United States

Department of  

Agriculture

Forest Service

Tongass National Forest

R10‐MB‐739b

April 2012

Kennel Creek

Integrated Resource

Project I

Decision Notice and

Finding of No Significant

Impact

Hoonah Ranger District

Hoonah, Alaska
Acronyms

ANCSA Alaska Native Claims Settlement 

Act 

ANILCA Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act 

APE Area of potential effect 

ATM Access travel management 

ATV All-terrain vehicle 

BMP Best management practice 

CE Categorical exclusion 

CEQ Council on Environmental 

Quality 

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act 

DN Decision notice 

EA Environmental assessment 

EFH Essential fish habitat 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

FONSI Finding of no significant impact 

FSH Forest Service handbook 

GIS Geographic information system 

HUC Hydrologic unit code 

IDT Interdisciplinary team 

IRMP Integrated resource management 

plan 

LUD Land use designation 

MAF Marine access facility 

MBF Thousand board feet 

MIS Management indicator species 

ML Maintenance level (of roads) 

NEPA National Environmental Policy 

Act 

NFS National Forest system 

NRIS National resource information 

system 

OHV Off highway vehicle 

OPML Operational management level 

RCS Road condition surveys 

RMA Riparian management area 

SHPO State Historic Preservation 

Officer 

USDA United States Department of 

Agriculture 

Cover photo: View from NFS road 85911 looking west/southwest to headwaters of the Kennel 

Creek drainage. Photograph by Jon Hyde. 

General location of future instream large wood placement to improve stream habitat complexity in Kennel 

Creek. Photograph by Jon Hyde.
Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I

Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact  

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Agency: USDA Forest Service 

 Tongass National Forest 

Responsible Official: Richard D. Jennings, District Ranger 

 Hoonah Ranger District 

 PO Box 135 

 Hoonah, AK 99829 

For further information: Tim Hazelwood 

 Hoonah Ranger District 

 PO Box 135 

 Hoonah, AK 99829 

 (907) 945-3631 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Abstract

The Responsible Official has selected the action alternative (Alternative 2) from the Kennel 

Creek Integrated Resource Project I Environmental Assessment which will make 500 thousand 

board feet (MBF) of selection old-growth available for harvest and allow for 350 acres of 

precommercial and commercial upland thinning in managed timber stands. The alternative also 

allows for 100 acres of slash reduction in previously thinned units; 19 acres of riparian thinning 

in a previously harvested riparian management area (RMA); placement of large wood in the 

floodplain of the main channel of Kennel Creek; and replacement of five red culverts and one 

gray culvert. The treatments specifically target the effects of past timber harvest and road 

management that have altered riparian and upland function and are designed to help reach the 

desired condition, as prescribed by the Forest Plan. 

This document is available online at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r10/tongass/projects/nepa_project.shtml?project=36217. 
Kennel Creek. Photograph by Jon Hyde. 
DECISION NOTICE and FINDING OF NO

SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

__________________________________________

Table of Contents

Decision and Rationale ................................................................................................................... 1

Project Location .............................................................................................................................. 1

The Selected Alternative ................................................................................................................. 3

Aquatic Restoration .................................................................................................................... 3

Wildlife Enhancement ................................................................................................................ 3

Timber Management ................................................................................................................... 4

Public and Agency Involvement ..................................................................................................... 4

Finding of No Significant Impact ................................................................................................... 6

Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations ....................................................................... 8

Distribution ................................................................................................................................... 11

Implementation Date ..................................................................................................................... 11

Administrative Review or Appeal Opportunities ......................................................................... 11

Contact ...................................................................................................................................... 12

Unit Cards ..................................................................................................................................... 15 
Kennel Creek project area within stand #49. The Selected Alternative plans to selectively remove trees in 

this general area to enhance wildlife habitat. Photograph by Jon Hyde.
Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I

Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact

USDA Forest Service

Hoonah Ranger District, Tongass National Forest

Hoonah, Alaska

This decision notice documents my decision for the Hoonah Ranger District Kennel Creek 

Integrated Resource Project I. It contains a brief summary of the environmental analysis 

completed for this project as well as my decision regarding which alternative to implement and 

the rationale for my decision. It also contains certain findings required by various laws, and 

information concerning the right to Administrative Review of this decision. The environmental 

assessment (EA) completed for this project in January 2012 documents the environmental 

analysis and conclusions upon which this decision is based. The EA is incorporated by reference 

in this decision document. 

Decision and Rationale

Based on my review of the Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I EA, I have decided to 

implement Alternative 2, the proposed action, hereafter known as the Selected Alternative. The 

Selected Alternative best meets the Purpose and Need identified in the EA and Forest Plan 

objectives and guidelines. Implementing the Selected Alternative will: 

 Provide timber for local operators and enhance wildlife and old-growth conditions in 

upland areas. 

 Specifically target the effects of past timber harvest and road management that have 

altered riparian and upland function to help reach the desired condition, as prescribed by 

the Forest Plan. 

The Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I EA documents the environmental analysis and 

conclusions upon which this decision is based. 

Project Location

The project area is the Kennel Creek watershed which is located approximately 18 miles southsoutheast of the town of Hoonah, Alaska, on the eastern shore of Chichagof Island (Figure 1). 

Kennel Creek drains directly into saltwater on the west shore of Freshwater Bay. The watershed 

encompasses approximately 8,520 acres (13.3 square miles) and contains 43.4 miles of mapped 

stream channels. 

The entire Kennel Creek watershed is in federal ownership and managed by the Forest Service. 

 

1
2
The Selected Alternative

The Selected Alternative includes harvesting suitable forest lands for the production of 

sawtimber and other wood products with selection harvest of old-growth stands and improving 

the short and long-term health of the aquatic and upland ecosystems by implementing a wide 

range of watershed restoration and enhancement activities. This alternative also addresses the 

cumulative effects of past management by removing human-created fish passage barriers, 

reducing road related erosion, restoring instream processes that provide fish habitat, reducing 

stream-bank erosion and stream diversion potential, improving wildlife movement through 

managed stands, and enhancing tree growth and yield in designated timber production areas. 

This alternative offers an integrated, landscape-level approach to resource management and 

facilitates a comprehensive analysis of the proposed actions. This approach also provides for 

more cost-efficient analysis and implementation for contracting or potential stewardship projects. 

Projects in the Selected Alternative (Figure 2) are grouped into three categories: 

Aquatic Restoration

 Five stream crossing structures currently do not allow fish passage (red culverts) and one 

structure is a possible fish barrier (gray culvert). The Selected Alternative is expected to 

improve fish passage by removing two red culverts, and replacing three red and a gray 

culvert with passable structures. The culverts included for removal are on NFS roads 

85191 and 851911. 

 Riparian thinning on 19 acres to improve floodplain function by increasing bank stability 

through understory development and to increase the growth rate of young conifers for 

future large woody debris. Treatments are low intensity and small in scale. 

 Approximately 300 meters of Kennel Creek have lost its natural influx of large wood as a 

result of past timber harvest. The Selected Alternative includes an instream project, 

approximately 300 meters upstream from the Kennel Creek Trail, to improve habitat 

complexity and spawning and rearing habitat for anadromous fish along this stretch. The 

alternative includes placing two to four whole trees with root wads attached within the 

active stream channel to act as an anchor. Five to ten logs, from dismantled log stringer 

bridges, will be placed onto the upstream side of each whole tree, creating a log jam. 

Trees and logs will be placed by an excavator or log shovel tracked machine. 

Wildlife Enhancement

 Reduce slash accumulations on approximately 100 acres of precommercially thinned 

managed stands by brushing trails, 5 feet wide, through areas of heavy slash buildup (see 

slash treatments on Figure 2). The slash will be scattered or piled. Treatment will be 

within the lower portion of four managed stands along NFS roads 8519 (Stands #1000 

and #2000), 85191 (Stand #163) and 85193 (Stand #166). All work will be done by hand. 

Corridors are expected to facilitate wildlife movement and stimulate forage production. 

 Create gaps and thickets by thinning 350 acres in three previously harvested upland 

stands to improve species composition, increase growth rates and move the stands toward 

old-growth conditions (see wildlife treatments on Figure 2). 

3

Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I
o The majority of the area selected for treatment (250 acres) is located on the east 

side Stand #49 where the area is in the stem exclusion stage. Access to the stand 

will be via closed road 8510 1.01R. 

 Approximately 200 acres of Stand #49 are selected for thinning, and 

potentially some girdling, in the eastern portion of the stand. Some of the 

trees selected for removal as part of the thinning process may have 

commercial value; consequently, ground-based equipment may salvage 

some of these trees. 

 Approximately 50 acres of Stand #49, consisting of younger and smaller 

trees, are selected for thinning and slash removal using hand tools. 

o The remaining acres selected for thinning, approximately 100, are located in 

stands harvested in 1981 and 1991 off of NFS roads 85191 (Stand #5600), 851911 

(Stands #162 and #3000) and 85171 (Stand #42). 

Timber Management

 Manage 250 acres of suitable forest lands for the production of sawtimber and other 

wood products by selectively harvesting 500 MBF of old-growth timber from four units 

(see Figure 2 and Unit Cards). Units 1 and 2 are north of NFS roads 85191 and 851911 

above existing young-growth stands. Units 3 and 4 are in the southeast portion of the 

project area near NFS roads 8517, 8510 and 85171. The harvest prescription is designed 

to maintain and manage an uneven-aged stand structure through the selection of 

individual trees of various size classes throughout the stand, while encouraging 

regeneration and stand growth. No new roads will be constructed but existing closed 

roads will be re-opened as needed. Shovel yarding will be used for the majority of the 

harvest units; however, if feasible, helicopter yarding may occur within approximately 80 

acres. Cut material removed from the area would be appraised to the sort yard at Long 

Island. 

Public and Agency Involvement

This action was originally listed as a proposal on the Tongass National Forest Schedule of 

Proposed Actions in July 2011 and updated periodically during the analysis. A 30-day scoping 

letter, soliciting comments on the proposed project, was mailed in June 2011. The scoping letter, 

which summarized the purpose and need for the project and actions proposed, was sent to 

approximately 70 individuals, organizations, federal and state agencies, and native tribes and 

corporations that have previously shown interest in USDA Forest Service projects within the 

vicinity of Hoonah, Alaska. Two responses to scoping were received (Army Corps of Engineers 

and the State of Alaska). 

A 30-day Notice for Public Comment on the EA was published in the Juneau Empire, on 

February 17, 2012. Approximately 101 individuals, organizations, federal and state agencies and 

native tribes and corporations were notified by mail with either the delivery of an EA hardcopy 

or a letter announcing the availability of the EA online. The EA includes the distribution list on 

pages 43-45. Two responses to the EA were received (Gordon Chew of Tenakee Logging 

Company and the State of Alaska). 

4

Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact
Responses to the EA were generally supportive. Below are responses and clarifications to some 

of the comments. 

1. Recommendation that this project include a monitoring plan to determine the 

achievement of the wildlife enhancement goals. The Hoonah Ranger District wildlife 

biologist is discussing the potential for effectiveness monitoring in the Kennel Creek 

drainage with ADF&G biologists. 

2. Some inconsistencies between the EA and the unit cards were brought to my attention. 

The EA states (page 2) that the Proposed Action will, ‘...selectively harvest 

approximately 500 MBF (250 acres) of old growth from 4 units...’; however, the Unit 

Cards and summary sheets (pages 55-59) within the EA show harvest level of 1025 MBF 

on only 150 acres. The correct numbers were reported in the text and have been corrected 

in the Unit Cards (500 MBF on 250 acres of old-growth from 4 units). 

The EA further states (page 9), “...if feasible, helicopter yarding may occur within 

approximately 80 acres.” Based on the Unit Card Information it appears that 

approximately 110 acres of the 150 acres shown in the unit acres will be helicopter 

logged. Again, the information in the text of the EA is correct. The Unit Cards have been 

updated to clarify the number of acres selected for helicopter yarding in Unit 3. 

Approximately 20 of the 100 acres in Unit 3 are selected for helicopter yarding. These 

acres, in addition to the 60 acres in Units 1 and 2, total 80 acres of helicopter yarding for 

the project area. 

3. It was recommended that the District complete an economic analysis (FAST-R) for the 

proposed timber harvest. The District’s timber staff has had discussions with local timber 

purchasers regarding helicopter logging feasibility and the likelihood of their bidding on 

that yarding option. The local timber purchasers have consistently confirmed they would 

likely bid on the timber in these units in the right market conditions. I feel this is more 

reliable than the economic model; consequently, FAST-R was not utilized as part of my 

decision-making process. 

4. Concern about the silviculture prescriptions allegedly compromising timber resources in 

favor of other resources. I believe no facet of the vegetation management (old-growth 

harvest, thinning, or slash treatment) will compromise the timber resource. 

5. According to the EA (page 29), the old-growth harvest prescription is designed to 

maintain a portion of the original stand structure (up to 60 percent) and harvest trees 

with the highest economic value. These silvicultural approaches diminish the timber 

resource value by extracting the currently highest valued trees and producing a widegrained log, due to the faster growth rates, in an uneven-managed stand that will be 

more expensive to operate on in the future using conventional harvest techniques. The 

EA text, “...to harvest trees with the highest economic value” is misleading and could 

understandably be interpreted as decreasing the residual value of the timber stand, i.e., 

high-grading. These stands are at the backline of old harvest units, have no road to them, 

and are relatively isolated. The likelihood of ever having funds for roads to these units is 

extremely low. Since the silvicultural prescription objective is uneven-aged management, 

this is the first of repeated entries into the timber stands. At this first entry, the EA states 

(page 29), “The remaining old-growth trees would maintain stand structure and 

5

Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I
diversity.” To make this an economically viable timber sale, I will be focusing on the 

cedar; however, the stand will be opened enough to ensure re-propagation of the cedar 

component. These factors, as well as the local demand for timber and an opportunity for 

an integrated resource project implementation, were factors in my decision-making 

process. 

Finding of No Significant Impact

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

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

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

will not be prepared. I base my finding on the following: 

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

if the federal agency believes that on balance the effect will be beneficial. 

Neither adverse nor beneficial effects are significant in context or intensity to warrant an 

EIS for this project. My finding of no significant environmental effects is not biased by 

the beneficial effects of the action. 

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

This action does not pose a substantial question of significant effect upon public health or 

safety. Similar past forest management activities have not resulted in significant effects 

upon public health or safety. All applicable federal and state laws pertaining to public 

health and safety will be followed. 

3. Unique characteristics of the geographic areas such as proximity to historic or 

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

ecologically critical areas. 

The project does not enter any roadless areas. No historic properties, park lands or 

farmlands are located within the area of potential effects for the project. Generally 

speaking, the majority of the Kennel Creek project falls within the low probability zones 

for cultural resources. This determination was made on the basis the location and size of 

the commercial sale areas, the unlikelihood of discovering a site in an active stream 

channel and the absence of known historic properties (EA pages 20-21). No wild and 

scenic rivers occur in the project area. No high-value wetlands and high-vulnerability 

karst occur in the project area. Therefore, I have determined there will be no significant 

effects on any unique characteristics of the area. 

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

to be highly controversial. 

Public comments resulting from project scoping and the EA have been, on the whole, 

supportive. Therefore, based on those comments and analysis, I have determined that any 

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

6

Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact
5. The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly 

uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. 

Effects described in the EA have been analyzed with a reasonable degree of certainty. 

There are no known effects on the human environment that are highly uncertain or 

involve unique or unknown risks. The mitigations, harvest methods, and other features of 

this decision are either commonly used or present known risks. Based on this analysis, I 

have determined no unique or unknown risk is involved with this project; therefore, there 

is no “significant” impact due to uncertainty or a unique or unknown risk. 

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

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

This decision only pertains to work within the Kennel Creek project area. Any future 

decisions would need to consider relevant scientific and site-specific information 

available at that time. Therefore, I have determined the Selected Alternative would not 

set a precedent for future actions with significant impacts, nor would it represent a 

decision in principle about a future consideration.

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

cumulatively significant impacts. 

There are no known significant cumulative effects between this project and other projects 

implemented or planned on the areas separated from the affected area of this project. 

Cumulative effects have been analyzed and disclosed throughout Chapter 3 of the EA. 

Therefore, I have determined the Selected Alternative actions have individually 

insignificant impacts and cumulatively insignificant impacts as they relate to past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. 

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

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

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

historical resources. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

resources. 

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

species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973. 

There are no listed species or critical habitat in the project area or in areas adjacent to the 

project area, and no marine environment is included in the project area (EA pages 19 and 

37). Therefore, I have determined no significant impacts would occur that adversely 

affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat. 

7

Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I
10. Whether the action threatens a violation of federal, state, or local law or 

requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. 

The following findings show that the action does not violate federal, state, or local law 

requirements imposed for the protection of the environment, and has been reviewed by 

federal and state agencies. The action is consistent with the Forest Plan. 

Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations  

2008 Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan

This decision is consistent with the Forest Plan and the action alternative complies with the 

Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended. This project incorporates all 

applicable Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and management prescriptions and complies 

with Forest Plan goals and objectives. The Forest Plan complies with all resource integration and 

management requirements of 36 CFR 219 (219.14 through 219.27). Application of Forest Plan 

direction for the Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I ensures compliance at the project 

level. Therefore, I have found the Selected Alternative consistent with the Forest Plan. 

Endangered Species Act

The Selected Alternative is not anticipated to have a direct, indirect or cumulative effect on any 

threatened and endangered species in or outside the project area (EA pages 19 and 37). 

Consultations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service 

have been conducted and these agencies have concurred; the proposed project is not likely to 

affect any threatened or endangered species. A Biological Evaluation has been completed for this 

action which indicates that no federally listed threatened or endangered species will be affected 

by this activity. Therefore, I conclude no significant effects will occur to threatened and 

endangered species. 

National Historic Preservation Act

The Forest Service program for compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) 

includes locating, inventorying and evaluating the National Register of Historic Places eligibility 

of historic and archeological sites that may be directly or indirectly affected by scheduled 

activities. Regulations (36 CFR 800) implementing Section 106 of the NHPA require federal 

agencies to consider the effects of their actions on sites that are determined eligible for inclusion 

in or are listed in the National Register of Historic Places (termed “historic properties”). A Forest 

Service archeologist has reviewed this project and we have made a determination of “No Historic 

Properties Affected,” in the area of potential effects for the proposed project (EA page 21). 

Therefore, I conclude no significant effects will occur to historic resources. 

Federal Cave Resource Protection Act

There are no known caves or rocks associated with karst formation, including limestone and 

dolomite, within the project area. Forest Plan Karst and Caves Standards and Guidelines will be 

applied should any karst resources be found. Therefore, I conclude no significant effects will 

occur to karst or caves. 

8

Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA)

The effects of this project have been evaluated to determine potential effects on subsistence 

opportunities and resources. There is no documented or reported subsistence use that will be 

restricted as a result of this decision. For this reason, the Selected Alternative is not expected to 

result in a significant possibility of a significant restriction of subsistence use of wildlife, fish, or 

other foods (EA page 40). Therefore, I have found the Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project 

I selected alternative consistent with ANILCA.

Clean Water Act

I have determined that this project fully complies with the Clean Water Act. Project activities 

meet all applicable State of Alaska Water Quality Standards. 

This project will be implemented using soil and water best management practices (BMPs) that 

are consistent with the Alaska Forest Resources and Practices Regulations (AFRPA) to achieve 

Alaska Water Quality Standards and to control nonpoint source pollution. Therefore, I have 

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

Clean Air Act

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

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

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

from this project. 

Magnuson‐Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act requires 

consultation with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) for actions or proposed actions that may adversely affect essential fish 

habitat, defined as the waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or 

growth to maturity. 

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) includes streams, rivers, lakes, ponds, wetlands and other bodies of 

water currently and historically accessible to anadromous fish, as well as estuarine, intertidal, 

and marine waters. 

Because all activities proposed are designed to restore or enhance natural processes using Forest 

Plan Standards and Guidelines and Best Management Practices, it is unlikely that any significant 

adverse effects will occur to Essential Fish Habitat by implementing this project (EA page 18). 

Executive Order 11988

Executive Order 11988 directs federal agencies to take action to avoid, to the extent possible, the 

long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of 

floodplains. I have concluded that no significant impacts to floodplains will occur due to project 

implementation. 

9

Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I
Executive Order 11990

This Executive Order requires federal agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, the long- and 

short-term adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands. Since the 

estimated effects to wetlands will be temporary (EA page 36), I have concluded that no 

significant impacts to wetlands will occur due to project implementation. 

Executive Order 12898

Executive Order 12898 directs federal agencies to identify and address the issue of 

environmental justice, i.e., adverse human health and environmental effects of agency programs 

that disproportionately impact minority and low-income populations. I have concluded that 

implementation of the Selected Alternative is not anticipated to cause disproportionate adverse 

human health or environmental effects to minority or low income populations. 

Executive Order 12962

Executive Order 12962 directs federal agencies to conserve, restore, and enhance aquatic 

systems to provide for increased recreational fishing opportunities nationwide. 

It is my determination that with the application of Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, 

including those for riparian areas, no significant adverse effects to freshwater or marine 

resources will occur. Best Management Practices will be implemented to provide assurance of 

water quality and aquatic habitat protection for all freshwater streams affected by the project. 

Therefore, any adverse effects to recreational fishing opportunities will be insignificant. 

Executive Order 13007

Executive Order 13007 directs federal agencies to (1) accommodate access to and ceremonial 

use of Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners and (2) avoid adversely affecting the 

physical integrity of such sacred sites. Where appropriate, agencies shall maintain the 

confidentiality of sacred sites. Based on consultations with the appropriate Indian tribes, I have 

determined this project will not affect the integrity of any sacred sites or limit access to any 

sacred sites. Therefore, based on the EA and the findings displayed previously, there are no 

violations of federal, state, or local environmental law associated with this action. 

National Forest Management Act

This project incorporates all applicable Forest Plan standards and guidelines and management 

area prescriptions as they apply to the project area, and complies with Forest Plan goals and 

objectives. All required interagency review and coordination has been accomplished; new or 

revised measures resulting from this review have been incorporated. 

The Forest Plan complies with all resource integration and management requirements of 36 CFR 

219 (219.14 through 219.27). Application of Forest Plan direction for the Kennel Creek 

Integrated Resource Project I ensures compliance at the project level. 

10 Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact
Tongass Timber Reform Act

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

harvest is allowed within 100 feet horizontal distance either side of Class I or Class II streams 

flowing directly into a Class I stream. Therefore, I have determined that no significant effects 

will occur to riparian areas. 

Distribution

The Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I Decision Notice, FONSI and EA are available 

on the internet at http://www.fs.fed.us/r10/tongass/projects/nepa_project.shtml?project=36217. 

Notification of the availability of the decision notice was sent to the project mailing list including 

state and federal agencies, anyone commenting on the project and anyone requesting a copy of 

this decision. The project mailing list is available in the project record. The DN/FONSI is also 

available in hardcopy, upon request. 

Implementation Date

Implementation of my decision which is subject to appeal pursuant to 36 CFR part 215, may 

occur on, but not before, 5 business days from the close of the appeal filing period. The appeal 

filing period closes 45 days after publication of legal notice of this decision in the Juneau 

Empire, published in Juneau, Alaska. 

Administrative Review or Appeal Opportunities

This decision is subject to administrative review (appeal) pursuant to 36 CFR Part 215. 

Individuals or non-federal organizations who submit written comments or otherwise express 

interest in this particular action during the comment period specified at 215.6 have standing to 

appeal this decision. The notice of appeal must be in writing, meet the appeal content 

requirements at 215.14 and be filed with the Appeal Deciding Officer: 

Forest Supervisor, Forrest Cole 

Tongass Supervisor’s Office 

648 Mission St. 

Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 

Fax: 907-228-6292 

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

The Notice of Appeal, including attachments, must be filed (regular mail, fax, e-mail, express 

delivery or messenger service) with the Appeal Deciding Officer at the correct location within 45 

calendar days of publication of notice of this decision in the Juneau Empire, the newspaper of 

record for this project. The publication date in the newspaper of record is the exclusive means for 

calculating the time to file an appeal. 

Appeals submitted electronically, including attachments, must be in an electronic format 

compatible with Microsoft Word. 

Hand-delivered appeals will be accepted at the Ketchikan Supervisor’s Office during normal 

business hours (8:00 a.m. through 4:30 p.m) Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. 

11 Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I
Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact 

Contact 

For additional information concerning this decision or the Forest Service appeal process, contact 

Richard D. Jennings, District Ranger, Hoonah Ranger District, PO Box 135, Hoonah, AK 99829, 

phone number 907-945-3631. 

Date 

District Ranger 

Hoonah Ranger District 

12 

Backside of Figure 2 
Unit Cards

Introduction______________________________________________

Unit cards are used to explain site-specific proposed activities for each unit and any resource 

concerns and mitigation related to those concerns. Activities include timber harvest units and 

the building and use of proposed and existing roads for timber harvest. Both narratives and 

maps showing site-specific information are provided. Minor changes can be expected during 

implementation to better meet on-site resource management and protection objectives. Slight 

adjustments to unit boundaries are also likely during final layout for the purpose of 

improving logging system efficiency or for site conditions. 

Unit Card Header Information_______________________________

Each unit card has a header block with information used to generally describe the stand’s 

size, location, and volume proposed for harvest. Each header block contains the following 

information: 

 Unit Number: This is the number assigned to the unit block during the Logging 

Systems and Transportation Analysis development. 

 Alternatives: This identifies the alternative(s) in which the unit is proposed. 

 Unit Acres: This is an estimate of total acres within the unit using aerial photos and 

GIS information. 

 Timber Volume: This is an estimated volume (sawtimber and utility) in thousand 

board feet to be harvested. This was derived from field estimates and the stand exam 

program. A cruise will be done during implementation to determine an accurate 

volume before the timber is sold. 

 Logging System, Silvicultural Prescription and Retention: This provides 

information about harvest treatments, regeneration methods and the level of retention 

prescribed for each unit. 

 Transportation: This identifies that portion of the existing or new transportation 

system needed for access. 

Harvest Treatments_______________________________________

Silvicultural Systems

Silvicultural systems refer to a complete set of treatments used to manage forest stands and 

forest landscapes over long periods of time. This process includes the harvest or regeneration 

of the stand, intermediate cutting, and other treatments necessary for the development and 

replacement of the forest stand. 

Silvicultural systems are applied through prescriptions, the written records of the 

examination, diagnosis, and treatment regimes prescribed for the stand. A diagnosis and draft 

silvicultural prescription has been prepared for all proposed harvest units. A final 

15 Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I
prescription will be completed for units selected for harvest in the Decision Notice. The final 

silvicultural prescriptions will include detailed sale layout and marking instructions for each 

unit. 

The Forest Plan (Chapter 4 Standards and Guidelines) and USDA Forest Service Manual 

2400 (Timber Management) provide detailed information about the silvicultural systems 

recommended for the Tongass National Forest. The three systems recommended are: (1) 

even-aged, (2) two-aged, and (3) uneven-aged. The uneven-aged system is proposed for the 

Kennel Creek Integration Resource Project I. The post-harvest condition of the forest stand 

for all systems would be dependent upon the existing species composition, the retained 

canopy structure, and advanced regeneration. Species composition of the regenerated stand 

would be monitored to ensure that the mix of species is roughly the same as the composition 

on the existing site. 

Uneven‐aged Management, Single‐tree Selection

Uneven-aged management maintains or creates a stand with trees of three or more distinct 

age (size) classes, either intimately mixed or in small groups. The resulting stand may have 

small openings and or individual trees harvested throughout the stand. This remaining 

structure provides wildlife habitat and reduces visual impacts. The next entry into these 

stands would be in approximately 75 years, when approximately 33 percent of the stand’s 

pre-harvest basal area would be removed in patches or in single trees. 

Resource Concerns and Responses___________________________

In the Kennel Creek project area, most of the economic, wildlife, and watershed concerns are 

mitigated with the silvicultural system. Other resource concerns, such as soils, scenery, and 

aquatics, are mitigated by unit design and adherence to Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines 

(Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines) and Best Management Practices (BMPs). 

Transportation

The roads needed to directly access units, or for yarding by helicopter, are identified on the 

unit cards. No road construction is proposed. 

Aquatics

Riparian Management Areas and Stream Buffers

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and BMP 12.6 direct the design of Riparian 

Management Areas (RMAs) associated with each stream in the project area. The Standards 

and Guidelines prohibit programmed commercial timber harvest in RMAs associated with all 

Class I, Class II and most Class III streams, except for right-of-way clearing for road 

construction. 

The Forest Plan recognizes four stream classes based on the following criteria: 

Class I: Streams and lakes with anadromous or adfluvial fish or fish habitat; or high quality 

resident fish waters, or habitat above fish migration barriers known to be reasonable 

enhancement opportunities for anadromous fish. 

16 Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact
Class II: Streams and lakes with resident fish or fish habitat and generally steep (6-25 

percent or higher) gradient (can also include streams with a 0-6 percent gradient) where no 

anadromous fish occur, and otherwise not meeting Class I criteria. 

Class III: Streams are perennial and intermittent streams that have no fish populations or fish 

habitat, but have sufficient flow or sediment and debris transport to directly influence 

downstream water quality or fish habitat capability. For streams less than 30 percent 

gradient, special care is needed to determine if resident fish are present. 

Class IV: Other intermittent, ephemeral, and small perennial channels with insufficient flow 

or sediment transport capabilities to have immediate influence on downstream water quality 

or fish habitat capability. Class IV streams do not have the characteristics of Class I, II or III 

streams and have a bankfull width of at least 0.3 meter (1 foot). 

RMAs vary in width from the edge of the stream channel according to process group and 

stream value class. Stream buffers are defined by the extent of the RMA, with additional 

protections provided for windfirmness and site specific conditions as needed (Table 15). 

Table 15. RMA Buffers for streams in or adjacent to proposed harvest units

Process Group ‐ Stream Class RMA Stream Buffer

Alluvial Fan (AF) – Class I, II, III

The greater the distance of the active portion of

alluvial fan or one site potential tree height from

the active portion of the channel (140 feet)

Floodplain (FP) ‐ Class I & II

The greater the distance of one site potential

tree height (130 feet), the 100‐year flood plain,

riparian vegetation or soils, or the riparian

associated wetland fens

High‐gradient Contained (HC) – Class I & II The greater distance of 100 feet or to the top of

the V‐notch (side‐slope break)

High‐gradient Contained (HC) – Class III Within the v‐notch to the break in the side‐slope

Moderate‐gradient Contained (MC) – Class I & II

The greatest distance of the area within 100 feet

of the stream or to the top of the side‐slope

break

Moderate‐gradient Contained (MC) – Class III Area from the stream to the side‐slope break

Moderate‐gradient, Mixed –control (MM) – Class

I & II

The greatest distance of one site potential tree

height (120 feet), the 100‐year flood plain,

riparian vegetation or soils, or riparian soils, or

riparian associated wetland fens

Large Contained (LC) – Class I & II

The greatest distance of the area within 100 feet

of the stream or to the top of the side‐slope

break

Large Contained (LC) – Class III Area from the stream to the side‐slope break

17 Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I
Process Group ‐ Stream Class RMA Stream Buffer

Palustrine (PA) – Class I & II

The greater distance of 100 feet from the

streambank, the 100‐year flood plain, the extent

of riparian vegetation, riparian soils, or riparian

associated wetland fens

Lakes & Ponds – Class I & II

The greatest distance of 100 feet from the

shoreline, the riparian vegetation, or associated

wetland fens

Windthrow risk was evaluated for each unit considering prevailing wind direction, 

topography, evidence of windthrow within proposed units and along edges of previous 

harvest units, and the proximity to other wind-generated stands. All units are considered 

wind firm. 

Unit card maps show the location and identification number of all known Class I, II and III 

streams within each unit. Class IV streams are not described in the unit card tables. All Class 

IV streams will be surveyed during unit layout and receive protection using the following 

techniques, depending on local site conditions: 

 Directional felling along streams and full suspension of logs yarded across streams, 

immediate cleanout of logging debris. May include partial retention of standing trees 

along stream courses. 

 Split yarding when practicable, partial log suspension when yarding across channels 

and stream cleanout once logging is completed. 

Log yarding practices are based on slope stability, soil disturbance, process group, and 

stream class. Additional measures taken to protect RMAs from possible disturbance 

associated with tree felling and yarding are identified in the unit card tables where 

appropriate. The objective is to minimize soil erosion, mass movement, and formation of new 

channels. 

Process Groups and Channel Types

The Tongass National Forest defines stream channel types according to the Channel Type 

User Guide (USDA Forest Service 1992), the foundation upon which aquatic habitat 

management prescriptions are developed. Channel types are defined within the context of 

fluvial process groups that describe the interrelationship between watershed runoff, landform 

relief, geology, and glacial or tidal influences on fluvial erosion and deposition processes. 

Individual channel type classifications are defined by physical attributes such as channel 

gradient, width, pattern, stream bank incision and containment (Table 16). See the Forest 

Plan, Figure D-1 (page D-4) for a visual representation of the typical distribution of channel 

process groups. The unit card maps and tables summarize the protections provided for 

particular units. Only stream classes I, II and III in proposed timber harvest units are depicted 

in the maps. 

18 Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact
Table 16. Channel Types in or adjacent to proposed harvest units

Process Group Channel Type Code Description

Alluvial Fan

AF1 Moderate Gradient Alluvial Fan

Channel

AF2 High Gradient Alluvial Cone

Channel

Floodplain

FP3 Narrow Low Gradient

Floodplain Channel

FP4 Low Gradient Floodplain

Channel

FP5 Wide Low Gradient Floodplain

Channel

High‐gradient Contained

HC1 Shallowly Incised Muskeg

Channel

HC2 Shallowly to Moderately Incised

Footslope Channel

HC3 Deeply Incised Upper Valley

Channel

HC5 Shallowly Incised Very High

Gradient Channel

HC6 Deeply Incised Mountain Slope

Channel

Moderate‐gradient Contained

MC1 Narrow Shallow Contained

Channel

MC2 Moderate Width and Incision

Contained Channel

Moderate‐gradient, Mixed ‐

control

MM1 Narrow Mixed Control Channel

MM2 Moderate Width Mixed Control

Channel

Large Contained LC1 Low Gradient Contained

Channel

Palustrine

PA2 Moderate Width Placid Flow

Channel

PA5 Beaver Dam / Pond Channel

19 Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I
Best Management Practices

The following best management practices (BMPs) will be applied in order to protect water 

quality in the project area as specified in the Forest Plan (pages C-1 to C-3). BMPs 12.6, 

12.6a, 13.9, 13.14 and 13.16 will be implemented for all streams noted in the unit cards. Not 

all BMPs apply to every situation; protections are noted for site specific conditions in the unit 

cards where appropriate. 

BMP 12.6 (Riparian Area Designation and Protection) – Identify riparian areas and their 

associated management activities. 

BMP 12.6a (Buffer Design and Layout) – Design streamside buffers to meet objectives 

defined during the implementation of BMP 12.6. 

BMP 13.2 (Timber Harvest Unit Design) – Incorporate site-specific soil and water resource 

considerations into integrated timber harvest unit design criteria. 

BMP 13.5 (Identification and Avoidance of Unstable Areas) – Avoid triggering mass 

movements and resultant erosion and sedimentation by excluding unstable areas from timber 

harvest. 

BMP 13.9 (Determining Guidelines for Yarding Operations) – Select appropriate yarding 

systems and guidelines for protecting soil and water resources. 

BMP 13.14 (Completion of Erosion Control for Unit Acceptance and Sale Closure) – Assure 

that the required erosion control work is completed before unit acceptance. 

BMP 13.16 (Stream Channel Protection – Implementation and Enforcement) – Provide the 

site-specific stream protection prescriptions consistent with objectives identified under BMPs 

12.6 and 12.6a. Objectives may include the following: 

 Maintain the natural flow regime. 

 Provide for unobstructed passage of storm flows. 

 Maintain integrity of the riparian buffer to filter sediment and other pollutants. 

 Restore the natural course of any stream that has been diverted as soon as practicable. 

 Maintain natural channel integrity to protect aquatic habitat and other beneficial uses. 

 Prevent adverse changes to the natural stream temperature regime. 

Soils/Wetlands

General mitigation guidelines for all units  

Where shovel yarding is proposed, areas of poorly drained soils should be avoided when 

possible. The use of puncheon or a slash mattress to provide adequate bearing strength and 

prevent rutting on poorly drained organic soils is required. The puncheon trials should be 

scattered upon completion of yarding activities. Do not operate the shovel in muskeg or fen 

wetlands (BMPs 13.2 and 13.9). To prevent rutting, do not operate shovel on slopes greater 

than 25 percent. This guideline applies to areas where the shovel tracks are operated, not to 

adjacent steeper slopes. Utilize a boom, a short choker, or cable to remove logs from steeper 

slopes or directionally fall the trees instead. 

20 Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact
Wildlife

All units comply with required Forest Plan Wildlife Standards and Guidelines. 

Any nests/animals dens discovered at any time will receive the necessary standard and 

guideline applications. 

Old‐growth Habitat

Loss of old-growth habitat would result by harvesting proposed units. The use of 66 percent 

retention of the basal area with the retention of trees with differing sizes, and an emphasis on 

snags and dying trees, helps address this concern. 

Sitka Black‐tailed Deer

Uneven-aged silvicultural treatments help maintain the habitat value to deer and other species 

and reduce habitat fragmentation, another important component of maintaining deer habitat. 

Scenery

The scenic integrity objectives (SIOs) for the project area are very low for the Timber 

Production LUD. 

Botany

A biological evaluation was completed for sensitive species and one plant species, Alaska 

rein orchid (Piperia unalascensis), is suspected of occurring in the project area. Three rare 

plant species are known to occur within or near the project area (Galium kamtschaticum, 

Listera convallarioides and Glyceria striata). Habitat for all three species is open wetland or 

meadow settings, which will not be affected by project activities. Two of the species, Galium 

kamtschaticum and Listera convallarioides, are relatively common and widely dispersed on 

Chichagof Island. Glyceria striata, documented in two areas on Chichagof Island, is not 

currently known to be in the project area. 

21 Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I
Blueberries, Tongass National Forest, Alaska. Photograph by Ashley Atkinson. 

22 Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact
Unit Cards

23 Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I
Kennel Creek IRMP Unit

Card Resources

Unit Acres Volume (MBF) 

Logging 

System, 

Prescription, 

Retention

Transportation Aquatics Soils/Wetlands Wildlife Timber (LUD) 

1 30 130 

 Helicopter  Unevenaged  Partial cut – 

single tree selection 

Existing NFS roads 85191, 851911, 85192 and 8519 

V-notch stream Process Group: HC6 Stream Class: III Buffer width: Top of v-notch. Wind firm 

Full suspension will be obtained with helicopter yarding. 

Travel 

corridors Timber Production 

2 30 120 

 Helicopter  Unevenaged  Partial cut – 

single tree selection 

Existing NFS roads 85191, 851911, 85192 and 8519 

V-notch streams Process Group: HC6 Stream Class: III Buffer width: Top of v-notch. Wind firm 

Full suspension will be obtained with helicopter yarding.

Travel 

corridors Timber Production 

24 Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact
25 Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I
Kennel Creek IRMP Unit

Card Resources

Unit Acres Volume (MBF) 

Logging 

System, 

Prescription, 

Retention

Transportation Aquatics Soils/Wetlands Wildlife Timber (LUD) 

3 100 200 

 Helicopter 

(20 acres) and shovel 

 Unevenaged  Partial cut – 

Single tree selection 

Existing NFS roads 8517, 86171 and 8510 

V-notch streams Process Group: HC6 Stream Class: III Buffer width: Top of v-notch. Wind firm 

Full suspension will be obtained with helicopter yarding. Partial suspension will be obtained with shovel yarding (BMPs 13.5 and 13.9). 

Travel 

corridors Timber Production 

4 90 50 

 Shovel  Unevenaged  Partial cut – 

single tree selection 

Existing NFS roads 8517, 85171 and 8510 

Kennel Creek tributary Process Group: FP3 Stream Class: I Buffer width: Min 100’ Wind firm V-notch stream Process Group: HC2 Stream Class: II

Partial suspension will be obtained with shovel yarding (BMPs 13.5 and 13.9). 

Travel 

corridors Timber Production 

26 Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact
27 Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I
Page intentionally left blank. 

28 Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact
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, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is 

an equal opportunity provider and employer. 

Federal Recycling Program 

Printed on Recycled Paper 
USDA Forest Service 

Hoonah Ranger District, Tongass National Forest 

PO Box 135 Hoonah, AK 99829-0135