roads identified in all action 

alternatives ranges from minimal clearing to areas requiring heavy equipment to correct 

identified problems or install stream crossing devices. 

National OHV Final Rule 

The National OHV Rule was released in November 2005. This Access and Travel 

Management Plan may be modified in the future to comply with the Final Rule. This rule is 

now officially called the Travel Management Rule. 

Southeast Alaska Transportation Plan Road Corridors 

The Southeast Alaska Transportation Plan (SATP), proposed by the State of Alaska in 2004, 

included transportation and utility corridors designed to better link the communities in 

Southeast Alaska. Individual scoping participants believed that certain roads proposed to be 

stored or decommissioned should remain open to preserve the potential corridors outlined in 

the SATP. Representatives of the State of Alaska Department of Transportation also 

requested that the Forest Service maintain and protect the roads aligning with these routes. 

All of the action alternatives maintain roadbeds or the option of roadbeds in these corridors, 

as recommended. 

Unauthorized Access onto Private Lands 

Private landowners have the right to deny access across their land. Therefore, the Forest 

Service cannot accommodate use on private lands, and the action alternatives do not 

designate use on private lands. Where the Government has secured or retained public access 

across private land, this access will be identified on the Motor Vehicle Use Map. 

Allow Crossing of Anadromous Streams 

Some people who commented on the 2006 EA felt that OHVs should be allowed to cross 

anadromous fish streams, and/or infrequent crossings by OHVs should be allowed. Alaska 

State law (AS 41.14.870) prohibits driving motorized vehicles of any sort, including OHVs, 

across anadromous fish streams without adequate crossings. While the state law is in effect, 

the Forest Service must abide by the law. The Forest Service is not at liberty to ignore laws 

protecting water quality; therefore the Forest Service must prohibit the use of these crossings 

by any and all motorized vehicles until crossings are fixed or the Sitka Ranger District 
Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment 

Purpose and Need 1-7 

receives concurrence from the State on crossings. Consultation and site visits with the 

Alaska Department of Natural Resources has lead to concurrence on some hardened 

crossings, rock fords or bridges. The Forest Service will continue to survey all anadromous 

stream crossings on roads identified as potential trails. 

Funding for Proposals 

Some people who commented on the 2006 EA were concerned that funding would not be 

available to implement the chosen alternative, and were concerned that the Sitka District is 

not committed to implementing an alternative when chosen. Appendix A in the 2006 EA and 

Appendix B in the 2007 Revised EA display the priorities relative to Alternative 3 for 

opening roads to OHVs that are “closed pending repair.” Note that in Alternative 4, some 

roads are open due to clearance/concurrence work done by resource specialists with the State 

of Alaska to allow OHV use on some roads “closed pending repairs” between the 2006 EA 

and this Revised EA. Maintenance funds are applied to the mainline roads on a rotation 

schedule, predominately at False Island, Corner Bay, Kruzof, etc. The District plans to 

request adequate amounts of funding but in reality, partnerships, volunteers, and adopt-a-road 

programs will need to be considered to support the amount of open roads and potential 

designated trails under Alternatives 3 and 4. The Sitka Ranger District has a due date of 

December 2007 to produce a Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) that displays roads, trails, 

and areas open to OHVs. The goal is to address all the “closed until repairs are made” roads 

by 2009. Regardless of which alternative is selected, there is no guarantee that funds will be 

available to fully implement the chosen alternative. The District will utilize funding 

available, and in some cases volunteers, to implement the chosen alternative. 

Enforcement of Closures 

Several people who commented on the 2006 EA were concerned about enforcement of road 

closures. When the Travel Management Rule is implemented on the Tongass, the Motor 

Vehicle Use Map will only display those roads or OHV trails that are open for each specific 

vehicle type. No other routes will be legally available for motorized travel. The Sitka Ranger 

District has one law enforcement officer and two forest protection officers assigned to the 

District. The District recognizes the need for an increased level of law enforcement; 

however, just as there is not enough money in the budget to maintain all of the roads, there is 

not enough money in the budget to provide additional law enforcement personnel. When the 

Travel Management Rule is adopted on the Sitka Ranger District, the MVUM will identify 

roads, areas, and trails that are open for motor vehicle use. This map will be made available 

for all forest users at our offices and on-line and will be updated annually. OHV users will 

be expected to adhere to the law by only riding on routes designated as open on this map. 

The public can assist the Forest Service in law enforcement by reporting the location of 

closed areas being used and the time/date of that use to the local Forest Service office. This 

information can help us in future law enforcement activities. 
Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment 

Alternative 4 2-1 

CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVE 4 AND ALTERNATIVE 

COMPARISON 

This chapter compares the alternatives considered for the Sitka ATM project. It includes a 

description and maps of Alternative 4. This section also presents the alternatives in 

comparative form, sharply defining the differences between each alternative and providing a 

clear basis for choice among options by the decision maker and the public. 

The Forest Service uses the term “Maintenance Level” to describe the level of service 

provided by, and maintenance required for each forest road. The Objective Maintenance 

Level (OML) is the proposed maintenance level to be assigned as a result of this document, 

considering road management objectives, traffic needs, budget constraints, and 

environmental concerns. Forest roads are assigned to one of four separate Objective 

Maintenance Levels. Roads assigned to OML-1 are considered closed to passenger vehicles, 

while roads assigned to OML-2, 3, or 4 are considered open. Alternative 4 calls for changes 

to the Objective Maintenance Levels on several roads on the Ranger District. These changes 

are detailed in Table B-1 in Appendix B. A brief description of these OMLs can be found 

under Definitions in the 2006 EA. 

The Responsible Official considers four alternatives in the EA. The Sitka Access and Travel 

Management EA, dated June 2006, described and considered a No Action Alternative 

(Alternative 1) and two action alternatives, including the Proposed Action (Alternative 2) and 

a third alternative (Alternative 3), in detail. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 will remain the same as 

described in the June 2006 EA; readers are referred to the June 2006 document for those 

alternative descriptions. In this Revised EA, a fourth alternative (Alternative 4) is described 

and considered. 

Under the No Action Alternative, no changes to road management would take place in the 

project area; Alternative 1 is the current condition, basically unlimited off-road travel, which 

is provided for comparison only. Alternative 1 is not selectable because it violates current 

regulation and policy. The other alternatives represent different means of meeting the 

Purpose and Need for this project by responding with different emphases to the significant 

issues discussed in Chapter 1. The alternatives were designed to fully comply with the 

Tongass Forest Plan including all applicable Standards and Guidelines. Maps of Alternative 

4 are provided within this chapter; maps of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 are found in the June 

2006 EA. For the purpose of displaying all 22 road systems, the Ranger District has been 

divided into five areas: Indian River, Southeast Chichagof Island, Upper Baranof Island, 

Lower Baranof Island, and Kruzof Island. Each map displays one of these areas on the 

Ranger District. 

Roads on Non-Federal Land 

During scoping for this project, representatives of Alaskan Native groups expressed concern 

regarding the management of roads that impact Native allotments. Owners of these private 

lands have requested that roads on their properties not appear on project maps except for 

where the Ranger District has secured easements. Therefore, certain roads familiar to local 

users may not be depicted in the maps included in this EA since they are not public routes. 
Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment 

2-2 Alternative 4 

Activities and Definitions Common to All Action Alternatives 

In all alternatives, the Travel Management Rule allows motorized vehicle use only in areas 

designated as open. Depending on the alternative, roads and trails are designated as open to 

OHVs and/or passenger vehicles. Log transfer facilities (LTFs), rock pits, and sort yards will 

be open to motorized vehicle use where they are accessible from an open designated road; 

these areas will be open to OHV use where they are accessible from an open designated trail. 

In all alternatives, OHV use is limited to a 50-inch wheelbase or less on the Starrigavan trail 

system and on Ocean Boulevard (Road 7544). On the remaining OHV designated trails, 

OHV use is limited to a 60-inch wheelbase or less. 

Because the Travel Management Rule allows motorized vehicle use only in areas designated 

as open, the following areas are proposed to remain open for OHVs. The following actions 

are proposed in all action alternatives (Alternatives 2, 3, and 4). Analysis related to these 

proposals has been added to Chapter 3 of this Revised EA and the Project Record. 

Designated OHV Use Areas (other than roads and associated road features open to 

OHVs) 

Designated OHV use areas are off-road areas that are made available to OHV riders. 

Generally, they are areas of past use or natural features which make them resistant to damage 

from cross-country motor vehicle use. Three designated OHV use areas would be open and 

available to OHV use in all alternatives (see Table 13 and Figures 28-30 in the Map Section 

after the Appendices). OHV use would be limited to the areas shown on the maps. 

Table 13. Designated OHV Use Areas for All Alternatives 

Name Acres Access Season of Use 

North Beach 9.3 Trail 31464 Anytime 

Harbor Mountain 136.5 Road 7576 Over snow only* 

 Bear View 5.3 7540FI Anytime 

*See Appendix C for further conditions 

Limiting OHV use to these areas is an effort to: minimize damage to soil, watershed, and 

vegetation; minimize harassment of wildlife and disruption of wildlife habitat, and minimize 

conflicts among different classes and uses of motor vehicles. 

OHV use in the Harbor Mountain area would only be allowed over snow and only when 

snow conditions and depths described in Appendix C are met. At North Beach, OHV users 

are and would continue to be allowed to access campsites from the beach only; OHVs could 

be unloaded and parked no more than 30 feet from the end of the three western-most access 

points (30 feet in from the tree line). See Figure 28 in the map section for locations of the 

three access points. 

One of these designated areas (North Beach) is sensitive to impacts by OHV use due to the 

presence of a rare plant. OHVs will be expected to 1) stay away from and off of areas of 

beach grass, and 2) use the five access points marked on Figure 28 to access trails and 

campsites. Monitoring will be conducted annually to determine if resource damage is 

occurring in these areas; if a loss of plants or beach grass is detected, this area would be 

closed to OHV use. 
Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment 

Alternative 4 2-3 

Off-Road Access for Dispersed Camping 

OHV use off of designated open roads and trails for the purpose of dispersed camping is 

permitted for up to 100 feet on closed roadbeds year-round. Dispersed camping at North 

Beach would be allowed as described under Designated OHV Use Areas. 

Mixed-use Analysis 

The Travel Management Rule requires an analysis on OML-3 and OML-4 roads where 

mixed-use, highway legal passenger vehicles and OHVs, are going to be sharing the 

roadway. This will require a documented engineering judgment and/or engineering study by 

a qualified engineer with recommendations to the District Ranger for approval or 

implementation. With the implementation of the Travel Management Rule, a Motorized 

Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) will be produced to show the NFS roads and the appropriate 

motorized use allowed. The Sitka Ranger District is scheduled to produce the accompanying 

MVUM by December of 2007. 

Roads that are currently being used by OHVs are anticipated to remain available for OHV 

use pending the completion of the study and are represented on the OHV maps for all 

alternatives. A mixed-use analysis will be done for Harbor Mountain Road 7576 because of 

OHV and passenger vehicle use at the same time. 

Ongoing Road Maintenance and Reconditioning 

Ongoing road maintenance and reconditioning would continue, to some degree, in all 

alternatives no matter which alternative is chosen. Maintenance and reconditioning of 

existing National Forest System (NFS) roads is an ongoing process that occurs on a periodic 

basis. Normally this kind of road work is determined to fit the category of routine repair and 

maintenance of roads that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the 

quality of the human environment and may be categorically excluded (FSH 1909.15, 31.12). 

The maintenance and reconditioning of NFS roads on the project area may occur before, 

during and after the project analysis. This work is done through separate service contracts to 

reduce the backlog of deferred maintenance, recondition roads to comply with best 

management practices, maintain the existing infrastructure for the proposed timber sale or 

future harvest entries, and other National Forest management activities. The timing of this 

work may coincide with this project's analysis but is not part of the proposed action or 

alternatives being considered. Any effects from the road maintenance and reconditioning 

work are included in the cumulative effects analysis for this project. 

Road maintenance consists of superficial periodic repairs to an existing road surface, 

brushing, and cleaning and repairing drainage features. These tasks are performed to keep 

the roads in the safe and useful condition for which they were designed. Repairs may be done 

as annual maintenance. 

Road reconditioning is heavier maintenance of an existing road such as culvert replacement, 

surface rock replacement, and subgrade repair. 

Road maintenance and reconditioning consists of performing the work necessary to retain the 

road’s traffic service level. The amount and level of maintenance and repair is dependent 

upon traffic management objectives and maintenance criteria. 
Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment 

2-4 Alternative 4 

Alternative 4 

This alternative places more roads into storage and reduces road maintenance levels than 

Alternative 2 and 3. This alternative was developed in response to anticipated budget 

reductions in engineering. Roads deemed not needed for long-term management would be 

decommissioned or, in some instances, converted to designated trails. This alternative 

affects 22 separate road systems. Under this alternative forest roads that are not needed for 

resource management in the short term but are needed for long-term management would be 

stored (see Table B-1 in Appendix B and Figures 31 through 35 in the Map Section after the 

Appendices). 

There were a number of roads not connected to any large community that had been 

maintained for passenger cars for which there was little use by that type of vehicle. With no 

continuing resource activities to augment the maintenance of these roads, the maintenance 

level was reduced to accommodate the typical usage by high clearance vehicles. 

Approximately 109.5 miles of roads that are currently identified as open to passenger and 

high-clearance vehicles would be closed or placed in OML-1. This would bring to total of 

roads in OML-1 on the Sitka District to 265.9 miles. These 265.9 miles of roads placed in 

storage would have drainage structures removed and water bars installed if needed for 

resource protection unless it is converted to an OHV trail. 

A total of 4.7 miles of road not needed for long-term management would be 

decommissioned. Decommissioned roads would have their drainage structures removed and 

in some instances road surfaces would be scarified and revegetated. Any identified hazards 

to public safety would also be corrected. 

A total of 32.0 miles of roads on the Corner Bay and False Island road systems were reduced 

from OML-3 to OML-2. However, 1.2 miles of roads in the Corner Bay and False Island 

road systems were moved to open from closed, OML-1 to OML-2, which reflects current 

usage and road condition. This results in a total of 59.7 miles of roads in Alternative 4 that 

are maintained as OML-2 for high-clearance vehicles in Alternative 4. 

This alternative also designates which roads would be open to OHV use. There are 43.3 

miles of former roads that would become designated trails. As with Alternative 2, this 

alternative also identifies roads that would be good candidates for future availability as OHV 

trails once their respective resource concerns are addressed. These are referred to as ‘yellow 

roads’ or potential designated trails throughout this document. This alternative identifies 

59.9 miles that are potential designated trails once their respective resource concerns are 

mitigated such as through hardened stream crossings, removal of stream obstructions, 

removal of slide material, or where field-verification identifies fish crossings as having 

limited or no impact to anadromous fish. 

Passenger Vehicle Access 

Indian River – Alternative 4 for Passenger Vehicle Access 

Due to deteriorating conditions of all bridges in the Indian River system, all roads would be 

placed in storage and closed to passenger vehicles for public safety. During the road storage 

process, Road 75001 would be decommissioned because of resource issues. 
Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment 

Alternative 4 2-5 

Southeast Chichagof Island – Alternative 4 for Passenger Vehicle Access 

Under Alternative 4 there are no roads open for passenger cars. The 38.0 miles of road 

identified in Alternative 2 as open to passenger cars would have their operation maintenance 

level reduced from OML-3 to OML-2 due to reduced road maintenance budgets and limit use 

by passenger cars. This alternative also places 108.6 miles of road in storage in addition to 

6.7 miles of former roads that would be designated trails. This alternative has 57.1 miles of 

road available for high clearance vehicles in this area. Approximately 2.5 miles of Road 

7545 (False Island road system) would be decommissioned due to resource issues. 

Upper Baranof Island – Alternative 4 for Passenger Vehicle Access 

In Alternative 4, all roads on the Hanus Bay, Kelp Bay, Saook, Appleton Cove, Rodman 

Bay, Fish Bay, St. John the Baptist, and Noxon Creek systems are closed to passenger 

vehicles. An unauthorized segment totaling 1.8 miles would be added to the Hanus Bay 

system as a stored road. 

Lower Baranof Island – Alternative 4 Action for Passenger Vehicle Access 

The 6.3 miles of the Sitka Local road system would remain open to passenger cars in 

Alternative 4. The maintenance level has been be reduced on Road 7577, the Blue Lake 

Road (2.2 miles) for safety reasons, but it would still be open to high clearance vehicle use. 

Approximately 0.5 mile of unauthorized roads would be added to the system as roads 

accessible to passenger cars. 

Roads in the Kizhuchia road system would be closed to passenger and high clearance 

vehicles. There is a portion of private property that limits access to this small system 

approximately 1.9 miles from the marine access point. All 7.7 miles of roads in this system 

would be placed in storage. 

The Camp Coogan road system (2 miles) has recently been decommissioned; it is closed to 

all motorized travel. There are 10.2 miles of Katlian road system currently in storage and 

closed to passenger and high clearance vehicles. 

No changes would be made to the 2.6 miles of the Lisa Creek road system, which is stored. 

Kruzof Island – Alternative 4 for Passenger Vehicle Access 

Currently there are two remote road systems on Kruzof Island: Mud Bay and Eagle Creek. 

All roads on the Mud Bay and Eagle Creek systems are closed to passenger and high 

clearance vehicles. This alternative calls for the storage of approximately 20.1 miles of roads 

on Kruzof Island. A portion of Road 75961 (0.6 miles) would be decommissioned during 

storage activities because it was built on very erosive soil and has experienced numerous 

landslides. Twenty-two unauthorized road segments, totaling approximately 5.2 miles, 

would be added to this system. 

Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Access 

Figures 36 through 40 (in the Map Section after the Appendices) depict the OHV access for 

Alternative 4. An OHV is any motor vehicle that is designed or retrofitted primarily for 

recreational use off road, including all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), minibikes, off-highway 

motorcycles, and motorized trail bikes. In all alternatives, the Sitka Ranger District is 
Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment 

2-6 Alternative 4 

limiting OHV use to a 50-inch wheelbase or less on the Starrigavan trail system and on 

Ocean Boulevard (Road 7544). On the remaining OHV designated trails, OHV use is limited 

to a 60-inch wheelbase or less. 

Indian River – Alternative 4 for OHV Access 

Due to deteriorating conditions of all bridges in the Indian River system, all roads are closed 

to OHV traffic. The first 11.3 miles of Road 7500 and Road 7502 are identified as potential 

designated trails and are closed until repairs or mitigation of failed bridges is completed. 

Southeast Chichagof Island – Alternative 4 OHV Access 

The Corner Bay road system would remain mostly open to OHV use with the following 

exceptions: Road 7541 would be closed after MP 1.0, Road 7543 would be closed after MP 

1.5, Road 7621 would be closed after MP 1.1. Road 7623 would be closed. Road 7624 

would be closed after MP 0.7. Road 75409 would be open. Road 7540, the Corner Bay 

Road would be open to OHV to the intersection with the Muri Creek Road 7620. Road 7542 

would be closed to OHVs past MP 1.8 as would all of Roads 75422 and 754221. Road 7620 

would be closed to OHV traffic past MP 0.9. Roads 7559, 75591, 75410, and 76241 would 

be closed to OHV use. Road 7520 would be closed to OHV traffic at MP 9.5 along Chatham 

Straits as would all of Roads 7524, 75241, 7523, 7521, and Road 7522. The first 0.6 miles of 

75205 and 752051 would be open for a total of 1.6 miles of designated trails. Roads would 

be closed because of resource issues and lack of access. 

False Island system Roads 7545, 7547, 7552, 75443, 754431, 75461, 75522, and the last 3.9 

miles of 7548 are closed to OHV use. Road 7544 would be open to OHV use which includes 

Ocean Boulevard. Road 7553 would be open to OHVs for the first 0.1 miles, however the 

remainder of this road and Roads 7553, 75531, 755311, 755312, 75532, 75533, 75534, and 

75401 would be closed to OHV use. 

The Crab Bay road system has many unimproved fish stream crossings, and would be closed 

to OHV use. The Oly Creek road system would also be closed to OHV because of its poor 

condition. The Inbetween system would be closed to OHV use because all log stringer 

bridges have failed. 

Upper Baranof Island – Alternative 4 for OHV Access 

With this alternative 15.8 miles of roads of the Appleton Cove system would remain in 

storage. This includes the addition of three unauthorized road segments totaling 

approximately 5 miles that are needed for future resource management. In addition there are 

3.1 miles of former roads that would now be designated trails. Road 7722E would be open to 

OHVs as far as a removed bridge at MP 0.9 and Road 7588 would be open as far as a 

removed bridge at MP 0.4. 

There are no designated trails for OHVs on the Hanus Bay road system due to a previous 

decision on an EIS, to provide wildlife protection. 

The majority of roads on the St. John the Baptist road system are identified as potential 

designated trails. Some stream crossing structures require replacement or permitted stream 

crossings before this system could be opened to OHV use. Until work is completed, this 

system would remain closed to OHV access. 
Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment 

Alternative 4 2-7 

All of the roads on the Fish Bay road system would be stored and closed to OHV traffic. 

They lack acceptable fish crossing structures and are in extremely poor condition; 

consequently, the roads would be closed to OHV use. Kelp Bay, Rodman Bay, and Saook 

systems are also in extremely poor condition, and would not be available for OHV use unless 

future timber sale activities repair or expand them. 

The Noxon system would be closed to OHVs until stream crossings are repaired or fieldverification identifies fish crossings as having limited or no impact to anadromous fish, and if 

needed, concurrence received from the State Department of Natural Resources. 

The former main access route into Nakwasina, an unauthorized road system, would be added 

as a potential trail opportunity. This trail would include approximately 4.5 miles, and would 

be available for OHV use after appropriate stream crossing structures are built or alternative 

stream crossings are approved. 

Lower Baranof Island – Alternative 4 for OHV Access 

No changes would be made to the current OHV designations of the Sitka Local road system. 

The Starrigavan OHV trail would remain open. Harbor Mountain would be available for 

OHV use during the winter when it has been determined that there is adequate snow 

coverage on the road surface. OHVs are not allowed on the Blue Lake road and in the 

Sawmill Creek campground. 

While most of the roads on the Katlian system have inadequate fish crossing structures, the 

first 0.5 mile of 7579 up to the intersection with Road 75797, and the first 2.7 miles of Road 

75797 are open to OHV traffic in Alternative 4. The remainder of this road is closed until 

stream crossings are repaired or field-verification identifies fish crossings as having limited 

or no impact to anadromous fish. Roads 75791, 75790, and 75792 are closed to OHV use. 

The Lisa Creek system would be closed to OHV use and put into storage due to a lack of 

access through private property. 

The first 1.9 miles of Road 7582, along saltwater up to the private property, would be open to 

OHVs. The remaining 5.8 miles of roads in the Kizhuchia system beyond the private 

property would be closed to OHV traffic. 

The Camp Coogan road system has been decommissioned. 

Kruzof Island – Alternative 4 for OHV Access 

The majority of the Mud Bay system would remain open to OHV use with a few exceptions. 

The last 0.7 miles of Road 75911 and Roads 75912, 759122, and 75913 would be closed 

until improvements to fish stream crossings can be made. The last 0.6 miles of Road 75961 

would be decommissioned because it was built on very erosive soil and has experienced 

numerous landslides, therefore no further resources activities are planned requiring 

motorized access. 

Multiple major stream crossing structures on the Eagle Creek road system have failed and 

pose a hazard to both public safety and natural resources. This system would remain closed 

to OHVs until the stream crossings are repaired or mitigated. 

Two existing motorized trails, Starrigavan and North Beach, would be maintained as 

designated trails. Existing non-motorized trails would remain non-motorized. 
Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment 

2-8 Alternative 4 

Mitigation Common to All Alternatives 

The mitigation measures described in the 2006 Sitka Access and Travel Management EA 

would be implemented under each of the road management alternatives as needed to protect 

resources. The following additional mitigation measures would also be implemented under 

all action alternatives: 

• To help control erosion on steeper grades and encourage reduced speed, rolling dips 

should be maintained along with narrowed clearing limits on NFS Road 7590 and 

7591 on the Mud Bay road system. 

• Access points and protected beach grass habitat will be signed at North Beach. 

Monitoring 

Implementation and effectiveness monitoring would be completed for project work approved 

under any alternative, as would normal Forest Plan monitoring. In addition to the monitoring 

described in the 2006 Sitka Access and Travel Management EA, all action alternatives would 

include monitoring of designated use areas to determine if OHV riders are staying within the 

confines of the hardened surfaces and the creation of a monitoring plan to monitor impacts to 

a rare plant and beach grass at North Beach. Monitoring will be conducted annually to 

determine if resource damage is occurring at North Beach; if a degradation of rare plants or 

beach grass habitat is detected at North Beach, this area would be closed to OHV use. 

Comparison of Alternatives 

This section provides a summary of the effects of implementing each alternative. 

Information in Table 14 is focused on activities and outputs. Table 15 is focused on effects 

where different levels of effects can be distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively among 

alternatives. 
Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment 

Alternative 4 2-9 

Table 14. Comparison of Alternatives 

Alternative 

1, 

No Action

Alternative 2,

Proposed 

Action 

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Road Management (maintenance level) 

Storage (miles) OML-1 208.0 229.0 275.9 265.9 

High-clearance vehicles (miles)1/ 

OML-2

122.2 76.7 73.3 59.7 

Passenger cars, rough surface (miles) 

OML-3 

37.8 38.0 38.0 5.0 

Passenger cars smooth surface (miles) 

OML-4 

3.7 4.0 4.0 1.4 

Decommissioned (miles) 0 16.4 0 4.7 

Forest road converted to trail (miles) 0 22.4 0 43.3 

Unauthorized road added to trail 

system (miles)

0 4.5 0 4.5 

Total (miles)3/ 371.7 391.0 391.2 384.5 

Unauthorized roads added to road 

system 

0 14.5 19 14.5 

OHV Access 

Open (miles) 356.24/ 193.2 193.2 105.1 

Closed pending repairs (miles); these 

are potential designated trails/ 

“yellow” roads 

0 101.9 184.4 59.9 

Closed (miles) 9.8 90.4 7.9 216.5 

Open seasonally (miles) 7576 5.7 5.7 5.7 4.6 

Total (miles) 371.7 391.2 391.2 386.1 

Designated OHV use areas (number of 

areas) 

0 3 3 3 

Note: Numbers are based on GIS analysis and may not be exact. Numbers may not match other tables or add exactly due to 

rounding. 

1/ High-clearance vehicles includes all vehicles with ground clearance greater than 5 inches. 

2/ An additional 4.5 miles of unauthorized road would be converted to OHV trail under the Proposed Action. 

3/ Totals for the Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 include unauthorized roads added to the system. 

4/ Includes roads without acceptable stream crossings. 
Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment 

2-10 Alternative 4 

Table 15. Comparison of Resource Effects 

Alternative 

1, 

No Action

Alternative 2,

Proposed 

Action 

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Subsistence 

Resource distribution and abundance No change No substantial 

change 

No substantial 

change 

No substantial 

change 

Access to resources, short term No change Minor decrease Minor decrease Minor decrease

Access to resources, long term No change Minor decrease No change Minor decrease

Competition No change No change No Change No Change 

Old-Growth Habitat LUDs 

Open to passenger vehicles (miles) 7.7 2.1 1.6 0 

Open to OHV use (miles) 24.4 4.61/ 4.61/ 0.7 

Closed to OHV use pending repairs 

(miles) 

0 10.0 19.7 10.6 

Closed to OHV use (miles) 0 9.8 0.1 15.3 

Water Quality 

Roads closed on hazardous soils 

(miles) 

0 32.6 32.5 38.3 

Road/stream crossings removed or 

repaired 

0 888 781 1,211 

Open roads on RMAs2/ (miles) 26 21.3 21.2 12.7 

Roads on wetlands (miles) 89.7 31.9 32.4 16.1 

Fisheries 

Fish passage blockages removed (red 

pipes) 

 0 40 39 69 

Miles of Level 2, 3, 4 Road to 

Maintain 

163.7 118.7 115.3 68.0 

Cost of Road Maintenance per year3/ $219,000 $187,000 $192,000 $106,000 

1/ Portions of open OML-2 and OML-3 roads providing access to adjacent developmental LUDs, such as Road 7500. 

2/ RMA = Riparian Management Area 

3/ Estimated using OML-1=$169/mi/yr, OML-2=$806/mi/yr, OML-3=$2,051/mi/yr, OML-4=$2,051/mi/yr 
Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment 

Affected Environment and Environmental Effects 3-1

CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 

Introduction 

This chapter briefly describes the affected environment and the environmental consequences 

of Alternative 4 by significant issue and by other environmental concerns. It also presents 

the scientific and analytical basis for the comparison of alternatives presented in Chapter 2. 

Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects are disclosed. Effects are quantified where possible, 

but qualitative discussions are also included. 

The following discussion of resources and the potential effects associated with each of the 

alternatives takes advantage of existing information included in the Forest Plan Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS); other project Environmental Assessments (EAs); 

project-specific resource reports and related information; roads analyses; and other sources as 

indicated. Where applicable, such information is briefly summarized and referenced to 

minimize duplication. 

This Revised EA hereby incorporates by reference the June 2006 Sitka Access and Travel 

Management EA (USDA Forest Service 2006), the project planning record, and the 

specialist/resource reports contained in the project record (40 CFR 1502.21). The project 

record for this project includes all project-specific information, including resource reports 

and other results of field investigations used to support the analysis and conclusions in this 

EA. The project record is located at the Sitka Ranger District Office in Sitka, Alaska, and is 

available for review during regular business hours. Information from the record is available 

upon request. 

Analyzing Effects 

Environmental consequences are the effects of implementing an alternative on the physical, 

biological, social, and economic environment. They include direct, indirect, and cumulative 

effects, and unavoidable adverse effects; the definitions of these effects are explained briefly 

in the June 2006 Sitka Access and Travel Management EA. These effects are discussed here 

for Alternative 4. 

Available Information 

For this EA, all the maps and most of the numerical analyses are based on GIS resource data. 

Analysis of the Alternatives by Significant Issue 

Two issues were identified as significant for this project and analyzed in detail for each 

alternative: motorized access for recreation and for subsistence. 
Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment 

3-2 Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Issue 1: Motorized Access for Recreation 

Affected Environment 

The existing conditions related to recreation have changed slightly between now and when 

the 2006 Sitka Access and Travel Management EA was released. Therefore, only the 

changes to the affected environment information have been included here. The affected 

environment information that remains the same as in the 2006 EA has not been repeated here. 

The reader is referred to the 2006 Sitka Access and Travel Management EA (USDA Forest 

Service 2006) for recreation information on existing condition. 

Off-Highway Vehicle Use 

Between the 2006 EA and the present, the portion of Road 7544 that follows the shoreline 

(referred to as Ocean Boulevard) has been determined to be drivable by OHVs without 

effects to fish; therefore this portion of the road will be open to 50-inch wide OHVs. 

Cabins and Campgrounds 

Sawmill Creek campground is located off Blue Lake Road 7577, approximately 1.4 miles 

north of Sawmill Creek Boulevard. The maintenance level for Road 7577 was changed to 

Maintenance Level 2 (high clearance vehicles) prior to a decision in this EA due to safety 

concerns. The cost of improving the Blue Lake Road to Maintenance Level 3 (for passenger 

vehicles) is prohibitive. By staying at Maintenance Level 2, which provides a rougher road 

surface, we are reducing the road speed while still allowing for high clearance vehicle use. 

With this change in the existing condition, the Sawmill Creek campground is recommended 

for high clearance vehicles. 

Hiking and Trails 

As described above under Cabins and Campgrounds, the existing condition of the Blue Lake 

Road 7577 has changed from Maintenance Level 3 to Maintenance Level 2 for the reasons 

described. Thus the Beaver Lake trailhead is accessible to high clearance vehicles. The 

newly constructed Thimbleberry-Heart Lake trail is also accessible by high clearance 

vehicles off Road 7577 and from Sawmill Creek Boulevard. Road 7500, which crosses the 

East Tenakee trail, has failed and failing bridges, but is currently shown as open in the 

existing condition. 

Outfitter/Guide Use 

Outfitter/guide use of project area roads has changed slightly and is summarized by area and 

road system in Table 16. Goat hunting permittees use roads to hike in to their sites and 

camps. 
Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment 

Affected Environment and Environmental Effects 3-3

Table 16. Outfitter/Guide Road Use 

Area/Road System Road 

Number of 

Outfitter/ 

Guides Identified Uses 

Southeast Chichagof Island 

False Island 7540, 7544 2 High-clearance vehicle roads used for biking and 

hiking tours. Bicycle or foot passage to Sitkoh Lake. 

One guide uses open vehicle roads for game retrieval 

in the fall. 

Crab Bay 7560 1 Temporary brown bear hunting camp at the saltwater 

terminus of the old roadbed in Crab Bay 

Upper Baranof Island 

St. John the Baptist 7583, 

7584, 7585 

2 Access to goat hunting at higher elevations in fall and 

winter. 

Fish Bay 7580 2 Access to goat hunting at higher elevations in fall and 

winter 

Nakwasina 2 Access to goat hunting at higher elevations in fall and 

winter. 

Rodman 7586,7587 1 Access to goat hunting at higher elevations in fall and 

winter. 

Noxon 7574 2 Access to goat hunting at higher elevations in fall and 

winter. 

Saook 7539 2 Guided hikes by mid-sized cruise ship companies. 

Lower Baranof Island 

Sitka Local 7577 1 Daily bicycle tours in summer. Access to Beaver 

Lake trail and Sawmill Creek campground. 

Katlian Bay 75790, 

75797 

1 ATV use for retrieval of game in fall and winter 

Kruzof Island 

Mud Bay 7590 4 Backpacking and bicycle riding by wilderness 

therapy institution. Access to recreational cabins. 

Guided foot and bicycle tours. Guided ATV tours 

between Mud Bay and North Beach. 

Source: Mary Emerick, 2007 

OHV Designated Use Areas 

There are no official OHV use areas currently designated on the Sitka Ranger District. Use 

of most off road areas is unregulated on the Sitka District at this time. Rock pits and log 

transfer facilities (LTFs) along with other off-road locations are areas known to be used by 

OHVs on the District. The North Beach area, Kruzof Island, does not have topographic 

features that confine use to the hardened (sand) area. As a result, riders have extended trails 

through the forest impacting forest floor vegetation. A stream on the east end of North 

Beach has changed course and a new channel is forming approximately 100 feet in front of 

the cabin paralleling the beach to the west. The Bear View area near False Island may be 

susceptible to expansion by riders because it is partially topographically confined, but has 

islands of vegetation within it. Harbor Mountain has been used as an open riding area during 

winter months for many years. It is used by ATVs and snowmobiles when sufficient snow 

depth and conditions allow off road use without damage to the underlying vegetation and 

soil. 
Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment 

3-4 Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Environmental Effects – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Off-Highway Vehicles Use 

Except for minor adjustments related to the changes in the existing condition, the effects of 

Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 related to OHV use have not changed between now and when the 

2006 Sitka Access and Travel Management EA was released. Therefore, the effects of those 

alternatives have not been repeated here; see the 2006 Sitka Access and Travel Management 

EA (USDA Forest Service 2006). 

Under Alternative 4, approximately 105 miles of roads would remain open to OHV use, 

approximately 60 miles would be closed until repairs can be made to roads and/or 

concurrence with the State is reached on stream crossings, and approximately 216 miles 

would be closed. An additional 5 miles of unauthorized roads would be added to the road 

system as closed roads. Alternative 4 would limit OHV access to less than 1/2 of the mileage 

that is currently designated as open. Most of roads that would be temporarily or permanently 

closed under this alternative, while currently designated as open, are not legally passable due 

to inadequate stream crossings. Under this alternative, approximately 208 miles would be 

open to OHV use in the long term, including approximately 43 miles that would be converted 

to OHV trails, and 4.5 miles of currently unauthorized road being added as an OHV trail. 

The road system provides access to a low number of users due to the distance from 

communities and remoteness; some motorized recreational users will be impacted by road 

management changes in all action alternatives, including Alternative 4. Due to attempts to 

keep open, or open in the future, the most highly used or desired roads, the impacts are 

expected to be minimal. In all alternatives a motor vehicle use map (MVUM) will be 

updated annually and will be available on the website and at the District Office. This 

MVUM will identify what roads, areas and trails are open to motorized vehicles. It will be 

the responsibility of the motor vehicle user to obtain a copy of the MVUM to know where 

they can drive or ride. Monitoring areas and roads closed to motorized vehicles will be 

accomplished by a Law Enforcement Officer, and Forest Protection Officers with the 

assistance of Forest Service Officers. 

In all action alternatives, OHV travel on existing closed roadbeds of up to 100 feet beyond 

open roads and trails for dispersed camping would provide subsistence and sport related 

camping opportunities where people typically hunt and recreate. This will provide flexibility 

and keep camping on an already hardened surface. 

Cabins and Campgrounds 

There would be no change in management for the roads leading to the west Sitkoh Lake 

cabin and Kook Lake cabin in the Southeast Chichagof Island analysis area under any action 

alternative. The section of Road 7544 that leads to the west Sitkoh Lake cabin would remain 

unchanged (high-clearance vehicles) and open for OHV access. The portion of this road that 

follows the shoreline (referred to as Ocean Boulevard) is now open to OHVs in all 

alternatives. An access point from Road 7544 to the West Sitkoh Cabin will provide OHV 

for cabin use. The sections of road providing access to the foot trail leading to Kook Lake 

cabin would remain unchanged (passenger cars, rough surface) and open for OHV use under 

all alternatives. 
Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment 

Affected Environment and Environmental Effects 3-5

There would be changes in access management for the road leading to the North Beach 

cabin, which is located in the Kruzof Island analysis area. Road 7591, which provides access 

to the OHV trail to North Beach cabin, would be closed to passenger vehicles (the road 

would be stored), but would remain open to OHV use under all action alternatives. There 

would be no change to the management of Road 7590, which provides access to the trail 

leading to the Shelikof cabin. 

The road providing access to the Starrigavan Creek campground would remain unchanged 

(passenger cars, smooth surface). The road providing access to the Sawmill Creek 

campground would be open to high clearance vehicles and closed to OHV access under all 

alternatives. 

Hiking and Trails 

There would be no change in management for Roads 7590, which provides access to the Port 

Mary and Shelikof trails and 7500 which crosses the East Tenakee trail, under either of the 

action alternatives. Both of these roads would continue to be maintained for high-clearance 

vehicles and open for OHV access. Road 7500 is not open because of failed and failing 

bridges 

The maintenance level for Road 7577 (Blue Lake Road), which provides access to the 

Beaver Lake trail and Thimbleberry-Heart Lake trail (in the Lower Baranof analysis area) 

would remain accessible to high clearance vehicles. The road would continue to be open 

seasonally. Road 7576, which provides access to the Harbor Mountain-Gavan Hill trail 

would continue to be open seasonally to passenger vehicles. 

Road 7591, which provides access to the North Beach trail, would be closed to passenger 

vehicles (the road would be stored), but it would be open to OHV use under all action 

alternatives. Project actions associated with road storage could produce noise that may 

temporarily diminish the recreation experience for hikers, but this disturbance would be of 

short duration. 

There will be no change to Road 7542, which provides access to the Kook Lake trail, under 

all of the action alternatives. This road will continue to be maintained for high-clearance 

vehicles and open for OHV access. 

Hunting and Fishing 

The risks of adverse direct and indirect impacts to deer are expected to be low under all 

alternatives (see the Management Indicator Species Resource Report). Effects on deer are 

not expected to have noticeable effects on recreational hunting in the area. Similarly, in the 

short-term, legal road access for hunting related to stream crossings will not change under 

Alternatives 2 and 3 compared to the current condition because anadromous stream crossings 

are not yet fixed or concurred upon. The Proposed Action and Alternative 3 would, however, 

have the long-term effect of increasing the miles of roads and trails that are legally passable 

related to stream crossings for OHV use and, therefore, extend the area available for 

recreational hunting (by approximately 97 miles under the Proposed Action and 

approximately 180 miles under Alternative 3). Alternative 4 would reduce the miles of roads 

and trails open to OHV use by about 90 miles in the short-term, reducing recreational hunting 

access by OHVs. In the long-term, the Alternative 4 would have 30 miles less legal road 
Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment 

3-6 Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

access related to stream crossings than current legal road access, thus, somewhat reducing the 

area available for recreational hunting by OHVs in the long-term. 

The two main road-related issues affecting fish habitat within the project area are road/stream 

crossings and roads within Riparian Management Areas (RMAs). Providing for fish passage 

at road crossings of streams is critical for fish movement and water quality. Improperly 

located or installed culverts, culverts that have failed, or crossings that are not functional can 

restrict fish movement and decrease water quality through the input of sediment into stream 

systems (see the Fisheries Resource Report for further discussion). Negative effects to fish 

habitat affect fish populations, which in turn have the potential to affect recreational fishing. 

The No Action Alternative would allow for continued improvements to fish habitat based on 

concurrence with the State Department of Natural Resources. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would 

have additional positive impacts on fish habitat in the project area, both in terms of 

road/stream crossings and roads located within RMAs (see the Fisheries section). All action 

alternatives would result in the removal or repair of twice as many road-stream crossings 

without fish passage as the No Action Alternative, and would remove or repair more miles of 

existing road within RMAs. These improvements would likely have positive effects on fish 

populations and could result in a small, but positive effect to recreational fishing. As 

described in the paragraph above, all action alternatives would have the long-term effect of 

increasing the miles of roads and trails that are legally passable related to stream crossings 

for OHV use but reduce the roads usable by high clearance vehicles; therefore, the area 

available for recreational fishing by OHV users would be extended while the area available 

by high clearance vehicles is reduced. However, most recreational fishing throughout the 

Tongass occurs by boat in saltwater, so impacts to recreational fishing are expected to be 

minimal. 

Outfitter/Guide Use 

Existing outfitter/guide use of the potentially affected road systems was updated and is 

summarized in Table 16. Except for minor adjustments related to the changes in the existing 

condition, the effects of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 related to outfitter/guide use have changed 

only minimally between now and when the 2006 Sitka Access and Travel Management EA 

was released. Therefore, the effects of those alternatives have not been repeated here; see the 

2006 Sitka Access and Travel Management EA (USDA Forest Service 2006). Additional 

effects related to all action alternatives have been added here. The current maintenance level 

for Road 7577 (Blue Lake Road), which provides access to the Beaver Lake trail, would not 

impact the outfitter/guide using that road. 

Under Alternative 4, as in the other action alternatives, there may be short-term noise 

disturbance and temporary access limitations while road improvements are taking place. 

Road improvements and access modifications associated with Alternative 4 would be 

expected to have small, but positive effects for outfitters and guides that offer fisheries 

opportunities to clients. Further, general improvements to OHV access may provide future 

opportunities for outfitters/guides interested in providing OHV opportunities for clients. 

Additional effects under Alternative 4 would primarily be limited to those guides who 

customarily use roads for game retrieval and access to higher elevations in fall and winter. 

Under Alternative 4, Roads 7580 and 75790 would be closed and Road 7584 would be 

decommissioned. In these areas, the roads would grow in, affecting access; guides would 
Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment 

Affected Environment and Environmental Effects 3-7

need to plan for longer hikes over rougher terrain with heavy loads, and could result in 

additional spike camps. The majority of the roads currently used by hunting guides would 

remain open for OHV use. In addition, the total number of guided mountain goat hunts has 

been lowered beginning in 2007 due to concerns by the Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game. Less OHV use related to Alternative 4 may benefit the hunting guides due to less 

noise and people while they are trying to hunt. 

OHV Designated Use Areas 

Rock pits and LTFs that are accessible from routes designated as open in each alternative 

remain open to OHV use because they are part of the road system. Thus, riders would be able 

to ride in these areas and retain the experiences available in these areas dependent on the 

alternative chosen. The open riding area at North Beach, Bear View, and Harbor Mountain 

will generally continue the current usage of these areas by OHVs with some spatial 

restrictions. Other areas of current off-road OHV use would be closed to OHV riding, 

affecting the former riders in those areas. The number of riders affected is expected to be 

limited because the steepness and wetness of the Sitka Ranger District limits the potential 

locations for off-road riding that does not cause resource damage. 

Open riding areas and hill climbs are difficult to maintain and manage safely (Russ Enhes 

and Dana Bell, National Off –Highway Vehicle Conservation Council, pers. com. April 

2003). Designated open areas are difficult to contain. Wherever areas are not 

topographically or vegetatively contained there is potential for resource effects beyond the 

area. Hill climbs, such as the cinder chute area on Kruzof Island, were not designated as 

OHV Designated Use Areas because hill climbs are available in some nearby rock pits, and 

because the cinder chute area has less topographic containment than other areas with the 

potential for expansion of the existing slide. Additionally, Kim Matthews, Hungry Valley 

State Vehicular Recreation Area, found that hill climbs on erosive soils [such as the cinder 

chute] become too difficult to ride over time due to the development of ruts making the area 

unusable for most riders (pers. com. April 2003). Because the three areas designated in all 

action alternatives are hardened by rock, sand, or snow, the direct or indirect effects to 

resources are anticipated to be limited (see the remaining portion of Chapter 3). 
Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment 

3-8 Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Issue 2: Motorized Access for Subsistence 

The following information provides some background on ANILCA and subsistence. The 

ANILCA section on access (811) states: The Secretary shall ensure that rural residents 

engaged in subsistence uses shall have reasonable access to subsistence resources on the 

public lands. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or other law, the Secretary 

shall permit on the public lands appropriate use for subsistence purposes of snowmobiles, 

motorboats, and other means of surface transportation traditionally employed for such 

purposes by local residents, subject to reasonable regulation. ANILCA regulations apply to 

all alternatives and all locations considered in this EA. 

Affected Environment 

Except for a correction to Table 6 (now corrected and shown as Table 17 here), existing 

conditions related to subsistence have not changed between now and when the 2006 Sitka 

Access and Travel Management EA was released. Therefore, the affected environment 

information has not been repeated here. The reader is referred to the 2006 Sitka Access and 

Travel Management EA (USDA Forest Service 2006) for subsistence information on existing 

condition. 

Deer harvest data compiled for 1995 through 2003 are summarized by WAA, road system, 

and potentially affected community in Table 17. This table identifies total documented 

harvest by WAA for each community and also indicates the percentage of total community 

harvest each WAA accounted for over this period. 
Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment 

Affected Environment and Environmental Effects 3-9

Table 17. Documented Deer Harvest by Road System and WAA, 

1995 to 2003 

Deer Harvested1/ 

Percent of Total 

Community Harvest2/

Area/Road System WAA Sitka 

Tenakee 

Springs Angoon Sitka 

Tenakee 

Springs Angoon

Indian River 

 Indian Road 3526 27 137 <1 18 

Southeast Chichagof Island 

 Inbetween and Crab Bay 3629 27 137 <1 18 

 Corner Bay, 3/ 3628 5 16 <1 2 

 3627 57 201 <1 26 

 

 False Island and Oly Creek 3308 607 77 114 3 10 6 

Upper Baranof Island 

 Rodman Bay, Appleton, and 

Saook 3313 1,004 4 

 Hanus Bay 3315 550 140 2 7 

 Kelp Bay 3731 248 0 57 1 3 

 Fish Bay 3314 1,097 5 

 St. John the Baptist, Noxon, and 

 Nakwasina 3001 3,543 3 15 <1 

Lower Baranof Island 

Lisa Creek 3001 3,543 3 15 <1 

 Katlian, Starrigavan Bay, Harbor 

 Mountain, Sitka Local, and Blue 

Lake 3002 2,804 3 12 <1 

 Camp Coogan and Kizhuchia 3003 1,198 3 5 <1 

Kruzof 

 Eagle Creek 3104 1,536 6 

 Mud Bay4/ 3104 1,536 6 

 3105 1,144 5 

Total5/ 13,847 577 311 59 75 16 

WAA = Wildlife Analysis Area: A division of land used by ADF&G for wildlife analysis. 

1/ Total documented deer harvest by community for those WAAs that include road systems. 

2/ Total documented harvest by WAA and community divided by total harvest within the project area by community. 

3/ The Corner Bay road system also extends into WAA 3308. 

4/ The Mud Bay road system extends into two WAAs, as shown. 

5/ Total documented harvest within WAAs that include road systems divided by total project area harvest. 

Source: ADF&G, various years

Environmental Effects – Direct and Indirect Effects 

ANILCA Section 810 stipulates that when an action taken by a Federal agency may affect 

public lands, the agency with primary jurisdiction should evaluate the effects of the action on 

subsistence uses and needs. Three factors related to subsistence uses are specifically 

identified by ANILCA: 1) resource distribution and abundance, 2) access to resources, and 

3) competition for the use of resources. The following sections address each of these factors 

in turn. 
Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment 

3-10 Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Resource Distribution and Abundance 

The following sections discuss the potential effects of the alternatives to the following 

subsistence resources: salmon and other finfish, terrestrial mammals, marine mammals, 

marine invertebrates, and vegetation. 

Designated OHV Use Areas 

All action alternatives include three designated OHV use areas (Table 13) that would be open 

and available to OHV use. The “North Beach” use area on Shelikof Bay is approximately 9 

acres in size and provides access along the beach between high tide and the vegetated beach 

fringe. “Bear View” is approximately 5 acres in size located adjacent to the False Island 

administrative site and forest Road 7540FI. This area is comprised of sand intermixed with 

beach grasses. The Harbor Mountain site is the largest at 136 acres and occupies mostly 

alpine habitat. Off-road use of this site occurs only when adequate snow cover is present to 

prevent soil damage. Sitka black-tailed deer have moved to lower elevation sites by the time 

enough snow has accumulated to allow use of the Harbor Mountain site by OHV’s. Because 

of their past use, location near roads, lack of fish or wildlife habitat, or seasonal use, OHV 

use of these three sites will have little affect on the distribution and abundance of subsistence 

resources. 

Salmon and Other Finfish 

The two main road-related issues affecting fish habitat within the project area are road/stream 

crossings and roads within RMAs. Providing for fish passage at road crossings of streams is 

critical for fish movement and water quality. Improperly located or installed culverts, 

culverts that fail, or crossings that are not functional can restrict fish movement and decrease 

water quality through the input of sediment into stream systems (see the Fisheries Resource 

Report for further discussion). Negative effects to fish habitat affect fish populations, which 

in turn have the potential to affect subsistence fishing. The No Action Alternative would not 

improve fish habitat in the project area. It would not improve fish passage or reduce the 

miles of road within RMAs. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would have positive impacts on fish 

habitat in the project area, both in terms of road/stream crossings and roads located within 

RMAs. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would result in the removal or repair of twice as many roadstream crossings without fish passage as the No Action Alternative, and would remove or 

repair more miles of existing road within RMAs. These improvements would likely have 

positive effects on fish populations and could result in a small, but positive effect to 

subsistence fishing compared to the No Action Alternative (see the Fisheries Resource 

Report). 

Road repair activities related to decommissioning under the Proposed Action and Alternative 

4 and structure removal under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 may result in localized inputs of 

sediment and disturbance to the riverbed within the immediate area of the repair. This may 

cause minimal damage to small areas of fish habitat. In addition, this activity could result in 

the temporary displacement of individual fish at the site of repair. These effects, which are 

expected to be temporary and of short duration, would be mitigated by following Forest Best 

Management Practices (BMPs) during road repair activities (see the Fisheries Resource 

Report). They are not expected to affect subsistence fishing. 

Terrestrial Mammals 

There is generally a low risk of adverse impacts to terrestrial animals and their habitats under 

all four alternatives at the species level, and no risk at the landscape level (see also the 
Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment 

Affected Environment and Environmental Effects 3-11

Biological Evaluation in the Planning Record). Important species include Sitka black-tailed 

deer, brown bear, and mountain goat. There would be no change to current conditions under 

the No Action Alternative. Impacts under the Proposed Action are expected to be low 

because any vegetation removal would be limited to existing roadbeds and the areas 

immediately adjacent to these roads. High-value bedding, foraging, and winter use habitats 

would not be significantly affected by disturbance associated with road maintenance 

activities (e.g., storage or decommissioning roads), or indirectly by activity along roads (see 

the MIS Resource Report in the Planning Record). Impacts under Alternative 3 would be 

similar to those under the Proposed Action for deer, and mountain goat, but slightly greater 

for brown bears due to the higher level of OHV access. Alternative 4, with the least amount 

of open roads of all alternatives, would be the least impactive to terrestrial mammals. 

Therefore, none of the alternatives are expected to affect the distribution or abundance of 

subsistence species for hunting. 

Marine Mammals and Marine Invertebrates 

None of the alternatives is expected to result in direct or indirect effects to either the habitat 

or populations of any marine mammal (the threatened or endangered species present on the 

Sitka Ranger District) or marine invertebrate species (see the Biological Evaluation in the 

Planning Record). 

Vegetation (Edible Plants) 

The risk of adverse impacts to vegetation is expected to be low under all four alternatives. 

Closing roads to passenger vehicles, as proposed under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would likely 

increase protection of plant resources by reducing the introduction of non-native plants along 

roadbeds. The seeds of non-native plants are dispersed by vehicular traffic. Mitigation 

measures would limit the introduction of non-native species during project work (see 

Chapter 2 of the 2006 EA). 

Access to Resources 

Data on documented deer harvest by transportation type for Game Management Unit (GMU) 

4 from 1996-2003 indicate that hunters accessing the area by boat and airplane accounted for 

approximately 81 percent of deer harvested in the project area. Hunters using highway 

vehicles and OHVs as their primary means of access accounted for 13 percent and 3 percent 

of deer harvested, respectively on the entire GMU 4 (ADF&G 1996-2003). 

Additionally, a survey was completed as part of this ATM analysis to assess which roads 

were being used by OHVs prior to 1980. Apart from a few exceptions, the mainline roads 

that were identified during this survey are currently open for OHV use or will be open 

pending repair or replacement of bridges and/or acceptable stream crossings in all 

alternatives. The following roads would not be open to OHVs: in Alternative #4, Saint Johns 

mainline Roads 7584 and 75842 would be closed, and the Kizuchia Road 7582 would be 

open only from the LTF to the private property boundary approximately 2 miles from the 

LTF. On the Katlian road system, in all alternatives, all roads other than 7579 and 75797 

would be closed. Because use of highway vehicles and OHVs for subsistence hunting is 

limited, and because many roads historically used by subsistence hunters will remain open 

(or be open after repairs/concurrence on crossings), a reduction in highway vehicles and 

OHV access would not affect the large majority of subsistence hunters. 
Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment 

3-12 Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Under the No Action Alternative, approximately 164 miles of road are open to highclearance and passenger vehicles. The project area is currently managed as open to OHV use 

unless designated otherwise (USDA Forest Service 1997a,b). However, state laws prohibit 

the crossing of streams where there are inadequate crossing structures. Under this 

alternative, inadequate stream crossings would continue to limit OHV access to 

approximately 185 of the existing 372 miles of road. Under all alternatives, it will be the 

responsibility of the motor vehicle user to obtain a copy of the MVUM to know where they 

can drive or ride. A Law Enforcement Officer and Forest Protection Officers will monitor 

areas and roads closed to motorized vehicles with the assistance of Forest Service Officers in 

all alternatives. 

Under the Proposed Action, approximately 119 miles of road would be open to highclearance and passenger vehicles. Approximately 193 miles of roads would be open to OHV 

use, approximately 97 miles would be closed until repairs can be made to roads, and 

approximately 90 miles would be closed (including unauthorized roads added to the road 

system as stored roads). In the short term, the Proposed Action would limit OHV access to 

approximately half the mileage that is technically designated as open. However, many of the 

roads that would be either temporarily or permanently closed under this alternative, while 

currently designated as open, lacks legally passable stream crossings and/or rights-of-way. 

Under this alternative, approximately 97 miles of roads that currently lack stream crossings 

would be open after consultation with the State of Alaska, and repairs are made if needed. 

This would result in an increase in OHV access compared to the No Action Alternative, in 

the long term. 

Under Alternative 3, approximately 115 miles of road would be open to high-clearance and 

passenger vehicles. Approximately 193 miles of roads would remain open to OHV use, 

approximately 180 miles would be closed until repairs can be made to roads, and 

approximately 8 miles would be closed pending legal access agreements. Alternative 3 

would provide the same open mileage as the Proposed Action in the short term, but it would 

also provide the opportunity for approximately 180 miles of roads to be opened to OHV use 

after repairs are made and legal access is acquired, rather than approximately 97 under the 

Proposed Action. In addition, approximately 22 miles of road that would be converted to 

OHV trails under the Proposed Action would remain roads under Alternative 3, and 

approximately 16 miles of road that would be decommissioned under the Proposed Action 

would remain in service under Alternative 3. Thus, Alternative 3 would not restrict 

motorized access for subsistence in the long term. 

Alternative 4 provides the least amount of open road or trail mileage of any alternative in 

both the short and long term. Under Alternative 4, approximately 66 miles of road would be 

open to high-clearance and passenger vehicles. Approximately 105 miles of roads would 

remain open to OHV use and approximately 60 miles would be closed until consultation with 

the State of Alaska occurs, and repairs are made if needed. Additionally, approximately 43 

miles of road would be converted to OHV trails, the most of any of alternative. 

Approximately 5 miles of road would be decommissioned under Alternative 4. Because all of 

the main OHV access routes for the most popular road systems such as Kruzof Island, False 

Island and Corner Bay remain accessible under Alternative 4 the ability of most people to 

access subsistence resources will not be significantly restricted. 
Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment 

Affected Environment and Environmental Effects 3-13

The miles of road suitable for passenger cars would remain essentially unchanged under both 

the Proposed Action and Alternative 3. There would be a net reduction in roads open to 

high-clearance vehicles of approximately 46 miles and 49 miles under the Proposed Action 

and Alternative 3, respectively. Under Alternative 4, the net reduction in roads open to highclearance vehicles is approximately 62 miles. More than half of this reduction would be 

associated with the Mud Bay road system on Kruzof Island (WAA 3104). This area 

accounted for 6 percent of total documented deer harvest for Sitka residents between 1995 

and 2003; however, most of the hunters using WAA 3104 do not access the area using highclearance vehicles due to the difficulty of transporting large vehicles by boat. A current 

closure order limits use of this road system to 1,000 pounds. While these roads would no 

longer be open to high-clearance vehicles, they would remain open to OHV use. 

Approximately 16 miles of road would be decommissioned under the Proposed Action (see 

Table 14). Decommissioned roads would be closed to all forms of motorized access, 

including OHV use. Many of the decommissioned roads are small segments of road, or 

individual roads in large systems. In these cases, the action would not result in a significant 

effect to subsistence access. One entire road system, Fish Bay, would be decommissioned. 

These roads are located in an Old-Growth Habitat LUD, and all have marked vegetative 

encroachment. This road system includes several log stringer bridges and culverts in poor 

condition. The Fish Bay road system is located in the Upper Baranof Island analysis area 

within WAA 3314, which accounted for 5 percent of total documented deer harvest for Sitka 

residents between 1995 and 2003 (Table 17). The shoreline area of Fish Bay is a popular 

hunting area accessed primarily by boat. Most of the deer harvest occurs along the beach. It 

is unknown how much of the harvest in WAA 3314 was taken by hunters accessing the road 

system with OHVs. Decommissioned road miles in Alternative 4 total 4.7. Refer to 

Appendix B for a detailed list of changes in maintenance levels and of roads proposed for 

decommissioning or conversion to trails. 

Approximately 4 miles of the Katlian road system in the Lower Baranof Island analysis area 

would be decommissioned under the Proposed Action. These roads have become extremely 

overgrown and the former roadways were indistinguishable. It is unlikely that these roads, in 

their present condition, provide any substantial motorized access for subsistence activities. 

The Katlian road system is located within WAA 3002, which accounted for 12 percent of 

deer harvest by Sitka residents from 1995 though 2003, but this WAA also includes the city 

of Sitka and a number of other access roads. The Camp Coogan road system was recently 

decommissioned. These areas would continue to be available to non-motorized hunters. 

Closure of the roads on Fish Bay and Katlian might lead to the displacement of a limited 

number of motorized hunters and gatherers, who would likely begin to rely on resources 

accessible through other nearby systems. Overall, this number would be minimal and would 

not be expected to result in measurable depletion of resources in other sites across the Ranger 

District, or in increased competition for the users of other nearby localities. 

No roads would be decommissioned under the No Action Alternative or Alternative 3.
Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment 

3-14 Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Designated OHV Use Areas 

All Action Alternatives include designated OHV use areas (Table 13) that would be open and 

available to OHV use. Use of these areas will not affect access to resources. 

Competitive Effects 

Increased access to an area can result in an increase in competition for resources. This is a 

particular concern if there is an increase in non-rural resident hunting. No new roads or trails 

would be constructed under any of the alternatives. Therefore, there would be no new 

opportunities for access by residents of Juneau, Ketchikan, or other visitors from outside the 

area, and no direct effects to subsistence use or resources. 

Implementation of any project alternative is not anticipated to cause disproportionate adverse 

human health or environmental effects to minority or low-income populations. Legal access 

related to stream crossings (by OHVs) to subsistence resources will slightly increase for the 

long term in Alternative 3 compared to the No Action Alternative and with the slight increase 

in motorized access, effects are expected be the same to all populations. The Proposed Action 

and Alternative 4 would result in fewer road miles accessible to OHVs in comparison to the 

No Action Alternative. However, implementation of either the Proposed Action or 

Alternative 4 is not anticipated to cause disproportionate adverse human health or 

environmental effects to minority or low-income populations. 

Designated OHV Use Areas 

All Action Alternatives include designated OHV use areas (Table 13) that would be open and 

available to OHV use. Use of these areas will not induce competition for resources or cause 

disproportionate adverse human health or environmental effects to minority or low-income 

populations. 

Non-Significant Issues 

Roads in Old-Growth Habitat Land Use Designations (LUDs) 

Affected Environment 

Existing conditions related to old-growth have not changed between now and when the 2006 

Sitka Access and Travel Management EA was released. Therefore, the affected environment 

information has not been repeated here. The reader is referred to the 2006 Sitka Access and 

Travel Management EA (USDA Forest Service 2006) for roads in old-growth information on 

existing condition. 

Environmental Effects – Direct and Indirect Effects 

There would be no change in road maintenance levels or OHV access within Old-Growth 

Habitat LUDs under the No Action Alternative. However, implementing the Travel 

Management Rule under Alternative 1 would cause all roads and areas to be closed to OHVs. 

The Proposed Action and Alternatives 3 and 4 would decrease highway vehicle access in the 

Old-Growth Habitat LUD from 7.7 miles under Alternative 1 to 2.1, 1.6 and 1.0 miles, 

respectively (Table 18). Road miles available for OHV access substantially decrease under 

the Proposed Action and Alternative 4. OHV access under Alternative 3 would be reduced in 

the short term; however, nearly all roads would be open after repairs are completed to stream 

crossing structures and right-of-way agreements are concluded. Alternative 4 would allow 

for almost 12 miles of access within Old-Growth LUDs once road repairs and stream 

crossings are repaired. Just over 15 miles of road would be closed to OHV access within Old-
Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment 

Affected Environment and Environmental Effects 3-15

Growth LUDs. Consequently, the integrity of the Old-Growth Habitat LUD in the project 

area, and associated wildlife species, would receive the most protection under Alternative 4. 

Under the Proposed Action and Alternative 4 there would generally be lower risk of adverse 

impacts to Management Indicator Species ([MIS] i.e., for individual animals) and no risk at 

the landscape level (i.e., for populations of MIS). There would generally be a low to 

moderate risk under the No Action Alternative and Alternative 3, due to the greater OHV 

access compared to the Proposed Action and Alternative 4. Under all action alternatives, 

vegetation removal would be limited to existing road and trail beds and areas immediately 

adjacent to them. Mitigation measures required by the Standards and Guidelines in the 

Forest Plan are expected to protect high-value nesting, foraging, and winter use habitats from 

disturbance associated with road maintenance activities (e.g., storage or decommissioning 

roads), or indirectly by activity along roads. 

Designated OHV Use Areas 

All Action Alternatives include designated OHV use areas (Table 13) that would be open and 

available to OHV use. None of these areas occur within Old Growth Land Use Designations. 

Table 18. Maintenance Level and OHV Use Designation in the 

Old-Growth LUD 

Miles of Road 

Maintenance Level 

No 

Action 

Proposed 

Action Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

1 (Stored) 16.7 3.4 22.8 22 

2 (High clearance)1/ 7.7 2.1 1.6 1 

Decommissioned 0.0 9.0 0.0 1.5 

Converted to trail 0.0 9.9 0.0 0 

OHV Access No Action Proposed 

Action 

Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

Open 24.4 4.62/ 4.62/ 1 

Closed pending repairs 0 10.0 19.7 10.6 

Closed 0 9.8 0.1 15.3 

1/ High-clearance vehicles are vehicles with ground clearance greater than 5 inches. 

Numbers are based on GIS analysis and may not be exact.

2/ Portions of open OML-2 and OML-3 roads providing access to adjacent developmental LUDs, such as Road 7500. 

Water Quality 

Affected Environment 

Existing conditions related to water quality have not changed between now and when the 

2006 Sitka Access and Travel Management EA was released. Therefore, the affected 

environment information has not been repeated here. The reader is referred to the 2006 Sitka 

Access and Travel Management EA (USDA Forest Service 2006) for water quality 

information on existing condition. 

Environmental Effects – Direct and Indirect Effects 

The replacement of log stringer bridges with sturdier structures, such as metal bridges, as 

well as the maintenance of drainage structures and repair of road surface, are issues identified 

in recent road analyses that would affect water quality. Putting roads into storage or 

decommissioning roads to focus repair and maintenance efforts on those roads that are 
Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment 

3-16 Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

essential to the road network should generally improve water quality by reducing ongoing 

sources of sediment input and potential for slope or road bed failure from inadequately 

maintained or constructed roads. 

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

nonpoint source pollution. Soil and water conservation practices (BMPs) were recognized as 

the primary control mechanisms for nonpoint source pollution on National Forest System 

lands. Following BMPs while doing road activities will allow us to improve from the current 

condition, and comply with Alaska Water Quality Standards as directed by the Clean Water 

Act. 

All action alternatives would increase the miles of road in storage or decommissioned status 

over the current system. The No Action Alternative has 208 miles of road in storage. 

Implementing the Travel Management Rule under Alternative 1 would cause all roads to be 

closed to OHVs. The Proposed Action would decommission 16.4 miles of road and have 222 

miles of road in storage. Alternative 3 would not decommission any roads, but would have 

276 miles of road in storage. Alternative 4 would store 266 miles of road and decommission 

4.7 miles. The Proposed Action would close approximately 90 miles of road to OHV use and 

another 102 miles of road would be closed to OHV use until stream crossings can be 

repaired. Alternative 3 would close approximately 8 miles of road to OHV use and another 

185 miles of roads would be closed to OHV use until stream crossings can be repaired. 

Alternative 4 limits OHV use the most of all alternatives. Approximately 216 miles would be 

closed with another 60 miles closed to OHV use until stream crossing can be repaired. In 

total, all the action alternatives would reduce the amount of roads and trails that currently are 

at risk for harming water quality. 

Road Miles on Wetlands 

Under the No Action Alternative, no changes to roads on wetlands would occur. Although 

implementing the Travel Management Rule under Alternative 1 would cause all roads to be 

closed to OHVs. Under the Proposed Action and Alternative 3, changes to the road network 

on wetlands would decrease the miles of road available for passenger vehicles in these areas 

and in the Proposed Action there would be a decrease in the miles available for OHVs, 

potentially improving water quality in wetland areas by reducing sediment delivery to the 

adjacent wetland. Under the Proposed Action, approximately 4.3 miles of roads crossing 

wetlands would be decommissioned and about 41 miles would be placed in storage. Under 

Alternative 3, no roads would be decommissioned but approximately 57 miles would be 

placed in storage in the short-term. In Alternative 4, approximately 63 miles of roads in 

wetlands would be placed in storage, and 2 miles would be decommissioned. 

Riparian Areas and Streams 

Roads in riparian areas and road/stream crossings are discussed under the Fisheries section of 

this chapter. 

Karst 

There are no significant changes to road management with respect to roads on karst under 

any of the alternatives. Therefore, there are no significant differences among their direct or 

indirect effects to water quality related to karst. Roads will continue to have the same 

impacts on karst in all alternatives. Refer to the Soils and Geology Resources Report for a 

discussion of karst. 
Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment 

Affected Environment and Environmental Effects 3-17

Designated OHV Use Areas 

All Action Alternatives include designated OHV use areas (Table 13) that would be open and 

available to OHV use. None of these areas occur on or within riparian areas, wetlands or 

karst. All areas are located away from streams and will not result in the addition of sediment. 

Fisheries 

Affected Environment 

Existing conditions related to fisheries have not changed between now and when the 2006 

Sitka Access and Travel Management EA was released. Therefore, the affected environment 

information has not been repeated here. The reader is referred to the 2006 Sitka Access and 

Travel Management EA (USDA Forest Service 2006) for fisheries information on existing 

condition. 

Environmental Effects – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Providing for fish passage at road crossings of streams is critical for fish movement and 

water quality. Improperly located or installed culverts, culverts that fail, or crossings that are 

not functional can restrict fish movement and decrease water quality through the input of 

sediment into stream systems. Culverts can block fish migration due to vertical barriers, 

debris blockages, and excessive water velocities (USDA Forest Service 2002b). Currently, 

there are 133 road crossings of streams that were identified as not having adequate fish 

passage for either adult or juvenile salmonids, or both. These ratings were established 

through road condition surveys (RCSs) and documented in road analyses that have been 

conducted in the project area. 

Under the No Action Alternative, no additional culverts would be removed as part of this 

project (although 33 culverts are scheduled to be removed as part of ongoing maintenance). 

Existing fish passage blockages would continue to affect at least one life stage of MIS fish 

and other salmonids. 

The Proposed Action and Alternatives 3 and 4 would remove or repair 40, 39 and 69 

crossings, respectively, that lack adequate fish passage. All action alternatives would 

improve fish passage within the project area compared to the No Action Alternative. In 

addition, the Action Alternatives could remove or repair up to 888, 781 and 1,211 stream 

crossings to reduce the risk of sediment entering the water at these points. Action 

Alternatives would reduce the risk of sediment entering streams compared to the No Action 

Alternative and will minimize the effect of roads on floodplain function by reducing the 

amount of sediment and restoring natural flow paths. 

Roads in Riparian Management Areas (RMAs) 

Changes in the condition and use of roads within the RMAs are another measure of potential 

direct and indirect effects to MIS fish and fish habitat associated with the action alternatives. 

No roads would be decommissioned, placed in storage, or converted to OHV trails as part of 

the No Action Alternative. Roads in RMAs that impact MIS fish and fish habitat would 

continue to do so. 

Under the Proposed Action, approximately 3.5 miles of road would be decommissioned; 

approximately 2.7 miles of this is in a Class I stream buffer and approximately 0.7 is within a 

Class II stream buffer (see Tables 19 and 20). Decommissioning these roads would result in 

improvements to fish habitat because, over time, these roads would revegetate, and would no 
Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment 

3-18 Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

longer be a potential source of sediment that could end up in streams. Roads that are 

decommissioned would be closed to OHV use. Approximately 7.6 miles of road in RMAs 

would be converted to trails. These roads would be closed to passenger and high-clearance 

vehicles, as would roads placed in storage. Under the Proposed Action, an additional 17.4 

miles of road in RMAs would be closed to OHV use compared to the No Action Alternative 

with 39 miles closed to OHV use in Alternative 4. 

Table 19. Roads in RMAs by Maintenance Levels and OHV Use (miles) 

Maintenance Level 

Alternative 

1 

Alternative 

21/

Alternative 

31/

Alternative 

4 

Storage (OML-1) 45.4 43.8 54.9 62.9 

High-clearance vehicle (OML-2) 18.7 12.6 12.6 12.6 

Passenger car, rough surface 

(OML-3) 

7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 

Passenger car, smooth surface 

(OML-4) 

0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 

Decommissioning 0 3.5 0 0.7 

Convert to OHV trail 0 7.6 0 8.0 

OHV Use2/

Open 71.3 31.7 31.7 20.0 

Closed 2.1 19.6 3.1 41.5 

Closed for repair 0 24.3 40.8 14.1 

1/ Under the Proposed Action and Alternative 3, approximately 2 miles of unauthorized road in RMAs would be added to 

the system. 

2/ Includes existing OHV trails. 

Numbers are based on GIS analysis and may not be exact. Numbers may not match other exactly due to rounding. 
Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment 

Affected Environment and Environmental Effects 3-19

Table 20. Roads within Class I, II, and III RMAs by Maintenance Levels 

Maintenance Level 

Alternative 

1 

Alternative 

21/

Alternative 

31/

Alternative 

4 

Class I Streams 

Storage (OML-1) 28.1 26.7 34.9 51.6 

High-clearance vehicle (OML-2) 10.3 6.3 6.3 9.7 

Passenger car, rough surface 

(OML-3) 

4.0 4.0 4.0 0 

Passenger car, smooth surface 

(OML-4) 

0.1 1.3 0.1 0.22 

Decommission 0 2.7 0 0.4 

Class II Streams 

Storage (OML-1) 10.6 10.7 12.3 8.9 

High-clearance vehicle (OML-2) 5.6 4.4 4.3 2.2 

Passenger car, rough surface 

(OML-3) 

2.4 2.4 2.4 0 

Passenger car, smooth surface 

(OML-4) 

0.3 0.3 0.3 0.01 

Decommission 0 0.7 0 0.1 

Class III Streams 

Storage (OML-1) 6.7 6.5 7.8 2.4 

High-clearance vehicle (OML-2) 2.8 1.9 1.9 0.5 

Passenger car, rough surface 

(OML-3) 

1.1 1.1 1.1 0.1 

Passenger car, smooth surface 

(OML-4) 

0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 

Decommission 0 0.1 0 0.1 

1/ Under the Proposed Action and Alternative 3, approximately 2 miles of unauthorized road in RMAs would be added 

to the system. 

Numbers are based on GIS analysis and may not be exact. Numbers may not match other tables due to rounding.

Another 24.3 miles of road in RMAs would be repaired before being re-opened for OHV use. 

The road surface would remain as a potential source of sediment to clog stream gravel. 

Culvert repair on these roads would likely have increased risk of sedimentation in the short 

term, but long-term stabilization of crossings would improve fish habitat. However, there 

would be a continued risk of sediment delivery to streams because the road surface would 

continue to be disturbed by OHV use. Use of any stream fords along these trails may also 

introduce sediment into aquatic habitat. 

Under Alternative 3, approximately 9.4 miles of additional road in RMAs would be placed in 

storage, compared to the No Action Alternative. Approximately 6.8 of these miles are in 

Class I stream buffers, approximately 1.7 are within Class II stream buffers, and 

approximately 1.1 miles are within Class III stream buffers (see Tables 19 and 20). No roads 

would be decommissioned under Alternative 3; therefore, no long-term sources of sediment 

would be removed. Approximately 40.8 miles of road within RMAs would be repaired 

before being re-opened for OHV use, while an additional 1.0 mile would be closed to OHVs 

compared to the No Action Alternative. Miles of RMA road open to OHV use under 

Alternative 4 total 20 miles, with 8 miles of road converted to OHV trail; in Alternative 4, 

approximately 41.5 miles of road in RMA are closed and 14.1 miles of road in RMA are 

closed until repairs to stream crossings are made. As with the Proposed Action, road culvert 
Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment 

3-20 Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

repair prior to OHV use would likely have increased risk of sedimentation in the short term, 

but long-term stabilization would improve fish habitat. However, continued use by OHVs on 

these roads would increase the risk of sediment delivery to streams because the road surface 

would continue to be disturbed by vehicles. Use of any stream fords along these trails may 

also introduce sediment into aquatic habitat. 

Both the Proposed Action and Alternatives 3 and 4 would have beneficial effects for fish 

habitat and MIS fish species compared to the No Action Alternative because more road 

segments within the RMAs would be decommissioned, placed in storage, or repaired. The 

Proposed Action would have the greatest benefit for water quality, fish habitat, and MIS fish 

in terms of potential to reduce sediment sources over the long term, because it would 

decommission roads and would close more roads to OHV use than the No Action Alternative 

or Alternative 3. 

Essential Fish Habitat 

The effects of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 related to Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) have not 

changed between now and when the 2006 Sitka Access and Travel Management EA was 

released. Therefore, the effects of those alternatives have not been repeated here; see the 

2006 Sitka Access and Travel Management EA (USDA Forest Service 2006). Only the 

effect of Alternative 4 on Essential Fish Habitat has been included here. 

Alternative 4 would not cause detectable effects (positive or negative) on the managed fish 

species because Forest Plan direction and applicable BMPs would be applied during 

implementation of road closure, decommissioning, and maintenance activities, and the scale 

of the project area is small compared to EFH as a whole. Forest Plan direction and BMPs 

were developed through interagency negotiation and provide state-of-the-art protection of 

fish habitat. 

Occasionally, Forest Plan direction and BMPs are not fully implemented or are not fully 

effective. Thus, there is always some risk to EFH when management actions are taken. The 

risk of this project is minimal. Stream crossing structures would be removed on closed or 

decommissioned roads, which would reduce their potential for failure during storms. This 

action would also remove structures that interfere with natural fish movement patterns. On 

the open roads, efforts to restore fish passage through improperly installed stream culverts 

would continue. Thus, all the action alternatives would benefit salmon streams by closing 

roads and removing stream crossing structures. Approximately 2, 20, 3, or 42 miles of road 

in RMA are permanently closed in Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively (Table 19). These 

restoration actions would reduce the current risk and negative effects of roads on EFH in the 

project area. 

Public Safety 

The Ranger District’s Road Condition Survey (RCS) data and road analyses document more 

than 154 cases where log stringer bridges are deteriorating and in some instances have failed, 

particularly on road systems located on Baranof Island and Southeast Chichagof Island. 

Landslides and slumps occur periodically on or near roads in the project area, often following 

storm events. Landslides can block a road or a portion of the road can move downhill. 
Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment 

Affected Environment and Environmental Effects 3-21

Use of these roads and failing bridges by motorized vehicles poses a hazard to public safety. 

People using the road may not be aware that a recent landslide has blocked the road or that 

part of the roadbed has moved downhill. The speed at which motor vehicles travel makes 

occupants of these vehicles much more likely to be injured by crashing into logs, earth and 

rocks deposited on a road by a landslide or driving off the roadbed that has been lost by a 

slump or washout than non-motorized users. In addition, motorized vehicles add substantial 

weight on the road surface compared to non-motorized users. 

Safety standards are set by Forest Service policy. Because of our policies and procedures 

regarding public safety, we must protect public safety; therefore we cannot allow the public 

to use identified unsafe roads and bridges. Consequently, the action alternatives call for 

some roads posing threats to public safety to be closed to motorized use, some roads to be 

repaired and converted to trails, and some to be decommissioned. Unsafe bridges would be 

replaced and roads re-opened as funds become available as part of ongoing road maintenance 

or trail maintenance under all alternatives. Under the Proposed Action and Alternative 3, 

approximately 44 and 48 miles of roads would no longer be open for passenger and highclearance vehicle use, respectively, and 163 miles of potential OHV trail would be closed 

(until trails were cleared/crossings could be fixed or concurrence on stream crossings 

reached), reducing the risk of injury. Under Alternative 4, about 98 miles of roads would no 

longer be open for passenger and high-clearance vehicle use and 251 miles of potential OHV 

trail would be closed until crossings could be fixed or concurrence on stream crossings 

reached. 

Road Maintenance Costs 

Forest roads in Southeast Alaska are some of the most expensive to build in the nation. The 

isolated nature of the roads and the large amounts of rainfall in the region are two of the main 

reasons for these high costs. Rock is required for road stabilization and surfacing and often 

requires blasting. Other factors include the higher costs of shipping and labor, numerous 

drainage structures, and logistics. Road construction costs can range from $120,000 to 

$300,000 per mile for forest roads and $60,000 to $120,000 per mile for temporary roads 

(USDA Forest Service 2002a, 2004a, 2004b, 2005c). 

Road maintenance funding is decided through the annual appropriations process in Congress. 

Based on the current funding formulas for the Tongass, each maintenance level is assigned a 

different funding level. Currently the Tongass does not receive funds for the maintenance of 

closed roads (OML-1 roads) (USDA Forest Service 2005d). However, closed/OML-1 roads 

still require periodic maintenance and have annual maintenance costs associated generally 

with maintaining or fixing drainage structures or stream crossings 

A discrepancy was discovered between current estimates of road maintenance costs and the 

road maintenance cost estimates found in the 2006 Sitka Access and Travel Management EA 

(USDA Forest Service 2006). The 2006 EA estimated that, under Alternative 1, the existing 

roads would cost about $980,000 per year for maintenance (Table 10, 2006 EA). The current 

estimate for road maintenance costs under Alternative 1 is about $219,000 per year (Table 

21). 

The difference in the estimates is based on both a change in calculation methods and 

incorrect numbers used in the 2006 estimate. Road maintenance activities, such as brushing, 
Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment 

3-22 Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

grading, culvert maintenance, occur on a scheduled rotation. The current estimate reflects a 

new standard of an 8-year rotation for Level 2 & 3 roads, instead of the old standard of a 3-

year rotation. 

The 2006 EA estimate also appears to include some portion of the increasing deferred 

maintenance backlog. Estimated deferred maintenance presented in the 2006 EA, in Table 

11, totaled approximately 4.5 million dollars. The current estimate for deferred maintenance 

dollars is substantially higher. 

As stated in the 2006 EA, funding levels have historically fallen short of funding needs. 

Keeping roads open and maintained adequately is expensive. The road maintenance cost 

estimates in Table 21 provide a relative way to consider the costs of each alternative. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Table 21. Road and Trail Maintenance Costs 

Alternative 

1, 

No Action 

Alternative 

2, 

Proposed 

Action 

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Miles of Level 2, 3, 4 Road to 

Maintain 

163.7 118.7 115.3 66.0 

Cost of Road Maintenance per year1/ $219,000 $187,000 $192,000 $106,000 

Miles of Motorized Trail to Maintain 50 77 to 1792/ 50-1282/ 93-1522/

Cost of Trail Maintenance3/ $36,250 $55,825-

$129,775 

$36,250-

$205,900 

$67,425-

$110,200 

1/ Estimated using OML-1=$169/mi/yr, OML-2=$806/mi/yr, OML-3=$1,138/mi/yr, OML-4=$2,051/mi/yr, pers. com. V. 

Hazel 

2/ includes yellow roads that are potential trails 

3/ Estimated using $725/mile/year, generic formula is OML-2 cost per mile multiplied by 0.9 \$806 x 0.9 = $725/mile/year, 

pers. com. E. Ouderkirk 

There would be no changes in road maintenance costs under the No Action Alternative. 

Maintenance that has not been performed due to inadequate funding would continue to be 

deferred for a future period. Under the Proposed Action, approximately 44 miles of road that 

is currently open would be closed to passenger and high-clearance vehicles. Approximately 

16 miles of these 44 miles would be decommissioned, 22 miles would be converted to trails, 

and the remainder would be stored (Table 21). Under Alternative 3, no roads would be 

decommissioned or converted to trails, but approximately 48 miles would be stored and 

closed to passenger and high-clearance vehicles. Under Alternative 4, approximately 98 

miles of road that is currently open would be closed to passenger and high-clearance 

vehicles. Approximately 5 of these miles would be decommissioned, 43 miles would be 

converted to trails, and the remainder would be stored. Alternative 4 followed by the 

Proposed Action would result in the greatest road maintenance budget savings (see Table 

21). Alternative 4 results in the most savings in road maintenance dollars because roads in 

storage, while still requiring some maintenance, are cheaper to maintain than OML-2, 3, or 4 

roads and some roads are decommissioned. Alternative 3 would result in somewhat less 
Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment 

Affected Environment and Environmental Effects 3-23

savings than Alternative 2 because all roads would be stored and would require some 

maintenance, while roads decommissioned under Alternative 2 would not require any 

maintenance. All of the action alternatives would result in road maintenance savings over 

the No Action Alternative. 

Road maintenance savings would also accrue on roads converted to trails or stored, though 

the trail maintenance budget would need to increase to cover the new trail costs (Table 21). 

Trail maintenance costs are not substantially lower than road maintenance costs because 

similar equipment is used to brush trails, perform culvert maintenance and grading. The 

Proposed Action would increase trail mileage in the short-term from approximately 50 to 

roughly 77 miles and to 179 miles in the long-term. Alternative 3 would maintain the trail 

mileage at 50 in the short-term and increase it to 284 miles in the long-term. Alternative 4 

would increase the trail mileage to 93 miles in the short term and to 152 miles in the longterm. In the long-term, Alternative 4 has the lowest road maintenance and trail maintenance 

cost of the action alternatives. The no action alternative would maintain the current trail 

maintenance costs, but would also maintain the highest road maintenance costs. 

Southeast Alaska Transportation Plan Road Corridors 

The Southeast Alaska Transportation Plan (SATP), proposed in 2004, included transportation 

and utility corridors designed to better link the communities of the Sitka Ranger District to 

the continental highway system. Individual scoping participants believed that certain roads 

proposed to be stored or decommissioned should remain open to preserve the potential 

corridors outlined in the SATP. Representatives of the State of Alaska Department of 

Transportation also requested that the Forest Service maintain and protect the roads aligning 

with these routes. Proposed actions within road corridor options described in the SATP 

(Road to Rodman, Road to Baranof Hot Springs, etc.) will be delayed. No roads in proposed 

corridors would be decommissioned in Alternatives 1, 3 or 4. In Alternative 2, roads in 

proposed corridors would be decommissioned. However, in all alternatives portions of the 

following roads would be retained indefinitely in case they are needed for future road 

corridor development: 

• Road 7500: Hoonah-Tenakee Inlet Road Corridor 

• Road 7540: Kadashan Road Corridor 

• Roads 7580 and 75802: Rodman Bay Road Corridor 

• Roads 7583 and 75832: Rodman Bay Road Corridor 

• Road 7579: Rodman Bay Road. 

• Roads 7586 and 7587: Rodman Bay Road Corridor 

Heritage Resources 

There is a determination of no historic properties affected for the proposed project because 

Alternative 4 reduces current levels of access and no ground disturbance is planned outside 

the current road prism or previously disturbed areas. Heritage resource surveys of various 

intensities have been conducted in the analysis area in accordance with the Regional 

Inventory Strategy. By following the provisions of the Programmatic Agreement signed July 
Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment 

3-24 Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

29, 2002 between the Forest Service, Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer, and the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, this action complies with Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act. 

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES) Plants, Rare Plants, and Invasive Plant 

Species 

The existing conditions related to TES and invasive plants have remained the same between 

now and when the 2006 Sitka Access and Travel Management EA was released. Therefore, 

only additions related to rare plants and the effects of new proposed actions have been 

included here. The reader is referred to the Sitka Access and Travel Management EA 

(USDA Forest Service 2006) for TES and invasive plant information. 

North Beach on Kruzof Island is the only area associated with the Access Travel 

Management proposals with known rare plant concerns. One rare plant species, an aster 

called dune tansy, or Tanacetum bipennatum ssp. Huronense, is known from North Beach. 

Six rare plant species are known from other beaches on Kruzof Island with similar habitat. 

Three of the rare plants known from Kruzof Island are being considered for sensitive species 

designation for the Alaska region. Habitat for three current sensitive species occurs on North 

Beach. The North Beach population of dune tansy is the only known population of this 

species on the Tongass National Forest. Other populations are known from the Anchorage 

area and the Queen Charlotte Islands of British Columbia. 

Large sandy beaches (at least 1⁄2 mile in length) exposed to the open ocean with associated 

upper beach meadows are a relatively rare habitat on the Sitka Ranger District. Most of these 

beaches occur on Kruzof Island. North Beach accounts for about 12 percent of this type of 

habitat on Kruzof Island and approximately 5 or more percent of this type of habitat on the 

Sitka Ranger District. The rare plant’s habitat occurs on the upper beach above the mean 

high tide line and into the upper beach meadows. Typically this rare plant’s habitat is a 

corridor less than 50 yards wide that ends abruptly at the forest edge. This type of habitat is 

known to support 10 or more rare and sensitive plant species in southeastern Alaska. 

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be a high risk that long term, unregulated use 

of this beach/beach meadow habitat by OHV vehicles would eliminate the population of 

dune tansy and other potential rare plant populations that may occur on North Beach. 

Degradation of this habitat may change the erosion patterns on this beach, leading to a 

destabilization and loss of some of the vegetated terraces and banks at the back of the beach. 

This could result in a loss of rare plant habitat and make it difficult for plants to re-colonize 

this beach. Frequent disturbance by OHV’s would probably reduce the species diversity, 

leaving only the more disturbance tolerant deep-rooted plants, such as dunegrass, Elymus 

mollis. Widespread disturbance of the beach meadow habitat increases the chances of 

introducing invasive species to this natural habitat. This risk is high because many 

introduced species exist at Mud Bay and along the Forest Road system to North Beach. 

OHV traffic between these areas is likely to spread weed seeds into the beach habitat. 

Invasive species are another threat to rare plant populations. However, implementing the 

Travel Management Rule under Alternative 1 would cause all areas to be closed to OHVs. 

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would limit OHV disturbance to the unvegetated portion of North 

Beach, which will help protect the population of dune tansy and the upper beach meadow 
Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment 

Affected Environment and Environmental Effects 3-25

habitat. Under the action alternatives, the vegetated upper beach and beach meadow would 

be closed to OHV use except for accessing campsites. Posted signs would make these areas 

off limit to OHV use and educate the public about the value of this habitat. Monitoring 

would determine if resource damage is occurring in these areas; if a degradation of plants or 

beach grass habitat were to occur, this area would be closed to OHV use. 

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would result in activities on existing roads. Road management 

activities under all alternatives have the potential of negatively impacting sensitive species 

directly if these species occurred on the roadbed. However, use of this habitat by sensitive 

species is very unlikely, and consequently direct effects are not anticipated. Indirect effects 

would include modifications of habitat due to changes in vegetation canopy, hydrology, and 

introduction of noxious weeds and other non-native plant species. Under all the action 

alternatives, indirect effects of road maintenance including stabilized vegetation and 

additional road closures would likely be beneficial over time. To a small extent these 

beneficial effects would be offset by the increased likelihood of noxious weeds associated 

with ground disturbance during road maintenance and road use along other roads. However, 

Alternative 4 and the Proposed Action substantially reduce the total amount of road open to 

OHV access, which would impart greater beneficial indirect impacts to sensitive plant 

species than the other alternatives. None of the alternatives is likely to add to cumulative 

effects on threatened, endangered, or sensitive plants because existing roads are unlikely to 

support threatened, endangered, or sensitive plants. 

Coastal Zone Management Act and Alaska Coastal Zone Management (ACMP) 

Under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972, as amended, USDA Forest 

Service activities and development projects that affect the coastal zone must be consistent to 

the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the Alaska Coastal 

Management Program (ACMP). 

The USDA Forest Service has determined that the Sitka Access and Travel Management 

project has only limited or indirect impacts on the coastal zone, and that Forest Plan 

Standards and Guidelines and mitigation measures applicable to the Sitka Access and Travel 

Management project meet or exceed the requirements of the State of Alaska Forest 

Resources and Practices Act. 

Direct impacts to the coastal zone are expected to be minimal: no new roads would be 

constructed under any of the alternatives, all proposed activities are to occur within the 

existing road footprint, and road maintenance activities follow the stipulations of the Act. 

The majority of the planned closures are outside of the coastal zone and do not block access 

to the coastal zone; thus most closures would have no direct impact on the coastal zone or on 

recreational access to the coastal zone. Closing roads and removing culverts and bridges on 

proposed roads will reduce motorized recreational opportunities for some users. The current 

road systems provides access to a low number of users due to the distance from communities 

and remoteness; while some motorized recreational users will be impacted by road 

management changes in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, the impacts are expected to be minimal. 

Additionally, all roads will remain open to foot traffic (including decommissioned roads), 

and a decision to close a road or put it into storage does not preclude a later decision to open 

a road. 
Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment 

3-26 Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

The proposed actions are expected to provide some indirect long-term improvement to the 

coastal zone through the reduction of sediment in streams. In the short-term, replacement or 

removal of culverts and bridges on roads may temporarily increase turbidity in the affected 

stream but applicable Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and mitigation measures would 

be applied and sediment would settle before reaching the coastal zone. This project is 

categorized as FAA (1) – the Forest Service will provide the State with either a consistency 

determination or a negative determination. The project is considered to be consistent to the 

maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the Alaska Coastal Management 

Program. Copies of the consistency determination and supporting information were provided 

to the State of Alaska, Department of Program Management and Permitting, for review as 

required by the CZMA. Concurrence on the consistency determination for Alternatives 2 and 

3 was received from the State (March 6, 2006). The findings and determination for 

Alternative 4 would remain the same as Alternatives 2 and 3. A copy of this EA will be sent 

to the State of Alaska, Department of Program Management and Permitting. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects include the combination of past, present, and foreseeable management 

actions in the project area. The current condition of the planning area is the result of past 

actions and natural processes. These are summarized in the Affected Environment sections 

of this EA and, in more detail, in the resource reports and the Forest Plan. The 

environmental effects of the action alternatives are described in the Environmental Effects 

sections for each issue, and in the resource reports. Past timber harvest and associated road 

building have resulted in expanded motorized access for OHV users and other recreational 

users. The results of past recreation management include the development of cabins, 

campgrounds, hiking trails, and other recreation facilities that are available within the project 

area. However, roads constructed for timber harvest have also resulted in additional 

sediment reaching streams that, in some cases, has degraded fish habitat. 

Cumulative impacts of this project include changes in the overall level of road maintenance 

in the project area and the accessibility of the project area for public use and resource 

management. Of the 50 miles of trails that are currently managed for recreation only 3.6 

miles are managed for motorized use. Adding 43.3 miles of additional motorized trails to the 

district trail system will increase overall maintenance costs and requirements in an already 

limited trail budget. Most of these trails will require at least in the short term, limited 

maintenance. All of these trails have been used by OHV enthusiasts for many years when 

they were considered roads. The action alternatives list from 60 to 184 miles of roads for 

conversion to trails once stream crossings are concurred by Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game either by building crossing structures or allowing designated crossing areas for OHVs. 

This addition would further increase trail maintenance needs. 

Designated open areas are difficult to contain. Where ever areas are not topographically or 

vegetatively contained there is potential for effects beyond the area. There is potential for 

additional vegetative damage to North Beach if riders continue to access the vegetated 

portion of the area. But because the three areas designated in all action alternatives are 

hardened by rock, sand, or snow there are no cumulative effects anticipated. Monitoring 

would determine if OHV riders are staying within the confines of the hardened surfaces. 
Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment 

Affected Environment and Environmental Effects 3-27

In the next few years the Tongass National Forest will be completing a Trails Facility Master 

Planning process. This process will rate all trails based on current condition, deferred 

maintenance needs, and estimated use, and will determine how many miles of trail can be 

maintained to standard with projected maintenance funds. This process along with public 

interest will help guide which and how many yellow roads will be converted to trails. Roads 

would be evaluated using criteria such as, miles of surface available to ride on that system, 

maintenance costs required to maintain to standard, and access to other recreation facilities or 

opportunities before being converted to a trail. The outcome and cumulative effect of this 

planning process is unknown at this time. 

Disturbance related to this project is not expected to contribute substantially to cumulative 

effects in the project area because all activities associated with action alternatives would be 

temporary and localized, and would occur periodically as time and funding allow. 

Under the No Action Alternative, 33 of the 133 road/stream crossings of streams identified as 

not having adequate fish passage are on roads designated for storage as part of ongoing road 

maintenance activities. Culverts on roads placed in storage are removed or bypassed as part 

of ongoing maintenance. Blockages on the remaining 100 crossings would remain under the 

No Action Alternative, 60 under the Proposed Action (Alternative 2), 61 under Alternative 3, 

and 31 under Alternative 4. These blockages would continue to affect at least one life stage 

of salmonids until repaired. In early 2005 the Sitka Ranger District met with the State of 

Alaska’s Department of Natural Resource’s Office of Habitat Management and Permitting 

(OHMP) and discussed a process to address the identified inadequate stream crossings. 

These identified crossings will be field verified to determine the severity and what method 

would provide acceptable passage and the costs associated with that remedy. Concurrence 

from OHMP on the method of repair would be obtained before the identified stream crossing 

could be fixed. This process is currently in progress. 

Road/stream crossings that currently provide fish passage would remain. While these 

crossings do not currently impede fish passage, there is a risk that storm damage to these 

culverts/crossings could create blockages in the future. All action alternatives would result in 

fewer road/stream crossings that do provide fish passage remaining on roads open to 

highway and high-clearance vehicle traffic. A total of up to 888, 781 and 1,211 crossings 

could be removed or repaired in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Table 22 displays 

cumulative effects measures of alternatives for MIS fish species and fish habitat. Alternative 

4 followed by the Proposed Action would have the greatest benefit for water quality, fish 

habitat and MIS fish in terms of potential to reduce sediment sources and removal of culverts 

that impeded fish passage, because they would decommission roads and would close more 

roads to OHV use than the No Action Alternative and Alternative 3. 

Table 22. Cumulative Effects for MIS Fish Species 

Alternative 

Fish Passage 

Blockages Removed 

Miles of Road 

Decommissioned in RMAs1/

Miles of Open 

Road in RMAs1/

No Action 33 0 27.6 

Alternative 2 73 3.5 20.7 

Alternative 3 72 0 20.7 

Alternative 4 102 0.7 12.7 

1/ Includes roads open to passenger and high clearance vehicles 

Numbers represent Class I, II and III RMAs. Numbers are based on GIS and may not be exact. 
Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment 

3-28 Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

In general, any increase in road miles carries an increased risk for fish habitat from surface 

erosion of roads and cutbanks, increases in the frequency of landslides by destabilizing soils, 

changes in hydrology, increases in soil compaction, and increases in sediment. The actual 

impacts of present and foreseeable projects would depend on the level of planning to locate 

the roads and construct them in a way that creates a minimal impact to water quality and 

hydrology. Additionally, the impacts to hydrology and water quality are dependent on the 

level of maintenance and use given to roads. 

Reconstruction of Road 7576, the Harbor Mountain Road (4.7 miles), is a foreseeable action 

in the future, but there are no road miles within RMAs and no road crossings in those 

sections of road. The project also includes the construction of new recreation facilities, 

including two ski trails and new viewing areas. Potential cumulative effects could include 

temporary disruptions to recreation activities on the Ranger District due to noise and 

temporary access limitations, from projects such as the Harbor Mountain Project 

improvements, the Finger Mountain Timber Sales, and small timber sales. This would also 

be the case if the proposed reconstruction of the Lake Eva Trail and/or extension of the Sitka 

Cross Trail were to take place at the same time as the Sitka Travel and Access Management 

project. These cumulative impacts would, however, be expected to be of short duration.

Between 2005 and 2007, the Duffield Peninsula Fish Habitat and Passage Improvement 

project removed more than 40 culverts and bridges affecting or had the potential to affect fish 

habitat. This will lead to an overall improvement in habitat access for MIS fish and other 

fish species. 

An EIS has been completed for the Finger Mountain project; however, no sales have been 

prepared or sold. Effects on fish would primarily be due to the construction of 9.8 miles of 

new roads, 10.9 miles of temporary roads, and the reconstruction of 13.8 miles of existing 

roads. This project also includes an opportunity to improve culverts and drainage on 13.8 

miles of existing roads that would be reconstructed. The EIS also includes a Forest Plan 

Amendment expanding Old Growth Reserves in the project area by several hundred acres. 

The 2004 Southeast Alaska Transportation Plan identifies a number of road corridors within 

the project area where improvements may take place in the future, including the HoonahTenakee Inlet Road Corridor (Road 7500), the Kadashan Road Corridor (Road 7540), and the 

Rodman Bay Road Corridor (Roads 7580, 7583, 75832, 7579, 7586, and 7587), but no firm 

plans have been identified to date. No firm, foreseeable actions have been identified, just the 

opportunity that roads may be extended to link road systems in the future. 
Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment 

Consultation and Coordination 4-1

CHAPTER 4 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

The Forest Service consulted the following federal, state, and local agencies; and tribes 

during the development of this EA: 

Federal, State, and Local Agencies 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Marine Fisheries 

Service 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game 

Alaska Department of Transportation 

Alaska Department of Natural Resources 

City and Borough of Sitka, Office of Government Relations 

Tribes and Native Corporations 

Sitka Tribe of Alaska 

Shee Atika Incorporated 

Sealaska Corporation 

Angoon Community Association 

Kootznoowoo Incorporated
Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment 

Literature Cited 5-1

CHAPTER 5 LITERATURE CITED 

Readers are referred to the 2006 Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental 

Assessment for the list of literature cited in the Revised EA. Additional citations used in the 

Revised EA are listed below. 

USDA Forest Service. 2006. Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental 

Assessment. Sitka Ranger District, Tongass National Forest. R10-MB-554. 

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Tongass National Forest Forest-Level Roads Analysis. 

Tongass National Forest. 
Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B B-1

Appendix B 

Detailed Project Priorities for Passenger Vehicle and 

Off-Highway Vehicle Access 

Table B-1 lists the objective maintenance level for roads that are affected by Alternatives 2, 

3, and 4 for each analysis area. Table B-2 describes OHV access and the priority list for the 

evaluation and resolution of fish stream road crossings on existing district roads for each 

analysis area, which is relevant to OHV access under the alternatives. Unauthorized roads 

converted to forest roads is the same as the Proposed Action shown in the 2006 EA Table A3; the reader is referred to the 2006 EA for that information. 

Road miles on the following tables are derived from the INFRA database and are rounded. 

Road miles may vary slightly from the road miles in other tables in the EA that are based on 

GIS analysis. 

Priorities for Road Storage Activities 

Several factors were used to develop a priority work list to convert roads that are currently 

available for passenger vehicle access into roads that would be stored, decommissioned, or 

designated as OHV trails. These factors are described in the 2006 EA (refer to Appendix A 

in the 2006 EA). 

Table B-2 displays Alternative 3 priorities, with Number 1 being the highest priority to open 

to OHV use. This same priority order would be used in Alternatives 2 and 4 where roads are 

to be opened after repair. Clearance work done by resource specialists and with the State of 

Alaska to allow OHV use on some roads “closed pending repairs” between the 2006 EA and 

this Revised EA shows that the Forest Service is working toward opening the highest priority 

roads (as well as other roads where resource specialists were available to do clearance work). 

Table B-1a. Objective Maintenance Level by Alternative—Indian River 

Road 

Number 

Total 

Road 

Mileage 

Affected 

Segment 

Mileage 

Alternative 

1 – No 

Action 

Alternative 2 – 

Proposed Action Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

Indian River 

7500 

(MP 11.9 to 

14.0) 

14.0 2.1 High 

Clearance 

Stored Stored Stored 

75001 0.7 0.7 Stored Decommissioned Stored Stored

75002 0.2 0.2 Unauthorized Stored Stored Stored

7501 0.6 0.6 High 

Clearance 

Stored Stored Stored
Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment 

B-2 Appendix B

Table B-1b. Objective Maintenance Level by Alternative —Southeast Chichagof Island 

Road 

Number 

Total 

Road 

Mileage 

Affected 

Segment 

Mileage 

Alternative 1 

– No Action 

Alternative 2 – 

Proposed Action Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

False Island 

7544 

(MP 4.9 to 

8.2) 

8.2 3.3 Stored OHV Trail Stored OHV Trail 

7545 2.5 2.5 Stored Decommissioned Stored Decommissioned 

Inbetween 

7561 0.4 0.4 High 

Clearance Stored Stored Stored 

75619 0.1 0.1 High 

Clearance Stored Stored Stored 

7568 2.7 2.7 High 

Clearance Stored Stored Stored 

75682 0.4 0.4 High 

Clearance Stored Stored Stored 

75683 0.3 0.3 High 

Clearance Stored Stored Stored 
Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B B-3

Table B-1c. Objective Maintenance Level by Alternative —Baranof Island 

Road Number 

Total 

Road 

Mileage 

Affected 

Segment 

Mileage 

Alternative 1 – 

No Action 

Alternative 2 – 

Proposed Action Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Hanus Bay 

7720 (MP 1.3 to 3.1) 3.1 1.8 Unauthorized Stored Stored Stored 

Appleton Cove 

7722E(MP 0 to 0.9 5.4 0.9 Stored High Clearance Stored OHV trail 

7722E (MP 0.9 to 3.4) 5.4 2.5 Stored High Clearance Stored Stored

7722E (MP 3.4 to 5.7) 5.4 1.9 Unauthorized Stored Stored Stored

7723 1.3 0.4 Unauthorized Stored Stored OHV trail 

7723 1.3 0.9 Unauthorized Stored Stored Stored

7729 1.9 1.9 Unauthorized Stored Stored Stored

St. John the Baptist 

7583 (MP 0 to 1.6) 6.8 1.6 High Clearance Stored Stored Stored

7583 MP 1.6 to 6.0 6.8 4.5 Stored OHV Trail Stored Stored

75832 1.7 1.7 High Clearance OHV Trail Stored Stored

7584 (MP 0 to 3.1) 3.9 3.1 High Clearance OHV Trail Stored Stored

7584 (MP 3.2 to 3.9) 3.9 0.7 Stored Decommissioned Stored Stored

75842 0.8 0.8 High Clearance OHV Trail Stored Stored

Kizhuchia 

7582 5.6 5.6 High Clearance Stored Stored Stored

75821 (MP 1.48 to 

1.53) 

1.5 .05 Stored Decommissioned Stored Stored

Fish Bay 

7580 3.7 3.7 Stored Decommissioned Stored Stored

75801 1.2 1.2 Stored Decommissioned Stored Stored

75802 0.9 0.9 Stored Decommissioned Stored Stored

75803 1.0 1.0 Stored Decommissioned Stored Stored

Katlian 

7579 1.8 0.5 Unauthorized Stored Stored OHV trail 

7579 1.8 1.3 Unauthorized Stored Stored Stored 

75790 1.2 1.2 Stored OHV Trail Stored Stored 

75791 

(MP 1.7 to MP 4.9) 

4.9 3.2 Stored Decommissioned Stored Stored 

75792 1.7 1.7 Stored Decommissioned Stored Stored 

75797 

MP 0 to MP 2.1 

7.2 2.1 Stored Decommissioned Stored OHV trail 

75797 

Mp 2.1 to MP 2.7 

7.2 0.6 Stored OHV trail Stored OHV trail 

75797 

MP 2.7 to MP 7.2 

7.2 4.5 Stored OHV Trail Stored Stored 

Sitka Town 

75111 <0.1 <0.1 Unauthorized Passenger Car Passenger Car Passenger Car

75131 <0.1 <0.1 Unauthorized Passenger Car Passenger Car Passenger Car

75132 <0.1 <0.1 Unauthorized Passenger Car Passenger Car Passenger Car

7515 0.1 0.1 Unauthorized Passenger Car Passenger Car Passenger Car

7517 <0.1 <0.1 Unauthorized Passenger Car Passenger Car Passenger Car

7569 0.3 0.3 Passenger Car Passenger Car Passenger Car High 

Clearance

7577 2.2 2.2 Passenger Car Passenger Car Passenger Car High 

Clearance

Sitka: Starrigavan 

75811 <0.1 <0.1 Unauthorized Passenger Car Passenger Car Passenger Car

75812 <0.1 <0.1 Unauthorized Passenger Car Passenger Car Passenger Car

Sitka: Trailer Court 
Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment 

B-4 Appendix B

Road Number 

Total 

Road 

Mileage 

Affected 

Segment 

Mileage 

Alternative 1 – 

No Action 

Alternative 2 – 

Proposed Action Alternative 3 Alternative 4

75981 <0.1 <0.1 Unauthorized Passenger Car Passenger Car Passenger Car

Nakwasina 

 4.5 4.5 Unauthorized OHV Trail Unauthorized Unauthorized
Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B B-5

Table B-1d. Objective Maintenance Level by Alternative—Kruzof Island 

Road 

Number 

Total 

Road 

Mileage 

Affected 

Segment 

Mileage 

Alternative 1 

– No Action 

Alternative 2 

– Proposed 

Action Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

Mud Bay 

7590 (MP 5.3 

to 8.9) 

8.9 3.6 High Clearance Stored Stored Stored

759001 <0.1 <0.1 Unauthorized Stored Stored Stored

759002Q 0.2 0.2 Unauthorized Stored Stored Stored

759003Q <0.1 <0.1 Unauthorized Stored Stored Stored

75901 1.0 1.0 High Clearance Stored Stored Stored

759021Q 0.3 0.3 Unauthorized Stored Stored Stored

759022 0.2 0.2 Unauthorized Stored Stored Stored

759031 0.4 0.4 Unauthorized Stored Stored Stored

75904 1.1 1.1 Unauthorized Stored Stored Stored

75905 0.1 0.1 Unauthorized Stored Stored Stored

75906 0.1 0.1 Unauthorized Stored Stored Stored

7591 8.2 8.2 High Clearance Stored Stored Stored

75911 1.4 1.4 High Clearance Stored Stored Stored

75912 1.4 1.4 High Clearance Stored Stored Stored

759121Q <0.1 <0.1 Unauthorized Stored Stored Stored

759122 0.5 0.5 Unauthorized Stored Stored Stored

75913 2.2 2.2 High Clearance Stored Stored Stored

759141Q <0.1 <0.1 Unauthorized Stored Stored Stored

75915 0.6 0.6 Unauthorized Stored Stored Stored

75916 0.5 0.5 Unauthorized Stored Stored Stored

7592 3.5 3.5 High Clearance Stored Stored Stored

759201Q <0.1 <0.1 Unauthorized Stored Stored Stored

759202Q <0.1 <0.1 Unauthorized Stored Stored Stored

759203 <0.1 <0.1 Unauthorized Stored Stored Stored

759221Q <0.1 <0.1 Unauthorized Stored Stored Stored

759222Q <0.1 <0.1 Unauthorized Stored Stored Stored

75923 0.8 0.8 Unauthorized Stored Stored Stored

759231Q <0.1 <0.1 Unauthorized Stored Stored Stored

759601 <0.1 <0.1 Unauthorized Stored Stored Stored

75961 (MP .5 

to 1.1) 

1.1 0.6 Stored Decommissioned Stored Stored

Eagle Creek 

7595 8.3 8.3 High Clearance Stored Stored Stored

759501Q <0.1 <0.1 Unauthorized Stored Stored Stored

759511 <0.1 <0.1 Unauthorized Stored Stored Stored
Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment 

B-6 Appendix B

Table B-2a. OHV Access by Alternative—Indian River 

Road 

Number 

Total 

Road 

Mileage 

Affected 

Segment 

Mileage 

Alternative 

1 

No Action 

Alternative 2

Proposed 

Action Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

Alternative

3 

Priority 

Indian River 

7500 

(MP 11.9 to 

14.5) 

14.5 2.1 Open Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed Pending 

Repairs

Closed Pending 

Repairs 

40 

75001 0.6 0.6 Open Closed Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Decommission

ed 

46 

75004 0.6 0.6 Open Closed Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed Pending 

Repairs

47 

75005 0.4 0.4 Open Closed Pending 

Repairs

Closed Pending 

Repairs

Closed Pending 

Repairs

41 

75006 0.3 0.3 Open Closed Pending 

Repairs

Closed Pending 

Repairs

Closed Pending 

Repairs

42 

7501 0.6 0.6 Open Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed Pending 

Repairs

43 

75011 0.3 0.3 Open Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed Pending 

Repairs

44 

75012 0.3 0.3 Open Closed Pending 

Repairs

Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed Pending 

Repairs

45 
Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B B-7

Table B-2b. OHV Access by Alternative—Southeast Chichagof Island

Road 

Number 

Total Road 

Mileage 

Affected 

Segment 

Mileage 

Alternative 

1 

No Action 

Alternative 2

Proposed 

Action Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

Alternative 

3 

Priority 

False Island 

75401 2.8 2.8 Open Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed 28 

7544 (MP 3.8 

to 8.2) 

8.2 4.4 Open Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Open 1 

75441 (MP 0 

to MP 0.8) 

1.3 0.8 Open Closed Pending 

Repairs

Closed Pending 

Repairs

Open 2 

75441 (MP 

0.8 to MP 

1.3) 

1.3 0.5 Open Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed Pending 

Repairs 

2 

75443 3.0 3.0 Open Closed Closed Pending 

Repairs Closed 66 

754431 0.5 0.5 Open Closed Closed Pending 

Repairs Closed 67 

7545 2.5 2.5 Open Closed Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Decommission

ed 

71 

75461 0.6 0.6 Open Closed Closed Closed NA 

7547 2.9 1.3 Open Closed Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed 70 

7552 8.5 8.5 Open Closed Closed Pending 

Repairs Closed 68 

75522 0.3 0.3 Open Closed Closed Pending 

Repairs Closed 69 

7553 (MP 0 

to 0.1) 

4.8 0.1 Open Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed Pending 

Repairs Open 12 

7553 (MP 0.1 

to MP 4.8) 

4.8 4.7 Open Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed Pending 

Repairs Closed 12 

75531 2.6 2.6 Open Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed Pending 

Repairs Closed 13 

755311 0.7 0.7 Open Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed Pending 

Repairs Closed 17 

755312 0.6 0.6 Open Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed Pending 

Repairs Closed 18 

75532 0.4 0.4 Open Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed Pending 

Repairs Closed 14 

75533 1.6 1.6 Open Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed Pending 

Repairs Closed 15 

75534 0.2 0.2 Open Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed Pending 

Repairs Closed 16 

Corner Bay 

75409 

(MP 0.1 to 

0.9) 

0.9 0.8 Open Closed Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Open 75 

7541 MP 0 to 

MP 0.8 

1.9 0.8 Open Closed Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Open 76 

7541 (MP 0.8 

to MP 1.0) 

1.9 0.2 Open Closed Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Open 

7541 (MP 1.0 

to 1.9) 

1.9 0.9 Open Closed Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed 76 

75410 1.5 1.5 Open Closed Closed Pending Closed 77 
Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment 

B-8 Appendix B

Table B-2b. OHV Access by Alternative—Southeast Chichagof Island

Road 

Number 

Total Road 

Mileage 

Affected 

Segment 

Mileage 

Alternative 

1 

No Action 

Alternative 2

Proposed 

Action Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

Alternative 

3 

Priority 

Repairs 

7543 (MP 1.5 

to 1.7) 

1.7 0.2 Open Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed 72 

7559 1.1 1.1 Open Closed Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed 73 

75591 0.4 0.4 Open Closed Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed 74 

7621 (MP 1.1 

to 1.6) 

1.6 0.5 Open Closed Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed 78 

7623 0.6 0.6 Open Closed Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed 79 

7624 (MP 0.7 

to 2.6) 

2.6 1.9 Open Closed Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed 80 

76241 0.6 0.6 Open Closed Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed 81 

Inbetween 

7561 0.4 0.4 Open Closed Closed Pending 

Repairs Closed 82 

75619 0.1 0.1 Open Closed Closed Pending 

Repairs Closed 84 

7568 2.7 2.7 Open Closed Closed Pending 

Repairs Closed 83 

75682 0.4 0.4 Open Closed Closed Pending 

Repairs Closed 85 

75683 0.3 0.3 Open Closed Closed Pending 

Repairs Closed 86 

Crab Bay 

7560E 2.1 2.1 Open Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed 48 

7560W 4.6 4.6 Open Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed Pending 

Repairs Closed 49 

75601 0.7 0.7 Open Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed Pending 

Repairs Closed 50 

75602 0.3 0.3 Open Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed Pending 

Repairs Closed 51 

75603 0.4 0.4 Open Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed Pending 

Repairs Closed 52 

75604 0.2 0.2 Open Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed Pending 

Repairs Closed 53 

75605 0.4 0.4 Open Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed Pending 

Repairs Closed 54 

7565 2.5 2.5 Open Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed Pending 

Repairs Closed 55 

75651 0.9 0.9 Open Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed Pending 

Repairs Closed 56 

75652 0.3 0.3 Open Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed Pending 

Repairs Closed 57 

75653 0.1 0.1 Open Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed Pending 

Repairs Closed 58 

7566 0.6 0.6 Open Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed Pending 

Repairs Closed 59 

Oly Creek 
Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B B-9

Table B-2b. OHV Access by Alternative—Southeast Chichagof Island

Road 

Number 

Total Road 

Mileage 

Affected 

Segment 

Mileage 

Alternative 

1 

No Action 

Alternative 2

Proposed 

Action Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

Alternative 

3 

Priority 

7554 3.0 3.0 Open Closed Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed 93 

7593 1.5 1.5 Open Closed Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed 94 
Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment 

B-10 Appendix B

Table B-2c. OHV Access by Alternative—Baranof Island

Road 

Number 

Total 

Road 

Mileage 

Affected 

Segment 

Mileage 

Alternative 

1 

No Action 

Alternative 2

Proposed 

Action Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

Alternative 

3 

Priority 

Hanus Bay 

7532 (MP 1.1 

to 2.9) 

2.9 1.8 Open Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed 39 

7533 (MP 1.2 

to 2.1) 

2.1 0.9 Open Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed Pending 

Repairs Closed 37 

75331 0.7 0.7 Open Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed Pending 

Repairs Closed 38 

7701(MP 1.3 

to 2.0) 

2.0 0.7 Open Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed Pending 

Repairs Closed 36 

7730 1.9 1.9 Open Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed Pending 

Repairs Closed 35 

Appleton Cove 

7722E (MP 

3.4 to 5.4) 

5.4 2.3 Open Closed Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed 62 

7588 (MP 0 

to MP 2.4) 

3.9 2.4 Open Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed Pending 

Repairs 

 Closed Pending 

Repairs 

19 

7588 (MP 2.4 

to 3.9) 

3.9 1.5 Open Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed 19 

75881 0.4 0.4 Open Closed Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed 60 

75882 1.2 1.2 Open Closed Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed 61 

75883 0.3 0.3 Open Closed Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed 63 

Saook 

7539 1.9 1.9 Open Closed Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed 64 

St. John the Baptist 

7583 6.8 6.8 Open Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed Pending 

Repairs 

6 

75831 1.3 1.3 Open Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed 8 

75832 1.7 1.7 Open Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed Pending 

Repairs 

9 

7584 3.9 3.9 Open Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed 7 

75842 0.8 0.8 Open Closed Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed 11 

7585 1.9 1.9 Open Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed Pending 

Repairs 

10 

Rodman Bay 

7586 10.0 10.0 Open Closed Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed 91 

7587 9.1 9.1 Open Closed Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed 92 
Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B B-11

Road 

Number 

Total 

Road 

Mileage 

Affected 

Segment 

Mileage 

Alternative 

1 

No Action 

Alternative 2

Proposed 

Action Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

Alternative 

3 

Priority 

Fish Bay 

7580 3.7 3.7 Open Closed Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed 87 

75801 1.2 1.2 Open Closed Closed Pending 

Repairs Closed 88 

75802 0.9 0.9 Open Closed Closed Pending 

Repairs Closed 89 

75803 1.0 1.0 Open Closed Closed Pending 

Repairs Closed 90 

Kizhuchia 

7582 (MP 0.0 

to 1.9) 5.6 1.9 Closed Closed Pending 

Repairs/ROW 

Closed Pending 

Repairs/ROW 

Open 29 

7582 (MP 2.5 

to 6.2) 5.6 3.7 Closed Closed Pending 

Repairs/ROW 

Closed Pending 

Repairs/ROW 

Closed 29 

75821 1.5 1.5 Closed Closed Pending 

Repairs/ROW 

Closed Pending 

Repairs/ROW 

Closed 30 

75822 0.6 0.6 Closed Closed Pending 

Repairs/ROW 

Closed Pending 

Repairs/ROW 

Closed 31 

Noxon 

7574 3.2 3.2 Open Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed Pending 

Repairs 

33 

Nakwasina 

 4.5 4.5 Unauthorize

d 

Closed Pending 

Repairs Unauthorized Closed Pending 

Repairs 

34 

Lisa Creek 

7558 2.6 2.6 Open Closed Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed 65 

Camp Coogan (Decommissioned in 2005) 

7594 2.1 2.1 Closed Closed Closed Decommission

ed 

NA 

Katlian 

7579 (MP 0.0 

to 0.5) 1.9 0.5 Open Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Open 4 

7579 (MP 0.5 

to 1.8) 1.9 1.4 Open Closed Closed Closed NA 

75790 1.2 1.2 Open Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed 32 

75791 3.2 3.2 Open Closed Closed Closed NA 

75792 1.7 1.7 Open Closed Closed Closed NA 

75797 (MP 0 

to MP 2.1) 7.2 2.1 Open Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Open 5 

75797 (MP 

2.1 to MP 

2.7) 

7.2 0.6 Open Closed Pending 

Repairs

Closed Pending 

Repairs

Open 5 

75797 (MP 

2.7 to MP 

7.2) 

7.2 4.5 Open Closed Pending 

Repairs

Closed Pending 

Repairs

Closed Pending 

Repairs 

5 

Sitka: Starrigavan 
Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment 

B-12 Appendix B

Road 

Number 

Total 

Road 

Mileage 

Affected 

Segment 

Mileage 

Alternative 

1 

No Action 

Alternative 2

Proposed 

Action Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

Alternative 

3 

Priority 

Trail Open Open Open Open NA 

Sitka: Harbor Mountain 

7576 5.6 5.6 Open 

Seasonally Open Seasonally Open Seasonally Open 

Seasonally 

Kelp Bay 

7535 4.3 4.3 Open Closed Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed 96 
Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B B-13

Table B-2d. OHV Access by Alternative—Kruzof Island 

Road Number 

Total 

Road 

Mileage 

Affected 

Segment 

Mileage 

Alternativ

e 1 – No 

Action 

Alternative 2 –

Proposed 

Action Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

Alternative 

3 

Priority 

Mud Bay 

75903 1.6 1.6 Open Closed Closed Pending 

Repairs

Open 24 

75911 (MP 0 

to MP 0.7) 

1.4 0.7 Open Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Open 2 

75911 (MP 

0.7 to MP 1.4) 

1.4 0.7 Open Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed Pending 

Repairs 

2 

75912 1.4 1.4 Open Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed Pending 

Repairs 

3 

75913 2.2 2.2 Open Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed Pending 

Repairs

Closed Pending 

Repairs 

20 

7596 (MP 0.4 

to 1.0) 

1.0 0.6 Open Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed 21 

75961 (MP 0 

to MP 0.5) 

1.1 0.5 Open Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed 22 

75961 (MP 

0.5 to 1.1) 

1.1 0.6 Open Closed Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Decommissione

d 

23 

Eagle Creek 

7595 8.3 8.3 Open Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed Pending 

Repairs

25 

75951 1.3 1.3 Open Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed Pending 

Repairs Closed 26 

75952 0.8 0.8 Open Closed Pending 

Repairs 

Closed Pending 

Repairs Closed 27 
Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment 

C-1 Appendix C

Appendix C 

Harbor Mountain Snow Conditions 

Above the highest gate, two factors are used to determine when to open the top to off-road motorized use 

(OHV and snowmobile). 

1) A frozen base of snow/ice more than 12 inches in depth covers frozen ground 

on all Off-Road Areas including the areas of concern, such as the Picnic Shelter, Snowman, 

and other exposed areas. 

 2) The boulders at the base of the bowl are covered by one foot of snow. 

Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment 

Map Section

Map Section 
Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment 

Map Section 

Figure 1. Vicinity Map is repeated here to provide context for the alternative maps