United States

Department of  

Agriculture

Forest Service

Tongass National Forest

R10‐MB‐739

January 2012

Kennel Creek

Integrated Resource

Project I

Environmental

Assessment

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 

SOPA Schedule of proposed actions 

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. 

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. 


Kennel Creek Integrate Resource Project I

Environmental Assessment

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 Hoonah Ranger District is proposing timber management, watershed enhancement and 

restoration treatments in the Kennel Creek watershed, located approximately 18 miles southsoutheast of the town of Hoonah, Alaska, on the eastern shore of Chichagof Island. The action 

alternative proposes 500 thousand board feet (MBF) of selection old-growth harvest; 350 acres 

of precommercial and commercial upland thinning in managed timber stands; 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 proposed 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.
Intentionally left blank 
Table of Contents

Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 1

What actions are proposed? ........................................................................................................ 1

Why is this project being proposed? ........................................................................................... 1

What other action would meet the same need? ........................................................................... 1

What would it mean not to meet the need for project action? .................................................... 1

What are the effects of the proposed action and alternatives? .................................................... 1

What factors will be used when making the decision between alternatives? ............................. 1

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 2

Proposed Action .......................................................................................................................... 2

Decision Framework ................................................................................................................... 3

Project Area ................................................................................................................................ 3

Purpose and Need ....................................................................................................................... 3

Insert Figure 1. Vicinity map ...................................................................................................... 4

Background and Current Condition ............................................................................................ 5

Desired Condition ....................................................................................................................... 5

Public Involvement ..................................................................................................................... 6

Issues ........................................................................................................................................... 6

Alternatives ..................................................................................................................................... 7

Alternative 1: No Action ............................................................................................................. 7

Alternative 2: Proposed Action ................................................................................................... 7

Mitigation .................................................................................................................................... 9

Federal and State Permits, Licenses and Certificates ............................................................... 10

Applicable Laws and Executive Orders .................................................................................... 10

Environment and Effects............................................................................................................... 15

Aquatics .................................................................................................................................... 15

Botany and Invasive Species .................................................................................................... 18

Cultural ..................................................................................................................................... 20

Recreation ................................................................................................................................. 22

Transportation ........................................................................................................................... 25

Timber Resources ..................................................................................................................... 27

Soils/Geology ............................................................................................................................ 30

Wetlands ................................................................................................................................... 34

i
Wildlife ..................................................................................................................................... 36

References and Lists ..................................................................................................................... 43

List of Preparers ........................................................................................................................ 43

Distribution List ........................................................................................................................ 43

References ................................................................................................................................. 45

Unit Cards ..................................................................................................................................... 48

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 48

Unit Card Header Information .................................................................................................. 48

Harvest Treatments ................................................................................................................... 48

Resource Concerns and Responses ........................................................................................... 49

ii Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I Environmental Assessment
Summary

What actions are proposed?

The Hoonah Ranger District is proposing timber management, watershed enhancement and 

restoration treatments in the Kennel Creek watershed, located approximately 18 miles southsoutheast of the town of Hoonah, Alaska, on the eastern shore of Chichagof Island (Figure 1). 

Alternative 2 proposes 500 thousand board feet (MBF) of selection old-growth harvest; 350 

acres of precommercial and commercial upland thinning in managed timber stands; 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. 

Why is this project being proposed?

The Forest Service has determined that the existing condition of the Kennel Creek watershed 

does not meet the desired condition described in the Forest Plan. The treatments proposed 

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. 

What other action would meet the same need?

Treatments similar to those proposed in this environmental assessment (EA), could still be 

proposed and analyzed individually; however, the ecological impact and fiscal efficiency of 

the activities would be less than optimal since the proposal, analysis and implementation of 

the various activities would likely happen independently and over a much longer period of 

time. 

What would it mean not to meet the need for project action?

Alternative 1 (the no action alternative) would result in the continued alteration of watershed 

processes, possible decline in fish and wildlife habitat capability, slower old-growth 

development within managed stands, and less timber available for local operators within the 

Kennel Creek watershed. 

What are the effects of the proposed action and alternatives?

Alternative 2 (the action alternative) is intended to improve watershed conditions by 

restoring the ecological function of riparian and in-stream areas, enhance wildlife and oldgrowth conditions in upland areas and provide timber for local operators. 

What factors will be used when making the decision between

alternatives?

1
Using the effects analysis from this EA, public input, Forest Plan guidance and applicable 

laws, the Hoonah District Ranger will decide whether to implement all or part of the 

proposed actions, the timing of treatments, and any mitigation and monitoring. 

Introduction

In 2010, the Hoonah Ranger District started the Kennel Creek Watershed Integrated 

Resource Management Plan (IRMP). During Phase I of this process, the Kennel Creek 

watershed analysis was completed. Management activities were identified to meet the desired 

condition as described in the Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). 

Phase II of the IRMP process is this environmental analysis of the management activities 

identified in Phase I. 

Proposed Action

The Hoonah Ranger District is proposing to authorize multiple projects across the Kennel 

Creek watershed as identified during the Phase I watershed analysis completed in 2010. See 

Figure 3 for locations of the proposed activities. 

 In the Timber Production LUD, selectively harvest approximately 500 MBF (250 

acres) of old-growth from 4 units to move the area closer to the desired conditions 

outlined in the Forest Plan. Two units are located north of the NFS roads 85191 and 

851911 in the north-central portion of the project area and 2 units are located off of 

NFS roads 8510 and 8517 in the eastern portion of the project area. 

 Reduce slash accumulations on approximately 100 acres to facilitate wildlife 

movement in previously thinned areas along NFS roads 8519, 85191 and 85193. 

Proposed slash reduction method is lop and scatter to increase the rate of slash 

decadence. 

 Treat 350 acres within three previously harvested upland stands with commercial and 

precommercial thinning (refer to proposed wildlife treatments on Figure 3). The type 

of thinning proposed is dependent on stand age and past treatments. The treatment 

goal is to enable residual trees to grow larger and taller in less time to allow the 

stands to attain mature forest characteristics sooner. 

 Selectively thin 19 acres within the previously harvested riparian management area 

(RMA) that runs parallel to NFS road 8519 to remove dominant red alder to promote 

conifer growth and large woody debris recruits, and increase conifer spacing and oldgrowth characteristics. 

 Place large wood within the floodplain of Kennel Creek’s main channel, 

approximately 300 meters upstream of Kennel Creek Trail, to improve aquatic 

habitat. 

 Remove and/or replace five red culverts and one gray culvert on NFS roads 8519, 

85191, 851911, and 8510 to improve access to upstream fish habitat. 

Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I Environmental Assessment 2
Decision Framework

The Hoonah District Ranger is the responsible official for this project. Based on the 

environmental analysis contained in this EA and project record, and evaluation of public 

comments, the responsible official will decide whether to implement none, all or part of the 

proposed action, the timing of treatments, and any mitigation measures and monitoring. The 

decision and rationale will be documented in a decision notice and finding of no significant 

impact (DN and FONSI). 

Project Area

The project area is the Kennel Creek watershed which is located approximately 18 miles 

south-southeast 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. 

Prior to European settlement the watershed was used mostly for subsistence purposes. The 

watershed is now primarily within development status (Timber Production LUD) under the 

2008 Tongass Forest Plan (Table 1). Chapter 3 of the Forest Plan contains a detailed 

description of each land use designation (USDA 2008b). 

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

Service. 

Table 1. Land Use Designations within the Kennel Creek Watershed

LUD LUD Group Acres1 Percent of Area

Timber Production Development 7,921 93

Scenic Viewshed Development 76 1

Old‐growth Habitat Natural Setting 488 6

Source: Sitka Ranger District 2009 GIS Coverage. 1 Acres do not equal total watershed area due to portions of the watershed boundaries falling within saltwater.

Purpose and Need

The purpose of the Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I is to improve watershed 

conditions by restoring the ecological function of riparian and in-stream areas, enhance 

wildlife and old-growth conditions in upland areas, and provide timber for local operators. 

These actions would help address the effects of past management actions and move the 

project area from the current condition to a desired future condition described by the 2008 

Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) (USDA 2008b). 

The need for action is documented in the Kennel Creek IRMP Assessment (USDA 2010) 

which outlines the effects of past timber and road management actions on watershed and 

habitat function. 

Environmental Assessment Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I 3

The need for this project is to:

 Manage Kennel Creek watershed and bring the project area closer to desired 

conditions outlined in the Forest Plan. 

 Provide for a diversity of opportunities for resource uses that contribute to the local 

and regional economies of Southeast Alaska. 

 Support a wide range of natural resource employment opportunities within Southeast 

Alaska’s communities. 

Background and Current Condition

Over 1,422 acres of clearcut timber harvest occurred within the watershed under 

management by the USDA Forest Service between 1964 and 1993 (see managed stands in 

Figure 2). Some of the stream channel types in the watershed are sensitive to disturbances 

and are dependent on large woody debris for proper functioning. Fisheries habitat and aquatic 

ecosystem function has been impaired along some of the mid-valley reaches in the watershed 

due to riparian harvest and the conversion from conifer-dominated riparian areas to red alderdominated riparian areas. Roads in riparian management areas (RMAs) or stream crossing 

structures such as culverts have modified some stream flow regimes, diverted water from 

natural stream courses, and routed sediment to streams. 

Clearcut harvest converted approximately 170 acres of conifer-dominated old-growth 

riparian habitat to red alder-dominated forest or young-growth conifer stands. These stands 

contain an understory component of conifers but these trees continue to be shaded by red 

alder overstory, slowing the growth of conifers and reducing vegetation on the forest floor. 

Harvest activities and stand conversion also reduced wildlife habitat quantity, quality and 

connectivity in the watershed for Management Indicator Species (MIS) such as Sitka blacktailed deer, marten and goshawk which were identified in the Tongass Forest Plan FEIS 

(USDA 2008c) as dependant on old-growth habitat. 

About 16 miles of road were built to facilitate timber harvest. Road-related effects range 

from disrupting the natural flow of water (hydrologic conductivity) and sediment (sediment 

routing and sedimentation) to impeding fish movements. Five red and one gray fish culverts 

are located within the watershed that block or limit fish passage (Figure 3). 

Desired Condition

The proposed action responds to the goals and objectives outlined in the Forest Plan, and 

helps move the project area toward the desired conditions described in the Plan. The Forest 

Plan also directs land managers to: 

 Maintain or restore the natural range and frequency of aquatic habitat conditions on 

the Tongass National Forest to sustain the diversity and production of fish and other 

freshwater organisms. 

 Maintain or restore water quality to provide for fish production. 

 Maintain or restore natural and beneficial quantities of large woody debris over the 

short- and long-term. 

Environmental Assessment Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I 5
 Maintain or restore stream banks and stream channel processes. 

 Maintain fish passage through stream crossing structures. 

 Maintain habitat capability sufficient to produce wildlife populations that support the 

use of wildlife resources for sport, subsistence, and recreational activities. 

 Include a young-growth management program to maintain, prolong, and/or improve 

understory forage production in young-growth timber stands for wildlife on both 

suitable and unsuitable lands. 

 Precommercially thin previously harvested suitable forest land. 

 Manage young-growth to improve habitat for wildlife and commercial timber 

products. 

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

products on an even-flow, long-term sustained yield basis. 

Public Involvement

The project has been listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) since July 2011. 

A scoping letter for the project was mailed in June 2011 to approximately 65 individuals, 

organizations, federal and state agencies and Native Tribes and Corporations that had 

previously shown interest in USDA Forest Service projects within the vicinity of Hoonah, 

Alaska. Two responses to scoping were received. One response was from the Army Corps of 

Engineers informing the Forest Service that authorization from the Corps is required for 

placement of instream wood. The second response was from the State supporting the project; 

however, the State would like to see more timber harvest planned within the project area. 

Both letters are filed in the project record. 

Issues

For the purposes of this analysis, issues identified during the public involvement process are 

categorized by the project interdisciplinary team (IDT) as either significant or nonsignificant. Significant issues are those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the 

proposed action and represent unresolved disputes, disagreements or debate about the effects 

of the proposed action. Non-significant issues are those that have been resolved through 

analysis by the IDT. They are typically resolved in a number of ways, and are categorized as: 

1) outside the scope (not related to the effects) of the proposed action; 2) already decided by 

law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; 3) irrelevant to the decision to be 

made; or 4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. The magnitude, 

extent, duration, speed, and direction of preliminary effects can also be considered in 

determining non-significance. The Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA 

regulations require this delineation in Sec. 1501.7, “...identify and eliminate from detailed 

study the issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental 

review (Sec. 1506.3)...”. 

Scoping comments were evaluated by the IDT, using the above process, and all concerns 

were resolved, thus no significant issues were brought forward. Comments generated during 

Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I Environmental Assessment 6
scoping, and the IDT response of those comments, are incorporated in this document and can 

be found in the project record at the Hoonah Ranger District. 

Alternatives

This section describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Kennel Creek 

Integrated Resource Project I. This section also presents the alternatives in a comparative 

form, defining the differences between each alternative and providing a clear basis for choice 

among options by the decision maker and the public. 

Alternative 1: No Action

The no action alternative is included to meet NEPA requirements, and provide a baseline for 

comparison. Activities such as thinning, old-growth harvest and in-stream restoration could 

still be proposed individually, analyzed, and implemented, however, the cost efficiency of the 

activities could be diminished as they would likely occur independently and over a longer 

period of time. 

Alternative 2: Proposed Action

The proposed action responds to the goals and objectives outlined in the Forest Plan, and 

helps move the project area toward the desired conditions described therein. 

This alternative proposes to manage suitable forest lands for the production of sawtimber and 

other wood products with selection harvest of old-growth stands and to improve the short and 

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

watershed restoration and enhancement activities. Alternative 2 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 proposes 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 proposed in this alternative (Table 2 and Figure 3) are grouped into three categories: 

Aquatic Restoration

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

there is one structure that is a possible fish barrier (gray culvert). The proposed action 

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

and a gray culvert with passable structures. The culverts proposed 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 

Environmental Assessment Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I 7
conifers for future large woody debris. Treatments would be low intensity and small 

in scale. 

 Approximately 300 meters of Kennel Creek has lost its natural influx of large wood 

as a result of past timber harvest. The proposed action includes an in-stream 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 proposal is to place two to four whole trees with rootwads attached within the 

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

stringer bridges, would be placed onto the upstream side of each whole tree, creating 

a log jam. Trees and logs would 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. 

The slash would be either scattered or piled. Treatment is proposed within the lower 

portion of four managed stands along NFS roads 8519, 85191 and 85193. All work 

would 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 proposed wildlife treatments in Figure 3). 

o The majority of the area proposed for treatment (250 acres) is located on the 

east side of compartment 21700 stand 49 (hereafter stand 49) where the area is 

in the stem exclusion stage. Access to the stand would be via closed road 8510 

1.01R. 

 Thinning, and potentially some girdling, is proposed on approximately 

200 acres in the eastern portion of the stand. Some of the trees 

proposed for removal as part of the thinning process may have 

commercial value; consequently, ground-based equipment may 

salvage some of these trees. 

 The remaining 50 acres, consisting of younger and smaller trees, are 

proposed for thinning and slash removal using hand tools. 

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

stands harvested in 1981 and 1991 off of NFS roads 85191 and 851911. 

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. Two units are north of NFS roads 85191 and 851911 above existing younggrowth stands. The other two units 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 

Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I Environmental Assessment 8
of various size classes throughout the stand, while encouraging regeneration and 

stand growth. No new roads would be constructed but existing closed roads would be 

re-opened as needed. Shovel yarding would be used for the majority of the proposed 

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. 

Table 2. Comparison of alternatives

Alternative1 Alternative 2

Aquatic Restoration    

Culverts impeding fish movement 6 0

Class I and II habitat made accessible by

replacing culverts   0 500 meters

Riparian thinning 0 19 acres

Aquatic habitat improvement 0 300 meters

Wildlife Habitat Enhancement1    

Slash removal 0 100 acres

Upland thinning 0 350 acres

Timber Management    

Old‐growth harvest 0 250 acres/500 MBF

Mitigation

There are no site-specific mitigation measures necessary to implement this project, outside of 

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and the Alaska Region Best Management Practices 

(BMPs). See the Forest Service’s Soil and Water Conservation Handbook (FSH 2509.22) for 

Best Management Practices (see Reference section for link to the handbook) and Forest Plan 

Standards and Guidelines to be used during project implementation. 

Information and documents regarding the Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan 

may be accessed at http://www.fs.fed.us/r10/tongass/projects/tlmp/index.shtml. Monitoring 

of BMPs on the Tongass demonstrates that BMPs are effective at maintaining Alaska Water 

Quality Standards for suspended sediments and turbidity (USDA 2002). 

The Forest Service must apply BMPs that are consistent with the Alaska Forest Resources 

and Practices Regulations to achieve Alaska Water Quality Standards. The site-specific 

application of BMPs, with a monitoring and feedback mechanism, is the approved strategy 

for controlling non-point source pollution as defined by Alaska’s Nonpoint Source Pollution 

Control Strategy (October 2000). In 1997, the State approved the BMPs in the Forest 

Service’s Soil and Water Conservation Handbook (FSH 2509.22, October 1996) as 

consistent with the Alaska Forest Resources and Practices Regulations. This handbook is 

incorporated into the Forest Plan. 

                                                      

1 Slash removal and upland thinning will also benefit timber management.

Environmental Assessment Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I 9
Federal and State Permits, Licenses and Certificates

To proceed with the projects in Alternative 2, various permits, licenses, or certifications will 

be obtained from federal and state agencies. The following permits would be obtained: 

approval of discharge of dredged or fill material into the waters of the United States under 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; certification of 

compliance with Alaska Water Quality Standards (Section 401 Certification) from the State 

of Alaska, Department of Environmental Conservation; and Title 16 concurrence for instream work to proceed with the proposed action, from the State of Alaska, Department of 

Fish and Game, Division of Habitat. 

Applicable Laws and Executive Orders

Below is a partial list of federal laws and executive orders pertaining to this project. While 

most pertain to all federal lands, some of the laws are specific to Alaska. Activities proposed 

in this project comply with all applicable federal laws and executive orders. 

National Forest Management Act 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (as amended) 

Bald and Golden Eagle Act of 1940 (as amended) 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended) 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (as amended) 

Clean Air Act of 1970 (as amended) 

Clean Water Act of 1977 (as amended) 

Alaska Native Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) of 1980 

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (as amended) 

Archaeological Resource Protection Act of 1980 

Federal Cave Resource Protection Act of 1988 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1996 

Executive Order 11593 (cultural resources) 

Executive Order 11988 (floodplains) 

Executive Order 11990 (wetlands) 

Executive Order 12898 (environmental justice) 

Executive Order 12962 (aquatic systems and recreational fisheries) 

Executive Order 13007 (Indian sacred sites) 

Executive Order 13112 (invasive plant species) 

Executive Order 13175 (consultation and coordination with Indian tribal governments) 

Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I Environmental Assessment 10

Backside of Map

Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I Environmental Assessment 12

Backside of Map

Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I Environmental Assessment 14
Environment and Effects

This section provides information about the current condition of the Kennel Creek Integrated 

Resource Project I project area, and the potential consequence of each alternative. Effects are 

quantified when possible, otherwise qualified to clearly display differences between 

alternatives. The means by which negative effects will be reduced or mitigated are also 

described. 

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

biological, or social environment. Direct environmental effects are those occurring at the 

same time or place as the proposed action. Indirect effects are those that occur at a later time 

or are spatially removed from the activity. Cumulative effects result from the incremental 

effects of the actions proposed by this project, when added to other past, present, or 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency or person undertakes the 

action. For the purpose of this analysis, the words “impacts” and “effects” are synonymous. 

Reasonably foreseeable future actions include projects such as free-use, firewood cutting, 

hunting, fishing, recreation, on-going road maintenance, roadside salvage harvest of dead and 

downed timber, and the concurrent Hoonah Ranger District Access and Travel Management 

Plan (ATM). The road management objectives for this project mirror the objectives outlined 

in the ATM and include storing about 4.9 miles of road in the project area. There are also 

four areas (30 acres total) in the project area previously NEPA-cleared for individual tree and 

group selection. Total board feet authorized for harvest is approximately 250 MBF. The rate 

at which cumulative effects occur will depend on the rate at which new projects are 

implemented and the rate at which disturbances from past and present activities recover. 

Aquatics_________________________________________________

Introduction

The quality and quantity of the abundant water in Kennel Creek are crucial to maintaining 

the ecological integrity of the watershed. Factors contributing to the existing condition of 

aquatic resources include loss of fish habitat due to impassable culverts, alder dominated 

riparian areas, and lack of large wood in the main stem of Kennel Creek. While many 

hydrologic processes are attaining equilibrium in a natural state of recovery, portions of this 

watershed are still in a state of degradation. Roughly 500 meters of Class I and II habitat are 

blocked by impassable culverts, and approximately 400 meters of main-stem spawning and 

rearing habitat is degraded (focused at the historic road crossing into the 1964 harvest unit). 

Resource concerns in the Kennel Creek watershed have been identified through data analysis, 

field investigation, and aerial photo interpretation and can be found in the Kennel Creek 

IRMP Assessment (USDA 2010a). The restoration activities proposed are aimed at 

improving riparian condition, hydrologic function, and maintaining high value aquatic 

resources. 

Affected Environment

The watershed contains 43.4 miles of mapped stream channels. Some of the stream channel 

types in the watershed are sensitive to disturbances and are dependent on large woody debris 

Environmental Assessment Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I 15
for proper functioning (USDA 2009d. Fisheries habitat and aquatic ecosystem function has 

been impaired along some of the mid-valley reaches in the watershed due to riparian harvest 

and the conversion from conifer-dominated riparian areas to red alder-dominated riparian 

areas. Roads in riparian management areas (RMAs) or stream crossing structures such as 

culverts have modified some stream flow regimes, diverted water from natural stream 

courses, and routed sediment to streams. 

The Kennel Creek watershed ranges in elevation from sea level to 3,100 feet. Drainage 

patterns of the watershed generally run west to east and empty into saltwater. 

Drainage density in the watershed is 3.3 mi/mi2

 (Table 3). 

Table 3. Stream Miles and Drainage Density for the watershed

Watershed Area (mi2) Total Stream

Miles

Drainage Density

(mi/mi2)

Kennel Creek 13.3 43.4 3.3

Source: 2009 Tongass GIS Coverage.

Note: Total stream miles denote only mapped class I‐IV stream channels. Unmapped stream channels including more Class

IV channels would significantly increase total stream miles and basin drainage density.

Stream Channel Types

Stream channel types are determined by their size, location in the watershed, adjacent 

landforms, gradient, hydraulic control, and riparian vegetation. Channel type and stream 

class are influenced by geology, landform, climate, and vegetation. To see a breakdown of 

stream miles by channel type and process groups, refer to the complete fisheries report 

located in the project record. 

Fish Species Present

The Alaska Department of Fish and Game Anadromous Fish Catalog lists steelhead, coho, 

pink and chum salmon, as well as sculpin and Dolly Varden char for streams in the 

watershed. 

Stream Habitat

The watershed contains a total of 10.6 miles of Class I streams (25 percent of all stream 

miles), 7.5 miles of Class II streams (17 percent of all stream miles), and 25.3 miles of Class 

III streams (58 percent of all stream miles) (Table 4). 

Past surveys from Kennel & Pavlof Watershed Inventory &Assessment (USDA 2009d), and 

the Preliminary Habitat Condition Assessment for Kennel Creek (USDA 2008a) conclude 

that most stream reaches are healthy due to the use of no cut stream buffers. The four 

surveyed (Tier II) reaches are within normal range for the majority of habitat variables 

analyzed, except for a 300 meter reach of the main-stem near the Kennel Creek Trail where 

several outlying values indicate the channel may be at risk for destabilization. 

Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I Environmental Assessment 16
Table 4. Stream by Class within the Kennel Creek Watershed

Stream Class Distance (miles)/Percent of

Watershed

I

10.6

25%

II

7.5

17%

III

25.3

58%

Total stream miles 43.4

Source: 2009 Tongass GIS Coverage.

Management Effects by Stream Class

Timber harvest was not necessarily evenly distributed throughout the watershed, with older 

harvest areas occurring primarily in valley bottoms and lowlands. Consequently, a majority 

of the streams affected in this area are Class I and II fish channels. Table 5 displays the miles 

of stream by class within harvest units. This data shows that roughly 15 percent of the stream 

channels in the watershed have been impacted by harvest, with 31 percent of the impacted 

channels containing anadromous fish habitat. Sixteen percent of Class II and 13 percent of 

Class III streams have been harvested in the watershed. 

Table 5. Stream Miles by Class within Harvest Units in the Kennel Creek Watershed

Stream Class Distance (miles)

I 2.1

II 1.2

III 3.2

Total 6.5

Water Quality Concern and Status

There are no state-listed water quality-impaired water bodies in the watershed. However, the 

Kennel Creek IRMP (USDA 2010a) identified five fish blocking culverts (red culverts) and 

one potentially fish blocking culvert (gray culvert) affecting 500 meters of Class I and II 

habitat. The Kennel Creek IRMP (2010) also identified an alluvial fan that shows signs of 

degradation; however, the alluvial fan is outside the scope of this analysis. 

Management Indicator Species (MIS)  

The Forest Service uses MIS to assess the impacts of proposed actions to the fishery 

resource. Pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha), coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), 

cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki), and Dolly Varden char (Salvelinus malma) have been 

identified as MIS for the Tongass National Forest (USDA 2008c, pp. 3-230 to 3-241). All 

four MIS species listed above exist within the project area. 

Environmental Assessment Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I 17
Potential adverse effects on these fish species may include changes in water yield, sediment, 

water temperature, and fish passage at road crossings. 

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects – Essential Fish Habitat

Alternative 1

By choosing the no action alternative, the existing condition would not change. Five red 

culverts and one gray culvert would continue to potentially isolate 500 meters of fish rearing 

habitat. Three hundred meters of main stem habitat would continue to lack existing and 

future large wood and habitat complexity. The continuation of existing conditions would not 

greatly affect fish and essential fish habitat due to the abundance high quality habitat 

upstream and downstream. 

Alternative 2

The proposed action is expected to have beneficial direct and indirect effects on the managed 

fish species by restoring access to over 500 meters of Class I and II habitat, and improving 

habitat complexity on 300 meters of Kennel Creek that provide spawning and rearing habitat 

for anadromous fish. The restoration and enhancement activities are anticipated to bring the 

in-stream and riparian habitat systems closer to old-growth pre-harvest conditions. 

Proposed aquatic and wildlife habitat improvement activities, as well as proposed selection 

harvest are expected to have “no adverse effects” on essential fish habitat because Forest 

BMPs and timing restrictions would be followed. Furthermore, the scale of the project area is 

small compared to EFH as a whole. 

Cumulative Effects – Essential Fish Habitat

Alternative 1

Within the project area, no new road crossings are proposed and there are no proposed 

projects that may harm essential fish habitat, or impede fish movement. 

Alternative 2

No negative cumulative effects to fish, water quality, or EFH are expected from the 

implementation of the proposed action. However, beneficial cumulative effects may result 

from past and proposed restoration activities. 

Botany and Invasive Species_________________________________

Affected Environment

To determine the condition of the affected environment, a pre-field review was conducted to 

identify known or suspected rare and sensitive plant populations in the area; data from the 

National Resource Information System (NRIS)2

 was accessed; botany surveys were 

completed for the project area; and a 10-year history of surveys from the surrounding area 

                                                      

2 NRIS is a comprehensive program for the acquisition, storage and retrieval of existing data relating to natural

history.

Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I Environmental Assessment 18
was referenced. The botany resource report, located in the project record, summarizes 

information about sensitive and rare plants and invasive species of concern in the project 

area. 

Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plant Species  

No listed threatened or endangered species are known to occur on the Tongass National 

Forest. There are, however, 17 plant species and one lichen listed as sensitive on Forest 

Service lands in Alaska (USDA 2009a). A biological evaluation was completed for sensitive 

species in the project area and only one plant species, Alaska rein orchid (Piperia 

unalascensis), is suspected of occurring. A determination of “may adversely impact 

individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend 

toward federal listing,” was given to the Alaskan rein orchid. 

Rare Plant Species

The Alaska Natural Heritage Program maintains a list of plants considered rare in Alaska. A 

subset of this list (plants known or suspected to occur on Chichagof Island) was considered 

for this project. From this list, three rare plant species are known to occur within or near the 

project area. 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. 

Invasive Plants

Surveys for invasive species were completed on the Hoonah road system in 2007. In the 

project area, approximately 20 introduced or invasive species are known to occur. Weed 

species of concern are being controlled, where feasible. 

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1

The no action alternative (Alternative 1) would result in no direct effects. However, indirect 

effects may include increased time for the timber stands to return to an old-growth condition 

which has the anticipated benefits of vegetation diversity, improved wildlife habitat and 

healthy stream function. If the no action alternative were selected, some or all of the 

proposed activities may be proposed and analyzed individually and occur at a later date. 

Alternative 2

In the proposed action (Alternative 2), direct effects would include: culvert replacement 

resulting in localized disturbance on the roads, which could favor the spread of invasive 

species along roads; proposed thinning, timber harvest and riparian work, which could cause 

minor ground disturbance and destruction of some vegetation and an opportunity for invasive 

plants to invade previously forested habitat; and timber harvest leaving slash on the ground, 

which could suppress understory vegetation. 

Environmental Assessment Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I 19
Cumulative Effects

The history of road construction, logging and the associated logging and work camps at 

Kennel Creek are the primary source of disturbance and invasive species in the project area. 

Recreational and guided use in the project area may contribute to the spread of invasive 

species. 

Findings for anticipated effects to botanical resources if the proposed action is implemented 

are summarized below (Table 6). Definitions for the findings follow. 

Table 6. Findings for effects to botanical resources if proposed action is implemented

General Vegetation Rare Plants Sensitive Plants Invasive Plants

Minor Negligible Negligible Minor

Negligible effects may or may not cause observable changes to natural conditions; regardless, they do not reduce the

integrity of a resource.

Minor effects cause observable and short‐term changes to natural conditions, but they do not reduce the integrity of a

resource.

Moderate effects cause observable and short‐term changes to natural conditions, and/or they reduce the integrity of a

resource.

Major effects cause observable and long‐term changes to natural conditions, and they reduce the integrity of a resource.

Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Recommendations

Forest Service personnel and contractors should be made aware of the risks that may result 

from the implementation of the proposed action regarding the introduction and spread of 

invasive plants. Construction equipment used in Hoonah should be washed prior to use on 

the forest roads to prevent the spread of perennial sowthistle, a highly invasive species which 

is common in the town of Hoonah. Monitoring of the roads and culvert replacement sites 

within the project area should occur within two years of project completion to determine if 

invasive species were spread by project activities. 

Cultural_________________________________________________

Affected Environment

Generally speaking, the majority of the Kennel Creek Watershed falls into the low 

probability zone for the occurrence of cultural resources. There are occasional culturally 

modified trees identified; however, to date there have been no identified historic properties 

(cultural sites). 

One-thousand fifty-nine acres of the 8,520 acre Kennel Creek Watershed have been surveyed 

for cultural sites (Table 7). There are 278 additional acres within the watershed that fall 

within a high probability area for cultural resources (all land between mean low water and 

100 feet of elevation above mean high water) that have yet to be inventoried. In addition, 

surveys have not taken place at lake and stream systems containing, or historically contained, 

anadromous fish runs or at barrier falls locations. These locations are also considered high 

probability areas. 

Given that less than 12 percent of the overall watershed has been surveyed for cultural 

resources, there is a great possibility that sites exist, but have yet to be discovered. 

Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I Environmental Assessment 20
Table 7. Cultural Resource Inventories in the Kennel Creek Watershed

Project Number

Survey

Year Author Citation

R1993100531086 1993 Kennerly, Keri SEIS Road Monitor Northeast Chichagof Island

R1978100532001 1978 Autrey, John

Archaeological reconnaissance of the proposed

long‐term timber sales 1981‐1986 Chichagof

Island

R2009100532007 2009 Kinsman, Jay Kennel Creek cabin, dock, and boat ramp

R1986100531007 1987 Swanson, Karen Long‐term timber sale

R1990100532273 Lively, Ralph SEIS (86‐90) Rock Pit # 466316‐ Kennel Creek

NFS Road 8519

R1990100532303 Swanson, Karen Rock Pit Located in VCU 217 CU3, along the

85919‐1 Road (466309)

R1995100532050 1995 Brown, Katherine

Heritage Resource investigations for the

Freshwater Bay limestone rock pits Chichagof

Island, Alaska

R1992100532087 1992 Gilman, Michael

Cultural Resource Inventory of the Level I

Survey of Kennel Creek 1992 Large Wood

Debris (LWD) Enhancement Project

R1990100532138 Philibert, Juli A. Extension of Rock Pit 466314B on NFS Road

8517, VCU 217

Environmental Consequences

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Direct, indirect or cumulative effects to cultural resources are unlikely for this project. The 

logging conducted from 1964 to 1993 would have had the greatest impacts on the resource 

due to direct ground disturbance and indirect erosion and was larger in scale than the 

proposed project. The proposed commercial sale areas are well outside the areas of high 

probability zone for cultural resources; therefore, it is unlikely there would be any indirect or 

cumulative effects from this project. Large wood structure placement will likely have no 

direct, indirect or cumulative effects on cultural resources as the likelihood of discovering a 

site in an active stream channel is minimal. The removal or replacement of red and gray 

culverts as addressed in the proposed action is not likely to have direct, indirect or 

cumulative effects on cultural resources in that the disturbance occurred during the 

construction of the road and placement of the culvert. These roads are not over 50 years in 

age and are not likely to contain any significant historic properties. 

Conclusion

There is one known cultural site adjacent to the project area but outside of the area of 

potential effect (APE). Based on the distance from shore, elevation, previous surveys, 

previous disturbances and that stream restoration activities will occur in an active stream 

channel, a determination of “No Historic Properties Affected” has been made. 

Environmental Assessment Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I 21
The cultural resource report for this project was submitted to the State Historic Preservation 

Officer (SHPO) in the FY 2011 Annual Report to SHPO. Submittal of this report fulfills the 

requirements for consultation as outlined in the Programmatic Agreement (USDA 2010b) 

among the USDA Forest Service Alaska Region, the Advisory Council and the Alaska State 

Historic Preservation Office. 

If cultural resources or items protected by the Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act are discovered during implementation, work should cease in the immediate 

vicinity. The sale administrator should contact the District Ranger first and the zone 

archaeologist next. The District Ranger and zone archaeologist will then apply stipulations 

XIII or XV of the Third Amended Programmatic agreement Among the USDA Forest 

Service, Alaska Region, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the Alaska State 

Historic Preservation Officer. 

Recreation_______________________________________________

Introduction

Recreational users of the Kennel Creek watershed area are primarily from the community of 

Hoonah and utilize main NFS roads 8508, 8510, 8519, and adjoining spur roads within the 

project area. Recreation activities include driving for pleasure, hunting, viewing scenery and 

wildlife, dispersed camping, gathering forest products, stream fishing, picnicking, hiking, and 

access to saltwater. The residents of Hoonah use the road system consistently during the 

spring and summer months and heavily during the fall subsistence deer hunting season. A 

float dock at the Kennel Creek spit serves as a Marine Access Facility (MAF) for boats and 

float planes. 

Recreation management goals and objectives for an area are determined by its LUD 

designation. Therefore, existing condition, and environmental consequences are discussed by 

LUD. 

Affected Environment – Old‐growth Habitat LUD

This area is approximately 420 acres and is located at the NE corner of the project area. It 

includes the last 0.5 mile of NFS Road 8517. The area is within the Semi-Primitive 

Motorized ROS class. 

The end of NFS Road 8517 is closed to vehicle traffic but remains open for ATV use (USDA 

2009c). Currently this area receives minimal recreation use other than at a large rock pit just 

outside of the LUD which is occasionally used for hunting camps. 

Environmental Consequences – Old‐growth Habitat LUD

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1

Under the no action alternative, the existing conditions and current management practices for 

recreation resources in the Old-growth Habitat LUD would not change. 

   

Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I Environmental Assessment 22
Alternative 2

In Alternative 2, there would be little change to the existing conditions for recreation 

resources. The proposed projects in this LUD include slash removal along NFS road 8517. 

This would facilitate wildlife movement and indirectly enhance the recreation opportunities 

for wildlife viewing and hunting. No recreation enhancement projects are proposed in this 

LUD. 

Affected Environment – Scenic Viewshed LUD

This area is less than 10 acres in size and is located on the NE corner of the project area. It 

includes the entire Kennel Creek landfill spit from the intersection of NFS roads 8508 and 

8510 along the north end of the Kennel Creek outlet. It includes the end of NFS Road 85101 

to an abandoned bulk head. This area is within the Roaded Modified ROS class. Road-based 

use within this LUD is low, as the road is only maintained for high-clearance vehicles. 

The Kennel Creek Spit is the site of the abandoned Kennel Creek logging camp. Today it is a 

destination hub for most of the commercial and non-commercial users traveling the road 

system on NFS Road 8508. The area is used to access hunting and fishing areas, provide 

scenery and wildlife viewing, stream fishing, ocean fishing, boat launching, day use 

picnicking, overnight camping, berry picking, subsistence gathering, and is a place for large 

groups for special events. 

Facilities that remain in place on the spit include a Forest Service float dock, barge loading 

ramp and logging bulkhead. The dock is available for float plane and boat use and receives 

use throughout the year. The rough gravel barge loading ramp is used intermittently for 

loading/unloading heavy equipment. There are three designated day-use picnic sites that 

include wooden picnic tables and primitive fire rings. These sites receive intermittent public 

use throughout the spring, summer and fall seasons for day-use picnicking and overnight RV 

and tent camping. There is a 500-gallon single vault toilet on site that receives steady use 

throughout the summer season. A boat launch ramp was constructed in 2010 and receives 

intermittent use throughout the year. The mouth of Kennel Creek exits adjacent to the spit 

and provides easy access for fishing. 

A Forest Service public use cabin is scheduled for construction at this site in 2012. It will be 

located near a decommissioned Forest Service bunkhouse. The cabin will provide users the 

ability to gain extended access to a variety of recreation areas within the watershed. 

Environmental Consequences – Scenic Viewshed LUD

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1

Under the no action alternative, the existing conditions and current management practices for 

recreation resources in the Scenic Viewshed LUD would not change. 

   

Environmental Assessment Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I 23
Alternative 2

In this LUD no activities are proposed; therefore, no change to the existing condition of the 

recreation resources would occur if this alternative was implemented. 

Affected Environment – Timber Production LUD

This LUD encompasses a majority of the watershed, approximately 8,100 acres, and is 

located in the center of the project area. It includes NFS roads: 8510, 8519, 85191, 85192 and 

85193. 

NFS roads 8519 and 8510 run through the middle of the project area. Road 8510 is 

Maintenance Level 3 (ML3) for passenger vehicles for the first 0.5 mile beginning at the 

Kennel Creek Spit. The next 2 miles is ML2 for high clearance vehicles. NFS Road 8519 

travels through the center of the watershed along the southeast side of Kennel Creek for 

approximately 2.5 miles and is ML2. NFS roads 85191, 85192 and 85193 are closed to motor 

vehicle traffic and remain open for hiking and ATV use (USDA 2009c). 

These roads are utilized for a variety of recreation activities including: driving for pleasure, 

viewing scenery and wildlife, and accessing fishing and hunting areas. Kennel Creek is an 

important watershed for the community of Hoonah for these activities. 

The Kennel Creek Spit is a destination for most of the commercial and non-commercial use 

within this watershed. Road-based use within this LUD is low, as the road is maintained for 

high clearance vehicles. Past the Kennel Creek Spit along NFS Road 8510, users encounter a 

higher level of solitude, less traffic and a more remote experience. 

The Kennel Creek trail is approximately 1 mile up NFS Road 8519. It is a 0.25 mile 

primitive trail that leads to Kennel Creek. Currently it receives low use and is maintained for 

fishing access. 

Closed spur road 8510_1.01R travels through a 1964 clear cut (stand 49). The spur road is 

approximately 2 miles long and has a solid base layer that can hold up to repeated hiking 

traffic. Currently the road is a well-traveled game trail. 

Environmental Consequences – Timber Production LUD

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1  

Under the no action alternative, the existing conditions and current management practices for 

recreation resources in the Timber Production LUD would not change. 

Alternative 2  

In Alternative 2, there would be little change to the existing conditions for recreation 

resources within the Timber Production LUD. The proposed wildlife and fisheries projects in 

this LUD are expected to improve wildlife and fisheries habitat and indirectly enhance the 

recreation opportunities for wildlife viewing, fishing, and hunting. The proposed old-growth 

activities are expected to have little or no effect to recreation resources in this LUD. No 

recreation enhancement projects are proposed in this LUD. 

Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I Environmental Assessment 24
Transportation___________________________________________

Introduction

National Forest Transportation System roads are constructed to provide access to National 

Forest System (NFS) lands and are intended to be maintained for the long term. Roads were 

built originally for logging and the associated administration; however, recreation and 

subsistence use also occurs. Road construction in support of logging activities began in the 

1960s. Management of National Forest System roads are designated an operational 

maintenance level (OPML) and an objective maintenance level (OBML). The purpose of 

maintenance levels is to define the level of service provided by, and maintenance required 

for, a specific road or segment. Roads are often built and operated at a higher maintenance 

level during the timber sale or other activities than they are afterwards. 

Transportation in this watershed is managed by the 2009 Hoonah ATM (USDA 2009c). The 

ATM sets the guidelines for activities on all district roads. Roads in the project area include 

8510, 8519, 85191, 851912, 851913, 8517, and 85171 for a total 6.62 miles. The haul route is 

24 miles, from the project area to the sort yard on Forest Roads 8502 and 8508. Roads closed 

to vehicle traffic include the last 0.44 of a mile of 8517, all of 85171, all of 85191, and all of 

851911. Forest Road 85192 and 85193 has been converted to off-highway vehicle (OHV) 

trails. 

All open roads are considered available for public use; whether it is for high clearance 

vehicles or foot travel. 

Affected Environment

The Hoonah ATM defines which roads are open and closed. It also designates the use of 

these roads by different motor vehicles and OHVs. The vast majority of system roads within 

the watershed are stable and in good shape. Non-system roads are generally closed to motor 

vehicles but may be used by hikers and hunters. 

Road Condition Surveys (RCS) have been performed on the road system in the watershed. 

There are approximately 20.9 miles of road (system and non-system), all of which are on 

National Forest System lands. Fifteen and a half miles are currently open to motor vehicle 

use under the Hoonah ATM. According to the RCS data, there are 92 stream crossings along 

these roads, of which 33 have verified fish presence (Class I or II) (Table 8). The majority of 

the structures are metal culverts with some log stringer bridges. The total road density 

average for the watershed is 1.55 mi/mi2. 

Table 8. Road Condition Survey Results for the Kennel Creek Watershed

Total Stream Crossings 92

Total Fish Stream Crossings 33

Red Culverts 5

Gray Culverts 1

Environmental Assessment Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I 25
The effects of roads on water resources vary by the type of road as well as its location in the 

landscape. RCS surveys and subsequent field visits have found moderate OHV use occurring. 

No resource degradation was identified with this use. 

Table 9. Segment lengths and maintenance levels of roads in the project area

Road # Name

Beginning

mile post

Ending mile

post

Segment

length

Maintenance

level

8510 Freshwater

Bay 0.00 0.50 0.50 3

8510 Freshwater

Bay 0.50 10.75 10.25 2

8519 Kennel Creek 0.00 2.40 2.40 2

85191 Kennel Creek 0.00 1.53 1.53 1

851911 Kennel Creek 0.00 0.69 0.69 1

851912 Kennel Creek 0.00 1.70 1.70 Trail

851913 Kennel Creek 0.00 0.88 0.88 Trail

8517 Kennel view 0.00 0.88 0.88 2

8517 Kennel View 0.88 1.32 0.44 1

85171 Pavlof Ridge 0.00 1.39 1.39 2

85171 Pavlof Ridge 1.39 1.50 0.11 1

8515 Pavlof Lake 0.00 3.56 3.56 2

Maintenance Levels:

Level 1 – Closed more than 1 year. Basic custodial maintenance is performed to keep damage to adjacent resources to an

acceptable level and to perpetuate the road to facilitate future management activities.

Level 2 – High‐clearance vehicles. Traffic is normally minor, usually consisting of one or a combination of administrative,

permitted, dispersed recreation, or other specialized uses.

Level 3 – Passenger vehicles; surface not smooth. Roads in this ML are typically low speed, single lane with turnouts and

spot surfacing. Some roads may be fully surfaced with either native or processed material.

The nearest marine access facility is the Fresh Water Bay marine access facility (MAF), 

located on the Kennel Creek Spit. Logs could also be hauled approximately 25 miles to the 

sort yard and MAF at Long Island across from Hoonah. Either MAF could be used to 

facilitate the transport of logs by barge to processing sites. 

No new roads are proposed for construction. Existing roads will be used with some reopened, 

as needed. The majority of system roads within the watershed are stable and in good shape. 

The majority of the structures are metal culverts and some manufactured bridges. When the 

project is completed the roads will be reestablished according to the ATM. 

Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I Environmental Assessment 26
Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1

Under the no action alternative, road maintenance and reconditioning would continue based 

on the OPML assigned to each road. Public access to the project area would remain the same. 

Alternative 2

The roads in the project area are open to private vehicles and get moderate to light use. 

During project activities the risk of encounters with other vehicles/equipment may increase 

and roads may be temporarily blocked to move equipment or for the public’s safety. 

Reconstruction of currently closed NFS roads needed for accessing proposed timber units 

would consist of removing blow down trees, brushing, re-grading of the existing roadbed, 

and clearing road ditch lines and drainage channels. Reconstruction would also involve 

reinstalling culverts at drainage and stream crossings. Stream crossing structures would be 

removed after logging operations are complete and drain ditches would be added to move 

water off of the roadbed. No new roads are proposed. 

Cumulative Effects

During project activities roads may be temporarily blocked to move equipment or due to 

safety considerations. These temporary conditions would not have long-term cumulative 

impacts. 

Timber Resources _________________________________________

Introduction

Timber management uses a variety of silvicultural systems, or planned series of treatments, 

for tending, harvesting, and re-establishing timber stands. Silvicultural system prescriptions 

have been developed to produce more valuable commercial timber at a faster rate, maintain 

wildlife habitat, and either maintain or enhance scenery values. The Forest Plan and Forest 

Service Handbook (FSH 2400) provides detailed information about silviculture systems 

available for use on the Tongass National Forest. 

Affected Environment

The project area contains a mosaic of young and old forests, muskegs, forested muskegs, and 

some alpine areas. Forest vegetation structure, composition, and distribution are largely 

determined by site productivity and soil drainage, as well as natural and human‐caused 

disturbance. The dominant tree species in the watershed is western hemlock. The roadsides 

and riparian areas have a strong component of red alder, which is targeted for riparian 

thinning, to release the conifers. All of these forest types are common on Chichagof Island. 

Ninety-three percent of the project area is within the Timber Production LUD. 

Past timber harvest and thinning

Over 1,422 acres of clearcut timber harvest occurred within the watershed under Forest 

Service management between 1964 and 1993. This represents approximately 17 percent of 

Environmental Assessment Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I 27
the project area. Timber harvest is not evenly distributed throughout the watershed, with 

older harvest areas occurring primarily in valley bottoms and lowlands. 

Table 10. Harvest history within the Kennel Creek Watershed

Year 1964 1977 1981 1983 1987 1991 1992 1993

Acres of Harvest 577 118 352 42 82 123 57 72

Percent of Total Harvest 41 8 25 3 6 9 4 5

Cumulative Harvest Total

(acres) 577 695 1,047 1,089 1,171 1,293 1,350 1,422

At present 1,203 acres, 85 percent, of young-growth stands within the watershed have been 

pre-commercially thinned to improve the growth and yield of timber, to change the species 

mix to favor more profitable species, or to improve wildlife or fish habitats. The remaining 

219 acres of managed stands are currently too young to thin but may be treated at a later 

time. 

Stand 49, harvested in 1964, is the largest managed stand in the project area (577 acres). It 

was precommercially thinned in 1983. Six hundred and twenty-two acres were thinned using 

14’ x 14’ spacing. 18’ by 18’ spacing was used to thin 300 feet on either side of the Kennel 

Creek Trail. A second thinning (249 acres at 18’ by 18’ spacing), which included some 

riparian areas, occurred within the west side of the unit in 2002. Treatments included girdling 

and creating thickets and gaps. 

Between 2003 and the present, approximately 552 acres have been thinned along NFS roads 

8519, 85191, 85192 and 85193 using 16’ x 16’ spacing. Heavy slash in some of these areas 

pose a problem for deer movement and understory development. 

Forest Health and Natural Disturbance

Mistletoe and windthrow disturbance are low in the project area. 

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1  

Under the no action alternative, no new activities would be implemented to accomplish 

IRMP goals and objectives. Stand growth and productivity would not be improved as 

recommended in the objectives for the Timber Production LUD. There would be no 

contribution of timber products to the local industry and this action would not provide 

employment in the forest industry. Tree growth and mortality would continue to progress 

naturally. 

Under the no action alternative, the managed stands proposed for thinning would take longer 

to move to old-growth conditions. The heavy slash would continue to impact wildlife habitat 

values and structural diversity in the previously thinned areas and habitat fragmentation 

would continue. Management in the project area would revert back to individual stand needs, 

possibly without integrated resource collaboration and landscape level consideration. 

Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I Environmental Assessment 28
Alternative 2

In treated managed stands, the action alternative is expected to improve conditions for tree 

growth and yield and increase understory forage species through the use of several 

silvicultural prescriptions. These prescriptions are briefly described below; however, the 

complete prescriptions are located in the project record. 

Old‐growth Harvest

The preferred harvest prescription of old-growth in this alternative is uneven-aged 

management using single-tree selection. This prescription is designed to maintain a portion 

of the original stand structure (up to 60 percent) and harvest trees with the highest economic 

value. The remaining old-growth trees would maintain stand structure and diversity. The 

growth of the younger trees is expected to improve due to reduced tree competition and some 

natural regeneration is expected to occur in the created openings. The harvest of old-growth 

trees helps move the Timber Production LUD toward the desired future conditions by 

providing timber for industry, improving the growth of leave trees, and leaving structural 

diversity for other resources as outlined in the Forest Plan. 

Thinning in the Riparian Management Area (RMA)  

By removing alders around selected conifers, competition for light, space, and nutrients 

would be reduced. The treatment is expected to improve floodplain function by increasing 

bank stability through understory development, restore riparian area vegetation diversity, 

improve downstream water quality and increase the growth rate of young conifers for future 

large woody debris. 

Upland thinning  

Creating gaps and thickets with thinning, and possibly girdling, is expected to move selected 

stands towards old-growth conditions and increase browse and wildlife habitat. These 

treatments would also move the area closer to meeting old-growth timber objectives by 

improving species composition and increasing growth rates. 

Slash Treatment  

Creating 5 foot wide swaths through 100 acres of slash is expected to increase wildlife 

movement. In addition, increased sunlight reaching the forest floor is expected to improve 

herbaceous and shrub growth. 

Cumulative Effects

In summary, the proposed project would have minor cumulative effects on timber resources, 

merely changing the rate managed timber stands move towards old-growth conditions. 

Past activities have contributed to the development of existing roaded infrastructure which 

would be used to implement the action alternative. The previously harvested acres in the 

project area, approximately 1,422, were harvested between 1964 and 1993 and have been 

certified as regenerated, containing species compositions similar to old-growth forests on 

similar sites. In addition, these previously harvested stands are no longer considered openings 

for the purpose of scheduling or locating additional created openings (USDA 2008b p. 4-72). 

Approximately 1,203 acres of the managed stands have been thinned to reduce stocking and 

increase tree growth. Thinning the remaining managed stand acres, approximately 216, is 

planned in the next several years. The cumulative effect of thinning 350 additional acres 

Environmental Assessment Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I 29
would be an increased ability to maintain stand growth and productivity, improve 

windfirmness, and promote understory vegetation growth. 

Currently, there are four areas NEPA-cleared for harvest in the project area by the Dove Tail 

Timber Sale Categorical Exclusion (CE) signed in 2009 (USDA 2009b). This sale authorizes 

30 acres individual tree and group selection, totaling approximately 250 thousand board feet 

of timber. The proposed harvest of an additional 250 acres would allow for more options in 

packaging a timber sale in the Kennel Creek Watershed. 

Soils/Geology____________________________________________

Introduction

Methods for inventorying existing conditions varied, contingent upon personal knowledge of 

the watershed and reliability of data gathered from previous field work and subsequent GIS 

data queries. 

Affected Environment

The geology of this part of Chichagof Island is a mix of carbonate and noncalcareous 

sedimentary rocks with a scattering of volcanic and intrusive igneous rocks. Soils on 

mountain and hill slopes are formed of decomposed bedrock and colluvial material 

(deposited by gravity). Bedrock soils are generally shallow, while colluvial soils are deeper 

and better drained. Soils formed in glacial till occur in patches plastered along mountain and 

hill slopes to elevations of about 1,000 feet. In the valley bottoms, soils have formed in river 

deposits, colluvial material, and marine sediments. The cool, wet climate in the area causes 

organic matter to decompose slowly, creating soils characterized by thick organic surface 

layers. Where drainage is restricted by topography or an impermeable layer, such as bedrock 

or glacial till, peatlands composed entirely of organic matter are common. In coarse alluvium 

(gravels and cobbles) the soils are well‐drained and support forests. Where the alluvium is 

finer and restricts drainage, nonforested vegetation communities such as fens and bogs form. 

Tree root depth is shallow, primarily in the nutrient‐rich organic layers and the first few 

inches of the mineral layers. Typically the root zone is moist, acidic, and contains most of the 

nutrients available for plant growth (Heilman and Gass 1972). 

Detrimental Soil Conditions

Less than one percent of the soils in the watershed have been disturbed by past activities 

(Table 11). 

Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I Environmental Assessment 30
Table 11. Summary of Existing Soil Disturbance in the Kennel Creek Watershed

Cause of Disturbance

Acres of Detrimental

Disturbance Percent of the Watershed

Timber Harvest 57 0.7

Temporary Roads1 10 0.1

Landslides 13 0.1

Total Detrimental Disturbance 80 0.9

Source: GIS coverage of existing roads, managed stands and landslides used as project area acreage. 1

This includes about 0.4 miles of existing unauthorized road accessing rock pits. All other temporary road was

decommissioned.

Soil Stability

No in‐depth landslide inventory was completed for this assessment. Current GIS data along 

with the 2009 Hoonah ATM indicates two of the seven landslides listed in the watershed are 

associated with closed roads 851911 and OHV trail 85192 in the Kennel Creek watershed 

totaling 2.2 acres. The ATM also indicated there was slumping of NFS road 85191 but this 

was not listed as a landslide. Aerial reconnaissance in 2009 prior to the field inventory 

observed that there were no recent landslides. The watershed appears to be stable. 

Highlights: 

 None of the young growth stands have more than 15 percent detrimental soil 

conditions (compacted areas, temp roads, displaced soils) 

 The watershed appears to be rather stable, evidenced by few landslides 

 Nearly all of the past harvest has occurred on uplands. See Table 12 for a summary of 

wetlands in the project area. 

Environmental Consequences

The following discusses the proposed activities and their risks and benefits to the soil 

resources. 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1

The proposed actions would not be implemented and existing conditions would remain the 

same. No direct or indirect effects are expected with implementation of Alternative 1. 

Alternative 2

Old‐growth Timber Harvest

Selection harvest is proposed on 250 acres. Shovel yarding would be used for the majority of 

the proposed harvest units; however, if feasible, helicopter yarding may occur within 

approximately 80 acres of the proposed 250 acres. No new roads are proposed. 

Shovel yarding can cause detrimental soil puddling and compaction and lead to soil erosion. 

Soil quality monitoring on the Tongass has shown that helicopter yarding (falling 

disturbance) generally results in less than 1 percent soil disturbance (Landwehr and Nowacki 

Environmental Assessment Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I 31
1999). If BMP 13.9 is followed shovel yarding results in less than 5 percent soil disturbance 

(Landwehr and Nowacki 1999). In recent years shovel yarding has been approved on slopes 

up to 35 percent gradient, which is steeper than the 25 percent gradient guideline in BMP 

13.9 (FSH 2509.22). Initial monitoring of soil disturbance from mechanized gap creation on 

steeper slopes indicates that soil disturbance from mechanized gap creation increased with 

increasing slope (Landwehr and Silkworth 2011). All soil disturbance monitoring to date 

indicates that shovel yarding and helicopter yarding can result in soil conditions that meet 

Region 10 Soil Quality Standards if BMP 13.9 is applied. 

Using the data from Landwehr and Nowacki (1999) the 250 acres of selection harvest of oldgrowth timber will create about 12.5 acres of soil disturbance if shovel yarded, and about 

11.5 acres of disturbance if 80 of the 250 acres are helicopter yarded. All stands will meet 

soil quality standards following treatments. 

Not all soil disturbances are detrimental to soil productivity. The Tongass National Forest is 

currently undertaking a four year retrospective study to better define soil conditions that are 

detrimental to tree growth. Many of the small soil disturbances documented in previous 

monitoring efforts do not appear to affect tree growth. Therefore, the estimates used in this 

report are likely to be overestimates of detrimental soil conditions. 

Harvest on steep slopes

Minor areas of slopes over 72 percent gradients occur in and immediately adjacent to the 

proposed old-growth timber harvest stands. The slopes over 72 percent gradients would be 

avoided when selecting trees to harvest. Timber harvest is not proposed on slopes over 72 

percent gradient in this project. 

Young‐growth Treatments

Proposed young-growth treatments include: riparian thinning, slash treatment, and upland 

thinning. Most of the young-growth treatments would be accomplished with chainsaws. 

Thinning by hand with chainsaws generally results in negligible soil disturbance. 

The proposed slash treatment involves cutting 5 foot wide travel corridors through the slash 

in the lower portions of four stands totaling about 100 acres. The slash will be either 

scattered or piled. All work will be done by hand and will have negligible effects to the soil 

resource. 

Ground-based machinery may be used for thinning on approximately 200 acres in the eastern 

portion of stand 49. This area has slopes less than 35 percent gradient and mostly well 

drained soils. Soil disturbance monitoring indicates that the resulting soil disturbance from 

mechanical thinning will be less than 4 percent of the treated area (Landwehr and Silkworth 

2011). This level of soil disturbance is within soil quality standards. 

In young-growth stands prior harvest activities have caused some detrimental soil conditions 

(Table 11). By definition detrimental soil conditions are long-term. Stand 49 was originally 

logged using a combination of caterpillar tractors and downhill cable logging. The Tongass is 

currently assessing detrimental soil conditions in many older young-growth stands. In tractor 

logged stands detrimental soil conditions average about 7 percent of the stand. In cable 

logged stands the detrimental soil conditions average 2 percent of the stand (D. Landwehr 

personal communication 2011). When this historic soil disturbance is combined with the 

anticipated soil disturbance from the proposed activity about 11 percent of the stand would 

Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I Environmental Assessment 32
have soil disturbance. The Region 10 Soil Quality Standard requires that 85 percent of a 

stand be maintained in a condition of acceptable productivity. It is likely that the proposed 

mechanical thinning would use the skid trails established with the original harvest. Therefore 

the cumulative effects to the soil resource would not necessarily be as high as estimated. 

BMP 13.9 applies to ground-based timber harvest and shall be followed for the proposed 

thinning with ground-based equipment. 

Large wood placement

While placing large wood in the stream does not change soil quality, the mechanism of 

delivery can. Alternative 2 proposes placing two to four whole trees with rootwads attached 

within the active stream channel to act as key pieces of wood or as anchors. Five to ten 

surplus logs from dismantled log stringer bridges would be placed onto the upstream side of 

each whole tree, creating a log jam. Trees and logs would be placed by an excavator or log 

shovel tracked machine. An old road crossing is located at the bottom of the treatment reach. 

The reach to be treated is less than 300 meters long. Activities would occur during low flow 

periods. No excavation or digging into the stream channel or stream bank would occur and 

soil disturbance is expected to be minimal at the site of placement. Soil disturbance in 

floodplains and active alluvial areas is a natural occurrence and soil disturbances in these 

areas tend to become vegetated very quickly due to the high productivity of the site and 

abundance of seed available from fast growing pioneer plants like salmonberry and alder 

found in these areas. Although salmonberry and alder are not the desired future condition for 

vegetation in these areas, the streambanks need to be stable before long-lived conifers can 

become established. 

To minimize soil disturbance in these areas it is important to chose equipment paths and, 

where appropriate, have equipment operate on a slash mat. The activity should be done 

during period of low water and low rainfall. 

Summary of Effects

Based on the above analysis, the amount of soil disturbance would increase as a result of 

selection timber harvest in old-growth stands on 250 acres and in portions of a young-growth 

stand where thinning with ground-based equipment is proposed. The excavator placing large 

wood in Kennel Creek would also cause some soil disturbance. Following BMPs, and 

especially using slash under the equipment where possible, will minimize the potential for 

soil disturbance and compaction in these areas. Prior experience with large wood placement 

with excavators on the Harris River on Prince of Wales Island indicate that disturbed soil will 

achieve soil cover and revegetate quickly in these fluvial areas. 

The analysis above indicates that all proposed activities will result in soil conditions that 

meet soil quality standards. 

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1

Because there will be no direct or indirect effects there will be no cumulative effects. 

   

Environmental Assessment Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I 33
Alternative 2  

Cumulative effects to the soil resource at the stand scale typically occur when a stand is 

entered for a second treatment. Cumulative effects would occur in young-growth stand 49 

where mechanized thinning is proposed (eastern portion) and where large wood placement is 

proposed in Kennel Creek (southern lobe of stand 49). The amount of detrimental soil 

conditions within stand 49 are expected to increase as a result of the proposed activities. In 

all cases the effects will be within the soil quality standards especially if BMP 13.9 is 

followed for mechanized thinning. The placement of large wood to help stabilize stream 

banks will result in soil disturbance in the short-term but help achieve long-term soil stability 

and vegetation desired future conditions. 

Wetlands________________________________________________

Introduction

Methods for inventorying existing conditions varied, contingent upon personal knowledge of 

the watershed and reliability of data gathered from previous field work and subsequent GIS 

data queries. 

Affected Environment

The Kennel Creek watershed is about 8,616 acres with about 1,422 acres of existing harvest. 

Three stands (stand 218000171, 217003500, 218003500) cross the HUC 5 boundary that is 

the Kennel project area. The entire stand was included in this analysis, not just the portions 

inside the watershed boundary. The roads connecting these stands to the road system through 

Kennel are also included even though they are outside of the watershed boundary as well. 

Nearly all of the past harvest has been on slopes less than 55 percent (Table 12). Very little 

harvest has occurred on slopes over 72 percent gradient. 

Kennel Creek Watershed Wetlands

The Kennel Creek Watershed is mostly uplands with about 30 percent wetlands. Wetlands in 

the project area include: forested wetland, forested wetland-muskeg complexes, estuaries, 

and open short sedge fens. The complexes of upland and wetland are: a complex of forested 

uplands and forested wetlands and subalpine wetland and upland forested complexes. 

The units cleared in the Dove Tail Timber Sale CE (USDA 2009b) have about 2 acres of 

forested wetland within the four proposed harvest areas. These units have not yet been 

harvested. 

Most of the harvest has occurred on uplands with very little on forested wetlands (Table 12). 

Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I Environmental Assessment 34
Table 12. Wetlands in the Kennel Creek project area and in young growth stands

Chatham Area

Soil Mapping

Project area             

(8,540 acres)

Young growth stands

(1,422 acres)

Dove Tail Timber Sale

area (30 acres)

Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres

Wetland 1,196 14% 43 3% 2

Mix upland and

wetland 1,964 23% 28 2% 0

Upland 5,380 63% 1,351 95% 28

Most of the road has been built on uplands, with about 30 percent built on forested wetlands 

and scrub wetlands (Table 13). Roads were built on the gentle slopes on the valley bottom of 

Kennel Creek watershed, where wetlands are more likely to occur. 

Table 13. Miles of road type and impacts to wetland in Kennel Creek Watershed

Road Type Wetland (miles)

Mix upland and

wetland (miles) Upland (miles)

FS Roads 4.9 0.5 10.1

Decommissioned Temporary

Road 0.4 1.7

OHV trail 1.2 1.5

Tambling Foot trail 0.3

Total 7 0.5 13.6

Environmental Consequences

There are various risk levels with implementation of all activities. The following discusses 

the activities and their risks and benefits to the wetlands resources. 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1

The proposed actions would not be implemented and existing conditions would remain the 

same. No direct or indirect effects are expected with implementation of alternative one. 

Alternative 2

The effects to wetlands from hand treatment or timber harvest are temporary and short-term 

(see discussion below). The proposed activities would harvest timber from about 58 acres of 

wetland (Table 14) and perform hand work in some forest wetlands. 

Selection harvest is proposed on 250 acres. Shovel yarding will be used for the majority of 

the proposed harvest units, however if feasible helicopter yarding may occur within 

approximately 80 acres of the proposed 250 acres. Of these, shovel harvest has the largest 

impact on wetlands. Methods to minimize the impact of shovel on wetlands similar to those 

used to minimize detrimental soil disturbance in BMP 13.9 (FSH 2509.22). Generally, a 

slash mattress is required to support the weight of the shovel as indicated in BMP 13.9. 

Environmental Assessment Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I 35
Old-growth units 1, 3 and 4 all have forested wetlands. Unit 4 is dominantly wetland and 

there are large areas of non forested wetland in the proposed treatment unit. 

Two stands (stands 3000 and 162 of compartment 21700) have wetlands or wetland mosaic 

in them. The southern end of stand 3000 has forested upland/forested wetland mix. The 

southern end of stand 162 is forested wetland. All work in these two stands would be done by 

hand and would have a negligible effect to the wetland resource. 

Timber harvest is proposed in wetlands (Table 14). Harvest activities are expected to have a 

minor and short-term effect on wetland soil moisture. Removal of the timber would lead to a 

short-term increase in soil saturation until young growth establishes evapotranspiration rates 

similar to preharvest conditions—about 30 years (Jones 2000). All sites are expected to 

regenerate naturally. Effects on soil moisture would likely be less in areas where partial 

cutting is utilized. The proposed harvest would not pose a long-term negative impact to 

wetlands in the project area. 

Table 14. Wetlands in the Proposed Old‐growth Treatment areas.

Chatham Area Soil Mapping Proposed old‐growth harvest (250 acres)

Acres Percent

Wetland 58 23%

Upland 192 77%

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1

Because there will be no direct or indirect effects there will be no cumulative effects. 

Alternative 2

Since the effects to wetlands by timber harvest are temporary, there are not any cumulative 

effects outside the proposed treatments. 

Wildlife_________________________________________________

Introduction

This section discusses the effects to wildlife for the no action alternative and the proposed 

action (Alternative 2). The complete report on effects to all TES and MIS are located in the 

Kennel Creek project record. 

The Kennel Creek IRMP Assessment (USDA 2010a), describes the existing conditions in the 

Kennel Creek drainage, reviews the need for changes to those existing conditions, and 

includes potential actions to implement those changes. Methods for inventorying existing 

conditions varied, contingent upon personal knowledge of the watershed and reliability of 

data gathered from previous field work and subsequent GIS data queries. 

Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I Environmental Assessment 36
Affected Environment

Conversion of old-growth winter range habitat to a young-growth condition, and the 

subsequent loss of available forage has been identified as a concern for the Kennel Creek 

IRMP project area. The Kennel Creek IRMP Assessment (USDA 2010a), and past surveys 

identified a lack of browse and heavy slash in young-growth stands within the Kennel Creek 

watershed. Roughly 697 acres of winter range (south facing; less than 800 feet elevation) is 

altered by management practices. The largest stand, 577 acres (Figure 2) had 250 acres 

treated in 2002 using gaps, thickets, girdling and thinning. This treated area is showing signs 

of habitat complexity associated with old-growth forests; however, the stand is still too 

young to provide winter refuge. 

Threatened, Endangered, or Proposed

No threatened, endangered or proposed species occur within the Kennel Creek project area. 

Management Indicator Species

The Forest Service uses Management Indicator Species (MIS) to assess the impacts of 

proposed actions to the wildlife resource. The 2008 Forest Plan identifies 13 wildlife MIS, 9 

of which are found on Chichagof Island and in the project area: Sitka black-tailed deer, river 

otter, American marten, bald eagle, red-breasted sapsucker, hairy woodpecker, brown creeper 

and the Vancouver Canada goose. 

Productive old growth habitat provides the highly important habitats and the prevalence of 

the moderately important habitats for most of the MIS. Only pertinent species are discussed 

below: Sitka black-tailed deer, bald eagle and brown bear. 

MIS: Sitka Black‐tailed Deer Habitat

High-volume old-growth forests provide the primary winter habitat for deer in southeast 

Alaska. Young-growth forests may provide some level of snow-shedding capability, but 

provide very little winter forage during the stem exclusion phase of stand development which 

may last for up to 150 years post-harvest (Alaback 1982). Young-growth provides very little 

winter forage, especially during the stem exclusion phase of stand development. The 

availability of digestible energy is potentially the greatest nutritional limiting factor for 

black-tailed deer in Alaska (Parker et al. 1999). Providing habitat for deer during winters 

with deep snow is important for deer survival (Doerr et al. 2005). 

MIS: Bald Eagle Habitat

Eagles depend on old-growth trees typically around 97 feet tall and a breast height diameter 

of 47 inches for nesting (Anthony et al. 1982). The Tongass GIS database shows one historic 

bald eagle nest within the project area. It was located on the north side of the 1987 harvest 

unit (stand ID: 217001000). Site visits by district personnel in 2008, in relation to the Dove 

Tail Timber Sale (USDA 2009b), failed to locate this nest or any new nests within the project 

area. The historic nest is more than 330 feet from the proposed work area and no new eagle 

nests have been identified. 

MIS: Bear Habitat

Riparian areas provide shelter and are important to bears, especially sows with cubs (Flynn et 

al. 2007). The majority of the riparian area of Kennel Creek is functioning properly and bears 

are seen in abundance throughout. Only the riparian portion located along stand 49 is 

Environmental Assessment Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I 37
impacted, with the most heavily-impacted section located at the historic road crossing into 

this unit. The east side of stand 49 is entering the stem exclusion stage, with little to no 

understory present, while the west side (previously treated) is showing signs of improvement, 

multi-layered canopy and areas of good forage. Younger stands that have been thinned, 

contain heavy slash inhibiting movement and fragmenting the watershed. 

Sensitive Species: Goshawk Habitat

The Queen Charlotte goshawk is the only sensitive species that has been identified within the 

project area. However, goshawks have not been sighted in this watershed since the early 

1990s. The Queen Charlotte goshawk is recognized as a distinct subspecies of the northern 

goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) that occurs only in coastal areas of British Columbia and in 

Southeast Alaska. For a complete description of goshawk habitat and life history 

requirements see the Forest Plan FEIS (USDA 2008c, p. 3-226). 

Due to the current condition of the habitat within the project area, it is unlikely goshawks are 

present. The Tongass National Forest GIS and NRIS database shows no goshawk nests 

within or near the project area. Surveys conducted in 2008, in association with the Dove Tail 

Timber Sale (USDA 2009b), did not detect any goshawks or nests. Broadcast surveys in 

spring 2010 and 2011 failed to locate goshawks within the proposed activity area. Productive 

old-growth habitat is limited within the watershed and with lack of recent sightings it is 

possible goshawks are avoiding this area. Goshawks prefer old-growth forest with closed 

canopy, typically less than 800 feet in elevation and gentle slopes (USDA 1996). Over 600 

acres of preferred habitat (south facing; less than 800 feet elevation) has been impacted by 

management practices. Restoration activities in 2002 on approximately 250 acres within the 

1964 harvest unit has accelerated recovery of some of this preferred habitat, but 350 acres of 

young-growth remain untreated. An additional 725 acres of habitat has been harvested, 

causing a reduction in foraging habitat. Much of this habitat is too young to treat. 

Environmental Consequences

The following information summarizes the direct, indirect and cumulative effects of both 

alternatives to wildlife in the Kennel project area. 

Direct and Indirect Effects – Bald Eagles

Alternative 1  

In the no action alternative, the proposed activities would not be implemented. Riparian 

conditions near the 1964 harvest unit would continue to lack dominant conifers used for 

nesting. Because there are currently no known eagle nests within the project area there would 

be no direct effects to bald eagles, there may be a slight indirect effect due to a lack of large 

old-growth conifers, but the small scale of degraded habitat makes indirect effects to bald 

eagles unlikely. The abundance of high quality coastal shoreline habitat, located 500 meters 

from the project area, makes it unlikely eagles would show preference towards this habitat 

for nesting, further reducing the likelihood of indirect effects. 

Alternative 2

The proposed action could displace some eagles foraging for salmon during implementation 

of large wood placement and riparian thinning projects; however these activities will be 

small in scale and short in duration. Effects to bald eagles within the VCU would be 

Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I Environmental Assessment 38
negligible. Performing these two projects during low flow periods and when salmon are not 

present would further reduce the likelihood of effects to bald eagles. Riparian thinning would 

slightly benefit eagles in the long-term by improving up to 19 acres of riparian habitat. 

Upland restoration activities and selection harvest would be short in duration, site specific 

and benefit eagles in the long-term with improvements to 250 acres of habitat. No negative 

direct or indirect effects to eagles are expected by implementing the proposed actions. 

Cumulative Effects – Bald Eagles

Alternative 1

Cumulative effects are unlikely because of the small scale of the degraded habitat, the lack of 

direct effects, the unlikelihood of indirect effects, the recovery of previously impacted 

habitat, and the absence of ongoing or future riparian harvest activities. 

Alternative 2

Because there are no negative direct or indirect effects there will be no negative cumulative 

effects. There will be beneficial effects to bald eagles by moving the stands towards old 

growth conditions. 

Direct and Indirect Effects – Sitka Black‐tailed Deer

Alternative 1

The proposed activities would not be implemented, and existing conditions would continue. 

By not implementing the proposed action, over 250 acres of densely stocked young growth 

stands may take up to 100 years to develop an understory (Alaback 1982). Over a hundred 

total acres of young stands will continue to impede movement, from heavy slash, allowing 

habitat fragmentation to continue. Because existing conditions will continue, there will be 

some direct and indirect effects to individual deer as they continue to avoid locations of poor 

browse and heavy slash, however due to the abundance of habitat surrounding these stands, 

direct and indirect effects to the population of deer as a whole are expected to be negligible. 

Alternative 2

Some displacement of individual deer during project activities is possible during project 

activities but because of the wide valley and abundance of habitat surrounding project 

locations, especially summer habitat, effects to deer within this VCU will be negligible. 

Many deer utilize areas of high elevation in the summer and may leave the project area. 

Wildlife treatments will improve deer habitat in the short-term by decreasing the timeframe 

of browse development to 5-10 years, thereby increasing carrying capacity of the system. 

Treatments completed in 2002, on the west side of the 1964 harvest unit, are already showing 

signs of complexity, with multilayered canopy and development of browse in many of the 

gaps, and abundant signs of deer use. Treating the east side of this stand (250 acres) will 

allow understory development within 5-10 years as observed in the west side of the unit. In 

addition, a total of 100 acres of young growth containing heavy slash will be treated to create 

travel corridors which will increase habitat connectivity immediately and potentially browse 

within 5-10 years. The proposed selection harvest will not significantly alter habitat and will 

potentially allow for some increase in browse as well. Implementing Alternative 2 will have 

beneficial direct and indirect effects to deer. 

Environmental Assessment Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I 39
Cumulative Effects – Sitka Black‐tailed Deer

Alternative 1

Cumulative effects from implementing Alternative 1 are expected to be negligible because 

direct and indirect effects are negligible and ongoing sales associated with the Dove Tail 

Timber Sale (2009) will not significantly alter habitat, and no additional projects are 

anticipated in the near future. 

Alternative 2

Cumulative effects are expected to be positive due to the past wildlife habitat treatments. 

Negative cumulative effects are not expected because harvest from the Dove Tail Timber 

Sale (USDA 2009b) are selective and small in scope and scale, not significantly altering 

habitat and no additional activities are planned within this watershed. The increase in light 

from selection harvest may encourage growth of browse further benefitting deer. 

Direct and Indirect Effects ‐ Subsistence

Consistent with section 810 of ANILCA, this project was evaluated to determine potential 

effects on subsistence opportunities and resources. 

Alternative 1

Because there would be no change in access to and competition for subsistence resources, the 

no action alternative would not result in a significant possibility of a restriction of subsistence 

use of wildlife, fish, or other resources. Therefore, there would not be any negative direct or 

indirect effects on the access to, and competition for subsistence resources. There will be no 

direct and indirect effects to subsistence resources, but there will be no beneficial direct or 

indirect effects either. See Sitka black-tail deer in the previous section. 

Alternative 2

Because there would be no change in access to and competition for subsistence resources, the 

proposed action would not result in a significant possibility of a restriction of subsistence use 

of wildlife, fish, or other resources. Therefore, there would not be any negative direct or 

indirect effects on the access to, and competition for subsistence resources. Alternative 2 has 

both positive direct and indirect effects to subsistence. The positive impact of the young 

growth treatments on deer winter condition should increase carrying capacity, and the 

distribution and abundance of deer. 

Cumulative Effects ‐ Subsistence

Alternative 1

Cumulative effects are expected to be negligible as ongoing activities associated with the 

Dove Tail Timber Sale (USDA 2009b) will not significantly alter habitat, and no additional 

projects are scheduled within the project area. 

Alternative 2

Since there are no negative direct and indirect effects, there would be no negative cumulative 

effects to subsistence activities. Due to the positive results of past restoration activities 

beneficial cumulative effects are expected with implementation of the proposed actions. 

Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I Environmental Assessment 40
Direct and Indirect Effects ‐ Brown Bear

Alternative 1

The proposed activities would not be implemented and existing conditions would continue. 

Development of habitat complexity seen in old-growth forests would take longer. It may take 

up to 100 years for shrubs and forbs to return (Alaback 1982). The densely stocked young 

growth stands will continue to provide poor herbaceous shrubs and forbs, and younger stands 

with heavy slash will continue to impede bear movement allowing habitat fragmentation to 

continue. Because existing conditions will continue, there will be some direct and indirect 

effects to individual bears as they continue to avoid locations of poor browse and heavy 

slash; however, due to the abundance of habitat surrounding these stands direct and indirect 

effects to the population of bear as a whole are expected to be negligible. 

Alternative 2

Some displacement of bears feeding on salmon during project activities is possible; however, 

due to instream timing restrictions along with the wide valley, effects to bears within this 

VCU will be negligible. Wildlife treatments will improve brown bear habitat within selected 

units by decreasing the timeframe of browse development, potentially decreasing time of 

development by as much as 60 years. Treatments in 2001 along the west side of harvest unit 

49 are already showing signs of complexity, with multilayered canopy and development of 

browse in many of the gaps. Treating the east side of this stand (250 acres) will allow 

understory development within 5-10 years as observed in the west side of the unit. Slash 

treatments on 100 acres of young stands will increase habitat connectivity and improve 

migration throughout the watershed. If commercial salvaging of thinned trees is performed, 

machinery will use existing road (currently closed) to extract timber. Selection harvest will 

not significantly alter habitat and potentially allow for an increase in browse. 

Human/bear interactions are possible anytime during implementation of the proposed action 

but potential is low. Typically, brown bears avoid interactions with people unless defending a 

kill, or if a sow has cubs in the area. The associated roads used with log haul on this project 

are open to private vehicles and get moderate to light use. These projects will result in 

beneficial direct and indirect effects to bears. 

Cumulative Effects – Brown Bear

Alternative 1

Ongoing sales associated with the Dove Tail Timber Sale (USDA 2009b) will not 

significantly alter habitat. Cumulative effects from implementing Alternative 1 are expected 

to be negligible. 

Alternative 2

Cumulative effects are expected to be positive due to past habitat improvement projects and 

the potential for increase in browse associated with the Dove Tail Timber Sale (USDA 

2009b). 

Environmental Assessment Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I 41
Direct and Indirect Effects – Sensitive Species – Goshawks

Alternative 1

The proposed activities would not be implemented and existing conditions would continue. 

By choosing the no action alternative, managed stands could take 60 years or more to recover 

to preferred old-growth habitat and goshawk habitat will continue to be limited as well as 

fragmented in this watershed. It is likely goshawks are avoiding this area due to insufficient 

habitat conditions, as goshawks have not been sighted in this watershed, since the 1990s. 

Because there are no known goshawks within the watershed no direct effects to goshawks are 

expected, however nesting habitat as well as some foraging habitat will continue to be 

limited, so slight indirect effects to individual goshawks are possible as goshawks will 

continue to avoid this location until habitat is recovered. 

Alternative 2

The activities proposed for this project will improve goshawk habitat in the long term by 

enhancing over 350 acres of foraging habitat and accelerating stand recovery towards oldgrowth characteristics necessary for breeding. Wildlife treatments may accelerate recovery of 

foraging habitat by as much as 60 years. 2001 treatments in the west side of harvest unit 49 

are already showing signs of complexity with multilayered canopy and development of 

browse in many of the gaps. Treating the east side of this stand (250 acres) will allow 

understory development within 5-10 years as observed in the west side of the unit. Because 

this project will not alter or reduce productive old-growth habitat, there will be no negative 

direct or indirect effects to goshawks. Because there are no known goshawks present within 

the project area, there will be no direct effects, however beneficial indirect effects are 

expected with implementation of the proposed actions. 

Cumulative Effects – Sensitive Species – Goshawks

Alternative 1

Past restoration activities have improved portions of this watershed and have no doubt 

decreased the time frame for recovery. Ongoing sales associated with the Dove Tail Timber 

Sale (USDA 2009b) would not significantly alter habitat. Cumulative effects from 

implementing Alternative 1 are expected to be negligible. 

Alternative 2

Combined with past enhancement activities, beneficial cumulative effects are expected with 

implementation of the proposed action. Negative cumulative effects are not expected with 

this project because the proposed activities along with ongoing activities from the Dove Tail 

Timber Sale will occur in habitat that is low in value to goshawks. The Dove Tail Timber 

Sale is selective, small in scope and scale, and is not expected to significantly alter the 

existing habitat. Wildlife treatments listed above will improve upon existing conditions of 

past managed stands within this watershed, further minimizing negative cumulative effects 

from implementing the proposed action. 

Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I Environmental Assessment 42
References and Lists

List of Preparers__________________________________________

The following is a list of contributors to the Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I 

Environmental Assessment. Other Forest Service employees contributed to the completion of 

this document through their greatly appreciated assistance in support functions. 

Interdisciplinary Team Members

Tim Hazlewood – Forestry Technician /Team Leader 

Jon Hyde – Biologist (Fisheries and Wildlife) 

Terry Fiske – Forester 

Jackie Foss – Soil Scientist 

Jay Kinsman – Archeologist 

Brad Krieckhaus – Biologist (Plants) 

Geno Cisneros – Recreation Technician 

Marina Whitacre – Writer-Editor 

Distribution List___________________________________________

A copy of the Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I EA or letter with a link to the 

online copy was sent to the following parties. These parties either expressed interest in a 

similar project in the past, commented on the project, requested a copy of the EA during the 

scoping or at some other time during the NEPA process, or are part of the Tongass National 

Forest mandatory mailing list (Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Sections 23.2 and 63.1). 

Agencies

State of Alaska, Department of 

Environmental Conservation, Division of 

Water 

State of Alaska, Department of Fish and 

Game (Division of Habitat; Fish and 

Game Advisory Committee; 

State of Alaska, Department of Natural 

Resources (Commissioner’s Office; 

Division of Coastal and Ocean 

Management; Division of Forestry; 

Division of Mining, Land and Water; 

Office of Project Management and 

Permitting) 

State of Alaska, Department of Public 

Safety, Fish and Wildlife Protection 

Division 

State of Alaska, Department of 

Transportation and Public Facilities 

US Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation 

US Army Corps of Engineers, Juneau 

Regulatory Field Office 

US Army Corps of Engineers, Pacific 

Ocean Division 

US Army Corps of Engineers, Sitka Field 

Office 

US Army Engineer District 

Environmental Assessment Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I 43
US Coast Guard, Environmental 

Management 

US Department of Commerce, NOAA, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Habitat 

Conservation Division 

US Department of Commerce, NOAA, 

Office of Policy and Strategic Planning 

US Department of Commerce, NOAA, 

Protected Resources Management 

Division 

US Department of Energy, Office of 

NEPA Policy and Compliance 

US Department of Transportation, Federal 

Aviation Administration 

US Department of Transportation, Federal 

Highway Administration 

US Environmental Protection Agency 

USDA Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service (APHIS), Policy and 

Program Development (PPD) and 

Environmental Analysis Development 

(EAD) 

USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region 

USDA Forest Service, Chugach National 

Forest 

USDA Forest Service, National Director 

of Ecosystem Management Coordination 

USDA Forest Service, Tongass National 

Forest (Admiralty National Monument; 

Juneau Ranger District; Petersburg Ranger 

District; Wrangell Ranger District; 

USDA Forest Service, Tongass National 

Forest, Supervisor’s Office 

USDA National Resource Conservation 

Service 

USDA Office of Civil Rights 

USDI Bureau of Land Management, BLM 

Alaska State Office 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 

USDI National Park Service, Alaska Area 

Region 

USDI Office of Environmental Policy and 

Compliance

Libraries

Craig Public Library 

Haines Public Library 

Hollis Public Library 

Hyder Public Library 

Kake Public Library 

Kasaan Community Library 

Ketchikan Public Library 

Kettleson Memorial Library 

Pelican Public Library 

Petersburg Public Library 

Tenakee Springs Public Library 

Thorne Bay Community Library 

USDA National Agricultural Library 

Wrangell Public Library 

Organizations and Businesses

Alaska Forest Products 

Alaska Rainforest Campaign 

C.A.R.E. 

Cascadia Wildlands Project 

Center for Biological Diversity 

D & L Woodworks 

Earth Justice 

Greenpeace 

Hoonah Indian Association 

Huna Totem Corporation 

Icy Straits Lumber and Milling Inc. 

Little Wood Products 

Resource Development Council of Alaska 

Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I Environmental Assessment 44
Sealaska Corporation 

Sierra Club, Alaska Chapter 

Sitka Conservation Society 

Southeast Alaska Conservation Council 

(SEACC) 

The Nature Conservancy 

Tongass Conservation Society 

Whitehorse Logging Company 

Wilderness Society, Alaska Chapter

Public Officials and Offices

Bert Stedman, Alaska State Senator 

City of Angoon, Mayor 

City of Gustavus, Mayor 

City of Hoonah, Mayor 

City of Pelican, Mayor 

City of Tenakee Springs, Mayor 

Don Young, United States Congressman 

Elfin Cove Community Council 

Ketchikan Gateway Borough 

Lisa Murkowski, United States Senator 

Mark Begich, United States Senator 

Tribal Governments / Officials

Central Council Tlingit-Haida Indian 

Tribes of Alaska 

Hoonah Indian Association 

Individuals

Barney Johnson 

David Pluard 

Gordon Chew 

Steve Lewis 

Vince Schafer 

References_______________________________________________

Alaback, P.B. 1982. Dynamics of understory biomass in Sitka spruce-western hemlock 

forests of southeast Alaska. Ecology. 63: 1932-1948. 

Anthony, R.G., R.L. Knight, G.T. Allen, B.R. McClelland, J.I. Hodges. 1982. Habitat use by 

nesting and roosting bald eagles in the Pacific Northwest. K. Sabol (editor). 

Transactions of the forty-seventh North American Wildlife and Natural Resources 

Conference: 331-342. 

Doerr, J. G., E.J. Degayner, G. Ith. 2005. Winter habitat selection by Sitka black-tailed deer. 

Journal of Wildlife Management. 69(1): 322-331. 

Flynn, R.W., S.B. Lewis, L.R. Beier, G.W. Pendleton. 2007. Brown bear use of riparian and 

beach zones on Northeast Chichagof Island: Implications for streamside management 

in coastal Alaska. Wildlife Research Final Report. Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game, Southeast Regional Office. 

Heilman, P.E. and C.R. Gass. 1972. Parent materials and chemical properties of mineral soils 

in Southeast Alaska. Soil Science. 117(1): 21-27. 

Jones, J.A. 2000. Hydrologic processes and peak discharge response to forest removal, 

regrowth, and roads in 10 small experimental basins, western Cascades, Oregon. 

Water Resources Research. 36(9): 2621-2642. 

Environmental Assessment Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I 45
Landwehr, D.J. and D. Silkworth. 2011. Unpublished. Soil Quality on the Tongass National 

Forest. Results of compaction studies conducted on the experimental thinnings at 

Naukati and Maybeso. 

Landwehr, D.J. and G. Nowacki. 1999. Unpublished. Statistical review of soil disturbance 

transect data collected on the Ketchikan Area, Tongass National Forest. Ketchikan, 

AK: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 

Parker, K.L., M.P. Gillingham, T.A. Hanley, C.T. Robbins. 1999. Energy and protein balance 

of free-ranging black-tailed deer in a natural forest environment. Wildlife 

Monograph. 143:1-48. 

USDA Forest Service. 2010a. Unpublished. Kennel Creek Watershed Integrated Resource 

Management Plan (IRMP) Assessment. Hoonah, AK: US Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Tongass National Forest, Hoonah Ranger District. 

USDA Forest Service. 2010b. Third amended Programmatic Agreement among the USDA 

Forest Service, Alaska Region, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and 

the Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer regarding Heritage Program 

Management on National Forests in the State of Alaska. Manuscript on file in Sitka, 

AK: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tongass National Forest, Sitka 

Ranger District. 

USDA Forest Service. 2009a. 2009 Forest Service Alaska Region sensitive species list. 

Assessment and proposed revisions to the 2002 list. 47 p. 

USDA Forest Service. 2009b. Dove Tail Timber Sale Categorical Exclusion. Hoonah, AK: 

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tongass National Forest, Hoonah 

Ranger District. 

USDA Forest Service. 2009c. Hoonah Ranger District Access and Travel Management Plan 

Environmental Assessment. Hoonah, AK: US Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Tongass National Forest, Hoonah Ranger District. 

USDA Forest Service. 2009d. Unpublished. Kennel and Pavlof Watershed Inventory and 

Assessment. Hoonah, AK: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tongass 

National Forest, Hoonah Ranger District. 

USDA Forest Service. 2008a. Unpublished. Preliminary Habitat Condition Assessment for 

Kennel Creek. Hoonah, AK: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tongass 

National Forest, Hoonah Ranger District. 

USDA Forest Service. 2008b. Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan. Forest 

Service, R10-MB-603b. Juneau, AK: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Alaska Region, Tongass National Forest. 

USDA Forest Service. 2008c. Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan, Final 

Environmental Impact Statement, Plan Amendment, Volume 1. Management 

Bulletin. R10-MB-603c. Juneau, AK: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Alaska Region, Tongass National Forest. 

USDA Forest Service. 2006. Soil and Water Conservation Handbook. Alaska Region 

Amendment. FSH 2509.22, R-10 Amendment 2509.22-96-1. Located online at: 

Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I Environmental Assessment 46
http://www.fs.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsinternet/!ut/p/c4/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xB

z9CP0os3gjAwhwtDDw9_AI8zPyhQoY6BdkOyoCAGixyPg!/?ss=1110&navtype=B

ROWSEBYSUBJECT&cid=fsbdev2_038796&navid=160000000000000&pnavid=nu

ll&position=Not%20Yet%20Determined.Html&ttype=detail&pname=Region%2010-

%20Land%20&%20Resource%20Management (accessed September 19, 2011). 

USDA Forest Service. 2002. Tongass National Forest – Annual Monitoring and Evaluation 

Report for Fiscal Year 2002. Located online at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r10/tongass/projects/tlmp/2002_monitoring_report/index.shtml

(accessed January 26, 2012). 

USDA Forest Service. 1996. Conservation assessment for the northern goshawk in southeast 

Alaska. Forest Service, PNW-GTR-387. 

Environmental Assessment Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I 47
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 

Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I Environmental Assessment 48
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. 

Environmental Assessment Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I 49
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

Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I Environmental Assessment 50
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. 

Environmental Assessment Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I 51
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

Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I Environmental Assessment 52
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. 

Environmental Assessment Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I 53
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. 

Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I Environmental Assessment 54
Unit Cards

Environmental Assessment Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I 55
Kennel Creek IRMP Unit 

Card Resources

Unit Alt Acres Volume

(MBF)

Logging 

System, 

Prescription,

Retention

Transportation Aquatics Soils/Wetlands 

1 2 30 250

 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 obtaine

with helicopter yarding. 

2 2 30 250

 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 obtaine

with helicopter yarding.

56
Environmental Assessment Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I 57
Kennel Creek IRMP Unit 

Card Resources

Unit Alt Acres Volume 

(MBF)

Logging 

System, 

Prescription,

Retention

Transportation Aquatics Soils/Wetlands 

3 2 60 325

 Helicopter 

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 obtaine

with helicopter yarding.

Partial suspension will be 

obtained with shovel yarding 

(BMPs 13.5 and 13.9).

4 2 30 200

 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 130 feet

Wind firm

V-notch stream

Stream Class: II 

Buffer width: Min 100 feet

Wind firm

Partial suspension will be 

obtained with shovel yarding 

(BMPs 13.5 and 13.9).

58
Environmental Assessment Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I 59
Intentionally left blank 

60 Kennel Creek Integrated Resource Project I Environmental Assessment
Federal Recycling Program

Printed on Recycled Paper