Historic, Archive Document
Do not assume content reflects current
scientific knowledge, policies, or practices.
I
xSDl(
£91
C 3
USDA
United States
Department of
Agriculture
Forest Service
Tongass
National Forest
RIO - MB-363
June 1998
I
Canal Hoya
Timber Sale
. -C J -
Final
Environmental Impact Statement
I
United States
Department of
Agriculture
Forest
Service
Alaska Region
Tongass National Forest
Stikine Area
P.O. Box 309
Petersburg, Alaska 99833
File Code: 1950
Date: May 15, 1998
Dear Reviewer:
Here is your copy of the Record of Decision and the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the
Canal Hoya Timber Sale, Stikine Area, Tongass National Forest. The Record of Decision explains
my decision to select Alternative 3, which includes the harvest of 14 million board feet of timber
from 660 acres and the construction of 7.1 miles of road. The decision implements Alternative 3 as
modified from the Final EIS. In response to public and agency comments, Alternative 3 was modi-
fied in the Final EIS to maintain the economic viability of potential future roads in the Canal Value
Comparison Unit by replacing some units proposed in the Draft EIS: and by moving a segment of
Road 6960 to address concerns about stream crossings. In the Record of Decision, a further modifi-
cation was made in which a segment of Road 6960 was eliminated due to unexpected bridge and
road construction costs.
The appeal period will begin the day after we publish notice in the Petersburg Pilot, the official
newspaper of record for decisions made by the Stikine Area Assistant Forest Supervisor. This date
is anticipated to be June 5, 1998. The appeal period will last 45 days. I expect the appeal deadline
to fall on July 20, 1998. We will implement the decision no sooner than five working days after the
close of the appeal period.
As the Stikine Area Assistant Forest Supervisor, I am responsible for this decision. Please direct any
correspondence or requests for additional copies to Scott Posner, IDT Leader, P.O. Box 51,
Wrangell, AK 99929, or call (907) 874-2323.
Sincerely,
CAROL J. JORGENSEN
Assistant Forest Supervisor
Caring for the Land and Serving People
Printed on Recycled Paper
Record of
Decision
Canal Hoya Timber Sale
Record of Decision
Introduction
This Record of Decision (ROD) documents my decision to select an alternative from the Canal
Hoya Timber Sale Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS). The selection includes the
specific harvest unit locations, requirements for harvesting timber and constructing associated
roads, and log transfer facilities to be used.
Background
The proposed project is a component of the overall timber sale program on the Tongass National
Forest. Timber sales are allowed by the Forest Plan in order to maintain a supply of timber from
National Forest lands for Southeast Alaska.
Project History
Public scoping, data collection and analysis, and documentation began with the Notice of Intent
published in the Federal Register in December 1996. Following field studies of resource condi-
tions, a second Notice of Intent reduced the estimated timber volume for the project from 20 mil-
lion board feet (MMBF) to 10-17 MMBF in October 1997. The purpose and need statement for
the project was also changed to reflect that volumes were a projected outcome of the purpose and
need for the project. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) was distributed in
January 1998 and the comment period continued into March 1998. This Record of Decision and
Final EIS of the Canal Hoya Timber Sale disclose the environmental effects of the alternatives
considered and document the decision for authorization of activities in the project area.
Purpose and Need
The purpose and need for the proposed timber harvest is to respond to the goals and objectives
identified by the Forest Plan for the timber resource while moving the Canal Hoya Project Area
towards the desired future condition for all resources. The Forest Plan identified the following
goals and objectives:
1) Manage the timber resource for production of saw timber and other wood products from
suitable timber lands made available for timber harvest, on an even-flow, long-term sustained
yield basis and in an economically efficient manner (USD A Forest Service 1997a, page 2-4).
2) Seek to provide a timber supply sufficient to meet the annual market demand for Tongass
National Forest timber, and the demand for the planning cycle (page 2-4).
3) Maintain and promote industrial wood production from suitable timber lands, providing a
continuous supply of wood to meet society’s needs (page 3-135 and 3-144).
4) Produce desired resource values, products, and conditions in ways that also sustain the di-
versity and productivity of ecosystems (page 2-1).
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Record of Decision
ROD - Page 1
Record of Decision
The Canal Hoya Timber Sale is expected to provide between 10 to 17 million board feet to the
timber industry. The range of alternatives considered in this Environmental Impact Statement
was determined during our analysis and reflects issues raised during scoping.
Decision
This Record of Decision documents my decision to make timber volume available from the Ca-
nal Hoya project area on the mainland south of the Bradfield Canal to meet the Stikine Area’s
timber sale program goals. My decision encompasses the following
• whether or not timber volume should be made available for harvest, and if so, how much;
• the location and design of timber harvest units;
• the location and design of associated road corridors; and
• mitigation and monitoring measures associated with implementation of timber harvest.
It is my decision to choose Alternative 3, as modified in this Record of Decision, from the
Final EIS as the Selected Alternative for implementation in the Canal Hoya project area.
This decision is responsive to issues raised during scoping, data gathering, and utilizes public
and agency responses to the Draft EIS to shape the final decision.
Changes to the Selected Alternative From the Final EIS
After we developed the Final EIS, engineering design work on road 6960 revealed that two
specified bridge crossings beyond unit 19 (see Figure 2-3 on page 2-15 of the Final EIS), which
would be needed in crossing Hoya Creek and West Fork Hoya Creek, would have to be longer
than was previously thought. The Hoya Creek crossing would require a 104 foot bridge and
crossing West Fork Hoya Creek would require a fifty foot bridge. The 104 foot bridge would
cost over $180,000 and the 50 foot bridge would cost about $60,000. Construction of the 1.5
mile segment of specified road, with associated bridges and temporary roads (and a temporary
crossing on West Fork Hoya Creek) would cost more than $500,000.
Although helicopter yarding is considerably more expensive than cable yarding; when the road
construction costs associated with this segment of road are added into the cable yarding costs, it
would be more economical to yard current and potential future volume beyond unit 19 by heli-
copter. This is due in part to the limited amount of cable operable ground near this segment of
road. Future access to timber available for harvest is still feasible without the road. Timber on
available acres north of the powerline could be helicopter yarded to the water and timber south of
the power line could be flown to landings adjacent to the portion of road 6960 that will be con-
structed. The Suitability and Operability map on page 3-4 of the FEIS shows areas where future
harvest could occur.
With these considerations in mind, I have elected to drop 1.3 miles of road construction on the
proposed 6960 road beyond unit 19 in alternative 3. The units served by this road segment will
be helicopter yarded to a landing in unit 19 or to a barge landing (for the volume in unit 24 north
of the power line). The percentage of trees retained in units 24 and 23 will remain the same.
ROD - Page 2
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Record of Decision
Record of Decision
Helicopter yarding will allow more scattered distribution of the leave trees prescribed within the
units, so partial harvest with diameter limits will be used. A buffer strip on either side of the
power line in unit 24 will be retained in order to allow safe helicopter operations on either side of
the power line in this area.
This change will reduce total specified road construction on the sale by 1.3 miles. It increases
the distance of any road construction from the Anan observatory to about 6.5 miles and would
reduce impacts on wildlife security due to the reduced presence, and associated use, of new road
in the area. The change will also allow for more random distribution of leave trees in units 23
and 24, allowing for reduced visual impact from the harvest in this area.
Selected Alternative as Modified
The Selected Alternative, as modified from the Final EIS, allows harvest of 14 million board feet
of timber from 660 acres in the project area. An estimated 6 miles of Specified Forest Develop-
ment Road and 1.1 miles of temporary road will be constructed. Design features of the harvest
units and roads are described in detail on the Unit and Road Description Cards in Appendices A
and B, respectively, in the Final EIS.
The 1997 Forest Plan, through the Record of Decision, places certain requirements on timber
sale projects for which environmental analysis had begun, but no NEPA decision made, at the
time of the effective date of the Plan (July 31, 1997). There are two requirements:
• projects must be consistent with all applicable management direction of the pro-
posed plan, and
• where needed, additional measures described in Appendix N of the Forest Plan
ROD will be incorporated; this need will be determined through interagency review
(Forest Plan ROD, p. 41).
I have determined, through review of the analysis in the Final EIS for the Canal Hoya Timber
Sale, that this project incorporates all applicable management direction from the 1997 Forest
Plan and is fully consistent with its goals, objectives, Forest-wide standards and guidelines, and
management area prescriptions as they apply to the project area. I have also determined that the
required interagency review and analysis of the need for additional measures was accomplished,
and such measures have been incorporated as necessary.
Non-Significant Amendment to the Forest Plan
Based on the project level analysis as described in the Old-growth Management Prescriptions
and Appendix K of the Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1997),
the Hoya Small Old Growth Reserve will be adjusted to better meet size, location and habitat
composition. Specifically, the Reserve as mapped in the Forest Plan met the productive old
growth acreage requirement of small reserves, but the size of the reserve was selected before the
criteria in the Forest Plan were finalized, so the current total size of the reserve is smaller than
the 16% of the VCU specified in Appendix K the Forest Plan.
The Secretary of Agriculture’s implementing regulation indicates the determination of signifi-
cance is to be "[b]ased on an analysis of the objectives, guidelines and other contents of the
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Record of Decision
ROD - Page 3
Record of Decision
forest plan" (36 CFR 219.10(f)). The Forest Service has issued guidance for determining what
constitutes a "significant amendment" under NFMA. This guidance, in Forest Service Handbook
1909.12 - Chapter 5.32, identifies four factors to be used in determining whether a proposed
change to a forest plan is significant or not significant. These four factors are timing; location
and size; goals, objectives, and outputs; and management prescriptions. An analysis of the fac-
tors is presented below.
Timing - The Forest Plan Revision was completed in 1997. The Old-growth Habitat Manage-
ment Prescription in the Plan indicates the small mapped reserves have received differing levels
of field verification and integration of site-specific information in their design. During project
level environmental analysis, for project areas that include or are adjacent to mapped old growth
habitat reserves, the size, spacing and habitat composition of mapped reserves may be further
evaluated. Several timber sale projects are in progress forest- wide, but the Canal Hoya Timber
Sale EIS is one of the first project decisions that include the decision to amend the Plan.
Location and Size - The area to the south of the Hoya reserve is isolated from timber harvest by
the location of the reserve and would serve the same function as a portion of the reserve. We
will increase the size of the reserve by adding the isolated area to the south, which is currently
designated Timber Production management prescription, but cannot be accessed economically
for timber management. This will increase the size of the Hoya Old Growth Reserve by ap-
proximately 7120 acres, of which 196 acres were classified in Forest Plan calculations as iso-
lated, but suitable for timber production.
Goals, Objectives, and Outputs
Goals - The Forest Plan Goal for Biodiversity is to maintain healthy forest ecosys-
tems; maintain a mix of habitats at different spatial scales (i.e. site, watershed, island,
province and forest) capable of supporting the full range of naturally occurring flora,
fauna, and ecological processes native to Southeast Alaska. The adjustment to the
Hoya Reserve is consistent with the Goals of the Plan.
Objectives - The Forest Plan Objectives include to maintain a Forest-wide system of
old growth forest habitat (includes reserves, non-development LUDs, and beach, estu-
ary and riparian corridors) to sustain old growth associated species and resources;
and, to ensure that the reserve system meets the minimum size, spacing and composi-
tion criteria described in Appendix K of the Plan. The adjustment to the Hoya Re-
serve was specifically designed to meet the Forest Plan Objectives.
Outputs - Adjustment of the Hoya Small Old Growth Reserve will have minimal ef-
fect on Forest Plan Outputs, primarily because the majority of the productive old
growth added to the Reserve was not classified in Forest Plan calculations as suitable
for timber production.
Management Prescriptions - The Hoya Small Old Growth Reserve has been adjusted as noted
in the Forest Plan Record of Decision and in accordance with the Old-growth Land Use Designa-
tion Management Prescription. None of the standards and guidelines associated with the Man-
agement Prescriptions have been changed.
ROD - Page 4
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Record of Decision
Record of Decision
Conclusion - Based on a consideration of the four factors above, I conclude adoption of this
amendment is not significant in a NFMA context. This amendment is fully consistent with cur-
rent Forest Plan goals and objectives. The amendment provides added detail on implementation
of the Old-growth Habitat Management Prescriptions of the Forest Plan.
I hereby amend the Forest Plan with this non- significant amendment by adjusting the Hoya
Small Old Growth Reserve as shown on the Record of Decision Map and documented in the
project record and Final EIS for the Canal Hoya Timber Sale.
Reasons for the Decision
In making my decision, I considered all issues raised during the development and scoping of this
project and took into account the competing interests and values of the public. Many divergent
public, personal, and professional opinions were expressed during the analysis. This decision
may not completely satisfy any one particular group or individual. However, I have considered
all views and feel my decision is reasonable. The Selected Alternative provides a beneficial mix
of resources for the public within the framework of the existing laws, regulations, policies, public
needs and desires, and capabilities of the land, while meeting the stated purpose and need for this
project. I believe that Alternative 3 also best meets the goals and objectives developed for the
area under the Forest Plan while balancing site specific concerns unique to the project area.
Although all action alternatives meet the purpose and need to one degree or another, the Selected
Alternative embodies several characteristics that resulted in it being the alternative chosen for
implementation. The Selected Alternative:
• addresses the issue of vulnerability of Anan bears by not building a road in the Canal Value
Comparison Unit (VCU) for this entry. The selected alternative also harvests the smallest
area (70 acres) in the Canal VCU;
• will maintain the economic viability of possible future road construction for timber harvest in
the Canal VCU by deferring harvest along the potential road corridor;
• allows a high potential for adaptive management by allowing us to monitor the impacts of
road construction and use in the Hoya VCU, before deciding whether to construct roads in
the Canal VCU in the next entry;
• will be less noticeable from the Eastern Passage Travel Route near Blake Island than
alternatives requiring road construction in the Canal VCU;
• will meet the desired condition for scenic values of Partial Retention from the Eastern
Passage Travel Route in the Canal VCU; and
• balances the above issues with timber volume and associated jobs better than the other
alternatives
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Record of Decision
ROD - Page 5
Record of Decision
The Canal Hoy a decision is a complex one and below I explain the reasons for my decision in
greater detail as related to the more frequent comments I received from the draft EIS.
Roads
Roads and their associated use were a common issue or concern in public and agency
comments we received on the Draft EIS. In the Hoya VCU, Alternative 3 will construct
roads to allow harvest south of the powerline, which traverses the area from east to west.
A considerable portion of the timber available for harvest in the project area (as allocated
under the Forest Plan) lies south of the powerline. Harvest would not be practical south
of the powerline without roads using current or foreseeable technology. Due to risk to
both pilots and the power supply itself, helicopter yarding over powerlines is not
permitted. Alternative 3, will construct roads beneath the powerline. This makes harvest
feasible in more of the area within the Hoya VCU in which timber management is one of
the goals under the Forest Plan. Harvest along these roads will reduce yarding costs by
making cable harvest systems possible. This will enhance the economic efficiency of this
sale and possible future timber sales in the area.
Roads and An an
Alternatives 1 and 2 make the commitment of road construction closer to Anan at this
time. This approach foregoes the opportunity to monitor road use and harvest effects of
the more distant road system in Hoya VCU before making any similar commitment in
Canal VCU. I believe Alternative 3 is the more conservative approach. Public and
agency comment on the project exhibit a high degree of concern over the proximity of
harvesting to Anan. Many responses to the Draft EIS expressed concerns centered on the
bears of Anan, but also reflect concern for the economic and recreational importance of
the Anan bears and the Anan Wildlife Observatory. Forest Plan standards are fully
implemented under each alternative and these standards were developed mindful of the
importance and presence of bears throughout the Tongass. However, I concluded that
some unique situations exist at Anan which require a careful look at the specific situation
in the area. Among these are: the combination of high levels of bear use in Anan Creek
(especially during salmon runs), the nationally known quality of the Anan Wildlife
Observatory with its attendant recreational and commercial value, and the possible
vulnerability of the Anan bears to hunting due to habituation of the bears by the steady
exposure of bears to humans at the Anan Wildlife Observatory.
By choosing Alternative 3, no roads would be built in the Canal VCU, which is adjacent
to Anan. The monitoring data on the Anan black bears indicates significantly less use of
the Hoya watershed compared to the Canal watershed (FEIS, page 3-42). Creditable
literature and studies cited in the EIS indicate that the average home range for Anan black
bears would extend to the Canal VCU, but does not extend into the Hoya VCU (FEIS,
page 3-56). I know that our bear monitoring sampled 19% of the estimated Anan black
bear population, not 100%. I also acknowledge average home ranges or modeling of bear
movements represent generalizations. Individual bears will, in fact, be individuals not
averages or models and some do use the Hoya watershed. However, even acknowledging
these limitations, I believe that the data in the EIS clearly show that it is very likely that
much less Anan bear use occurs in Hoya VCU than in Canal VCU. For this reason I
concluded that selection of an alternative that builds road in Hoya, but not Canal VCU
ROD - Page 6
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Record of Decision
Record of Decision
(such as Alternative 3) would provide a prudent margin for adaptive management in
relation to impacts on the Anan bears.
The road closures, hunting restrictions from new roads, and the physical isolation of the
site all would contribute to make mitigations of the road systems in Alternative 1 and 2
largely effective. However, the road building under these two alternatives in Canal
would allow easier walking access for hunting in the Canal VCU after the sale was over,
where such access had not previously existed. Under Alternative 3, however, even walk-
in access remains unchanged in the Canal VCU. I believe the opportunity to observe and
monitor road use effects in Hoya before considering road construction into Canal clearly
provides a better chance for adaptive management than Alternatives 1 or 2 and I preferred
Alternative 3 for this reason. Alternatives 1 and 2 do provide more timber than
Alternative 3, but Alternative 3 allows for significant timber harvest while better
providing for other important resources in the area such as Anan.
I believe Alternative 3 responds to goals and objectives identified in the Forest Plan for
the timber resource in this area better than Alternative 4 or 5. Alternative 3, while
harvesting more timber than either Alternative 4 or 5, also provides for a greater degree
of economical harvest in the future by developing a road system that can be used for both
current and future timber harvest which will allow the use of more economical cable
yarding systems. Though some comments disagree with considering or accounting roads
as a long term asset, such roads do facilitate timber harvest, and logging from road
systems can utilize machinery which is more readily available to the timber industry and
which is cheaper to use. I concluded that the environmental consequences of
Alternative 3 are reasonable as described above, and that Alternative 3 better achieves
the purpose and need for the proposal than do either Alternative 4 or Alternative 5.
Use of Clearcuts
Some comments suggested more use of clearcuts and many suggested less. In coming to
my final decision I did not consider clearcuts on an alternative wide basis either to select
or not select this prescription. The clearcuts used in Canal Hoya are used in conjunction
with cable logging systems. Most of this cable yarding is downhill to the road system
serving as a landing. With downhill cable yarding it is not physically feasible to
individually yard the logs through groups of standing trees. For this reason, yarding
corridors are cut through the stands creating openings. Trees can be left standing
between yarding corridors or near the tops of the unit where fewer logs need to "pass by"
as they are yarded. All of the clearcuts employed on Canal Hoya will have trees left
standing in the units in this fashion. The prescriptions detailed in the EIS and on the unit
cards in Appendix A call for retention of 10% to as much as 30% of the original stand to
be left in each unit. Because these trees will be generally grouped or clumped with
openings between and since it is the intention of the prescription to initiate new growth,
we feel it is appropriate to call these prescriptions clearcuts. They will allow for more
economical yarding where the prescription is used, but will likely look much different
than many observers’ image of a conventional clearcut.
The amount of retention that will be left in each unit will vary depending on the visual
prescription, wildlife needs, or other site specific considerations of the given unit. The
interdisciplinary team did not wish to change the name of this prescription so as to imply
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Record of Decision
ROD - Page 7
Record of Decision
it would leave randomly distributed trees throughout a given unit. That is not possible for
the downhill cable logging systems which will be employed. However, the type of
"clearcut" used on Canal Hoya leaves significant numbers of trees within each unit, with
the numbers of trees left varying to fit different situations.
Range of Alternatives and Alternative formulation
Some comments suggested that I craft alternatives based on maximization of clearcutting
and road development. Other comments suggested that I craft specific alternatives to
avoid clearcutting or roads or use of log transfer facilities. On initially considering the
range of alternatives the interdisciplinary team looked at a "cable yarding only"
alternative and a "helicopter only" alternative but did not fully develop these alternatives
for reasons given in the EIS and later in this record of decision. Though I could have
selected an option of one of the existing alternatives which would have been all cable or
all helicopter as some have suggested, I did not choose to do so because, on analysis,
such alternatives were not likely to fully meet the purpose and need of the project or such
an approach would not meet forest plan standards and/or the intent of the National Forest
Management Act. I concluded that such alternatives did not warrant development as
stand alone alternatives for these reasons.
An "all helicopter" alternative was considered early in the analysis (FEIS, page 2-6), but
was not developed at that time because the purpose and need volume was not possible
under an "all helicopter" approach. That purpose and need statement was revised before
the Draft EIS was issued. Even after the revision of the purpose and need statement, an
"all helicopter" alternative cannot access a large portion of the project area that is
available for timber harvest, due to the power transmission line that cuts across the
project area from east to west. Even without the powerline, long term access to the
southern portions of the timber base in the project area is not economically feasible due to
the long flight distances that would make helicopter use prohibitive. Though it would be
possible for me to modify an alternative like Alternative 4 to select an "all helicopter"
option, such an action would leave the timber base area south of the powerline
unavailable. In response to some comments to the Draft EIS, we have provided a
somewhat amplified analysis of the "all helicopter" alternative in the FEIS for
informational purposes. Though it seems prudent to consider such an "all helicopter"
option in the Canal VCU (for the reasons I discussed above), our analysis does not
indicate to me that such an approach is warranted in the Hoya VCU.
An alternative that maximizes the use of roads and clearcuts would be somewhat like the
"cable yarding only" alternative, which was considered but not carried forward (FEIS,
page 2-6). The "cable yarding only" alternative would have required roads to each unit.
Due to the nature of the access and the terrain, the roads would nearly always be at the
bottom of the units. Downhill cable yarding, due to its nature, (as discussed above)
would have largely resulted in clearcut prescriptions with varying retention of trees
within the units for visual, wildlife or other purposes. Just as an "all helicopter" alterna-
tive has physical limitations in this area, so too does an alternative that only uses cable
harvesting or clearcutting. Some areas would be very difficult, or environmentally risky
to road in the Canal Hoya area, but they could be helicopter logged. Some areas would
be quite adapted to use of a clearcut prescription that would be well within standards, but
other areas cannot be logged with such a prescription and still meet Forest Plan standards.
ROD - Page 8
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Record of Decision
Record of Decision
Clearcutting under the National Forest Management Act is to be considered on a unit by
unit basis and is not to be used as a broad brush tool. Though clearcutting can be a rea-
sonable tool, as can road building; I did not find that I could use these tools as the sole
basis to develop an alternative.
I believe the range of alternatives that was developed is adequate to display trade-offs and
to explore viable options that would achieve the purpose and need. It is not possible to
develop an alternative for every contingency, but those which were developed provided
me with clear and reasoned trade-offs to contrast and weigh against one another and from
which to interpolate or extrapolate various options.
Additional rationale for my decision can be found in the individual responses to com-
ments, in Appendix F of the FEIS. Though my decision will not likely please all who
commented, their comments have helped make this a better decision. My decision to
implement the Selected Alternative, as modified in this Record of Decision, is in con-
formance with the Tongass Land Management Plan (1997) and sound National Forest
management. In making my decision, I have balanced the need to help maintain a current
timber supply in support of community stability, with the need to provide strong protec-
tion measures for soil, water, fish, wildlife, subsistence, and visual resources.
Significant Issues
In making my decision, I considered five major issues identified during the planning process. In
the following summary, I disclose how the Selected Alternative addresses each of the significant
issues. Table S-l and Chapter 3 of the Final EIS supplement the following discussion and pro-
vide a comparison of the alternatives.
Issue 1 : Timber Supply and Economics
The Selected Alternative converts 660 acres of old growth forest to young, even-aged or two-
aged stands. Approximately 73 acres would be harvested in small 2-8 acre patches. Ap-
proximately 284 acres would be partial cut with varying densities of reserve trees. Ap-
proximately 303 acres would be clearcut with 10-30% of the units left uncut in reserves.
The Selected Alternative would provide approximately 14 MMBF of timber, which would con-
tribute to the Forest Service’s attempt to seek to meet market demand while being consistent with
the Tongass Land Management Plan and the standards and guidelines for all resources. Current
timber market analysis indicates that the timber demand exceeds timber supply. Timber from
this sale is needed as a component of the timber sale schedule to provide timber to industry in an
even flow over the ten year planning cycle. The timber volume is also necessary as a substantial
component of the timber sale program to be offered in 1998 on the Stikine Area to meet annual
market demand. The mid-market analysis contained in the Final EIS resulted in a stumpage
value of $2/MBF (excluding specified road costs) for the Selected Alternative. For a detailed
analysis of the timber resource, see pages 3-2 through 3-13 in the Final EIS.
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Record of Decision
ROD - Page 9
Record of Decision
Issue 2: Scenic and Tourism Values
Unit location and design were carefully considered in all alternatives to minimize visual impacts.
The Selected Alternative meets or exceeds the required Visual Quality Objective (VQO) of
Modification from all three viewpoints analyzed and will meet the desired condition for scenic
values of Partial Retention from the Eastern Passage Travel Route in the Canal VCU. For a de-
tailed analysis of the visual resource, see pages 3-14 through 3-33 of the Final EIS.
Changes to the scenery and impacts to Anan bears may have an effect on the income of guides
and charter services that operate in the Bradfield Canal and at Anan. We disclosed the economic
base that would be affected on pages 3-34 through 3-39 of the Final EIS, but were unable to de-
termine an approximate value for expected gains or losses to that base as a result of the Canal
Hoya Timber Sale. I do not expect, given the location and design of the sale that there will be a
measurable effect in this regard.
Issue 3: Anan Bears
Mitigating effects to Anan bears was a major issue in the development of all alternatives and in
my decision to select Alternative 3. The reasons for the decision given above supply my ratio-
nale for addressing this issue. The Selected Alternative addresses the issue of vulnerability of
Anan bears by not building a road in the Canal VCU for this entry. The selected alternative also
harvests the smallest area (70 acres) in the Canal VCU. We will also provide protection of the
Anan bears by closing the roads to motorized vehicles (except for administrative use). Two
gates will be installed near the beginning of the roads and an administrative closure order will be
written. The gates will be designed such that ATVs cannot go under them and they will be
placed in locations that will be extremely difficult to get around. The first gate will be made of
iron - not the usual perforated steel, so ATVs will not have the power to pull over or destroy the
barricade. During harvest, the gates will be open, but only administrative use will be allowed.
Following completion of the sale, only necessary administrative use, such as road maintenance,
regeneration surveys, thinning and future harvests, will be allowed. Non-motorized travel will
not be restricted.
There were several comments requesting hunting restrictions to protect bears, which will become
more vulnerable if roads are constructed for this timber sale. We prefer to let the State manage
hunting through their regulations and process, and it is our understanding that the Wrangell Fish
and Game Advisory Committee is proposing that the State should close hunting in the Canal
Hoya area during the life of the sale, if roads are constructed. We support that effort. If the State
does not close hunting, the Forest Service will implement a Forest closure order on hunting
within 1/2 mile of any roads constructed in the Canal Hoya Sale Area during the life of the sale
(36 CFR 261.58(v)). By limiting such a closure to 1/2 mile from new road, we do not believe
currently existing hunting opportunities will be greatly impacted. For a detailed analysis of the
Anan bear issue, see pages 3-40 through 59 of the Final EIS.
Issue 4: Wildlife Habitat and Species Conservation
The selected alternative has the least effect of any of the action alternatives on wildlife habitat
and species conservation in the Canal VCU. The selected alternative has more effect on wildlife
habitat in the Hoya VCU than the other action alternatives. Some impacts to wildlife habitat will
ROD - Page 10
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Record of Decision
Record of Decision
be mitigated by closing roads to motorized use, maintaining travel corridors and retaining trees in
the harvest units to provide structural diversity and seed sources for forbs and shrubs. The rug-
gedness and remoteness of the site lead us to believe that these mitigations are likely to be highly
effective. Restrictions will be placed on helicopter activities, harvest activity near bear dens and
no harvest will take place within 500 feet of the identified important brown bear foraging areas.
For a detailed analysis of the wildlife habitat issue, see pages 3-60 through 3-85 of the Final EIS.
Issue 5: Freshwater and Marine Resources
The selected alternative has the least effect of the action alternatives on freshwater and marine
resources in and near the Canal VCU. The selected alternative, as modified in this Record of
Decision, has less effect on freshwater and marine resources in the Floya VCU than Alternatives
1 and 2, but more effects than Alternative 4, due to the number of stream crossings and miles of
road. Impacts to freshwater and marine resources will be mitigated by using Best Management
Practices (BMPs), storm-proofing and closing the roads to motorized use, requiring helicopter
yarding to land landings or barges (no water drops), removing drainage structures and revegetat-
ing temporary roads, and other mitigation measures. For a detailed analysis of the freshwater
and marine resources issue, see pages 3-86 through 3-95 of the Final EIS.
Public Involvement
Ongoing public involvement has been instrumental in the identification and clarification of issues
for this project. This has been helpful in the formulation of alternatives and has assisted me in
making a more informed decision for the Canal Hoya project. Public meetings, Federal Register
notices, newspaper and radio releases, open houses, the Stikine Area Project Schedule, and group
and individual meetings were some of the tools used to solicit input for this project.
Notice of Intent: A notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement was pub-
lished in the Federal Register on December 23, 1996, when it was decided that an EIS was
needed for the project. Following field studies of existing resource conditions, a second Notice
of Intent redefined the purpose and need for the project and reduced the estimated timber volume
for the project from 20 million board feet (MMBF) to 10-17 MMBF in October 1997.
Public Comment received for the Draft EIS: Public comments to the Canal Hoya Timber Sale
Draft EIS were received from January 16 to March 11, 1998. A total of 21 letters were received
during the comment period and were formally responded to in the Final EIS (Appendix F).
Coordination With Other Agencies
From the time scoping was initiated, meetings and site visits with all interested State and Federal
agencies have occurred. Issues were discussed and information was exchanged.
The Final EIS identifies the agencies that were informed of and/or involved in the planning pro-
cess (see List of Agencies, Organizations, and Individuals to Whom Copies of this Statement
Were Sent in Chapter 4).
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Record of Decision
ROD - Page 1 1
Record of Decision
Alternatives Considered in Detail
Five alternatives were considered in detail in the Final EIS. Each action alternative is consistent
with the Tongass Land Management Plan (1997). The analysis of each alternative displays (1)
the areas considered for harvest, (2) the location of proposed roads for access, (3) the type of log-
ging systems to be used, and (4) site locations of log transfer facilities to be used. For a com-
plete description of these alternatives refer to Chapter 2 of the Final EIS. The alternatives are:
Alternative 1 - The theme of this alternative is to emphasize timber volume and harvest eco-
nomics in the Hoya VCU and balance bear habitat security, visual concerns, water quality, and
timber production in the Canal VCU. In the Hoya VCU, an LTF and roads would be con-
structed to allow cable yarding in as many units as practical, while still meeting standards and
guidelines and desired conditions for other resources. In the Canal VCU, resource concerns
would be addressed by minimizing road construction and retaining higher percentages of trees
than are retained in units in the Hoya VCU.
Alternative 2 - The theme of this alternative is to emphasize timber volume, infrastructure
development and long-term harvest economics throughout the Project Area. This alternative
requires the most road construction, to reach most of the areas accessible by cable yarding
systems.
Alternative 3 -The theme of this alternative is to emphasize Anan bear habitat security, water
quality, and visual concerns in the Canal VCU and to emphasize timber volume and harvest
economics in the Hoya VCU. This alternative is similar to Alternative 2 in the Hoya VCU, since
roads and most harvest units would be the same. No roads would be constructed in the Canal
VCU. Helicopters would be used to yard timber north of the powerline in the Canal VCU.
Alternative 4 - The theme of this alternative is to emphasize wildlife habitat and security, visual
objectives, and water quality. The theme would be met by minimizing road construction and em-
phasizing the use of partial harvest methods in units that are visible from the water or are in high
value wildlife habitat. Due to the heavy harvest proposed in the seen area, retention within units
is generally higher than that proposed in other alternatives, in order to reduce visual impacts.
Alternative 5 - This Alternative does not propose any timber harvest or road construction (no
action) in the Canal Hoya area. Management of the Canal Hoya area would continue as it cur-
rently exists.
Environmentally Preferred Alternative
Based on a comparison of the alternatives and the discussion contained within Chapter 3 of the
Final EIS, Alternative 5, the No Action Alternative, would cause the least environmental distur-
bance and is therefore the environmentally preferred alternative of all the alternatives studied in
detail. Of the action alternatives, Alternative 4, implemented without road construction, is the
environmentally preferred alternative. This modification of Alternative 4 would avoid environ-
mental impacts associated with road construction and use and would minimize impacts to wild-
life habitat.
ROD - Page 12
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Record of Decision
Record of Decision
Alternatives Not Considered in Detail
Lower Hoya Reserve Alternative - We considered an alternative that would move the
location of the small old growth reserve in the Hoya VCU to the coastline. The theme of this
alternative would be to emphasize bear habitat security in the Canal VCU and to increase the
volume available for harvest in the Hoya VCU by putting the old growth reserve in a location
where much of the acreage would already be retained due to beach, estuary and riparian buffers.
Accessing the timber that would be available in upper Hoya drainage would require constructing
a road beyond a narrow valley pinchpoint. Reasons for not considering this alternative in detail
included:
• Poor economics - The narrow valley pinchpoint along Hoya Creek would make it difficult
and expensive to construct a road beyond the point. Getting around the pinchpoint would
require two 80 foot bridges (about $130,000 each) and several major drainage structures.
• Fish and Water Quality Risks - The double bridge site would impact the floodplain and side
channels at the location of some of the highest value resident fish habitat in Hoya Creek.
There is a risk of flood constriction and subsequent up and downstream channel erosion at
this narrow site.
• Steep slopes - Much of the timber available above the pinchpoint is located on terrain steeper
than is recommended under Forest Plan guidelines.
Upper Canal Reserve Option - We considered including an option to move the old growth
reserve in the Canal VCU to a location south of the powerline, adjacent to the Anan watershed in
Alternatives 1,3, and 4. The theme of this option would be to promote long-term bear habitat
security by avoiding road construction adjacent to the Anan watershed and in an area of known
bear dens. Reasons for not considering this alternative in detail included:
• The original reserve location includes known bear dens and is more sensitive in regard to
visual objectives. Movement of the reserve to this location could possibly result in more
noise and disruption to visitors and bears at and near the Anan Wildlife Viewing Area.
Alternative with Roads Only as Far as Powerline - We considered an alternative that
would have emphasized maintaining the volume of timber available for harvest, while promoting
bear habitat security, soil and water quality and visual concerns over conventional logging
methods. LTFs and roads would have been constructed in both VCUs, but the roads would only
extend to suitable landings south of the powerline. The primary system would be helicopter
yarding. Reasons for not considering this alternative in detail included:
• As we developed this alternative, it became apparent that due to the terrain in the Hoya VCU,
the alternative would appear similar to components covered in Alternative 1 or 4.
Cable Yarding Only Alternative - We considered an alternative that would only harvest
units accessible by roads for cable yarding. The theme of this alternative was to emphasize
logging economics by designing a sale that would not require helicopter yarding, which is
assumed to reduce the benefit/cost ratio for timber harvesting. Such an alternative would greatly
limit our ability to meet the desired condition of leaving varying densities of trees to create
multi-structured stands, as well as the desire to manage for timber production on land that is in
the suitable base, but not accessible by road. Therefore, this alternative was eliminated from
detailed study.
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Record of Decision
ROD - Page 13
Record of Decision
Helicopter Yarding Only Alternative - We considered an alternative that would have
deferred road construction and emphasized the use of partial harvest methods in units that are
visible from the water or are in high value wildlife habitat. The theme of this alternative was to
emphasize wildlife habitat and security, visual objectives, and water quality, while maintaining
the economic viability of future harvests. All harvest activity would be north of the powerline
and yarding would be done by helicopter. There would be no roads or LTF. This strategy is
consistent with the Forest Plan objective of avoiding changes to semi-primitive non-motorized
settings in Modified Landscape management prescription areas, when feasible. However this
alternative would not meet Forest plan objectives for timber harvest in significant areas of timber
production and modified landscape land use designations south of the powerline in the project
area. This is because helicopter would not be allowed to fly over the powerlines due to safety
and power utility concerns, thus leaving the areas south of the powerline inaccessible for timber
harvest Some of the suitable cable ground along the potential main road corridor would be
deferred from harvest this entry in order to maintain the option of a viable cable harvest
alternative in future entries.
The Campbell Timber Sale is an example of a timber sale that provided timber without roads or
clearcuts; however, there is not a powerline in the Campbell project area. We would have had
much more flexibility in our alternatives for the Canal Hoya Timber Sale if there was not the
Tyee powerline in the project area. Roads are needed because of helicopter yarding distance
limits and the powerline. Economically a helicopter can only travel one mile to yard timber and
may not cross the powerline while yarding timber (due to the danger to the helicopter crew of
sling lines hitting the powerline and the risk of falling debris striking the powerline). Without
roads the majority of the suitable timber would be isolated and very expensive to harvest. Some
system would have to be devised in which timber south of the powerline was yarded to a landing
adjacent to the powerline, transferred on the ground to a landing north of the powerline and then
transferred by helicopter to a barge. This would be very expensive and would probably make
future harvest south of the powerline uneconomical.
A helicopter only option is available to the decision maker by specifying in the Record of
Decision that Alternative 4 is to be implemented without the road (which would also omit the
units to the south of the powerline). Although this option was not included as a separate
alternative, I considered it when selecting an alternative to implement, but for the reasons
previously stated in this document, I did not choose such an approach.
Administrative Record
The Administrative Record for this project includes the planning record. Draft EIS, Final EIS,
Tongass Land Management Plan, and all material incorporated by reference.
ROD - Page 14
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Record of Decision
Record of Decision
Mitigation
Mitigation includes measures taken to avoid, reduce or minimize the adverse effects of actions.
Measures were applied in the development of the project alternatives, including the Selected
Alternative, and in the design of the harvest units and road corridors. The Mitigation Measures
section of Chapter 2 of the Final EIS discusses mitigation measures common to all alternatives.
Mitigation measures applicable to the Selected Alternative include measures contained in the
Tongass Land Management Plan (1997), and applicable Forest Service Manuals and Handbooks.
The Final EIS includes site-specific mitigation measures described in Chapter 2, Unit Descrip-
tions (Appendix A), Road Descriptions (Appendix B), and Log Transfer Facility Design
(Appendix D). These measures are adopted as part of this decision and will be implemented.
All practical means to avoid or minimize adverse environmental effects of the Selected
Alternative have been adopted.
Monitoring
A monitoring program is the process by which the Forest Service can evaluate whether the
resource management objectives of the final environmental documents have been implemented
as specified and whether the steps identified for mitigating the environmental effects were
effective. Monitoring requirements are specified in Appendix C of the Final EIS. These
monitoring items are adopted as part of this decision and will be implemented.
Each monitoring item describes what will be done, what the information will tell us, how it will
be done, what will be done with the information, and the approximate cost of the monitoring.
Monitoring activities may reveal results that deviate from planned effects, in which case correc-
tive actions are prescribed. The Wrangell Ranger District is responsible for ensuring that project
implementation, mitigation, monitoring, and enforcement are accomplished as specified in the
Final EIS.
Findings Required By Law
National Forest Management Act
The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires specific determinations in this Record of
Decision: consistency with existing Forest Plans and Regional Guides, a determination of
clearcutting as the optimal method of harvesting, and specific authorizations of clearcuts over
100 acres in size.
Tongass Land Management Plan and Alaska Regional Guide - This decision is consistent
with the Alaska Regional Guide and the Tongass Land Management Plan 1997. I have reviewed
the management direction, standards and guidelines, and the schedule of activities for the VCUs
included in the Selected Alternative, and find the Selected Alternative to be consistent with these
elements.
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Record of Decision
ROD - Page 15
Record of Decision
Clearcutting as the Optimal Method of Harvesting - Of the 23 harvest units planned in the
Selected Alternative, 12 have a stand management objective of timber production accomplished
by a single regeneration harvest. Those units will include green tree retention and result in con-
version to a predominantly even-aged stand. In three of those units, patches within the stand will
be harvested in a single regeneration harvest, but the overall stand will be a mix of ages. The
stand objective of the remaining 1 1 units is uneven- aged management.
For the 1 1 harvest units with stand objectives of uneven- aged management, the silvicultural pre-
scriptions are partial harvest with diameter limits or other measures used to retain the prescribed
amount of leave trees. A more detailed discussion of each of these units can be found in Ap-
pendix A of the Final EIS.
The 12 units with even- aged management prescription (clearcuts with reserves) will either have
reserve tree clumps or individual green trees remaining after harvest. The clumps or individual
trees will be designated at the time of the harvest. These clumps/trees will be selected for wind-
firmness, the relative absence of disease and dwarf mistletoe, wildlife attributes, and noncom-
mercial value. See Appendix A of the Final EIS for a detailed description of each unit.
I have determined that the use of clearcutting with reserves to achieve the unit objectives is the
optimal silvicultural method for this project for the following reasons:
• The use of clearcutting with reserves will meet the objective of maintaining fast growing
stands of mixed species.
• Logging costs are lower than with other silvicultural systems.
• Natural regeneration of spruce and hemlock is increased after cutting.
• Clearcutting with reserves should minimize the potential for logging injury to the residual
stand in units that are cable yarded.
Harvest Openings Over 100 Acres in Size - There are no harvest openings over 100 acres pro-
posed for this project.
Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA)
Harvest units were designed and located to maintain a minimum 100-foot buffer zone for all
Class I streams and Class II streams that flow directly into Class I streams as required in Section
103 of the TTRA. As discussed in Appendix A of the Final EIS, the actual widths of these
buffer strips will often be greater than the 100-foot minimum. The design and implementation
direction for the Selected Alternative incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the
protection of all stream classes.
Endangered Species Act
Actions authorized in the Selected Alternative are not anticipated to have a direct, indirect, or cu-
mulative effect on any threatened or endangered species in the Canal Hoya project area. The
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service have concurred that the
ROD - Page 16
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Record of Decision
Record of Decision
actions described within the proposed project are not likely to adversely affect threatened and en-
dangered species. A complete biological assessment is included in the planning record for this
project. I have determined that this action will not have any adverse impacts on any threatened
or endangered species.
Bald Eagle Protection Act
Management activities within 330 feet of an eagle nest site are restricted by a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) between the Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to fa-
cilitate compliance with the Bald Eagle Protection Act. The Selected Alternative is not antici-
pated to have a significant direct, indirect, or cumulative effect on any bald eagle habitat.
Clean Water Act
The design of harvest units and roads for the Selected Alternative were guided by standards,
guidelines and direction contained in the Forest Plan, Alaska Regional Guide, and applicable
Forest Service manuals and handbooks. The Unit Cards (Appendix A) and Road Cards (Ap-
pendix B) contain specific details on practices prescribed to prevent or reduce non-point sedi-
ment sources. Reasonable implementation with site specific application and monitoring of ap-
proved BMPs is expected to comply with applicable State Water Quality Standards Regulations.
These regulations provide for variances from anti-degradation requirements and water quality
criteria. The harvest and road building operators will be responsible for compliance, including
obtaining any variance required by the State, and will be monitored for compliance by the Forest
Service.
All roads, landings and rock pits for this project will be designed to a minimum standard to ac-
commodate timber harvesting and silvicultural activities and will be constructed in accordance
with Best Management Practices listed at 33 CFR 323.4(a). Therefore, no permits under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act are required.
National Historic Preservation Act
We conducted heritage resource surveys of various intensities in the Project Area. The State
Historic Preservation Officer has been consulted, and the project complies with the provisions of
36 CFR part 800. I have determined that there will be no significant effects on cultural re-
sources.
Federal Cave Resource Protection Act of 1988
The actions in the Selected Alternative will not have a direct, indirect, or cumulative effect on
any significant cave in the Canal Hoya Project Area. No cave resources have been documented
in the Project Area and no caves were discovered during field work done for this analysis.
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Record of Decision
ROD - Page 17
Record of Decision
ANILCA Section 810, Subsistence Evaluation and Findings
A subsistence evaluation was conducted for the five alternatives considered in detail, in ac-
cordance with ANILCA Section 810. The evaluations in the Subsistence Report on abundance,
distribution, access and competition for harvested resources in the project area, Wildlife Analysis
Area 1814 and the Bradfield Canal, indicate that there will not be a significant possibility of a
significant restriction on subsistence uses of wildlife, fish, and shellfish, marine mammals, other
foods, and timber resources as a result of this sale.
Coastal Zone Management Act
The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA), while specifically excluding Federal lands
from the coastal zone, requires that a Federal agency’s activities be consistent with the enforce-
able standards of a state’s coastal management program to the maximum extent practicable when
the agency’s activities affect the coastal zone.
The enforceable standards for timber harvest activities are found in the State Forest Practices
Act. The standards and guidelines for timber management activities in the Canal Hoya Project
Area meet or exceed the standards in the State Forest Practices Act.
The Alaska Division of Governmental Coordination did a consistency review of our determina-
tion for Alternative 3 in the Draft EIS. The stipulations contained in this review have been ad-
dressed in the Final EIS. I have determined that the proposed activities are consistent with the
Alaska Coastal Management Program to the maximum extent practicable.
Executive Orders
EO 11988 - Executive Order 11988 directs Federal agencies to take action to avoid, to the extent
possible, the long and short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modifica-
tion of floodplains. The numerous streams in the Canal Hoya Project Area make it impossible to
avoid all floodplains during timber harvest and road construction. The design of the proposed
developments and the application of Best Management Practices combine to minimize adverse
impacts on the floodplains.
EO 11990 - Executive Order 1 1990 requires Federal agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, the
long and short-term adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands.
Soil moisture regimes and vegetation on some wetlands may be altered in some harvest units;
however, these altered acres would still be classified as wetlands and function as wetlands in the
ecosystem.
Because wetlands are so extensive in the project area, it is not feasible to avoid all wetland areas.
However, there are no development activities planned on the more biologically significant wet-
lands. In all alternatives, roads and units were located to avoid these areas. Road construc-
tion results in the filling of wetlands creating a permanent loss of wetland habitat. Effects will
be minimized by not using wetlands as sites for overburden disposal. Implementation of BMPs
ROD - Page 18
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Record of Decision
Record of Decision
such as minimizing ditching and providing adequate cross drainage, will also help minimize the
affected area.
EO 12962 - Executive Order 12962 directs Federal agencies to conserve, restore and enhance
aquatic systems to provide for increased recreational fishing opportunities nationwide. Section 1
of the Executive Order is most pertinent to the proposed activity. Section 1 directs Federal agen-
cies to evaluate effects on aquatic ecosystems and recreational fisheries, develop and encourage
partnerships, promote restoration, provide access, and promote awareness of opportunities for
recreational fishery resources.
The effects of this project have been evaluated throughout the Final EIS, including effects to
freshwater and marine resources. Partnerships are continuing to be used to leverage Federal
project funds to address water quality concerns in areas of the Tongass National Forest, although
none have been proposed for recreational fisheries in conjunction with this project.
Under the Selected Alternative, road closures would only provide access for recreational fishing
opportunities to those willing to walk into the project area. Since most recreational fishing is ex-
pected to remain at saltwater, the impact of improved access on recreational fishing opportunities
is expected to be minor.
EO 12898 - Executive Order 12898 directs Federal agencies to identify and address the issue of
environmental justice, i.e. adverse human health and environmental effects of agency programs
that disproportionately impact minority and low income populations. Implementation of the Se-
lected Alternative will not cause adverse health or environmental effects that disproportionately
impact minority and low income populations.
Federal and State Permits
Federal and State permits necessary to implement the authorized activities are listed in Chapter 1
of the Final EIS.
Implementation Process
Implementation of this decision may occur no sooner than 30 days after the date of publication of
the Notice of Availability of the Final EIS in the Federal Register, or 52 days following publica-
tion of the legal notice of the decision in the Petersburg Pilot , published in Petersburg, Alaska,
whichever is later. This timber sale is planned to be offered in the fall of 1998.
This project will be implemented in accordance with Forest Service Manual and Handbook di-
rection for Timber Sale Project Implementation in FSM 2431.3 and FSH 2409.24. This direction
provides a bridge between project planning and implementation and will ensure execution of the
actions, environmental standards, and mitigation approved by this decision, and compliance with
TTRA and other laws. All applicable Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be applied to the
Selected Alternative.
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Record of Decision
ROD - Page 19
Record of Decision
Implementation of all activities authorized by this Record of Decision will be monitored to en-
sure that they are carried out as planned and described in the Final EIS.
Appendix A of the Final EIS contains harvest unit design cards and Appendix B contains road
design cards. These cards are an integral part of this decision because they document the spe-
cific resource concerns, management objectives, and mitigation measures to govern the layout of
the harvest units and construction of roads. These cards will be used during the implementation
process to assure that all aspects of the project are implemented within applicable standards and
guidelines and that resource impacts will not be greater than those described in the Final EIS.
Similar cards will be used to document any changes to the planned layout as the actual layout
and harvest of the units occurs with project implementation.
The implementation record for this project will display each harvest unit, transportation facility,
and other project components as actually implemented, any proposed changes to the design, loca-
tion, standards and guidelines, or other mitigation measures for the project, and the decisions on
the proposed changes.
Procedure for Changes During Implementation
Proposed changes to the authorized project actions will be subject to the requirements of the Na-
tional Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Forest Management Act of 1976
(NFMA), Section 810 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, the Tongass Tim-
ber Reform Act (TTRA), the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), and other laws concern-
ing such changes.
In determining whether and what kind of NEPA action is required, the Assistant Forest Supervi-
sor will consider the criteria for whether to supplement an existing Environmental Impact State-
ment (EIS) in 40 CFR 1502.9(c), and FSH 1909.15, sec. 18, and in particular, whether the pro-
posed change is a substantial change to the Selected Alternative as planned and already ap-
proved, and whether the change is relevant to environmental concerns. Connected or interrelated
proposed changes regarding particular areas of specific activities will be considered together in
making this determination. The cumulative impacts of these changes will also be considered.
The intent of field verification is to confirm inventory data and to determine the feasibility and
general design and location of a unit or road, not to locate final boundaries or road locations.
Minor changes are expected during implementation to better meet on-site resource management
and protection objectives. Minor adjustments to unit boundaries are also likely during final lay-
out for the purpose of improving logging system efficiency. This will usually entail adjusting the
boundary to coincide with logical logging setting boundaries. Many of these minor changes will
not present sufficient potential impacts to require any specific documentation or other action to
comply with applicable laws. Some minor changes may still require appropriate analysis and
documentation to comply with FSH 1909.15, sec. 18.
ROD - Page 20
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Record of Decision
Record of Decision
Right to Appeal
This decision is subject to administrative appeal. Organizations or members of the general pub-
lic may appeal this decision according to Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 215. The
appeal must be filed within 45 days of the date that legal notification of this decision is published
in the Petersburg Pilot , the official newspaper of record. The Notice of Appeal must be filed in
duplicate with:
Regional Forester
Forest Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
P.O.Box 21628
Juneau, AK 99802-1628
It is the responsibility of those who appeal a decision to provide the Regional Forester sufficient
written evidence and rationale to show why the decision by the Forest Supervisor should be
changed or reversed. This written Notice of Appeal must:
1. State that the document is a Notice of Appeal filed pursuant to 36 CFR Part 215;
2. List the name, address, and, if possible, the telephone number of the appellant;
3. Identify the decision document by title and subject, date of the decision, and name and title of
the Responsible Official;
4. Identify the specific change(s) in the decision that the appellant seeks or portion of the deci-
sion to which the appellant objects;
5. State how the Responsible Official’s decision fails to consider comments previously pro-
vided, either before or during the comment period specified in 36 CFR 215.6 and, if ap-
plicable, how the appellant believes the decision violates law, regulation or policy.
For additional information concerning this decision, contact Scott Posner, Forest Service Inter-
disciplinary Team Leader, Wrangell Ranger District, P.O. Box 51, Wrangell, AK 99929, or call
(907) 874-2323.
Assistant Forest Supervisor
/ /'■s- /?■ Sr
Date
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Record of Decision
ROD - Page 21
BRADFIELD JT \ CANAL
ROD - Page 22
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Record of Decision
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Canal Hoya Timber Sale
United States Department of Agriculture
Forest Service - Alaska Region
Lead Agency:
USDA Forest Service
Tongass National Forest
Stikine Area
Responsible Official:
Carol J. Jorgensen
Assistant Forest Supervisor, Stikine Area
Tongass National Forest
P.O. Box 309
Petersburg, AK 99833
For Further Information Contact:
Scott Posner, Team Leader
Wrangell Ranger District
Tongass National Forest
P.O. Box 51
Wrangell, AK 99929
(907) 874-2323
Abstract:
This Final Environmental Impact Statement describes the
effects of four "action" alternatives and one "no action"
alternative for harvesting timber in the Canal Hoya Project
Area.
■
Summary
Summary
This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared by the Stikine Area of the Tongass National Forest to
document the effects of, and alternatives to, a proposed timber sale in two Value Comparison Units (VCU). VCU 5210
(Canal Creek) and VCU 5200 (Hoya Creek) are along the south shore of the Bradfield Canal. In this document we
describe the "proposed action" and three alternative strategies for harvesting timber, building roads and building log
transfer facilities in the Canal Hoya Project Area. A "no action" alternative is also described.
Chapter 1 provides the purpose and need for the project we are proposing, the public issues surrounding the proposed
action, and other important information. The purpose and need for the proposed action is to respond to the goals and
objectives identified by the Revised Forest Plan for the timber resource while moving the Canal Hoya Project Area
towards the desired future condition for all resources. The public comments we received during scoping showed that
there were five main issues that people were most concerned about:
Timber Supply and Economics,
Scenic and Tourism Values,
An an Bears,
Wildlife Habitat and Species Conservation,
Freshwater and Marine Resources.
Chapter 2 discusses the alternatives we designed, as a result of our analysis and the public comment we received.
• The Proposed Action (Alternative 1) emphasizes timber volume and harvest economics in the Hoya VCU and
balances bear habitat security, visual concerns, soil and water quality, and timber production in the Canal VCU.
• Alternative 2 responds primarily to public concerns about timber harvest and economics, and proposes the highest
level of harvest and road construction.
• Alternative 3 emphasizes bear habitat security, soil and water quality, and visual concerns in the Canal VCU, and
emphasizes timber volume and harvest economics in the Hoya VCU. Under this alternative, there would be no
roads constructed in the Canal VCU, which is nearest to the Anan Wildlife Viewing Area.
• Alternative 4 emphasizes wildlife habitat and security, visual objectives, soils and water quality throughout the
Project Area. This alternative proposes the least amount of road of all the action alternatives, and partial harvest
prescriptions would be emphasized.
• The No Action Alternative (Alternative 5) proposes no change to the existing environment in the Canal Hoya
Project Area.
We selected Alternative 3 as our preferred alternative, because it best met the purpose and need of providing timber,
while maintaining desired conditions for Anan bears and other resources. Several changes were made in the preferred
alternative (Alternative 3) as a result of public and other agency comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement,
which was published in January 1998. Briefly, the changes included:
1) Most of Unit 35 and all of Unit 36 were dropped. This will help maintain the economic viability of possible future
road construction for timber harvest in the Canal VCU. Although no roads will be constructed in the Canal VCU this
entry, we will monitor the effects of the roads in the Hoya VCU to determine if our mitigation measures for wildlife
habitat security are adequate to allow future roads in the Canal VCU.
2) To offset some of the volume lost by deferring harvest in units 35 and 36, we added Units 18, 23 and 33.
3) A small segment of temporary road with a temporary fish stream crossing would be added in order to access unit 23
for cable yarding.
4) A segment of Road 6960 would be moved north in all alternatives, in order to avoid an unstable crossing site on West
Survey Creek and four small fish stream crossings.
5) The Hoya Log Transfer Facility site was selected and the Capsize Cove LTF site was dropped in all alternadves. The
Hoya LTF site poses more risk to adjacent resident fish habitat than the Capsize Cove LTF, but the risk can be mitigated
through design and erosion control measures. The Hoya LTF site is preferred because it has less impact on visuals,
wildlife habitat, and anchorage; and there is less road construction needed.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Effects, describes the Project Area and predicts changes likely to
occur with implementation of the alternatives. These changes include both direct and indirect impacts of the five
alternatives for each resource issue. Potential cumulative impacts of reasonably foreseeable or similar actions are also
disclosed.
There are extra maps at the end of Appendix A, so you can remove them and refer to them as you review this document.
Canal Hoya Final EIS Summary - S-1
Table S-1
Alternative Comparison Table
Alt 1
Alt 2
Alt 3
Alt 4
Alt 5
No Action
Total Acres Classified as Available for Harvest
3670
3670
3670
3670
3670
Proposed Treatment Acres
780
800
660
610
Canal Creek VCU
230
290
70
120
0
Hoya Creek VCU
550
510
590
489
0
Harvest by Volume Strata (acres)
Low Volume (2120 acres existing)
85
40
75
110
0
Medium Volume (5800 acres existing)
415
395
320
290
0
High Volume (4500 acres existing)
280
365
265
210
0
% of Available Treated
21%
22%
18%
17%
0
Total Volume (MMBF)
16
17
14
12
0
Cable Yarded
8.2
11.5
7.2
1.3
0
Helicopter Yarded
7.3
4.9
6.4
10.8
0
ROW Volume
.5
.7
.4
.2
0
Net Stumpage ($/MBF)
Including Specified Road Costs
-$135
-$139
-$130
-$110
0
Excluding Specified Road Costs
$3
$23
$2
$-44
0
Number of Direct Jobs Produced During Life of Sale
60
64
52
46
0
Specified Road (miles)
8.5
11.3
7.3
2.6
0
Temporary Road
1.6
2.8
1.7
0
0
Total Road Miles
10.1
14.1
9
2.6
0
Log Transfer Sites
2
2
1
1
0
Visibility From Blake Island
From Mouth of Canal Creek
From Mouth of Hoya Creek
most
most
most
least
least
least
Harvest by Visual Management Class (acres)
Visual Management Class 2
305
350
250
190
0
Visual Management Class 3
365
300
300
345
0
Visual Management Class 4
110
150
110
75
0
Duration of Operations (years)
3-5
3-5
3-4
2-3
0
Brown Bear Denning Habitat Harvested (1985 acres existing)
73
134
89
80
0
% of Anan Bear Locations Within 1 Mile of Proposed Roads
12%
13%
6%
2%
0
% of Highly Suitable Habitat in Project Area Reduced in
Quality for
Black Bear
56
60
40
26
0
Brown Bear
4
3
3
2
0
Mountain Goat
3
55
54
3
0
Deer (Medium Suitable Habitat Reduced in Quality)
18
16
15
6
0
Marten
9
10
8
6
0
Goshawk
5
6
6
5
0
Project Area Habitat Capability as a % of Current Condition
Black Bear
84
81
87
91
100
Brown Bear
92
90
94
96
100
Mountain Goat
91
87
89
95
100
Deer
92
92
94
95
100
Marten
95
95
95
96
100
Drainage Structures on Fish Streams
8
8
6
2
0
Harvest in Watersheds with the Most Fish Habitat (acres)
Canal (4.1 miles of fish stream)
60
65
0
0
0
Hoya (18.9 miles of fish stream)
140
135
150
5
0
Survey (5.8 miles of fish stream)
275
305
325
385
0
% Watershed Harvest in Most Sensitive Watersheds
Hoya
1%
1%
1%
0
0
Survey
7%
8%
8%
10%
0
Road Miles in Watersheds with the Most Fish Habitat
Canal
0
1.0
0
0
0
Hoya
2.2
2.0
2.2
0
0
Survey
4.2
5.2
5.2
2.0
0
Volume Through LTFs (MMBF)
15
17
12
8
0
Volume to Barge (MMBF)
1
0
2
4
0
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Summary - S-2
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Record of Decision R-l
Summary S-l
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need for Action
Introduction 1-1
DocumentOrganization 1-2
Project Area 1-2
Proposed Action 1-2
Decision to be Made 1-5
Purpose and Need 1-5
Overall Direction for the Project 1-6
Overall Management for the Project Area 1 -6
Desired Future Condition 1-6
Public Ilnvolvement 1-8
Public Scoping 1-8
Other Agency Involvement - Permits, Licenses, and Certifications 1-8
Category 3 Timber Sale Review 1-9
Field Studies 1-9
Issues 1-10
Issues Associated with the Proposed Action 1-10
Issue 1 - Timber Supply and Demand 1-10
Issue 2 - Scenic and Tourism Values 1-11
Issue 3 - Anan Bears 1-12
Issue 4- Wildlife Habitat and Species Conservation 1-12
Issue 5 - Freshwater and Marine Resources 1-13
Other Environmental Considerations 1-13
Legislation and Executive Orders Related to this EIS 1-14
Publid Comment on DEIS 1-15
Chapter 2 - Alternatives
Introduction 2-1
Alternative Development 2-1
Measures Common to All Alternatives 2-1
Alternatives Considered, but Eliminated from Further Review 2-5
Alternatives Considered in Detail 2-7
Alternative 1 - Proposed Action 2-7
Alternative 2 2-10
Alternative 3 2-13
Alternative 4 2-16
Alternative 5 - No Action 2-18
Alternative Comparison 2-18
Preferred Alternative
2-20
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment
and Environmental Effects
Introduction 3-1
Effects on Key Issues 3-1
Issue One: Timber Supply and Economics 3-2
Timber Supply 3-2
Economics 3-6
Employment in Southeast Alaska 3-6
Market Demand for Timber 3-7
Market Values and Costs of Each Alternative 3-9
Issue Two: Scenic and Tourism Values 3-14
Scenery 3-14
Post Sale Management and Recreation Potential 3-34
Direct Effects to Recreationists and Outfitter Guides 3-35
Issue Three: Anan Bears 3-40
Distribution of Anan Bears Within the Project Area 3-42
Habitat Used by Black Bears 3-42
Habitat Used by Brown Bears 3-49
The Impact of Roads and Disturbances on Bears 3-51
Bear Populations Within the Project Area 3-55
Behavior We Can Expect from Habituated Bears 3-57
Issue Four: Wildlife Habitat and Species Conservation 3-60
Biodiversity and Viability 3-60
Wildlife Habitat 3-61
Fragmentation 3-61
Distribution of Forested Acres and Important Habitats 3-63
Vertical Diversity Retention 3-64
Corridors 3-67
Old Growth Reserves 3-69
Accumulative Effects on Old Growth an Fragmentation 3-70
Species Conservation 3-71
Threatened and Endangered Species 3-71
Species of Concern 3-71
Northern Goshawk 3-71
Marbled Murrelet 3-73
Wolf 3-75
Waterfowl and Shorebirds 3-76
Amphibians 3-76
Songbirds 3-77
Eagles and Other Raptors 3-77
Management Indicator Species Analysis 3-78
Management Indicator Species 3-78
Mountain Goat 3-79
Deer 3-80
Marten 3-81
Issue Five: Freshwater and Marine Resources 3-86
Freshwater Resources 3-86
Distribution of Fish Streams 3-88
Flood plains and Riparian Areas 3-89
Watersheds 3-91
Marine Resources 3-94
Other Environmental Considerations 3-96
Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources... 3-97
Unavoidable Environmental Effects 3-97
Alaska Coastal Management Program 3-98
ANILCA Section 810 Subsistence Evaluation 3-98
Heritage Resources 3-100
Soil Resources 3-101
Wetlands 3-103
Karst and Caves 3-106
Other Findings 3-106
Chapter 4 - Lists
List of Preparers 4- 1
List of Documeny Recipients 4-3
Glossary 4-5
Literature Sited 4-22
Index 4-26
Appendix A Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps A-l
Appendix B Road Cards B-l
Appendix C Monitoring and Improvement Projects C-l
Appendix D LTF Site Selection, Design, and Marine Effects D-l
Appendix E Reasons for Scheduling the Environmental
Analysis of the Canal Hoya Timber Harvest E-l
Appendix F Comments to the DEIS F-l
■
List of Tables
Table Number and Title Page Number
S-l Alternative Comparison
2-1 Alternative 1 Harvest Units 2-9
2-2 Alternative 2 Harvest Units 2-12
2-3 Alternative 3 Harvest Units 2-15
2-4 Alternative 4 Harvest Units 2-18
2- 5 Alternative Comparison % 2-19
3- 1 Southeast Alaska Annual Average Employment 3-6
3-2 Jobs Produced in the Timber Industry Since 1987 3-7
3-3 Canal Hoya Contributions to Regional Employment 3-9
3-4 Canal Hoya Mid-Market Timber Values and Costs 3-10
3-5 Recent Stikine Area Timber Sale Bidding Results 3-11
3-6 Alternative Summary for the Canal Hoya Project Area 3-11
3-7 Estimated Minimal Payments to the State of Alaska 3-12
3-8 Public Investment Summary 3-13
3-9 Canal VCU: Acres Harvested in Each Visual Management Class 3-18
3-10 Hoya VCU: Acres Harvested in Each Visual Management Class 3-18
3-11 Miles of Specified & Temporary Road in Each Alternative 3-35
3-12 Logging Activities Associated With Each Alternative 3-36
3-13 Present Available Value of Anan Wildlife Observatory to the Guiding Industry 3-37
3-14 Acres of Existing Highly Suitable Habitat and Percent Remaining as High
by Alternative for Black Bear 3-45
3-15 Percent of Exisiting Overall Habitat Capability Remaining by Alternative
for Black and Brown Bear. 3-45
3-16 Acres of Existing Highly Suitable Habitat and Percent Remaining as
High by Alternative for Brown Bear 3-51
3-17 Acres of Brown Bear Denning Habitat and % Remaining by Alternative 3-51
3-18 Percentage o f Highly Suitable Black Bear Habitat Reduced in Quality 3-58
3-19 Measures of Fragmentation Effect by Alternative 3-63
3-20 Acres of High Volume Removed by Alternative 3-63
3-21 Size, and Acres of Productive Old Growth for each Old Growth Reserve 3-69
3-22 Acres of Medium - High Volume (>20,000 bf/acre), Low Elevation (<800’),
Low Slope (<30%) forested habitat and % Remaining by Alternative 3-73
3-23 Acres of Highly Suitable Habitat for Management Indicator Species and
Percent Remaining by Alternative 3-82
3-24 Percent of Existing Overall Habitat Capability Remaining by Alternative 3-82
3-25 Distribution of Fish Streams 3-86
3-26 Comparison of Alternatives - Fish Stream Crossings 3-89
3-27 Distribution of Stream Process Groups 3-90
3-28 Watershed Sensitivity 3-91
3-29 Alternative Comparison Watershed Acres and Percent Harvested 3-92
3-30 Alternative Comparison Watershed Road Miles Constructed 3-93
3-31 Comparison of Alternatives Marine Impacts 3-95
3-32 Harvest demand and estimated habitat capability for WAA 1901 3-99
3-33 Roads in Wetlands 3-105
3-34 Acres of Harvest on Wetlands 3-105
List of Figures
Figure Number and Title
1-1 Project Area Vicinity Map
1- 2 Project area Management Prescription and VCU Boundary
2- 1 Alternative 1 Map
2-2 Alternative 2 Map
2-3 Alternative 3 Map
2- 4 Alternative 4 Map
3- 1 Acreage Classification for the Canal Hoya Project Area
3-2 Suitability and Operability
3-3 Timber Volume Strata
3-4 Visual Quality Objectives
3-5 Visual Management Classes for the Project Area
3-6 Viewpoints for 3-D Projections
3-7 Viewpont 1, Blake Island View
3-8 Blake Island Viewpoint, Alternative 1
3-9 Blake Island Viewpoint, Alternative 2
3-10 Blake Island Viewpoint, Alternative 3
3- 1 1 Blake Island Viewpoint, Alternative 4
3-12 Canal Viewpoint
3-13 Canal Viewpoint, Alternative 1
3-14 Canal Viewpoint, Alternative 2
3-15 Canal Viewpoint, Alternative 3
3-16 Canal Viewpoint, Alternative 4
3- 1 7 Hoya Viewpoint
3-18 Hoya Viewpoint, Alternative 1
3-19 Hoya Viewpoint, Alternative 2
3-20 Hoya Viewpoint, Alternative 3
3-21 Hoya Viewpoint, Alternative 4
3-22 Schematic Drawing of Canal Log Transfer Facility
3-23 Schematic Drawing of Hoya Log Transfer Facility
3-24 Known Use Areas for Radio-Collared Anan Bears
3-25 Average Percent Use and Average Availability of Habitat Types
for Anan Bears
3-26 Number of Den Locations by Habitat Type for Eleven Anan Black Bears
3-27 Existing Black Bear Habitat
3-28 Effects of Alternative 2 on Black Bear Habitat
3-29 Existing Brown Bear Habitat
3-30 Effects of Alternative 2 on Brown Bear Habitat
3-31 Old Growth Forest Blocks
3-32 Special Habitats
3-33 Old Growth Forest Blocks and Corridors
3-34 Existing Goat Winter Range
3-35 Existing Deer Winter Range
3-36 Existing Marten Winter Range
3-37 Streams and Major Watersheds
Page Number
1-3
1- 4
2- 9
2-12
2- 15
2-18
3- 3
3-4
3-5
3- 15
3-17
3-19
3-20
3-21
3-21
3-22
3-22
3-24
3-25
3-25
3-26
3-26
3-28
3-29
3-29
3-30
3-30
3-33
3-33
3-41
3-43
3-44
3-46
3-47
3-52
3-53
3-62
3-65
3-68
3-83
3-84
3-85
3-87
Chapter 1
Purpose and Need
Chapter 1
Purpose and Need
Introduction: This Document and You
Thank you for your interest in the proposed Canal Hoya Timber Sale. This Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared by the Stikine Area of the Tongass National Forest to
document our efforts to make decisions about a possible timber sale within the Canal Hoya
Project Area based upon laws and other direction and upon public needs and concerns. The
Assistant Forest Supervisor of the Stikine Area, Tongass National Forest, will make the final
decision, which will be documented in a Record of Decision.
This document outlines the effects of and alternatives to a proposed timber sale in the Canal
Creek and Hoya Creek watersheds, along the Bradfield Canal, known as the Canal Hoya
Project Area. In this document we describe the "proposed action" and three alternative
strategies for harvesting timber. These strategies also include building and maintaining roads
and log transfer facilities in the Canal Hoya Project Area. A "no action" alternative is
described. We have disclosed the environmental effects and resource outputs that we expect
from the Proposed Action and each of the alternatives.
This Final EIS is prepared according to the format established by Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508). In general, the objective is to furnish
enough site-specific information to demonstrate a reasoned consideration of the
environmental impacts of the alternatives and how these impacts can be mitigated.
The planning record is available at the Wrangell Ranger District office in Wrangell, AK.
Other reference documents such as the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1997a), the
Tongass Timber Reform Act, the Resources Planning Act, and the Alaska Regional Guide,
are available at public libraries around the region as well as at the Supervisor’s Office in
Petersburg.
Document Organization
Chapter 1 provides the purpose and need for the project we are proposing, the public issues
surrounding the action, and other introductory information. It also discusses how the Canal
Hoya Timber Sale relates to the Forest Plan and to other related NEPA actions, the key issues
driving the EIS analysis, and the authorities guiding the EIS process.
Chapter 2 describes and compares the alternatives for accomplishing the proposed action and
no-action alternatives. It includes summary information on their environmental impacts,
implementation and mitigation.
Chapter 3 describes the environment and predicts changes likely to occur with
implementation of the alternatives. These changes include both direct and indirect impacts of
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Chapter 1 ■ 1-1
Purpose and Need
the alternatives on the human and natural environment for each resource issue. Potential
cumulative impacts of reasonably foreseeable or similar actions are also disclosed.
Chapter 4 contains the list of preparers, distribution list, glossary, index, and cited literature.
The glossary will be especially useful to reviewers unfamiliar with technical terms or some of
the more relevant laws regarding environmental analyses.
Finally, supportive information on units, roads, monitoring, log transfer facilities, and how
this sale fits in with the Tongass-wide timber sale program is included in the appendices.
Additional documentation may be found in the project planning record located at the
Wrangell Ranger District office in Wrangell, AK.
Project Area
The Canal Hoya Timber Sale Project Area is located in Southeast Alaska on the south shore
of the Bradfield Canal, 30 miles southeast of the town of Wrangell, Alaska (see Figure 1-1).
The 26,000 acre Project Area includes the Canal Creek and Hoya Creek watersheds. These
watersheds are designated as Value Comparison Units 5210 and 5200, respectively. There
are no roads or developed facilities in the Project Area at this time; however, the Tyee
powerline passes through the Project Area, parallel to the shoreline.
The project area is bordered to the west by a congressionally designated Land Use
Designation II watershed (Anan) and to the east by Semi-Remote Recreation Management
Prescription area (Eagle River), neither of which allow programmed timber harvest. The
Anan Wildlife Viewing Area, known especially for bear viewing opportunities, is about one
mile west of the Project Area boundary (Figure 1-2). North of the Project Area, across the
Bradfield Canal, is the Campbell Timber Sale, where partial harvest of 476 acres was
completed in 1995 (Figure 1-1) under the Cambell Timber Sale EIS and Record of Decision.
Proposed Action
At the start of the planning process we defined a "proposed action". This serves as a starting
point for the planning process and lets the public and other agencies know more about the
project we are considering so they can comment. We then develop other alternatives to the
proposed action in response to environmental issues, public concerns and comments from
other agencies. The "proposed action" could become, but does not have to be, our "preferred"
or final "selected" alternative.
The proposed action for this project would harvest about 16 MMBF of sawlog and utility
timber on approximately 780 acres in Value Comparison Unit (VCU) 5210 (Canal Creek) and
VCU 5200 (Hoya Creek). A variety of harvest methods would be used, which would leave
various densities of trees in harvested areas. Two log transfer sites would be constructed -
one in the Canal VCU and another in the Hoya VCU. The log transfer sites could utilize
temporary floating LTF structures, which are available on the Stikine Area. Both helicopter
and cable yarding systems would be used. Approximately 10 miles of "specified" road and
"temporary" roads would need to be constructed in the Canal and Hoya VCUs.
1-2 ■ Chapter 1
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Purpose and Need
The proposed action, and all alternatives, include a non-significant amendment to the Forest
Plan to increase the size of the old growth reserve in VCU 5200 (Hoya) by adding the isolated
area to the south, which is currently designated Timber Production management prescription,
but cannot be accessed for timber management. This will more accurately portray what will
occur on the ground. The change will increase the size of the Hoya old growth reserve by
approximately 7120 acres, of which 196 acres were classified in Forest Plan calculations as
isolated, but suitable for timber production. See page 2-4 and 3-69 for more detail on the old
growth reserves.
Decision to be Made
The Record of Decision for the Forest Plan established that timber harvest is appropriate in
the Canal Hoya study area. The Stikine Area Assistant Forest Supervisor will decide: 1) if,
where and how much timber harvest should occur in the Canal Hoya area at this time, and if
so, 2) where road and log transfer facility development should occur to facilitate harvest and.
3) what mitigation measures and monitoring would be implemented.
Purpose and Need
The purpose and need for the proposed action is to respond to the goals and objectives
identified by the Forest Plan for the timber resource while moving the Canal Hoya Project
Area towards the desired future condition for all resources. The Forest Plan identified the
following goals and objectives:
1) Manage the Tongass timber resource for production of saw timber and other wood
products from suitable timber lands made available for timber harvest, on an even- flow,
long-term sustained yield basis and in an economically efficient manner (USD A Forest
Service 1997a, page 2-4).
2) Seek to provide a timber supply sufficient to meet the annual market demand for
Tongass National Forest timber, and the demand for the planning cycle (CJSDA 1997a,
page 2-4) and
3) Maintain and promote industrial wood production from suitable timber lands,
providing a continuous supply of wood to meet society’s needs (USD A 1997a, page
3-135 and 3-144).
4) Produce desired resource values, products, and conditions in ways that also sustain the
diversity and productivity of ecosystems (USDA 1997a, page 2-1).
The Canal Hoya Timber Sale is expected to provide between 10 to 17 million board feet to
the timber industry. The range of alternatives considered in this Environmental Impact
Statement was determined during our analysis and reflects issues raised during scoping.
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Chapter 111-5
Purpose and Need
Overall Direction for the Project
Overall Management
Direction for the Project
Area
Areas identified as Modified Landscape and Timber Production Management Prescription lie
within the Project Area. Goals in the Forest Plan for management of those lands emphasize
timber production and scenic quality. Goals for timber production were described above in
the Purpose and Need. Goals for scenic quality include:
Manage these lands for sustained long-term timber yields (both Management
Prescriptions) and a mix of resource activities while minimizing the visibility of
developments in the foreground distance zone (Modified Landscape Management
Prescription, Figure 1-2)
Recognize the scenic values of suitable timber lands viewed from identified popular
roads, trails, marine travel routes, recreation sites, bays and anchorages, and modify
timber harvest practices accordingly (Modified Landscape).
Desired Future Condition
The Forest Plan describes the following desired condition for the Timber Production
Management Prescription (13,700 acres of the Project Area):
"Suitable timber lands are managed for the production of sawtimber and other wood products
on an even- flow, long-term sustained yield basis; the timber produced contributes to a
Forest-wide sustained yield. An extensive road system provides access for timber
management activities, recreation uses, hunting and fishing, and other public and
administrative uses; some roads may be closed, either seasonally or year-long, to address
resource concerns. Management activities will generally dominate most seen areas. Tree
stands are healthy and in a balanced mix of age classes from young stands to trees of
harvestable age, usually in 40 to 100 acre stands. Recreation opportunities associated with
roaded settings, from Semi-primitive to Roaded Modified are available. A variety of wildlife
habitats, predominantly in the early and middle successional stages are present."
The Forest Plan describes the following desired condition for the Modified Landscape
Management Prescription (1 1,900 acres of the Project Area - including most of the land
proposed for harvest activities, Figure 1-2):
"In areas managed under the Modified Landscape Management Prescription, forest visitors,
recreationists, and others using popular travel routes and use areas will view a somewhat
modified landscape. Management activities in the visual foreground will be subordinate to
the characteristic landscape, but may dominate the landscape in the middle and backgrounds.
Within the foreground, timber harvest units are typically small and affect only a small
percentage of the seen area at any one point in time. Roads, facilities and other structures are
also subordinate to the foreground landscape. Recreation opportunities associated with
natural-appearing to modified settings are available. A variety of successional stages provide
a range of wildlife habitat conditions. A yield of timber is produced which contributes to
Forest-wide sustained yield."
1-6
Chapter 1
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Purpose and Need
Special circumstances in the
Project Area guide our desired
conditions.
The existing condition of the
Project Area is described in
Chapter 3 of this EIS, in the
"Affected Environment"
of each resource section.
The desired conditions described by the Forest Plan provide a basis for management of the
Canal Hoya Project Area. Management activities will also be influenced by Forest Plan
standards and guidelines and circumstances particular to the Project Area. Those
circumstances include the adjacent LUD II (roadless) areas, the nearby Anan wildlife viewing
area, and the economic needs of commercial fishermen and outfitters and guides. The
following desired conditions will guide our management of the Canal Hoya Project Area in a
manner consistent with the Forest Plan and the special circumstances of the area:
Soil productivity will be maintained, while using the resources it produces.
• Harvest timber on lands that are not adversely affected by the management activities.
For example: harvest timber where the slopes are not overly steep unless site-specific
prescriptions indicate there is not a high risk of management- induced slope failure.
Manage timber yarding so the side-slopes of v-notch drainages will not be disturbed.
• Locate, construct and maintain roads in ways that minimize environmental disturbance.
Avoid locating roads in areas with unstable soils to prevent an increase in the potential
for mass soil movement.
Aquatic productivity will be maintained or enhanced
• Maintain fish habitat, stream bank and stream channel processes, large woody debris
supply, water quality, and fish passage through crossing structures.
• Maintain balance between streamflow and sediment supplies to assure long term channel
stability. Maintain streamflow regimes that support critical aquatic life stages.
• Protect State designated beneficial uses ("growth and propagation of fish, shellfish, other
aquatic life and wildlife").
Biologically important habitats will continue to be represented in the Project Area, so a
full spectrum of wildlife habitat needs is accounted for and landscape biodiversity is
maintained.
• Follow Forest Plan direction to maintain the long-term viability of wildlife populations
by managing the size and shape of forest blocks, travel corridors between forest blocks
and migration pathways.
• Maintain remnant patches of "old growth" in or adjacent to harvest areas to provide a
seed source to eventually recolonize areas where forbs and shrubs have been shaded out
by dense second growth.
• Maintain subsistence resources by managing habitats and landscapes for game
populations and by controlling access through minimizing road building and through road
management.
• Maintain the population of bears that frequent Anan by managing motorized access.
Maintain old growth habitat in denning site areas used by Anan bears.
• Manage timber harvest operations (including timing) to minimize impacts on the tourism
business connected with Anan.
Visual quality will be maintained along the travel route from Wrangell to Anan Wildlife
Observatory.
• Strive for a Visual Quality Objective (VQO) of Partial Retention in the Canal VCU.
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Chapter 1 ■ 1-7
Purpose and Need
Public Scoping
Other Agency
Involvement - Permits,
Licenses, and
Certifications
Public Involvement
When a timber sale project begins, we designate a group of professionals with a variety of
educational backgrounds to a team known as an "interdisciplinary team" or IDT. The Canal
Hoya IDT listened to public comment and worked with you and the various State and Federal
agencies in an effort to plan the best possible project. The team conducted the planning
process and wrote this document to inform you and the Forest Supervisor of the
environmental consequences of the proposed action and alternatives.
"Public Scoping" is the term we use to describe the process of identifying the significant
issues for a project by contacting interested individuals and agencies to determine their
concerns. The following is a summary of the letters, contacts, and meetings that took place
during the planning of this project:
• April 1996 - Preliminary Scoping Letter to identify issues
• December 1996 - Notice of Intent published in the Federal Register
• December 1996 - Scoping Letter sent to clarify issues and identify alternatives
• Winter/Spring 1997 - Newspaper articles and notes describing the project and
opportunities for comment.
• October 1997 - Revised Notice of Intent published in the Federal Register. Field data
indicates that the volume per acre in the study area is lower than the estimate used to
establish the volume for the Purpose and Need for this project in the original Notice of
Intent. The revised Notice of Intent incorporates the updated information to provide for a
range of volumes in the Purpose and Need, which also allows us to better address the
issues and desired conditions related to this project.
• January 1998 - Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was
published in the Federal Register and copies of the DEIS were sent to interested people
on the Canal Hoya mailing list. The comment period for the DEIS continued until March
2, 1998. Comments were responded to by the Forest Service and appropriate changes
have been integrated into this Final EIS.
• Meetings with individuals, agencies, and organizations including: Alaska Department of
Fish and Game (ADFG), Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC),
Alaska Division of Governmental Coordination (DGC), Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS), Wrangell Resources Council and Stikine Jetboat Association.
Several other agencies reviewed this project to provide their professional point of view on
topics in which they have expertise. In some cases, reviews are necessary because another
agency has authority to issue permits for a specific activity we propose. Below, we describe
our relationship to other agencies in the planning of this project.
US Army Corps of Engineers - The Corps is responsible for approving proposals to dredge
or fill materials in the coastal waters of the United States under Section 404 of the clean water
act. In this project, we seek a permit from the Corps for Log Transfer Facilities. The Corps
also has administrative authority over activities associated with wetlands. Any road
construction in wetlands is of interest to the Corps and we must consider and reduce our
effects on those areas. All roads proposed for this project are for the purpose of managing the
timber resource.
1-8
Chapter 1
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Purpose and Need
Environmental Protection Agency - The EPA provides a general review in accordance with
their responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act, Section 309 of the Clean
Air Act, and Section 402 of the Clean Water Act. They also administer permits associated
with the Log Transfer Facilities under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System.
National Marine Fisheries Service - NMFS has authority for threatened or endangered
marine life and we consulted with them on possible effects on those species.
US Fish and Wildlife Service - USFWS administers the Endangered Species Act. We
consult with the USFWS to determine if we are affecting Threatened or Endangered species.
We also discuss effects on other wildlife species with the USFWS, since they have expertise
in many areas and are interested in managing for wildlife in ways that will prevent the need
for listing species as Threatened or Endangered in the future. The USFWS also conducted
dive surveys of potential log transfer facilities and offered recommendations on suitable sites.
State of Alaska - Five departments in the State of Alaska are asked to participate in the
planning of this project. They give general comments and suggestions as well as specific
reviews, such as :
1) Division of Governmental Coordination (DGC) - Provides overall coordination for the
State’s comments and administers Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP), which
requires the Forest Service to design activities compatible with approved State management
guidelines,
2) Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)- Participates in cooperative water
quality management through Section 3 19 of the Clean Water Act and a Memorandum of
Agreement with the Forest Service. ADEC also issues a certificate of compliance with
Alaska Water Quality Standards under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act,
3) Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) - Involved in the Coastal Zone Consistency review
and are especially interested in instream activities and other fish, water, wildlife and
subsistence issues,
4) Department of Natural Resources (DNR) - Tideland permit and lease or easement
necessary for the log transfer site,
5) State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) - Compliance with Section 106 if the National
Historic Preservation Act, a process to determine the effects of alternatives on heritage
resources.
Category 3 Timber Sale
Review
The Forest Service met with representatives from the interagency implementation team on
October 10, 1997 (National Marine Fisheries Service, Environmental Protection Agency, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Division of Governmental Coordination, Department of
Fish and Game, and Department of Environmental Conservation) to review the extent to
which the new wildlife standards and guidelines added in the 1997 Forest Plan Record of
Decision (USDA 1997b, page 41) should be incorporated into the Canal Hoya Timber Sale
Project. The new wildlife standards and guidelines address landscape connectivity, endemic
terrestrial mammals, northern goshawk, and American marten. The intent of these new
standards and guidelines is to avoid some possible long-term cumulative effect. The meetings
further developed the communication with the other resource management agencies regarding
the timber sale planning process.
!
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Chapter 1
1-9
Purpose and Need
Field Studies
Issues Associated with
the Proposed Action
"... We need a timber industry;
consider Helicopter and SB A
sale... "
”... We hope you will consider a
range of alternatives starting
at. 5 MMBF... ”
”... Current timber sale
economics make it imperative
that the maximum volume be
obtained from each entry into
these areas. Please examine the
possibility of increasing harvest
to 60 or 70 MMBF at the least...
Field studies were conducted in 1994, 1996 and 1997 to collect specific information relative
to issues and to verify resource information contained in the Tongass National Forest
geographic information system (GIS). Examples of resource information in GIS include
streams, important wildlife habitat, timber and soil inventories, and location of proposed
harvest units. Field studies used unit and road design cards for all action alternatives to
document the location of proposed harvest units and roads. Resource specialists listed
specific concerns on the cards and recommended how those concerns should be addressed or
mitigated (Appendix A and B).
Information from field studies and GIS was then used to address the issues and analyze the
environmental effects of each alternative. The entire analysis was used by the Forest Service
to select a preferred alternative for publication in both the Draft and Final EIS.
Inventories, resource specialist reports, and GIS information are part of the Canal Hoya
planning record. Also included in the planning record are results of public scoping and the
unit and road design cards. The planning record will be available for public inspection at the
Wrangell Ranger District in Wrangell, Alaska.
Issues
Although there are often many issues associated with the planning of a timber sale, the
National Environmental Policy Act directs us to analyze in detail only those issues that are
significant. This ensures that we focus our analysis and documentation on the issues that are
most important to the specific Project Area. We reviewed planning documents for other
projects in the area and listened to comments during the public participation process (see a
cross section of these comments in the margin adjacent to each issue). This information was
used to identify five key issues, which form the basis for the alternatives:
Issue 1 : Timber Supply and Economics
This project has the potential to affect employment and the economy of local communities,
which was brought up as an issue during public scoping. Public comments indicated concern
about current changes in the timber industry, particularly regarding the pulp products from
this sale and questions about the need for the sale given the recent mill closures. The terrain
and quality of timber in the Project Area may make it difficult to design a timber sale that
would be advertised above base rates, so the economic viability of a sale is also an issue. The
amount of wood harvested, the location of old growth reserves and any infrastructure
developed with this entry may affect availability and costs associated with future entries for
timber harvest. Roads and log transfer facilities constructed for timber harvest may make
future sales more economical, but the access they provide between sales is a concern due to
other issues, such as increased vulnerability to hunting of Anan bears.
1-10
Chapter 1
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Purpose and Need
”... I am concerned about the
very real negative impacts on the
fishery , commercial and sport
rr
”... This area , Anan in
particular , has become a major
tourist area. What will be the
impact on tourism? No one likes
to see clearcuts ... ”
”... We believe that visual
retention is very important in
areas like the Bradfield ... "
"I have a deep concern that not
enough roads will be built
Extensive roading should be
pursued in order to increase the
access for recreation ... ”
"...Remove drainage structures
... so that vehicles will not be
able to drive the roads ... Prevent
hunters from hiking along the
roads... ”
”... We object specifically to the
location of an LTF in the same
site where we have established a
primitive, low impact use ... ”
Issue #2: Scenic and Tourism Values
People are concerned about how this sale would change scenic conditions, and recreation and
tourism potential in the Bradfield Canal area. Although this area is used by some local people
for recreation, the larger portion of recreationists affected by this sale would be tourists who
are accompanied by guides, whether they are fishing, big game hunting, or sight-seemg
(particularly at Anan Wildlife Viewing Area). Different people perceive impacts from a sale
in different ways. It is not possible to say that any given change would have a net positive or
negative effect on a recreationist in the area. It depends on whom we ask. For example, a
recreationist who values the addition of roads to previously inaccessible areas would see
proposed road building as a definite advantage over no harvest or helicopter yarding.
Conversely, a recreationist who values the appearance of an undisturbed natural setting while
boating or fishing may support helicopter yarding or no harvest, and would perceive a roaded
entry with visible clearcuts as a negative impact on the recreation experience.
We can break the expected changes into three major groups:
1) Scenery - How will the area look to people who are boating past? Will the harvest units
dominate the landscape, or will they blend in enough to be barely noticeable to the casual
observer?
2) Post sale road management strategies and recreation potential - How would the
proposed management for the road systems (if any are constructed) affect potential
recreational users of the area? What type of recreational activities would be favored by the
different alternatives?
3) Direct effects to recreationists, tourists, and outfitters and guides - The Bradfield Canal
area is heavily traveled in the summer months by local users and outfitter/guides transporting
clients to the Anan Wildlife Observatory. Additionally, the Bradfield Canal is used by guides
for steelhead fishing and big game hunting. How would the actual road building, logging, and
presence of logging camps, barges, and log rafts along the coastline affect these users?
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Chapter 1 ■ 1-11
Purpose and Need
"Can they close the whole area
to hunting of both brown and
black bears? The construction of
roads will make hunting of these
animals much easier ... "
" . . .1 want to see a guarantee
that you will not try to close bear
hunting in the area because of
the scarcity of viewable bears at
Anan... "
"We hope you will work closely
with the biologists ... to avoid all
denning areas ... strict
enforcement of firearm and
hunting restrictions ... "
"The bears at Anan will benefit
from clear cutting at Canal
Hoya... "
Issue 3: Anan Bears
This is a recreation issue, since people who visit or make their living guiding visitors to Anan
are concerned about the effects of the Canal Hoya Timber Sale on the bears that use Anan.
The Anan Wildlife Viewing Area is located 1.5 miles to the west of the Canal Hoya Project
Area boundary. Some 2000 - 3000 people visit Anan each year to view wildlife, especially
the 30-60 black bears and 12-20 brown bears that catch salmon in Anan Creek. Many of the
bears that use Anan also den or forage in the Canal Hoya project area.
While the risk to black bear populations may be minimal, it is unclear how the timber sale
would affect the behavior and distribution of individual animals now frequenting Anan and
therefore, the recreational opportunities available to visitors. Timber harvest on high-value
habitat and increasing access with roads has the potential to impact habituated bears at Anan,
which in turn affects recreation opportunities. Habituated bears may be at greater risk if
encountered by hunters along new road systems or trails.
The Anan bear issue is also a wildlife issue due to a concern for bear populations in the
landscape containing a high-value fish stream (Anan creek). Timber harvest on high value
habitat and increasing access with roads may impact the brown bear population in the area
over time. Viability of brown bears in the Tongass National Forest has been identified as a
concern.
Issue 4: Wildlife Habitat and Species Conservation
Many wildlife species of concern depend on large tracts of old growth with interior forest
"...Leave corridors so bears are conditions. Connections between these tracts of forest are a critical component in
able to travel from hibernating maintaining species viability.
and feeding habitats... "
"...I am concerned about the
impact on the wildlife dependent
on this area ; salmon, bears,
eagles, etc., and the impact on
their habitat... "
"...Goats can be adversely
affected not only by high
elevation roads, but also high
elevation timber harvest... "
...It will probably reduce my fur
trapping income. All of the other
industrial activity in the
Bradfield has... "
Old growth reserves and corridors are included in the Forest Plan as a strategy for maintaining
biodiversity and viable wildlife populations. The location and habitat quality of the reserves
is an important issue in the design of this timber sale.
The level of interest and concern over certain species on the Tongass leads us to conduct a
species-level analysis in addition to the community-based habitat analysis mentioned above.
Species to consider are generally classified as Management Indicator Species, threatened,
endangered, and sensitive, special concern or harvested wildlife species. There is a concern
over the acreage and location of critical beach and estuary habitats. Buffers to protect
riparian corridors and beach estuary habitats are specified in the Forest Plan; however, the
various alternatives discussed for this project have the potential to affect high- volume low
elevation habitats in different ways. Key species considered in the design of the alternatives
include: brown and black bear, wolf, deer, goat, marten, and goshawk.
The location, density, and use of roads has an effect on the quality of wildlife habitat for
certain species. Roads can act as a dispersal barrier to small mammals and amphibian
populations. Roads in Canal and Hoya would provide interior access to game animals that
currently are only reached by shore or by accessible lakes. Road access has been identified
as an issue for species with viability concerns such as the marten, wolf, and brown bear.
1-12 ■ Chapter 1
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Purpose and Need
”... I am concerned about the
streams in the area of the
proposed sale with their
drainages in the Bradfield ... ”
”... Transfer to and the storage of
logs in marine waters can result
in significant impacts to marine
and estuarine habitats important
to many species of fish, aquatic
vegetation and wildlife ... "
”... Do not log on high risk soils
areas ... ”
”... Undue emphasis should not
be placed on alleged hazard soils,
Karst and other nondescript ways
for timber harvest to be
limited... ”
”... if it must be logged,
helicopter logging using
alternative cutting could avoid
these hazards ... "
Other Environmental
Considerations
Issue 5: Freshwater and Marine Resources
Freshwater and marine resources that may be affected by harvest, roads, log transfer facilities,
and log transport are important to the pubic and various State and Federal agencies who have
responsibility for water quality, wetlands, tidelands and fish and wildlife habitat.
The Project Area contains approximately 30 miles of fish-bearing streams, including 3.5 miles
accessible by anadromous fish. Salmon and steelhead access into Project Area streams is
limited to the lowest reaches of most of the larger streams by steep gradients and impassable
bedrock falls. The upper watersheds contain a few small lakes, but most of these are isolated
from resident fish populations: only one is known to contain fish. Commercial, subsistence
and recreational fishing values associated with freshwater fish habitat within the Project Area
are, therefore, relatively low.
Herring spawn along much of the Project Area shoreline and the Bradfield Canal is an
important crab and shrimp fishery. The confluence of several large streams into relatively
sheltered bays (particularly at Canal Creek) produces high quality estuaries at the mouths of
both Canal and Hoya Creeks. There is a concern that debris from logging would affect
marine habitats by covering the bottom and possibly eliminating some of the ocean flora.
Debris in the water could affect fishing gear, and floating camps, barges and log rafts could
reduce access to fishing grounds and anchorages.
The watersheds of the Project Area are dominated by steep mountain slopes and narrow
valleys. Snow and debris avalanches appear to be frequent and important disturbance
processes in the upper watersheds. Much of the mainstem of Hoya Creek, for example,
appears to be heavily influenced by recent deposits of sediment and debris from mass failures.
There is a high proportion of steep slopes in the eastern portion of the Project Area. There is
concern that management induced landslides would affect streams if roads or harvest units
were not properly designed or were situated on steep "high hazard" slopes. There is also
concern that stream crossings and sediment from roads would affect streams, especially in
steep terrain, where larger road cuts or more extreme water flows may occur.
In addition to the "key issues," there are other issues that we must disclose by law, or that
were brought up by the public. Although those other issues were considered in our analysis,
the effects would not be significant, so we describe them briefly in this document. Those
other issues include:
Forest Soils
Subsistence
Heritage Resources
Air Quality
Effects on Consumers, Civil Rights and Women
Minerals
Karst and Caves
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Chapter 1 ■ 1-13
Purpose and Need
Legislation and Executive Orders Related
to This EIS
Shown below is a brief list of laws pertaining to preparation of EISs on Federal lands. Some
of these laws are specific to Alaska, while others pertain to all Federal lands.
• National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended)
• Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, amended 1986
• National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (as amended)
• Clean Air Act of 1970 (as amended)
• Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) of 197 1
• Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972
• Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (as amended)
• Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) of 1974 (as amended)
• National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 (as amended)
• Clean Water Act of 1977 (as amended)
• American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978
• Alaska Native Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) of 1980
• Archeological Resource Protection Act of 1980
• Cave Resource Protection Act of 1988
• Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA) of 1990
• Executive Order 1 1988 (floodplains)
• Executive Order 11990 (wetlands)
• Executive Order 11593 (heritage)
• Executive Order 1 2962 (aquatic systems and recreational fisheries)
In addition, the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1976, as amended, pertains to the
preparation of an EIS. Federal lands are not included in the definition of the coastal zone as
prescribed in the CZMA. However, the Act requires that when Federal agencies conduct
activities or development that affect the Coastal Zone, that agency’s activities or development
be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the approved State Coastal
Management Program. This determination is made by the USDA Forest Service.
The Alaska Coastal Management Plan incorporated the Alaska Forest Resources and
Practices Act of 1979 as applied standards and guidelines for timber harvesting and
processing. The Forest Service Standards and Guidelines and Mitigation Measures described
in Chapter Two of this document are equal to or exceed State Standards.
1-14
Chapter 1
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Purpose and Need
Public Comment on the DEIS
Several changes were made in the preferred alternative (Alternative 3) as a result of public
and other agency comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, which was
published in January 1998. Briefly, the changes included:
1) Most of Unit 35 and all of Unit 36 were dropped. This will help maintain the economic
viability of possible future road construction for timber harvest in the Canal VCU. Although
no roads will be constructed in the Canal VCU this entry, we will monitor the effects of the
roads in the Hoy a VCU to determine if our mitigation measures for wildlife habitat security
are adequate to allow future roads in the Canal VCU.
2) To offset some of the volume lost by deferring harvest in units 35 and 36, we added Units
18, 23 and 33.
3) A small segment of temporary road with a temporary fish stream crossing would be added
in order to access unit 23 for cable yarding.
4) A segment of Road 6960 would be moved north in all alternatives, in order to avoid an
unstable crossing site on West Survey Creek and four small fish stream crossmgs.
5) The Hoya Log Transfer Facility site was selected and the Capsize Cove LTF site was
dropped in all alternatives. The Hoya LTF site poses more risk to adjacent resident fish
habitat than the Capsize Cove LTF, but the risk can be mitigated through design and erosion
control measures. The Hoya LTF site is preferred because it has less impact on visuals,
wildlife habitat, and anchorage; and there is less road construction needed.
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Chapter 1 ■ 1-15
-F
Chapter 2
Alternatives
Chapter 2
Alternatives
Introduction
In this chapter we describe the process we used to develop alternatives to the Proposed
Action. We describe the alternatives we studied in detail, summarize those alternatives we
dropped, identify mitigation measures, and briefly compare the alternatives. We also identify
a preferred alternative, which is Alternative 3 (see page 2-14 and 2-21).
Alternative Development
The proposed action is one of many possible approaches to harvesting timber in the Canal
Hoya Project Area. This chapter describes three other action alternatives being considered,
plus the "no action" alternative. These other alternatives were developed to address the
Purpose and Need for the project; to meet Forest Plan standards & guidelines and applicable
laws; and to respond to the key issues that were identified during our public involvement
process. All of the alternatives were designed to address all of the key issues and desired
conditions for the Project Area to some degree; however the emphasis placed on a given key
issue or desired condition will vary between alternatives.
Our greatest efforts to mitigate effects to scenery, wildlife, Anan bears and water quality are
in the Canal Value Comparison Unit (VCU 5210), since it is closest to Anan and is therefore
most used by Anan bears and is seen by more visitors. Harvest strategies do vary by
alternative to address various issues in the Hoya area (VCU 5200); however, the most
extensive harvesting is done in that area in all action alternatives.
Measures Common
to All Alternatives
Forest Plan Consistency
The alternatives incorporate all applicable management direction from the 1997 Forest Plan
and are fully consistent with its goals, objectives, Forestwide standards and guidelines, and
management area prescriptions as they apply to the project area. Interagency review and
analysis of the need for additional measures was accomplished, and such measures have been
incorporated as necessary.
GIS Mapping Errors
GIS mapping data for large scale planning, such as for the Forest Plan, is often not as precise
as for small scale planning for projects such as the Canal Hoya Timber Sale. This sometimes
results in inconsistencies between the Forest- wide mapping of boundaries for features such as
VCUs and Management Prescriptions. We noted an inconsistency in the Forest Plan mapping
of the boundary for the Semi-Remote Recreation Management Prescription area to the east of
the Canal Hoya Project Area. The boundary should follow the boundary of VCU 5200, but
varies slightly, creating a small sliver (131 acres) of Semi-Remote Recreation Management
Prescription in the Hoya VCU. We will correct the mapping error in the Forest-wide database
to make the Semi-Remote Recreation Management Prescription area boundary match the
boundary of VCU 5200. This will change the management prescription of the sliver to
Modified Landscape. We will make this change under all of the alternatives. Unit 1, which
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS Chapter 2 ■ 2-1
Alternatives
is proposed in Alternatives 1,3, and 4, is in the sliver of Semi-Remote Recreation
Management Prescription created by the mapping error.
Best Management Practices
Best Management Practices (BMPs) are practices and operating procedures designed to
protect water quality. The BMPs are the result of extensive efforts between the Forest
Service and the State of Alaska to identify practices that will ensure that timber harvest
activities minimize soil erosion and protect aquatic habitat. BMPs would be applied in road
location, design, and construction as well as in timber harvest units. The unit and road cards
(Appendix A and B) and the log transfer facility design information (Appendix D) describe
site specific application of BMPs.
Storm-proofing Roads
Specified roads will be designed with oversized culverts, outfall riprap, armored dips adjacent
to culverts, substantial ditch blocks, drivable waterbars, or other protective measures to
prevent culvert failure or erosion of the road surfaces and ditchlines. These measures will
ensure the integrity of the specified roads in the project area during periods of inactivity.
High Hazard Soils
Slopes greater than 72 percent are generally considered to have a high risk for management
induced mass wasting, and are therefore avoided in harvest units proposed in all alternatives.
Some units may contain short pitches greater than 72 percent if they are minor inclusions
within a unit and have been determined to be stable and suitable for harvest. To comply with
Forest Plan standards, a "Slope stability assessment" is completed for all units that contain
areas with slopes steeper than 72 percent.
Locations of Log Transfer Facilities (LTFs) and Roads
LTF locations, when needed, would be consistent among alternatives. Since the Draft EIS,
the Capsize Cove LTF site was dropped in favor of the Hoya LTF site. At Capsize Cove,
concerns were raised about the impacts of LTF activity and debris on an important anchorage
for commercial fishing boats, trappers and other users. There is also a sharp-shinned hawk
nest that would be affected by an LTF at Capsize Cove. The Hoya LTF, east of Capsize
Cove, would not interfere with anchoring vessels or raptor nests, but there are two streams
near the site that would require careful design of the LTF and road. Road locations would be
consistent; however, some segments may not be constructed, depending on the alternative.
Roads in the Hoya VCU
Road construction would not continue past the "pinchpoinf ' in the Hoya VCU. The
"pinchpoint" is a narrow valley with steep slopes along Hoya Creek, about 1.5 miles from the
Hoya estuary. This pinchpoint would make road construction difficult and expensive, and
mitigation of impacts to the soil and water resources would be difficult (see discussion for
Lower Hoya Reserve Alternative, page 2-5).
Traffic Management
We would close the roads to motorized vehicles (except for administrative use) after the sale
is completed under all action alternatives. Closing roads to motorized use allows the
construction of segments of roads across wetlands under a silvicultural exemption to the
Clean Water Act. Road closures also mitigate some wildlife concerns; especially regarding
increased vulnerability to hunting of Anan bears and mountain goats. Two gates would be
installed near the beginning of each road and an administrative closure order would be
written. The gates would be designed such that ATVs cannot go under them and they would
be placed in locations that will be extremely difficult to get around. The first gate would be
made of iron - not the usual perforated steel, so ATVs would not have the power to pull over
or destroy the barricade. During harvest, the gates would be open, but only administrative use
would be allowed. Following sale completion, only necessary administrative use, such as
regeneration surveys, thinning and future harvests, would be allowed. Non-motorized travel
would not be restricted. This strategy is consistent with the Forest Plan objective of avoiding
changes to semi-primitive non-motorized settings in Modified Landscape management
prescription areas, when feasible (USDA 1997a, p. 3-135).
2-2 ■ Chapter 2 Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Alternatives
Instream Activities
All inwater construction activities below the ordinary high water mark on the East Fork and
West Fork of Survey Creek will be restricted to the period between June 1 and August 1 to
protect the habitat of spawning and rearing fish.
Temporary Roads
Temporary roads would be obliterated after use by removing all drainage structures to restore
natural drainage patterns, adding waterbars as needed to control runoff, and establishing
vegetative cover by seeding or other methods. Red alder (Alnus rubral, an invasive species
that naturally colonizes disturbed areas, and Sitka spruce are species that would be used.
Transferring Logs to Saltwater
To address the concern of logging debris interfering with commercial fishing operations m the
area, we would attempt to minimize the introduction of limbs and other debris into the ocean.
Therefore, helicopters would yard logs to land or barges - no logs would be dropped directly
from helicopters into saltwater. We would allow logs to be bundled and placed in saltwater to
create rafts for transport.
Log Transport
Sale administrators would work with the purchaser to avoid log rafts being towed through
areas with shrimp pots. This responds to a concern that log transport would disrupt
commercial shrimp fishing near the Project Area after October 1, during years harvest
operations are being conducted.
Logging Camp and Facilities
No land-based logging camp will be authorized for this timber sale. The purchaser would
most likely use a floating camp, which would be subject to State and Federal permits. If an
alternative with roads is selected, there may be some minor land-based facilities, such as a
repair shop for trucks and other equipment, and storage facilities for fuel/lubricant or road
building explosives. These facilities would not be used as living quarters and garbage would
be removed daily to prevent bear conflicts. No garbage pits or dumps will be allowed in the
project area.
Heritage Resources
Archeological surveys do not indicate that any known sites would be affected by the
alternatives as currently designed. If heritage resources are found prior to or during the
timber sale, appropriate mitigation and protection would be designed in consultation with the
Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer.
Harvest Entries
Harvesting all of the available wood during this rotation would require multiple entries. The
number and timing of entries would depend on how long it takes harvested units to regenerate
consistent with visual standards. In general, a rule-of-thumb used in planning timber sales is
that about 25-30% of the suitable forest land can be harvested during the first entry. In this
case, standards and guidelines for the Modified Landscape management prescription; desired
conditions for other resources - especially Anan bears; the marginal economic value of the
timber on much of the land classified as "available;" and isolated stands of available ground
that cannot be reached economically, resulted in harvest units and alternatives that would
harvest from 17-22% of the total available land during the first entry.
Harvest Prescriptions
Harvest prescriptions would require retaining some trees in clumps or dispersed through all or
a portion of harvest units to maintain visual quality objectives and biodiversity. This strategy
is consistent with the Forest Plan objective of reducing clearcutting in Modified Landscape
management prescription areas, when other methods will meet land management objectives.
Reserve clumps would help meet the desire to provide seed sources to eventually recolonize
areas where forbs and shrubs have been shaded out by dense second growth. Reserve clumps
and dispersed trees would provide a component of large trees in regenerating stands that
would provide habitat for cavity nesting birds, denning bears, marten, marbled murrelets and
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS Chapter 2 ■ 2-3
other species associated with large trees. Where safety permits, reserve trees would include
large standing snags, as well as green trees. The reserve trees would be retained in the units
throughout the rotation. Four basic harvest prescriptions would be used and are described in
more detail in Appendix A:
1. Patch Cuts: clearcuts smaller than 9 acres, yarded by helicopter
2. Clearcuts With Reserves: at least 10% of the acreage left in reserve clumps
3. Partial Harvest with Diameter Limits: one or more diameter limits
4. Partial Harvest with Diameter Limits and Reserves: similar to above, but also includes
reserve clumps
Old Growth Reserves
Old growth reserves would be consistent among alternatives. Small old growth reserves were
identified with the intent of selecting one for each of the two Value Comparison Units (5200
and 5210). The reserves were proposed as part of the Forest Plan revision process with input
from the Canal Hoya IDT. We consulted with USFWS and ADFG on the location and
adequacy of the reserves during the planning process. The location of the reserve in VCU
5210 (Canal) was based primarily on important habitat for bears that use the Anan wildlife
viewing area. The reserve in VCU 5200 (Hoya) includes important mountain goat and deer
winter habitat, maintains corridors to other old growth blocks, and minimizes impacts to the
economically harvestable timber base by locating it beyond a narrow pinchpoint (see page 2-
5). The size of the reserve was selected before the criteria in the Forest Plan were finalized,
so the current total size of the reserve is smaller than the 16% of the VCU specified in the
Forest Plan. The current Hoya reserve does contain the necessary amount of Productive Old
Growth. The area to the south of the Hoya reserve is isolated from timber harvest by the
location of the reserve and would serve the same function as a portion of the reserve. We will
make a non-significant amendment to the Forest Plan to increase the size of the reserve by
adding the isolated area to the south, which is currently designated Timber Production
management prescription, but cannot be economically accessed for timber management. This
will increase the size of the Hoya Old Growth Reserve by approximately 7120 acres, of which
196 acres were classified in Forest Plan calculations as isolated, but suitable for timber
production. See page 3-69 for more detail on the old growth reserves.
Helicopter Flight Restrictions
• Helicopter yarding would not be done in the Canal VCU between May 1 - June 15, to
avoid disturbance to bears with cubs upon emergence from hibernation.
• Helicopter flights associated with harvest operations would be restricted within 1 .5 miles
of the Anan Wildlife Viewing Area from July 1 - August 31 in an effort to reduce
disturbance to bears and wildlife viewers during the peak season at Anan.
• Repeated helicopter flights within 1/4 mile of eagle nest trees would be avoided from
March 1 - May 31. If nests have young, we would extend the protection to August 3 1 .
• Helicopters would be restricted from flying near sea lion haulouts and whales.
• Helicopters would maintain at least 1 ,000 foot vertical and horizontal distance from
visible mountain goats. There would be no sightseeing of goats.
Bear Dens
• Dens found within trees in areas to be harvested would be retained.
• No activities are proposed within 100 feet of any known bear dens in any alternative. If
an active den is found after the project begins, activities within 100 feet of the den would
be avoided until the bear leaves of its own volition. This is to protect nursing cubs, since
black bears have been reported to abandon dens and their cubs when closely approached
by humans or other predators (Davis 1996).
• In specified units (Appendix A), down logs and snags (where safety permits) would be
retained to provide den sites. Logs should be at least 40" in diameter and 15 feet long.
• In specified units (Appendix A), selected large trees would be cut at least 6 feet above
their base (high stumping) to allow for the formation of den sites under the stumps.
2-4 ■ Chapter 2
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Alternatives
Alternatives
Considered, but
Eliminated From
Further Review
!
Brown Bear Foraging Areas
Hoya Creek, Survey Creek and Surho Creek were identified as important brown bear foraging
areas by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. No harvesting will be done within 500
feet of the portions of those streams where salmon spawn. Two potential units were dropped
from further consideration to protect these important foraging areas.
Hunting Restrictions
There were several comments requesting hunting restrictions to protect bears, which will
become more vulnerable if roads are constructed for this timber sale. We prefer to let the
State manage hunting through their regulations and process, and it is our understanding that
the Wrangell Fish and Game Advisory Committee is proposing that the State should close
hunting in the Canal Hoya area during the life of the sale, if roads are constructed. We
support that effort. If the State does not close hunting, we would implement a Forest closure
order during the life of the sale on bear hunting within 1/2 mile of any roads constructed in
the Canal Hoya Project Area (36 CFR 261.58 (v)).
Nests
Harvest would not take place within 600 feet of an active raptor or marbled murrelet nest.
Unit 25 was modified to meet this measure. If other nests are found in or near harvest units,
the boundaries would be modified.
Wetlands
Because wetlands are so extensive in the project area, it is not feasible to avoid all wetland
areas. However, there are no development activities planned on the more biologically
significant wetlands. There would be no direct effects to the fens, estuarine wetlands, or the
lake fringe wetlands. In all alternatives , roads and units were located to avoid these areas.
Roads and other facilities would be constructed at least 1000’ from estuaries. Tables 3-33
and 3-34 on page 3-105 display the length of road and acres of harvest proposed by alternative
on the different wetland types.
Lower Hoya Reserve Alternative
We considered an alternative that would move the location of the small old growth reserve in
the Hoya VCU to the coastline. The theme of this alternative would be to emphasize bear
habitat security in the Canal VCU and to increase the volume available for harvest in the
Hoya VCU by putting the old growth reserve in a location where much of the acreage would
already be retained due to beach, estuary and riparian buffers. Accessing the timber that
would be available in upper Hoya drainage would require constructing a road beyond a
narrow valley pinchpoint.
The narrow valley pinchpoint along Hoya Creek would make it difficult and expensive to
construct a road beyond the point. Getting around the pinchpoint would require two 80 foot
bridges (about $130,000 each) and several major drainage structures. Although feasible from
an engineering standpoint, the double bridge site would impact the floodplain and side
channels at the location of some of the highest value resident fish habitat in Hoya Creek.
There is a risk of flood constriction and subsequent up and downstream channel erosion at
this narrow site. In addition, much of the timber available above the pinchpoint is located on
terrain steeper than is recommended under Forest Plan guidelines. In response to these
concerns, as well as cost effectiveness, we concluded that road construction beyond the
pinchpoint was not consistent with the desired conditions for the area. Keeping the old
growth reserve south of the pinchpoint would therefore only affect a few units accessible by
helicopter, so the alternative with a reserve in the lower portion of Hoya watershed was
eliminated from detailed study.
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Chapter 2 ■ 2-5
L
Alternatives
Upper Canal Reserve Option
We considered including an option to move the old growth reserve in the Canal VCU to a
location south of the powerline, adjacent to the Anan watershed (VCU 5220) in alternatives 1,
3, and 4. The theme of this option would be to promote long-term bear habitat security by
avoiding road construction adjacent to the Anan watershed and in an area our telemetry study
discovered bear dens. Although this option would promote long-term bear habitat security
where the reserve would be located, the original reserve location, as identified in the Forest
Plan, would then be selected for harvest. The original reserve location also includes known
bear dens and is more sensitive in regard to visual objectives and possibly would result in
more noise and disruption to visitors and bears at and near the Anan Wildlife Viewing Area.
Therefore, this option was eliminated from detailed study.
Alternative with Roads Only as Far as Powerline
We considered an alternative that would have emphasized maintaining the volume of timber
available for harvest, while promoting bear habitat security, soil and water quality and visual
concerns over conventional logging methods. LTFs and roads would have been constructed
in both VCUs, but the roads would only extend to suitable landings south of the powerline.
Cable yarding would have been used in units along the main road, but the primary system
would be helicopter yarding north and south of the powerline. As we developed this
alternative, it became apparent that due to the terrain in the Hoya VCU, it would be necessary
to have at least two roads to the powerline to allow efficient helicopter yarding, which would
make it similar to Alternative 1 . If only one road was constructed, the alternative would
appear similar to components covered in Alternative 4. Therefore, the additional alternative
did not warrant further review.
Cable Yarding Only Alternative
We considered an alternative that would only harvest units accessible by roads for cable
yarding. The theme of this alternative was to emphasize logging economics by designing a
sale that would not require helicopter yarding, which is assumed to reduce the benefit/cost
ratio for timber harvesting. Such an alternative would greatly limit our ability to meet the
desired condition of leaving varying densities of trees to create multi-structured stands, as
well as the desire to manage for timber production on land that is in the available base, but not
accessible by road. Therefore, this alternative was eliminated from detailed study.
Helicopter Yarding Only Alternative
We considered an alternative that would have deferred road construction and emphasized the
use of partial harvest methods in units that are visible from the water or are in high value
wildlife habitat. The theme of this alternative was to emphasize wildlife habitat and security,
visual objectives, and water quality, while maintaining the economic viability of future
harvests. All harvest activity would be north of the powerline and yarding would be done by
helicopter. There would be no roads or LTF. This strategy is consistent with the Forest Plan
objective of avoiding changes to semi-primitive non-motorized settings in Modified
Landscape management prescription areas, when feasible. However this alternative would
not meet Forest plan objectives for timber harvest in significant areas of timber production
and modified landscape land use designations south of the powerline in the project area. This
is because helicopter would not be allowed to fly over the powerlines due to safety and power
utility concerns, thus leaving the areas south of the powerline inaccessible for timber harvest.
Some of the suitable cable ground along the potential main road corridor would be deferred
from harvest this entry in order to maintain the option of a viable cable harvest alternative in
future entries.
The Campbell Timber Sale is an example of a timber sale that provided timber without roads
or clearcuts; however, there is not a powerline in the Campbell project area. We would have
had much more flexibility in our alternatives for the Canal Hoya Timber Sale if the Tyee
powerline did not pass through the project area. Roads are needed because of helicopter
yarding distance limits and the power line. Economically a helicopter can only travel 1 mile
to yard timber and may not cross the power line while yarding timber (due to the risk of
falling debris striking the powerline). Without roads the majority of the suitable timber would
be isolated and very expensive to harvest. Some system would have to be devised in which
2-6 ■ Chapter 2 Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Alternatives
timber south of the powerline was yarded to a landing adjacent to the powerline, transferred
on the ground to a landing north of the powerline and then transferred by helicopter to a
barge. This would be very expensive and would probably make future harvest south of the
powerline uneconomical.
A helicopter only option is available to the decision maker by specifying in the Record of
Decision that Alternative 4 is to be implemented without the road (which would also omit the
units to the south of the powerline). Although this option was not included as a separate
alternative, the decision maker will consider it when selecting an alternative to implement.
The following information was used as a basis for comparing the helicopter only option with
the rest of the alternatives:
Eliminating the road from Alternative 4 would result in an expected timber harvest of
approximately 8 MMBF from 450 acres (12% of the available acres). The harvest units
would be the same as those shown for Alternative 4, except Units 4, 5 and 8 would be
dropped due to the powerline and Units 9 and 10 would have partial harvest with diameter
limits, rather than clearcuts with reserves. The mid-market net stumpage estimation would be
a negative $109/MBF and approximately 3 1 direct jobs would be produced. Basically, the
helicopter yarding costs were increased by 15% to account for longer yarding distances and
the barge leasing costs were approximately tripled (on a per mbf basis) because of the
additional volume flown to barges.
If Alternative 4 was implemented without road construction and additional units were not
added to make up for lost volume, effects on Visuals would actually be reduced from the
Hoya Viewpoint. Although Alternative 4 (with roads) already has the least impacts to visuals
from this viewpoint, the effects would be further reduced with the elimination of roads and
the LTF. The "helicopter only" option would exceed the Modification VQO, and would
likely meet Partial Retention. Effects on Recreation Potential would also be reduced. Roads
are the single most important factor when examining change to the recreation character of an
area. With the elimination of the road in the Hoya VCU, the recreation potential of the entire
study area would be largely unchanged. Effects to recreationists and outfitter/guides using the
Bradfield Canal would be reduced. Helicopter yarding would remain to be a factor that may
impact the visitors’ perception of the setting they are visiting during the life of the sale.
However, once the sale activity is finished, the setting will remain essentially the same as
before the sale, with minimal visual impacts.
Species that would benefit the most from a no-road option include: brown bear, black bear,
mountain goat, marten, deer and wolves. Based on the current Habitat Capability Models for
brown bear, black bear and mountain goat , habitat within 1-2 miles of any road (even a
closed road) will be reduced in quality from high to moderate. It is believed that animals
within this road buffer are more vulnerable to human- induced mortality and/or may be
actively avoiding the area due to human presence.
Under a no-road option, 6% of all high value black bear habitat within the project area would
be reduced in quality to moderate versus 26% for Alternative 4. High value brown bear
habitat does not fall within the road disturbance buffer for Alternative 4; however, brown
bears are also expected to benefit from a no-road option (see Impacts of Roads and
Disturbances on Bears, page 3-51). Three acres of potential brown bear denning habitat
would be removed under the Alternative 4 - no road option as compared to 80 acres in
Alternative 4. A similar pattern is seen when considering a larger study area and the impacts
of past harvesting activities on bear habitat (see Cumulative Effects discussion). A no-road
option would have no measurable impact on mountain goat winter range whereas Alternative
4 roads reduce goat winter range quality by providing access (see Table S-l).
Effects on freshwater and marine resources would be reduced, because there would be no
roads or LTFs, and therefore no stream crossings or drainage structures. Since the total
harvest would be reduced, harvest in watersheds with the most sensitive fish habitat would
also be lower than the other alternatives. The volume that would be flown to barges would be
higher than for any other alternative.
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Chapter 2 ■ 2-7
Alternatives
Alternatives
Considered i
Alternative 1, Proposed Action
Detail
The theme of this alternative is to emphasize timber volume and harvest economics in the
Hoy a VCU and balance bear habitat security, visual concerns, water quality, and timber
production in the Canal VCU. In the Hoy a VCU, an LTF and roads would be constructed to
allow cable yarding, which is assumed to be the least costly yarding method, in as many units
as practical, while still meeting standards and guidelines and desired conditions for other
resources. Other units in the Hoya VCU would be harvested using helicopter yarding to
provide additional volume.
In the Canal VCU, resource concerns would be addressed by minimizing road construction
and retaining higher percentages of trees than are retained in units in the Hoya VCU. A road
would extend from an LTF to a suitable landing about 0.25 miles south of the powerline and
yarding would be done by helicopter from all units that are not accessed by the main road.
Only units on ground that could not be accessed by cable yarding in future entries were
selected for helicopter yarding in the Canal VCU. This would maintain the economic
viability of extending the road in the future. This document does not determine future
actions, but does allow for the possibility of a road if monitoring after this entry showed the
effects on Anan bears was minimal.
This alternative would allow adaptive management by providing time to determine if road
management ideas are effective in mitigating concerns for wildlife habitat security, before
extending the road system in the Canal VCU. Monitoring described in Appendix C would
also allow adaptive management of harvest prescriptions in future entries.
About 9 miles of specified road and 2 miles of temporary road would be needed. About 1 6
MMBF would be harvested on 780 acres. This would entail harvesting approximately 21% of
the available forest land in the first entry. Table 2-1 and Figure 2-1 display the specific
activities for this alternative.
HOYA VCU:
• Emphasis is on timber volume and harvest economics.
• Primarily cable yarding, with some helicopter yarding.
• Areas suitable for cable yarding, but not accessed by the road, would be deferred for
future entries.
• A road system would be constructed from an LTF to access cable ground.
• Harvest prescriptions would be primarily clearcut-with-reserves and some diameter limit
and patch cut units.
CANAL VCU:
• Emphasis is on balancing bear habitat security, visual concerns, water quality, and timber
production.
• Primarily helicopter yarding, with some cable yarding.
• A road would be constructed from an LTF to a landing about 0.25 miles south of the
powerline.
• A mix of harvest prescriptions would be used, with diameter limit being the primary
prescription near the Anan watershed.
2-8 ■ Chapter 2 Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Chapter 2 ■ 2-9
LU O
LL Cl
Q>
cc
<riu
Scale is 1 inch = 1.15 miles
Table 2-1
Alternative 1 Harvest Units
Unit
Silvicultural Harvest Method
Acres
Yarding Method
1
Partial harvest with diameter limit
22
Helicopter
2
Clearcut with 25% reserves
18
Cable
3
Clearcut with 1 0% reserves
30
Cable
Patch cuts less than 8 acres each
10
Helicopter
4
Partial harvest with diameter limit
32
Helicopter
5
Partial harvest with diameter limit
12
Helicopter
Clearcut with 1 0% reserves
51
Cable
8
Patch cuts less than 8 acres each
32
Helicopter
9
Clearcut with 1 0% reserves
41
Cable
10
Clearcut with 10% reserves, feather
backline
38
Cable
12
Partial harvest with diameter limit
6
Helicopter
13
Partial harvest with diameter limit
18
Helicopter
14
Clearcut with 1 0% reserves, feather
39
Cable
backline
5
Helicopter
18
Clearcut with 1 0% reserves
13
Cable
19
Clearcut with 1 0% reserves, feather
backline
25
Cable
21
Partial harvest with diameter limit
34
Helicopter
22
Patch cuts less than 8 acres each
20
Helicopter
23
Clearcut with 1 0% reserves
13
Cable
24
Clearcut with 1 0% reserves
51
Cable
Partial harvest with diameter limit in upper
portion
9
Helicopter
27
Clearcut with 1 0% reserves
18
Cable
28
Patch cuts less than 8 acres each
21
Helicopter
31
Partial harvest with diameter limit
14
Helicopter
34
Partial harvest with diameter limit
8
Helicopter
35
Clearcut with 1 0% reserves
65
Cable
Partial harvest with diameter limit
16
Helicopter
38
Clearcut with 30% reserves, feather
backline
33
Cable
41
Partial harvest with diameter limit
22
Helicopter
44
Partial harvest with diameter limit and
reserves
17
Helicopter
45
Partial harvest with diameter limit and
reserves
25
Helicopter
47
Partial harvest with diameter limit and
reserves
23
Helicopter
2-10 ■ Chapter 2
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Alternatives
Alternative 2
The theme of this alternative is to emphasize timber volume, infrastructure development and
long-term harvest economics throughout the Project Area. This alternative requires the most
road construction - about 1 1 miles of specified and 3 miles of temporary road - to reach most
of the areas accessible by cable yarding systems. Helicopter yarding would be used to access
additional timber volume where economically feasible. Helicopter yarding would also be
used to feather backlines of some units.
Desired conditions for other resources would be promoted where compatible with the theme
of this alternative. For instance, trees are retained in all units to maintain structural diversity
in the regenerating stand, provide wildlife habitat and meet visual quality objectives.
However, the amount of retention in this alternative is generally less than would be retained
in the same units in other alternatives. Some unit sizes and shapes were adjusted to maintain
wildlife dispersal corridors, protect important habitat and enhance visuals. Most unit
boundaries are based on the suitability of the terrain for cable yarding and the quality of the
timber.
This alternative would be the least conducive to adaptive management, since the complete
road system would be built during the first entry. Monitoring described in Appendix C would
allow adaptive management of harvest prescriptions in future entries.
About 17 MMBF would be harvested on 800 acres. This would entail harvesting
approximately 22% of the available forest land in the first entry. Table 2-2 and Figure 2-2
display the specific activities for this alternative.
HOYA VCU:
• Emphasis is on timber volume and harvest economics.
• Primarily cable yarding, with some helicopter yarding.
• A road system would be constructed from an LTF to access cable ground.
• Harvest prescriptions would be primarily clearcut-with-reserves and some diameter limit
and patch cuts.
CANAL VCU:
• Emphasis is on timber volume and harvest economics.
• Primarily cable yarding, with some helicopter yarding.
• A road system would be constructed from an LTF to access cable ground.
• Harvest prescriptions would be primarily clearcut-with-reserves and some diameter limit
and patch cut units.
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Chapter 2 ■ 2-11
BRADFIELD \ CANAL
\
\
/
✓
/
/
2-12 ■ Chapter 2
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Scale is 1 inch = 1.15 miles
Alternatives
Table 2-2
Alternative 2 Harvest Units
Unit
Silvicultural Harvest Method
Acres
Yarding Method
2
Clearcut with 25% reserves
18
Cable
3
Clearcut with 1 0% reserves
48
Cable
4
Partial harvest with diameter limit
32
Helicopter
5
Clearcut with 20% reserves
86
Cable
Partial harvest with diameter limit
10
Helicopter
8
Patch cuts less than 8 acres each
32
Helicopter
9
Clearcut with 30% reserves
49
Cable
10
Clearcut with 1 0% reserves, feather
backline
38
Cable
14
Clearcut with 1 0% reserves
39
Cable
Partial harvest with diameter limit
5
Helicopter
19
Clearcut with 1 0% reserves, feather
backline
25
Cable
20
Partial harvest with diameter limit
10
Helicopter
21
Partial harvest with diameter limit
34
Helicopter
22
Patch cuts less than 8 acres each
20
Helicopter
24
Clearcut with 1 0% reserves
51
Cable
Partial harvest with diameter limit
9
Helicopter
35
Clearcut with 1 0% reserves
47
Cable
36
Clearcut with 1 0% reserves
Partial harvest with diameter limit to
feather backline
52
Cable
38
Clearcut with 1 0% reserves
Partial harvest with diameter limit to
feather backline
33
Cable
41
Clearcut with 1 0% reserves
18
Cable
Partial harvest with diameter limit
22
Helicopter
43
Clearcut with 20% reserves
Partial harvest with diameter limit to
feather backline
58
Cable
Helicopter
44
Partial harvest with diameter limit and
reserves
17
Helicopter
45
Clearcut with 1 5% reserves
33
Cable
Partial harvest with diameter limit
12
Helicopter
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Chapter 212-13
Alternatives
Alternative 3
The theme of this alternative is to emphasize Anan bear habitat security, water quality, and
visual concerns in the Canal VCU and to emphasize timber volume and harvest economics in
the Hoya VCU. This alternative is similar to Alternative 2 in the Hoya VCU, since roads and
most harvest units would be the same. A few more helicopter yarding units were included in
the Hoya VCU in this alternative to balance the reduction in units in the Canal VCU,
compared to other alternatives. About 7 miles of specified road and 2 miles of temporary
road would be needed in VCU 5200 (Hoya).
No roads would be constructed in the Canal VCU. Helicopter yarding would be used to
harvest timber north of the powerline in VCU 5210 (Canal). Helicopter yarding allows more
flexibility in harvest prescriptions, so diameter limit and patch cut prescriptions would be
used to reduce visual impacts and to maintain a component of large trees in the future stand,
which would benefit wildlife. Future harvest in the Canal VCU could use cable and/or
helicopter yarding south of the powerline. Suitable cable ground along the potential main
road corridor in the Canal VCU would be deferred from harvest this entry in order to
maintain the option of a viable cable harvest alternative in future entries.
This alternative would allow adaptive management by providing time to determine if road
management ideas are effective in mitigating concerns for wildlife habitat security in the
Hoya VCU before constructing a road system in the Canal VCU. Monitoring described in
Appendix C would also allow adaptive management of harvest prescriptions in future entries.
About 14 MMBF would be harvested on 660 acres. This would entail harvesting
approximately 18% of the available forest land in the first entry. Table 2-3 and Figure 2-3
display the specific activities for this alternative.
HOYA DRAINAGE:
• Emphasis is on timber volume and harvest economics.
• Primarily cable yarding, with some helicopter yarding.
• Most units would be the same as in Alternative 2, with some additional helicopter units.
• A road system would be constructed from an LTF to access cable ground.
• Harvest prescriptions would be primarily clearcut-with-reserves and some diameter limit
and patch cut units.
CANAL DRAINAGE:
• Emphasis is on bear habitat security, water quality, and visual concerns.
• Harvest would take place by helicopter yarding only north of the powerline.
• No roads or LTF would be constructed in this VCU.
• Harvest prescriptions would be primarily diameter limit and patch cut.
2-14 ■ Chapter 2
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
BRADFIELD jT \ CANAL
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Chapter 212-15
Scale is 1 inch = 1.15 miles
Alternatives
Table 2-3
Alternative 3 Harvest Units
Unit
Silvicultural Harvest Method
Acres
Yarding
Method
1
Partial harvest with diameter limit
22
Helicopter
2
Clearcut with 25% reserves
18
Cable
3
Clearcut with 1 0% reserves
48
Cable
4
Partial harvest with diameter limit
32
Helicopter
5
Clearcut with 20% reserves
86
Cable
Partial harvest with diameter limit
10
Helicopter
8
Patch cuts less than 8 acres each
32
Helicopter
9
Clearcut with 30% reserves
49
Cable
10
Clearcut with 1 0% reserves, feather
backline
38
Cable
12
Partial harvest with diameter limit
6
Helicopter
13
Partial harvest with diameter limit
18
Helicopter
14
Clearcut with 1 0% reserves
39
Cable
Partial harvest with diameter limit
5
Helicopter
18
Partial harvest with diameter limit
13
Helicopter
19
Clearcut with 10% reserves, feather
backline
25
Cable
20
Partial harvest with diameter limit
10
Helicopter
21
Partial harvest with diameter limit
34
Helicopter
22
Patch cuts less than 8 acres each
20
Helicopter
23
Clearcut with 1 0% reserves
13
Cable
24
Clearcut with 1 0% reserves
51
Cable
Partial harvest with diameter limit in upper
portion
9
Helicopter
28
Patch cuts less than 8 acres each
21
Helicopter
31
Partial harvest with diameter limit
14
Helicopter
33
Partial harvest with diameter limit
22
Helicopter
34
Partial harvest with diameter limit
8
Helicopter
35
Partial harvest with diameter limit
15
Helicopter
2-16
Chapter 2
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Alternatives
Alternative 4
The theme of this alternative is to emphasize wildlife habitat and security, visual objectives,
and water quality. The theme would be met by minimizing road construction and
emphasizing the use of partial harvest methods in units that are visible from the water or are
in high value wildlife habitat. Due to the heavy harvest proposed in the seen area, retention
within units is generally higher than that proposed in other alternatives, in order to reduce
visual impacts.
All harvest activity in the Canal VCU would be north of the powerline and yarding would be
done by helicopter. There would be no roads or LTF in the Canal VCU. Some of the
suitable cable ground along the potential main road corridor in the Canal VCU would be
deferred from harvest this entry in order to maintain the option of a viable cable harvest
alternative in future entries.
In the Hoya drainage, a road would extend from an LTF to a suitable landing about 0.25 miles
south of the powerline and yarding would be done by helicopter for all units that are not
accessed by the main road. About 3 miles of specified road would be needed in VCU 5200
(Hoya).
This alternative would be the most conducive to adaptive management by providing time to
determine if road management ideas are effective in mitigating concerns for wildlife habitat
security, and water quality in the Hoya VCU before constructing a road system in the Canal
VCU or extending the road system in the Hoya VCU. Monitoring described in Appendix C
would also allow adaptive management of harvest prescriptions in future entries.
About 12 MMBF would be harvested on 610 acres. This would entail harvesting
approximately 17% of the available forest land in the first entry. Table 2-4 and Figure 2-4
display the specific activities for this alternative.
HOYA VCU:
• Emphasis is on wildlife habitat and security, visual objectives, and water quality.
• Primarily helicopter yarding, with some cable yarding.
• A road would be constructed from an LTF to a sort yard about 0.25 miles south of the
powerline.
• Harvest prescriptions would be primarily diameter limit to maintain visual objectives and
wildlife habitat.
CANAL VCU:
• Emphasis is on wildlife habitat and security, visual objectives, and water quality.
• Harvest would take place by helicopter yarding only north of the powerline.
• No roads or LTF would be constructed in this VCU.
• Some available timber along main road corridors would be deferred this entry to maintain
future options.
• Harvest prescriptions would be primarily diameter limit to maintain visual objectives and
wildlife habitat.
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Chapter 2 ■ 2-17
HI o
LL lL
Q>
DC
< =- LU
SO)
s/
2-18 ■ Chapter 2
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Alternatives
Table 2-4
Alternative 4 Harvest Units
Unit
Silvicultural Harvest Method
Acres
Yarding
Method
1
Partial harvest with diameter limit
22
Helicopter
2
Partial harvest with diameter limit
26
Helicopter
3
Partial harvest with diameter limit
98
Helicopter
4
Partial harvest with diameter limit
32
Helicopter
5
Clearcut with 20% reserves
Partial harvest with diameter limit
95
Helicopter
i
8
Patch cuts less than 8 acres each
32
Helicopter
9
Clearcut with 30% reserves
20
Cable
10
Clearcut with 20% reserves
38
Cable
12
Partial harvest with diameter limit
6
Helicopter
13
Partial harvest with diameter limit
63
Helicopter
18
Partial harvest with diameter limit
13
Helicopter
25
Partial harvest with diameter limit
32
Helicopter
28
Patch cuts less than 8 acres each
21
Helicopter
31
Partial harvest with diameter limit
14
Helicopter
33
Partial harvest with diameter limit
22
Helicopter
34
Partial harvest with diameter limit
8
Helicopter
35
Partial harvest with diameter limit
15
Helicopter
36
Partial harvest with diameter limit
52
Helicopter
Alternative 5, No Action
This alternative measures the effects of having no timber sale or road construction in the
Canal Hoya Project Area. This alternative is provided so you can see the changes that the
other alternatives have on the social, physical and biological environment. This alternative is
most responsive to scenic and tourism values, Anan bears, wildlife habitat and species
conservation, freshwater and marine resources, by deferring harvest. It would not contribute
to local employment or harvest economics. The existing condition would continue to be
influenced by natural disturbance processes.
Alternative Comparison
Table 2-5 compares treatment acres, predicted harvest volume and environmental impacts for
each of the action alternatives. It is important to note that differences in harvest prescriptions
would result in different harvest volumes per acre. The environmental impacts are discussed
in detail in Chapter 3.
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Chapter 2 ■ 2-19
Table 2-5
Alternative Comparison Table
Alt 1
Alt 2
Alt 3
Alt 4
Alt 5
No Action
Total Acres Classified as Available for Harvest
3670
3670
3670
3670
3670
Proposed Treatment Acres
780
800
660
610
Canal Creek VCU
230
290
70
120
0
Hoya Creek VCU
550
510
590
489
0
Harvest by Volume Strata (acres)
Low Volume (2120 acres existing)
85
40
75
110
0
Medium Volume (5800 acres existing)
415
395
320
290
0
High Volume (4500 acres existing)
280
365
265
210
0
% of Available Treated
21%
22%
18%
17%
0
Total Volume (MMBF)
16
17
14
12
0
Cable Yarded
8.2
11.5
7.2
1.3
0
Helicopter Yarded
7.3
4.9
6.4
10.8
0
ROW Volume
.5
.7
.4
.2
0
Net Stumpage ($/MBF)
Including Specified Road Costs
-$135
-$139
-$130
-$110
0
Excluding Specified Road Costs
$3
$23
$2
$-44
0
Number of Direct Jobs Produced During Life of Sale
60
64
52
46
0
Specified Road (miles)
8.5
11.3
7.3
2.6
0
Temporary Road
1.6
2.8
1.7
0
0
Total Road Miles
10.1
14.1
9
2.6
0
Log Transfer Sites
2
2
1
1
0
Visibility From Blake Island
From Mouth of Canal Creek
From Mouth of Hoya Creek
most
most
most
least
least
least
Harvest by Visual Management Class (acres)
Visual Management Class 2
305
350
250
190
0
Visual Management Class 3
365
300
300
345
0
Visual Management Class 4
110
150
110
75
0
Duration of Operations (years)
3-5
3-5
3-4
2-3
0
Brown Bear Denning Habitat Harvested (1985 acres existing)
73
134
89
80
0
% of Anan Bear Locations Within 1 Mile of Proposed Roads
12%
13%
6%
2%
0
% of Highly Suitable Habitat in Project Area Reduced in
Quality for
Black Bear
56
60
40
26
0
Brown Bear
4
3
3
2
0
Mountain Goat
3
55
54
3
0
Deer (Medium Suitable Habitat Reduced in Quality)
18
16
15
6
0
Marten
9
10
8
6
0
Goshawk
5
6
6
5
0
Project Area Habitat Capability as a % of Current Condition
Black Bear
84
81
87
91
100
Brown Bear
92
90
94
96
100
Mountain Goat
91
87
89
95
100
Deer
92
92
94
95
100
Marten
95
95
95
96
100
Drainage Structures on Fish Streams
8
8
6
2
0
Harvest in Watersheds with the Most Fish Habitat (acres)
Canal (4.1 miles of fish stream)
60
65
0
0
0
Hoya (18.9 miles of fish stream)
140
135
150
5
0
Survey (5.8 miles of fish stream)
275
305
325
385
0
% Watershed Harvest in Most Sensitive Watersheds
Hoya
1%
1%
1%
0
0
Survey
7%
8%
8%
10%
0
Road Miles in Watersheds with the Most Fish Habitat
Canal
0
1.0
0
0
0
Hoya
2.2
2.0
2.2
0
0
Survey
4.2
5.2
5.2
2.0
0
Volume Through LTFs (MMBF)
15
17
12
8
0
Volume to Barge (MMBF)
1
0
2
4
0
2-20 ■ Chapter 2
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Preferred Alternative
The Preferred Alternative designated in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is
Alternative 3. Several changes were made to this alternative between the Draft and Final EIS
in response to public and other agency comments:
• Most of Unit 35 and all of Unit 36 were dropped. This will help maintain the economic
viability of possible future road construction for timber harvest in the Canal VCU.
Although no roads will be constructed in the Canal VCU this entry, we will monitor the
effects of the roads in the Hoya VCU to determine if our mitigation measures for wildlife
habitat security are adequate to allow future roads in the Canal VCU.
• To offset some of the volume lost by deferring harvest in units 35 and 36, we added Units
18, 23 and 33. Units 18 and 33 will be partial harvests with helicopter yarding, with the
same prescription as shown in Alternative 4. Unit 23 will be clearcut with reserves and
cable yarded.
• A small segment of temporary road with a small fish stream crossing would be added in
order to access unit 23 for cable yarding.
• A segment of Road 6960 would be moved north in all alternatives, in order to avoid an
unstable crossing site on West Survey Creek and four small fish stream crossings.
• The Hoya Log Transfer Facility site was selected and the Capsize Cove LTF site was
dropped in all alternatives. The Hoya LTF site poses more risk to adjacent resident fish
habitat than the Capsize Cove LTF, but the risk can be mitigated through design and
erosion control measures. The Hoya LTF site is preferred because it has less impact on
visuals, wildlife habitat, and anchorage; and there is less road construction needed.
We feel that Alternative 3 is the best possible alternative because:
• It addresses the issue of vulnerability of Anan bears by not building a road in the Canal
VCU for this entry.
• Effects of this Alternative would be less noticeable from the Eastern Passage Travel
Route near Blake Island than those of alternatives requiring road construction in the
Canal VCU.
• The desired condition for scenic values of Partial Retention from the Eastern Passage
Travel Route would be met in the Canal VCU.
• This alternative allows a high potential for adaptive management by allowing us to
monitor the impacts of road construction and use in the Hoya VCU, before deciding
whether to construct roads in the Canal VCU in the next entry.
• Although Alternative 4 addresses the above points to a greater extent, Alternative 3
balances those issues with timber volume and associated jobs better than Alternative 4.
This EIS is not a decision document. The primary purpose of this EIS is to inform the
decision maker about our analysis and public comments about this project. The decision is
made by the Assistant Forest Supervisor and documented in a Record of Decision. Specific
rationale for the decision will be included in the Record of Decision and in responses to
public comments.
Canal Hoya Final EIS
CHAPTER 2 ■ 2-21
Chapter 3
Affected
Environment and
Environmental
Effects
Chapter 3
Affected
Environment and
Environmental
Effects
Introduction
In this chapter, we describe the environment that would potentially be modified by this
project (affected environment), and the effects of the five alternatives on the environment
(environmental effects). This chapter is divided into two main sections:
Effects on the Key Issues - In this section, we will describe the effects of each alternative on
the five key issues.
Other Environmental Considerations - In this section we discuss some of the other
environmental considerations required by various laws.
Effects on the Key Issues
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issues guidance to Federal Agencies to
determine the significant issues concerning any proposal, and to eliminate those issues that
are not significant. With the help of the public and other agencies, we identified five issues
that were significant enough to be examined in detail, given the nature of the proposed action.
In this section, we describe the environmental effects associated with these five issues.
Timber Supply is Based on the
Existing Project Area Land
Classification
3 Environment and Effects
Issue One:
Timber Supply and Economics
This project has the potential to affect employment and the economy of local communities,
which was brought up as an issue during public scoping. Public comments indicated concern
about current changes in the timber industry, particularly regarding the pulp products from
this sale and questions about the need for the sale given the recent mill closures. The terrain
and quality of timber in the project area may make it difficult to design a timber sale that
would be advertised above base rates, so the economic viability of a sale is also an issue. The
amount of wood harvested, the location of old growth reserves and any infrastructure
developed with this entry may affect availability and costs associated with future entries for
timber harvest.
Timber Supply
Figures 3- 1 and 3-2 show the classifications of land within the project area . After various
types of exclusions, there are 3,670 acres of land available for harvest. This is less than 1/3 of
the total Productive Forest Land (Volume > 8,000 bf, Figure 3-3). The numbers in Figure 3-1
were derived from Geographic Information System data bases which were modified by field
reconnaissance and stand exams to better reflect existing ground conditions.
There are approximately 25,660 acres within the project area of which 160 acres are water.
Most of the acreage computations are based on the remaining 25,500 acres.
• Non-productive forest land includes areas of bare rock, alpine meadows, muskeg
wetlands and soils that only support scrub timber.
• High hazard soils are areas that pose a high risk of mass failure due to steep slope, soil
type, drainage ability or other factors.
• Stream and riparian buffers are required on all Class I, Class II and most Class III
streams.
• Forest Plan Standards require 1000 foot beach and estuary buffers.
The acres available for timber harvest include lands that can be regenerated successfully,
logged without causing irreversible soil damage, and are not withdrawn from timber
production by statute or administrative action. During the planning process, some of the
available lands were determined to have low volume or low quality timber that would make
them uneconomical to harvest at this time. Potential units on those lands were eliminated
from the alternatives considered for this sale, which decreased the volume considered for
harvest in this entry.
The predominate species in the stands available for harvest are western hemlock and Sitka
spruce. We have not done a timber cruise in the project area, so we do not have site specific
information on species composition. However, we have done stand "walk throughs" and
some broad based cruising in the area as we prepared this EIS. Our current estimates of the
species composition in the project area are: 70% hemlock, 15% spruce, 2% western redcedar,
and 13% Alaska yellow-cedar.
3-2 ■ Chapter 3 — Environment and Effects
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects
Figure 3-1
Acreage Classification for the Canal Hoya Project Area
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects — Chapter 3 ■ 3-3
3-4 ■ Chapter 3 — Environment and Effects
Canal Hoya Final EIS
w /
**+ s /
s/
41111?
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects — Chapter 3 ■ 3-5
Environment and Effects
Employment in
Southeast Alaska
Economics
The communities of Southeast Alaska depend on the Tongass National Forest to provide the
foundation for one or more natural resource based industries including: wood products;
commercial fishing and fish processing; outfitting, guiding and other tourism, mining and
mineral development. Many residents also depend heavily on subsistence hunting and fishing
to meet their basic needs. Government, transportation service and educational services are
also significant regional income sources (Table 3-1).
Table 3-1
Southeast Alaska Annual Average Employment
1996 and 1997 Preliminary Forecast
1996
1997
Gain/Loss
Goods Producing
5,150
4,850
-300
Mining
300
350
+50
Construction
1,750
1,700
-50
Manufacturing
3,100
2,800
-300
Durable Goods
(1,350)
(1,500)
(+150)
Lumber Products
1,200
1,350
+150
Nondurable Goods
(1,750)
(1,300)
(-450)
Seafood Process
1,000
900
-100
Pulp Mills
500
150
-350
Service Producing
29,150
29,200
+50
Transportation
2,600
2,500
-100
Trade
6,400
6,250
-150
Wholesale
(500)
(500)
(0)
Retail
(5,900)
(5,750)
(-150)
Finance, Insurance, Real
Estate
1,400
1,500
+100
Services and Misc.
6,350
6,650
+300
Government
12,400
12,300
-100
Federal
(1,850)
(1,800)
(-50)
State
(5,300)
(5,200)
(-100)
Local
(5,250)
(5,300)
(+50)
TOTAL
34,300
34,050
-250
Source: Alaska Economic Trends (Alaska Department of Labor, February, 1998)
A mixture of employment growth and decline is projected for Southeast Alaska. Gains are
expected in the mining industry with the reopening of the Greens Creek mine on Admiralty
Island and construction employment is expected to increase in response to a number of
residential and public works projects. The number of visitors to Southeast Alaska continues
to increase, which increases employment in the services and retail trade sectors The gains in
these industries are tempered by the effects of reduced logging activity and the closures of the
APC and KPC pulpmills. Decreasing budgets are expected to lead to job cuts in the
government sector. A new individual fishing quota system and recent low prices for some
species are expected to reduce seasonal processing and fishing crew positions.
The wood products industry has been an integral part of the regional economy of Southeast
Alaska since the 1950’s. From 1987 through 1996, the industry provided direct employment
to an average of 2,791 workers, and indirect jobs for an additional 2,014 people. Recent
employment in the timber industry of Southeast Alaska for 1987-1996 is listed in Table 3-2.
3-6 ■ Chapter 3 — Environment and Effects
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects
Table 3-2.
Jobs Produced in the Timber Industry Since 1987
Type of
Jobs
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
Ave-
Jobs/
mmbf
Logging
1,545
1,981
2,113
2,144
1,554
1,415
1,344
1,177
1,185
1,157
2.09
-i-Sawmill
375
468
478
500
604
538
447
515
301
230
.60
+Pulpmill
861
892
925
899
911
910
859
533
516
524
1.05
=Direct
2,790
3,341
3,516
3,543
3,069
2,863
2,650
2,225
2,002
1,911
3.74
+lndirect
1,950
2,350
2,550
2,570
2,226
2,077
1,935
1,624
1,461
1,395
2.70
=TOTAL
4,740
5,691
6,066
6,113
5,295
4,940
4,585
3,849
3,463
3,306
6.43
SE Alaska
Total
Harvest
(mmbf)
760
808.2
991
989.2
830.3
834.9
740.4
584.6
481.3
450.6
Source: Timber Supply and Demand 1996, USDAForest Service
As in the rest of the world, timber demand in Southeast Alaska varies dramatically on an
annual basis. The level of demand is difficult for the Forest Service and the timber industries
to predict with precision. Various factors influence the demand for Southeast Alaska timber,
including interest rates, housing, value of the dollar with respect to changes in import tariffs,
export policies locally and abroad, business cycles in the United States and overseas, installed
mill capacity, regional and world timber markets, and timber availability and cost.
Wood product manufacturers in Southeast Alaska in 1994 had an installed mill capacity to
process approximately 519 MMBF. Total wood consumption in 1994 was 359 MMBF which
equalled 69% of the processing capability. The stated Installed Mill Capacity in the Forest
Plan Appendix M (USDA 1997a, page M-2) is 322 MMBF. In the same table the percent of
mill capacity utilized by Southeast Alaska Timber Processors is 52%. The Forest Plan
predicts that timber demand will be lower than previous estimates primarily due to the
shutdown of both the APC and KPC pulpmills. Closure of these pulpmills drastically affected
the demand for utility and low grade sawlogs which have historically been processed into
pulp products. Higher grade sawlog demand remains high despite the pulpmill shutdowns.
Based on the recent Brooks and Haynes 1997 update of projected demand for Tongass timber,
the Forest Plan estimates the yearly demand between 1998-2002 to range from 96 MMBF to
130 MMBF depending on the scenario. The lower demand projection is based on mills that
are currently operating and assumes that they maintain their current product mix. The Brooks
and Haynes figures are based on demand in the global economy and minor changes in
assumptions could mean large scale differences in demand for Alaskan timber products. The
Brooks and Haynes’ estimate in the Forest Plan was intended to predict timber harvest under
a given set of assumptions and was not intended to be a predictor of market demand. Timber
demand is not a single number but a set of relationships over a specific period of time.
Timber manufacturers in Southeast Alaska are in a state of transition from the Long Term
Sales to a strictly independent market. Various entrepreneurs are testing markets and trying
new manufacturing techniques. Under these new market conditions, it would benefit the
timber industry to have an ample supply of raw material available. Several small sawmills
are entering into the process of grading lumber with the help of certified lumber graders from
Market Demand for
Timber
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects — Chapter 3 ■ 3-7
Environment and Effects
the Western Wood Products Association. This process may give local wood manufacturers an
opportunity to compete with the contiguous 48 States that currently supply the majority of
lumber sold in Alaska. Equipment has also been purchased by a Ketchikan firm to
manufacture veneer to be used in plywood manufacturing. The Wrangell Sawmill and the
Seley Sawmill on Gravina Island have opened creating new opportunities in the timber
industry. This information is new, and was not available at the time the Brooks and Haynes
study was done, nor was it available prior to the Record of Decision for the Forest Plan.
The entire timber sale process can take approximately 3 to 7 or more years to progress from
project conception through field implementation. An EIS document typically takes
approximately 2 years from scoping through FEIS and ROD. Another year is typically added
through appeals and sometimes litigation. It then can take a year to implement the sale in the
field and prepare the timber sale for advertisement and award. This includes the time
necessary for field crews to "layout" the sale in the field and collect cost and value data,
perform a timber appraisal, prepare the sale contract and maps, advertise the sale (30 days)
and award the sale. If the sale is advertised at an opportune time, for instance late winter, the
purchaser may be able to operate the sale the following year. This would most likely involve
road construction and camp move-in and mobilization of equipment. It can take an
additional 1-2 years for a timber purchaser to begin harvesting a sale if he/she opts to have the
Forest Service contract the road construction for a small business administration act timber
sale. The Forest Service then must advertise the road construction work and give the road
contractor time to construct the roads. This work is completed prior to any logging taking
place by the timber sale purchaser. The Forest Service also provides a range of volume sizes
in timber sale offerings to meet the needs of a variety purchaser business sizes. Depending
on the size of the timber sale the operation time given in the contract ranges from 1 to 3 years.
In order to maintain a stable timber sales program, the Forest Service needs to maintain a sale
process to provide a continued flow of timber to the public. The Stikine Area has sold nearly
all timber sales that have been advertised in the recent past which is also evidence that the
supply for National Forest timber has not exceeded demand.
The Forest Service approaches annual demand with the concept of a "buffer stock" timber
supply. This approach is to seek to provide an opportunity for the timber industry to acquire
a supply of purchased but unharvested timber equal to about three years of timber
consumption. At the close of calendar year 1997, this amount would be in the range of 600 -
700 MMBF of uncut volume under contract. This quantity considers the average rate of
harvest for the past few years, and any indicators of change in the rate from planning cycle
projections or other sources. The idea is that if demand for lumber or chip grade logs in any
year suddenly increases, producers will have enough harvestable timber on hand to react and
respond to the increase in demand for forest products without waiting for the Forest Service to
take action. Normally, the Forest Service would expect the volume under contract would be
drawn down during high points in the business cycle and would be built up during cycle low
points. To provide this scenario, the Forest Service needs to continue the pipeline of projects
in the planning process, field preparation process and harvest process. It is difficult to make a
relationship from this sale to timber demand in the region since the process of providing sales
to the public is a complex and involved process.
There are essentially three sources of timber for processors in Southeast Alaska: 1) the
Tongass National Forest, 2) Native-owned timberlands, and 3) State timberlands.
The State’s timber program in Southeast is relatively small, with an average annual harvest of
9 MMBF over the past several years, with a high of 21 MMBF in 1994. Harvest from Native
timberland peaked in 1989 at 532 MMBF, declining to 215 MMBF in 1994. Timber harvest
from the Tongass reached its peak in 1990 at 471 MMBF, declining to a ten year low of 120
MMBF in 1996. Harvest on all ownerships in Southeast Alaska for 1996 was 451 MMBF.
(Timber Supply and Demand 1996). Currently, in-state processing restrictions only apply to
timber harvested from federal lands. Because export market prices greatly exceed those paid
3-8 ■ Chapter 3 — Environment and Effects
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects
by local manufacturers, the majority of Private and State timber is sold overseas. Thus the
bulk of the wood actually processed in Southeast Alaska comes from the Tongass National
Forest.
The Canal Hoya timber sale plays an important role in the overall Tongass National Forest
sale offering for fiscal year 1998 to help meet market demands for timber and retain existing
employment levels, (for further information see Appendix E). The action alternatives would
generate a range of 79 to 1 10 jobs assuming a ratio of 6.43 jobs per million board feet (3.74
direct and 2.70 indirect jobs) based on figures from Table 3-2. Because of the variability of
sale life, a comparison of total jobs produced was used rather than an estimate of jobs per
year. Table 3-3 displays the employment impacts for each of the action alternatives during
the entire sale life.
Table 3-3
Canal Hoya Contributions to Regional Employment During Sale Life
for Each Action Alternative (number of jobs)
Type of Jobs
Alt 1
Alt 2
Alt 3
Alt 4
Direct (logging & milling)
60
64
52
46
Indirect
43
46
38
33
TOTAL
103
110
90
79
Market Values and
Costs of Each
Alternative
An economic analysis was used to display a comparison between the four action alternatives
in the Canal Hoya project area. For this analysis, the net stumpage value per MBF by
alternative is calculated by subtracting all the production costs, including profit and risk
allowances, from the end product selling values for lumber and pulp. The current direction in
Forest Service Handbook 2409.18 recommends the use of "middle market" end product
selling values in planning timber sales. By using the mid-market values instead of current
values, it is easier to account for market fluctuations that can exceed $200 per MBF. The mid-
market values are the weighted average values for the past ten years, adjusted for inflation
and an estimate of the timber quality on the Canal Hoya project area. All other costs used in
the economic analysis were current at the time of posting the Notice of Intent for this sale.
Table 3-4 displays the resulting timber values and costs for each Canal Hoya action
alternative. Alternative 5, the no action alternative, is not displayed because it has no harvest
associated with it. Middle market pond value is the middle market selling value of end
products (lumber and pulp) minus the manufacturing costs of these products. The volumes in
each alternative include sawlog, utility and an estimate of road right of way that would be cut.
The difference in net stumpage values between the action alternatives can be attributed to the
following factors:
• Differences in the percentage of cable or helicopter yarding
• The amount of temporary road construction
• Differences in species composition or volume per acre harvested
The values in Table 3-4 are based on the weighted average for all the sellers of products
produced from Tongass National Forest timber sales. The logging and manufacturing costs
are also a weighted average figure that represents the costs of an operator of average
efficiency. Since both values and costs are weighted averages, they are useful for comparing
the economic efficiency of the action alternatives in supplying timber to the regional
economy.
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects — Chapter 3 ■ 3-9
Mid-Market Conditions Indicate
Alternatives 1,2 and 3 Would
Produce a Net Gain From this
Sale when Specified Road and
LTF Costs are Excluded.
3 Environment and Effects
Table 3-4
Canal Hoya Mid-Market Timber Values and Costs to an Operator of Average
Efficiency for each Action Alternative
ECONOMIC FACTOR
Alt 1
Alt 2
Alt 3
Alt 4
Total Volume (1) (mbf)
15,936
17,120
14,005
12,256
Middle Market Pond Value ($/mbf)
364
365
365
366
COST ($/MBF)
Stump to Truck
235
210
233
290
Transportation (2)
39
40
40
41
General Logging Overhead
26
26
26
26
Temporary Road Cost
12
19
15
0
Specified Road Cost (3)
138
162
132
66
Logging Profit and Risk (60%)
49
47
49
53
TOTAL COSTS
499
504
495
476
NET STUMPAGE ($/MBF) including
Specified Road Costs
-135
-139
-130
-110
NET STUMPAGE ($/MBF) excluding
Specified Road Costs (4)
3
23
2
-44
(1) includes road right-of-way volume
(2) includes log haul, road maintenance, dump, raft, tow, mobilization and barge lease
(3) includes major drainage structures and LTF costs
(4) Specified road developments are considered to be a long term economic asset
The mid-market analysis produced net stumpage values ranging from positive $23 per MBF
for Alternative 2 to negative $44 per MBF for Alternative 4. A positive net stumpage value
generally indicates an economically viable alternative. Alternatives with negative net
stumpage values need to be sold under higher than average market conditions to produce
positive advertised stumpage above base rates. The variation in net stumpage between
alternatives is primarily due to differing amounts of temporary road construction and use of
cable or helicopter yarding systems. Alternative 4 has the most negative mid-market net
stumpage value because it relies mostly on helicopter yarding, the most expensive yarding
system. Conversely, Alternative 2 utilizes a higher percentage of cable systems resulting in
the lowest logging cost of the action alternatives.
Alternatives 1 and 3 fall in between the range of mid-market net stumpage values. Both of
these alternatives represent a mix of temporary road construction, cable and helicopter
logging systems. The comparison between net stumpage values for the action alternatives
does not include specified road and LTF costs. Since the timber sale purchaser would earn
purchaser credit for specified road construction it is not considered a cost but rather a long
term economic asset (FSH 2409.18, chapter 10,13.05). If Specified road cost was considered
a cost of the sale, all the action alternatives would have negative net stumpage values with
Alternative 2 being the most deficit and Alternative 4 the least.
Although specified roads are considered an asset, there are additional costs associated with
maintaining those roads that are not included in the mid-market analysis. Our estimate of
road maintenance costs associated with the Canal Hoya Timber Sale, including hand road
maintenance of ditches, culverts and brushing roadsides is $1,100 /mile/year. The estimated
cost of road maintenance by alternative would be:
Alternative 1 =$11,11 0/year
Alternative 2 = $15,5 10/year
Alternative 3 = $9, 680/year
Alternative 4 = $2, 860/year
3-10 ■ Chapter 3 — Environment and Effects
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects
Because timber markets are cyclical, it is difficult to predict future selling values, but Forest
Plan market assessments indicate sufficient mill capacity and market demand for sawlogs.
Recent bidding on Stikine Area timber sales shows strong competitive demand for stumpage
that far exceeds advertised rates (Table 3-5). The large spread between the advertised rate
and actual bid rate on these sales indicate favorable market demand conditions and timber
purchasers are willing to bid up individual sales. The final Canal Hoya timber sale appraisal
will include current quarter selling values, cost information and normal profit and risk margin.
Table 3-5
Recent Stikine Area Timber Sale Bidding Results
Sale Name
Volume (MBF)
Advertised Rate
($/MBF)
Bid Rate ($/MBF)
Bohemia Mountain
35,529
$255
$315
King George
24,790
$23
$143
Saginaw
24,041
$22
$127
Shamrock
24,280
$5
$194
Over the Long Term, the Value of Short-term economics of harvest are different than long-term economics of a sustained
the Roads and Log Transfer harvest level and the greatest efficiency over time. Even though this project is a short-term
Facilities May Outweigh the decision, it is the first harvest entry and should be responsive to long-term needs and issues.
Immediate Cost of the Sale The economic tradeoffs between alternatives of this entry must be weighed against the cost
and value of the transportation system (roads, logging system and log transfer facilities) and
how they affect future economic efficiency. Alternatives 4 and 2 represent different levels of
development of the transportation system. Alternative 4 builds the least amount of road
infrastructure, has the lowest road maintenance cost and relies primarily on helicopter yarding
this entry. Since Alternative 4 builds the least amount of road, it does not provide as much
access for future harvest entries. Alternative 2 builds most of the road infrastructure on this
first entry, has the highest road maintenance cost and favors cable logging systems. This
alternative accesses the highest percentage of operable acres in the project area, enabling the
road costs to be amortized over multiple entries. Differences in the amount of transportation
infrastructure built for this entry and the harvest system used illustrates the range of
alternatives and how they respond to both short-term as well as long-term harvest economics.
Table 3-6 below provides a summary of the Canal Hoya project area alternatives.
Table 3-6
Alternative Summary for the Canal Hoya Project Area
Alt 1
Alt 2
Alt 3
Alt 4
Alt 5
no action
TIMBER HARVEST
Available Acres
3,670
3,670
3,670
3,670
3,670
Treatment Acres
780
800
660
610
0
% of Available Treated
21%
22%
18%
17%
0
HARVEST VOLUME (MBF)
Cable Volume
8,150
1 1 ,549
7,234
1,260
0
Helicopter Volume
7,286
4,891
6,371
10,836
0
Total Volume (1)
15,436
16,440
13,605
12,096
0
ROAD MILES
Specified Road
8.5
11.3
7.3
2.6
0
Temporary Road
1.6
2.8
1.7
0
0
Total Road Miles
10.1
14.1
9.0
2.6
0
(1) Road Right-Of-Way volume not included
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects — Chapter 3 b 3-11
Environment and Effects
Payments to the State
As part of the Twenty-Five Percent Fund Act of 1908 and subsequent amendments to the Act
in 1976, 25 percent of gross National Forest receipts from net stumpage and purchaser credits
are returned to the State in which the National Forest is situated for the benefit of public
schools and public roads. The State of Alaska distributes the funds to organized boroughs and
municipalities. Table 3-7 displays the estimated minimal payments to the State of Alaska and
the proportion going to the City of Wrangell (based on average distribution from the State in
past years) for each of the Action Alternatives. These figures represent the minimum
payment and do not account for any potential competitive bid premium stumpage value
above Base Rates. Any bid premium would result in increased payments to the State of
Alaska and subsequently to the City of Wrangell for the benefit of public schools and public
roads. Implementation of the No Action Alternative would not increase Direct and Indirect
employment opportunities within the area. Under the No Action alternative local
communities like Wrangell would not benefit from Twenty-Five Percent Fund Act receipts
associated with the action alternatives.
Table 3-7
Estimated Minimal Payments to the State of Alaska
Alt. 1
Alt. 2
Alt. 3
Alt. 4
Total Volume (mbf)
15,936
17,120
14,005
12,256
Minimum Base Rate
Value per mbf (1)
$2.90
$2.90
$2.89
$2.93
Specified Construction
Cost (per mbf) (2)
$138
$162
$132
$66
Minimum Base Rate
Value + Specified Costs
(per mbf)
$140.90
$164.90
$134.89
$68.93
Less $0.50/mbf to
Treasury (3)
$140.40
$164.40
$134.39
$68.43
Multiplied by mbf (4)
$2,237,414
$2,814,528
$1,882,132
$838,678
25% to State
$559,354
$703,632
$470,533
$209,670
7.06% to Wrangell (5)
$42,51 1
$53,476
$35,761
$15,935
(1) Minimum Base Rate Value is the lowest stumpage value, CFR 223.61
(2) Includes specified roads, major drainage structure and LTF costs
(3) $0.50/mbf is the minimum payment to the U.S. Treasury
(4) 25% Fund Act payments (25% of net stumpage value plus the value of capital
improvements such as purchaser credit for specified roads, LTF’s, and timber stand
improvements) to the State of Alaska.
(5) 7.06% is Wrangell’s average portion of the 25% Fund Act payments from the Tongass
National Forest to the State of Alaska for Federal fiscal years 1994-1997. Information source:
Bill Rolfzen, State of Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs.
3-12 ■ Chapter 3 — Environment and Effects
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Public Investment Analysis
Environment and Effects
Public investment analysis of the timber harvest alternatives uses a three year average of
Stikine Area Timber Sale Program Information Reporting System (TSPIRS) data from 1994
-1996. The average Region 10 Budget Allocation costs and management expenses are
subtracted from net stumpage revenues to determine net value. The costs and management
expenses include NEPA planning, sale preparation, harvest administration and engineering
support. These costs are displayed on a per MBF basis see Table 3-8.
Table 3-8
Public Investment Summary
Alt. 1
Alt. 2
Alt. 3
Alt. 4
Forest Service
Revenues
Volume (mbf)
15,936
17,120
14,005
12,256
Net stumpage value
per mbf (1)
$126.49
$126.49
$126.49
$126.49
Total Stumpage Value
$2,015,745
$2,165,509
$1,771,492
$1,550,261
RIO Budget Allocation
Costs per mbf (2)
$96
$96
$96
$96
Total Costs
$1,529,856
$1,643,520
$1,344,480
$1,176,576
Net Value
$485,889
$521,989
$427,012
$373,685
(1) Net stumpage value/mbf based on 3 year average (1994-1996) of Stikine Area TSPIRS
revenue data.
(2) Forest Service costs/mbf based on the Region 10 average budget allocation of $41/mbf
for NEPA, $27/mbf Sale Prep & Administration and $28/mbf Engineering Support.
The net revenues from the action alternatives are expected to be less than the returns from
future harvests. This conclusion is based on the assumption that the costs incurred on this
entry will provide infrastructure improvements to support future timber harvests.
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects — Chapter 3 a 3-13
Environment and Effects
Issue Two:
Scenic and Tourism Values
People are concerned about how this sale would change the scenic conditions, and
recreation/tourism potential in the Bradfield Canal. The majority of use is currently by
recreationists who are accompanied by guides, whether they are fishing, big game hunting, or
sightseeing (particularly those users boating to Anan Wildlife Observatory with guides from
Wrangell). The visual condition of the landscape is the main recreational attribute this project
area provides to users. Actual recreation use of the project area is low. The majority of use
consists of guided fishing and guided big game hunting.
We have split this issue into 3 major discussion areas:
• Scenery
• Post Sale Road Management Strategies and Recreation Potential
• Effects to Recreationists and Outfitter/Guides
Scenery
The Canal Hoya Project Area is located on the south shore of the mouth of the Bradfield
Canal. Currently, the landscape seen in the project area is undeveloped, except for the
powerline passing through the area. The area is viewed by boaters using the Bradfield Canal
and Eastern Passage. The entire shoreline of the project area is located along the Bradfield
Canal and is viewed for long periods of time by boaters travelling the Bradfield Canal and by
recreationists using the area. The western shore of the project area is viewed at oblique
angles for short periods of time by boaters travelling the Eastern Passage.
The Canal Hoya Project Area is in the "Modified Landscape" and "Timber Production"
Management Prescriptions in the Forest Plan (Figure 1-2). Appendix F of the Forest Plan
(Visual Priority Routes & Use Areas) lists the Eastern Passage under "Alaska Marine
Highway & Tour Ship Routes", and the Bradfield Canal under "Other Travel Routes" in its
list of Priority Routes.
For those areas designated as Timber Production, direction in the Forest Plan calls for
application of the Modification Visual Quality Objective (VQO) in the foreground distance
zone of Visual Priority Routes and Use Areas, and the Maximum Modification VQO in all
other areas. All lands designated as Timber Production in the Canal Hoya Project Area are
unseen.
For those areas designated as Modified Landscape, direction in the Forest Plan calls for
application of the Partial Retention VQO in the foreground distance zone, and Modification
VQO in middleground and background distance zones, as seen from Visual Priority Travel
Routes and Use Areas. The Maximum Modification VQO should be applied in all other
areas of this Management Prescription. All seen acres in the Canal Hoya Project Area are
designated as Modified Landscape. The entire foreground distance zone, as seen from the
Bradfield Canal travel route, is within the 1,000 foot beach buffer. The only proposed
developments in the foreground distance zone called for in this project are the Canal and
Hoya Log Transfer Facilities (LTF’s).
All of the visible proposed harvest units for the Canal Hoya Timber Sale are in the Modified
Landscape Management Prescription area. Therefore, all proposed harvest activities for the
Canal Hoya Timber Sale should meet or exceed the Modification VQO.
3-14 ■ Chapter 3 — Environment and Effects
Canal Hoya Final EIS
BRADFIELD CANAL
WKKKKk ■
Wm^m-
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects — Chapter 3 a 3-15
Scale is 1 inch = 1.15 miles
Environment and Effects
Visual Management In order t0 determine what kind of harvest activities are compatible in the project area, we
Classes have split the area int0 Management Classes. The Management Classes are determined by
identifying an area’s Visual Quality Objective (VQO) while taking into consideration the
Visual Absorption Capability (VAC) of the area. VQO’s are expressed in terms of describing
the objective for the landscape (i.e. : "Preservation", "Retention", "Partial Retention",
"Modification", "Maximum Modification", "Rehabilitation", or "Enhancement"). VQO’s for
particular areas on the Tongass National Forest are determined in the Forest Plan, depending
on the area’s Management Prescription and the presence or absence of Visual Priority Routes
and Use Areas. The only VQO’s present in the Canal Hoya Project Area are Partial
Retention, Modification, and Maximum Modification (Figure 3-4).
An area’s Visual Absorption Capability (VAC) is determined by the general complexity of
the landscape, the slope, and the distance from which a person would view an area. VAC is
expressed in terms of "High", "Intermediate" and "Low". All three VAC’s are present in the
Canal Hoya Project Area. The Region 10 Landscape Management Handbook was used to
designate Visual Management Classes for the Canal Hoya Project Area (Figure 3-5).
There are five Visual Management Management Class P (Preservation)
Classes Management Class P areas are those areas with a VQO of Preservation. This VQO is not
described in the Region 10 present in the Canal Hoya Project Area.
Landscape Management Handbook:
Management Class 1
Management Class 1 areas include those areas with a VQO of Retention and Low or
Intermediate VAC, or areas with a VQO of Partial Retention and Low VAC. This
Management Class is not present in the Canal Hoya Project Area.
Management Class 2
Management Class 2 areas include those areas with Retention VQO and High VAC, Partial
Retention VQO and Intermediate VAC, or Modification VQO and Low VAC. There are
5,689 acres of Management Class 2 in the Project Area. The Canal VCU (5210) contains
2,450 acres of Management Class 2, and the Hoya VCU (5200) includes 3,239 acres of
Management Class 2.
All partial cutting harvest methods are compatible in this management class. Clearcutting
should remain visually subordinate to the existing landscape character. The landscape variety
plays a key role in how much and what type of harvest can occur while meeting the objectives
of the management class. Generally, the more complex the landscape, the more harvest that
landscape can absorb. General guidelines for Management Class 2 include: clearcuts should
not exceed 15 acres, "fuzzy" clearcuts with some retention can approach 40 acres in size
depending on the landscape, harvest units with 20-40% retention can range from 15-55 acres
depending on landscape, and overall cumulative visual disturbance should not exceed 15%.
Management Class 3
Management Class 3 areas include those areas with Partial Retention VQO and High VAC,
Modification VQO and Intermediate VAC, or Maximum Modification VQO and Low VAC.
There are 6,107 acres of Management Class 3 areas in the Canal Hoya Project Area. The
Canal VCU (5210) contains 2,643 acres of Management Class 3, and the Hoya VCU (5200)
includes 3,464 acres of Management Class 3.
All partial cutting harvest methods are compatible with this management class. Clearcutting
and associated roadbuilding may be visually evident in this management class, but units and
roadbeds should be designed to borrow from the existing landscape to the extent that they
appear to be natural occurrences to the untrained eye. Landscape complexity will dictate how
much and what type of harvest can occur and still meet the objectives of the management
class. General guidelines for Management Class 3 areas include: clearcuts should not exceed
40 acres, "fuzzy’ clearcuts with some retention can approach 60 acres depending on the
3-16 ■ Chapter 3 — Environment and Effects
Canal Hoya Final EIS
BRADFIELD j-' X CANAL
|
i
j
i
|
1
I
I
i
I
|
i
I
i
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects — Chapter 3 a 3-17
Scale is 1 inch = 1.15 miles
Environment and Effects
landscape, harvest units with 20-40% retention can range from 55-75 acres depending on the
landscape, and the overall cumulative disturbance should not exceed 20%.
Management Class 4
Management Class 4 areas include those areas with Modification VQO and High VAC, or
Maximum Modification VQO and Intermediate or High VAC. There are 13,818 acres of
Management Class 4 in the Canal Hoy a Project Area. The Canal VCU (5210) contains 2,541
acres of Management Class 4, and the Hoya VCU (5200) includes 1 1,277 acres of
Management Class 4. All Management Class 4 acres in the Canal Hoya Project Area are
inventoried as "unseen" from the water.
All normal timber management activities are acceptable in this management class. Harvest
activities should be natural appearing when viewed in the background, and should borrow
from the natural landscape as much as is practical. General guidelines for Management Class
4 areas include: clearcuts should not exceed 60 acres when visible, "fuzzy" clearcuts with
some retention can approach 80-100 acres depending on the landscape, harvest units with 20-
40% retention may exceed 100 acres depending on landscape, and the overall cumulative
visual disturbance can not exceed 50%. Areas with Modification VQO should not exceed
25% overall visual disturbance.
Effects of the Alternatives
on Scenery
All action alternatives would result in a change in the visual conditions of the landscape.
Tables 3-9 and 3-10 list the number of acres each alternative proposes to harvest in the
different Management Classes.
Table 3-9
Canal VCU: Acres Harvested in Each Visual Management Class
Management Class
Alt 1
Alt 2
Alt 3
Alt 4
MC 2
80 Acres
180 Acres
30 Acres
50 Acres
(2,450 ac. total)
(3.2 %)
(7.2 %)
(1.2%)
(2.0%)
MC 3
90 Acres
80 Acres
40 Acres
70 Acres
(2,643 ac. total)
(3.5%)
(2.9%)
(1 .5%)
(2.6%)
MC 4
(2,541 ac. total)
60 Acres
(2.3%)
35 Acres
(1.4%)
0 Acres
0 Acres
Table 3-10
Hoya VCU: Acres Harvested in Each Visual Management Class
Management Class
Alt 1
Alt 2
Alt 3
Alt 4
MC 2
(3,239 ac. total)
225 Acres
(6.9%)
170 Acres
(5.2%)
220 Acres
(6.7%)
1 40 Acres
(4.3%)
MC 3
(3,464 ac. total)
275 Acres
(7.9%)
220 Acres
(6.4%)
260 Acres
(7.5%)
275 Acres
(7.9%)
MC 4
(1 1 ,277 ac. total)
50 Acres
(<1%)
1 1 5 Acres
(1 .0%)
110 Acres
(1.0%)
75 Acres
(<1%)
Perhaps the best way to display the effects of proposed harvest on the scenic condition of the
project area is to include pictures of what we expect the area would look like after harvest.
We have picked three viewpoints to include in this analysis (Figure 3-6): 1) a view from
Blake Island, 2) a view from the mouth of Canal Creek, and 3) a view from the mouth of
Hoya Creek. We use computer generated 3-D views to help determine what the area is likely
to look like after harvest. These pictures display the differences between the alternatives from
each viewpoint.
3-18 ■ Chapter 3 — Environment and Effects
Canal Hoya Final EIS
BRADFIELD CANAL
Canal Hoya Final EIS
n mm 4 -4 ft
Blake Island Viewpoint (Viewpoint 1)
rt
O
X
2 x
P . «
co 5P 2 m
a " < s ^
^ & bJO
O P 3
§
e g .£ 8 5
O W td
i_i co fa
*h c3 O
e W x
(D
W
4) P
x 0-1
c
oo
i
m
4)
p M u g
'co Ph
C .i
l) P «
I-* 4) 4)
C3 > •
-*-* a
O S-l
4> *J
4)
O
1-h rv a
O- o S
4) 4) G
X a
w 4) £
O X ^
4) _. r
*- 2 c3
p x
P o «4_
£ O
cd
£
O
M
C
« S O
o X > ,4)
- ~ C its
P£X^
(3 ^ U
§ £ « -
S-.2 *
s >
o £
CL 4)
3
4)
co X
£ -2
<D -*— >
•r? c/3
> <o
<D
^ :>
Vh ^
CL -t3
X 3
- ©
<4-1 >
cd
c ^2
clH
£ .
U XP P
> s .1 1 &
p 2 S -s |
J2 5 a, ps c
►3 < >;
u pH O . o
x w . x *d
at 4> >. 4) P
t; oo l1 oo >
PQ «j C c
4)
X cd
E-1 Cl
4)
Y1 £> cd
7* po
o £ O
cd
£
£
a>
>
T3
C
ra
OT
a)
.*
JS
CD
h~
CO O
a> a
go .2
Ll >
fpif®
:- , . ;
to®©*
.-• Warn
is..
4^4.-'
%■ ,-i®
3-20 ■ Chapter 3 — Environment and Effects
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Figure 3-8
Blake Island Viewpoint, Alternative 1
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects — Chapter 3 ■ 3-21
Figure 3-10
Blake Island Viewpoint, Alternative 3
3-22 ■ Chapter 3 — Environment and Effects
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Units 33,36,34
Diameter Limit
Environment and Effects
Effects of Alternatives From the Blake Island Viewpoint
Any proposed harvest would be visible to some degree from the Blake Island Viewpoint.
Alternative 1 (Figure 3-8) and Alternative 2 (Figure 3-9) would have similar visual effects
because of the proposed road and associated cable yarding of harvest units. Alternative 1
would have more openings because of the helicopter units proposed (the patches proposed in
Unit 28, and the diameter limit harvest in Unit 31), but they would blend well into the
landscape and may not be noticeable to the casual observer. The cable units proposed in both
alternatives would be noticeable, with Alternative 2 having the most visual impact of all the
alternatives proposed. Both alternatives would meet the Modification VQO from this
viewpoint.
Alternative 3 (Figure 3-10) and Alternative 4 (Figure 3-11) would have similar visual effects
because they both propose helicopter logging. Both alternatives would have less visual
impact than Alternatives 1 or 2. Alternative 4 would have slightly more visual impact than
Alternative 3 because it proposes to harvest Unit 36. All other Canal VCU harvest units
proposed in both alternatives are identical. Both alternatives would likely exceed the
Modification VQO from this viewpoint, and may even meet Partial Retention.
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects — Chapter 3 ■ 3-23
Canal Viewpoint (Viewpoint 2)
Cl
= S
bO
c
3
o
o
OS
3
cd
u
T3
cd
u
PQ
o>
JC
o
c
c
aS
JC
o
T3
s
T3
<L>
cd
o
o
CN
CD
(-i
3
,SP «
Hh 00
w cd
.2 'I
O
Cu ^3
£
0) CD
<D
>-1
^ <->
C ^
3 S
Js <£
E_i -3
c
o
CLj
£
1- 0)
CO >
2-5
= C
O) (0
u_ O
CM
3-24 ■ Chapter 3 — Environment and Effects
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Figure 3-13
Canal Viewpoint, Alternative 1
CM
(D
>
(0
c
a>
<
c
o
QJ
£
i- <U
CO >
2 75
.ii
u. O
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects — Chapter 3 ■ 3-25
Units 36,38,35
Clearcut
Figure 3-15
Canal Viewpoint, Alternative 3
3-26 ■ Chapter 3 — Environment and Effects
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Units 33,36
Diameter Limit
Environment and Effects
Effects of Alternatives From the Canal Viewpoint
From the Canal Viewpoint, Alternative 1 (Figure 3-13) and Alternative 2 (Figure 3-14) would
have similar visual effects because the LTF and associated road would be evident to the
casual observer. Alternative 2 would have the most visual impact because most of the visible
harvest would be cable logged with lower amounts of retention proposed than in Alternative
1 . Alternative 1 would produce more openings than Alternative 2, but much of the proposed
harvest would be helicopter yarded with higher retention left in the units, making them less
evident to a casual observer. Both alternatives would meet the Modification VQO from this
viewpoint.
Alternative 3 (Figure 3-15) and Alternative 4 (Figure 3-16) would have similar visual effects
because both propose helicopter yarding with retention in the proposed units. Both of these
alternatives may not even be evident to the casual observer. Alternative 4 would have a
higher visual impact than Alternative 3 because of the proposed harvest of Unit 36. All other
proposed harvest unitsin the Canal VCU are identical between the alternatives. Both
alternatives would meet or exceed the Modification VQO from this viewpoint, and may even
approach Partial Retention.
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects — Chapter 3 ■ 3-27
Hoya Viewpoint (Viewpoint 3)
The Hoya Viewpoint (Figure 3-17) is located mid-channel in the Bradfield Canal, looking up
the Hoya Creek drainage
Figure 3-17
Hoya Viewpoint
3-28 ■ Chapter 3 — Environment and Effects
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects — Chapter 3 ■ 3-29
Figure 3-20
Hoya Viewpoint, Alternative 3
3-30 ■ Chapter 3 — Environment and Effects
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects
Effects of Alternatives From the Hoya Viewpoint
From the Hoya Viewpoint, Alternative 1 (Figure 3-18) and Alternative 3 (Figure 3-20) would
have similar visual impacts. Alternative 1 would have a slightly higher visual impact than
Alternative 3 because of some differences proposed in the number and prescription of visible
units. Alternative 1 proposes cable harvest of Unit 18, while Alternative 3 proposes the same
opening, but would harvest it by helicopter. Additionally, Alternative 1 proposes to harvest
Unit 27, although it will barely be visible from this viewpoint. Alternative 3 proposes larger
openings for Units 3 and 5 than Alternative 1, and includes Unit 20 (while Alternative 1 does
not), but these units are not visible from this viewpoint. Both alternatives would meet the
Modification VQO.
Alternative 2 (Figure 3-19) would have less visual impact than Alternatives 1 and 3.
Alternative 2 proposes the same cable harvest units in the Hoya VCU as Alternative 1 (with
the exception of Unit 18), but would not have any of the seen helicopter units proposed in
Alternatives 1 or 3 (Units 1,12,13, and 18). Alternative 2 would meet the Modification VQO.
Alternative 4 (Figure 3-21) would have the least impact of the alternatives, because it
proposes fewer road miles (2.6 miles) with less cable harvest. There are several helicopter
units proposed which would be visible (Units 1,2, 12, 13, 18, and 25) but they would be
harvested with a diameter limit prescription and would blend well into the landscape .
Although Alternative 4 may not meet the Partial Retention VQO from this viewpoint, it
would exceed the Modification VQO.
Environment and Effects — Chapter 3 ■ 3-31
3
Environment and Effects
Log Transfer Facilities
All action alternatives propose the construction of a Log Transfer Facility (LTF) accessing a
road system in the Hoya VCU. Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 propose a LTF to access a
road system in the Canal VCU. Both proposed LTF’s would be located in the foreground
distance zone as seen from the Bradfield Canal, which is listed as a Visual Priority Travel
Route in Appendix F of the Forest Plan. This area is in the Modified Landscape
Management Prescription, which calls for a VQO of Partial Retention in the foreground
distance zone. However, the Forest Plan makes some provisions for the construction of
LTF’s in this Management Prescription, stating "Exceptions for small areas of non-
conforming developments, such as recreation sites, transportation developments, Log
Transfer Facilities, and mining development, may be considered on a case-by-case basis."
Plan direction also states "To meet the VQO, give special consideration to minimizing
apparent landform modification (as seen from sensitive travel routes) during road and Log
Transfer Facility location, design, and construction".
Both LTF’s are designed with the intent to minimize the impact to the visual resource.
Working areas would be buffered by beach timber, as much as possible, and openings for
rock pits would be designed to minimize visual impact. To further minimize impacts to the
intertidal beach and reduce visual impacts, it is proposed to water logs by use of a 100’ long
inclined log slide fixed on one end at the high tide line on shore, and supported on the other
end by a 30’ wide, 60’ long floating platform. Log bundles would slide down the inclined
slide skids, and out on the floating platform until the platform submerges. The log slide
would be removed from the LTF site after harvest is complete. Uplands development for the
floating log slide would consist of a log crib for the shore support point of the slide, and a
shot-rock fill approach access roadway from the adjacent log unloading area. Beach
developments would be removed following completion of sale activities, and upland
developments would be either removed or stabilized.
Alternative 3 and Alternative 4 would have the least visual impact, as they only propose LTF
construction in the Hoya VCU. Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 would have the most visual
impact, as they propose a second LTF in the Canal VCU. We’ve included conceptual
sketches of the proposed LTF’s to display how they would look from the water (Figures 3-22
and 3-23). Please refer to Appendix D "LTF Site Selection, Design, and Marine Effects", for
a more detailed discussion of the LTF construction guidelines.
3-32 ■ Chapter 3 — Environment and Effects
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects
Figure 3-22
Schematic Drawing of Canal Log Transfer Facility
— EL 60
— EL 50
— EL 40
— EL 30
— EL 20
— EL 10
Figure 3-23
Schematic Drawing of Hoya Log Transfer Facility
— EL 60
— EL 50
— EL 40
— -EL 30
— EL 20
— — EL 10
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects — Chapter 3 ■ 3-33
Environment and Effects
Post Sale Road Management and Recreation Potential
The Canal Hoya Project Area is currently unroaded. Recreation use is generally restricted
to beach use and some use of the streams for fishing and hunting. The area is fairly
inaccessible, with a high potential for semi-primitive recreation experiences. The current
recreation use level is very low. Many of the visitors are accompanied by guides.
The major change proposed with any of the action alternatives is the introduction of roads
into a previously unroaded area (Table 3-11). In all action alternatives, the roads would be
closed to motorized vehicles after the sale is completed. The area is fairly remote from any
town, so it is not anticipated that the roads would result in a significantly higher amount of
recreation use in the area. It is not likely that this area would become a "destination
recreation area" because it is not located near a population center, and there are similar
recreation opportunities located much closer to Wrangell. The most potential for use would
be in those alternatives that propose a road system in the Canal VCU (Alternative 1 and
Alternative 2). This may attract use from the boaters travelling the Eastern Passage. The
presence of an LTF may attract recreationists visiting Anan as a camping area, especially
since the area immediately surrounding the Anan Wildlife Observatory is closed to
camping. The potential would exist for guides already hosting visitors at Anan to utilize
this area in conjunction with trips to Anan, but it is unknown if this would actually happen.
Roads May Attract Some Users The introduction of roads would change the recreation character of this area permanently.
and Displace Others Roads would serve to attract those users who seek somewhat developed recreation. Both the
road closure and the remoteness of the area will likely reduce the number of people who
might be attracted to the area by the roads. Although the roads would be closed, they would
provide a degree of increased access for nonmotorized recreation including; hunting,
mountain biking, camping, hiking, and berry picking. Conversely, the presence of roads
would serve to make the area less attractive to users seeking primitive recreation experiences.
The roads may serve to displace current users of the area to areas with less development.
Obviously, the degree of change to the area is based on the amount of roads each alternative
proposes. The more roads, the more opportunity to use them for nonmotorized recreation.
The longer the road systems, the more access they provide for hunting, hiking, berry picking,
and general exploring. Alternatives 1 and 2 propose road systems in both the Canal and Hoya
VCU’s and would have the most potential for changing the recreation experience of the
project area. Both alternatives propose a permanent change to two drainages. Alternative 2
proposes more overall roading than Alternative 1 (14.1 miles vs. 10.1), and would have the
most effect to the project area of the alternatives proposed.
Alternatives 3 and 4 do not propose an LTF or road system in the Canal VCU, and although
there would be evidence of logging in that drainage, the recreation potential of the Canal
VCU would remain largely unchanged. Alternative 3 would propose a longer road system in
the Hoya VCU than Alternative 4 (9.0 miles vs. 2.6 miles), and would provide more access in
the Hoya drainage for trail-based recreation activities. By providing more access, however, it
has more potential to change the recreation character of the drainage than Alternative 4.
Table 3-1 1 shows the amount of specified and temporary road miles proposed in each VCU
for each of the alternatives. Temporary roads would have their drainage structures removed
after the sale is complete, but would still provide foot access into the VCU. The difference
between temporary and specified roads, from the recreationists’ perspective, is that temporary
roads would eventually close in from revegetation efforts and would be less accessible than
specified roads over time.
3-34 ■ Chapter 3 — Environment and Effects
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects
Table 3-1 1
Miles of Specified and Temporary Road in Each Alternative
Canal VCU
Hoya VCU
Total Miles
Alternative 1
1.7
8.4
10.1
Specified Road
1.2
7.3
8.5
Temp Road
.5
1.1
1.6
Alternative 2
5.3
8.8
14.1
Specified Road
4.1
7.2
11.3
Temp Road
1.2
1.6
2.8
Alternative 3
0
9.0
9.0
Specified Road
0
7.3
7.3
Temp Road
0
1.7
1.7
Alternative 4
0
2.6
2.6
Specified Road
0
2.6
2.6
Temp Road
0
0
0
Effects to Recreationists and Outfitter/Guides
There are two basic ways this sale may affect recreationists and outfitter/guides. First, the
actual logging activities proposed in the alternatives would impact anyone recreating or
taking clients into the Bradfield Canal over the life of the sale. These activities may also
affect guides and recreationists passing the mouth of the Bradfield Canal on their way to
Anan or other areas. Second, response to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
suggested that we needed to examine the impacts of the proposed activities on the economic
potential of this area for the tourism industry. We have included an additional section to
attempt to address this concern.
Direct Effects to Recreationists and Outfitter/Guides
There was a concern from recreation users and outfitter/guides about how the activities
associated with this sale would directly effect them throughout the life of the sale. People
expressed concern about the presence of helicopters in the area making noise and disrupting
the wildlife they had come to see (particularly the bears at Anan). Two mitigation
measures are included in all action alternatives to address these concerns. First, helicopter
yarding would not be allowed in the Canal VCU between May 1 and June 15, to avoid
disturbance to bears with cubs upon emergence from hibernation. Second, helicopter
flights associated with harvest operations would be restricted within 1 .5 miles of the Anan
Wildlife Viewing Area from July 1 through August 31. The second restriction would not
affect yarding operations, but would direct any helicopter flights associated with the sale
away from the concentration of visitors at the Anan Wildlife Observatory during the high
use period.
Many people who frequent the general area of the proposed sale (particularly guides who
take visitors to Anan) were concerned about what they were likely to experience when
travelling near the Canal Hoya Project Area as a result of this sale. Although it is not
possible to say exactly what to expect during the life of a sale in any given year, we have
taken a "best guess" approach to describing what is likely to occur if a given alternative is
selected. Actual activities may vary once the sale is sold.
Table 3-12 displays the type of activities that may be encountered which could affect users
recreating near the Canal Hoya Project Area.
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects — Chapter 3 ■ 3-35
Environment and Effects
Table 3-12
Logging Activities Associated With Each Alternative
Canal LTF
Use
Hoya
LTF
Use
Road
Construction
Cable
Logging
Heli
Logging
Tugs/
Rafts
Crew
Traffic
Barges fc
Heli Yard
Water
Alt 1
Yes
Yes
2 seasons
3 seasons
3 seasons
3 seasons
3 seasons
3 season
Alt 2
Yes
Yes
2 seasons
3 seasons
3 seasons
3 seasons
3 seasons
None
Alt 3
No
Yes
2 seasons
3 seasons
3 seasons
3 seasons
3 seasons
3 season
Alt 4
No
Yes
1 season
2 seasons
2 seasons
2 seasons
2 seasons
2 season
Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 would be similar in that they would likely require a minimum
of three years to complete. Both would propose LTF construction at the Hoy a and Canal
sites, which would likely take place the first year of the sale. Road construction would likely
continue into the second season, with cable yarding and helicopter yarding expected
throughout the 3 years. Both would require log storage near both LTF’s, with associated tugs
and other miscellaneous crew traffic. A main difference between the two alternatives is that
Alternative 2 would not require any barges for helicopter yarding, as all logs removed by
helicopter would be yarded to the road system and trucked to the LTF’s.
Alternative 3 would likely take three years to complete, with expected activities similar to
Alternative 1 (including the necessity to have barges for helicopter yarding). The main
difference between Alternative 3 and the first two alternatives discussed is that Alternative 3
would not construct any roads or LTF in the Canal drainage. Alternative 4 would have the
least impact to visitors using the area, as it would likely require two years for completion, and
would not propose any road building or LTF construction in the Canal drainage.
Economic Value to the Tourism Industry and Potential Effects
There are several outfitters and guides who use the area immediately surrounding the
proposed Canal Hoya Timber Sale. The Canal VCU is viewed by guided groups that visit the
Anan Wildlife Observatory, while the entire project area is viewed by guided groups in the
Bradfield Canal area that are fishing, hunting, and participating in other guided activities. It
is difficult to determine exactly how "valuable" the project area is to these operators. For
many guides, the area serves as only one factor that makes up tour packages for their clients.
Anan Guides
The Wrangell Ranger District has been monitoring all visitors, including guided use of the
Anan Wildlife Observatory since 1991. The district began an environmental analysis to
determine the carrying capacity of the site when it became apparent that the observatory was
receiving heavy use by guided visitors as well as the general public. The Anan Management
Standards Environmental Assessment was published in April of 1996 and set upper limits for
the amount of service days the district would allocate to the guiding industry. In 1997 the
Forest Service allocated 1,076 priority use service days to the guide industry.
There are three basic categories of priority use guides who rely on the Anan Wildlife
Observatory for part of their overall business: 1) guides who boat clients from Wrangell, 2)
guides who fly guided groups from Ketchikan, and 3) guides who integrate a stop at Anan in
their multi-day Southeast Alaska excursions. Of the 1,076 priority use service days allocated
in 1997, 517 were allocated to guides based in Wrangell, 371 were allocated to Ketchikan-
based air charter services, and 188 were allocated to guides who integrate a stop at Anan into
their Southeast Alaska excursions.
3-36 ■ Chapter 3 — Environment and Effects
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects
In 1997, there were an additional 50 service days available by lottery to priority use guides. It
is impossible to predict which category to include them in, as that will change from year to
year. Those priority service days are not included in the table below. Approximately 100
service days are allocated to temporary permitted users at Anan each year. Since temporary
users change from year to year, their numbers were not included in these projections.
To determine the overall annual economic value of Anan to the guiding industry, the average
price per trip from the three categories of guides above was determined using available use
reports and gross income reported for trips in 1997. That number was multiplied by the
number of service days allocated to each category in 1997. Although the priority use guides
did not use all the service days allocated to them in 1997, we are projecting the present
available value of Anan to guides on the assumption that they use each service day available
to them.
Table 3-13
Present Available Value of Anan Wildlife Observatory to the Guiding Industry
Guide Category
Average
Price/Trip
Service
Days
Available
Present
Available Value
Wrangell-Based Boat
Charters
$135
517
$69,795
Ketchikan-Based Air
Charters
$225
371
$83,475
Multi-Day Boat Charters
$295
188
$55,460
Total Value
-
-
$208,730
The average price per trip for each category was calculated as follows:
Wrangell-Based Boat Charters - Use reports were available from seven of the eight guides in
this category. The actual gross income reported for this category of guides during the priority
use period in 1997 ($73,999), was divided by the number of clients taken (549). This resulted
in an average of $ 134.78/trip, which was rounded up to $135.
Ketchikan-Based Air Charters - Use reports were available from one of the two guides in this
category for 1997. The actual gross income reported during the priority use period ($24,557),
was divided by the number of clients (109), which resulted in an average of $224. 38/trip.
That number was rounded up to $225.
Multi-Day Boat Charters - This number is more difficult to calculate, as the type of trip
offered by this category of guides varies widely. Use reports were available from five of the
eight guides in this category. The actual price charged to each client for the entire trip was
divided by the number of days in the trip (assuming that a visit to Anan generally constituted
one day’s activities), resulting in a price per day. We used that number as the average price
per trip, realizing that it is probably higher than the actual value of Anan to the trip because
there are other amenities that constitute a full day’s value. In 1997, guides in this category
took 106 clients to Anan. The total gross income attributed to Anan from this category of
guides was $31,224. Dividing that by the 106 clients, we arrived at $294.56/client, which was
rounded up to $295.
Effects to Anan Guides
The proposed Canal Hoya Timber Sale may affect guides that take clients to the Anan
Wildlife Observatory in three basic ways: 1) the view of the area from the primary boating
route from Wrangell to Anan, 2) the actual logging activity during the life of the sale, and 3)
the potential for the sale to impact the bears they come to view.
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects — Chapter 3 ■ 3-37
3 Environment and Effects
The result of logging the Canal VCU may be apparent to those guides that boat clients from
Wrangell to Anan. Most guides take the Back Channel route and will view the area as they
pass Blake Island on their way to Anan. The potential effects to scenery resulting from this
proposed sale are discussed earlier in this section, starting on page 3-18. The most important
viewpoint for guides who boat directly from Wrangell to Anan is the Blake Island Viewpoint
(see Blake Island Viewpoint, page 3-20)
The actual logging activity may have an impact to the clients, but it’s impossible to say that
the impact will be positive or negative to all. For example, some clients may see the logging
activity as detracting from their expectations that they are visiting a wild place with little to
no development. Others, however, may find the logging activity interesting, especially if
they’ve never seen helicopter yarding in action. In this sense, the logging activity may
actually serve to enhance their overall experience. The difference between the alternatives,
based on the length of the sale and the actual activity that clients may witness is discussed
earlier in this section (see Direct Effects to Recreationist and Outfitter/Guides, page 3-35).
Finally, the proposed sale has the potential to effect the Anan bears. Any loss of viewable
bears at Anan has the potential to seriously effect the guides opportunity to market trips to
Anan for bear viewing and would lead to less customer satisfaction. The potential impact to
Anan Bears is discussed in depth in its own section in this document (see Anan Bears, page 3-
40).
Outfitters and Guides Using the Bradfield Canal
In addition to guides using Anan, the Forest Service also authorizes use to outfitters and
guides for the Bradfield Canal, to base a portion of their guided activities. Activities provided
by guides include: big game hunting, stream fishing including steelhead, waterfowl hunting,
camping, hiking, wildlife viewing, sightseeing, and photography. Rates charged to clients
vary widely depending on the length of the trip and the activities provided.
Attempting to estimate the value of the Bradfield Canal, or the Canal and Hoy a VCU’s, to
these types of guides is more difficult than trying to estimate the value of Anan to guides.
The economic potential for Anan is based on the carrying capacity of the site, and the
reasonable assumption that all service days could be used by the guides. The carrying
capacity at Anan resulted in a reduction of overall service days (from service days reported in
1995). There has not been a need to reduce the number of service days available to guides
using the Bradfield Canal, because the guides are not approaching the carrying capacity of the
Bradfield Canal, as identified in the 1997 Stikine Area Outfitter and Guide Environmental
Assessment (EA). The EA determined the carrying capacity for guided activities at 701
Recreation Visitor Days (RVD’s) for the Bradfield Study Area. In 1996, only 94 RVD’s were
used by guides (approximately 14% of the capacity), leaving plenty of room for growth. It is
unlikely that guided activities would approach capacity in the near future.
Many of the activities provided by guides in the Bradfield Canal are not reported to the Forest
Service. Any activity whereby clients do not utilize the National Forest uplands do not need
to be reported. Therefore, we do not have definite numbers for saltwater based activities such
as sightseeing, photography, and wildlife viewing. Of those activities that are reported to the
Forest Service, the value of the trips to the guides vary widely. It would be irresponsible for
us to try and determine a price per day for guided activities and project that into a potential
value of the Bradfield Canal, as we have done for the Anan Guides. It is impossible to make
similar assumptions based on price per day, service days available, and total potential value.
Perhaps a more useful way to examine the effects of the proposed sale on these type of guides
would be to discuss the effects that would be more important to the different types of
activities offered by guides.
3-38 ■ Chapter 3 — Environment and Effects
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects
Big Game Guides
Outfitters and guides who guide for big game hunts would be most affected by roads and
harvest that effect the habitats of the species they rely on. The big game species hunted in the
Bradfield Canal area include brown bear, black bear, and mountain goat. The effects to
brown bear and black bear populations and habitats are examined in the Anan Bears section
of this document (starting on page 3-40). The effects to wildlife in general are discussed in
the Wildlife Habitat and Species Conservation section (starting on page 3-60). Mountain
goats are a Management Indicator Species (MIS) for the Tongass National Forest, and these
effects are discussed starting on page 3-79.
Stream Fishing Guides
Outfitters and guides who conduct trips in the Bradfield Canal for stream fishing rely on the
available fish populations. They may be affected by roads providing access to the streams
they visit. Effects to freshwater resources and fish habitat are discussed in a later section of
this document (see Freshwater and Marine Resources, page 3-86)
Marine Sport Fishing Guides
Outfitters and guides who conduct trips in the Bradfield Canal for marine sport fishing in the
waters adjacent to the project area could be affected or temporarily displaced by logging
activities as described in Marine Resources, page 3-94.
Water Fowl Hunting Guides
Outfitters and guides who conduct water fowl hunting trips concentrate their activities on the
flats of the Bradfield River. This area will not be affected by the proposed Canal Hoya
Timber Sale.
Wildlife Viewing Guides
Effects to different wildlife species are examined later in this document (see Anan Bears,
page 3-40, and Wildlife Habitat and Species Conservation, page 3-60)
All Guides
All outfitters and guides who use the Bradfield Canal in any capacity, could be affected by
the visual results of the sale, the recreation potential of the area, and the logging activities
proposed in each alternative. The effects to scenery are discussed earlier in this section (see
Scenery, page 3-14). Effects to the recreation potential are discussed in the section titled
"Post Sale Road Management and Recreation Potential" (starting on page 3-34). Direct
effects that might result from logging activities are also discussed earlier in this section (see
Direct Effects to Recreationists and Outfitter/Guides, page 3-35).
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects — Chapter 3 ■ 3-39
"Great as always "!
—Wrangell, AK
"Fantastic! Bears galore!"
—Bristol, England
"One of the highlights of
my Alaskan trip "
—Sydney, Australia
"Really great!! This is
what Alaska is really all
about. "
—Danville, CA
"Saw bears almost all the
time, great!"
— Eau Claire, WI
" Dream come true!"
—Wrangell, AK
"Nothing like it
anywhere. "
—Oklahoma
3 Environment and Effects
Issue Three:
Anan Bears
Many tourists visit Southeast Alaska to get a glimpse of a bear - "the symbol of the Alaskan
wilderness" (Schoen et al. 1992). The Anan Wildlife Viewing Area, located 1.5 miles to the
west of the Canal Hoya Project Area boundary, is the kind of place where tourists and locals
can make this dream a reality. The pink salmon that return to Anan Creek in July attract
numerous eagles, seals, gulls, bears and humans. More than 2,000 people visit Anan each
year to view wildlife, especially the 30-60 black bears and 12-20 brown bears that frequent
the area between July and September. As can be seen by the excerpts to the left from the
1997 visitor book, Anan is an internationally renowned site and a world-class bear viewing
area.
This is a wildlife and a recreation issue since the people who visit or make their living
guiding visitors to Anan are concerned about the effects of the Canal Hoya Timber Sale on
the bears. Guides are concerned about the disturbance caused by nearby logging operations
on their business. We must consider future economic benefits of tourism since popularity of
this viewing area is rapidly increasing. In 1997, 2,504 visitors stopped at Anan — an increase
of 300 compared to the previous year.
We have studied the distribution of the Anan bears through a radio telemetry study in
cooperation with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. In 1993, 13 black bears and one
brown bear were radio-collared at the Anan wildlife viewing area. We tracked these bears for
3 years from a fixed-wing aircraft and plotted their monthly location on aerial photos (these
points are referred to as bear "relocations" throughout this document). Since then we have
analyzed habitat use of these bears and their distribution throughout the project area (USDA
1997c). It is good to keep in mind that in 1993, the year the bears were trapped, berries were
abundant and the pink salmon run in Anan Creek was lower than average. This resulted in
fewer bears than usual using Anan; therefore our results may be conservative and not
represent bears that are occasional visitors or have a broader distribution (large home range).
In other words, a differing bear use pattern may emerge if the study was repeated and
collaring was done during a poor berry year.
We have made wildlife resources and wildlife viewing a top priority for the Anan watershed
but we know that the Anan bears do not stay within these boundaries (USDA 1996). From
the results of our Anan telemetry study we discovered that the general pattern of movement
for the Anan bears is east/west. The Canal and Hoya VCUs where we are planning a timber
sale lie to the east of Anan (Figure 3-24).
To gain an understanding of the effects of the Canal Hoya timber sale on bears in general, the
habituated Anan bear population and viewing opportunities at Anan we discuss the following
concerns:
• The distribution of Anan bears in the Canal Hoya area
• The effect of habitat changes to black bears
• The effect of habitat changes to brown bears
• How roads and other human disturbances impact bears
• The local bear population and existing mortality rate
• What we expect of habituated bears (bears that tolerate people)
3-40 ■ Chapter 3 — Environment and Effects
Canal Hoya Final EIS
BRADFIELD j* \ CANAL
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects — Chapter 3 ■ 3-41
Scale is 1 inch = 1.15 miles
Environment and Effects
Distribution of Anan Bears Within the Project Area
Nine of the 14 radio collared black bears at Anan denned or foraged in the Canal Hoya area.
II we extrapolate this to our population estimate — as many as 45 of the Anan black bears may
spend time in the Canal lloya area. Another way of looking at our data is to assume that the
number of relocations for each hear that falls within the project area represents the amount of
time that bear spends in the project area. Using this assumption, Anan bears spent an
average of 23% of their time in the project area — 15% within the Canal VCU and 7%
within the lloya VCU. The Canal Hoya project area is well within the home range averages
we reported for the Anan bear population —3.5 square miles for females and 13.9 square miles
for males.
We analyzed the distribution of certain groups of bears, specifically; females, regulars at the
observatory and brown bears. The Jour collared female black bears spent an average of 42%
of their time in the Canal Hoya area. The one brown bear we collared for this study spent
55% of her time in Canal Hoya. 1’here were six collared bears that arc considered regulars —
they repeatedly show up at the Lower Falls and are habituated to people. These regulars
spent an average of 23% of their time within the project area.
Anan bears appear to use the project area more frequently during the Spring, Fall and denning
periods, (anal is an important denning area for Anan black bears. Of the 25 den
relocations; 48% were within Canal, 48% within Anan, 0% in Hoya and 4% in other areas.
Canal relocations were primarily picked up during denning, Spring and Fall (in that order).
The majority of Hoya relocations occurred in the Spring.
Anan black bears frequent Canal lloya during the hunting season but currently appear to be
relatively inaccessible. 72% of the black bear relocations in Canal Hoya occurred during the
black bear hunting season (Sept. I June 30) as compared to 48% of the relocations for the
entire project area. Relocations of the one collared brown bear in Canal Hoya occurred
outside of the brown bear hunting season (2 relocations in June and 4 in August).
The current likely area for human hear encounters is along the beach. The bears in our study
frequented the interior of Canal Hoya more than the beach. Only 13% of the Canal Hoya
relocations fell within 500 feet of the beach compared to 87% of the locations in the interior.
1 lowever, beach and estuary areas were important habitat types for Anan bears (see below).
Habitat Use by Black Bears
Black bears seek out different food sources during different seasons of the year and as a result
use a variety of habitat types. In the Spring, bears feed on newly emergent vegetation found
along the beach or in low elevation forests. During the early summer, bears move to mid-
elevation habitats to feed on salmonberries and deer cabbage. In the Fall, they return to lower
elevation riparian areas to feed on spawning salmon.
The most important habitat types for black bears in general and for black bears in our project
area are riparian, beach, estuary and productive old growth forested stands (Figure 3-25). The
Anan bears chose beach, estuary and riparian habitats over all other habitat types based on a
use/availability analysis (USDA 1997c). We did not find a significant difference in black
bear use of low and high volume forest for the bears we had radio-collared; however, forested
high volume was the third highest ranking cover type.
3-42 ■ Chapter 3 — Environment and Effects
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects
Figure 3-25
Average Percent Use and Average Availability of Habitat Types for Anan Bears
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
BE R FMU FHV FLV FSA NF
Habitat Types
‘BE Daach/eistuary 'P - riparian FMU - (oraVati mutkeg
FH / ■ foratted high /olumn 020 000 Df/acre) F\ / - forn'At'S <r/n i/ciumn '20 000
FSA - foretterJ ‘.unzipim tJF nonforett
* * "significant u*,n
Cover is second only to food in determining the suitability of an area for bears in the Black
bear Habitat Capability Model. Bears prefer a diversity of habitat types, but they will not
forage far from the cover provider] by mature forest stands (Suring 1993a;. Females with
cubs are especially sensitive and often will not forage more than 100 meters from forested
cover-- an area where they can take refuge if threatened (Herrero 1978, Rogers 1077;.
Forested corridors are important for migrating black bears since they seek forested cover to
escape from brown bear predation and hunters (Chi 1996;.
We were unable to analyze the use of clearcuts by Anan bears but research in other areas
indicates that the benefits of clearcuts to bears are short-lived. Clearcuts provide forage for
black bears in the form of berries and receive high habitat suitability scores 1 hese same
areas are considered completely unsuitable after 25 years when canopy closure of the stand
severely reduces available food supplies (Suring 1993a;. Bear population increases caused by
logging may be expected to decline as second-growth stands enter the phase of least forage
production (Meehan, 1974;.
Large-diameter trees are a critical habitat component for denning black bears Black bears in
coastal Alaska make extensive use of tree dens due to high ground moisture, limiter] soil
development and variable snow cover (Erickson et al. 1982; Suring 1993a;. All the dens
(n=67; located for a study in coastal British Columbia were in or beneath large diameter (dbh
= 40"; trees or wooden structures derived from trees (logs, root boles, stumps; (Davis, 1996;
Most of these dens were in yellow cedar (30%; or red cedar (28%;. Although the black bear
habitat model stresses the importance of high volume forested stands for denning, many of the
dens in our study were in low volume stands (Suring 1993a, US DA 1997c;.
anal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects — Chapter 3 ■ 3-43
Environment and Effects
Figure 3-26
Number of Den Locations by Habitat Type for Eleven Anan Black Bears
(25 locations; avg. = 2.3 dens per bear)
Habitat Types
B = beach, FMU = forested muskeg, FHV = forested high volume (>20,000bf/acre),
FLV = forested low volume(<20,000bf/acre), FSA = forested subalpine
Anan bears selected den sites within at least five different habitat types: beach, forested
muskeg, forested high volume, forested low volume and forest subalpine (Figure 3-26). The
presence of a few large trees (>40" dbh) and a dry site may be the critical habitat features
selected for by coastal denning black bears (Davis, pers. comm).
The availability of secure den sites is critical to female bears. Reducing the number of den
sites can lead to an increase in the number of cannibalism incidents of denned females and
cubs (Davis, pers. comm). Dens need to provide thermal cover and security at this critical
stage of a bear’s life cycle.
Den reuse may be as high as 50% for the Anan bear population indicating low numbers of
adequate den sites in our project area (USDA 1997c). Den reuse is generally low (e.g. 5
percent) throughout the range of the black bear (Suring 1993a). High rates of reuse (50%)
may occur in areas where suitable dens sites are not abundant (Lindzey and Meslow, 1977).
There was a 28% reuse of dens by radio-collared bears in coastal British Columbia — another
area where coastal conditions may result in a shortage of dry, secure den sites (Davis 1996).
3-44 ■ Chapter 3 — Environment and Effects
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects
Effects on Black Bear Habitat
The effect of each alternative on black bear habitat changes with the location and size of units
and by miles of road open to foot- traffic. Gated roads are less detrimental to bears than are
roads open to vehicles but still result in lower habitat values due to the potential for bear-
human interactions. We ran the latest version of the interagency black bear cumulative effects
model to look at changes in the suitability of habitats by alternative (Suring et al. 1993a).
Table 3-14 shows the acres of suitable high value habitat by alternative for black bear. Table
3-15 shows the percent of existing habitat capability remaining by alternative. Figures 3-27
and 3-28 show where the existing high value habitat is and the conditions under Alternative 2,
which would have the greatest effect on highly suitable black bear habitat.
Habitat in the Canal Hoya project area is expected to be less suitable for black bears when
located within 1 mile of a road open to foot-traffic or an access point (Suring et al. 1993a). A
higher impact is expected if these roads are within 1/2 mile of an anadromous fish stream.
Additional disturbance factors of the habitat model do not apply in this sale since we are not
planning any permanent camps, garbage dumps, cabins, or roads left open to vehicle use.
Table 3-14
Acres of Existing Highly Suitable Habitat and Percent Remaining as High
by Alternative for Black Bear.
Alternatives
Acres of high
remaining
Percent of high remaining
Altl
4524
44
Alt2
4180
40
Alt3
6253
60
Alt4
7607
74
Alt5
10339
100
Table 3-15
Percent of Exisiting Overall Habitat Capability Remaining by Alternative
for Black and Brown Bear.
Alternatives
Black bear
* (% habitat
capability)
Brown bear
* (% habitat capability)
Altl
84
92
Alt2
81
90
Alt3
87
94
Alt4
91
96
Alt5
100
100
* percent is ratio of overall area hsi index values
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects — Chapter 3 ■ 3-45
7
11 !11|
w
jd
E
LD
II
-C
o
c
3-46 ■ Chapter 3 — Environment and Effects
Canal Hoya Final EIS
BRADFIELD Lm CANAL
: W&0$.
■
S " l|||§
wMmmm
Pppl'p::
mi:. -
'; , ' .Pll
V ;v:'-;-;
'
II I
■': :
► l|J
gj
fSp ill I
/ ■■■ y
-1.1 . v ' ilp ^
y
■■■• -■ ■:■■ / .'-y ■:■•::■
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects — Chapter 3 ■ 3-47
Scale is 1 inch = 1.15 miles
Environment and Effects
The effect of road access on bears is greater than the direct effects of removing habitat ( see
roads and habituation discussion , page 3-51 and 3-57). 81% or more of existing habitat
capability of the area is retained under any alternative. 26-60% of highly suitable habitats for
black bear becomes moderately suitable under any alternative largely as a result of the road
disturbance component of the model. These changes in habitat acres may reflect small overall
changes in carrying capacity. Acres of habitat do not disappear with timber harvesting but
move into a less suitable category.
Habitats that receive a significant amount of use by Anan black bears, the beach and estuary
areas, will not be harvested. Measures to protect important foraging areas for brown bears
have benefits to black bears as well (see brown bear habitat effects, page 3-50). Since
salmon are a principal food source in July-September, alternatives that minimize risk to
riparian habitat and fish production will benefit bears (USDA 1997a). All alternatives
provide a high level of fish habitat protection (see Freshwater Resources discussion, page 3-
86). In summary, Alternative 2 has the biggest impact on bear habitat values followed by
Alternatives 1 , 3 and 4.
Denning habitat will be maintained for black bears within riparian, beach and estuary buffers
and within the old growth reserves. Davis (1996) states "the retention of stands within
landscapes provides the best means for the maintenance of adequate numbers and supply of
dens. Retention of patches within stands provides the next best option, and the retention of
elements provides the only option better than supplying none at all." The Canal Old Growth
Reserve was designed to include several known den locations (see Old Growth Reserve
discussion, page 3-69) and to provide a buffer between Canal and Anan. We have included
retention within our units with the objective of maintaining den trees. Below is a list of
recommendations for maintaining denning habitat (Davis 1996) and a description of how we
are applying these mitigation measures within all alternatives:
We have protected important
denning habitat and would
retain denning trees.
We would protect habitat
around known den sites.
Some large green trees would
be retained
Identify areas with high densities of dens and manage for retention of
adequate amounts and distribution of denning habitat.
Landscapes should contain areas such as old growth reserves that contain quality denning
habitat. Denning habitat should be uniform across the landscape since the portion within
the old growth reserve will only provide dens for a portion of the population. "The
supply of dens should occur across the landscape and not be concentrated into a few
patches ".
We have protected important denning habitat within the Canal Old Growth Reserve.
Denning trees would be retained across the landscape within harvest units using
reserve clumps and diameter-limit prescriptions.
Retain patches of trees around dens found in trees in areas to be clearcut.
Trees with entrances above ground level are especially important and should always be
retained in wind-firm patches. Wildlife tree patches containing den structures should be
> 0.5 ha. It is important to retain more than just the standing tree since vegetational
complexity around the den site is important to denning bears.
We would protect habitat around known den sites. We would attempt to place reserve
clumps around any new dens that are located.
Retention of green trees should focus on large declining green trees.
Patches of leave trees should contain trees that have denning potential in the future.
"Yellow cedar and western red cedar are probably the most important source of den
structures because of their decay characteristics". Hemlock and Sitka spruce are also
used as denning structures.
Large green trees would be retained in reserves and for units with an upper diameter
limit. Units 41, 44, 45 and 47 in Canal have an upper and lower diameter limit.
3-48 ■ Chapter 3 — Environment and Effects
Canal Hoya Final EIS
We would avoid disturbing
denning black bears.
Environment and Effects
• Timber harvesting should avoid displacing denned black bears.
Activities that induce den abandonment should be avoided. Female black bears with
nursing cubs may remain at the den site into May. Activities should be avoided within 30
meters of the den site until the bear has left on its own volition. Harvesting during the
summer when bears have left the den will mitigate these effects. Black bears have been
reported to abandon dens and their cubs when closely approached by humans or other
predators.
We would avoid disturbing denning black bears by limiting activities around any active
dens discovered during logging operations. A timing restriction in Canal would reduce
the amount of helicopter disturbance during the Spring ( before June 15th) when
females and cubs may be at den sites
• Retain large pieces of coarse woody debris (CWD) in new clearcuts.
Logs should be 40" in diameter and 15’ long. Logs removed from fallen trees should be
cut 15’ from the rootwad. Stand activities such as thinning should not disturb existing
pieces of CWD. Cedar logs that are beginning to show signs of decay should be retained.
Salvage activities and firewood cutting should be regulated to ensure that denning
capability is not compromised.
Large logs would be retained within Units 41, 43, 44, 45 and 47.
• Selected large trees should be cut >6’ above their base (high stumping) to
allow for the formation of den sites under stumps.
We would apply high stumping to selected trees identified as suitable den sites within
Units 44, 45 and 47.
Habitat Use by Brown Bears
Alaska is one of the few remaining areas of the world with healthy brown bear populations
and the future of these populations is "inextricably linked with forest management" (Schoen
el al. 1992). Brown bears have been eliminated from 99% of their former range and in 1975
they were listed as threatened in the United States south of Canada (Wilcox 1996). Schoen
(1992) states "Loss of habitat to human encroachment and resource development is a serious
problem for bear management in the contiguous 48 states and elsewhere".
As with black bears, habitat use of brown bears varies seasonally, which is believed to be a
response to seasonal difference in food quality and availability. Bears emerge from dens in
April and May and seek out old growth forests, coastal sedge meadows and south-facing
avalanche slopes. In early summer (mid- June through mid- July) bears move to forested
slopes and meadows to seek out newly emergent vegetation. From mid-July through early
September most bears move to riparian habitats, primarily spruce devil’s club communities,
to feed on anadromous fish. Some bears (primarily females) do not use coastal fish streams
and are considered "interior bears" (Schoen et al 1994).
Brown bear population declines can be expected as a direct result of habitat loss. On
northeast Chichagof, a 23% decline in brown bear populations was predicted to occur in 50
years after a 50% removal of harvestable timber (Schoen 1994). Riparian areas, floodplains
and late successional forested stands are important habitat types for brown bears (Schoen et.
al 1994). The Forest Plan recommends that a "minimum 500 foot no-harvest riparian buffer
be maintained along streams considered important for brown bear foraging."
Clearcuts are not used extensively by brown bears. During a radio-collar study on Chichagof
Island, only 2.8% of 854 relocations of radio-collared bears occurred in clearcuts (Schoen
and Beier 1990). Although clearcuts occurred frequently along low elevation valleys and
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects — Chapter 3 ■ 3-49
Environment and Effects
adjacent to streams — areas used extensively by bears in late summer - they were essentially
avoided by brown bears (Schoen and Beier 1990). Many of the berries (devil’s club, currant
and salmonberry) which brown bears prefer are more abundant in riparian and avalanche
slopes than in clearcuts. In the habitat model for brown bears, clearcuts receive a lower
habitat suitability ranking than old growth. Unthinned second growth stands (25-150 years)
have no habitat value to brown bears due to the lack of understory vegetation (Schoen 1994).
Generally forest management activities have minor effects on brown bear denning habitat
(Schoen et al. 1992). Most bears move to upper elevations by mid-September before denning.
Although cave denning is common, dens are also commonly observed at the base of large old
growth trees and snags. Fifty-two percent of brown bear dens on Admiralty Island occurred
in old growth habitat (Schoen et al. 1992). To minimize loss of denning habitat as a
consequence of logging, Schoen et al (1987) recommend avoiding logging on mid-volume
(20-30 mbf), hemlock- spruce stands on >20 degree slopes above 300m elevation adjacent to
area of brown bear concentrations.
Effects on Brown Bear Habitat
The effect of each alternative on brown bear habitat changes with the location and size of
units and by miles of road open to foot-traffic. We ran the latest version of the interagency
brown bear cumulative effects model to look at changes in the suitability of habitats by
alternative. Disturbance factors listed in the brown bear model that apply for this timber sale
include: access points (LTF) and disturbance within 1 mile of temporary roads. Gated roads
are less detrimental to bears than are roads open to vehicles, but still result in lower habitat
values due to the potential for bear-human interactions (Schoen et al. 1994). All camps are
floating and there would be no landfills as a result of this project. We also analyzed the
impact of each alternative on brown bear denning habitat. Tables 3-19 and 3-17 show the
acres of highly suitable habitat and percent of area habitat capability remaining by alternative.
Figures 3-29 and 3-30 show where the high value habitat is and the locations of units in
Alternative 2, which would have the greatest effect on highly suitable brown bear habitat.
The effect of roads on bears is greater than the direct effects of removing habitat (see roads
and habituation discussion, page 3-51 and 3-57). 90% or more of existing habitat capability
of the area is retained under any alternative (Table 3-17 under black bear habitat section). All
alternatives retain more than 90% of highly suitable brown bear habitat (Table 3-19). Changes
in habitat acres may reflect small overall changes in carrying capacity. Acres of highly
suitable habitat do not disappear with timber harvesting but move into a less suitable
category. In summary, Alternative 2 has the biggest impact on bear habitat values followed
by Alternatives 1 , 3 and 4. Alternative 2 also removes more acres of denning habitat than
other alternatives (Table 3-20).
Important brown bear foraging streams are protected under all alternatives. Most of the
Hoy a creek, survey creek and a tributary between the two (Surho creek ) were identified as
important brown bear foraging streams. No harvesting will be done within 500 feet of the
anadromous fish spawning portions of those streams. Anadromous fish streams in Canal are
limited in extent and are protected by the 1000 foot beach buffer. Since salmon are a
principal food source in July-September, alternatives that minimize risk to riparian habitat and
fish production will benefit bears (USDA 1997a). All alternatives provide a high level of fish
habitat protection (see Freshwater Resources discussion, page 3-86).
3-50 ■ Chapter 3 — Environment and Effects
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects
Table 3-16
Acres of Existing Highly Suitable Habitat and Percent Remaining as
High by Alternative for Brown Bear
Alternatives
Acres of high
remaining
Percent of high
remaining
Altl
373
96
Alt2
379
97
Alt3
379
97
Alt4
381
98
Table 3-17
Acres of Brown Bear Denning Habitat and % Remaining by Alternative
Denning habitat is defined as mid- volume stands, >20 degrees and > 300 meters in elevation
(Schoen et al. 1992)
Alternatives
Acres of Denning
Habitat
Acres
Removed
%
Remaining
Altl
1912
73
96
Alt 2
1851
134
93
Alt 3
1896
89
96
Alt 4
1905
80
96
Alt 5
1985
0
100
The Impact of Roads and Disturbances on Bears
Roads and other human disturbances (facilities, camps, dumps) lead to an increase in bear-
human encounters which in turn may lead to bear population declines and reduced bear
densities. Total density of black bears can be reduced by increases in human-related
mortality ( other than legal hunting mortality ) that result from environmental
disturbances (cited in Suring 1992). Black bear populations have been shown to decline in
direct relationship to the extent of bears’ interactions with people (Powell 1993). Mattson
(1993) states that "direct-human caused mortality is the arguable cause of virtually all
grizzly bear population declines ... and that human access is a primary mediator of this
mortality "(Mattson 1993).
We know that roads and developments lead to increased bear mortality but can only estimate
what that mortality rate would be. Legal hunting of bears can be managed but it is very
difficult to control illegal kills, wounding loss and bears shot in defense of life or property.
"On the Kenai Peninsula in Alaska, where reporting is thought to be fairly complete,
wounding loss of black bears was estimated to be 13-16% of reported kill based on mortalities
of radio-marked bears "(cited in Sterling 1990). In 6 studies of marked grizzly bears, 26% of
mortalities were caused by illegal harvests compared to 42% by legal hunting (McLellan
1990) . Studies on Chichagof Island have demonstrated a direct relationship between the
number of brown bear kills and cumulative kilometers of road construction (Titus and Beier
1991) .
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects — Chapter 3 ■ 3-51
Ill o
<
Q>
< =■ UJ
3-52 ■ Chapter 3 — Environment and Effects
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Scale is 1 inch = 1.15 miles
BRADF/ELD \ CANAL
a
UJ
O
LL
<
<
>
G
GC
< r- LU
CM
0
_>
CO
c
k.
0
3 +■*
< 0
4- .ti
o n
</> *E
+-» x
o T"
£ S
IT 0
LU CQ
6 i
CO >
' o
00 £
. CQ
.EPc
LL O
c3
-i— >
3
aj
X
'i
a
c3
<u
cS
<u
CQ
CQ
c
£
-o
o
c
2
s-
CQ
3
o
CQ
o
s-.
3
C/5
2
CQ
C3
>
<u
>
c3
<U
H
O')
<D
•5
£
-C
T3
O
o
cc
3
z
E
00
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects — Chapter 3 ■ 3-53
Scale is 1 inch = 1.15 miles
Environment and Effects
Human activity along roads and at facilities can also displace bears from critical habitat.
Radio-collared brown bears on Chichagof remained much farther away from salmon streams
in highly roaded and clearcut watershed due to a lack of cover, however their tendency to use
roads and forest patches resulted in more human-bear encounters and increased mortality
(Titus and Beier 1991). Black bears have been known to abandon dens and even cubs when
disturbed at their denning location (cited in Davis 1996).
Human disturbances are an important component of the habitat model for both brown and
black bear. Primary disturbance factors identified in the recent Habitat Capability model for
brown bears include: permanent camps, communities, landfills, and vehicle-accessible roads
(Schoen 1994). Open-pit dumps and permanent camps have the biggest impact on black bear
habitat quality (Suring 1993a). Roads open to vehicles have the greatest impact on bears.
Roads closed temporarily (gates) are more detrimental than those closed permanently since
they will generally still have some level of off-road vehicle traffic (Schoen 1994) "All roads ,
regardless of closure, still have the potential for supporting additional human foot traffic
which also influences bear populations. " (Schoen 1994). Brown bears do not avoid
secondary and blocked roads, thus they are likely to encounter humans along these systems
(Titus and Beier 1991).
Disturbance as a result of timber harvesting may have a bigger impact on brown bears in the
late summer (mid-July through mid- September). This period is believed to be the most
critical time period for brown bears because they are concentrated along coastal salmon
streams - areas where the most abundant and high quality food is available. Schoen (1994)
states "we believe that brown bears are most vulnerable to human-induced mortality (aside
from legal hunting) at this time and place".
"Manage road use where
concentrations of brown bear
occur to minimize human/bear
interactions and to help ensure
the long-term productivity of
brown bears. To meet this
direction, develop and
implement road management
objectives through an
interdisciplinary process"
Effects of Roads and Disturbances on Bears by Alternative
The impact of roads and disturbances on bears is an important component of the habitat
models and is reflected in these results (see habitat discussions). For bears in general we
can compare this impact by evaluating the miles of road by alternative. Alternative 2 has
more road miles than other alternatives followed by Alternatives 1, 3 and 4.
To further evaluate this impact on the Anan bears we applied a 1 mile buffer around roads
and access points and calculated the average percent time spent within this buffer by the
radio-collared Anan bears. We are assuming that "percent time" is represented by the
percent of relocations that fall within this disturbance zone for each bear. The average
percent time that Anan bears spent within the disturbance zone for any alternatives (other
than no action) ranged between 2 and 13%. Alternatives 2 (13%) and 1 (12%) have the
greatest disturbance impact on Anan bears. Alternatives 3 (6%) and 4 (2%) have the least
impact because there are no roads in Canal.
Road impacts are partially mitigated by installing gates at both LTF sites to eliminate
recreational vehicle use on the roads. The Forest Plan states the following standard:
"Manage road use where concentrations of brown bear occur to minimize human/bear
interactions and to help ensure the long-term productivity of brown bears. To meet this
direction, develop and implement road management objectives through an
interdisciplinary process"
3-54 ■ Chapter 3 — Environment and Effects
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects
Bear Populations Within the Project Area
Baseline data on bear population density and composition is very important for bear
management purposes but difficult to obtain (Miller 1990). In addition, there can be a
significant lag effect time between when habitat degradation occurs and when habitat
degradation effects show up in terms of a bear population decline (Doak 1995). "The costs
associated with unintended population declines and the difficulties of detecting such declines
until they are far advanced mandate a conservative approach to bear population management
(Miller 1990)."
We have used habitat capability models in the past to estimate carrying capacity but these
numbers have a high degree of error associated with them (see MIS discussion, page 3-78).
Our models predict that habitat within this Wildlife Analysis Area (WAA — Canal, Hoya and
Eagle rivers but not Anan) will support 97 black bears (USDA 1991 - TLMP SDEIS).
ADFG (1993) states that current black bear populations in GMU 1 remain stable and high.
The carrying capacity of brown bears for this WAA was estimated to be 24 animals (USDA
1991 - TLMP SDEIS). ADFG (1994) reports the brown bear population in this area as stable
but "bear-human interactions and conflicts from increased access and development remain a
concern." Most of the long term concern for brown bear populations is related to the low
density mainland bear populations (USDA 1997a).
Current legal harvest of black bears in our project area is low. Four black bears were
harvested between 1980 and 1995 (USDA 1991 - TLMP SDEIS, ADFG harvest report 1997).
Sustainable harvest rates for black bear range between 7-14% (Miller 1990, USDA 1991 -
TLMP SDEIS). In the last ten years, one bear was taken in the Canal drainage and one in the
Eagle river drainage, east of Hoya (ADFG harvest report 1997). The age/sex composition of
black bears at Anan was stable during the course of a three year study. The relatively large
proportion of large adult males suggests that this population is not heavily exploited. (Chi
1996).
Current legal harvest of brown bears may be at the upper limit of what this population can
support. Eleven brown bear were harvested in this WAA between 1987 and 1995 which
equates to an annual harvest rate of 5% if the population is at carrying capacity. Sustainable
harvest rates for brown bears range from 4-5.7% (USDA 1991 - TLMP SDEIS, Miller 1990).
Five of the eleven brown bears harvested were females which exceeds state management
objectives for proportion of females harvested (ADFG 1995). One of three marked Anan
brown bears , a 4 1/2 year old female, was harvested in the Eagle river drainage —
demonstrating the movement and susceptibility of this population across our project area.
Eight of the eleven bears were harvested by nonresidents. ADFG reports that the percentage
of successful brown bear hunters in GMU 1 that were non-residents increased between 1985
and 1990 from 13% to 30%.
It is very difficult to estimate how many Anan bears will be illegally harvested in the future or
killed in defense of life and property (see road discussion, page 3-51). Chi (1996) states "with
the increasing popularity of bear viewing and continued habituation of the bears to people
throughout their lifetime these bears will be especially vulnerable to illegal hunting
throughout the Cleveland Peninsula ...an increasing rate of commercial sales of bears parts
makes this issue ("illegal hunting") even more critical for bears and the integrity of the
ecosystem." (Chi 1996).
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects — Chapter 3 ■ 3-55
Environment and Effects
— "No net loss of
habituated/visible bears at the
falls for more than two
consecutive years. Cubs
continue to use Anan as they
become adults and are recruited
into the population. "
— "Maintain a well distributed
bear age and sex ratio indicated
by the continued use of the area
by family groups, cubs that
return as adults, and use by
dominant males. "
"Manage human/bear
interactions to limit brown bear
mortality from both illegal kills
and defense of life and property.
Work with the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game to
develop and implement a brown
bear management program
which considers both access
management and season and
bag limits to manage brown bear
mortality rates within
sustainable levels. "
Effects on Bear Populations
We know that the Anan bears do not stay within the Anan watershed and we know that they
frequent the project area (see distribution discussion, page 3-42). The Anan Environmental
Analysis (USDA 1996) lists the following objectives that relate to the local bear population:
-"No net loss of habituated/visible bears at the falls for more than two consecutive years.
Cubs continue to use Anan as they become adults and are recruited into the population. "
-"Maintain a well distributed bear age and sex ratio indicated by the continued use of the
area by family groups, cubs that return as adults, and use by dominant males. "
Given the size of the local black bear population and the current low level of hunting, we do
not expect large changes in overall black bear density as a result of this timber sale (see
habitat discussion). However, we do expect to lose individual bears - especially those
animals that are highly habituated. We cannot guarantee that objective one (above) would
be met with any alternative, including no action. We may meet objective two if hunting
pressure does not increase and/or if other mortality factors are controlled (illegal harvest,
harvest in defense of life and property). Alternative 2 would have the biggest impact on
black bear populations followed by Alternative 1, 3 and 4. Alternatives 3 and 4 have much
less of an impact than 1 and 2 because they do not include a road in Canal. The average
home range of Anan black bears falls within the Canal area and does not extend into Hoya.
All alternatives (other than no action) pose risk to brown bear populations by increasing
access for the following reasons:
• There is a greater concern over the viability of mainland brown bear populations than
for other subpopulations in Southeast (USDA 1997a). Risk to this population
remaining viable is exacerbated by roading and human access.
• Current hunting pressure in the project area on brown bear takes 45-50% females, is
increasing and may be at the upper limit of what this population can withstand.
• Loss of brown bears as a result of illegal take or bears shot in defense would add to this
mortality
• Loss of habituated females (see discussion below) may have population impacts due to
relatively low reproductive rates.
As with black bears, roads pose the biggest problem and the ranking of alternatives matches
that of black bears. Alternatives 3 and 4 create more risks for brown bears than for black
bears since Hoya roads falls within their average home range.
We would mitigate effects on bear populations through road closures and the development
of a bear mortality monitoring plan. Through an administrative order we would close roads
to vehicle use during nonworking hours which would reduce the amount of hunting that
occurs during the sale. The Forest Plan directs the Forest Service to develop management
programs in cooperation with ADFG to address brown bear mortality with the following
guideline: Manage human/bear interactions to limit brown bear mortality from both
illegal kills and defense of life and property. Work with the Alaska Department of Fish
and Game to develop and implement a brown bear management program which considers
both access management and season and bag limits to manage brown bear mortality rates
within sustainable levels. "
3-56 ■ Chapter 3 — Environment and Effects
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects
Behavior We Can Expect from Habituated Bears
A goal for the Anan wildlife viewing area is to make people predictable to bears and to
encourage habituation of bears (i.e. make bears tolerant of people). Making people
predictable reduces the chance of ‘surprises’ to bears and negative encounters, as well as
increasing the chances that bears will be seen. "Predictable and consistent interactions are
instrumental in providing for safe visitor experiences by encouraging habituation of bears to
the schedules and places of people (Aumiller 1994, Herrero, 1994)." .
We need to consider how habituated bears from Anan would react to "unpredictable" people
encountered at Canal Hoya . Harvest units in the project area are as close as 1 1/2 miles
from Anan - a distance that may be perceived as "far" to a human being and "not so far" to a
bear. The behavioral study at Anan focused on the bears at that particular site and did not
assess the behavioral response of bears to people on other drainages some distance away
However, Chi (1996) reports that habituated bears did not act differently at the upper falls -
an area where they did not necessarily "expect" to run into people (Chi, pers. comm).
Other researchers have found that bears may be tolerant of people’s activities in areas where
interactions are expected and innocuous, but avoid or show aggression towards people when
encounters occur in novel locations (Mclellan and Shackleton 1989). Brown bears that
have been wounded by firearms may act aggressively toward people or abandon an area
altogether (Gilbert 1993)
Habituated bears are more likely to come into contact with human food and are more likely
to be killed than non-habituated bears. Mattson (1992) found that "human-habituated and
food-conditioned bears were 2.9 times as likely to range within 4 km of developments and
3.1 times as often killed by humans compared with non-habituated bears. Bears that
become food conditioned can become aggressive when seeking food from people (Olson
1993). Human garbage is a major contributors to bear attacks on humans (Herrero 1985).
Habituated bears at the Mcneil River State Game Sanctuary were found to be safer in the
absence of a food reward than wary non-habituated bears (Aumiller 1994)."
Females bears are more likely to become habituated to humans and may be more likely to
frequent the project area. Females bears at Anan distribute their use evenly between the
upper and lower falls indicating a higher level of habituation to people (Chi 1996).
Subadults and females are more likely to be displaced by other bears from feeding areas
(such as Anan). "High mortality of adult females and subadult males during small seed
crop years was a consequence of their tendency to range closest to human facilities. They
also had a higher frequency of human habituation compared with adult males. " (Mattson
1992)
Effect on Habituated Bears and Anan Viewing Opportunities
Harvesting high-value habitat and increasing access with roads has the potential to impact
habituated bears at Anan and affect recreational viewing opportunities . Habituated bears
(bears that tolerate people) are ones observed on a regular basis and provide a viewing
experience at times when other bears are not present. For example, in 1996 one subadult
brown bear and one female with three cubs were present nearly every day and were "the
brown bears" seen by visitors. In 1997, many visitors saw brown bears as a result of a return
of these three cubs from 1996. One objective for the Anan observatory is: "No net loss of
habituated/visible bears at the falls for more than two consecutive years. Cubs continue to
use Anan as they become adults and are recruited into the population. " We know that
habituated Anan bears and female Anan bears spend a large percentage of their time in the
project area (23% and 42%. See distribution discussion, page 3-42).
The biggest effect of the Canal Hoya timber sale on Anan bears would be the loss of
habituated female bears as they encounter people along new road systems. Female bears
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects — Chapter 3 ■ 3-57
Environment and Effects
with cubs and brown bear females that frequent the Anan lagoon provide optimal viewing
opportunities for people visiting Anan. Female bears are more likely to become habituated
than males and experience higher mortality as a result (Mattson 1992, Chi 1996).
Habituated female bears from Anan are the group most at risk as a result of hunting,
illegal kill and kill in defense of life and property. This has implications for Anan viewing
and for the brown bear population (see population discussion, page 3-55). The impact of
removing a habituated female from the Anan bear population includes the loss of future
offspring that learn habituation from their mother.
Increased access (roads and LTFs) would increase the likelihood of Anan bears coming into
contact with human food. Extreme efforts are being taken at the Anan observatory to prevent
food-conditioning since this leads to dangerous bear-human encounters. Conflicts between
campers and bears have occurred at Anan in the past which is why camping is not allowed at
Anan. The Anan EA states: "reduce, eliminate, or modify human behaviors that pose a
high risk of temporarily or permanently displacing bears. Eliminate human behaviors that
have a high to moderate risk of causing bears to become food-conditioned. " We have
mitigated some of these effects by choosing a floating logging camp where human garbage
would be inaccessible to bears. We do not know how many people would choose to camp or
hike along new road systems in the project area. Existing camping along the beach occurs
infrequently. Gating roads at both access points would also mitigate these effects.
The potential for any of these alternatives to impact viewing opportunities is best represented
by a measure of miles of road since this is where we expect human-bear encounters and loss
of habituated bears and food-conditioning to occur. Alternative 2 has the greatest impact on
habituated bears and viewing opportunities followed by Alternatives 1, 3 and 4.
Cumulative Effects Analysis
The Effects of Past Timber Harvesting and this Project on High Value Bear Habitat
The study area for the bear cumulative effects analysis included a large landscape and
encompassed the areas we believed would be routinely traversed by Anan bears based on
radiotelemetry locations and home range estimates. This landscape includes the Frosty Bay,
Anan and Eagle River VCUs in addition to the Canal Hoya project area.
There would be no additional removal or reduction in quality of existing high value brown
bear habitat with this timber sale . High value brown bear habitat is narrowly defined as
riparian forest which is protected by current stream/beach/estuary buffers. Within this larger
landscape there has been a 17% reduction in high value brown bear habitat due to past
management activities.
High value black bear habitat is more broadly defined than high value brown bear habitat and
encompasses most medium- volume forested stands. There has been a 24% reduction in high
value black bear habitat as a result of past management activities across this landscape (Table
2, column 4). There would be a 2-22% reduction in existing high value black bear habitat as
a result of the Canal Hoya timber sale (Table 3-18, column 3. Results for just the Canal and
Hoya VCU are shown in Table 3-16). As stated earlier, most high value habitat does not
disappear but moves into a moderate value category as a result of the road disturbance
buffer.
3-58 ■ Chapter 3 — Environment and Effects
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects
Table 3-18
Percentage of highly suitable black bear habitat (>0.67) reduced in quality
by alternative across the Canal, Hoya, Anan, Eagle, and Frosty VCUs
Landscape
Scenario
Acres of high
value habitat
% of existing high
value habitat reduced
in quality
% of original high
value habitat
reduced in quality
Original
condition
37119
0
Existing
condition
28242
0
24
Altl
22711
20
39
Alt 2
21979
22
41
Alt 3
25056
11
32
Alt 4
25631
9
31
Alt 4 - no roads
27694
2
25
Future Projects and the Anan Bear Population
We looked at the expected impact on high value bear habitat as a result of timber harvesting
and road-building over the next 100 years. Over the next 100 years future sales and road
building could take place at Frosty Bay (5 possible miles of road), Point Warde (no road),
Canal (2 possible miles of road) and Hoya (1 mile of possible road). Point Warde/Frosty (10
MMBF) is on the 10 year action plan. Sunny Bay - located over 15 miles south of Anan —is
also on the 10 year action plan (10 MMBF, 7 possible road miles). Future road building in
the Canal drainage (> 10 years from now) would have the biggest impact on Anan bears.
Roads are believed to be more of a concern for bears than direct habitat removal but we do
not know how many miles of road will be built with future sales (above numbers represent the
high value estimates based on current management strategies). In addition, a certain
percentage of the roads that are built will revegetate within 30 years. We are mitigating road
development at Canal Hoya with the addition of gates. Current use of the Frosty Bay road
system which is now open to access is believed to be low.
In order to precisely predict population change for the Anan bears we would need to know
more about population parameters such as survival. Even with this information, our
population modeling would be based on many assumptions that are more linked to human
social behavior than to habitat changes. In all likelihood, the Anan bear population is and
will continue to be highly influenced by hunting regulations, public attitudes and human use
of roads. The difficulty in accurately predicting the human factors creates a low degree of
precision for projections of future bear populations.
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects — Chapter 3 ■ 3-59
Environment and Effects
Issue Four:
Wildlife Habitat and Species Conservation
Biodiversity and Viability The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires that the Forest Service provide for
the diversity of plants and animals, based upon the suitability and capability of each National
Forest, as a part of meeting overall multiple-use objectives (16 USC 1604(g)(3)(B).
‘ ‘Biodiversity may be defined as the distribution and abundance of all of the plant and animal
communities and species within an area, or as the variety of life and associated ecological
processes (USDA 1996). As an example of one scale of diversity: the Tongass provides
habitat for 54 species of mammals, 231 birds and 5 amphibians.
Maintaining biodiversity over time requires a close look at species viability. The Forest
Ecosystem Management Assessment Team defined viability as “the likelihood of a species
persisting well distributed throughout its range for a century or longer” (FEMAT 1993). The
Forest Plan considers two wildlife groups in its viability assessment: the widely-distributed
group and the endemic group . Species from the widely-distributed group that may be present
in the Canal Hoya project area include: black bear, Canada lynx, wolverine, fisher, northern
flying squirrel, river otter, mountain goat, silver-haired bat, California Myotis, Keen’s Myotis,
little brown Myotis and long-legged Myotis. Species in the endemic group that may be
present include red-backed vole subspecies (Clethrionomys gapperi) and ermine subspecies
(Mustela erminea).
Biodiversity and viability need to be assessed on a number of scales (global, regional, local).
On a global scale, 56% of the worlds temperate rain forests remain undeveloped and 29% of
zy /© oj me woria s remaining ^ remaining unlogged acreage is within the Tongass. These numbers may explain why
unlogged temperate rainforest is there is a high level of outside interest in the management of the Tongass. To gain a more
within the Tongass regional perspective an ecosystem approach was applied to subdivide the Tongass National
Forest into 21 unique ecological provinces. The area that includes the timber sale we are
proposing has been classified as a part of the North Misty Fiords Province. This province is
characterized by “considerable topographic relief, as compared to South Misty Fiords with a
colder, mainland-type climate with many glaciers. Vegetation occurs in long, narrow strips
along the valleys and lower slopes of fiords. Much of the vegetation is muskeg, with
cottonwoods in some of the river bottoms and subalpine fir along the Canadian border’ ’
(USDA 1996).
Effects on Biodiversity and Viability
Based on the most recent regional analysis, this province is not one of the ten “high risk”
areas for loss of biodiversity (USDA 1996). A committee report indicated a medium to high
probability of maintaining species viability within this province over time (Suring et al.
1993b). However, Revilla Island and the Cleveland Peninsula to the south are considered
“high risk” areas for species viability. The old growth reserves within the project area and
the forested connections between these reserves are designed to maintain biodiversity and
wildlife viability (see Old Growth Reserve and corridor discussions, page 3-69 and 3-67).
Additional old growth habitat will remain within beach, estuary and stream buffers and on
lands unsuitable for timber harvest.
3-60 ■ Chapter 3 — Environment and Effects
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Wildlife Habitat
Environment and Effects
Fragmentation
Loss of forested habitat, increased access and forest fragmentation are all impacts that occur
with harvesting and ones we consider important in our wildlife analysis. Loss of forested
habitat, at least temporarily, is the most obvious and unavoidable impact of logging. The
development of roads and facilities associated with logging practices may increase access to
game species and create dispersal barriers. "Forest Fragmentation" is the term we use to
describe a process in which a forest block becomes subdivided into smaller more isolated
units. When fragmentation occurs in a forested environment we see an increase in the
amount of "edge" habitat and a decrease in “interior" forested habitat. Fragmentation,
which isolates small populations, contributes to decreased population distribution and
increased likelihood of local extirpation.
The Tongass forest is characterized by fragmentation at many scales and is fragmented by
different disturbance processes. On a small scale, single tree gaps within a 400 year old Sitka
Spruce stand provide habitat for forest interior birds such as the Hairy Woodpecker. On a
broader scale, large patches of wind disturbance of 10 acres or more create nesting habitat for
songbirds such as the Orange-crowned warbler. From a regional perspective, the Tongass
National Forest is highly fragmented due to numerous islands and dramatic topographic relief.
Our wildlife analysis for this report covers disturbance and fragmentation at the landscape-
level (the Canal and Hoya VCUs).
Timber harvesting is a relatively new disturbance within the Tongass forest ecosystem with
many unknown impacts to wildlife species. In addition, timber harvesting adds to the level
of fragmentation or edge that is occurring naturally. The effect of harvest-level
fragmentation would vary with the dispersal of units and their proximity to large existing
forest blocks. Simulation studies have indicated that when 50% of a watershed is harvested
with a staggered setting design, little if any forest interior remains. Whether a particular
patch pattern and degree of fragmentation is beneficial or deleterious largely depends on the
characteristics of the species using the landscape (Morrison, Marcot & Mannan 1992).
Traditional wildlife and forest management techniques focused on maximizing edge habitat to
benefit wildlife species such as the ruffed grouse. Today, a broader perspective of wildlife
ecology recognizes that certain groups of wildlife prefer forest interior habitats not affected
by openings or abrupt edges created by timber harvesting. Research indicates that many
predators hunt along edge habitats thus decreasing the habitat suitability of these types for
birds and small mammals. Species such as the goshawk, may hunt along edge types but
prefer old growth forest conditions for nesting.
Effects on Fragmentation
We can compare the present level of fragmentation in Canal Hoya to each alternative by
comparing the acres of edge and interior forest. Definitions of edge can be confusing because
they vary for the species being considered and by habitat types. For example, studies indicate
that the edge that is created between harvest units and forested habitat is biologically
different from "natural" edge types. Research has shown that edge effects may extend up to
two to three tree heights into the forest stand (Harris, 1984). Edge in our analysis is defined
as the forested habitat within 300 feet of a nonforested opening of 5 acres or more. Figure 3-
3 1 shows large forest blocks across the landscape (note that there are many natural breaks
within these blocks if we look at it on a finer-scale). Table 3-19 displays the existing
acreages of forested interior and edge habitat in the Canal Hoya project area. Alternative 1
would lead to the highest degree of fragmentation followed by alternatives 2, 3 and 4.
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects — Chapter 3 ■ 3-61
_a>
E
m
cL>
&
CD
1
1
o
CL>
§
o
PQ
5
2
s
3.20
O
O
>>
o
2
”0
2
CD
o *■-
<
>*
TJ
3
(/>
3-62 ■ Chapter 3 — Environment and Effects
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects
Table 3-1 9
Measures of Fragmentation Effect by Alternative
Alt 1
Alt 2
Alt 3
Alt 4
Alt 5
Edge (acres)
6410
6320
6355
6156
6722
interior (acres)
5223
5295
5354
5643
5690
Edge/interior
1.23
1.19
1.18
1.09
0.84
Distribution of Forested
Acres and Important
Habitats
Part of the concern over wildlife viability on the 7 ongass stems from the fact there is a
disproportionate amount of harvesting planned within high volume low-elevation stands
areas that also provide critical wildlife habitat and are the most valuable to several species
of concern (Suring et.al 1993b;. Logging in the past has targeted these same high volume
stands (J verson et al. 1996; All forested acres are not created equal when taking wildlife
into consideration, therefore we felt that it. was important in our analysis to look at the
effect of each alternative on low-elevation, high- volume stands
Effects on Important Habitats
On theTongass National Forest there is approximately 2.2 million acres of high volume, 2.2
million acres of rrnd volume and .6 million acres of low volume (HSDA 1996;. In the Canal
Hoya project area there is approximately 676 acres of high volume, 4,496 acres of mid
volume and 7,251 acres of low volume. High volume stands make up a small proportion of
the project, area landscape Most of the high volume acres occur within the Hoya drainage
along Hoya creek High volume units include 9 (small section; 21 and 33 Alternatives 1 , 2
and 3 harvest the highest number of high volume acres (Table 3-20;. Alternative 4 harvests
substantially fewer high volume acres.
Table 3-20
Acres of High Volume Removed by Alternative
Alternative
Acres removed
Units with
High Volume
Alt 1
34
9, 21
Alt 2
34
9, 21
Alt 3
34
9, 21
Alt 4
22
9, 33
Existing acres of high volume = 676
Landscape position is another important component of a wildlife habitat analysis. Important
landscape positions for wildlife include the beach/estuary fringe riparian areas and forested
habitats below 800 feet in elevation (L'SDA 1997a). 1 .395 acres of rncd high volume
(>20,000 bf/acre;, low elevation (<8005;, low slope (^30%; old growth habitat exists in our
project area ('fable 3-24 under goshawk section; Many low-elevation areas with large-
diameter trees in Hoya are protected within floodplain buffers There is little change (3 8
acres; between alternatives in the loss of these habitats (7 able 3-24 goshawk section;, f igure
3-32 displays the location of these stands and other unique habitats in the area
Two beaver ponds have been identified - one in Canal and one in Hoya (Figure 3-32; A
beaver was observed near the Hoya pond and beaver activity enhances the floodplain qualities
of the area. Old beaver sign was also observed in upper Hoya and in Canal Bird surveys in
these areas indicate high use by old growth dependent species such as the Brown Creeper and
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effect* — Chapter 3 ■ 3-63
Environment and Effects
Hairy Woodpecker. We reported several rarer bird species within the project area at the
Canal beaver pond including: the Lincoln Sparrow and Western Wood Pewee (Incidental bird
observations field report 1997). Timber would not be harvested adjacent to the beaver ponds
in any alternative.
We have observed a high level of wildlife activity and a high amount of diversity within the
Canal and Hoya estuaries. Trails in both estuaries indicate high wildlife use by foraging
bears, river otters and mink. Waterfowl, shorebirds, gulls and eagles frequented both areas
throughout the summer (see waterfowl discussion, page 3-76). On April 8, 1997 we noted as
many as 50 harbor seals in the Hoya estuary presumably feeding on herring.
A few south-facing slopes exist in the project area but many of these slopes occur a great
distance from saltwater and may have reduced winter range value for wildlife due to cold
interior conditions. Important south-facing slopes for goats exist in upper Hoya and for deer
in the southwest corner of the Canal area. We combined habitat capability models with field
information to identify habitats believed to be critical to game species (see MIS discussion,
page 3-78).
Vertical Diversity and
Retention
High vertical diversity within a stand generally leads to high animal diversity due to an
increase in niche space. Vertical diversity increases as a stand goes through the various
stages of forest succession. Stands with trees all of the same age have only one canopy
layer and low vertical diversity. Stands with multiple layers (i.e. overstory, midstory,
understory, snags, etc.) have high vertical diversity.
Oliver (1990) describes forest succession as follows:
There are four general stages of
forest succession
"Stand initiation stage: After a disturbance, new individuals and species continue to
appear for several years. Stands developing after major disturbances have been
described as ’even-aged’ stands, since all component trees have been assumed to
regenerate shortly after the disturbance. In fact, trees may continue to regenerate for
several decades where growth is slow before the available growing space becomes
reoccupied.
Stem exclusion stage. After several years, new individuals do not appear and some of
the existing ones die. The surviving ones grow larger and express differences in height
and diameter; first one species and then another may appear to dominate the stand.
• Understory reinitiation stage. Later, forest floor herbs and shrubs and advance
regeneration again appear and survive in the understory, although they grow very little.
• Old growth stage. Much later, overstory trees die in an irregular fashion, and some of the
understory trees begin growing to the overstory.
These stages will be used to describe the changes occurring within stands as a result of
natural and man-made disturbances throughout this report. The majority of the forested
landscape in Canal Hoya exists in an old growth stage with a high amount of vertical
diversity.
3-64 ■ Chapter 3 — Environment and Effects
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects — Chapter 3 ■ 3-65
Environment and Effects
The positive and negative aspects of each of the successional stage for wildlife depends on the
species considered. Following clearcutting, a forested stand will offer some benefits to
wildlife while in the stem initiation phase by providing forage. However, the quality of
forage within clearcuts is lower than that which occurs within smaller openings (Hanley et. al.
1989). When a stand reaches the stem exclusion phase in 15 to 25 years its benefits to
wildlife drop dramatically and may remain poor for 140 years or more. Wildlife population
increases caused by logging may be expected to decline as second-growth stands enter the
phase of least forage production (Meehan, 1974).
Most wildlife species will respond positively to retention of trees within units although it is
difficult to measure this response. We know deer utilize habitats where forage production
remains even if portions of the overstory have been removed, either through natural
occurrences (i.e. windthrow) or harvest activities. On the Thomas Bay project area, deer and
moose use have increased in partially cut units. "Both deer and moose showed similar trends
in spring pellet-group counts with the lowest densities occurring in the old growth controls
and the highest densities occurring in the 40 percent partial harvest" (Doerr, 1995). Marten,
however, will reduce use in areas with more than 70 percent of the overstory removed and
will not cross clear areas greater than 100 feet (Ruggiero 1994).
Desirable wildlife trees can be retained by feathering a forest edge with selective harvests
along the unit boundary Feathering will channel wind above the forest canopy, thus
lessening the chance of substantial losses due to windthrow. In addition, Ratti and Reese
(1988) found that feathered edges result in lower predation rates on interior wildlife species
than areas of abrupt edge. Desirable wildlife trees can also be retained within unit boundaries
by creating reserves or through diameter-limit prescriptions.
Snags are another important habitat component for cavity nesting birds and mammals. Snags
are dead trees at least 15 inches in diameter at breast height and 10 feet in height or higher
(Reserve Tree Selection Guidelines R10-MB-215, 1993). Snags, especially broken-top
spruce, are extremely important to wintering resident birds. Snags provide important marten
den sites (Spencer, 1987). Marten use the tops of broken snags as resting sites in the summer
and cavities in winter and summer. Large down logs are another important habitat feature.
Marten use the spaces under the snow below the edges of large logs for hunting and travel
routes.
The greatest concern relating to snag use in the Canal Hoy a project area is for denning bears.
(See Anan issue) Black bears in Southeast Alaska appear to show an unusual preference for
tree dens. 25 dens were aerially located in Canal Hoya through a radio-telemetry study of the
Anan bears. We located the majority of these dens in low volume forest . Seven dens were
located during the course of our field work- all of these were tree dens.
Effects on Vertical Diversity
Alternative 4 has the highest level of retention within units. All units in all alternatives
provide alternatives to clearcutting. Clearcut prescriptions for this sale would leave 10% of
the acreage of the unit as reserves. Diameter-limit prescriptions would leave a younger age
component within the stand. In a few units we would apply an upper diameter-limit which
would retain large trees.
3-66 ■ Chapter 3 — Environment and Effects
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Corridors
Environment and Effects
Low elevation passes, beach fringe and stream corridors provide natural connections
between forested blocks and are important areas for migratory wildlife species. These
areas can become "pinch-points" to wildlife species if they provide the only migratory
route between two blocks of forest. Corridors can be protected by not harvesting within
them or by managing the matrix of habitat between the reserves (Suring et. al. 1993b).
Under the Forest Plan, maintaining forested corridors between old growth reserves is a key
component to maintaining viable wildlife populations on the Tongass since the majority of
the habitat matrix between the reserves is scheduled to be harvested (USDA 1997a). We
also looked closely at forested corridors below the powerline since these could also be
pinchpoints and important to small mammal dispersal. (Figure 3-33)
The beach fringe is believed to be important as a wildlife travel corridor, as a transition zone
between interior forest and salt water influences, and as a unique habitat (or micro-climate).
The beach fringe provides important low-elevation connectivity between watersheds that are
separated by very steep sides and non-forested ridgetops. In conjunction with riparian areas,
which provide connectivity within watersheds, the beach fringe is a component of the major
travel corridor system used by many resident wildlife species. The beach fringe is also
thought to provide important avian migratory habitat, particularly for neotropical migrants.
(USDA 1997a).
Extensive north/south ridge systems limit the number of east/west corridors available in Canal
Hoya. The beach fringe may be the most important and well used east/west travel corridor for
this area and is marked by extensive game trails. Well used bear trails occur throughout the
project area but are note-worthy along Hoya Creek, the creeks going into Hoya estuary and in
the southern portion of the Canal Old Growth Reserve. A low elevation, partially forested
pass extends from Upper Hoya, through the Canal VCU and to the upper East Fork of Anan
Creek. The easiest route for animals to move to and from Eagle River is along the beach
(Figure 3-33). The only travel corridor that provides a connection between large forested
blocks occurs along the beach between Hoya and Eagle River. The only corridor between
the Canal and Hoya Old Growth Reserves is along the beach and Hoya Creek. Many of the
other connections between blocks have been broken with the placement of the power line.
Corridors along slopes allow for the seasonal movement of certain wildlife species between
summer and winter range. Although a great many of these exist, several trails were recorded
in the proximity of the lake located west of Hoya Creek and in upper Survey Creek. The
habitat capability models for the mountain goat and deer were utilized to identify other areas
believed to be important in seasonal migrations.
Effects on Corridors
The following harvest units are adjacent to forested powerline crossings and are potential
barriers to wildlife dispersal: the portion of Unit 5 east of Survey Creek in Alternative 1, Unit
33 in Alternative 4 and Unit 3 in Alternatives 2 and 3. Mitigation for these impacts includes
retention within the units and stream buffers. Reserves for the portion of Unit 5 east of
Survey Creek would be placed to enhance corridor values. Unit 35 in Alternative 1, 2 and 3
does not block a corridor but funnels wildlife travel into the adjacent beach buffer. Units 1,2
in Alternatives 1 and 3 restrict the corridor between Eagle River and Hoya Creek to the beach
buffer. Units 19, 20 and 21 in Alternatives 1,2 and 3 parallel Hoya Creek and the corridor
between the old growth reserves. Again, these units may reduce the size of the corridor but
they do not eliminate it. Alternative 2 has the greatest impact on wildlife dispersal due to the
length of road and the size of units in Canal Creek drainage. In summary, Alternative 2 has
the greatest impact on travel corridors followed by 1, 3 and 4.
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects — Chapter 3 ■ 3-67
3-68 ■ Chapter 3 — Environment and Effects
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Old Growth Reserves
Environment and Effects
Old growth reserves are part of a forest-wide strategy to maintain viable wildlife
populations and diversity on the Tongass. A system of large (40,000 acres), medium
(10,000 acres) and small (1600 acres per 10,000 acre watershed) old growth reserves have
been mapped across the Tongass.
Forest Standards and Guidelines direct us to maintain 600 foot wide corridors between large
and medium old growth reserves and natural setting LUD’s (Land Use Designations), since
interactions between wildlife populations is an important component of viability. Panelists
reviewing the Forest Plan concluded that reserves by themselves were not enough to maintain
viability (USDA 1997a). Other critical factors for retaining wildlife populations include:
alternative harvesting, longer rotations and residual trees left in clearcuts to maintain lichens,
mosses, fungi and other species (USDA 1997a).
Small old growth reserves are required to be a certain size and contain a certain amount of
productive old growth (POG, volume > 8000 bf per acre). The Forest Plan specifies that the
size of each reserve must be 16% of the VCU size (average reserve size is 1600 acres).
Within each small reserve, half of the acres (8% of the VCU) must exist as Productive Old
Growth. Based on these criteria, small reserves were mapped in the Canal and Hoya VCUs
at the regional planning level.
Aside from these general criteria, the design of each reserve should be based on the wildlife
concerns specific to the area (Iverson, pers. comm). Criteria that are commonly used in
designing small reserves include: important deer winter range, probable goshawk nesting
habitat, probable murrelet nesting habitat, large forest blocks, rare plant associations and
landscape linkages (Iverson, 1996). The northern flying squirrel and the marten were species
of concern that were considered in developing standards for the small old growth reserves
(Suring et al. 1993b).
This report will analyze two old growth reserve options for the Canal Hoya area — one small
reserve for each VCU (Figure 3-33). A reserve option, located south of the powerline in the
Canal VCU, was dropped from further analysis. We felt that the existing Canal Old Growth
Reserve contained the best wildlife habitat within the area and provided greater security for
Anan bears. Table 3-21 lists the acres required and the acres that exist within the reserve as
mapped. Since the current size of the Hoya Old Growth Reserve is less than specified by
Forest Plan guidelines, and the timber to the south is isolated by the reserve, we propose to
expand the Hoya Old Growth Reserve to the south in all alternatives, as discussed in Chapter
2 (page 2-4).
Table 3-21
Size, and Acres of Productive Old Growth (volume > 8,000 bf)
for each Old Growth Reserve
Acres of
Low
Volume
Strata
Acres of
Medium
Volume
Strata
Acres of
High
Volume
Strata
Total
Productive
Old Growth
Total
Size
*Canal Old Growth
Reserve
10
500
540
1050
1260
**Current Hoya Old
Growth Reserve
70
480
1080
1630
2090
Proposed Hoya Old
Growth Reserve
Adjustment
140
1180
1420
2740
9210
* Size requirements for Canal = 1223.
5OG requirements for Canal = 611
** Size requirements for Hoya = 2901. POG requirements for Hoya = 1450
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects — Chapter 3 ■ 3-69
Environment and Effects
Canal Old Growth Reserve
Bears were a key component in designing the Canal Old Growth Reserve due to the proximity
of the Anan wildlife observatory (see Anan issue, page 3-40). Several radio-collared Anan
bears were relocated within this reserve as well as a number of den sites. During the course
of our field work we documented numerous well-used bear trails, lots of scat, beds, dens and
scratching posts within this reserve — indicating that this is an area well-used by the local bear
population. Corridors between the Canal area and Anan exist along the southern boundary of
the reserve and in the beach buffer. The location of this reserve provides a buffer between the
Anan bears and the impacts of timber harvest. Human-bear encounters often lead to increased
bear mortality which in turn can reduce the overall density of bears (see Anan issue).
Other considerations in the design of this reserve included: deer winter range, large medium
volume forested stands, a resident fish stream and unique habitats (beaver pond/wetland).
This reserve contains much of the important deer winter range within the Canal area. Most
of the deer sign we observed in 1994-1996 was along Canal Creek and in nearby stands. Two
large medium volume forested blocks exist within the reserve which provide optimal habitat
for nesting goshawks and murrelets (Figure 3-33). The forested stands adjacent to Canal
Creek, which follows the east boundary of the reserve, contain important habitat values for
furbearers such as mink and marten. The beaver pond area (discussed under special habitats)
is a unique habitat type for the project area and its inclusion within the reserve gives added
benefit to songbirds and waterfowl as well as other species.
Hoya Old Growth Reserve
The mountain goat was an important species in the design of the Hoya reserve. We received
several questions from the public concerning how improved hunting access would impact the
local goat population. The Hoya reserve includes all acres of important high value goat
winter range within the project area. The location of this reserve also eliminates the need for
the construction of a road (and increased) access along Hoya Creek. The Hoya reserve
prevents the disturbance of seasonal travel corridors between goat summering and wintering
areas and between the east and west side of Hoya Creek. Nearly all of our goat observations
in the past have been within this reserve.
Bears, wolves, waterfowl and furbearers will benefit from the placement of the Hoya reserve.
We reported bear sign throughout the reserve and a well-used corridor along Hoya Creek.
On one Fall flight we observed three black bears in these alpine habitats indicating that
denning habitat may be close by. Wolf sign has been observed on several occasions
especially in the area of the southwest landscape corridor. The east branch of Hoya Creek
contains a wetland complex with unique habitat values and is frequented by geese. The
riparian zone of upper Hoya appears to be an area used by nesting geese based on the amount
of sign recorded. This same zone provides important habitat for furbearers. There is a
forested corridor connecting the Hoya and Canal reserves that extends along Hoya Creek and
includes the beach buffer.
Cumulative Effects on
Old Growth and
Fragmentation
Three percent of the productive old growth within this ecological province was harvested
between 1954 and 1995 (USDA 1996). Approximately 94% of the Productive old growth
in this province and 90% of the highly productive old growth will remain in 2095 (USDA
1996). For the Cleveland peninsula to the west, 80% of the productive old growth and
82% of the highly productive old growth will remain in 2095. There will be no timber
harvesting in the Anan VCU which borders the west or the Eagle River VCU to the east.
Fragmentation within the Canal Hoya project area occurred with the placement of the
powerline which parallels the beach. Much of the powerline was cleared and remains
extremely difficult to cross. Forested crossings occur along v-notches (see Figure 3-33:
corridor section). Timber harvesting would add to these fragmentation effects (Table 3-19).
3-70 ■ Chapter 3 — Environment and Effects
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects
Species Conservation
Threatened and
Endangered Species
Biological Assessments were written to evaluate the effects of the proposed action on
federally-listed threatened or endangered species. The Biological Assessments were
submitted to the Fish and Wildlife Service for the American peregrine falcon and to the
National Marine Fisheries Service for the humpback whale and Steller’s sea lion. Both
agencies concurred with the findings of no significant adverse effects to these listed species.
Consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service
during preparation of this document identified no inventoried resident threatened or
endangered species in the project area. The American peregrine falcon passes through the
Stikine Area during spring and fall migration flights but is not known to occur in the project
area.
Species of Concern
Biological Evaluations (B.E.) are completed for any project that has the potential to affect a
regionally listed sensitive plant or animal species. Biologists provide written documentation
in Biological Evaluations of their judgments about whether or not a proposed management
action will increase the likelihood of sensitive species becoming threatened or endangered.
Peale’s peregrine falcon, osprey, Queen Charlotte goshawk, and trumpeter swan have been
classified as sensitive species on the Tongass National Forest and may occur in the study
area. Only the goshawk is expected to occur in the project area for extended periods of time.
The Biological Evaluation for sensitive plants concluded that none of the alternatives would
have an impact on sensitive plant species.
Northern Goshawk
The northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis atricapillus and A.g. laingi) is an old growth
associated raptor of special concern on the Tongass National Forest and a key species for the
viability assessment of the new Forest Plan (Iverson et al. 1996, USDA 1997a). In 1994 the
USFWS received a petition to list the Queen Charlotte Goshawk pursuant to the Endangered
Species Act (ESA). The USFWS made a second decision to not list the goshawk in 1997
based on protection measures outlined in the Forest Plan.
The Queen Charlotte Goshawk (A.g. laingi) is a subspecies of the goshawk with a northern
range extending to the Taku River in southeast Alaska. Eighty-one percent of the confirmed
and probable nest sites of this subspecies in southeast Alaska are south of Frederick Sound
(Queen Charlotte Goshawk Statue Report for RIO Sensitive Species Consideration, USDA,
1991). A portion if not all of the goshawks in Southeast Alaska are believed to belong to the
Queen Charlotte subspecies (Iverson et al. 1996).
Concern for the goshawk stems from the reductions in preferred habitat. "The amount of
habitats used and selected by goshawks for nesting and foraging, and most likely important
habitats for principal prey species, have declined in the past and continue to decline under
current management" (Iverson et al. 1996). Goshawk densities are low in Southeast Alaska
with less than 40 nest sites identified after five years of inventory across the Forest (USDA
1997a). Large home ranges, nonbreeding and differential winter and breeding areas may be
indicators of ecological stress in Southeast Alaskan goshawks .
Goshawks make extensive use of productive old growth forests for foraging and nesting.
Based on radio-telemetry studies of goshawks on the Tongass, 70.5 percent of goshawk
habitat use occurred in mature sawtimber or productive old growth forest (Iverson et al.
1996). Titus et al (1994) reported 92% of radio-collared goshawk relocations in productive
old growth (volume > 8,000 bfacre) and only 1% of the relocations in young, second growth
forests. Productive old growth forests support a wider range of important prey than do other
habitat cover types (Iverson et al. 1996). At least 600 acres of nesting habitat (Productive Old
Growth) is desirable within each 10,000- 30,000 acre watershed (USDA 1997a).
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects — Chapter 3 ■ 3-71
Environment and Effects
Landscape factors such as slope and elevation along with beaches, riparian and estuaries are
important to goshawk habitat suitability. Goshawks appear to prefer low elevations (less than
800’) and gentle slopes (less than 35%, Iverson et al. 1996). We used this information to
determine acres of suitable nesting habitat within the project area (Table 3-22). Riparian
zones ranked as the most important landscape component by radio-marked goshawks (Iverson
et al. 1996). Telemetry results also indicate extensive goshawk use within the 1000 feet of
beaches and estuaries (Titus, ADFG, unpubl. data). Beach, estuary and riparian habitats
generally support greater prey diversity and net prey productivity, features important to
goshawk habitat quality (USDA 1997a).
There is a great deal of variation in goshawk home range estimates and seasonal movements.
Crocker-Bedford (1990) estimates home range acres to vary between 6000 and 8000 acres.
Iverson et al (1996) reports female and male use areas to range from 9,469 to 1 1,425 acres.
Current standards direct the Forest Service to “maintain an area of not less than 100 acres of
Productive Old Growth generally centered around the nest tree“ (USDA 1997a).
Due to the extreme difficulty in finding nests, management for goshawks must take a dynamic
landscape approach. Recommendations for maintaining goshawk viability include
maintaining 1/3 of the landscape in 0-100 year old stands, 1/3 in 100-200 year old stands, and
1/3 in 200-300 or older stands (high value). This is based on a 300 year rotation disturbance
regime which mimics the natural condition of the landscape by providing foraging and nesting
areas (Iverson et al. 1996).
Alternative harvesting methods may also offer options for goshawk protection. Management
of the landscape matrix was viewed as more important than habitat reserves by the scientific
panel reviewing the Forest Plan and roads may not decrease habitat suitability. Group
selection harvests of 1-2 acres (3.3% of a stand in any decade) are believed to maintain
medium to high habitat values for nesting and foraging goshawks (Iverson et al 1996).
Broadcast surveys were completed on 121 points in portions of the Canal Hoya project area
in 1994 and 1996, following the Regional protocols for the northern goshawk. Surveys in
1994 were conducted before harvest units had been designed and focused on high probability
stands. 90% of the high probability units in Canal Hoya were surveyed in 1996. Courtship
surveys were completed during April of 1996 and 1997. One individual was observed flying
over the Bradfield Canal during these surveys but was not engaged in courtship behavior.
Effects on Northern Goshawks
We do not expect a significant impact on goshawk populations as a result of this sale due to
the amount of habitat that would remain after the sale. At the biogeographic scale, the North
Misty Fiords province is not an area of high risk for the persistence of goshawk populations
before the year 2055 (Iverson et al). On a finer-scale, this Stikine Management Area does
not exceed the 33% landscape timber harvest level by 2055, which can result in goshawk
population impacts (Iverson et al.) The steep rugged terrain with the Canal Hoya project area
may be less suitable for nesting goshawks than the habitat found on nearby islands (Cole
Crocker Bedford, pers. comm). There is an insignificant difference in the acres of suitable
goshawk habitat removed by each alternative (Table 3-22). If we expand our habitat
definition to include low volume forest, Alternative 1 removes 33-55 more acres of low-
elevation, low-slope habitats than the other alternatives. This is largely due to the size of unit
35 in Canal and unit 47. Alternative 1 also results in the greatest amount of fragmentation.
3-72 ■ Chapter 3 — Environment and Effects
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects
Table 3-22
Acres of Medium - High Volume (>20,000 bf/acre),
Low Elevation (<800’),
Low Slope (<30%) forested habitat
and % Remaining after implementation, by Alternative
Important Goshawk
Habitat
Alt 1
Alt 2
Alt 3
Alt 4
Alt 5
Acres remaining *
1325
1308
1308
1323
1,395
Percent remaining
95
94
94
95
100
Marbled Murrelet
The marbled murrelet is a small seabird with black and white winter plumage that is found
throughout the North Pacific. Murrelets feed on small fish and invertebrates in near-shore
ocean areas, inland saltwater and occasionally on inland freshwater lakes. Birds are most
easily observed during the nonbreeding season when they form small flocks. During the
breeding season birds are more dispersed but will still concentrate in feeding areas during the
day. Murrelets are highly mobile in their search for foraging areas suggesting a high level of
population interaction.
Marbled murrelets are listed as a threatened species in Washington, Oregon and California
and attention to this special emphasis species is increasing in Alaska. The Forest Plan states
“The listing of this species in WA, OR and CA and the reductions in habitat from timber
harvesting, have raised concerns for the viability of this species in southeast Alaska (USDA
1997a). Global population trends are considered to be downward for all populations that rely
on large, commercially valuable conifers for nesting . Estimates of murrelet numbers in
southeast Alaska range from 45,000 to 250,000 (DeGange 1996) .
Marbled murrelets generally select old growth stands and large diameter trees as nest sites
(Ralph et al. 1995, DeGange 1996). A small percentage (less than 10%) of birds may nest on
the ground (DeGange 1996). Large limbs of old growth trees are the preferred area for nest
placement. The importance of canopy cover is unclear. High canopy cover within the stand
may limit ease of access to the nest. However, high canopy cover at the nest site is believed
to contribute to nest success by concealing nests from predators. Therefore, mid-volume
stands with large trees may receive a high amount of use. Due to the difficulty in finding
nests, marbled murrelet nesting requirements are not well established in southeast Alaska.
Tree diameters for two nests discovered on Prince of Wales ranged between 31"dbh to 80"
dbh (DeGange 1996). In general, the "best or most important habitat is found within large
contiguous blocks of high- volume, low-elevation old growth forest" (USDA 1997a).
The importance of beach and riparian areas is largely unknown. Some researchers have found
a preference for riparian corridors indicating that birds may be following stream (openings) to
the nest. Three nests discovered on Prince of Wales varied in their distance from saltwater (.3
miles, 3.9 miles, 8.1 miles). One study in southeast Alaska reported the greatest amount of
murrelet activity occurring between 1 and 7 km from the coast (DeGange 1996). Riparian
and beach fringe buffers, due to their linear nature and high amount of edge, may be less
suitable for nesting (USDA 1997a).
There are no nest records of marbled murrelets in the Canal Hoya area. During the 1994 and
1996 field seasons, boat surveys were conducted in high probability areas using a standard
protocol for surveying marbled murrelets in forested sites (Field report on murrelets 1997).
Field surveys of probable nesting stands did not locate any eggshell fragments. Inland dawn
counts were not conducted due to the inability to pinpoint likely nest areas and for safety
reasons. Due to the fact that murrelets are often completely quiet near the nest; boat surveys
may provide as much information as land-based surveys (Marks et. al. 1995).
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects — Chapter 3 ■ 3-73
3 Environment and Effects
The Forest Service is directed to protect nesting habitat around identified murrelet nests.
This is believed to be a relatively ineffective management strategy given the difficulty in
finding nests (DeGange 1996). If a nest site is found, a 600 foot buffer would be maintained
around the nest (US DA 1997a). Roads can enter this buffer if unavoidable, but every effort
should be made to protect the nest site. Road building and fragmentation of forested areas is
believed to increase predation as a result of increased access to marbled murrelet nesting
stands by avian predators, especially jays, crows, and ravens (cited in DeGange 1996).
Results of our project surveys did not show a difference in murrelet activity between the two
VCUs but most of our initial detections were of birds located north of the project area. An
area north of the Canal VCU was also identified as a "presumed nesting area" in the
Conservation Assessment for marbled murrelets that was completed for the Revised Plan
(DeGange 1996). Small boat surveys conducted in 1994 as part of this assessment estimated
0.1-10.0 murrelets per sq. km in the section of the Bradfield adjacent to Hoya Creek and 10-
25 murrelets per sq. km. in the area adjacent to Canal (DeGange 1996). Based on this
Assessment and our project surveys, we believe that much of the murrelet activity on the
Bradfield Canal occurs north of the Canal and Hoya VCUs (Murrelet field report 1997).
Effects on Marbled Murrelets
The impact of these alternatives on murrelets varies with the location of units, the amount of
suitable habitat lost and the level of fragmentation. The Tongass conservation assessment for
murrelets recommends developing reserves in low elevation areas that include streams and
rivers. In addition, the Forest Plan recommends protection of old growth habitat near the
heads of bays especially in aquatic or terrestrial concentration areas. Many of these habitats
are protected within the old growth reserves and in beach, estuary and stream buffers. As
with goshawks, there is little difference between the acres of suitable habitat removed by
alternative (Table 3-26).
It is known that marbled murrelets prefer late-successional forested stands or old growth, with
large diameter limbs covered with moss and lichen for nesting areas. With the silvicultural
prescriptions used in this Environmental Impact Statement, such trees would be retained to
varying degrees in most treatment areas, possibly mitigating many of the effects on murrelet
habitat. Murrelets may remain nesting in stands with two-age management systems (10-20%
of stand left) and reserves (DeGange 1996).
3-74 ■ Chapter 3 — Environment and Effects
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects
Wolf
Wolves in southeast Alaska prey on Sitka black-tailed deer, moose, mountain goat, beaver,
black bear, spawning salmon and geese. The total population is estimated at fewer than one
thousand individuals in all of southeast Alaska with approximately 200 being harvested
annually (Kirchhoff 1991). Although wolves are listed as threatened in the contiguous 48
states, they are not listed in Alaska. The commitment of the Forest Service to revise its
Tongass Land Management Plan to adequately protect habitat for the Queen Charlotte
goshawk and other species associated with old growth forest was an important element in the
USFWS decision not to list the wolf in Alaska at this time. Kirchhoff (1991) identified four
factors that could place this subspecies at risk:
• Liberal trapping and hunting regulations
• High road densities
• Reduced prey populations in areas subject to intensive logging
• Inbreeding depression within insular populations
Two viability concerns exist for the wolf: 1) the short-term concern involves increased
harvest (especially in GMU2 on Prince of Wales Island) and 2) the long-term concern
involves large reductions in deer habitat capability (USDA 1997a). The greatest concern over
wolf harvesting is in GMU2, north Prince of Wales, where wolf harvests have exceeded 50%
of the population in some locales. Wolf harvests have been relatively stable in the last 15
years in GMU IB however the level of harvesting is high (27% of the population) (Kirchoff
1991). Exceeding this level of harvest may result in a population decline (Kirchoff 1991).
Roads increase the risk to wolf viability due to the high level of hunting, trapping and
poaching that occurs along roads. Of the wolves killed in GMU 2 since 1985, 46% were
either shot or trapped along the road system (cited in Kirchoff 1993). Kirchoff (1993) and
Pletscher (1994) recommend a road density threshold of no more than 1 mile of open
road/square mile. Education and management of roads is an important component of a wolf
conservation strategy. Current hunting and trapping of wolves in this area is low with only
one animal harvested in the last 9 years (ADFG harvest report 1997).
Deer habitat capability is believed to be the most significant factor effecting the viability of
wolves. Deer capability of WAAs should be greater than 4.0 deer per km2 (10 deer/mi2)
(Kirchoff 1991). The Forest Plan predicts a reduction in deer density for this WAA in the
year 2095 from 15 deer/sq mile to 14 deer/square mile as a result of timber harvesting.
However, ADFG reports that deer populations in this area are probably below habitat
capability and that "habitat capability is so low... that viability of the deer population could be
in question if any habitat were to be lost" (ADFG 1991).
The Canal Hoy a timber sale area covers approximately 60 square miles. This size area is
probably frequented by 1-2 packs. Sign was observed throughout the project area. Sign was
noted for a high proportion of the stand surveys that occurred along the beach fringe which
indicates that this is a well used corridor. Animals were observed on a few occasions along
the beach. We also noted use within the upper Hoya corridor area (see Figure 3-33, corridor
map). Scat in the project area appeared to contain a mixture of deer and goat hair. (Field
report on wolves 1997).
Effects on Wolves
The effect of this timber sale to the wolf population is displayed by analyzing the impact to
the deer population and the level of roading by alternative. Predicted increases in wolf
harvest would vary according to the number of road miles and post-harvest management
planned for the roads in the various alternatives. The alternatives with the most miles of road
would have the greatest potential to increase wolf harvest since hunting access at this time is
restricted to the shoreline. Road closures would reduce the potential wolf harvest; however,
we anticipate that most of the potential harvest would be incidental take by people hunting
other game species, and even closed roads provide walking corridors that would be used by
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects — Chapter 3 ■ 3-75
Environment and Effects
increasing numbers of hunters. Alternative 2 has from four to eleven more miles of road than
the other alternatives. Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 retain 92-94% of existing deer winter range
habitat capability (Table 3-24, MIS section). Alternative 4 has fewer roads and retains more
of the existing deer winter range than Alternatives 1, 2 and 3. Alternative 2 would have the
greatest impact on wolves followed by Alternatives 1, 3, 4 and 5.
Waterfowl and Shorebirds
Important areas for waterfowl in Canal Hoya include estuaries, streams, lakes and beaver
ponds (see special habitats discussion, page 3-63). We recorded eight waterfowl species in
the project area during the course of our field work (Field report on waterbirds 1997). No
important molting or waterfowl concentration areas were found in muskeg or beaver pond
habitats. We observed small flocks of birds, Barrow’s goldeneye and Canada geese in both
estuaries during migration.
Vancouver Canada Geese are distributed throughout SE Alaska with an estimated population
of 10,000 in northern SE. The Vancouver Canada Goose is a Management Indicator Species
that uses forested and nonforested wetlands in the estuary, riparian and upland areas of the
forest (USDA 1997a). Geese were observed displaying territorial behavior at two lakes within
the Hoya VCU. Harlequin ducks nest along streams and were formerly a candidate species
for listing under the Endangered Species Act. Harlequin ducks have been observed near the
Hoya estuary but always in small flocks (8-20 birds). We saw no evidence of nesting activity,
i.e. young birds or pairs, by Harlequin ducks.
Shorebirds were observed along the beach and estuaries and in muskegs. Greater yellowlegs
and Spotted sandpipers are the only species that appear to breed in the project area. We have
seen no evidence of use by large flocks of migrating shorebirds.
Effects on Waterfowl and Shorebirds
The riparian, beach and estuary buffers protect habitat for waterfowl such as harlequin ducks
and Vancouver Canada Geese. The estuary buffer zones and placement of LTFs away from
the estuaries should minimize most of the effects of timber harvest on waterfowl. The
wetlands that would be affected by roads do not appear to be of significant importance to
large numbers of waterfowl.
Amphibians
We spent seven days conducting intensive amphibian surveys within the project area. The
spotted frog has been identified as a species of concern by the USFWS and was formerly a
candidate species for listing under the Endangered Species Act. During field evaluations, no
spotted frogs were found. There are no historical records of spotted frogs in this area (Hodge
1976). Rough-skinned newts and Boreal toads were observed in a few of the muskeg
wetlands. One of these wetlands is close to the LTF and sortyard in Hoya. If spotted frogs
are found, their locations will be documented and a management decision will be made for the
correct course of action. The processes outlined by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 will
be followed if the spotted frog, a special concern species, is listed by the Fish and Wildlife
Service for protection. Amphibian populations may be low in this area as a result of extreme
weather conditions and lack of dispersal corridors. Beach, estuary and stream buffers as well
as wetlands habitat protection would reduce the impacts of this sale on amphibians.
3-76 ■ Chapter 3 — Environment and Effects
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects
Songbirds
We recorded 54 bird species during incidental wildlife observations and songbird censuses
(Field Report on incidental bird observations 1997). Sixteen species and 144 individuals
were detected during songbird point counts in the project area in 1996 (Field report on NTMB
1996). Twenty of the species we detected are classified as neotropical migrants - birds that
winter in the southern U.S., Central and South America. We frequently observed Chestnut-
backed chickadees and Pacific-slope flycatchers — two species of high priority in Alaska
(Brad Andres, pers. comm.). The Red Crossbill also ranked as one of the most commonly
observed species. Crossbill numbers were high throughout the region in 1996 (Armstrong,
pers. comm.). We reported five other high priority species in relatively low numbers: Red-
breasted sapsucker, Rufous hummingird, Golden-crowned kinglet, Townsend’s warbler and
Ruby-crowned kinglet.
All three of the songbird Management Indicator Species were reported as incidental
observations during non-census hours: Hairy Woodpecker, Brown Creeper and Red-breasted
Sapsucker. Brown creepers depend on old growth forest conditions for nesting. On several
occasions we noted Brown creepers as well as the other two MIS utilizing beach/estuary and
stream buffered habitats. Brown creepers appear to be breeding in Hoya units 27, 19, 23 and
5. A Red-breasted Sapsucker nest with young was located and marked along a proposed road
location in Canal.
Effects on Songbirds
Maintaining old growth habitat for songbirds varies by each alternative based on the level of
harvest and the degree of fragmentation. Beach, estuary and riparian habitats — important
areas for songbirds — would be retained under all alternatives. Alternatives 1 and 2 would
have the greatest impact on songbirds as a result of forested acres harvested and
fragmentation. More forested acres remain with Alternative 4 as well as vegetative structure
within the harvest units. Alternative 4 results in the least amount of fragmentation.
Eagles and Other Raptors
In 1989, nine eagle nests were mapped within the project area by the USFWS. Several of
these nests were inactive in 1997 or had blown down. Five of the nine nests occur within the
beach buffer in the Canal Old Growth Reserve. The USFWS and the Forest Service maintain
an interagency agreement for bald eagle habitat management in the Alaska Region. All
identified nests are surrounded by a 330 foot radius protective management zone. Helicopter
activities for this sale would be restricted within 1/4 mile of active eagle nests.
The Forest Plan calls for a 600-foot windfirm buffer around active raptor nests. The only
raptor nest that has been located in the project area is near Unit 25 in Hoya which has been
redesigned to meet this standard. We have noted merlins, sharp-shinned hawks and pygmy
owls in the area west of the Hoya LTF and within the beach buffer but no nest has been
located. Owls (Pygmy or Saw-whet) were heard calling within the Hoya Old Growth
Reserve in 1994. We completed 121 goshawk survey points within the project area but did
not discover any breeding birds (Field report on incidental bird observations 1997).
Effects on Eagles and Other Raptors
The mitigation measures discussed and the habitat protected within beach, estuary and stream
buffers would reduce the impact of all alternatives on raptors.
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects — Chapter 3 ■ 3-77
Management Indicator
Species
Habitat Capability Models are
used for Management Indicator
Species
3 Environment and Effects
Management Indicator Species Analysis
Management Indicator Species (MIS) are vertebrate or invertebrate species whose response
to land management activities is used to predict the likely response of other species with
similar habitat requirements. These species are termed indicator species due to their
importance to the ecosystem and humans, and as an indicator of habitat quality. A species
selected as an indicator may be threatened or endangered; commonly hunted, fished or
trapped; or a non-game species of special interest. Taking a look at the MIS in an area is
consistent with the National Forest Management Act that requires that management indicator
species be identified for each national forest and be used for environmental analysis.
Habitat needs of many of the MIS are accounted for with the beach/estuary and stream
buffers. The highest habitat suitability values for bald eagles, marten and river otter were
assigned to the beach fringe (Suring 1993b). The beach fringe ranked second only to the
1000’ estuary fringe for brown and black bears in overall habitat quality, and higher deer
habitat values generally occur in high-volume old growth below 800’ elevation. (USDA
1997a).
Analyzing the effects of an action on MIS has traditionally involved using habitat capability
models. The Forest Plan points out the problems with the MIS approach and points to the
importance of "coarse-filter approach" or look at overall impacts to the old growth ecosystem
(such as is being done in this analysis with goshawk habitat and road density). The use of
MIS to represent the needs of other species is highly questioned since "there is no assurance
that all or even most other old growth associated species have similar needs" (USDA 1997a).
Productive old growth stands older than 200 years with a volume of 8,000 board feet per acre
provide essentially all of the highly-important habitats for MIS (USDA 1997a). As a result,
the Forest Plan limits the use of habitat capability models to deer.
Even given the problems with the MIS approach, we believed that a close look at the habitat
capability models for a few species in Canal Hoya would provide another useful measure of
effects. The results of our habitat capability models are presented for the mountain goat,
deer and marten. Bald eagle and otter were not chosen as MIS because management
activities would have little effect on their habitat given the estuary, beach and riparian
buffers. The results of habitat capability modeling for brown and black bear are discussed
under the Anan bear section.
The ability of the project area to support the selected indicator species was analyzed using a
Geographic Information System (GIS) and computer habitat capability models developed for
the Tongass Forest Plan revision effort. Habitat suitability analyses were performed on
TIMTYP modified with field information on volume. Due to model limitations, and to allow
for the possibility of natural events such as blowdown in partial cut units, we modeled all
harvest activity as a clearcut. Thus, the reductions listed here are used as a "worst case
scenario". We predict that there would be greater use of partial cuts by Management
Indicator Species than of clearcuts, so we expect less impact under the unevenaged
prescriptions than have been modeled here.
Habitat “scores” produced by habitat capability models are often linked to the carrying
capacity of a species for purposes such as a subsistence analysis. However, the ability of
Habitat Capability models to predict animal populations has been highly criticized. To
understand the effect of habitat changes on populations, Habitat Capability scores need to be
linked to mortality, natality, habitat patch size, emigration and immigration estimates.
Furthermore, to predict a future population, information on the population’s current density
and age and sex composition is also required. In short, we are unable to predict wildlife
populations into the future, except in the most general of terms.
3-78 ■ Chapter 3 — Environment and Effects
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects
Wildlife habitat capability models, are best suited for comparison of habitat availability
between alternative land management proposals. Habitat Capability models assign values to
habitats and should be viewed as an index of risk used to rank planning alternatives. In other
words, the statement "of the five alternatives, Alternative 1 has the highest habitat capability
score" is believed to be more accurate than the statement "the model predicts a habitat capable
of supporting 324 animals in Alternative 1". The first statement implies that habitat features
associated with animal use would be more abundant in Alternative 1.
Models used as a tool for management decisions are important. They should be recognized as
only one of several sources in the analysis process to identify specific project effects.
Knowledge concerning each species and their various habitat needs improves with field
validation over time and adds to the reliability of model predictions.
Mountain Goat
The mountain goat is considered an old growth associate that is generally associated with
steep slopes and cliff habitat, areas generally inoperable for timber. The quantity and quality
of winter habitat is the most limiting factor for mountain goats in SE Alaska. Old growth
trees with large dense crowns intercept the most snow thus providing understory forage
during hard winters. The most recent version of the goat habitat capability model shows
important habitat to generally be productive old growth forest within 1,300 feet of escape
terrain (>50% slope or cliff). Travel corridors between seasonal sites are important and
should be maintained (USDA 1997a).
Goats are sensitive to disturbance that results from human developments and activities. The
Forest Plan requires the Forest Service to locate camps, LTFs, facilities and other
developments 1 mile or more from important wintering and kidding areas. Goats can be
disturbed by low-level aircraft flights over alpine habitats (USDA 1997a). “Forest Service
permitted or approved aircraft flights, including helicopter yarding of timber, should maintain
a 1,500 foot vertical or horizontal clearance from traditional summer and kidding habitat and
animals whenever feasible. Where feasible, flight paths should avoid known mountain goat
kidding areas from May 15 through June 15. Pilots will not compromise safety. “
Field surveys in 1996 and in previous years provided us with the information we needed to
address goat habitat security (Field Report on Mountain goats 1997). Important areas occur
throughout the upper Hoya drainage. The Hoya Old Growth Reserve contains or isolates all
of the high value habitat we identified using the goat Habitat Capability model (Figure 3-34).
Most of our visual reports of goats have been in this same area. Goats appear to occasionally
use the cliffs west of Hoya Creek and parallel to the beach. We have also seen sign and
animals in the area of Upper Survey Creek. No important habitat areas have been identified
in the Canal VCU due to lack of escape cover.
Harvest data is collected by the ADFG using a geographic division called the Wildlife
Analysis Area (WAA). On average, one goat is harvested per year within this WAA which
covers the Canal, Hoya and Eagle River drainages (ADFG harvest report 1997). ADFG
(1992) suggests that mountain goat populations are stable to slightly increasing for all of
GMU IB.
Effects on Goats
The loss of high value habitats for MIS varies by alternative and by the species considered.
Alternatives 2 and 3 have the biggest indirect effect on goat habitat due to the segment of road
in upper Survey Creek (Figure 3-34, Tables 3-23 and 3-24). However, most winter hunting of
goat populations occurs along the beach and it is highly unlikely that hunters would travel 4-5
miles to access the patch of interior habitat that the model predicts would be impacted.
Hunters would have easier access to the alpine area above this patch of high value wintering
habitat in Alternatives 2 and 3. Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 all construct a segment of road west of
Hoya Creek which would provide much easier access to goat populations than is afforded by
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects — Chapter 3 ■ 3-79
Environment and Effects
no action. Mitigation to reduce this impact would require removing the Hoya Creek bridge.
Many hunters prefer to access hunting areas by vehicle. We would mitigate the effect of
improved access by gating the road. Harvest units that are in close proximity to goat wintering
and summering areas include units 4 and 5 in Upper Survey Creek and Units 19, 22, 23 and
24. The percent of overall habitat capability remaining under any alternative is greater than
87% (Table 3-24). Alternatives 2 and 3 would have the greatest impact on local goat
populations followed by Alternatives 1 and 4.
Deer
Under intermediate and deep snow conditions, deer will select those habitats that provide for
snow interception and food availability. The combination of a dense canopy with scattered
openings in old growth forest types allows forage growth under openings while the canopy
modifies snowfall sufficiently to promote forage availability and movement of deer. The
nutritional value of plants grown in partial shade is also higher than that of plants grown in
full sunlight (Hanley et. al. 1989). Timber harvesting of old growth can lead to reductions in
deer wintering habitat. Fragmentation of these habitats may also lead to changes in
population distribution. Predator search time is reduced when deer are forced to concentrate
into smaller, predictable blocks of cover (Suring et. al. 1992).
The revised deer habitat model assigns optimal values to higher volume old growth stands on
south-facing slopes at lower elevations in watersheds with low propensity for deep snow
(Figure 3-35). Clearcuts receive low scores in high snow areas such as the mainland but group
selection units (10% of a 100 acre stand) provide moderate habitat conditions for deer.
Variables important in the deer model include: volume (high, medium, low, other), post-
harvest types, snow accumulation, elevation and aspect. Wolves also have an effect on deer
populations. There are no group selection prescriptions for our project area and there are no
"low snow" zones which contain suitable wintering habitats for deer.
In general, we examine changes in habitat capability and not actual on the ground numbers,
which for any given time period are likely to be below, or occasionally above the population
estimates of the habitat capability model. However, for certain species such as deer, we
stretch the limits of our models by estimating population numbers in order to answer
questions concerning subsistence. The number of deer for this WAA is estimated at 687 in
1995 based on the habitat model.
"Sitka black-tailed deer is by far the most important, and most ‘ ‘harvested" terrestrial wildlife
species for subsistence purposes, and for sport hunting (USDA 1997a). Biologists estimate
that 10% of the population can be harvested at carrying capacity with the population
remaining stable and hunter satisfaction remaining high (Suring et al. 1992). Harvest data is
collected by the ADFG using a geographic division called the Wildlife Analysis Area (WAA).
The average 8 year harvest for WAA 1814 (Canal, Hoya and Eagle drainage) is 0 (USDA
1997a, ADFG harvest report).
Standards and guidelines in the Forest Plan protect deer winter habitat in the following ways:
• Important deer winter range needs to be identified as a part of project analysis
• We must assure consideration of deer winter range in the environmental analysis process.
• Beach/estuary and riparian buffers are designed to protect important deer winter habitat
• We are directed to maintain sufficient deer habitat to maintain sustainable wolf
populations (generally 13 deer/sq mile)
Based on the low level of browse and general lack of sign in the project area we feel that the
deer population is relatively low and has been for some time. Wildlife surveys in 1984
reported that deer sign was limited to three areas of Canal. This may be a result of two
factors — high predator density (wolves and bears) and severe winter conditions. Two general
areas identified as high value habitat by the model and where we noted sign were the high
3-80 ■ Chapter 3 — Environment and Effects
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects
3
volume stands within the Canal Old Growth Reserve, and the floodplain habitat east of Hoya
Creek (Survey Creek).
Effects On Deer
The Forest Plan predicts a reduction in deer density for this WAA by the year 2095 of 1
deer/sq mile as a result of timber harvesting. Although deer winter habitat loss would occur
with this timber sale, many important areas are protected under the Forest Plan. The 1000
foot beach and estuary buffer were established to protect critical deer winter range habitat.
Forested stands that appeared to be well used by deer were included within the two old
growth reserves. In addition, >80% percent of moderate value deer habitat would remain
under any alternative (Table 3-23, no high value habitat exists).
At least 92% of overall habitat capability would be retained with any alternative (Table 3-24).
Timber harvest and the closing in of second-growth stands would likely alter deer habitat use
patterns. Roads would improve hunting access which could depress this low density
population. Harvest units within the Canal area that contain important deer winter range
include Units: 35 (close to LTF) and 38. Similar units in Hoya include: 9-10 (Survey Creek
floodplain), 22 (west of Hoya Creek), 12, 13 , and 5 (upper Survey Creek). Alternatives 1, 2
and 3 have the biggest impact on moderate value habitats (Table 3-23). Alternative 4 harvests
the least amount of deer winter range (other than no action) and provides greater habitat
security.
Marten
Marten are a viability concern species on the Tongass because they are “clearly associated
with late serai and old growth forests and ... function ecologically at broad landscape scales “
(USD A 1997a). Beach fringe and riparian habitats are believed to be highly important to this
species (Figure 3-36). The marten is a broadly ranging species and conifer corridors facilitate
movement and dispersal between patches of habitat (USDA 1997a). Optimum forest patch
size is 180 acres or more.
Marten are trapped for their fur and populations in southeast Alaska are susceptible to
overharvest. ADFG (1991b) reports moderate to high marten populations with numbers
decreasing in heavily trapped areas. Studies on Chichagof Island using radio-collared marten
demonstrated that marten have a 100% probability of being trapped when their home range
intersects road or shoreline (Tom Paul, pers. comm).
As many as 50 marten have been trapped in one season from WAA 1814. Ninety-two marten
were trapped in the WAA between 1984 - 1987 (USDA 1991 - TLMP SDEIS, ADFG harvest
report 1997). Results of our habitat capability models indicate that this area could support
62 marten in 1990 (USDA 1991 - TLMP SDEIS). Forest management activities resulting in
increased roading access may increase the potential for overtrapping
Mitigation measures for marten include extended rotation, retention within units and road
closures. Rotations of greater than 100 years were considered important in maintaining viable
marten populations. A two-aged management scheme can enhance structural diversity in
managed stands, particularly later in the stand development. This improves both marten prey
species habitat as well as provide more complex and beneficial structure for marten cover and
denning. (USDA 1997a).
Effects On Marten
The change in existing high value marten habitat for any alternative is less than 10% (Table
3-23). Change in overall habitat capability is less than 6% (Table 3-24). We expect roads to
have the biggest impact on martens since current trapping access is restricted to the shoreline.
Trapping may have removed 80% or more of the population of this WAA in previous years.
Roads constructed with this sale would further increase the trapping pressure on this
population. Large tracts of undisturbed old growth would remain after the timber sale within
old growth reserves and riparian buffers. These areas would serve as a "source", i.e. martens
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects — Chapter 3 ■ 3-81
Environment and Effects
would disperse and repopulate areas where they would continue to be trapped (beach and road
system). Many hunters prefer to access hunting areas by vehicle. We would mitigate the
effect of improved access by gating the road. Alternative 2 would have the greatest impact
on marten by constructing more miles of road than other alternatives followed by Alternatives
1 and 3. Alternative 4 would have the least impact on marten (other than no action) due to
fewer miles of constructed road and remaining habitat.
Table 3-23
Acres of Highly Suitable Habitat for Management Indicator Species
and Percent Remaining by Alternative
Species
Existing
acres
%
remaining
Alt 1
%
remaining
Alt 2
%
remaining
Alt 3
%
remaining
Alt 4
*Goat
436
97
45
46
97
**Deer
813
82
84
85
94
Marten
7814
91
90
92
94
* Numbers for goat habitat reflect indirect loss as a result of road disturbance, i.e. not a direct
loss of habitat.
** Numbers reflect acres of moderately suitable habitat. No high value habitat (hsi score >
.67) exists for deer in the project area .
Table 3-24
Percent of Existing Overall Habitat Capability
Remaining by Alternative
Species
Alt 1
Alt 2
Alt 3
Alt 4
Goat
91
87
89
95
Deer
92
92
94
95
Marten
95
95
95
96
* Percent is ratio of overall area hsi index values
3-82 ■ Chapter 3 — Environment and Effects
Canal Hoya Final EIS
BRADFIELD .V \ CANAL
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects — Chapter 3 ■ 3-83
Scale is 1 inch = 1.15 miles
Uj
-4
OQ
Uj
\ /
s/
HI o
LL L_
<
D>
DC
< =r LU
S<J)
3-84 ■ Chapter 3 — Environment and Effects
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects — Chapter 3 ■ 3-85
Scale is 1 inch = 1.15 miles
Environment and Effects
A sampling of public comments:
" We believe that the
recommendations presented in the
Anadromous Fish Habitat
Assessment report, including the
use of watershed analysis, should
be used to develop appropariate
protections for all streams within
the Project Area, (including those
not presently afforded protection
under the Tongass Timber
Reform Act). "
"...The EIS should include an
evavaluation of impacts to
resident fish and reflect project-
design elements that ensure
beneficial uses related to the
growth and propagation of
resident species awould be
maintained".
" How will water quality,
turbidity, sediment-loading,
macroinvertebrate populations,
and flow be affected in the
Canal, Hoya and other fish-
bearing creeks in the Project
Area?"
"Bridges rater than culverts
should be used on larger fish
streams, and the number of
stream crossings should be
minimized".
"The EIS should clearly identify
road closure and maintenance
practices to be employed ... "
Issue Five:
Freshwater and Marine Resources
This issue reflects concern for the effects of timber harvest, road construction and road
management on freshwater and marine fish habitats in and adjacent to the project area. There
is also concern about the effects of LTFs and marine water-based log processing activities on
charter and commercial fishing operations in the Bradfield Canal. The State of Alaska has
designated the beneficial use of fresh and marine waters in the project area for the growth and
propagation of fish, shellfish, other aquatic life, and wildlife (18 AAC 70). By law, we must
maintain these uses, protect riparian habitat, and prevent detrimental changes in water
temperature, water chemistry, stream channel stability, and sediment loads that adversely
affect these uses.
Freshwater Resources
Affected Environment
Fisheries crews surveyed much of the project area by electroshocker in 1994. Follow up
electroshocking in 1996 and 1997 focused on determining upstream limits of fish populations,
particularly in the vicinity of proposed roads and units.
The project area contains approximately thirty miles of fish-bearing streams (Figure 3-37).
Cutthroat trout and Dolly Varden char are widely distributed throughout both VCUs. Salmon
and steelhead access is limited to the lowest stream reaches by impassable bedrock falls or
steep gradients. Anadromous species commonly observed in the project area include coho
salmon, pink salmon, and chum salmon. A few juvenile steelhead and one Chinook salmon
smolt were also reported, but the presence of these species is considered incidental in the
project area. No fish habitat enhancement opportunities appear feasible.
Table 3-25 displays fish stream lengths in each major project area watershed. All watershed
or stream names in this project area are local unofficial names except for Hoya Creek. Class
I streams contain anadromous fish species. Class II streams contain only resident fish species.
Table 3-25
Distribution of Fish Streams
Watershed
Name
ADFG Number
Class 1
(miles)
Class II
(miles)
Total
Fish Stream
(miles)
Canal
107-40-10650
0.2
3.9
4.1
Bear
107-40-10640
0.8
0.6
1.4
Cowboy
none
0.1
1.6
1.7
Flying V
107-40-10630
0.1
0.1
0.2
Hoya
107-40-10590
0.1
18.8
18.9
Surho
none
0.5
0.6
1.1
Survey
107-40-10570
1.8
4.0
5.8
All Others
n/a
0.1
1.3
1.4
TOTAL
3.6
28.9
32.5
Figure 3-37 displays these watersheds and their stream networks.
3-86 ■ Chapter 3 — Environment and Effects
Canal Hoya Final EIS
—
Igsgjx
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects — Chapter 3 ■ 3-87
Scale is 1 inch = 1.15 miles
3 Environment and Effects
The extent of anadromous fish habitat in the project area is quite low when compared to
nearby watersheds such as Eagle River or Anan Creek. Survey Creek (Hoya VCU) contains
the most anadromous fish habitat. The fisheries crew conducted a detailed habitat survey of
lower Survey Creek in 1996. The highest quality habitat is found in low gradient stream
reaches below the road crossings of Survey Creek, and at the mouth of Bear Creek (Canal
VCU). These large alluvial streams, along with their sidechannels, provide good spawning
and rearing habitat for salmon. Both Canal and Hoya Creeks have barrier falls near salt
water. There is a large quantity of low gradient stream in Canal Creek and Hoya Creek; it is
inaccessible to anadromous fish, but provides high quality resident fish habitat.
Fish (cutthroat trout) have been observed in only one project area lake located in the upper
east fork of Hoya Creek within the Hoya old growth reserve.
Environmental Consequences and Alternative Comparisons
Road construction, more than timber harvest, may effect fish habitat in the project area.
Each alternative provides a high level of fish habitat protection through both mandatory
mitigation measures and project-specific design considerations. Estuary and riparian no-
harvest buffers provide direct protection to the highest quality fish habitat in the project area.
No alternative proposes harvest adjacent to fish streams. The Tongass Timber Reform Act
(TTRA) prohibits harvest within 100 feet horizontal distance of all Class I streams and Class
II streams that flow into Class I streams. All alternatives incorporate the riparian
management areas described in the Forest Plan; providing additional protection beyond the
mandatory TTRA buffers. Furthermore, a 500-foot no harvest buffer has been delineated
below road crossings on both sides of Survey Creek and Surho Creek (the Class I stream west
of Survey Creek) to protect brown bears foraging on fish in these streams. Both Canal and
Hoya old growth reserves protect high quality resident fish habitat.
A review of the alternative maps provides a comparison of the alternatives with respect to the
amount of harvest in close proximity to fish streams throughout the project area. Alternative
1 harvests the most acres in close proximity to fish streams in both VCUs. Alternatives 2 and
3 treat the Hoya VCU similarly, but harvest slightly less Canal VCU acres close to fish
streams than Alternative 1. Alternative 4 harvests the least acres in close proximity to fish
streams across the project area, although it harvests the most acres in Survey Creek’s
watershed.
The rugged terrain in the project area presented a challenge to road locators. However, the
road system proposed in all alternatives incorporates location and design considerations to
reduce direct impacts on fish habitat by minimizing fish stream crossings and road alignments
in close proximity to fish streams. For example, the Canal VCU road system considered early
in this project would have crossed lower Canal, Bear, and Cowboy Creeks. It was dropped in
favor of the currently proposed road, thereby eliminating the need for Class I and some high
maintenance Class II stream crossings in this VCU.
Upon completion of the sale, public motorized access will be restricted through the use of
physical barriers such as gates. Periodic administrative motorized access will be allowed for
silvicultural purposes and road maintenance. Due to the remoteness of the road system, some
"storm-proofing" measures will be used during sale closure to decrease the risk of minor
drainage structure failure during storm events. Driveable dips will be installed to safeguard
cross drains and particular attention will be given to ensuring that ditchlines are open and
functional. A maintenance crew will inspect the road system annually to ensure that the road
is not causing resource damage and to perform hand work such as culvert cleaning and
seeding as necessary.
Distribution of Fish
Streams
3-88 ■ Chapter 3 — Environment and Effects
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects
Table 3-26 shows confirmed fish stream crossings by watershed in each alternative. In
addition to these crossings, there are three very small stream crossings on Road 6960 (see
road card, Appendix B) located at the upper limit of habitat in resident fish streams. The
final surveyed road location may or may not cross these streams where resident fish have
been confirmed. The fisheries crew electroshocked all streams crossed by the proposed road
system and the project hydrologist reviewed fish stream crossing sites in the field to ensure
that crossing locations are compatible with fish habitat and water quality protection
objectives. These three possible fish streams will receive extra field verification during the
final road survey to determine if fish are present. If fish are present we would design
drainage structures to provide fish passage.
The crossing on the east fork of Survey Creek is the only site where anadromous fish have
been verified at or upstream of a proposed road. This is the only Class I stream crossing
proposed in any alternative; a bridge is proposed at this site. The largest stream crossings are
at Bear Creek, Hoya Creek, and the two forks of Survey Creek. Appendix B provides
additional detail about each crossing.
Table 3-26
Comparison of Alternatives - Confirmed Fish Stream Crossings
Floodplains and
Riparian Areas
Watershed
Name
Alt 1
Alt 2
Alt 3
Alt 4
Bear
0
1
0
0
Cowboy
2
2
0
0
Hoya
3
2
3
0
Survey
3
3
3
2
TOTAL
8
8
6
2
In summary, direct impacts associated with harvest adjacent to fish streams have been
avoided. Indirect impacts associated with watershed harvest are addressed below. Road
construction (especially drainage structure installation), road use, and road maintenance
would inevitable introduce sediment to fish streams in any alternative. Alternatives
constructing more road and more fish stream crossings would have more direct impacts. The
use of standard and site-specific Best Management Practices (BMPs) would ensure that this
impact is short term and minimized to the extent feasible. BMPs are described on road cards,
included in design drawings, and enforced through road construction specifications. BMP
implementation monitoring is described in Appendix C.
Affected Environment
Floodplains moderate floodflow, recharge stream low flow, and provide deposition areas for
sediment. The decay of salmon carcasses deposited on floodplains during fall peak flows is
an important part of the nutrient cycling process. Riparian areas, including floodplains,
contain vegetation that provides shade, large wood for fish habitat and channel stability, and
litter fall as a nutrient and food source for fish. Intact riparian areas also intercept sediment
and provide critical habitat for wildlife species feeding on fish and other aquatic organisms.
Table 3-27 shows the distribution of stream process groups in each major watershed. The
values shown are Class I, II, and III stream miles. Tongass National Forest streams have been
classified and mapped according to these process groups, which serve as the basis for
delineating riparian management areas or no-harvest buffers (USDA 1997a). The process
groups reflect physical differences in stream channels and stream processes (USDA, 1992).
Floodplain (FP), estuarine (ES) and palustrine (PA) streams represent the most important and
sensitive riparian areas in the project area. These low gradient streams contain the highest
quality fish habitat and are the most sensitive to sediment deposition. Alluvial fan (AF),
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects — Chapter 3 ■ 3-89
Environment and Effects
moderate gradient mixed control (MM), and moderate gradient contained (MC) streams are
slightly steeper and alternately receive and transport sediment. They usually contain fish
habitat. High gradient contained (HC) streams are headwater streams, have limited fish
habitat (usually Class II, if any) and function as conduits of sediment and debris to
downstream reaches. Class IV streams are not shown in Table 3-27.
Table 3-27
Distribution of Stream Process Groups
(Stream Miles by Watershed)
Process
Group
Canal
Bear
Cowboy
Flying V
Hoya
Surho
Survey
ES
0.1
0
0.1
0
0
0.2
0
FP
0
0
0.3
0
3.4
0
1.3
PA
1.3
0
0
0
0.8
0.3
0
AF
0
0.8
0.3
0
1.7
0
0.3
MM
1.7
0
0.9
0.5
2.4
0.1
0.7
MC
0
1.3
0
0.9
4.4
0
2.0
HC
3.0
5.9
0.7
7.2
20.1
0.7
13.4
TOTAL
6.1
8.0
2.3
8.6
32.8
1.3
17.7
The most important riparian habitats in the project area are associated with the high quality
fish habitat described above.
Environmental Consequences and Alternative Comparisons
Direct impacts to floodplains and riparian areas may result from vegetation and ground
disturbance in these areas. Each alternative provides a high level of riparian and floodplain
protection through both mandatory mitigation measures and project-specific design
considerations. Most of these are described in the fish habitat discussion above. Riparian
management areas associated with Class I, II, and III streams in the vicinity of proposed
roads and units were verified by field crews and in many cases, unit boundaries and road
locations were changed to protect riparian resources. For example, a road system accessing
upper Hoya Creek was considered early in the project but dropped because the only feasible
approach to this area was through a canyon pinch-point in the vicinity of Unit 21. This road
would have encroached on Hoya Creek and its floodplain. Even as a temporary road with all
drainage structures removed, we were concerned that mitigation measures to maintain
floodplain function, channel stability, and fish habitat would have a high risk of failure,
resulting in chronic long-term impacts to these resources. Therefore, the upper Hoya road
system was dropped.
None of the alternatives propose modifications to the riparian standards and guides described
in the Forest Plan. The widths of the riparian management areas (no-harvest buffers) vary by
process group. Units proposed in Hoya and Survey Creek floodplains were entirely dropped
to provide complete floodplain (FP stream) protection. Some buffers are 120 (MM streams)
or 140 (AF streams) feet wide. Large V-notches (Class III HC streams) have complete
sideslope protection: unit boundaries were flagged at the edge of the notch or beyond.
Buffers on small Class III streams within units are generally individual leave trees or narrow
buffers that completely protect the stream sideslope. The unit cards and maps in Appendix A
display these details.
Windthrow is not of great concern in the project area due to the north-south orientation of
most drainages, topographical protection of high ridges. Field crews did not observe much
windthrow in the project area.
3-90 ■ Chapter 3 — Environment and Effects
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Watersheds
Affected Environment
Environment and Effects
The watersheds of the project area are dominated by steep mountain slopes and narrow
valleys. Snow and debris avalanches appear to be relatively frequent and important
disturbance processes in the upper watersheds. Much of the mainstem of Hoya Creek, for
example, appears to be heavily influenced by recent deposits of sediment and debris from
mass failures.
A simple watershed sensitivity analysis based on GIS soils, streams, and slope data shows
that Hoya Creek is the most geomorphically sensitive watershed in the project area. Table 3-
24 displays a summary of the sensitivity analysis. The analysis did not consider watersheds
less than 500 acres in size. (Small watersheds tend to appear more sensitive than large
watersheds in this type of analysis). A digital elevation model was used to calculate slope
classes. Steep slopes represent sediment sources: they may not accurately portray landslide
hazard, but steep slopes rapidly transport sediment should mass wasting occur. Stream
density, as miles of stream per square mile of watershed, reflects a watershed’s ability to
transport sediment through the stream network: high stream densities provide efficient
transport. Only Class I, II, and III streams are included in this value. Depositional stream
length is an index of the risk of sediment deposition. Floodplain, palustrine, and estuarine
process groups are considered depositional streams.
Table 3-28
Watershed Sensitivity
Watershed
Area
(acres)
Percent Acres >
55% Slope
Percent Acres >
75% Slope
Stream Density
(mi/sq mi)
High Transport
Stream
(miles)
Depositional
Stream
(miles)
Canal
1550
0
0
2.5
2.9
1.4
Bear
2120
12
1
2.4
4.6
0
Flying V
2570
10
1
2.1
5.8
0
Hoya
11230
41
13
1.9
4.9
4.2
Survey
3920
29
6
2.9
3.8
1.3
Hoya Creek’s watershed has a relatively high proportion of steep slopes. Although its stream
network is not the most dense, it has a high proportion of HC3 and HC6 streams which reflect
high sediment transport rates. This watershed has significant natural sediment source areas
in combination with a relatively high proportion of low gradient streams that are sensitive to
sediment deposition. Survey Creek’s watershed is also considered sensitive and contains the
most anadromous fish habitat in the project area.
Class III and IV streams were mapped by field crews in 1996 and 1997. Many previously
unmapped streams were discovered in the vicinity of proposed units and roads.
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects — Chapter 3 ■ 3-91
Environment and Effects
Environmental Consequences and Alternative Comparisons
The sensitivity of Hoya and Survey Creek watersheds became an important consideration in
designing a timber sale in the Hoya VCU. The Hoya old growth reserve provides a long
term benefit by protecting some of the most sensitive watershed acres in the project area.
Providing complete protection to large portions of both watersheds was not compatible with
the objectives of the Management Prescription for the Hoya VCU, and would not have met
the purpose and need for this project. The higher overall quality of both fish and wildlife
habitat in Hoya Creek’s watershed, as well as the difficulties in accessing timber in upper
Hoya Creek, led to the conclusion that Hoya Creek was more suited to old growth reserve
designation. All alternatives provide a high level of fish habitat and riparian protection to
Survey Creek’s watershed as described previously. Table 3-29 shows the acres and
proportion harvested by major project area watersheds.
Table 3-29
Alternative Comparison
Watershed Acres and Percent Harvested
Alt 1
Alt 2
Alt 3
Al 4
Canal Acres
60
65
0
0
Canal Percent
4
4
0
0
Bear Acres
25
95
0
0
Bear Percent
1
4
0
0
Cowboy Acres
70
50
0
0
Cowboy Percent
18
13
0
0
Flying V Acres
15
20
35
55
Flying V Percent
1
1
1
2
Hoya Acres
140
135
150
5
Hoya Percent
1
1
1
0
Survey Acres
275
305
325
385
Survey Percent
7
8
8
10
All Other Acres
197
130
150
165
TOTAL Acres
780
800
660
610
Alternative 4 proposes the most harvest in a sensitive watershed (Survey Creek). However,
the proportion harvested is not considered excessive for a first entry, particularly since this
alternative proposes less disturbance overall in the watershed by constructing less road and by
not constructing a crossing on the west fork of Survey Creek, which has a high risk of failure.
Table 3-30 displays amount of total road (temporary and specified ) proposed by watershed in
each alternative.
3-92 ■ Chapter 3 — Environment and Effects
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects
Table 3-30
Alternative Comparison
Watershed Road Miles Constructed
Watershed
Alt 1
Alt 2
Alt 3
Alt 4
Canal
0
1.0
0
0
Bear
0
1.6
0
0
Cowboy
0.9
1.5
0
0
Flying V
0
0.1
0
0
Hoya
2.2
2.0
2.2
0
Surho
1.1
0.8
0.8
0
Survey
4.2
5.2
5.2
2.0
All Other Miles
1.7
1.9
0.8
0.6
TOTAL Miles
10.1
14.1
9.0
2.6
Class III and IV stream mapping focused on determining the influence of these headwater
streams on unit boundaries and logging systems. All Class III streams are buffered according
to riparian standards and guides in the Forest Plan. Class IV streams are protected through
specific BMPs controlling logging operations. Unit cards in Appendix A describe both kinds
of protection.
Cumulative Effects on Freshwater Resources
Future programmed timber harvest entries are likely in both Hoya and Canal VCUs in the
next 100 years, but not within the next ten years. Programmed or salvage sales could
construct a road system in the Canal VCU similar to what is shown in the FEIS under
Alternative 2, but there are limited options (and little rationale from a timber standpoint) for
road construction beyond what is shown under this alternative in the Canal VCU. There are
similar limits to additional road construction in the Hoya VCU for future entries; most of the
suitable timber is accessed by the road system shown in Alternative 3. Alternative 3
constructs most of the road ever likely to be constructed in the Hoya VCU. Therefore, the
cumulative effects of future road construction are displayed in the FEIS under Alternative 2
for Canal VCU and under Alternative 3 for Hoya VCU.
Future entries in either VCU would evaluate the cumulative percent harvest in each
watershed. We are directed to conduct a more intensive watershed analysis if more than 20%
of the watershed acres are in a second growth condition younger than 30 years (Forest Plan
Appendix J-2). It is a fairly safe assumption that we would schedule future entries in a
manner that would avoid reaching this threshold in any Canal Hoya watersheds. In the case
of unprogrammed salvage timber sales that might exceed the threshold, a detailed watershed
analysis should be incorporated into the decision to exceed the threshold.
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects — Chapter 3 ■ 3-93
Environment and Effects
A Sampling of public comments:
"I strongly encourage you to
look somewhere else for the
volume and give the 12 or so
fishermen who fish the (the
Bradfield Canal) at least 5 years
between sales in the immediate
area. The increase in boat and
log traffic in the area... results
not only in lost gear but in
substantial areas that we cannot
physically use".
"No LTF in bay where Canal
Creek enters. ...Capsize Cove is
the only anchorage between
Anan and the Eagle and is the
best anchorage for N and SE
winds in the Bradfield.
Provision must be made to
assure that the fishing fleet has
continued and uninterrupted use
of this area. "
"The Campbell logging
operation dumped a lot of limbs
onto the crab and shrimp
grounds and tops and limbs
drifted down to Blake Island
where several boats were charter
fishing. "
"I am concerned about the very
real negative impacts on the
fishery— commercial and sport—
as the streams in this area would
be affected by logging. "
Marine Resources
Affected Environment
The project area drains into the Bradfield Canal, an important commercial crab and shrimp
fishery for Wrangell and a fairly popular (though somewhat remote) sport fishing destination
for guides and charter boats from Wrangell and other communities. The Bradfield Canal is a
fjord, extending about sixteen miles inland (east) from the northern end of Ernest Sound to
the Bradfield River mouth. The canal ranges from one to two miles wide and is charted to
about 150 fathoms deep. The convoluted project area shoreline is approximately fourteen
miles long and is characterized by estuarine, intertidal, and deepwater marine (permanently
flooded) habitats.
Estuaries are areas where fresh water mixes with salt water; unique brackish environments
supporting complex and productive ecosystems. The confluence of several large streams into
relatively sheltered bays produces high quality estuaries at the mouths of both Canal and
Hoya Creeks. Both of these estuaries are smaller and less sheltered than the Anan Creek and
Eagle River estuaries located on either side of the project area. Canal and Hoya estuaries,
which together represent about two miles of shoreline, are considered sensitive habitats,
supporting shellfish and intertidal salmon spawning and nursery habitat. A SCUBA survey
of Canal Bay (an LTF site dropped from further consideration) near the east edge of the
Canal estuary noted many Dungeness crab. The intertidal flats associated with these
estuaries store fine sediment supporting sedges and grasses which bears and ungulates feed
on in the spring. Adult fish use estuaries as staging areas for migrating up streams.
Shorebirds, waterfowl, eagles, ospreys, bears, wolves, mink, land otters and other wildlife are
drawn to these attractions.
Apart from the estuaries, most of the project area shoreline is composed of steeply plunging
bedrock walls and shelves. SCUBA surveys of the three (DEIS) proposed LTF sites noted a
rapid transition from intertidal to deepwater habitat. Barnacles and mussels are abundant and
attract birds and mink. Herring spawn has been observed along much of the rocky shoreline.
The deepwater habitat comprising most of the Bradfield Canal supports a wide array of
marine species. Target species for commercial and marine sport fishing include Dungeness
and tanner crab; pink, spot, sidestripe and coonstripe shrimp; halibut; and Chinook, coho, and
sockeye salmon. Red king crab are not known to be present in the Bradfield Canal. The
current commercial fisheries within the canal include pot and beam trawl shrimping, pot and
ring crabbing, long-line halibut, and winter salmon trolling. There is a eulochon seine fishery
in the Bradfield River. Seals, orcas, humpback whales and Pacific white-sided dolphins
have also been observed in the canal. Commercial fishing, charter, and recreational boats are
known to use the sheltered estuaries and coves adjacent to the project area for anchorages and
staging areas for land-based activities such as hunting.
Environmental Consequences and Alternative Comparisons
The potential effects on marine resources, as well as fishing and boating activities in the
Bradfield Canal were important considerations in selecting and designing LTF sites and
planning water-based activities associated with proposed timber harvest. Marine resources
are potentially affected in the following ways: 1) ground disturbance in the immediate
vicinity of estuaries and intertidal areas could result in sediment increases; 2) vegetation
changes in and around estuaries may reduce habitat quality for marine species as well as
terrestrial species dependent on marine species; 3) LTF construction may temporarily or
permanently displace marine species; 4) log processing activities in and adjacent to marine
areas could introduce pollutants and debris to marine waters; 5) helicopter log drops, barges,
and log rafts could displace or interfere with commercial fishing operations and charter or
recreational boating (see Figure D-l, Appendix D).
3-94 ■ Chapter 3 — Environment and Effects
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects
The first two potential impacts are minimized through avoiding ground disturbance and
harvest within 1000 feet of estuaries and beaches (intertidal areas). The only disturbance
proposed within this zone is LTF and access road development. Two early LTF sites
(Canal Bay and Hoy a Bay) were dropped from further consideration due to their proximity
to estuaries. The sites considered in this FEIS (Canal and Hoya) are both located over a
mile from the nearest estuary. Roads connecting LTFs to harvest units head abruptly away
from the shoreline. Sort yards are located in uplands 1000 feet or more from salt water and
well away from estuaries. Harvest units are located 1000 feet or more from estuaries.
Other potential marine impacts are minimized through the location and design of the LTF,
and by establishing operating guidelines to control pollution and debris and avoiding the
likelihood of conflicts with other Bradfield Canal users. Appendix D contains a summary
of the LTF siting guidelines for the proposed LTF sites and a summary of mitigation
measures incorporated into the LTF designs and operating guidelines.
Eventually, the Canal Hoya timber sale may develop small upland facilities as approved for
equipment and fuel storage, maintenance, etc. usually in conjunction with sort yards.
Initially, however, barges would be used for these purposes and for transporting materials to
and from the area. At least one barge would also be stationed in the waters nearby to
facilitate helicopter yarding. No land-based logging camp will be authorized in the project
area. Crews would most likely use a floating camp which would be subject to state and
federal permits. The map in Appendix D displays possible sites for these facilities and log
raft storage. However, the sites actually chosen will largely be at the discretion of the
purchaser. The Forest Service will work with the purchaser to make them aware of the
other uses in the area and to negotiate placements that cause the least disruption.
Floating log rafts of about 35,000 square feet surface area would be assembled nearby in
designated dumping and rafting areas of 4-5 acres in size. A "pathway" of indirect marine
impacts (primarily bark deposits) associated with log transport after leaving the project area
can be estimated by describing what happened to logs leaving the nearby Campbell Timber
Sale in 1995. Some Campbell Timber Sale log rafts were temporarily stored in Frosty Bay,
then towed to Thorne Bay where logs were transferred to land for sorting, scaling, and
manufacturing. Cedar rafts were assembled at Thorne Bay and towed to Tolstoi for export
by ship. Small saw logs were towed to the Ketchikan Pulp Mill for processing. Large saw
logs bypassed Thome Bay and were towed directly to Metlakatla for milling into cants.
These same facilities may or may not be used for Canal Hoya Timber Sale logs: the actual
pathway is primarily at the discretion of the purchaser. It is unlikely that any new
processing facilities will be developed to transport logs in or out of marine waters in
Southeast Alaska in the near future. The centralized facilities described above have been in
place for years and may be already affected by bark deposits.
The alternative with the highest volume is likely to have the highest potential for conflicts
with other Bradfield users. Table 3-31 displays volumes produced by each alternative.
Alternative 2 (the highest volume) would involve the most log rafting and have the most
potential for operations and debris interfering with other marine users. Alternatives 3 and 4
are likely to have the least impacts, since only one LTF is proposed.
Table 3-31
Comparison of Alternatives
Marine Impacts
Alt 1
Alt 2
Alt 3
Alt 4
Volume MMBF thru LTF
14.9
17.1
12.2
8.2
Volume MMBF to Barge
1.1
0
1.8
4.1
Number of LTFs
2
2
1
1
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects — Chapter 3 ■ 3-95
3 Environment and Effects
Other Environmental Considerations
Cumulative Effects
We considered cumulative effects of past and present projects in the area, but such activities
are not likely to lead to significant cumulative effects beyond those disclosed in this EIS.
Under Forest Plan goals and objectives, more harvest would likely take place in the area, but
is not likely to occur for many years and is not scheduled at this time. Our best estimate is
that additional timber harvest in the project area is not likely to take place for 20 to 30 years.
We do not believe the effects of such possible harvests are reasonably foreseeable; nor are
environmental and regulatory conditions that would exist in 20 to 30 years well enough
known to forecast effects of such a possible entry. Any activities nearby known to us or
which we can foresee are either largely well removed and/or unconnected to the project area,
or are far enough in the future as to be highly speculative in terms of possible effects.
Past projects near Canal Hoya which can be considered in a cumulative effects analysis
include Frosty Bay Timber Sale (1992-1993), Campbell Timber Sale (1995), and the Tyee
Powerline (cleared and constructed through the project area in the early 1980s). Reasonably
foreseeable future activities in the short-term (within 10 years) include the Swan Lake-Lake
Tyee Intertie (powerline clearing and construction in the Eagle River drainage beginning in
1998), ongoing upgrade and maintenance of the existing Tyee Powerline, and timber harvest
on Deer Island (1999) and south of Point Warde (primarily helicopter harvest in 2005).
Reasonably foreseeable future activities in the long-term (within 100 years) include timber
sales within Frosty Bay, Canal, Hoya, and Campbell VCUs. Some possible effects of these
future entries are discussed in the EIS. However, the details of these projects are for the most
part unknown at this time. Cumulative effects of each of these projects will be considered as
part of the analysis and decision for each project.
At a broad landscape level, we evaluated cumulative effects (except Campbell Timber Sale,
which is physically— and from a terrestrial standpoint, biologically— disconnected from Canal
Hoya) on changes in brown and black bear habitat (see page 3-58). We have also considered
potential cumulative effects of all but Frosty Bay and Point Warde Timber Sales (which are
physically— and from an aquatic standpoint, biologically— disconnected from Canal Hoya) on
freshwater and marine resources. Existing impacts to freshwater fisheries in the project area
from powerline right of way clearing are negligible. Potential future impacts to freshwater
fisheries in the project area are discussed on page 3-93. Campbell Timber Sale operations
introduced logging debris to marine waters that interfered with fishing gear in the Bradfield
Canal. It appears that this debris is rapidly decomposing (USFS memo, October 3 1997), but
we have addressed this concern for future projects through mitigation and monitoring.
The two LTF sites (Canal and Hoya) shown in Alternative 2 are the only LTFs that are likely
to ever be constructed in these two VCUs. It is possible that a future entry in the Campbell
Timber Sale on the north side of the Bradfield Canal would construct an LTF there (north of
the Canal LTF site) as shown in the Campbell Timber Sale FEIS (R10-MB-240, Sept. 1993).
It is unlikely that all three of these LTFs would be in use simultaneously even if all three were
eventually constructed. The cumulative bark deposition at LTF sites is monitored as a permit
requirement and mitigated as discussed in Appendix C.
It is likely that conflicts between users in the Bradfield Canal will increase within the next
five to ten years. Cumulative effects of the Canal Hoya timber sale in combination with
construction and logging activities associated with the Swan Lake-Lake Tyee Intertie (the
north end of which will be based from the Bradfield Canal) and continuing maintenance of
3-96 ■ Chapter 3 — Environment and Effects
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects
the existing Tyee Powerline could result in displacement of or interference with commercial
and charter fishing activities.
In summary, potential cumulative effects associated with past and near-future projects in and
around Canal Hoya have been considered and addressed as part of the decision on this project.
At this time, cumulative effects are not an environmental concern in the project area.
Mitigation measures and monitoring will play an important role in ensuring that cumulative
effects do not become a concern in the near future.
Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources
Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources concerns resources that we would
affect that would not be returned or could return, but only over long periods of time. For this
analysis, the irreversible disturbance of some types of heritage resources could occur on
unknown sites, subsurface sites, or even known sites when unplanned events occur.
Use of petroleum fuels and rock sources for road and sort yard construction commits non-
renewable resources. Alternative 5, the no action alternative, has no effect on mineral
resource use at this time.
Constructing roads in the project area would irreversibly reduce the amount of roadless area
and opportunities related to the roadless character. Alternative 5 would not have these
consequences.
Under all action alternatives, there would be an irretrievable loss of old growth forest unless
rehabilitation occurs over a period of 250-300 years. Due to increased fragmentation, other
old growth areas adjacent to units would have their habitat values reduced.
Unavoidable Environmental Effects
Although we designed mitigation measures, units and roads to avoid adverse consequences,
some environmental impacts cannot be completely mitigated and would be expected to occur:
Air quality would diminish on a recurring, temporary basis due to the construction of roads,
timber harvest, and hauling. Limbs and logging slash would be burned at sort yards
intermittently throughout the logging periods which, would deposit minor amounts of
particulate matter and smoke into the air.
Although Best Management Practices are designed to protect soil and water, some potential
for surface erosion, sediment production, channel erosion, and mass movement does exist.
Road development poses a risk of sediment production, while helicopter yarding reduces this
risk considerably. Sediment production could displace fish or result in a loss of habitat near
stream crossings and temporarily affect the function of the freshwater system.
Increased human activity both during and after logging, and loss of habitat, would result in
impacts to fish and wildlife species, particularly those populations that have low numbers or
are more sensitive to the presence of people. The habitat for old growth associated species
would be reduced. Travel corridors between old growth blocks in adjacent watersheds would
also be reduced in size and fragmented, which may affect the ability for individuals to
disperse and genetic material to exchange among local populations of species.
Although the degree of impact varies with the alternative selected, logging operations would
temporarily affect the use of the area by guides, commercial fishermen, tourists, and local
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects — Chapter 3 ■ 3-97
Environment and Effects
recreationists. There would also be some loss of primitive and semi-primitive recreation
opportunities in the project area. The natural landscape, as viewed from the Bradfield Canal,
would appear visually altered and may be noticeable to viewers.
Alaska Coastal Management Program
We have determined the
alternatives are consistent
with the Alaska Coastal
Management Plan.
We have determined that the proposed alternatives, including the preferred alternative, are
consistent with the Alaska Coastal Management Program to the maximum extent practicable.
We have based this determination on the analysis and mitigation measures outlined in this
document. In particular, we direct your attention to our methods of addressing Issue 5
(Freshwater and Marine Resources), and the specific measures outlined and summarized in
the Unit, Road and Log Transfer Facility cards (Appendix A, B, and D). The Division of
Governmental Coordination reviewed our finding of consistency on the preferred alternative
and concurred with our determination, with two stipulations (see letter in Appendix F), which
have been addressed by relocating the stream crossing on Survey Creek and adding storm-
proofing to our road mitigation (page B-7 and 2-2).
ANILCA Section 810 Subsistence Evaluation Process
Section 810 of the Alaska Native Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) requires a
Federal agency, having jurisdiction over public lands in Alaska, to analyze the potential
effects of proposed land-use activities on subsistence uses and needs. An ANILCA 810
analysis should include:
• An evaluation of the possibility of affects on subsistence uses;
• A distinct finding on whether the proposed action may significantly restrict subsistence
uses;
• Notices and hearings if the evaluation results in a finding that the proposed action may
significantly restrict subsistence uses; and
• Determinations if, following a public hearing a finding of a significant restriction
remains, the responsible official decides to proceed with the proposed project.
Evaluation criteria used to assess the effects of the proposed alternatives are: (1) changes in
abundance or distribution of subsistence resources, (2) supply and demand, (3) changes in
access to subsistence resources, and (4) changes in competition from non-subsistence users
for those resources. The evaluation determines whether subsistence uses within the project
area or portions of the area may be significantly restricted by any of the proposed action
alternatives. Wrangell is the only community that meets the criteria in this area for inclusion
in the subsistence 810 analysis (Kruse 1993). Wildlife, fish, shellfish, marine mammals, other
foods, and timber are the resources used for subsistence that are evaluated in this document.
The evaluation relies heavily upon wildlife habitat capability models developed in support of
the Forest Plan Revision and displayed in Appendices K and L of the 1991 Supplement to the
Draft EIS for the Tongass Land Management Plan Revision. A complete Subsistence Report
is in the planning file.
Canal Hoya Subsistence/ANILCA 810 Findings
The Findings are based on the evaluations in the Subsistence Report on abundance,
distribution, supply and demand, access and competition for harvested resources in the project
area, WAA 1814 and the Bradfield Canal. There would be some decreases in habitat
capability for wildlife under the action alternatives.
3-98 ■ Chapter 3 — Environment and Effects
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects
Habitat capability can support populations greater than projected harvest demand for deer,
black bear, mountain goat and furbearers under all alternatives through the rotation (USDA
1991). The area is not extensively used for subsistence harvesting. The 1987-1993 harvest
rate for deer was 0 which also equals the estimated future hunter demand (ADFG 1991,
USDA 1997a). Harvest of marten has been highly variable, ranging from zero to 50 in any
given year. The effects on finfish and shellfish populations are expected to be minimal and
should not affect the supply available for subsistence harvest.
Although brown bear numbers remain relatively stable (according to our models), demand
will surpass what the population can support (USDA 1991). Table 3-32 shows the past
harvest levels, predicted brown bear populations needed to meet future demand and estimated
habitat capability (supply). Roads developed in conjunction with this sale would increase
hunter access to brown bear populations which is being mitigated by closing roads to
motorized use. This impact will be further mitigated by hunting closures adjacent to new
roads, where such hunting currently does not occur, and by the intrinsic remoteness of the
area. We do not anticipate that the restriction on hunting adjacent to new roads during the
sale will significantly affect subsistence users. Monitoring brown bear mortality after the life
of the sale would assist in detecting downward population trends. From a subsistence
standpoint, brown bear are generally not considered a food source but rather a very limited
use is made of parts of the bear for cultural purposes. Harvest by nonresidents is high (73%)
and nonresident harvest increases yearly within this Game Management Unit. Demand
(hunter harvest) is currently regulated by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. If the
brown bear population in this area declines, a subsistence priority would go into effect and
hunting may be limited to rural residents. Projected demand surpasses the carrying capacity
of the habitat even under existing conditions.
Although there may be some long term changes in access, we do not expect that the increased
access would reduce subsistence harvests below historic levels. Alternative 2 would result in
construction of the most roads, followed by Alternatives 1, 3 and 4. Closure of roads to
motorized access would further mitigate these effects. A substantial increase in competition
for subsistence wildlife resources from non-rural community residents is not projected to
result from the alternatives proposed.
There will not be a significant A finding that there will not be a significant restriction on subsistence uses as a result of
restriction on subsistence uses this sale is in order for wildlife, fish, and shellfish, marine mammals, other foods, and
as a result of this sale timber resources.
Table 3-32
Harvest demand and estimated habitat capability
for WAA 1901 (USDA 1991 - TLMP SDEIS, USDA 1997a)
Species
Annual Harvest
(from TLMP SDEIS)
Population Needed*
Estimated Habitat Capability
(from TLMP SDEIS preferred alt)
1990
2000
2010
2040
1990
2000
2010
2040
Deer
0
0
0
0
0
687
687
687
641
Black Bear
0.3
4
4
5
8
97
97
95
93
Brown Bear
0.9
23
27
31
48
24
24
24
23
Goat
0.9
13
15
18
27
28
28
28
28
Marten
7.6
19
22
26
30
62
59
59
56
River Otter
1.3
3
4
5
7
25
25
25
25
* Assume harvest rate of 7% for black bear, 4% for brown bear, 7% for goats, 10% for deer, 40% for marten
and 40% for river otter. Demand for all species increases by 18% per decade through 2010 and 15% per decade
through 2040.
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects — Chapter 3 ■ 3-99
Environment and Effects
Heritage Resources
Heritage resources represent past human activities that span the last several thousand years.
While present, heritage resources in the project area are limited in size, complexity and age.
This suggests the project area has not witnessed concentrated human activity such as that
represented by ancient village sites, camps and other settlements. Stikine Area archaeologists
have recorded six heritage resource sites in the project area, including one historic cabin (Site
XBC-028), an intertidal rock alignment (Site XBC-039), one historic mine adit (Site
XBC-040), an ancient fish trap (Site XBC-041), one historic log crib structure (Site
XBC-042), and an alpine rock cairn site (Site XBC-043) After applying the eligibility criteria
for the National Register of Historic Places we have determined that the two sites, XBC-041
and XBC -043, are eligible. Site XBC-041, an intertidal fish trap, would not be affected by
any of the proposed alternatives. Site XBC-043 is located in the Alpine zone, outside the area
of potential effect. We have determined that no sites eligible to the National Register of
Historic Places would be affected under any of the alternatives.
We conducted an extensive archival and literature search to references to heritage resources in
the project area. We also consulted the Alaska Heritage Resource Survey, a statewide listing
of heritage resources. The search reveals very little specific information about the project
area. The project area is within the former territory of the Stikine Tlingit and various
documents attribute ownership of Bradfield Canal to the Nanyaayih, Kiks’adi and Katch’adi
clans. Ethnographic records suggest the Stikine Tlingit preferred other areas of the Bradfield
Canal compared to the project area. Historic records document limited logging, mining and
trapping activities in the project area.
Previous heritage resource investigations in the project area have been limited in scope. In
1980 Elizabeth Andrews (1980) conducted a survey of portions of the Tyee Lake
Hydroelectric Project powerline that traverse the project area, but she found no sites. In 1984
Forest Service archaeologist Larry Roberts (1984a) conducted a survey of several log transfer
facilities along the southern Bradfield Canal coastline. He only found evidence of modern
logging activities. Also in 1984, Roberts (1984b) surveyed about 18 acres for a timber sale
proposed in the project area. Roberts recorded one historic cabin (Site XBC-028).
Between May 1993 and September 1994, Stikine Area archaeologists surveyed about 600
acres within the project area. The Area archaeologist designed a model to predict the
probability of heritage resources for any portion of the project area. The model divides the
study area into high and low probability zones. We defined the high probability zone as all
areas between mean and high tide and 100 feet elevation. We included areas along
anadromous fish streams and, because of the potential for culturally modified trees, we
included concentrations of cedar. Ethnographic records refer to Tlingit goat hunting in
Bradfield Canal so we also targeted some alpine areas for field survey. The low probability
zone incudes all lands not in the high probability zone. We focused most of our survey in the
high probability zone, but we did allocate some survey effort in the low probability zone.
Stikine Area archaeologists recorded five new sites, bringing to six the total number of sites
for the project area. Due to lack of integrity and absence of associated artifacts we have
determined that four of the sites (SitesXBC-028, XBC-039, XBC -040, XBC-042) are not
eligible to the National Register of Historic Places. There are two sites in the project area
(Sites XBC-041, XBC-043) that do meet the National Register eligibility criteria. Site
XBC-041 is an intertidal fish trap site that is protected by a beach fringe buffer. Site
XBC-043 is an alpine site, well away from planned timber harvest or road construction.
Therefore we have determined that no sites eligible to the National Register of Historic Places
would be affected by any of the considered alternatives.
3-100 ■ Chapter 3 — Environment and Effects
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects
Federal laws and regulations require processes for considering the impacts of Federal projects
on significant heritage resources, i.e. sites eligible to the National Register of Fhstoric Places.
Major legislation related to these processes includes the National Historic Preservation Act.
as amended; the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, as amended; the American Indian
Religious Freedom Act and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (and the regulations in 36 CFR 800)
outlines a process for evaluating the effects Federal projects may have on heritage resources.
It involves inventorying heritage resources within a project area, determining which are
significant or eligible to the National Register of Historic Places, evaluating project effects
and designing and implementing measures to negate any adverse effect that projects may have
upon significant heritage resources. This process is undertaken in consultation with the
Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer and sometimes with the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation, an independent Federal agency.
We have completed the inventory, made determinations of eligibility and submitted a report
outlining our work to the Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer. The Alaska State
Historic Preservation Officer, in a letter dated April 24, 1998, concurred with our
determination that no sites eligible to the National Register of Historic Places will be affected
by the proposed timber sale. This completes our requirements under Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act.
Soil Resources
Soil development in Southeast Alaska is influenced by high levels of rainfall, cool maritime
temperatures, and moderately low yearly soil temperatures. Under these conditions, organic
material decomposes slowly, resulting in an accumulation of a organic material. Mineral soils
in stable landscapes are typically Spodisol, having a thin albic horizon (leached) with an
underlying spodic horizon (iron and aluminum accumulation). A thick organic surface
horizon composed of forest litter is common on mineral soils.
Deep organic soils develop where the movement of water is impeded by bedrock, or other
restrictive soil horizons. All areas with organic soils are considered wetlands (COE, 1987).
Soil Productivity and Erosion
Ecological functions dictate a relationship between soil forming factors and plant community
development. Soils with particular physical, chemical, and biological characteristics
generally support a certain plant community type or association. Deep well drained mineral
soils are the most productive sites for tree growth even though tree rooting is generally
shallow. Site productivity usually decreases with increasing soil wetness. Timber site
productivity on poorly to very poorly drained organic soils is generally much lower than the
productivity of mineral soils. Very little quantitative information on soil nutrient status and
timber productivity exists for certain organic wetland soil types (Kaikli, Karheen, Kitkun,
and Maybeso soils series). Until further information is available, we will avoid timber
harvest on these soils. Because soils are heterogeneous, inclusion of up to 2 acres of organic
soils may be included in harvest units (USDA 1997b).
Erosion
Surface erosion is virtually nonexistent in a natural condition under the forest canopy, except
in areas of mass wasting, because the forest floor is protected by living vegetation or by a
thick organic surface layer.
Mass Wasting
Mass failures, debris torrents, debris avalanches, etc. are all active, natural erosion processes
occurring in the project area. They occur in undisturbed areas and will continue to do so in
the future. Many landslides occur during or immediately after a heavy rainfall event, when
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects — Chapter 3 ■ 3-101
Environment and Effects
soils are saturated. The failures usually originate in the mid- to upper-slope positions, at the
upper end of small drainages. Failure occurs when the downward force is greater than
resisting forces.
Tree roots contribute to the stability of hillslopes in several ways. Roots add strength to the
soil by vertically anchoring through the soil mantle into fractured bedrock or other stable
substrate. Small roots at the soil surface reinforce the upper soil layer so that it acts as a
membrane to provide lateral strength and increased slope stability. After harvesting timber,
tree roots deteriorate reducing soil strength and the stability of steep slopes with shallow soils.
Large downed wood can also act as a slope buttress. Research in Southeast Alaska
(Swanston, 1989) has suggested that although less than 10 percent of all landslides in the past
20 years were related to logging or roads, logging and roads increase the potential for
landslides in a given area.
Harvest on Oversteepened Slopes
A high percentage of the forested area in the project area is on very steep slopes (>72%).
These lands are not considered suitable for timber management until a site-specific risk
assessment has been completed. Cliffs, bedrock exposures, landslides and avalanche tracts
are common land type features in these areas. In general, we avoid harvest on oversteepened
slopes; however, some short steep pitches do occur in larger areas of lesser slopes. Helicopter
yarding and silvicultural prescriptions that leave a substantial amount of trees undisturbed are
planned for harvest units with oversteepened slopes. The risk of initiating slope failure and
degrading site productivity is a concern when harvesting on oversteepened slopes. Harvest on
short pitches of oversteepened slopes poses less risk than harvest on long smooth
oversteepened slopes. Slope steepness and soil material were the primary factors used to
evaluate slope stability and likelihood of management induced slope failures. Harvest on
small inclusions of slopes >72% is proposed in two units. The risk of impacting soil
productivity or inducing a mass wasting event as a result of harvest is low.
Effects to Soil Resources
Soil disturbance would result from road building and harvest activities. Road construction
takes lands out of productivity, replacing them with a road surface. This is considered a
soil/site impact on temporary roads and a permanent change on specified roads. Road and
infrastructure construction are expected to cause the most significant impact to soils.
Soil erosion associated with construction of the specified road is primarily along cut slopes.
Implementation of BMPs, especially prompt revegetation of cut slopes would reduce the
amount of soil erosion.
Miles of temporary road construction are used to compare impacts of the alternatives.
Alternative 2 has the most temporary road construction, 2.8 miles, thus, the greatest impact.
Alternative 4 has no temporary road construction, and Alternative 1 and 3 are intermediate
with 1 .6 miles of temporary road construction. Long term impacts associated with temporary
road construction would be mitigated by revegetating roads when they are obliterated.
Harvest units would be designed to minimize impacts to soil. No harvest units are located in
areas where harvest might increase the risk of mass failure or cause loss of site productivity
due to soil erosion. Some mineral soil material may be exposed by yarding operations.
Helicopter yarding is expected to cause much less disturbance than cable yarding. Potential
for impacts can be assessed by comparing the acres harvested and harvest method for each
Alternative. Alternative 2 is the most likely to cause impacts, Alternative 4 the least and
Alternatives 1 and 3 are similar and between 2 and 4.
3-102 ■ Chapter 3 — Environment and Effects
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Wetlands
Environment and Effects
Wetlands are defined as "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater
with a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do
support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions"
(40CFR 230.41 (a)(1)).
Executive Order 1 1990, as amended, requires Federal agencies exercising statutory authority
and leadership over Federal lands to avoid to the extent possible the long and short term
adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands. Federal agencies
are required to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands in carrying
out their responsibilities for : 1) acquiring, managing and disposing of lands and facilities; 2)
providing federally undertaken, financed, or assisted construction and improvements; and 3)
conducting Federal activities and programs affecting land use.
Wetlands were identified using the Corps of Engineers three-parameter system described in
U.S. Army Corps Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (COE 1987). Wetlands are areas
with hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and wetland hydrology. Soil resource inventory
maps, including correlations between soil series and plant communities were used to
determine the extent of wetlands in the project area. Following field verification, the GIS
database was revised in order to generate wetland maps. These maps were used to quantify
the acreage of wetlands in harvest units and along the road corridor.
Wetlands in the Project Area
Extensive areas of wetlands are located in the project area. For purposes of description, the
wetlands are classified and mapped based on vegetative cover type. The geomorphic
categories as described by Brinson (1993): depressional, riverine, fringe, and peatlands, are
useful in interpreting wetland function. Riverine wetlands are associated with streams and
are represented by floodplains which support Sitka spruce/devils club forest community types
and emergent sedge/tall shrub community types. Fringe wetlands are those that border a
water body, such as along the lakes and salt water. Peatlands are the most extensive,
occurring at all elevations across the project area. Sphagnum bogs and emergent sedge
wetland types are associated with peatlands.
The biological significance of a wetland is related to the value of its functions, and at least in
part to the relative scarcity of the wetland type in the landscape. This is especially true in
terms of biological diversity on the landscape scale. The relatively scarce fens, estuarine salt
marshes and lakes are assumed to have a greater biological significance than the more
common bogs and forested wetlands which are widespread throughout the landscape.
In the project area, wetlands adjacent to water bodies were recognized as "important",
primarily for the wildlife habitat they provide. Another area recognized as an important
wetland is along a tributary to Canal Creek. Tall sedge meadows along the creek (a PA5
stream channel type) and muskeg uplands are heavily used by bear and beaver.
Wetlands cover approximately 12,200 acres of the project area. Wetland types present
include coniferous forested wetlands (palustrine forested), mixed forest/muskeg v/etlands
(palustrine forested/palustrine emergent), sphagnum bogs or muskegs (palustrine emergent
and palustrine scrub-shrub), estuarine wetlands (estuarine intertidal unconsolidated shore and
estuarine intertidal emergent), alpine/subalpine wetlands.
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects — Chapter 3 ■ 3-103
Environment and Effects
Forested Wetlands
Forested wetlands consist primarily of slope bogs supporting coniferous forests, some of
which occur in a mosaic pattern with small open bogs. Tree cover ranges from a minimum of
10 percent to about 60 percent canopy cover. Tree height is at least 25 feet. Plant
communities (Pawuk and Kissinger, 1989 ) consist primarily of Mixed
Conifer/Blueberry/Skunk Cabbage, Mixed Conifer/Blueberry /Deer Cabbage, Western
Hemlock/Blueberry /Skunk Cabbage, Shorepine/Blueberry, and some Mountain
Hemlock/Blueberry/Skunk Cabbage. Soils are typically very poorly drained organic soils or
poorly and very poorly drained mineral soils. There are 960 acres of this wetland type in the
project area.
Forested Wetland/Forest Non-Wetland Complex
Consists of a mixture of forest wetlands as described above and non-wetlands in a complex
mosaic of microtopography that controls drainage and water regime. Approximately 500
acres of this wetland type are mapped in the project area. These areas make up the majority of
wetland acres planned for timber harvest.
Forested Wetland/Sphagnum Peat Bog Complex
These wetlands are a complex of forested wetlands as described above, and sphagnum bogs as
described below. Approximately 1400 acres of this wetland type occurs in the project area.
Sphagnum Peat Bogs
Sphagnum bogs, locally called muskegs, have deep peat soils. The high amount of free
water reduces aeration necessary for organic matter decomposition resulting in the
accumulation of peat deposits overtime. Soils are very poorly drained, moderately deep to
deep, extremely acid peat soils. Tree cover is less than 10 percent, consisting mainly of
stunted shore pine with lesser amounts of western hemlock, mountain hemlock, yellow cedar
and Sitka spruce. Common shrubs include Labrador tea, crowberry, mountain cranberry,
dwarf blueberry, bog laurel, and bog cranberry. These wetlands function as areas for recharge
of groundwater and streams, and for deposition and storage of sediment and nutrients. There
are approximately 1 ,600 acres of this wetland habitat in the project area.
Emergent Sedge Wetlands
Emergent sedge wetlands are open (non-forest) fens. Unlike bogs, shore pine are usually not
present in fens. Oregon crab apple and highbush cranberry are common on the margins of
fens. Soils are poorly and very poorly drained, and moderately deep to deep organic soils.
Soil and water in fens typically are less acidic and have a higher nutrient content than
sphagnum bogs. These organic soils typically contain some mineral soil material as thin
strata of alluvium. These wetlands are more common in the Canal VCU than the Hoya VCU.
They usually occur along streams or on the fringe of muskegs. Two-hundred acres of this
wetland type are in the project area.
Alpine and Subalpine
Subalpine wetlands as used here, are primarily high elevation (1800 to 2300 feet) bogs that
occupy the sloping to steep summit of mountains. They are typically dominated by dwarf
shrubs, low sedges and various forbs, especially deer cabbage. Trees include widely
scattered stunted mountain hemlock, yellow cedar and less frequently shore pine. Shrubs
include some alpine species typically yellow mountain heather, Merten’s cassiope, luetkea
and copperbush. Soils are typically poorly and very poorly drained shallow organic soils over
bedrock. There are 7770 acres of alpine and subalpine habitat mapped in the project area, not
all of which is wetland.
Salt or Marine Estuary
Fourteen acres of salt marsh wetlands occupy the estuary area at the mouth of Hoya and
Canal Creek. These intertidal areas contain a variety of salt tolerant sedge communities
3-104 ■ Chapter 3 — Environment and Effects
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects
arranged according to subtle differences in elevation and corresponding frequency of salt
water inundation. The higher, less frequently inundated areas typically contain highly
diverse grass/sedge/forb communities. Oregon crab apple and alder are found along the forest
fringe. Salt marshes have poorly drained mineral soils that have appreciably higher pH values
and nutrient contents than other wetland types.
Effects on Wetlands
Because wetlands are so extensive in the project area, it is not feasible to avoid all wetland
areas. However, there are no development activities planned on the more biologically
significant wetlands. There would be no direct effects to the fens, estuarine wetlands, or the
lake fringe wetlands. In all alternatives, roads and units were located to avoid these areas.
Roads and other facilities would be constructed at least 1000’ from estuaries. Effects to
wetlands in the project area can be divide into two categories: permanent loss, a long-term
effect; and disturbance, a temporary or short term effect. Road construction results in the
filling of wetlands creating a permanent loss of wetland habitat. Effects will be minimized
by not using wetlands as sites for overburden disposal. Implementation of BMPs such as
minimizing ditching and providing adequate cross drainage, can minimize the affected area.
Table 3-33 displays the length of road that would be constructed across the different wetland
types.
Table 3-33
Roads in Wetlands
Wetland Type
Alt 1
Alt 2
Alt 3
Alt 4
Alt 5
Forested Wetland
.98
.93
.93
.58
0
Forested Wetland/Forest
Non-Wetland Complex
.47
.98
0
0
0
Sphagnum Peat Bog
.54
.41
.41
.1
0
Sphagnum Bog/ Forested
Wetland Complex
1.65
2.8
1.17
.37
0
Emergent Sedge Wetlands
.06
.06
0
0
0
Table 3-34 displays the acres of harvest that is planned on the different wetland types.
Table 3-34
Acres of Harvest on Wetlands
Wetland Type
Alt 1
Alt 2
Alt 3
Alt 4
Alt 5
Forested Wetland
77.6
66
83
106
0
Forested Wetland/Forest
Non-Wetland Complex
66
7
15
11
0
Sphagnum Peat Bog
1
1
1
.9
0
Sphagnum Bog/ Forested
Wetland Complex
35
19
18
30
0
Emergent Sedge Wetlands
2.3
2.3
.7
0
0
The harvest of trees in wetlands converts needle-leaved, evergreen, forested wetlands to
deciduous shrub wetland types. The conversion from forested to shrub wetland is not
expected to result in long-term loss of any wetland values, only a conversion from one set of
wetland functions to another. Silviculturists on the Tongass National Forest have concluded
that all wetlands which have been harvested over the past 20 years are adequately restocked
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Environment and Effects — Chapter 3 ■ 3-1 05
Environment and Effects
(USDA Forest Service, 1995). Because there is a lack of response information on regrowth
rates, wetlands with organic soils will not be harvested. The wetlands considered for harvest
are primarily low volume forests with low site indexes. Regeneration of the second growth
stand on these sites is expected to be slower growing then stands on sites with well drained
mineral soils. Shovel logging in wetlands can cause detrimental soil disturbance, all
wetlands considered for shovel harvest will be inspected by Soil Scientists prior to logging.
Karst and Caves
Karst Features
During field surveys for this project, an effort was made to examine rock types for karst
features wherever possible. In most forest and muskeg areas, the soil layer is too thick to
allow easy observation of the underlying rocks. Exposed rock at high elevation, along stream
channels, on steep slopes, and along the shoreline, as well as past geologic inventory, was the
basis for determining the extent of the karst resources.
Karst features were located in the Canal VCU. The best expressed karst landscape features
are located in the 2500-3400 foot elevation zone. Numerous collapsed sink holes were
located in this area. Limestone bedrock exposures were also located in Canal Creek about
1/2 mile from salt water, and on the peninsula extending to the west. It appears that a thin
belt of crystalline limestone, as described by Buddington (1921), extends south from Blake
Island across the Bradfield Canal and up into the subalpine zone of the Canal VCU. Surveys
for caves were conducted in areas with carbonate bedrock, but none were located.
Effects on Karst
All of the forested area known to have limestone bedrock is included in the Canal Old
Growth Reserve, and will not be harvested. Unit 44 lies in the path of the limestone belt;
however, no limestone bedrock has been located in this unit. No caves are known to occur in
the project area, and consequently, no impacts are expected to occur to cave resources.
Sensitive Plants
Surveys for sensitive plants were conducted through out the project area. No sensitive plants
were located. The biological evaluation concluded that none of the action alternatives
would have an impact on any sensitive plant species.
Other Findings
The effects of the alternatives on consumers is reflected in the discussion of the various goods
and services supplied as a result of the proposed alternatives (see Issue 1, Timber Economics
and Supply, page 3-2). We have determined that the actions proposed in the alternatives
would not adversely affect prime farm land, range land, rivers eligible for Wild and Scenic
River designation, Class II Airshed standards associated with the Clean Air Act, or
Wilderness, nor would it adversely impact civil rights, women or minorities.
3-106 ■ Chapter 3 — Environment and Effects
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Chapter 4
Lists
List of Preparers
List of Document Recipeints
Glossary
Literature Cited
Index
!
List of Preparers
The following is a list of contributors to this EIS. Other Forest Service employees contributed to the completion of this
document through their assistance in support functions. Their help is greatly appreciated.
Dan Barnett, Engineering Technician
Education
B.S. General Agriculture, South Dakota State University
Forest Service: 22 years
Engineering Technician, Stikine Area, Tongass N.F.
Engineering Technician, Chatham Area, Tongass N.F.
Jackie deMontigny, Soil Scientist
Education
B.A. Education, University of Montana
M.S. Forest Ecology, University of Montana
Forest Service : 10 years
Soil Scientist, Stikine Area, Tongass N.F.
Ecologist Trainee, Bitteroot, N.F.
Biological Technician, Nez Perce N.F.
Biological Technician, Stikine Area, Tongass N.F.
Dee Galla, Recreation Planner
Education
B.S. Wildland Recreation Management, University of Idaho
Forest Service: 9 years
Recreation Planner, Stikine Area, Tongass N.F.
Recreation Forester, Nez Perce N.F.
Mark McCallum, Archaeologist
Education
B.A. Anthropology, James Madison University, Virginia
Forest Service: 1 0 years
Forest Archaeologist, Stikine Area, Tongass N.F.
Private Consultant: 1 0 years
Austin O’Brien, Forester
Education
B.S. Forest Resources Management, University of Minnesota
Forest Service: 12 years
Forester, Stikine Area, Tongass N.F.
Forestry Technician, Stikine Area, Tongass N.F.
Forestry Technician, Plumas N.F.
Scott Posner, Interdisciplinary Team Leader
Education
B.S. Wildlife, University of Minnesota
M.S. Forest Ecology, University of Minnesota
Forest Service: 10 years
Wildlife Biologist, Stikine Area, Tongass N.F.
Wildlife biologist, Bighorn N.F.
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Chapter 4 Lists 4-1
Margaret Robertsen, Wildlife Biologist
Education
B.S. Wildlife Management, University of Minnesota
M.S. Wildlife Ecology, University of Wisconsin, Madison
Forest Service : 8 years
Wildlife Biologist, Stikine Area, Tongass N.F.
Wildlife Technician, North Central Forest Experiment Station, MN
Wildlife Technician, State and Private
John Stevens, Silviculturist
Education
B.S.F. Northern Arizona University
Washington State/University of Oregon, Silviculture Institute
Forest Service: 22 years
Silviculturist, Stikine Area. Tongass N.F.
Forester, Stikine Area, Tongass N.F.
Forestry Technician. Stikine Area. Tongass N.F.
Julianne Thompson, Hydrologist
Education
B.S. Natural Resource Management, California Polytechnic State University
Forest Service: 7 years
Hydrologist, Stikine Area. Tongass N.F.
Hydrologist, Dixie N.F.
Susan Wise-Eagle, Geographic Information Systems
Education
B.S. Zoology, San Diego State University
Forest Service: 1 8 years
Fishery and Wildlife Biologist, Stikine Area, Tongass N.F.
Fishery and Wildlife Biologist, Nez Perce N.F.
Fishery Biologist, Idaho Panhandle N.F.
Additional Support
- Brett Hand, Timber
- Jerry Jordan, Unit Cards
- Marie Oboczky, Writer Editor
- Dennis Reed, Stream Survey
- Robert Traufer, Stream Survey
4-2 Chapter 4 Lists
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Lists4
List of Document Recipients
Individuals Sent Copy of Final EIS
Chris Albrecht
Norman Armin
Michael Amtz
Dave Beebe
Mike Bell
Charles H. Boyd
Peter Branson
Ole Buness
Bob & Julie Byers
Chat & Jo Chatham
Marlene Clarke
Fred Clark
Steve Connelly
Elwin H. Covey
Jacqueline deMontigny
Michael Dixon
Norma Jean Dunne
Bruce Eagle
Larry Edwards
Gene Feind
Tim Fenner
Craig Flatten
Bamy Freedman
John Geddie
Kenneth J. Hammons
William Hamner
Russell Hansen
Joel & Alice Hanson
Lloyd Hartshorn
Kim Hastings
Jim Hillebrand
Stanley Hjort
Walter Holman
R. Holsinger
Robert L. Hunley
Jeff Hupp
Deb Hurley
Merrily Jones
Frank A. Johnson
David Kimbrough
Everett Kissinger
Steve Kramer
Richard Lampe
Heidi Lindgren
Michael Medalen
BeverlyMcLaughlin
David McFadden
Jackie Moore
Craig Olson
Warren Powers
Bill Privett
Matt Rasmussen
R.Q.D. Reeves
Sean Reilly
Peter E. Rice
Dave & Sally Riemer
Beverly Richardson
Don Sautner
Jim Spignesi
Richard & Sharon Sprague
Pat Tagart
Patricia Torsen
Bill Tremblay
Frank Sr. Warfel
Winifred O.Weber
Marc Wheeler
Lew M. Williams Jr.
Agencies and Organizations Sent Copy of Final EIS
ABR Inc. (Charles B. Johnson)
ADEC/A&WQ (Jim Ferguson)
ADFG - Wildlife (Tom Paul, Phil Mooney, Ed Crain, Kim
Titus, Ruth Lewis)
ADFG Division of Subsistence (Mike Turek)
ADFG - Sport Fish (Glen Freeman)
AK Dept. Natural Resources - Land, Division of Forestry,
(Jim McAllister)
AK Div. of Government Coordination (Karen Essary, Jackie
Timothy)
Alaska Angling (Kent Brekke)
Alaska Fish Tales (Burl Weller, Robert Bailey)
Alaska Forest Association
Alaska Passages (Scott & Julie Hursey)
Alaska Peak & Seas (Mark Galla)
Alaska Pulp Corp. Lumber Div.
Alaska Pulp Corporation (George Woodbury)
Alaska State Library, Government Publications
Alaska Waters, Inc. (James Leslie)
Alaska Wilderness Recreation & Tourism Association
Alaska Women in Trees (Joan Kautzer)
Alaskan Star Charters (Ken Wyrick)
Allweather Industries (Dick Olson)
Aqua Sports Enterprise (Terry Buness)
Blue water Adventures Ltd. (Randy & Cathy Burke)
Boardwalk Wilderness Lodge (Doug Ibbetson)
Breakaway Charters (Eric Yancey)
Campbell Towing (Carl Campbell)
Cascade Culvert, Inc. (Leslie Koontz)
City of Wrangell (Carol Rushmore)
Cleveland Users Coalition
Coastal Island Charters (Michael Bauer)
Columbia Helicopters, Inc. (Tom Cook)
Colorado State University
Concerned Citizens 4 Wise Use (Richard Uberuaga)
Dames & Moore David Every
Deer Creek Cottage (Steve Scheldt)
Dolphin Charters/Biological Journeys (Ronn Patterson)
EA Engineering (David Chapin)
Earthjustice Legal Defense (Tom Waldo)
Family Charters (James & Judy Thompson)
Forest Guardians/ Forest Conservation Council
Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics (Alaska)
Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics (Oregon)
Foster Wheeler Environ Corp. (Tom Stewart)
Forest Service Employees for Environment Ethics
Glacier Energy Ltd. (Ernie Eads)
Hallco Corporation (Arthur Hall)
Canal Hoya Final EIS
Chapter 4 Lists 4 - 3
Lists 4
Information Center, ENSR
Island Wings (Michelle Masden)
Kake Tribal Heritage Foundation
Kake Tribal Logging Corp. (Butch Pierce)
Ketchikan Pulp Corporation (Jill Bennett, Kent Nicholson)
Ketchikan Sports & Wildlife
KFSK Public Radio, News Department
Klukwan Forest Products (Ronald R. Wolfe)
KSTK Public Radio, News Department
KCAW Raven Radio, News Department
Landau Associates (Dale Stirling)
Ludwigsen-Davis, Inc. (Jeff Boyce)
Maple Leaf Adventures, Inc. (Brian Falconer)
Mason, Bruce, & Girard, Inc. (Ken Vroman)
Midnight Sun Charters (Ted Pratt)
Misty Fiords Air & Outfitting (David Doyon)
Muskeg Excursions (Johnnie Laird)
Narrows Conservation Coalition
National Bank of Alaska
Northern Ventures (Chad & Michael Smith)
Olive Cove Homeowner’s Association (Donna Rice)
Organized Village of Kake (Mike Jackson)
Pacific Rim Cedar, Inc. (Frank Age)
Petersburg Pilot, News Department
Promech, Inc. (Kevin Hack)
Robertson, Monagle & Eastaugh (D. Elizabeth Cuadra, Terry
Thurbon, James Clark, Ruth Hamilton)
SE AK Conservation Council (Buck Lindekugel)
Sealaska Corporation
Sealaska Timber Corporation (Fred Jorgensen)
Seley Corporation (Tim Droke)
Sequoia Associates (Lou Keller)
Walter Sheridan & Associates
Sierra Club Anchorage Group (Jack Hession)
Sierra Club Auke Bay Group (Righard Hellard)
Silver Bay Logging Company (Glenn Vantrease)
Silver Wind Charters (Helen & Steve Keller)
Sitka Conservation Society
Slipper Skipper Charters (Harold Bailey)
Southeast AK Forest Dwellers (Joe Sebastian)
Southeast Alaska Conservation Council (Peggy Wilcox)
Stickeen Wilderness Adventures (Todd Harding)
Stikine Straits (Alan Sorum)
STRA, Inc. (Edward Sadtler)
Sunrise Aviation (Barb Comne)
Taquan Air Service (Jerry Scudero)
Temsco (Roland "Doc" & Karen Gohmert)
Tenacious Charters (Mike Lockabey)
The Boat Company (Steve Riehman)
Thome Bay Lumber Ent. (Edwin Brauer)
Timber Wolf Charters (Thomas Leslie)
US Army Corps of Engineers (Glen E. Justis, Jeffrey Towner,
Ralph Thompson, Mike Holley)
US EPA (Mark Jen, Steven Torok, Bill Ryan)
USD A Forest Service
USDA Natl Agriculture Library
US Dept. Commerce, NOAA, NMFS
USDI Fish & Wildlife Service (Janet Hohn, Carol Hale,
Susan Walker, Subsistence Mgmt.)
USDI, Office of Environ. Affairs
Utah State University (Carla Heister, Barrie Gilbert)
Vanguard Research (Robert C. Betts)
Wesley Rickard, Inc. (Lesa Duncan)
Wild Rockies Institute (David Havlick)
Wrangell Resource Council
Wrangell Sentinel, News Department
Canal Hoya FEIS
Chapter 4 Lists 4-4
Lists 4
Glossary
Access
The opportunity to approach, enter, and make use of public lands.
Access Management
Acquiring rights and developing and maintaining facilities needed by people to get to and move through public lands
(physical attributes).
Adaptive Management
A continuous process of action-based planning, monitoring, research, evaluation, and adjustment with the objective of
improving implementation and achieving desired management goals and objectives.
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA)
Passed by Congress in 1980, this legislation designated 14 National Forest wilderness areas in Southeast Alaska. The Alaska
National Interest Lands Conservation Act of December 2, 1980. Public Law 96-487, 96th Congress, 94 Stat. 2371-2551. In
Section 810 requires evaluations of subsistence impacts before changing the use of these lands.
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA)
Public Law 92-203, 92nd Congress, 85 Stat. 2371-2551. Approved December 18, 1971, ANCSA provides for the settlement
of certain land claims of Alaska natives and for other purposes.
Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ)
ASQ refers to the maximum quantity of timber that may be sold each decade from the Tongass National Forest. This
quantity, expressed as a board foot measure, is calculated per timber utilization standards specified in the Alaska Regional
Guide, the number and type of acres available for timber management, and the intensity of timber management. The ASQ
was calculated at 4.5 billion board feet per decade for the Tongass National Forest.
Alluvial Fan
A cone-shaped deposit of organic and mineral material made by a stream where it runs out onto a level plain or meets a
slower stream.
Alluvium
Material deposited by rivers or streams, including the sediment laid down in river beds, floodplains and at the foot of
mountain slopes and estuaries.
Alpine
Parts of mountains above tree growth and/or the organisms living there.
Alternative
One of several policies, plans, or projects proposed for decision making.
Anadromous Fish
Anadromous fish (such as salmon, steelhead, and sea run cutthroat trout) spend part of their lives in freshwater and part of
their lives in saltwater.
Background
The distant part of a landscape. The seen or viewed area located from three or five miles to infinity from the viewer. (See
"Foreground" and "Middleground".)
Beach Fringe
The area inland from salt water shorelines, which is typically forested.
Bedload
Sand, silt, and gravel, or soil and rock debris rolled along the bottom of a stream by the moving water.
Canal Hoya FEIS
Chapter 4 Lists 4-5
Lists 4
Best Management Practice (BMP)
Land management methods, measures, or practices intended to minimize or reduce water pollution. Usually BMPs are
applied as a system of practices rather than a single practice. BMPs are selected on the basis of site-specific conditions that
reflect natural background conditions and political, social, economic, and technical feasibility,
Biological Diversity (Biodiversity)
The variety of life in all its processes.
Blowdown
See windthrow.
Board Foot (BF)
A unit of wood 12" X 12" X 1". One acre of commercial timber in Southeast Alaska on the average yields 28,000-34,000
board feet per acre (ranging from 8,000-90,000 board feet per acre). One million board feet (MMBF) would be the volume of
wood covering one acre two feet thick. One million board feet yields approximately enough timber to build 120 houses or
75,555 pounds of dissolving pulp.
Bole
Trunk of the tree.
Braided Streams or Channels
A stream flowing in several dividing and reuniting channels resembling the strands of a braid, the cause of division being the
obstruction by sediment deposited by the stream.
Brush Disposal
Cleanup and disposal of slash and other hazardous fuels within the forest or project areas.
Buffer
Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA) requires that timber harvest be prohibited in an area no less than 100 feet on each side
of all Class I streams and Class II streams which flow directly into Class I streams. This 100-foot area is known as a buffer.
Capability
An evaluation of a resource’s inherent potential for use.
Clearcut
The harvesting in one cut of all trees on an area. The area harvested may be a patch, strip, or stand large enough to be
mapped or recorded as a separate class in planning for sustained yield. Clearcut size on the Tongass National Forest is
limited to 100 acres, except for specific conditions noted in the Alaska Regional Guide.
Coarse Woody Debris
Any large piece of relatively stable woody material having a diameter of at least four inches and a length greater than three
feet that intrudes into the stream channel. Also called Large Organic Debris (LOD).
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
A codification of the general and permanent rules published in the Federal Register by the executive departments and
agencies of the Federal Government.
Commercial Fishery
Fish, shellfish, or other fishery resources taken or processed within a designated area for commercial purposes
Commercial Forest Land (CFL)
Productive Forest land that is producing or capable of producing crops of industrial wood and is not withdrawn from timber
utilization by statute or administrative regulation. This includes areas suitable for management and generally capable of
producing in excess of 20 cubic feet per acre of annual growth or in excess of 8,000 board feet net volume per acre. It
includes accessible and inaccessible areas.
Normal CFL: Timber that can be economically harvested with locally available logging systems. Composed of two
categories:
Canal Hoya FEIS
Chapter 4 Lists 4-6
Lists 4
Standard: Timber that can be economically harvested with locally available logging systems, such as highlead or
short-span skyline.
Special: Timber that is in areas where special consideration is needed to protect other resources but can be
harvested with locally available logging systems.
Non-standard CFL: Timber that cannot be harvested with locally available logging systems and would require the use
of other logging systems such as helicopter or long-span skyline.
Confluence
The point where two streams meet.
Connectivity
A measure of the extent that forest areas between or outside reserves provide habitat for breeding, feeding, dispersal, and
movement.
Corridor
Connective links of certain types of vegetation between patches of suitable habitat which are necessary for certain species to
facilitate movement of individuals between patches of suitable habitat. Also refers to transportation or utility rights-of-way.
Cover
Refers to trees, shrubs, or other landscape features that allow an animal to partly or fully conceal itself.
Critical Habitat
Specific terrain within the geographical area occupied by threatened or endangered species. Physical and biological features
that are essential to conservation of the species and which may require special management considerations or protection are
found in these areas.
Crown
The tree canopy. The upper part of a tree or woody plant that carries the main branch system and foliage.
Cruise
Refers to the general activity of determining timber volumes and quality as opposed to a specific method.
Cultural Resources
See Hentage Resources.
Cumulative Effects
The impacts on the environment resulting from additional incremental impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such actions. Cumulative impacts can
result from individually minor but collectively significant actions occurring over time.
Diameter Breast Height (DBH)
The diameter of a tree measured 4 feet 6 inches from the ground.
Debris Avalanche
The sudden movement downslope of the soil mantle; it occurs on steep slopes and is caused by the complete saturation of the
soil from prolonged heavy rains. Also known as a debris slide.
Debris Flow
A general term for all types of rapid movement of debris downslope.
Debris Torrents
Landslides that occur as a result of debris; avalanche materials which either dam a channel temporarily or accumulate behind
temporary obstructions such as logs and forest debris.
Deer Winter Range
A combination of environmental elements that support Sitka black-tailed deer under moderately severe or severe winter
conditions. Usually associated with high volume old-growth stands at low elevations and south aspects.
Canal Hoya FEIS
Chapter 4 Lists 4-7
Lists 4
Developed Recreation
Recreation that requires facilities that, in turn, result in concentrated use of an area. Facilities in these areas might include
roads, parking lots, picnic tables, toilets, drinking water, and buildings.
Direct Employment
Jobs that are immediately associated with a timber sale, including, for example, logging, sawmills, and pulpmills.
Dispersal
The movement, usually one way, of plants and animals from their point of origin to another location where they subsequently
produce offspring.
Distance Zone
Areas of landscapes denoted by specified distances from the observer (foreground, middleground, or background). Used as a
frame of reference in which to discuss landscape characteristics of management activities.
Diversity
The distribution and abundance of different plant and animal communities and species within an area.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
A statement of environmental effects for a major Federal action which is released to the public and other agencies for
comment and review prior to a final management decision. Required by Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA).
Eagle Nest Tree Buffer Zone
A 330-foot radius around eagle nest trees established in an Agreement between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the
Forest Service.
Ecological Province
Twenty-one ecological subdivisions of Southeast Alaska that are identified by generally distinct ecological, physiographic,
and biogeographic features. Plant and animal species composition, climate, and geology within each province are generally
more similar within than among adjacent provinces. Historical events (such as glaciers and uplifting) are important to the
nature of the province and to the barriers that distinguish each province.
Ecosystem
A community of organisms and its physical setting. An ecosystem, whether a fallen log or an entire watershed, includes
resident organisms, non-living components such as soil nutrients, inputs such as rainfall, and outputs such as organisms that
disperse to other ecosystems.
Effects
Effects, impacts, and consequences as used in this environmental impact statement are synonymous. Effects may be
ecological (such as the effects on natural resources and on the components, structures, and functioning of affected
ecosystems), aesthetic, historical, cultural, economic, or social, and may be direct, indirect, or cumulative.
Direct Effects: Results of an action occurring when and where the action takes place.
Indirect Effects: Results of an action occurring at a location other than where the action takes place and/or later in time,
but in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Cumulative Effects: See Cumulative Effects.
Endangered Species
Any species of animal or plant that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Plant or
animal species identified by the Secretary of the Interior as endangered in accordance with the 1973 Endangered Species Act.
See also, threatened species, sensitive species.
Endemic
Restricted to a particular locality. For example, a particular species or subspecies may occur on only one or a very few
islands.
Erosion
The wearing away of the land surface by running water, wind, ice, gravity, or other geological activities.
Canal Hoya FEIS
Chapter 4 Lists 4-8
Lists 4
Estuary
For the purpose of this EIS process, estuary refers to the relatively flat, intertidal, and upland areas generally found at the
heads of bays and mouths of streams. They are predominately mud and grass flats and are unforested except for scattered
spruce or cottonwood.
Even-Aged Stand Management
The application of a combination of actions that result in the creation of stands in which trees of essentially the same age
grow together. The difference in age between trees in forming the main canopy level of a stand usually does not exceed 20
percent of that age of the stand at harvest rotation age. Clearcut, shelterwood, or seed tree cutting methods produce even-aged
stands.
Executive Order
An order or regulation issued by the President or some administrative authority under his or her direction.
Fen
A tract of low, wet ground containing sedge peat, relatively rich in mineral salts, alkaline in reaction, and characterized by
slowly flowing water. Unlike peatlands (commonly referred to as bogs or muskegs), fens contribute to stable stream flows,
provide nutrient input to streams and often contribute to fish rearing habitat.
Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)
The final version of the statement of environmental effects required for major federal actions under Section 102 of the
National Environmental Policy Act. It is a revision of the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) to include public and
agency responses to the draft. The decision maker chooses which alternative to select from the Final EIS, and subsequently
issues a Record of Decision (ROD).
Fiscal Year (FY)
October 1 through September 30, e.g. October 1, 1992 - September 30, 1993 = FY93.
Floodplain
That portion of a river valley, adjacent to the river channel, which is covered with water when the river overflows its banks at
flood stages.
Forbs
Herbaceous plants; generally smaller flowering plants. Not included in the grass, shrub or tree categories.
Foreground
The stand of trees immediately adjacent to a scenic area, recreation facility, or forest highway; area located less than 1/4 mile
from the viewer. See also, Background and Middleground.
Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1976 (RPA)
Amended in 1976 by the National Forest Management Act. See RPA Assessment and Program.
Forest or Forest Land
National Forest lands currently supporting or capable of supporting forests at a density of 10 percent crown closure or better.
Includes all areas with forest cover, including old growth and second growth, and both commercial and non-commercial
forest land.
Forested Habitat
All areas with forest cover. Used in this EIS to represent a general habitat zone.
Forested Wetland
A wetland whose vegetation is characterized by an overstory of trees that are 20 feet or taller.
Forest Plan
The Tongass Land Management Revision, signed in 1997. This is the 10-year land allocation plan for the Tongass National
F orest that directs and coordinates planning, the daily uses, and the activities carried out within the forest.
Canal Hoya FEIS
Chapter 4 Lists 4-9
Lists 4
Fragmentation
An element of biological diversity that describes the natural condition of habitats in terms of the size of discrete habitat
blocks or patches, their distribution, the extent to which they are interconnected, and the effects of management on these
natural conditions. Also the process of reducing the size and connectivity of stands within a forest.
FSH
Forest Service Handbook.
FSM
Forest Service Manual.
Geographic Information System (GIS)
An information processing technology to input, store, manipulate, analyze, and display spatial and attribute data to support
the decision-making process. It is a system of computer maps with corresponding site specific information that can be
electronically combined to provide reports and maps.
Group Selection
Small groups of trees up to 2 acres in size are harvested.
Guideline
A preferred or advisable course of action or level of attainment designed to promote achievement of goals and objectives.
Habitat
The sum total of environmental conditions of a specific place occupied by an organism, population, or community of plants
and animals.
Habitat Capability
The estimated number of healthy animals that a habitat can sustain. Often shown as a relative percentage of optimum habitat
conditions.
Habitat Suitability Index
A value assigned to a unit of land using a computerized model that relates vegetative and geographic characteristics (e.g.
stand volume, proximity to a stream or cliff, slope, aspect, etc.) to the land unit’s value for a particular wildlife species.
Values range from 0 to 1, with 1 being the best. Habitat Capability Models used to generate HSIs were developed by
interagency teams of biologists using the best available information including research results and best professional
judgement.
Habituation
A reduction in the frequency or strength of response following repeated exposure to inconsequential stimulus. In the case of
bears at Anan, if people are repeatedly encountered in non-threatening situations, the bears become used to the people and
react less over time.
Haul out
An area of large, smooth rocks used by seals and sea lions for resting and pupping.
Heritage Resources
Also known as Cultural Resources. Historic or prehistoric objects, sites, buildings, structures, and their remains, resulting
from past human activities.
Humus
Substance of organic origin that is fairly but not entirely resistant to further bacterial decay.
Hydrophyte
Plants typically found in wet habitats.
Canal Hoya FEIS
Chapter 4 Lists 4-10
Lists 4
Important Subsistence Use Area
Important Subsistence Use Areas include the "most -reliable" and "most often hunted" categories from the TRUCS survey
and from subsistence survey data from ADFG, the University of Alaska, and the Forest Service, Region 10. Important use
areas include both intensive and extensive use areas for subsistence harvest of deer, furbearers, and salmon.
Indirect Employment
The jobs in service industries that are associated with a timber sale including, for example, suppliers of logging and milling
equipment.
Infrastructure
The facilities, utilities, and transportation systems needed to meet public and administrative needs.
Inoperable Timber
Timber that cannot be harvested by any proven method because of potential resource damage, extremely adverse economic
considerations, or physical limitations.
Interception
The process by which precipitation is caught and held by foliage, twigs, and branches of trees, shrubs, and other vegetation,
and lost by evaporation, never reaching the surface of the ground.
Interdisciplinary Team (IDT)
Two or more natural resource planners who use relevant information to develop alternative design and comparison for a
proposed project. The team insures that integrated use of environmental, social, and economic information is clearly
presented so the best decision can be made.
Intermediate Stand Treatments
A stand management treatment which manipulates stand growth, composition, structure, or tree quality. Intermediate
treatments include thinning, pruning, clearing, weeding, liberation, release, improvement, salvage, and sanitation cutting to
achieve different management objectives. These stand treatments do not attempt to obtain new tree regeneration, and they
occur before the final regeneration harvest. Some treatments such as salvage cutting or commercial thinning result in the
harvest of forest products.
Invertebrates
Animals without a backbone.
Irretrievable Commitments
Losses of production or use of renewable natural resources for a period of time. For example, timber production from an area
is irretrievably lost during the time an area is allocated to a no-harvest prescription; if the allocation is changed to allow
timber harvest, timber production can be resumed. The production lost is irretrievable, but is not irreversible.
Irreversible Commitments
Decisions causing changes which cannot be reversed. For example, if a roadless area is allocated to allow timber harvest and
timber is actually harvested, that area cannot, at a later date, be allocated to wilderness. Once harvested, the ability of that
area to meet wilderness criteria has been irreversibly lost. Often applies to nonrenewable resources such as minerals and
cultural resources.
Issue
A point, matter, or section of public discussion or interest to be addressed or decided.
Karst
A type of topography that develops in areas underlain by soluble rocks, primarily limestone. Dissolution of the subsurface
strata results in areas of well-developed surface drainage that are sinkholes, collapsed channels, or caves.
Knutsen-Vandenburg Fund (KV)
The portion of timber sale receipts collected and used for reforestation and other renewable resource projects on the sale area.
Landslides
The moderately rapid to rapid down slope movement of soil and rock materials that may or may not be water- saturated.
Canal Hoya FEIS
Chapter 4 Lists 4-1 1
Lists 4
Land Use Designation (LUD)
A defined area of land specific to which management is applied. Referred to more commonly as Management Prescriptions
in the Forest Plan.
Log Transfer Facility (LTF)
A facility that is used for transferring commercially harvested logs to and from a vessel or log raft, or the formation of a log
raft. It is wholly or partially constructed in waters of the United States and location and construction are regulated by the
1987 Amendments to the Clean Water Act. Formerly termed "terminal transfer facility" or "log dump".
Logging Systems
Cable: Ground based yarding of logs using a steel cable to pull logs to a landing.
Helicopter: Flight path cannot exceed 40 percent downhill or 30 percent uphill; landings must be selected so there is
adequate room for the operation and so that the helicopter can make an upwind approach to the drop zone.
Logging Camp
A temporary facility established to house industry and Forest Service personnel while timber harvest occurs in the area.
MBF
A thousand board feet net sawlog and utility volume.
MMBF
A million board feet net sawlog and utility volume.
Maintenance Level 1
This level is assigned to intermittent service roads during the time management direction requires that the road be closed or
otherwise blocked to traffic. Basic custodial maintenance is performed to protect the road investment and to keep damage to
adjacent resources to an acceptable level. Drainage facilities and runoff patterns are maintained.
Maintenance Level 3
Assigned to roads open and maintained for travel by a prudent driver in a standard passenger car. User comfort and
convenience are not considered priorities. Roads in this maintenance level are typically low speed, single lane with turnouts
and spot surfacing. Some roads may be fully surfaced with either native or processed material.
Management Indicator Species (MIS)
Species selected in a planning process that are used to monitor the effects of planned management activities on viable
populations of wildlife and fish, including those that are socially or economically important.
Management Prescriptions
Method of classifying land uses presented in the Forest Plan. Replaces the Land Use Designations (LUDs) originally
presented in TLMP.
Market Pond Value
Also known as pond log value. Selling value minus manufacturing costs. Pond log values are the price a timber buyer would
pay for a log at the mill site.
Mass Failure
The downslope movement of a block or mass of soil. This usually occurs under conditions of high-soil moisture and does not
include individual soil particles displaced as surface erosion.
Maritime Climate
Weather conditions controlled by an oceanic environment characterized by small annual temperature ranges and high
precipitation.
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
A legal agreement between the Forest Service and others agencies resulting from consultation between agencies that states
specific measures the agencies will follow to accomplish a large or complex project. A memorandum of understanding is not
a fund obligating document.
Canal Hoya FEIS
Chapter 4 Lists 4-12
Lists 4
Middleground
The visible terrain beyond the foreground where individual trees are still visible but do not stand out distinctly for the
landscape; area located from 1/4 to 5 miles from the viewer. See also, Foreground and Background.
Mineral Soils
Soils consisting predominately of, and having its properties determined by, mineral material.
Minimum Viable Population
A population with the estimated numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals to maintain the population over time.
Mitigation
Measures designed to counteract environmental impacts or to make impacts less severe. These may include: avoiding an
impact by not taking a certain action or part of an action; minimizing an impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of an
action and its implementation; rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment;
reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; or
compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources.
Mixed Conifer
In Southeast Alaska, mixed conifer stands usually consist of western hemlock, mountain hemlock, Alaska yellowcedar,
Western redcedar, and Sitka spruce species. Shorepine may occasionally be present.
Model
A representation of reality used to describe, analyze, or understand a particular concept. A model may be a relatively simple
qualitative description of a system or organization, or a highly abstract set of mathematical equations. A model has limits to
its effectiveness, and is used as one of several tools to analyze a problem.
Monitoring
A process of collecting information to evaluate whether or not objectives of a project and its mitigation plan are being
realized. Monitoring can occur at different levels: to confirm whether mitigation measures were carried out in the manner
called for, to determine whether the mitigation measures were effective, or to validate whether overall goals and objectives
were appropriate. Different levels call for different methods of monitoring.
Multiple-aged Stands
An intermediate form of stand structure between even and uneven-aged stands. These stands generally have two or three
distinct tree canopy levels occurring within a single stand.
Multiple Entry
More than one stand or land treatment activity during a rotation of a stand or area.
Multiple Use
The management of all the various renewable resources of the National Forest System to be used in the combination that will
best met the needs of the American people.
Muskeg
In Southeast Alaska a type of bog that has developed over thousands of years in depressions or flat areas on gentle to steep
slopes. Also called peatlands.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969
An Act to declare a national policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between humankind and the
environment, to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the
health and welfare of humanity, to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the
Nation, and to establish a Council on Environmental Quality (The Principal Laws Relating to Forest Service Activities, agric.
Handb. 453. USDA Forest Service, 359 p.).
National Forest Management Act (NFMA)
A law passed in 1976 as an amendment to the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act requiring the
preparation of Regional Guides and Forest Plans and the preparation of regulations to guide that development.
Canal Hoya FEIS
Chapter 4 Lists 4-13
Lists 4
National Wild and Scenic River System
Rivers with outstanding scenic, recreational, geological, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values designated
by Congress under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 and amended in 1986, for preservation of their free-flowing
condition. May be classified and administered under one or more of the following categories: Wild, Scenic, and/or
Recreational.
Net Sawlog Volume
Tree or log volume suitable in size and quality to be processed into lumber. In Southeast Alaska, depending on the market,
the volume may be processed as pulp or lumber.
No-action Alternative
The most likely condition expected to exist in the future if current management direction were to continue unchanged.
Non-commercial Forest Land
Land with more than 10 percent cover of commercial tree species but not qualifying as Commercial Forest land.
Non-Forest Land
Land that has never supported forests and lands formerly forested but now developed for such nonforest uses as crops,
improved pasture, etc.
Non-interchangeable Components (NIC’s)
Increments of the suitable land base and their contribution to the allowable sale quantity (ASQ) that are established to meet
Forest Plan objectives. NIC’s are identified as parcels of land and the type of timber thereon which are differentiated for the
purpose of Forest Plan implementation. The total ASQ is derived from the sum of the timber volumes from all NIC’s. The
NIC’s cannot be substituted for each other in the timber sale program.
NIC I. Normal Operability: This is volume scheduled from suitable lands using existing logging systems. Most of
these lands are expected to be economic under projected market conditions. On average, sales from these lands have the
highest probability of offering a reasonable opportunity for a purchaser to gain a profit from his/her investment and
labor. This is the best operable ground.
NIC II. Difficult and Isolated Operability: This is volume scheduled from suitable lands that are available for harvest
using logging systems not in common use in Southeast Alaska. Most of these lands are presently considered
economically and technologically marginal. Difficult operability in the Canal Hoya Project Area would include
helicopter yarding distances greater than three-quarters of a mile. Isolated operability stands are extremely difficult and
costly to harvest, due to terrain or helicopter yarding distances greater than one mile.
Notice of Intent (NOI)
A notice printed in the Federal Register announcing that an Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared. The NOI must
describe the proposed action and possible alternatives, describe the agency’s proposed scoping process, and provide a contact
person for further information.
Objectives
The precise steps to be taken and the resources to be used in achieving goals.
Offering
A Forest Service specification of timber harvest units, subdivisions, roads, and other facilities and operations to meet the
requirements of a contract.
Old Growth
Ecosystems distinguished by old trees and related structural attributes. Old-growth forests are characterized by larger tree
size, higher accumulations of large dead woody material, multiple canopy layers, different species composition, and different
ecosystem function. The structure and function of an old-growth ecosystem will be influenced by its stand size and
landscape position and context. For the displays in this project, it is those areas typed as Volume Class 4, 5, 6, and 7.
Old-Growth Habitat
Wildlife habitat managed to maintain old-growth forest characteristics through the planning period.
Canal Hoya FEIS
Chapter 4 Lists 4-14
Lists 4
Organic Soils
Soils that contain a high percentage (generally greater than 20 to 30 percent) of organic matter throughout the soil depth.
Partial Cut
Method of harvesting trees where any number of live stems are left standing in any of various spatial patterns. Not
clearcutting. Can include seed tree, shelterwood, or other methods.
Patch
A non-linear surface area differing in appearance from its surroundings.
Peak flow
The highest discharge of water recorded over a specified period of time at a given stream location. Often thought of in terms
of spring snowmelt, summer, fall, or winter rainy season flows. Also called maximum flow.
pH
The degree of soil acidity or alkalinity.
Planning Record
A system that records decisions and activities that result from the process of developing a forest plan, revision, or significant
amendment.
Plant Association
Climax plant community type.
Plant Communities
Aggregations of living plants having mutual relationships among themselves and to their environment. More than one
individual plant community.
Population Viability
Ability of a population to sustain itself.
Precommercial Thinning
An intermediate stand treatment in even-aged stands which removes immature or undesirable trees to reduce competition so
remaining trees can more fully utilize site potential and remain in a healthy condition.
Process Group
A combination of similar channel types based on major differences in landform, gradient, and channel shapes.
Productive Old Growth
Old-growth forest capable of producing at least 20 cubic feet of wood fiber per acre per year, or having greater than 8,000
board feet per acre.
Public Participation
Meetings, conferences, seminars, workshops, tours, written comments, responses to survey questionnaires, and similar
activities designed and held to obtain comments from the public about Forest Service activities.
Record of Decision
A document separate from but associated with an Environmental Impact Statement which states the decision, identifies all
alternatives, specifying which were environmentally preferable, and states whether all practicable means to avoid
environmental harm from the alternative have been adopted, and if not, why not.
Reforestation
The natural or artificial restocking of an area with trees.
Regeneration
The process of establishing a new crop of trees on previously harvested land.
Canal Hoya FEIS
Chapter 4 Lists 4-15
Lists 4
Regional Guide
The guide developed to meet the requirements of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 as
amended. It guides all natural resource management activities and establishes management standards and guidelines for the
National Forest System lands within a given region.
Rehabilitation
Actions taken to protect or enhance site productivity, water quality, or other values for a short period of time.
Resident Fish
Fish that are not anadromous and that reside in freshwater on a permanent basis. Resident fish include non-anadromous Dolly
Varden char and cutthroat trout.
Reserve Trees
Live or dead trees that are retained for various resource objectives such as wildlife, structural diversity, etc.
Resident Fish
Fish that are not migratory and complete their entire life cycle in fresh water.
Resource values
The tangible and intangible worth of forest resources.
Responsible Official
The Forest Service employee who has the delegated authority to make a specific decision.
Revegetation
The re-establishment and development of a plant cover. This may take place naturally through the reproductive processes of
the existing flora or artificially through the direct action of reforestation or reseeding.
Revised Forest Plan
The Tongass Land Management Revision, signed in 1997. This is the 10-year land allocation plan for the Tongass National
Forest that directs and coordinates planning, the daily uses, and the activities carried out within the forest.
Riparian Area
Geographically definable area with distinctive resource values and characteristics that contain elements of aquatic and
riparian ecosystems.
Riparian Ecosystem
Land next to water where plants that are dependent on a perpetual source of water occur.
Roads
Specified: Roads usually developed and operated for long-term land and resource management purposes to constant
service.
Temporary: For National Forest timber sales, temporary roads are constructed to harvest timber on a one-time basis.
These logging roads are not considered part of the permanent Forest transportation network and have stream crossing
structures removed, erosion measures put into place, and the road closed to vehicular traffic after harvest is completed.
Roadless Area
An area of undeveloped public land within which there are no improved roads maintained for travel by means of motorized
vehicles intended for highway use.
Rotation
The planned number of years (approximately 1 00 years in Alaska) between the time that a Forest stand is regenerated and its
next cutting at a specified stage of maturity.
Salvage Cutting
Canal Hoya FEIS
Chapter 4 Lists 4-16
Lists 4
Cutting primarily to utilize dead/down material resulting from windthrow and scattered poor risk trees that will not be
marketable if left in the stand until the next scheduled harvest. Salvage sales must contain more than 50 percent by volume
of dead, insect infested, or windthrown timber
Sawlog
The portion of a tree suitable in size and quality for the production of dimension lumber collectively known as sawtimber.
Scoping Process
Early and open activities used to determine the scope and significance of a proposed action, what level of analysis is
required, what data is needed, and what level of public participation is appropriate. Scoping focuses on the issues surrounding
the proposed action, and the range of actions, alternatives, and impacts to considered in an EA or an EIS.
Scrub-Shrub Wetland
Wetlands dominated by woody vegetation less than 20 feet tall. The species include true shrubs, young trees, and trees or
shrubs that are small or stunted because of environmental conditions. In Southeast Alaska this includes forested lands where
trees are stunted because of poor soil drainage.
Second Growth
Forest growth that has become established following some disturbance such as cutting, serious fire, or insect attack; even-
aged stands that will grow back on a site after removal of the previous timber stand.
Sediment
Solid material, both mineral and organic, that is in suspension, is being transported, or has been moved from its site of origin
by air, water, gravity, or ice and has come to rest on the earth’s surface.
Sensitive Species
Plant and animal species which are susceptible or vulnerable to activity impacts or habitat alterations. Those species that
have appeared in the Federal Register as proposed for classification or are under consideration for official listing as
endangered or threatened species, that are on a non-official State list, or that are recognized by the regional forester as
needing special management to prevent placement on Federal or state lists.
Serai
Early stage of succession.
Silviculture
The branch of forestry involving the theory and practice of manipulating the establishment, composition, structure, and
growth of forest vegetation. Silviculture involves the appropriate application of ecological, social, and economic principles
of vegetative management to achieve resource management objectives and desired future forest conditions.
Silvicultural Prescription
A written technical document which provides detailed implementation direction about methods, techniques, timing, and
monitoring or vegetative treatments. A prescription is prepared after a preferred treatment alternative has been selected, but
before the project is implemented. A prescription is prepared by a silviculturist who uses interdisciplinary input to best
achieve established objectives, direction, and requirements for land managed by the USDA Forest Service.
Site Preparation
Manipulation of the vegetation or soil of an area prior to planting or seeding. The manipulation follows harvest, wildfire, or
construction in order to encourage the growth of favored species. Site preparation may include the application of herbicides,
burning, or cutting of living vegetation that competes with the favored species; tilling the soil; or burning of organic debris
(usually logging slash) that makes planting or seeding difficult.
Site Productivity
Production capability of specific areas of land.
Slash
Debris left over after a logging operation; i.e. limbs, bark, broken pieces of logs.
Smolt
Young silvery-colored salmon or trout which move from freshwater streams to saltwater.
Canal Hoya FEIS
Chapter 4 Lists 4-17
Lists 4
Snag
A standing dead tree, usually greater than 5 feet tall and 6 inches in diameter at breast height.
Soil Productivity
The capacity of a soil, in its normal environment, to produce a specific plant or sequence of plants under a specific system of
management.
Soil Resource Inventory (SRI)
An inventory of the soil resource based on landform, vegetative characteristics, soil characteristics, and management
potentials.
Spawning Area
The available area in a stream course which is suitable for the deposition and incubation of salmon or trout eggs.
Special Habitats
Structural elements of ecosystems. These may include, but are not limited to: snags, spawning gravels, fallen trees, aquatic
reefs, caves, seeps, and springs.
Species Diversity
The number of different species occurring in a location or under a similar environmental condition.
Split Yarding
The process of separating the direction of timber harvest yarding into opposite directions.
Stand (Tree Stand)
An aggregation of trees occupying a specific area and sufficiently uniform in composition, age arrangement, and condition as
to be distinguishable from the forest in adjoining areas.
Standard
A course of action or level of attainment required by the forest plan to promote achievement of goals and objectives.
State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)
State appointed official who administers Federal and State programs for cultural resources.
Stocking
The degree of occupancy of land by trees as measured by basal area or number of trees and as compared to a stocking
standard; that is, the basal area or number of trees required to fully use the growth potential of the land.
Structural Diversity
The diversity of forest structure, both vertically and horizontally, which provides for a variety of forest habitats such as logs
and multi-layered forest canopy for plants and animals.
Stumpage
The value of timber as it stands uncut in terms of dollar value per thousand board feet.
Study Area
The area of the National Forest System controlled by a decision document.
Subsistence
The term "subsistence uses" means the customary and traditional uses by rural Alaska residents of wild renewable resources
for direct, personal, or family consumption as food, shelter, fuel, clothing , tools, or transportation; for the making and selling
of handicraft articles out of non-edible byproducts of fish and wildlife resources taken for personal or family consumption;
and for customary trade.
Subsistence Use Area
Important Subsistence Use Areas include the "most reliable" and "most often hunted" categories from the Tongass Resource
Use Cooperative Survey (TRUCS) and from subsistence survey data from ADFG, the University of Alaska, and the Forest
Canal Hoya FEIS
Chapter 4 Lists 4-18
Lists 4
Service, Region 10. Important use areas include both intensive and extensive use areas for subsistence harvest of deer,
furbearers, and salmon.
Substantive Comment
A comment that provides factual information, professional opinion, or informed judgement germane to the action bemg
proposed.
Substrate
The type of material in the bed (bottom) of rivers and streams.
Succession
The ecological progression of community change over time, characterized by displacements of species leading towards a
stable climax community.
Suitable Forest Land
Commercial Forest land identified as having both the biological capability and availability to produce industrial wood
products.
Suitability
An evaluation based upon a resource’s potential use within proposed management activities.
Suitable Forest land
Forest land for which technology is available that will ensure timber production without irreversible resource damage to
soils, productivity, or watershed conditions, and for which there is reasonable assurance that such lands can be adequately
restocked, and for which there is management direction indicating that timber production is an appropriate use of that area.
Sustained Yield
The amount of renewable resources that can be produced continuously at a given intensity of management.
Swale
A slight, marshy depression in generally level land. A depression in glacial ground moraine.
Thinning
The practice of removing some of the trees in a stand so that the remaining trees will grow faster due to reduced competition
for nutrients, water, and sunlight. Thinning may also be done to change the characteristics of a stand or wildlife or other
purposes. Thinning may be done at two different stages.
Threatened Species
Plant or animal species which is likely to become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the
foreseeable future, as defmed in the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and which has been designated in the Federal Register
by the Secretary of the Interior as a threatened species. (See also, endangered species, sensitive species.)
Threshold
The point or level of activity beyond which an undesirable set of responses begins to take place within a given resource
system.
Timber Classification
Forested land is classified under each of the land management alternatives according to how it relates to be management of
the timber resource. The following are defmitions of timber classifications used for this purpose.
Nonforest: Land that has never supported forests and land formerly forested where use for timber production is
precluded by development or other uses.
Forest: Land at least 1 0-percent stocked (based on crown cover) by forest trees of any size, or formerly having had such
tree cover and not currently developed for nonforest use.
Suitable or suitable available: Land to be managed for timber production on a regulated basis.
Unsuitable: Forest land withdrawn from timber utilization by statute or administrative regulation (for example,
wilderness), or identified as inappropriate for timber production in the Forest planning process.
Commercial forest: Forest land tentatively suitable for the production of continuous crops of timber and that has not
been withdrawn.
Canal Hoya FEIS
Chapter 4 Lists 4-19
Lists 4
Timber Harvest Unit
A "Timber Harvest Unit" is an area within which Forest Service specifies for harvest all or part of the timber.
Timber Stand Improvement (TSI)
All noncommercial intermediate cutting and other treatments to improve composition, condition, and volume growth of a
timber stand.
Tongass Land Management Plan (TLMP)
See Forest Plan
Turbidity
An indicator of the amount of sediment suspended in water.
Understory
The trees and shrubs in a forest growing under the canopy or overstory.
Unsuitable
Forest land withdrawn from timber utilization by statute or administrative regulation; for example, wilderness, or identified
as not appropriate for timber production in the forest planning process.
Utility Logs
Those logs that do not meet sawlog grade but are suitable for production of firm useable pulp chips.
VAC
See Visual Absorption Capability.
Value Comparison Unit (VCU)
Areas which generally encompass a drainage basin containing one or more large stream systems; boundaries usually follow
easily recognizable watershed divides. Established to provide a common set of areas where resource inventories could be
conducted and resource interpretations made.
Viable Population
The number of individuals of a species required to ensure the long-term existence of the species in natural, self-sustaining
populations adequately distributed throughout their region.
Viewshed
An expansive landscape or panoramic vista seen from a road, marine water way, or specific viewpoint.
Visual Quality Objectives (VQO)
A desired level of scenic quality and diversity of natural features based on physical and sociological characteristics of an
area. Refers to the degree of acceptable alterations of the characteristic landscape.
Preservation: Permits ecological changes only. Applies to wilderness areas and other special classified areas.
Management activities are generally not allowed in this setting.
Retention: Provides for management activities that are not visually evident to the casual Forest visitor.
Partial Retention: Management activities remain visually subordinate to the natural landscape.
Modification: Management activities may visually dominate the characteristics landscape. However, activities
must borrow from naturally established form-line color and texture so that the visual characteristics resemble
natural occurrences within the surrounding area when viewed in the middleground distance.
Maximum Modification: Management activities may dominate the landscape but should appear as a natural
occurrence when viewed as background.
V-Notches
A deeply incised valley along some waterways that would look like a "V" from a cross-section. These abrupt changes in
terrain features are often used as harvest unit or yarding boundaries.
Canal Hoya FEIS
Chapter 4 Lists 4-20
Lists 4
Volume
Stand volume based on standing net board feet per acre by Scribner Rule.
Volume Strata
Divisions of old-growth timber volume derived from the interpreted timber type data layer (TIMTYP) and the common land
unit data layer (CLU). Three volume strata (low, medium, and high) are recognized in the Forest Plan.
Watershed
The area that contributes water to a drainage or stream. Portion of the forest in which all surface water drains to a common
point. Watersheds can range from a few tens of acres that drain a single small intermittent stream to many thousands of acres
for a stream that drains hundreds of connected intermittent and perennial streams.
Wetland
Areas that are inundated by surface or groundwater frequently enough to support vegetation that requires saturated or
seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction. Wetlands generally include: swamps, marshes, bogs, and
similar areas such as sloughs, potholes, wet meadows, river overflows, mudflats, and natural ponds.
Wilderness
Areas designated by congressional action under the 1964 Wilderness Act. Wilderness is defmed as undeveloped federal land
retaining its primeval character and influence without permanent improvements or humans habitation. Wilderness areas are
protected and managed to preserve their natural conditions, which generally appear to have been affected primarily by the
forces of nature, with the imprint of human activity substantially unnoticeable; have outstanding opportunities for solitude or
a primitive and unconfmed type of recreation; areas of at least 5,000 acres are of sufficient size to make practical their
preservation, enjoyment, and use in an unimpaired condition; and may contain features of scientific, educational, scenic, or
historical value as well as ecologic and geologic interest. In Alaska, Wilderness has been designated by ANILCA and
TTRA.
Wildlife Analysis Area (WAA)
A division of land used by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game for wildlife analysis.
Wildlife Habitat
The locality where a species may be found and where the essentials for its development and sustained existence are obtained.
Windfirm
Trees that have been exposed to the wind throughout their life and have developed a strong root system or trees that are
protected from the wind by terrain features.
Windthrow
The act of trees being uprooted by the wind. In Southeast Alaska, Sitka spruce and hemlock trees are shallow rooted and
susceptible to windthrow. There generally are three types of windthrow:
Endemic : where individual trees are blown over;
Catastrophic : where a major windstorm can destroy hundreds of acres; and
Management Related: where the clearing of trees in an area make the adjacent standing trees vulnerable to windthrow.
Winter Range
An area, usually at lower elevation, used by big game during the winter months; usually smaller and better-defined than
summer ranges.
Yarding
Hauling timber from the stump to a collection point.
Canal Hoya FEIS
Chapter 4 Lists 4-21
Lists 4
Literature Cited
Alaska Department of Fish & Game. 1991a. Strategic Plan for management of deer in Southeast Alaska 1991-1995.
Population Objectives. Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Region 1.
Alaska Department of Fish & Game. 1992. Mountain goat. Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration, Annual Performance
Report of Survey- Inventory Activities, 1 July 1991-30
June 1992. Vol. XXIII, Part VII, Project W-23-5, Study 12.0. S.M. Abbott editor. Alaska Department of Fish &
Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation.
Alaska Department of Fish & Game. 1993. Black bear. Federal Aid in Wildlife
Restoration, Annual Performance Report of Survey-Inventory Activities, 1 July
1992 - 30 June 1993. Volume XXIV, Part IV, Project W-24-1, Study 17.0. S.M.
Abbott editor. Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Division of Wildlife
Conservation.
Alaska Department ofFish&Game. 1994. Brown bear. Federal Aid in Wildlife
Restoration, Annual Performance Report of Survey-Inventory Activities, 1 July
1992 - 30 June 1994. Study 4.0. M.V. Hicks, Editor. ADFG, Division of Wildlife
Conservation
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1997. Harvest Report for WAA 1814.
Alaska Dept of Labor. May 1995. Alaska Economic Trends.
Aumiller, Larry D., Collen A. Matt. 1994. Management of McNeil River State Game Sanctuary for viewing of Brown
Bears. Bears-Their biology and management. Ninth Intemationl Conference on Bear Research and Management.
Missoula, 23-28, 1992.
Brinson, Mark M., 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Technical
Report WRP-DE-4.
Brooks, David J., and Haynes, Richard W. 1997. Timber Products Output and Timber Harvests in Alaska: Projections for
1997-2010. USD A Forest Service General Technical Report. PNW-GTR--409.
Buddington, A.F., 1921. Mineral Deposits of the Wrangell District, Mineral Resources of Alaska.
Chi, D.K., and B.K.Gilbert. 1996. Human-bear interactions at Anan Creek, Tongass National Forest, Alaska. Final Report,
USDA Forest Service Coop Agreement No. 93-265, Tongass Nat. Forest, Stikine Area.
Crocker-Bedford, C. 1990. Status of the Queen Charlotte Goshawk. USDA Forest Service.
Davis, H. 1996. Characteristics and selection of winter dens by black bears of coastal British Columbia. Simon Fraser
University.
DeGange, A. 1996. A conservation assessment for the Marbled Murrelet in Southeast Alaska. USDA Forest Service
General Tech. Report. PNW-GTR-388.
Doak, D. 1995. Source-sink models and the problem of habitat degradation: general models and applications to the
Yellowstone grizzly. Conservation Biology 9: 1370-1379.
Doerr. 1995. 1995 Pellet-group counts of Thomas Bay partial cut. USDA Forest Service, Stikine Area, Petersburg Ranger
District. File Code 2630.
Ecosystem Subcommittee, October 1, 1996. On file.
Canal Hoya FEIS
Chapter 4 Lists 4-22
Lists 4
Erickson, A.W., B.M. Hanson and J.J. Brueggeman. 1982. Black bear denning study, Mitkof Island, Alaska. FRI-UW-
8214.
Field Report on Marbled Murrelets for the Canal Hoya Timber Sale. 1997. on file
Field Report on Incidental Bird Observations for the Canal Hoya Timber Sale. 1997. on file.
Field Report on Wolves for the Canal Hoya Timber Sale. 1997. on file.
Field Report on Mountain Goats for the Canal Hoya Timber Sale. 1997. on file.
Field Report on Waterbirds for the Canal Hoya Timber Sale. 1997. on file.
Field Report on neotropical migratory bird monitoring for the Canal Hoya Timber Sale. 1997. on file.
Forest Ecosystem Management Team (FEMAT). 1993. Forest Ecosystem Management: An Ecological, Economic, and
Social Assessment. Forest Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife
Service, National Park Service, and Environmental Protection Agency.
Forest Plan. See USDA Forest Service. 1997a.
Hanley, T.A., C.T. Robbins and D.E. Spalinger. 1989. Forest Habitats and the Nutritional Ecology of the Sitka Black-tailed
Deer: A Research Synthesis with Implications for Forest Management. GTR-PNW-230. Portland OR.
Harris, L.D. 1984. The Fragmented Forest: Island Biogeography Theory and the Preservation of Biotic Diversity.
Univerisity of Chicago Press.
Herrero, S. 1978. A comparison of some features of the evolution, ecology and behavior of black and grizzly/brown bears.
Carnivore 1:7-17.
Herrero, S. 1985. Bear attacks, their causes and avoidance. Winchester press, Piscata way, N.J. 287 pp.
Herrero, Stephen. 1994. Personal communication. Options and observtion for the management of bear- human interactions
at Anan. Letter on file at the Wrangell Ranger District, Wrangell, Alaska.
Hodge, R.P. 1976. Amphibians and reptiles in Alaska, the Yukon and Northwest Territories. Alaska Northwest Publishing
Co. Anchorage, AK.
Iverson, G.C. et al. 1996. Conservation assessment for the Northern Goshawk in Southeast Alaska. USDA Forest Service
General Tech. Report. PNW-GTR-387.
Iverson, G.C. 1996. Design of small Old Growth Reserves.
Kiester, A.R. and C. Eckhardt. 1994. Review of wildlife management and conservation biology on the Tongass National
Forest: A Synthesis with Recommendations. PNW Research Station, Corvallis, OR.
Kirchoff, M.D. 1991. Status, biology, and conservation concerns for the wolf in southeast Alaska. ADFG, Division of
Wildlife Conservation.
Kruse, J. A. 1993. A guide to 810 Analyses. Unpublished Draft. Institute of Social & Economic Research. University of
Alaska Anchorage. 30 pages plus tables.
Lindzey, F.G. and E.C. Meslow. 1977. Home range and habitat use by black bears in southwestern Washington. J. Wildl.
Manage. 41:413-425.
Marks, D.K., K.J. Kuletz andN.L. Naslund. 1995. Use of boat-based surveys to determine coastal inland habitat associations
of marbled murrelets in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Northwestern Naturalist 76:63-72.
Canal Hoya FEIS
Chapter 4 Lists 4-23
Lists 4
Mattson, D. and B. Blanchard, and D. Knight. 1992. Yellowstone grizzly bear mortality, human habituation, and whitebark
pine seed crops. Journal of Wildlife Management 56 (3): 432-442.
Mattson, E. 1993. Background and proposed standards for managing grizzly bear habitat security in the Yellowstone
ecosystem.
McClellan, and D. Shackleton, 1988. Grizzly bears and resource extraction industries: effects of roads on behavior, habitat
use and demography, Journal of applied ecology 25: 457-60.
McLellan, B.N. 1990. Relationships between human industrial activity and grizzly bears. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage.
8:57-64
McLellan, B.N. and D.M. Shackleton. 1989. Immediate reactions of grizzly bears to human activities. Wildl. Soc. Bull.
17:269-274
Meehan, W.R. 1974. The Forest Ecosystem of Southeast Alaska, 4. Wildlife Habitats. USDA Forest Service. GTR-PNW-
16. 32pp.
Miller, S.D. 1990. Population Management of Bears in North America. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 8:357-373.
Miller, SuzAnne M., Sterling Miller, Daniel McCollum. 1994. Attitudes toward and relative value of Alaskan brown and
black bears to resident voters, resident hunters and nonresident hunters. Paper in draft. Alaska Department of Fish and
Game, Anchorage.
Morrison, M.L., B.G. Marcot and R.W. Mannan. 1992. Wildlife-Habitat Relationships: Concepts and Applications.
University of Wisconsin Press. Madison, WI.
Oliver, C.D. and B.C. Larson. 1990. Forest Stand Dynamics. McGraw-Hill.
Olson, Tamara L., Ronald Squibb. 1993. Brown bears of Brooks River. Lorraine Press. Salt Lake.
Pawuk, William H. and Everett J. Kissinger, 1989. Preliminary Plant Association Classification of the Stikine Area,
Tongass National Forest. USDA-Forest Service, Alaska Region, R10-TP-72.
Powell, R.A. 1983. Ursus americanus, Black bear IN: Endangered, threatened, and Rare Fauna of North Carolina. Part I. Re-
evaluation of the Mammals. Mary Kay Clark (Ed.). Occasional Papers of the North Carolina BiologicalSurvey 1987-3.
Ratti, J.T. and K.P. Reese. 1988. Preliminary test of the ecological trap hypothesis. Journal Wildlife Management. Vol.
52(3): 484-491.
Rogers. L.L. 1977. Social relationships, movements, and population dynamics of black bears in northeastern Minnesota.
Ph.D. Thesis. Univ. Minnesota, St. Paul. 194 pp.
Ruggiero, L.F. , K.Aubry, S.Buskirk, L.J. Lyon and W.J. Zielinski. 1994. The scientific basis for conserving forest
carnivores: American marten, Fisher, Lynx, and Wolverine— in the Western United States. USDA Forest Service. GTR
RM-254.
Reynolds, D.G. and J.J. Beecham. 1980. Home range activities and reproduction of black bears in west-central Idaho.
Pages 181-190 in C.J. Martinka and K.L. McArthur (eds) Bears: Their biology and management. Bear Biol. Assoc. Conf.
Ser. 3.
Schoen, J.W., L.R. Beier, J.W. Lentfer, and L.J. Johnson. 1987. Denning ecology of brown bears on Admiralty and
Chichagof Islands, Southeast Alaska, and implications for management. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 7:293-304.
Schoen, J.W. 1990. Bear habitat management: a review and future perspective. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 8:143-
154.
Schoen, J.W. , R.W. Flynn, L.H.Suring, K. Titus, L.R. Beier. 1994. Habitat capability model for brown bear in southeast
Alaska. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 9(1): 327-337.
Canal Hoya FEIS
Chapter 4 Lists 4-24
Lists 4
Spencer, W.D., R.H. Barrett, and W.J. Zielinski. 1987. Seasonal rest-site preference of pine martens in the northern Sierra
Nevada. J.Wildlife Management 5 1(3):61 6-621.
Suring, L.H, E.J. DeGayner, R.W. Fynn, M.D. Kirchoff, J.W. Schoen, and L.D. Shea. 1992. Habitat capability model for
sitka black-tailed deer in southeast Alaska: winter habitat. USDA forest Service, Alaska Region.
Suring, L.H. et. al. 1993a. Habitat capability model for black bear in Southeast Alaska (Version 4.1).
Suring, L.H. et. al. 1993b. A proposed strategy for maintaining well-distributed, viable populations of wildlife associated
with old-growth forests in southeast Alaska, Review Draft. Juneau, AK.
Swanston, D.N. 1969. Mass wasting in coastal Alaska. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, U.S.
ForestService, Res Paper NPNW-83.
Swanston, D.N. 1989. A preliminary analysis of landslide response to timber management in Southeast Alaska: An
extended abstract in Proceedings of Watershed 1989. U.S. Forest Service, Alaska Region R-10-MB-77. Juneau, Alaska.
Timber Supply and Demand 1994, USDA Forest Service, March 1995
Titus, K., and L.R. Beier. 1991. Population and habitat ecology of brown bears on Admiralty and Chichagof Islands.
Alaska Dept. Fish and Game. Fed. Aid in Wildl. Restor. Prog. Rep. Proj. W-23-4. Juneau. 32 pp.
Titus, Kimberly, John N. Trent, Larry D. Aumiller, John H. Westlund, and Marilyn Sigman 1993. Managing Brown bears as
both game and nongame: past experience and future prospects. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Juneau.
Titus, K. et al. 1994. Northern Goshawk ecology and habitat relationships on the Tongass National Forest. Annual Project
Report.
Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). See USDA Forest Service. 1997a.
USDA Forest Service. 1991. Queen Charlotte Goshawk (Accipter gentilis laingi) Status: Report for RIO Sensitive Species
Consideration.
USDA Forest Service. 1991. Tongass land management plan revision. Supplement to the draft environmental impact
statement. Alaska Region R10-MB-149.
USDA Forest Service. 1996. Anan Management Standards Environmental Assessment. USDA Forest Service, Tongass
National Forest, Stikine Area. R10-MB-317.
USDA Forest Service. 1996. Tongass Land Management Plan Revision, Draft EIS (Draft Revised Forest Plan).
USDA Forest Service. 1997a. Forest Plan. (Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan). 1997. Alaska Region R 10-
MB-338dd.
USDA Forest Service. 1997b. Tongass Land Management Plan Revision, Record of Decision. 1997. Alaska Region R10-
MB-338a.
USDA Forest Service. 1997c. Anan Bear Telemetry Report (Draft), on file.
USFWS. 1996. Field Investigation Report, Canal/Hoya Timber Sale, Alternative Log Transfer Facilities. Unpublished Field
Report.
USFWS. 1997. Field Investigation Report, Proposed Log Transfer Facilities, For the USDA Forest Service. Unpublished
Field Report.
ilcox, L. 1996. Presentation to the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee, Yellowstone
Canal Hoya FEIS
Chapter 4 Lists 4-25
Lists 4
Index
A
access 2-6-2-7, 2-10-2-1 1, 2-13, 2-15, 2-19-2-22, 2-24,
2- 27, 2-30, 2-33, 2-37, 3-11, 3-35, 3-37, 3-43, 3-49, 3-53,
3- 59-3-60, 3-63, 3-66, 3-68-3-70, 3-72, 3-75, 3-88, 3-92,
3-95, 3-101-3-103, 3-108, 3-110, 3-113, 3-115, 3-119,
3-121-3-122
Alaska Coastal Management 2-9, 2-14, 3-121
Alaska Heritage Resource Survey 3-123
alder 3-129
alpine 3-1, 3-88, 3-100, 3-123, 3-128-3-129
alternative development 2- 1 6
alternatives eliminated 2-26
Anan 2-2, 2-7, 2-10-2-11, 2-16-2-19, 2-21, 2-24, 2-30,
2- 35, 2-37-38, 3-15, 3-23, 3-37, 3-39-3-41, 3-43, 3-45,
3- 49, 3-51-3-52, 3-56, 3-64, 3-66, 3-68-3-70, 3-72,
3-82-3-83, 3-86, 3-88-3-89, 3-99, 3-110, 3-117
ANILCA 1-14,3-121
ANCSA 1-14
B
beach fringe 3-83, 3-92, 3-94, 3-99, 3-103, 3-124
biodiversity 3-74
black bear 2-19, 2-22, 38, 3-43, 3-49, 3-51-3-56,
3-59-3-60, 3-63, 3-66, 3-68, 3-71-3-72, 3-74, 3-94, 3-99,
3-122
blowdown 3-99
brown bear 2-20, 2-22, 38, 3-43, 3-46, 3-49, 3-51, 3-53,
3-56, 3-58, 3-60-3-62, 3-64, 3-66, 3-68-3-70, 3-122
buffer 2-20, 2-22, 3-16, 3-56, 3-58-3-59, 3-64, 3-71,
3-83, 3-88, 3-92, 3-95, 3-97, 3-102, 3-110, 3-124
c
cable yarding 2-2 1 , 2-24, 2-27, 2-30, 2-33, 2-37, 3-26,
3-40, 3-126
Canal Creek 38, 3-20, 3-27, 3-84, 3-88, 3-1 17, 3-127,
3-129-3-130
cave 1-14,3-58,3-130
cedar 3-52, 3-57, 3-119, 3-124, 3-128
CEQ 1-1
CFR 1-1,2-1,3-13,3-124
Class I 3-1, 3-108, 3-1 10-3-11 1, 3-113
Class II 3-1, 3-108, 3-1 10, 3-1 12, 3-131
Class III 3-1,3-113-3-114,3-116
Class IV 3-112,3-116
Clean Air Act 1-14,3-131
C lean Water Act 1-14
clearcut 3-56, 3-63, 3-82, 3-99
commercial fishing 3-5, 3- 1 08, 3- 1 1 7
connectivity 3-83
corridor 3-74, 3-83, 3-88-3-89, 3-94, 3-127
Coastal Zone Management Act 1-14
Council on Environmental Quality 1 - 1 ,2- 1 , 2-39
crab 3-117,3-128
cultural resources 3 - 1 20, 3 - 1 23
D
deer 2-19,2-22,3-50,3-79,3-82-83,3-86,
3-88,3-94,3-95,3-99
3-101-102,3-104,3-106,3-122, 3-129
diameter limit 2-19, 2-22, 2-24, 2-26-2-27, 2-29-2-30,
2- 32-2-33, 2-35, 3-26, 3-34, 3-57
dispersal 3-75, 3-83, 3-96, 3-103
disturbance 2-7, 2-13, 2-19, 2-22, 2-35, 3-17, 3-20,
3- 39, 3-46, 3-53, 3-56-3-57, 3-59, 3-63, 3-71, 3-75, 3-79,
3-88, 3-90, 3-100, 3-104, 3-113, 3-115, 3-117,
3-119-3-120, 3-126, 3-129-3-130
diversity 2-18, 2-27, 3-51, 3-74, 3-79, 3-82, 3-86, 3-90,
3-103,3-127
E
eagle 3-72, 3-97, 3-99
Eagle River 3-66, 3-70, 3-83, 3-89, 3-101, 3-110, 3-117
economics 2-10,3-1,3-5,3-11,3-131
endangered species 3-96
endemic 3-74
erosion 3-120, 3-125-3-126
estuary 2-12, 2-17, 2-20, 3-1, 3-49-3-50, 3-56, 3-74,
3-79, 3-83, 3-90, 3-93, 3-95, 3-97, 3-99, 3-102, 3-110,
3-117, 3-119, 3-129
F
fish habitat 2-20, 2-23, 2-37-38, 3-43, 3-56, 3-59, 3-108,
3-110-3-114
fish passage 3-111
fish streams 38, 3-58-3-59, 3-108, 3-1 10-3-1 11, 3-124
floodplain 1-14,3-78, 3-102, 3-112-3-113
forested wetland 3-128-3-129
fragmentation 3-75, 3-78, 3-89, 3-91-3-92, 3-97, 3-101
freshwater 3-43, 3-56, 3-59, 3-91, 3-108, 3-121
G
goshawk 3-75, 3-78, 3-86, 3-89-3-91, 3-94, 3-97, 3-99
H
habitat capability 2-22, 38, 3-51, 3-53, 3-56, 3-59, 3-63,
3-66, 3-79, 3-83, 3-94-3-95, 3-99-3-103, 3-122
habitat capability models 3-99-3- 1 00, 3- 1 03
habitat suitability 3-51, 3-58, 3-75, 3-90, 3-99
hazard soils 2-13,3-1
helicopter 2-2, 2- 1 8-2-22, 2-24, 2-26-2-27, 2-29-2-30,
2- 32-2-33, 2-35, 2-37-38, 3-8-3-9, 3-11-3-12, 3-26, 3-30,
3- 34, 3-39-3-40, 3-42, 3-57, 3-97, 3-100, 3-1 19-3-120,
3-126
herring 3-79,3-117
Hoya Creek 2-1-2-2, 2-13, 2-17, 2-20, 38, 3-20, 3-31,
3-59, 3-78, 3-83, 3-88, 3-93, 3-101-3-102, 3-108,
3-110-3-111,3-113-3-114
humpback whale 3-89
Canal Hoya FEIS
Chapter 4 Lists 4-26
hunting 2-6, 2-10-2-11, 2-17, 2-20, 3-5, 3-15, 3-37,
3-40, 3-42-3-43, 3-49, 3-60, 3-63, 3-66, 3-68, 3-70, 3-72,
3-82, 3-88, 3-94-3-95, 3-101-3-103, 3-122, 3-124
I
issues 1-1 ,2- 1 -2-2, 2-5, 2-8-2-9, 2-13, 2-16, 2-37, 2-39,
3-11
J
jobs 2-22,2-37,3-6,3-7
L
landslides 3-125
logging camp 3-70, 3-119
LTF 2-2, 2-11, 2-15, 2-17, 2-21-2-22, 2-24, 2-27, 2-30,
2- 33, 2-37-38, 3-9, 3-13, 3-30, 3-35, 3-37, 3-39-3-40,
3- 64, 3-96-3-97, 3-102, 3-117, 3-119-3-120
M
management indicator species 3-43, 3-95, 3-97, 3-99,
3-104
marbled murrelet 3-91-3-92
marine 3-15, 3-35, 3-43, 3-89, 3-108, 3-1 17, 3-119,
3-121-3-122, 3-129
marten 3-82, 3-86, 3-88, 3-99, 3-103-3-104, 3-107,
3-122-3-123
mass wasting 3-114, 3-125
mid-market 3-7, 3-9-3-10
mitigation 1-14,2-16-2-18, 2-37, 3-39, 3-56, 3-83, 3-98,
3-101, 3-103, 3-110, 3-113, 3-119-3-121
mitigation measures 1-14, 2-16, 2-37, 3-113
monitoring 2-24, 2-27, 2-30, 2-33, 3-40, 3-68, 3-111,
3-122
motorized 2-17, 2-21, 3-37, 3-1 10, 3-122
mountain goat 3-43, 3-74, 3-83, 3-88, 3-94, 3-99-3-101,
3-122
N
National Historic Preservation Act 1-14,3-124
NEPA 1-1,1-14,2-1,2-14,3-13
NFMA 1-14
o
old growth forest 3-75, 3-77, 3-90, 3-92, 3-94, 3-97,
3-101,3-120
old growth reserve 2-5, 2-10, 2-12, 2-19-2-20, 3-56,
3-74, 3-83, 3-86-3-88, 3-97, 3-100, 3-102, 3-1 10, 3-115,
3-130
oversteepened slopes 3-126
p
partial cut 3-99
patch 3-75, 3-100-3-101, 3-103
preferred alternative 3-121
project Area 1 -2-3,2- 1-2-7, 2-10-2-1 1, 2-13, 2-16, 2-18,
2- 20-2-22, 2-27, 2-35, 38, 3-1-3-2, 3-7, 3-11-3-12,
3- 15-3-17, 3-19-3-20, 3-23, 3-37, 3-39-3-40, 3-43, 3-46,
3-48-3-50, 3-52-3-53, 3-66, 3-68-3-70. 3-74-3-75,
3-78-3-79, 3-82-3-83, 3-88-3-91, 3-93-3-95, 3-97, 3-99,
3-102, 3-104, 3-108, 3-110, 3-112-3-115, 3-117,
3-119-3-123, 3-125-3-130
proposed action 2-1, 2-5, 2-8, 2-10, 2-39, 3-89,
3-121-3-122
public comments 3-1, 3-108, 3-117
purpose and need 3-115
R
rearing habitat 3-110
recreation 2-2, 2-6, 2-11, 2-13-2-14, 2-16, 2-22, 3-15,
3-35, 3-37, 3-39, 3-42-3-43, 3-46, 3-121
retention 2-7, 2-11, 2-22, 2-27, 2-33, 2-37, 3-16-3-17,
3-20, 3-26, 3-30, 3-34-3-35, 3-56-3-57, 3-79, 3-82-3-83,
3-103
riparian 2-12, 2-20, 3-1, 3-50, 3-56, 3-58-3-59, 3-70,
3-78, 3-83, 3-88, 3-90, 3-92, 3-95, 3-97, 3-99,
3-102-3-103, 3-108, 3-110, 3-112-3-113, 3-115-3-116
river otter 3-74, 3-99, 3-123
road 2-1-2, 2-5-6, 2-82-9, 2-11, 2-13, 2-15, 2-17,
2- 20-22, 2-24, 2-27, 2-30, 2-33, 2-37-38, 3-8-3-12, 3-15,
3- 26, 3-30, 3-34-3-35, 3-37-3-40, 3-43, 3-53, 3-56, 3-58,
3-60, 3-64, 3-66, 3-68, 3-70-3-72, 3-88, 3-92, 3-94-3-95,
3-97, 3-99, 3-101, 3-103-3-104, 3-108. 3-1 10, 3-1 13,
3-1 15-3-116, 3-119-3-121, 3-124, 3-126-3-127. 3-129
s
salmon 2-20, 3-46, 3-50, 3-56, 3-59, 3-63, 3-94, 3-108.
3-110, 3-112, 3-117
scenery 2-16, 3-15, 3-20, 3-42-3-43
scenic 2-6, 2-1 1, 2-14, 3-15, 3-20, 3-131
scoping 2-5, 2-8, 2-10, 3-1
second growth 3-58,3-90,3-130
sediment 3-108, 3-11 1-3-112, 3-114, 3-117, 3-120,
3-128
sensitive species 3-89
shellfish 3-108,3-117,3-122
shrimp 3-117
Slope 2-7, 2-13, 3-1, 3-17, 3-78, 3-90-3-91, 3-100,
3-114, 3-126, 3-128
snags 3-58, 3-79, 3-82
soil 2-7, 2-9, 2-13, 2-17, 2-21, 3-1, 3-51, 3-120, 3-125,
3-127-3-128, 3-130
soil erosion 3-126
soil productivity 3-125-3-126
sort yard 3-120
specified road 2-17, 2-24, 2-33, 38, 3-9-3-10, 3-12,
3-38, 3-126
sport fishing 3-43,3-117
spotted frog 3-95-3-96
standards and guidelines 1-14
steelhead 3-42, 3-108
stream crossings 3-108, 3-110-3-11 1,3-121
Canal Hoya FEIS
Chapter 4 - Lists 4-27
subsistence 2-7,2-9,2-13
succession 3-79
T
temporary road 2-2, 2-15, 2-18, 2-24, 2-30, 2-37-38,
3-S-3-9, 3-12, 3-38, 3-113, 3-126
threatened species 3-92
timber 1-10,1-14
timber harvest 1-4, 2-2, 2-5-2-7, 2-10-2-1 1, 2-13-2-14,
2- 17, 2-19, 2-21-2-22, 2-37, 3-1, 3-7, 3-12-3-13, 3-74,
3- 88, 3-91, 3-95, 3-102, 3-108, 3-110, 3-117, 3-120,
3-124-3-125, 3-128
timber economics 1-10
TLMP 3-123
tourism 2-7, 2-11, 2-35, 3-5, 3-15, 3-39, 3-46
travel corridors 3-84, 3-88, 3-100, 3-121
trumpeter swan 3-89
TTRA 1-14,3-110
u
upper Hoya 3-79, 3-83, 3-88, 3-94, 3-100, 3-113, 3-115
w
water quality 1-11,3-108,3-111
waterfowl 3-42, 3-79, 3-88, 3-95, 3-117
watershed sensitivity 3-114
western hemlock 3-128
wetland 1-14, 2-8,2-13-2-14,3-1,3-88, 3-95-96,3-125,
3-127-130
wildlife habitat 3-43, 3-73, 3-75, 3-78, 3-86, 3-1 15,
3-127
wind 3-56, 3-75, 3-82
windfirm 3-97
windthrow 3-82,3-113
Canal Hoya FEIS
Chapter 4 - Lists 4-28
Appendix A
Unit Cards and
Extra Alternative Maps
Appendix A
Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
Harvest Prescriptions
The prescriptions provided on the unit cards are intended to meet the objectives listed on the cards. For instance, the
visual quality objective as listed in the Forest Plan for the units is modification. We have tried to exceed this objective
(units less apparent) by unit shape and the amount of structure left standing in the units. Leaving trees standing in the
units, especially low value (grade 3, 7 and 8) trees will help both the wildlife and visual resource.
Once the units are laid out and cruised, the way individual trees are left in a unit may be changed to better meet the
objectives listed for the unit. For example, a unit with visual concerns and a diameter limit prescription that does not
meet the objective because the majority of the trees are within the same diameter class could be changed to individual
tree marking or to leaving clumps of reserve trees. In another unit with a prescription of reserves we may discover that
our objectives may be better met by switching to diameter limits, depending upon the objectives and stand structure.
The following descriptions describe what a unit will look like after harvest using the various prescriptions and yarding
methods. Standard contract specifications require that trees larger than 9 inches in diameter at 4.5 feet above ground
(dbh) be cut and removed. Trees smaller than contract specifications may be cut. Once a tree is cut the logs must be
removed if they are larger than or equal to the minimum piece size. Current minimum piece size is 12 feet long and 6
inches small end diameter. Some standing trees smaller than contract specifications are damaged during falling and
yarding. More damage occurs with cable yarding than with helicopter yarding. The amount of damage and number of
trees destroyed is determined by many factors, including, but not limited to, slope, size of trees removed, fallers skill,
yarding corridors, and location of trees relative to other trees. If cable yarding is used the trees smaller than 9 inches dbh
and over 4-5 feet tall have a high probably of being knocked over as the cable yarding rows are changed. Most trees
under 4 feet tall are not destroyed when the cables are moved. If helicopter yarding is used, most of the tress smaller
than the contract specifications are left standing. We learned from the Campbell Sale that the amount of falling and
yarding damage to the trees left with helicopter yarding can be kept at acceptable levels by using diameter limits. In this
sale the objectives for the various resources objectives will be met by using one of the following silvicultural systems:
Patch Cut
A patch cut is an opening approximately 2 to 8 acres in size. All trees meeting the contract specifications will be cut
and removed. Some of the remaining trees will be destroyed or damaged.
Clearcut with reserves
A clearcut is a larger opening greater than 8 acres. A clearcut removes all merchantable trees meeting the contract
specifications. Trees smaller than contract specifications are usually left standing by the fallers. If yarding is done by
cable, most of the trees left by the fallers smaller than 9 inches at dbh and over 4-5 feet tall are usually knocked over as
cable rows are changed. Some trees under 4 feet tall are not destroyed by the cable row changes. If helicopter yarding is
used most trees smaller than the contract specifications are left standing. More trees are left standing in the unit by
leaving reserves. Reserves leave patches or groups of trees within the unit boundary and can be accomplished with cable
or helicopter yarding. Reserves can either leave all trees in the area standing or a range of sizes can be harvested.
Buffers left along streams or on oversteepened slopes are examples of reserves in a unit.
Partial Harvest
Units are larger than 8 acres and only a portion of the trees are harvested. The number of trees left standing is
determined by the diameter limit and size of the trees in the unit. Diameter limits can vary between units and species of
tree within in a unit and are selected to meet the management objectives. Diameter limits enable the harvest of trees
larger than a certain size and can also leave trees smaller than a certain size. This method is usually only effective with
helicopter yarding. Units harvested with diameter limits usually have trees distributed throughout the unit, but may look
like patches or groups have been left. We chose not to list specific diameter limits until the units are laid out and
cruised. This will enable us to choose a size that best accomplishes the objectives.
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
CANAL HOYA Timber Sale Unit Number _1 In Alternatives 1. 3. & 4
Harvest method Helicopter
Total Acres 22 Volume per Acre 22.4 MBF Total Unit Volume 493 MBF
UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Unit designed to meet the visual quality object of partial retention. Boundary stays off of steep cliffs to southeast
side of the unit. Northwest boundary skirts the edge of some old blowdown.
Stand Management Objectives:
Silvicultural Prescription:
Regeneration Method:
Possible Future Treatments:
Future stand to have several canopy layers. Stand will be
predominately even aged. Trees are being retained to meet the visual
quality objective and to provide structure. Retain trees until next
rotation.
Harvest unit while leaving a mix of species, about 10% of the total
trees per acre will be left in Alternatives 1 & 4. About 20% of the total
trees per acre will be left in Alternative 3. Diameter limit will meet
stand management objectives.
Natural.
Release, possible planting, and pre-commercial thinning.
RESOURCE CONCERNS & MITIGATION
Water Quality Fisheries
Concern: Class IV stream in unit and along southwestern boundary.
Mitigation: Streamcourse protection accomplished by helicopter yarding.
Soils
Concern: Oversteepened slopes adjacent to unit.
Mitigation: Avoid harvest on steep slopes on northwest and southeast side of unit. Soil
disturbance minimized by helicopter yarding.
Wildlife
Concern: Connection between large forested blocks.
Mitigation: Leave trees in the unit and the presence of the beach buffer.
Visuals
Concern: Appearance of unit from Bradfield Canal.
Mitigation: Leave trees in unit.
Special Contract Concerns
None
Appendix A ■ 2
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
UNIT 1
ALTERNATIVE 1, 3 & 4
22 ACRES
Proposed Roads
Class I Streams
Class II Streams
Class III Streams
Class IV Streams
Powerline
E Proposed LTF Sites
HCi,MM3,... Channel Types
0 500
★ Eagle Nest Tree
E^S***1 Proposed cut unit
Adjacent proposed units
foVoVc>d TTRA Buffers
• 1/4 Mile Eagle Nest Timing Buffers
PRESCRIPTIONS
CC = Clearcut
DD = Diameter Limits
PP = Patch Cut
HARVEST SYSTEMS
C = Cable
H = Helicopter
1000 feet
Scale i6 1 inch = 0.09 miles
Last Updated: April 02, 1 998
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix A ■ 3
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
CANAL HOYA Timber Sale Unit Number 2 In Alternatives 1, 2, & 3
Harvest method Cable
Total Acres J_8 Volume per Acre 19.8 MBF Total Unit Volume 356 MBF
UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Unit designed to harvest trees with cable yarding system.
Stand Management Objectives:
Silvicultural Prescription:
Regeneration Method:
Possible Future Treatments:
Future stand to have several canopy layers. Stand will have at
least two different age classes. Trees are being retained to meet
the visual quality objective and to provide structure. Retain trees
until next rotation. About 25% will be left.
Clearcut with clumps of trees left in the unit.
Natural.
Release, possible planting, and pre-commercial thinning.
RESOURCE CONCERNS & MITIGATION
Water Quality Fisheries
Concern:
Mitigation:
Soils
Wildlife
Concern:
Mitigation:
Concern:
Mitigation:
No concerns.
Harvest on oversteepened slopes.
Adjust boundaries to avoid harvest on slopes steeper than 72% slope.
Dispersal of small mammals. Loss of large trees for nesting/denning.
Fragmentation.
Place reserves within the unit to maintain structural diversity.
Visuals
Concern: Appearance of unit from Bradfield Canal.
Mitigation: Leave trees in clumps.
Special Contract Concerns:
None
Appendix A ■ 4
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
Proposed Roads
Class I Streams
Class LI Streams
Class III Streams
Class IV Streams
Powerline
E Proposed LTF Sites
HC1.MM3,... Channel Types
o 500
Scale i6 1 inch = 0.09 miles
1000 feet
★ Eagle Nest Tree
Proposed cut unit
Adjacent proposed units
tcC0CC>3 TTRA Buffers
1/4 Mile Eagle Nest Timing Buffers
PRESCRIPTIONS
CC = Clearcut
DD = Diameter Limits
PP = Patch Cut
HARVEST SYSTEMS
C = Cable
H = Helicopter
Last Updated: April 02, 1 998
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix A ■ 5
UNIT 2
ALTERNATIVE 1, 2 & 3
18 ACRES
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
CANAL HOY A Timber Sale Unit Number 2 In Alternative 4
Harvest method Helicopter
Total Acres 26_ Volume per Acre 18.3 MBF Total Unit Volume 477 MBF
UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Unit designed to meet the visual quality object of partial retention. Unit modified to buffer Class III streams.
Stand Management Objectives: Future stand to have several canopy layers. Trees are being
retained to meet the visual quality objective and to provide
structure. Retain trees until next rotation. Harvest unit while
leaving a mix of species, retaining about 25%.
Diameter limit.
Natural.
Release, possible planting and pre-commercial thinning.
Silvicultural Prescription:
Regeneration Method:
Possible Future Treatments:
RESOURCE CONCERNS & MITIGATION
Water Quality Fisheries
Concern: Class III streams (HC6) tributary to Hardrock Creek. Class IV streams in
Unit.
Mitigation: No harvest within notch of Class III streams. Helicopter yarding protects
Class IV streams.
Soils
Concern: Avoid steep slopes and V-notches.
Mitigation: Full suspension accomplished by helicopter yarding.
Wildlife
Concern: Travel corridor to beach.
Mitigation: Structure maintained with leave trees and stream buffers.
Visuals
Concern: Appearance of Unit from Bradfield Canal.
Mitigation: Diameter limit will leave trees in unit.
Special Contract Concerns:
Appendix A ■ 6
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
Proposed Roads
Class I Streams
Class II Streams
Class III Streams
Class IV Streams
Powerline
E Proposed LTF Sites
HCi,MM3,... Channel Types
0 500
★ Eagle Nest Tree
Proposed cut unit
Adjacent proposed units
/ > V V o
1/4 Mile Eagle Nest Timing Buffers
PRESCRIPTIONS
CC = Clearcut
DD = Diameter Limits
PP = Patch Cut
HARVEST SYSTEMS
C = Cable
H = Helicopter
1000 feet
Scale is 1 inch = 0.09 miles
Last Updated: April 02, 1998
UNIT 2 ALTERNATIVE 4 26 ACRES
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix A ■ 7
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
CANAI. HOYA Timber Sale Unil Number _3_ In Alternative I
Harvest method C able and I lelieopter
Total Acres d() Volume per acre 1 6 MBF Total Unit Volume 651 MBF
UNIT DEVELOPMENT
I Iml designed to harvest trees with cable lor larger block and helicopter yarding of patches. Unit
stays olT overslcepened soils . Unit has stream along west edge. Hackline is leathered into
remaining limber. Hatchs may nol he shaped or located exactly as shown .Much of the unit is not
visible from Brndfield ( 'anal.
Stand Management Objectives:
Silvicultural Prescription
Regeneration Method
Possible Pul urc Treatments:
Unit with 10% retention in cable portion and 5% retention
in (he helicopter portion. Unit will be predominately even
aged with I wo canopy levels.
Clearcul with retention. Patch cuts will leave trees smaller
than 9 inches.
Natural
Release, possible planting, pre-commercial thinning,
and pruning.
rp:sourcp:concp:rns & mitigation
Water Quality Fisheries
Concern; Stream along west side of unit.
Mitigation Provide protection for stream.
Soils
Concern:
Mitigation:
Wildlife
Concern
Mitigation
Visuals
Concern Appearance of unit from Bradfield Canal.
Mitigation Retention in unit and diameter limit on upper portion of unit should
accomplish the visual objective.
Special Contract Concerns
Unsure protection of stream.
Appendix A ■ 8
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
UNIT 3 ALTERNATIVE 1 40 ACRES
Proposed Roads
Class I Streams
Class II Streams
Class III Streams
Class IV Streams
Powerline
E Proposed LTF Sites
hci,mm3,... Channel Types
o 1000
Ar Eagl e Nest Tree
Proposed cut unit
Adjacent proposed units
TTRA Buffers
1/4 Mile Eagle Nest Timing Buffers
PRESCRIPTIONS
CC = Clearcut
DD = Diameter Limits
PP = Patch Cut
HARVEST SYSTEMS
C = Cable
H = Helicopter
2000 feet
Scale ie 1 inch = 0.18 milee
Last Updated: April ) 0, 1 998
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix A ■ 9
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
CANAL HO YA Timber Sale Unit Number _3_ In Alternatives 2 & 3
I lai vest method Cable Tol Acs 4K Volume per acrel 8.0 MBP Total Unit Volume 863MBP’
IJNTT DHVELOPMliNT
1 1ml designed lo y;ird most trees wit 1 1 cable;. I Jnil stays oil oversteepened soils . Unit is split by
stream. Much ol unit is not visible from It rad field Canal. Hackline is leathered into remaining
timber.
Stand Management Objectives:
Silvicultural Prescription
Regeneration Method
Possible future treatments:
I Jml with 10% retention
( 'lenient with retention.
Natural
Release, possible planting, pre-commercial thinning
and pruning.
Resource ( ’( )N( 'PR NS MITICATION
Stream along west side of unit.
Provide protection for buffer.
none.
Wildlife
( Concern
Mitigation
Water Quality Fisheries
( ’oncern
Mitigation
Soils
Concern:
Mitigation
Visuals
Concern Appearance of unit from Brad field Canal.
Mitigation Retention in unit.
Special Contract Concerns: I insure protection of stream buffers
Appendix AH 10
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
Proposed Roads
Class I Streams
Class II Streams
Class III Streams
Class IV Streams
Powerline
E Proposed LTF Sites
hci,mm3,... Channel Types
o 1000 2000 foot
IMBCZZH^BMCZZIZ]
Scale is 1 inch « 0.18 miles
Eagle Nesi Tree
Proposal cut unit
Adjacent proposal units
TTRA Buffers
1/4 Mile Eagle Nest Timing Buffers
PRESCRIPTIONS
CC = Clcarcut
DD = Diameter Limits
PP - Patch Cut
HARVEST SYSTEMS
C = ('able
H lleliatpler
Lett Updated April 10, 1998
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix ABU
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
CANAL HOYA Timber Sale Unit Number 3 In Alternative _4
Harvest method Helicopter
Total Acres 98_ Volume per Acre 16.7 MBF Total Unit Volume 1,635 MBF
UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Unit designed to meet the visual quality object of partial retention. Much of the unit is not visible from Bradfield
Canal.
Stand Management Objectives: Harvest Unit while leaving a mix of species, retaining about 25%.
Silvicultural Prescription: Diameter limit.
Regeneration Method: Natural.
Possible Future Treatments: Release, possible planting, pre-commercial thinning.
RESOURCE CONCERNS & MITIGATION
Water Quality/ Fisheries
Concern:
Mitigation:
Class III streams (HC5) tributary to Survey Creek. Class IV streams in unit.
No harvest within notch of Class HI streams. Helicopter yarding provides
streamcourse protection.
Soils
Concern:
Mitigation:
Avoid steep slopes and V-notches.
Full suspension accomplished by helicopter yarding.
Wildlife
Concern:
Mitigation:
Size of unit could create dispersal problems.
25% retention of existing forest structure. Scatter reserves to maintain
structure throughout and allow dispersal.
Visuals
Concern:
Mitigation:
Appearance of Unit from Bradfield Canal.
Leave reserve trees in unit.
Special Contract Concerns: None
Appendix A ■ 12 Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
★ Eagle Nest Tree
Proposed cut unit
Adjacent proposed units
—
cVoVc>d TTRA Buffers
1/4 Mile Eagle Nest Timing Buffers
PRESCRIPTIONS
CC = Clearcut
DD = Diameter Limits
PP = Patch Cut
HARVEST SYSTEMS
C = Cable
H = Helicopter
Last Updated: April 1 0, 1 998
UNIT 3
ALTERNATIVE 4
98 ACRES
E Proposed LTF Sites
HCi,MM3,... Channel Types
0 1000 2000 feet
■^■EZZUMB^ZZZZI
Scale is 1 inch = 0.18 mile6
Proposed Roads
Class I Streams
Class II Streams
Class III Streams
Class IV Streams
Powerline
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix A ■ 13
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
CANAL IIOYA Timber Sale Unit Number _4_ In Alternatives 1,2, 3,4
Harvest method I Iclicoplei
'Total Acres 32 Volume pei Acre 23.7 MBP Total Unit Volume 757 MBL
l JNIT DLVLLOPMLNT
l lint designed to harvest trees with a helicopter. Unit modified to buffer Class III stream. Unit
meets the visual quality objective of partial retention. Hast side of unit dropped for forested
wetlands. A portion of the unit was expanded to the south to avoid isolating timber. Unit avoids
hazardous soils in the east portion of northern half of unit.
Stand Management Objectives:
structure.
Silvicultural Prescription:
Regeneration Method:
Possible future treatments:
future stand to have several canopy layers, 'frees are being
retained to meet the visual quality objective and to provide
Retain a mix of about 10% of the trees until next rotation.
Diameter Limit. Harvest trees larger than 14-16 inches,
frees left shall be retained until Ibc next rotation.
Natural.
Release, possible planting and pre commercial thinning.
khs( )UK( i ( :onc i ;r ns <v m me ; at ion
Water Quality f isheries
C ’on corn:
Mitigation:
Class III stream is HC6 tributary to Survey Creek.
No harvest within notch.
Soils
( Concern:
Mitigation:
Avoid steep slopes.
Locate unit to avoid harvest on slopes greater than 72%.
Wildlife
Concern:
Mitigation:
Mountain goal winter range.
Reserve trees provide some snow interception. Avoidance of
high hazard areas protects existing habitat.
Visuals
Concern:
Mitigation:
boundaries.
Unit can be seen from North side of the Bradfield Canal near Miners
( Jreek.
Reserve trees help unit to appear more natural and breakup straight
Special Contract Concerns: None
Appendix A ■ 14
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
Proposed Roads
Class I Streams
Class II Streams
Class III Streams
Class IV Streams
Powcrline
E Proposed LTF Sites
HC1.MM3,... Channel Types
0 500 1000 feet
Scale is 1 inch = 0.09 miles
★
a
xy ' v'y
/V A/S A/v <
IVv y x, v7.*)
Eagle Nesl Tree
Proposed cut units
Adjacent proposed units
ITRA Buffers
1/4 Mile Eagle Nest Timing Buffers
PRESCRIPTIONS
CC = Clearcut
DD = Diameter Limits
PP = Patch Cut
HARVEST SYSTEMS
C = Cable
11 = 1 lelicopter
Last Updated: April 14, 1 998
Appendix A ■ 15
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
CANAL HOYA Timber Sale Unit Number _5_ In Alternative JL
Harvest method Helicopter & Cable
Total Acres 63 Volume per Acre 24.5 MBF Total Unit Volume 1541 MBF
UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Unit designed to harvest trees with cable yarding system on the lower portions of the unit and the upper portion with
a helicopter. The unit was shortened on the south side to a leave a logical future setting, while maintaining wildlife
habitat during this entry. Unit modified to buffer Survey Creek and Class II and III tributaries. Skyline yarding
from west side of creek eliminates the need for road construction up east side of creek.
Stand Management Objectives:
Silvicultural Prescription:
Regeneration Method:
Possible Future Treatments:
Future stand to have several canopy layers and at least two age
classes. Trees are being retained to provide structure.
Retain trees until next rotation.
Clearcut with retention. Helicopter yarding and diameter limit will
be used in this unit because of terrain. Retain 10% in Alternative 1.
Natural.
Release, possible planting, pre-commercial thinning and
pruning.
RESOURCE CONCERNS & MITIGATION
Water Quality Fisheries
Concern:
Mitigation:
Survey Creek (Class II HC and MC process groups) flows through unit.
Class IV streams in eastern half of unit.
No timber harvest within notch of Class II streams. This includes no
harvest within 100 feet horizontal distance of Class II streams.
No harvest within notch of Class HI streams. Unit design will provide
Class III stream buffers and Class IV stream protection. Yarding corridors
across Survey Creek will be designated by fisheries and logging systems
specialist. Logs shall be suspended over riparian buffer where feasible.
Trees felled for yarding corridors within TTRA buffer will be felled away
from stream and left in place. Logs shall be fully suspended over stream.
A streamcourseprotection plan will be developed by the timber sale
administrator to enforce mitigation during felling and yarding operations.
Soils
Concern: none
Mitigation:
Wildlife
Concern: Easier access for goat hunters may increase harvest and affect
population. Goat, deer, forest birds, and marten habitat value.
Mitigation: Retain structure in reserves, buffers, and leave trees.
Visuals
Concern: none
Mitigation:
Special Contract Concerns
Full suspension over Survey Creek
Appendix AB16
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
Proposed Roads
Class I Streams
Class II Streams
Class HI Streams
Class IV Streams
Powerline
E Proposed LTF Sites
HC1.MM3,... Channel Types
0 500 1000 feet
★ Eagle Nest Tree
Proposed cut unit
Adjacent proposed units
< V V V <
C (>j TTRA Buffers
1/4 Mile Eagle Nest Timing Buffers
PRESCRIPTIONS
CC = Clearcut
DD = Diameter Limits
PP = Patch Cut
HARVEST SYSTEMS
C = Cable
H = Helicopter
Scale is 1 inch = 0.09 miles
Last Updated: April 02. 1998
UNIT 5
ALTERNATIVE 1
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix A ■ 17
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
CANAL HOYA Timber Sale Unit Number _5_ In Alternatives 2 & 3
Harvest method Helicopter & Cable
Total Acres 96 Volume per Acre 24.5 MBF Total Unit Volume 2349 MBF
UNIT DEVELOPMENT
In Alternatives 2 & 3 unit designed to harvest trees with cable yarding system on the lower portions of the unit and
the upper portion with a helicopter. Yarding corridors will provide cable access to the unit on the east side of
Survey Creek. No stable site for either temporary or permanent road could be found to access east side of upper
Survey Creek. Terrain is suitable for skyline yarding and eliminates the need for road construction.
Stand Management Objectives: Future stand to have several canopy layers and at least two age
classes. Trees are being retained to provide structure.
Retain trees until next rotation.
Silvicultural Prescription: Clearcut with retention. Helicopter yarding and diameter limit will
be Used in this unit because of terrain. Retain 20%
Regeneration Method: Natural.
Possible future treatments: Release, possible planting, pre-commercial thinning and pruning.
RESOURCE CONCERNS & MITIGATION
Water Quality Fisheries
Concern:
Mitigation:
Survey Creek (Class II HC and MC process group) flows through the unit.
Class II tributaries (HC and AF) flow through the east units. Class III and
IV streams also flow through unit.
No timber harvest within notch of Class II streams. This includes no
harvest within 100 feet horizontal distance of Class II streams. No harvest within 140 feet
of outermost AF channel. This includes no harvest within 100 feet horizontal distance of
Class II streams. No harvest within notch of Class III streams. Unit design will provide
Class III stream buffers and Class IV stream protection. Yarding corridors
across Survey Creek will be designated by fisheries and logging systems
specialist. Logs shall be suspended over riparian buffer where feasible.
Trees felled for yarding corridors within TTRA buffer will be felled away
from stream and left in place. Logs shall be fully suspended over stream.
A streamcourse protection plan will be developed by the timber sale
administrator to enforce mitigation during felling and yarding operations.
Soils
Concern:
Mitigation:
Wildlife
Concern:
Mitigation:
Visuals
Concern:
Mitigation:
none
Easier access for goat hunters may increase harvest and affect
population. Goat, deer, forest birds, and marten habitat value.
Retain structure in reserves, buffers, and leave trees.
none
Special Contract Concerns: Suspension over stream during yarding.
Appendix AB18
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
UNIT 5
ALTERNATIVE 2 & 3
96 ACRES
Proposed Roads
Class I Streams
Class II Streams
Class IQ Streams
Class IV Streams
Powerline
E Proposed LTF Sites
HC1.MM3.... Channel Types
0 1000
Eagle Nest Tree
Proposed cut unit
Adjacent proposed units
< V TV -*"V
:0C0C(>j l'IRA Buffers
V i i 1/4 Mile Eagle Nest Timing Buffers
PRESCRIPTIONS
CC = Clearcut
DD = Diameter Limits
PP = Patch Cut
HARVEST SYSTEMS
C = Cable
H = Helicopter
2000 feet
Scale is 1 inch = 0.18 miles
Last Updated: April 02, 1998
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix A ■ 19
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
CANAL HOYA Timber Sale Unit Number _5_ In Alternative 4
Harvest method Helicopter
Total Acres 96 Volume per Acre 24.5 MBF Total Unit Volume 2349 MBF
UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Unit designed to harvest trees with a helicopter yarding system. Unit designed to provide buffers for Survey Creek
and its Class II and Class III tributaries flowing through unit.
Stand Management Objectives:
Silvicultural Prescription:
Regeneration Method:
Possible Future Treatments:
Future stand to have several canopy layers and at least two age
classes. Trees are being retained to provide structure.
Retain trees until next rotation.
Clearcut with retention. Helicopter yarding and diameter limit will
be used. Retain 20%.
Natural.
Release, possible planting, pre-commercial thinning, and
pruning.
RESOURCE CONCERNS & MITIGATION
Water Quality Fisheries
Concern:
Mitigation:
Survey Creek (Class II HC and MC process group) flows through the unit.
Class II tributaries (HC and AF) flow through the east units. Class III and
IV streams also flow through unit.
No timber harvest within notch of Class II streams. This includes no
harvest within 100 feet horizontal distance of Class II streams. No harvest
within 140 feet of outermost AF channel. This includes no harvest within
100 feet horizontal distance of Class II streams. No harvest within notch of
Class III streams. Unit design will provide Class III stream buffers and
Class IV stream protection. Helicopter yarding will not require corridors
across Survey Creek. Logs will be suspended over all riparian buffers.
Soils
Concern:
Mitigation:
Wildlife
Concern:
Mitigation:
Visuals
Concern:
Mitigation:
none
Easier access for goat hunters may increase harvest and affect
population. Goat, deer, forest birds, and marten habitat value.
Retain structure in reserves, buffers, and leave trees.
none
Special Contract Concerns
Suspension over stream during yarding.
Appendix A ■ 20
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
UNIT 5
ALTERNATIVE 4
96 ACRES
Proposed Roads
Class I Streams
Class II Streams
Class III Streams
Class IV Streams
Powerline
E Proposed LTF Sites
HC1,MM3,... Channel Types
0 1000
2000 feet
Eagle Nest Tree
Proposed cut unit
Adjacent proposed units
OCOCod TTRA Buffers
• P.
t .
1/4 Mile Eagle Nest Timing Buffers
PRESCRIPTIONS
CC = Clearcut
DD = Diameter Limits
PP = Patch Cut
HARVEST SYSTEMS
C = Cable
H = Helicopter
Scale is 1 inch = 0.18 mile6
Last Updated: April 02, 1998
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix A ■ 21
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
CANAL HOYA Timber Sale Unit Number 8 Alternative 1. 2. 3. 4
Harvest method Helicopter
Total Acres 32 Volume per Acre 22.5 MBF Total Unit Volume 719 MBF
UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Unit designed to harvest trees with a helicopter. This unit is made up of several small patches ranging
size from 2-7 acres. All units avoid harvest on over steepened slopes and have been designed to buffer
Class III streams. Unit 8.1 not visible from saltwater. These units are located on a bench.
Stand Management Objectives:
Silvicultural Prescription:
Regeneration Method:
Possible Future Treatments:
Only several small patches will be harvested. Portions of area
not harvested will provide stand structure and travel corridors
for wildlife.
Patch cut harvest all trees larger than 9 inches at d.b.h.
Natural
Release, possible planting, and pre-commercial thinning.
RESOURCE CONCERNS & MITIGATION
Water Quality Fisheries
Concern: Class III streams (HC and AF) tributary to Survey Creek.
Mitigation: No harvest within notch of Class III streams. No harvest within 140
feet of outermost AF channel.
Soils
Concern: Harvest on oversteepened slopes.
Mitigation: Units located to avoid steep slopes. Full suspension with helicopter
yarding.
Wildlife
Concern: Wildlife dispersal.
Mitigation: Patches provide for travel through uncut timber.
Visuals
Concern: Appearance of Unit from Bradfield Canal
Mitigation: Small size, scattered location, and topographic screening of patches will
help screen theunit
Special Contract Concerns
Ensure protection of needed buffers.
Appendix AB22
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
Proposed Roads
Class I Streams
Class II Streams
Class III Streams
Class IV Streams
Powerline
Eagle Nest Tree
Proposed cut unit
Adjacent proposed units
V V < V o
'“/\A/\A/v <
^ V v v v
TTRA Buffers
• p m m . • * 9
1/4 Mile Eagle Nest Timing Buffers
E Proposed LTF Sites
HC1,MM3,... Channel Types
o 1000 2000 feet
Scale i6 1 inch = 0.18 miles
PRESCRIPTIONS
CC = Clearcut
DD = Diameter Limits
PP = Patch Cut
HARVEST SYSTEMS
C = Cable
H = Helicopter
Last Updated: April 02, 1998
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix A ■ 23
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
CANAL HOYA Timber Sale Unit Number _9 In Alternative 1
Harvest method Cable
Total Acres 4d_
Volume per Acre 22.1 MBF Total Unit Volume 907 MB F
UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Unit designed to harvest trees with cable yarding. Unit stays off oversteepened soils and is split by
buffered stream. Northwest and southwest unit boundary along Survey Creek and tributaries. At least 10%
of the trees will be reserved.
Stand Management Objectives: Future stand to have at least two canopy layers. Stand will be predomi-
Silvicultural Prescription:
Regeneration Method:
nately even aged. Trees are being retained to meet the visual
quality objective and to provide structure. Retain trees until next
rotation. At least 10% retention.
Clearcut with reserves
Natural.
Possible Future Treatments: Release, possible planting, pre-commercial thinning,
and pruning.
RESOURCE CONCERNS & MITIGATION
Water Quality/ Fisheries
Concern:
Unit borders Survey Creek (Class II FP and MC) and tributary
(Class II HC). Class III stream ;n unit.
Mitigation:
No timber harvest in Survey Creek floodplain. No timber harvest
within 130 feet of Survey Creek FP channel (includes no harvest within
100 horizontal feet of stream). No harvest within notch of MC and HC
streams. Includes no harvest within 100 horizontal feet of Class II
streams. Fisheries specialist will assist with buffer layout.
Soils
Concern:
Mitigation:
none
Wildlife
Concern:
Mitigation:
Riparian habitat values for marten and bear along creeks.
Locate reserves adjacent to creeks. Avoid removing possible denning
trees and include in reserves whenever possible.
Visuals
Concern:
Mitigation:
Appearance of unit from Bradfield Canal.
Leave trees in harvested area and avoid straight backline and sideline.
Special Contract Concerns
Ensure stream buffer protection.
Appendix A ■ 24
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
Proposed Roads
Class I Streams
Class II Streams
Class III Streams
Class IV Streams
Powerline
E Proposed LTF Sites
hci,mm3,... Channel Types
0 500 1000 feet
Eagle Nest Tree
Proposed cut unit
Adjacent proposed units
rr .
/\ A/\A xv *
w y v
ot TTRA Buffers
1/4 Mile Eagle Nest Timing Buffers
PRESCRIPTIONS
CC = Clearcut
DD = Diameter Limits
PP = Patch Cut
HARVEST SYSTEMS
C = Cable
H = Helicopter
Scale is 1 inch = 0.09 miles
Last Updated: April 03, 1998
UNIT 9
ALTERNATIVE 1
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix A ■ 25
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
CANAL HOYA Timber Sale Unit Number _9 In Alternatives 2 & 3
Harvest method Cable
Total Acres 49
Volume oer Acre 20.0 MBF Total Unit Volume 981 MBF
UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Unit designed to harvest trees with cable yarding. Unit stays off oversteepened soils and is split by buffered stream.
Southwest unit boundary along stream buffer. Road through unit provides access to other units.
Stand Management Objectives: Future stand to have several canopy layers and
more than two age classes. Trees are being retained to meet
the visual quality objective and to provide structure. Retain
trees until next rotation. 30% retention.
Silvicultural Prescription: Clearcut with reserves
Regeneration Method: Natural
Possible Future Treatments: Possible planting, pre-commercial thinning,
and pruning.
RESOURCE CONCERNS & MITIGATION
Water Quality/ Fisheries
Concern:
Unit borders Survey Creek (Class II FP and MC) and tributary
(Class II HC). Class III stream in unit.
Mitigation:
No timber harvest in Survey Creek floodplain. No timber harvest
within 130 feet of Survey Creek FP channel (includes no harvest within
100 horizontal feet of stream). No harvest within notch of MC and HC
streams. Includes no harvest within 100 horizontal feet of Class II
streams. Fisheries specialist will assist with buffer layout.
Soils
Concern:
Mitigation:
none
Wildlife
Concern:
Riparian habitat values for marten and bear along creeks. Maintain uncut
area between the unit and stream to the northwest.
Mitigation:
Locate reserves adjacent to creeks. Avoid removing possible denning
trees and include in reserves whenever possible. Wildlife and timber to locate reserves.
Visuals
Concern:
Mitigation:
Appearance of unit from Bradfield Canal.
Leave trees in harvested area and avoid straight back and side line.
Special Contract Concerns
Ensure stream buffer protection.
Appendix A ■ 26 Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
Proposed Roads
Class I Streams
Class II Streams
Class III Streams
Class IV Streams
Powerline
E Proposed LTF Sites
HC1.MM3,... Channel Types
0 500 1000 feet
★ Eagle Nest Tree
Proposed cut unit
| Adjacent proposed units
ubVoVoj TTRA Buffers
1/4 Mile Eagle Nest Timing Buffers
PRESCRIPTIONS
CC = Clearcut
DD = Diameter Limits
PP = Patch Cut
HARVEST SYSTEMS
C = Cable
H = Helicopter
Scale is 1 inch = 0.09 miles
Last Updated: April 03, 1998
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix A ■ 27
UNIT 9
ALTERNATIVE 2 & 3
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
CANAL HOY A Timber Sale Unit Number _9 In Alternative 4
Harvest method Cable
Total Acres 20
Volume per Acre 17.5 MBF Total Unit Volume 349 MBF
UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Unit designed to harvest trees with cable yarding. Unit stays off oversteepened soils and is split by buffered
stream. Portion of northwest corner of unit adjacent to buffered stream. Road through unit provides access
to other units.
Stand Management Objectives: Future stand to have several canopy layers and more than two
age classes. Trees are being retained to meet the visual
Silvicultural Prescription:
quality objective and to provide structure. Retain trees until
next rotation. 30% retention.
Clearcut with reserves. Reserve trees will be retained until
next rotation.
Regeneration Method:
Natural
Possible Future Treatments: Possible planting, pre-commercial thinning, and pruning.
RESOURCE CONCERNS & MITIGATION
Water Quality/ Fisheries
Concern:
Unit borders Survey Creek (Class II FP and MC) and tributary
(Class II HC). Class III stream in unit.
Mitigation:
No timber harvest in Survey Creek floodplain. No timber harvest
within 130 feet of Survey Creek FP channel (includes no harvest within
100 horizontal feet of stream). No harvest within notch of MC and HC
streams. Includes no harvest within 100 horizontal feet of Class II
streams. Fisheries specialist will assist with buffer layout.
Soils
Concern:
Mitigation:
none
Wildlife
Concern:
Locate reserves adjacent to creeks. Avoid removing possible denning
trees and include in reserves whenever possible.
Mitigation:
Unit is smaller and was designed to be further away from creeks than in
the other alternatives. Maintain uncut area between the unit and stream to the northwest.
Wildlife and timber to locate reserves.
Visuals
Concern:
Mitigation:
Appearance of unit from Bradfield Canal.
Leave trees in harvested area and avoid straight back and side line.
Special Contract Concerns
Ensure stream buffer protection.
Appendix A ■ 28
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
UNIT 9
ALTERNATIVE 4 20 ACRES
Proposed Roads
Class I Streams
Class II Streams
Class III Streams
Class IV Streams
Powerline
E Proposed LTF Sites
HCi,MM3,... Channel Types
o
500
Scale i6 1 inch = 0.09 mile6
1000 feet
★ Eagle Nest Tree
Proposed cut unit
Adjacent proposed units
TTRA Buffers
* i i .* 1/4 Mile Eagle Nest Timing Buffers
^ > / V V V"
k/\ A/\A/V <
W ^ X ^ X >--*1
PRESCRIPTIONS
CC = Clearcut
DD = Diameter Limits
PP = Patch Cut
HARVEST SYSTEMS
C = Cable
H = Helicopter
Last Updated: April 03, 1 998
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix A ■ 29
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
CANAL HOYA Timber Sale Unit Number 10 In Alternatives 1, 2, 3 & 4
Harvest method Cable
Total Acres 38
Volume per Acre 24.0 MBF Total Unit Volume 911 MBF
UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Unit designed to harvest trees with cable yarding. Unit stays off oversteepened soils and avoids stream
buffers.
Stand Management Objectives: Future stand to have several canopy layers and at least two age
classes. Trees are being retained to meet the visual
quality objective and to provide structure. Retain trees until next
rotation. 10% retention in Alternatives 1-3 and 20% retention
in Alternative 4.
Silvicultural Prescription: Clearcut with reserves. Reserve trees will be retained until the
next rotation.
Regeneration Method: Natural.
Possible Future Treatments: Release, possible planting, pre-commercial thinning,
and pruning.
RESOURCE CONCERNS & MITIGATION
Water Quality Fisheries
Concern:
East and West Forks of Survey Creek (Class II MC and HC) flow some
distance on either side of unit.
Mitigation:
No harvest within notch of Class II streams. Fisheries specialist will
assist with layout.
Soils
Concern:
Mitigation:
none
Wildlife
Concern:
Mitigation:
Bear denning and foraging habitat.
Avoid harvest of large low value grdes 3, 7 & 8 trees with cavities; retain snags
and downed logs; and retain 15’ of low value butt logs of attached to rootwads.
Leave 3-4 reserves to met the above objectives.
Visuals
Concern:
Mitigation:
Appearance of unit from Bradfield Canal.
Leave trees in harvested area and avoid straight backline.
Special Contract Concerns
None
Appendix A ■ 30 Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
UNIT 10 ALTERNATIVE 1 , 2, 3 & 4 38 ACRES
Proposed Roads
Class I Streams
Class II Streams
Class III Streams
Class IV Streams
Powerline
E Proposed LTF Sites
HC1,MM3,... Channel Types
O 500 1000 feet
Eagle Nest Tree
Proposed cut unit
Adjacent proposed units
TTRA Buffers
1/4 Mile Eagle Nest Timing Buffers
PRESCRIPTIONS
CC = Clearcut
DD = Diameter Limits
PP = Patch Cut
HARVEST SYSTEMS
C = Cable
H = Helicopter
Scale is 1 inch = 0.09 miles
Last Updated: April 03, 1998
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix A ■ 31
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
CANAL HOYA Timber Sale Unit Number 12 In Alternatives 1. 3 & 4
Harvest method Helicopter
Total Acres _6_ Volume per Acre 29.0 MBF Total Unit Volume 174 MBF
UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Unit designed to harvest trees with helicopter yarding. Unit stays off oversteepened soils. There are a few
small rock outcrops within the unit. Unit is on the top of a knob. Evidence of past windthrow. Portions of
the unit will be seen.
Stand Management Objectives: Future stand to have several canopy layers and at least two age
classes. Trees are being retained to meet the visual
quality objective and to provide structure. Retain trees until next
rotation. 10% retention in Alternatives 1 & 3. 30% retention
in Alternative 4.
Diameter Limit. Reserve trees will be retained until the next
rotation.
Natural.
Possible planting and pre-commercial thinning.
Silvicultural Prescription:
Regeneration Method:
Possible Future Treatments:
RESOURCE CONCERNS & MITIGATION
Water Quality/ Fisheries
Concern: none
Mitigation:
Soils Concern none
Mitigation:
Wildlife
Concern: Bear denning.
Mitigation Avoid harvest of large low value grdes 3, 7 & 8 trees with cavities; retain snags
and downed logs; and retain 15’ of low value butt logs of attached to rootwads.
Visuals
Concern: Appearance of unit from Bradfield Canal.
Mitigation: Leave trees in harvested area and avoid straight back and side lines.
Special Contract Concerns
None.
Appendix A ■ 32
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
UNIT 12 ALTERNATIVE 1, 3 & 4 6 ACRES
Proposed Roads
Class I Streams
Class II Streams
Class III Streams
Class IV Streams
Powerline
E Proposed LTF Sites
Hci,MM3,... Channel Types
0 500
1000 feet
Scale is 1 inch = 0.09 miles
PRESCRIPTIONS
CC = Clearcut
DD = Diameter Limits
PP = Patch Cut
HARVEST SYSTEMS
C = Cable
H = Helicopter
Last Updated: April 03, 1998
★ Eagle Nest Tree
SSI Proposed cut unit
Adjacent proposed units
TTRA Buffers
• P. • • * • s
*. V i i.. .* 1/4 Mile Eagle Nest Timing Buffers
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix A ■ 33
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
CANAL HOY A Timber Sale Unit Number 13 In Alternatives 1 & 3
Harvest method Helicopter
Total Acres 18 Volume per Acre 17.9 MBF Total Unit Volume 323 MBF
UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Unit designed to harvest trees with helicopter yarding. Unit stays off oversteepened soils and avoids
stream buffers. There are small rock outcrops within the unit with small trees. Ninety to ninety-five
percent of the unit is not seen. Unit screened by beach buffers, but higher knobs in west portion of unit
may be seen.
Stand Management Objectives: Future stand to have at least two canopy layers. Stand will be predomi-
nately even aged. Trees are being retained to meet the visual
quality objective and to provide structure. Retain trees until next
rotation. 10% retention.
Silvicultural Prescription: Diameter Limit. Retention will be retained until next rotation.
Regeneration Method: Natural
Possible Future Treatments: Release, possible planting, and pre-commercial thinning
RESOURCE CONCERNS & MITIGATION
Water Quality Fisheries
Concern: Southern boundary runs along a Class IV stream that originates in
a muskeg.
Mitigation: Unit excludes stream.
Soils
Concern: none
Mitigation:
Wildlife
Concern: Bear denning.
Mitigation: Avoid harvest of large low value grdes 3, 7 & 8 trees with cavities; retain snags
and downed logs; and retain 15’ of low value butt logs of attached to rootwads.
Visuals
Concern: Appearance of unit from Bradfield Canal.
Mitigation: Leave trees in harvested area and avoid straight backline.
Special Contract Concerns
Appendix A ■ 34
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
UNIT 13
ALTERNATIVE 1 & 3
18 ACRES
Proposed Roads
Class I Streams
Class II Streams
Class HI Streams
Class IV Streams
Powerline
E Proposed LTF Sites
HC1,MM3.... Channel Types
0 500
Scale is 1 inch = 0.09 miles
★ Eagle Nest Tree
Proposed cut unit
f
Adjacent proposed units
:c'co'cc>j TTRA Buffers
U': : ; 1/4 Mile Eagle Nest Timing Buffers
PRESCRIPTIONS
CC = Clearcut
DD = Diameter Limits
PP = Patch Cut
HARVEST SYSTEMS
C = Cable
H = Helicopter
1000 feet
Last Updated: April 02, 1998
v^anai Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix A ■ 35
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
CANAL HOYA Timber Sale Unit Number J 3 In Alternative _4
Harvest method Helicopter
Total Acres 63_ Volume per Acre 18.0 MBF Total Unit Volume 1,132 MBF
UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Unit designed to meet the visual quality objective of partial retention. Unit stays out of beach buffer.
Stand Management Objectives:
Silvicultural Prescription:
Regeneration Method:
Possible Future Treatments:
Future stand to have several canopy layers and more than two age
classes. Trees are being retained to meet the visual
quality objective and to provide structure. Retain trees until next
rotation. Leave a mix of species, retaining about 30%.
Diameter limit. Retention will be retained until next rotation.
Natural
Release, possible planting, and pre-commercial thinning
RESOURCE CONCERNS & MITIGATION
Water Quality Fisheries
Concern: Class IV stream tributary to Survey Creek west of unit.
Mitigation: Unit excludes stream.
Soils
Concern: Avoid steep slopes > 72% and V-notches. Forested wetlands in central
southern part of the unit .
Mitigation: Minimize ground disturbance
Wildlife
Concern: Deer winter range value.
Mitigation: Retention of trees within unit will enhance snow interception in the
future stand.
Visuals
Concern: Appearance of Unit from Bradfield Canal.
Mitigation: Leave trees in the unit to reduce visual impacts.
Special Contract Concerns
None
Appendix A ■ 36
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
UNIT 13 ALTERNATIVE 4 63 ACRES
Proposed Roads
Class I Streams
Class II Streams
Class III Streams
Class IV Streams
Powerline
E Proposed LTF Sites
HCi,MM3,.„ Channel Types
0 500 1000 feet
■■Hi
Eagle Nest Tree
Proposed cut unit
Adjacent proposed units
TTRA Buffers
1/4 Mile Eagle Nest Timing Buffers
PRESCRIPTIONS
CC = Clearcut
DD = Diameter Limits
PP = Patch Cut
HARVEST SYSTEMS
C = Cable
H = Helicopter
Scale i6 1 inch = 0.09 miles
Last Updated: April 02, 1998
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix A ■ 37
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
CANAL HOY A Timber Sale Unit Number 14 In Alternatives 1, 2, & 3
Harvest method Cable
Cable Acres 39 Volume per Acre 10.7 MBF Cable Volume 417 MBF
Harvest method Helicopter
Helicopter Acres 5 Volume per Acre 11.8 MBF Helicopter Volume 59 MBF
UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Unit designed to harvest trees with both cable and helicopter yarding. Road through unit provides access to
other cable and helicopter units. Unit stays off oversteepened soils and has been modified to buffer Class II
streams.
Stand Management Objectives
Silvicultural Prescription:
Regeneration Method:
Possible Future Treatments:
RESOURCE CONCERNS & MITIGATION
Future stand to have at least two canopy layers. Stand will be
predominately even aged. Trees are being retained to meet
the visual quality objective and to provide structure. Retain
trees until next rotation. 10% retention.
Cable clearcut with 10% retention, helicopterwith diameter limits
and feather backline.
Natural
Release, possible planting, pre-commercial thinning, and pruning.
Water Quality Fisheries
Concern:
Mitigation:
Small Class II streams (HC and MM) tributary to Survey Creek and
Surho Creek. Class IV stream in unit.
No timber harvest within notch on HC stream or within 120 feet of MM
stream. This includes no harvest within 100 feet horizontal distance of
Class II streams. Partial suspension allowed on Class IV stream.
Soils
Concern:
Mitigation:
Wildlife
Concern:
Mitigation:
Harvest on oversteepened slopes.
Locate units to avoid harvest ontslopes > 72%.
Small mammal dispersal. Loss of large trees for nesting and
denning. Fragmentation.
Place reserves within the unit to maintain structural
diversity. Place at least one reserve to provide corridor through unit.
Visuals
Concern: Appearance of unit from Bradfield Canal.
Mitigation: Leave trees in harvested area and avoid straight backline.
Special Contract Concerns
Ensure stream buffer protection.
Appendix AB38
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
UNIT 14 ALTERNATIVE 1 , 2 & 3 44 ACRES
/s/
Proposed Roads
Class I Streams
Class II Streams
Class III Streams
Class IV Streams
Powerline
E Proposed LTF Sites
HC1,MM3,... Channel Types
0 500
Scale i6 1 inch = 0.09 miles
1000 feet
Eagle Nest Tree
Proposed cut unit
Adjacent proposed units
TTRA Buffers
1/4 Mile Eagle Nest Timing Buffers
PRESCRIPTIONS
CC = Clearcut
DD = Diameter Limits
PP = Patch Cut
HARVEST SYSTEMS
C = Cable
H = Helicopter
Last Updated: April 02, 1 998
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix A ■ 39
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
CANAL HOYA Timber Sale Unit Number 18 In Alternative 1
Harvest method Cable
Total Acres 13 Volume per Acre 16.1 MBF Total Unit Volume 209 MBF
UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Unit designed to meet the visual quality objective of partial retention. Unit north boundary adjacent to high hazard
soils. Forested wetland adjacent to the west side of the unit. Unit was reduced from original size due to low volume
in surrounding area. Unit will be helicopter yarded with partial harvest with retention.
Stand Management Objectives:
Silvicultural Prescription:
Regeneration Method:
Possible Future Treatments:
Future stand to have at least two canopy layers. Stand will be
predominately even aged. Trees are being retained to meet the
visual quality objective and to provide structure. Retain trees until
next rotation. 10% retention.
Cable portion will have reserves. Retention will be retained until
next rotation.
Natural
Release, possible planting, pre-commercial thinning,
and pruning.
RESOURCE CONCERNS & MITIGATION
Water Quality/ Fisheries
Concern: none
Mitigation:
Soils
Concern: none.
Mitigation:
Wildlife
Concern: Proximity to estuary and streams important for bear foraging.
Road intercepts travel corridor for bears
Mitigation: Small unit, leave 1-2 reserves.
Visuals
Concern: none
Mitigation:
Appendix A ■ 40
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
UNIT 18
I
ALTERNATIVE 1 13 ACRES
Proposed Roads
Class I Streams
Class II Streams
Class HI Streams
Class IV Streams
Powerline
★
Eagle Nest Tree
Proposed cut unit
Adjacent proposed units
TTRA Buffers
1/4 Mile Eagle Nest Timing Buffers
E Proposed LTF Sites
HC1.MM3,... Channel Types
0 500 1000 feat
— — I
Scale is 1 inch = 0.09 miles
PRESCRIPTIONS
CC = Clearcut
DD = Diameter Limits
PP = Patch Cut
HARVEST SYSTEMS
C = Cable
H = Helicopter
Last Updated: April 02, 1998
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix A ■ 41
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
CANAL HOYA Timber Sale Unit Number 18 In Alternative 3 & 4
Harvest method Helicopter
Total Acres 13 Volume per Acre 16.1 MBF Total Unit Volume 209 MBF
UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Unit designed to meet the visual quality objective of partial retention. Unit north boundary adjacent to high hazard
soils. Forested wetland adjacent to the west side of the unit. Unit was reduced from original size due to low volume
in surrounding area.
Stand Management Objectives:
Silvicultural Prescription:
Regeneration Method:
Possible Future Treatments:
Future stand to have at least two canopy layers. Stand will be
predominately even aged. Trees are being retained to meet the
visual quality objective and to provide structure. Retain trees until
next rotation. 20% retention. Diameter limits.
Retention will be retained until next rotation.
Natural
Release, possible planting, pre-commercial thinning,
and pruning.
RESOURCE CONCERNS & MITIGATION
Water Quality/ Fisheries
Concern: none
Mitigation:
Soils
Concern: none.
Mitigation:
Wildlife
Concern: Proximity to estuary and streams important for bear foraging.
Mitigation: Small unit, leave reserve trees.
Visuals
Concern: none
Mitigation:
Appendix A ■ 42
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
UNIT 1 8 ALTERNATIVE 3 & 4 13 ACRES
Proposed Roads
Class I Streams
Class II Streams
Class III Streams
Class IV Streams
Powerline
E Proposed LTF Sites
HC1,MM3,... Channel Types
0 500 1000 feet
Eagle Nest Tree
Proposed cut unit
Adjacent proposed units
TTRA Buffers
• 1/4 Mile Eagle Nest Timing Buffers
PRESCRIPTIONS
CC = Clearcut
DD = Diameter Limits
PP = Patch Cut
HARVEST SYSTEMS
C = Cable
H = Helicopter
Scale i6 1 inch = 0.09 mile6
Last Updated: April 02, 1 998
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix A ■ 43
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
CANAL HOYA Timber Sale Unit Number 19_ In Alternatives 1 . 2 & 3
Harvest method Cable
Total Acres 25 Volume per Acre 20.0 MBF Total Unit Volume 500 MBF
UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Unit designed to meet the visual quality objective of partial retention. East boundary is not straight. Unit goes
under the Tyee power line. Spur road is located just above small muskeg included in the unit.
Stand Management Objectives:
Silvicultural Prescription:
Regeneration Method:
Possible Future Treatments:
Future stand to have at least two canopy layers. Stand will be
predominately even aged. Trees are being retained to meet the
visual quality objective and to provide structure. Retain trees until
next rotation. 10% retention.
Cable portion will have reserves. Feather backlines. Retention
will be left until next rotation.
Natural.
Release, possible planting, pre-commercial thinning,
and pruning.
RESOURCE CONCERNS & MITIGATION
Water Quality Fisheries
Concern: Hoya Creek (Class II MC) flows west of unit. Class IV stream in unit.
Mitigation No harvest within notch of Hoya Creek. Includes no harvest within 100 feet
horizontal distance of Hoya Creek. Partial suspension allowed across Class
IV stream.
Soils
Concern: Steep slopes to east and south of unit.
Mitigation: Unit shaped to avoid the steep slopes.
Wildlife
Concern: Improved access for goat hunters may increase harvest and impact
population. Loss of structural diversity.
Mitigation: Place 1-2 reserves within the unit.
Visuals
Concern: Appearance of Unit from Bradfield Canal.
Mitigation: Leaving trees in unit with 10% retention will help meet the visual
quality objective. Irregular boundary along east side.
Appendix A ■ 44
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix A ■ 45
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
CANAL HOYA Timber Sale Unit Number 20 In Alternatives 2 & 3
Harvest method Helicopter
Total Acres 10 Volume per Acre 28.8 MBF Total Unit Volume 288 MBF
UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Unit designed to meet the visual quality objective of partial retention. Unit modified to provide Class II and Class
III stream buffers. Unit is located at the toe of a very steep mountain slope.
Stand Management Objectives:
Silvicultural Prescription:
Regeneration Method:
Possible Future Treatments:
Future stand to have several canopy layers and more than two age
classes. Trees are being retained to meet the visual
quality objective and to provide structure. Retain trees until next
rotation. 10% retention.
Helicopter yarding diameter limits.
Natural.
Release and pre-commercial thinning.
RESOURCE CONCERNS & MITIGATION
Water Quality/ Fisheries
Concern: Hoy a Creek (Class II) flows west of unit. Channel Type is MC2. A short
Class II tributary divides unit. Class III and IV streams flow through unit.
Mitigation: No harvest within 100 horizontal feet of Hoy a Creek or its Class II
tributary (includes no harvest within notch). No harvest within notch of
Class III stream. Helicopter yarding provides Class IV stream protection.
Soils
Concern: Oversteepened slopes east of unit.
Mitigation: Locate unit to avoid the slopes > 72%.
Wildlife
Concern: Travel corridor and high habitat values for deer, marten, bear, forest birds.
Mitigation: Structural diversity remains within stream buffers and within the unit.
Visuals
Concern: Appearance of Unit from Bradfield Canal.
Mitigation: Leave trees in unit to help meet the visual quality objective.
Appendix A ■ 46
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
UNIT 20
ALTERNATIVE 2 & 3
10 ACRES
Proposed Roads
Class I Streams
Class II Streams
Class III Streams
Class IV Streams
Powerline
E Proposed LTF Sites
hci,MM3,... Channel Types
0 500
★ Eagle Nest Tree
3 Proposed cut unit
Adjacent proposed units
VcbVod TTRA Buffers
1/4 Mile Eagle Nest Timing Buffers
PRESCRIPTIONS
CC = Clearcut
DD = Diameter Limits
PP = Patch Cut
HARVEST SYSTEMS
C = Cable
H = Helicopter
1000 feet
Scale i6 1 inch = 0.09 mile6
Last Updated: April 02, 1998
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix A ■ 47
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
CANAL HOYA Timber Sale Unit Number 21 In Alternatives 1, 2 & 3
Harvest method Helicopter
Total Acres 34 Volume per Acre 36.7 MBF Total Unit Volume 1.249 MBF
UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Unit modified to provide Class II and Class III stream buffers. Southern most portion of unit dropped. East portion
of unit adjacent to high hazard soils. Possible diameter limit of 18-20” for spruce and 14” for hemlock. Unit has a
few short pitches over 72% slope but these are stable.
Stand Management Objectives: Future stand to have several canopy layers and more than two age
classes. Trees are being retained to meet the visual
quality objective and to provide structure. Retain trees until next
rotation. 10% retention.
Silvicultural Prescription: Helicopter yarding with diameter limits.
Regeneration Method: Natural.
Possible future treatments: Release and pre-commercial thinning.
RESOURCE CONCERNS & MITIGATION
Water Quality/ Fisheries
Concern: Hoya Creek (Class II FP4) and short Class II (MM1) tributaries west of
unit. Class IV streams within unit.
Mitigation: No harvest within floodplain or 130 feet of Hoya Creek (includes no harvest
within 100 horizontal feet of stream). No harvest within 120 feet of Class II
tributaries (includes no harvest within 100 horizontal feet of streams).
Helicopter yarding provides Class IV stream protection.
Soils
Concern: Short steep pitches in unit.
Mitigation: Helicopter yarding and resulting full suspension.
Wildlife
Concern: Noise from helicopter yarding may disturb goat populations. Travel
corridor and riparian habitat values. Deer winter range
Mitigation: Avoid flying over goats with kids. Retain structural diversity within stream
buffer and within the unit.
Visuals
Concern: Appearance of Unit from Bradfield Canal.
Mitigation: Leaving trees in unit with diameter limit retention will help meet the
visual quality objective.
Special Contract Concerns
Ensure buffers protected.
Appendix A ■ 48
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
UNIT 21
ALTERNATIVE 1, 2 & 3
34 ACRES
Proposed Roads
Class I Streams
Class II Streams
Class III Streams
Class IV Streams
Powerline
E Proposed LTF Sites
HC1,MM3,... Channel Types
0 500 1000 feet
Eagle Nest Tree
jjU Proposed cut unit
Adjacent proposed units
V V V V V V
TTRA Buffers
• 9.
t
1/4 Mile Eagle Nest Timing Buffers
PRESCRIPTIONS
CC = Clearcut
DD = Diameter Limits
PP = Patch Cut
HARVEST SYSTEMS
C = Cable
H = Helicopter
Scale is 1 inch = 0.09 miles
Last Updated: April 02, 1998
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix A ■ 49
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
CANAL HOYA Timber Sale Unit Number 22 In Alternatives 1, 2 & 3
Harvest method Helicopter
Total Acres 20 Volume per Acre 22.1 MBF Total Unit Volume 441 MBF
UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Unit not visible from saltwater. Unit is three small patches with a Class II stream requiring a buffer. Unit contains
Class III streams.
Stand Management Objectives:
Silvicultural Prescription:
Regeneration Method:
Possible Future Treatments:
Stand will be predominately even aged. Future stand will have two age
classes, one from the small uncut trees, the other as a result of the
regeneration after the harvest. Small even age patches.
Patch cut.
Natural.
Release, and pre-commercial thinning.
RESOURCE CONCERNS & MITIGATION
Water Quality Fisheries
Concern: Class II stream is HC3 tributary to West Fork of Hoya Creek.
Class III streams are small HC5s.
Mitigation: No timber harvest within 100 feet horizontal distance from Class II stream.
No timber harvest within notch of Class II or Class III streams.
Soils
Concern: none
Mitigation:
Wildlife
Concern: West portion of unit is adjacent to Old Growth Reserve. Noise from helicopter
yarding may disturb goat populations. Goat and deer winter range.
Mitigation: Avoid flying over goats with kids. Winter range retained in uncut portion.
Visuals
Concern: none
Mitigation:
Special Contract Concerns
Ensure stream buffers protected.
Appendix A ■ 50
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
UNIT 22
ALTERNATIVE 1, 2 & 3
20 ACRES
/S/
Proposed Roads
Class I Streams
Class II Streams
Class III Streams
Class IV Streams
Powerline
E Proposed LTF Sites
HC1.MM3,... Channel Types
0 500 1000 feet
★ Eagle Nest Tree
OaSS^i Proposed cut unit
Adjacent proposed units
* > V V
:cCCC(>j TTRA Buffers
• 9.
I •
1/4 Mile Eagle Nest Timing Buffers
PRESCRIPTIONS
CC = Clearcut
DD = Diameter Limits
PP = Patch Cut
HARVEST SYSTEMS
C = Cable
H = Helicopter
Scale is 1 inch = 0.09 miles
Last Updated: April 03, 1998
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix A ■ 51
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
CANAL HOYA Timber Sale Unit Number _23 In Alternative 1&3
Harvest method Cable
Total Acres 13
Volume per Acre 16.9 MBF Total Unit Volume 220 MBF
UNIT DEVELOPMENT
West side boundary adjacent to Class II stream.
Stand Management Objectives: Future stand to have at least two canopy layers. Stand will be
predominately even aged. Trees are being retained to meet the
visual quality objective and to provide structure. Retain trees until
next rotation. 10% retention.
Silvicultural Prescription: Clearcut with reserves. Retention will be retained until the next
rotation.
Regeneration Method: Natural.
Possible Future Treatments: Release, possible planting, pre-commercial thinning
and pruning.
RESOURCE CONCERNS & MITIGATION
Water Quality Fisheries
Concern:
Class II stream is MM1 (West Fork of Hoya Creek). Unit requires
temporary road across Class II stream.
Mitigation:
No harvest within 120 feet of Class II stream (including no harvest within
100 horizontal feet of stream). Log stringer bridge will be removed after
harvest is complete.
Soils
Concern:
Mitigation:
Steep slopes to southeast side of unit.
Unit located to avoid the steep slopes.
Wildlife
Concern:
Improved walking access for goat hunters may increase harvest and impact
populations. Nesting habitat for forest songbirds.
Mitigation:
Retain a reserve within the unit connected to backline and include cliffs to
allow for goat dispersal.
Visuals
Concern:
Mitigation:
Appearance of Unit from Bradfield Canal.
Leave trees in unit with 10% retention to help meet the visual
quality objective.
Special Contract Concerns
Ensure stream buffers protected.
Appendix A ■ 52 Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
UNIT 23
ALTERNATIVE 1 & 3
13 ACRES
Proposed Roads
Class I Streams
Class II Streams
Class III Streams
Class IV Streams
Powerline
E Proposed LTF Sites
hci,mm3,... Channel Types
0 500
Scale i6 1 inch = 0.09 miles
Eagle Nest Tree
Proposed cut unit
Adjacent proposed units
TTRA Buffers
1/4 Mile Eagle Nest Timing Buffers
PRESCRIPTIONS
CC = Clearcut
DD = Diameter Limits
PP = Patch Cut
HARVEST SYSTEMS
C = Cable
H = Helicopter
1000 feet
Last Updated: April 02, 1998
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix A ■ 53
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
CANAL HOYA Timber Sale Unit Number 24_ In Alternatives 1, 2 & 3
Harvest method Cable
Cable Acres 5 1 Volume per Acre 17.0 MBF Total Cable Volume 869 MBF
Harvest method Helicopter
Helicopter Acres _9_ Volume per Acre 17.0 MBF Total Helicopter Volume 153 MBF
UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Unit designed to meet the visual quality objective of partial retention. Upper, south portion of unit will be yarded
with helicopter and is adjacent to high hazard soils. Unit north boundary is irregular shaped. Unit goes under the
Tyee power line. West edge of unit borders on high hazard soils. For the diameter limit consider 16 inches. Unit
excludes cliffs between cable and helicopter settings. Unit includes a short steep pitch (75-88%) with shallow well
drained soils. Bedrock controls slope angle. Risk of management induced mass wasting or soil erosion is thought to
be low. Class II stream south of unit. Class III or IV streams within unit.
Stand Management Objectives:
Silvicultural Prescription:
Regeneration Method:
Possible Future Treatments:
Future stand to have at least two canopy layers. Stand will be
predominately even aged. Trees are being retained to meet the
visual quality objective and to provide structure. Retain trees until
next rotation. 10% retention.
Cable portion will have reserves. Helicopter with diameter limit.
Natural.
Release, possible planting, pre-commercial thinning, and pruning.
RESOURCE CONCERNS & MITIGATION
Water Quality Fisheries
Concern: Class II stream is MM1 (West Fork of Hoya Creek). Small Class III or
Class IV streams within unit shall be verified during unit layout.
Mitigation: No harvest within 120 feet of Class II stream (includes no harvest within
100 horizontal feet). No harvest within notch of Class III streams. Split
yard Class IV streams. Road location (or helicopter yarding) will provide
both Class III and Class IV protection.
Soils
Concern: Soil disturbance and erosion.
Mitigation: Unit located to avoid the steep unstable slopes and cliffs and full suspension
on steep slopes.
Wildlife
Concern: Improved access for goat hunters may increase harvest and
impact populations.
Mitigation: Retain 4-5 reserves connected to backline and include cliffs to allow for goatdispersal.
Visuals
Concern: Appearance of Unit from Bradfield Canal.
Mitigation: Leave trees in unit with a diameter limit and the 10% retention to
meet the visual quality objective.
Appendix A ■ 54
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix A ■ 55
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
CANAL HOYA Timber Sale Unit Number 25 In Alternative 4
Harvest method Helicopter
Total Acres 32_ Volume per Acre 17.0 MBF Total Unit Volume 544 MBF
UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Unit designed to meet the visual quality objective of partial retention. Unit will be yarded with helicopter and is
adjacent to high hazard soils along the west edge. A sharp shinned hawk nest buffer and a muskeg resulted in this
unit being dropped from the other alternatives and expanded to the west and south in this alternative. A large
portion of the east and north portions of unit dropped because of nest.
Stand Management Objectives: Future stand to have several canopy layers and more than
two age classes. Trees are being retained to meet the visual
quality objective and to provide structure. Retain trees until next
rotation. 20% retention.
Helicopter yarding with diameter limit.
Natural.
Release, possible planting, and pre-commercial thinning.
Silvicultural Prescription:
Regeneration Method:
Possible Future Treatments:
RESOURCE CONCERNS & MITIGATION
Water Quality/ Fisheries
Concern: Northeast boundary approaches Hoya Creek (Class II).
Mitigation: No harvest within notch of Hoya Creek. This includes no harvest
within 100 feet horizontal distance of Hoya Creek.
Soils
Concern: Steep slopes to west and south of unit.
Mitigation: Unit located to avoid the steep slopes.
Wildlife
Concern: Sharp-shinned hawk nest in unit.
Mitigation: Nest buffered with 600 foot radius buffer.
Visuals
Concern: Appearance of unit from Bradfield Canal
Mitigation: Leave trees in unit and design an irregular shaped unit.
Appendix A ■ 56
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix A ■ 57
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
CANAL HOYA Timber Sale Unit Number 27 In Alternative 1
Harvest method Cable
Total Acres J_8 Volume per Acre 22.7 MBF Total Unit Volume 409 MBF
UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Unit designed to meet the visual quality objective of partial retention. No harvest in the beach buffer.
Stand Management Objectives:
Silvicultural Prescription:
Regeneration Method:
Possible Future Treatments:
Future stand to have at least two canopy layers. Stand will be
predominately even aged. Trees are being retained to meet the
visual quality objective and to provide structure. Retain trees until
next rotation. 10% retention.
Clearcut with reserves.
Natural.
Release, possible planting, and pre-commercial thinning.
RESOURCE CONCERNS & MITIGATION
Water Quality/ Fisheries
Concern: No concerns.
Mitigation:
Soils
Concern: Harvest on oversteepened slopes.
Mitigation: Unit layout will avoid harvest on slopes > 72%.
Wildlife
Concern: Travel corridor for bears; denning potential; forest birds.
Mitigation: Avoid harvest of large low value grade 3,7 and 8 trees with cavities, retain snags and
downed logs. Place 2-4 reserves within the unit. Avoid removing trees with nests.
Visuals
Concern: Appearance of unit from Bradfield Canal
Mitigation: Leave trees in clumps to help meet the visual quality objective.
Special Contract Concerns:
None
Appendix A ■ 58
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
Class I Streams
Class II Streams
Class III Streams
Class IV Streams
Powerline
E Proposed LTF Sites
HC1,MM3,... Channel Types
o 500
O Proposed cut unit
Adjacent proposed units
7 "v y
XCoCpj TTRA Buffers
1/4 Mile Eagle Nest Timing Buffers
PRESCRIPTIONS
CC = Clearcut
DD = Diameter Limits
PP = Patch Cut
HARVEST SYSTEMS
C = Cable
H = Helicopter
1000 feet
Scale is 1 inch = 0.09 mile6
Last Updated: April 02, 1 998
UNIT 27 ALTERNATIVE 1 1 8 ACRES
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix A ■ 59
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
CANAL HO YA Timber Sale Unit Number 28 In Alternatives 1 . 3 & 4
Harvest method Helicopter
Total Acres 21 Volume per Acre 17.1 MBF Total Unit Volume 359MBF
UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Southeast patch is a 7 acre patch cut with a Class III stream along the west side, requiring a buffer. Units are
located in areas surrounded by steep areas. The other 6 units are small patch cuts. Unit will be yarded to a barge
using a helicopter.
Stand Management Objectives:
Silvicultural Prescription:
Regeneration Method:
Possible Future Treatments:
Stand will be predominately even aged. Future stand will have two age
classes, one from the small uncut trees, the other as a result of the
regeneration after the harvest. Small even age patches.
Clearcut in small patches.
Natural.
Release and pre-commercial thinning.
RESOURCE CONCERNS & MITIGATION
Water Quality Fisheries
Concern: Class III streams adjacent to several patches. None are tributary to
freshwater fish habitat. Class IV streams in one patch.
Mitigation: No timber harvest within notch of Class III streams. Helicopter yarding
provide Class IV stream protection.
Soils
Concern: none
Mitigation:
Wildlife
Concern: Travel corridor between Canal and Hoya Creeks. Ensure protection of eagle nest north
of units. Portions of two patches are within 1/4 mile of an eagle tree.
Mitigation: Small unit size allows for wildlife dispersal.
Anan Bears
Concern: Noise of helicopter yarding during denning and during tourist season.
Mitigation: Restrict timing of helicopter yarding during denning period. Restrict flights
over Anan during the tourist season.
Visuals
Concern: Appearance from Bradfield Canal.
Mitigation: Harvest helicopter will leave the small sub-merchantable trees standing.
Special Contract Concerns
Ensure stream buffers protected.
Appendix A ■ 60
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
UNIT 28
ALTERNATIVE 1, 3 & 4
21 ACRES
Proposed Roads
Class I Streams
Class II Streams
Class III Streams
Class IV Streams
Powerline
E Proposed LTF Sites
Channel Types
0 500
★ Eagle Nest Tree
wmmm
I Proposed cut unit
Adjacent proposed units
fcCoVod TTRA Buffers
• 9.
t
1/4 Mile Eagle Nest Timing Buffers
PRESCRIPTIONS
CC = Clearcut
DD = Diameter Limits
PP = Patch Cut
HARVEST SYSTEMS
C = Cable
H = Helicopter
1000 feet
Scale is 1 inch = 0.09 mile6
Last Updated: April 02, 1 998
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix A ■ 61
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
CANAL HOY A Timber Sale Unit Number 3i_ In Alternatives 1, 3 & 4
Harvest method Helicopter
Total Acres J_4 Volume per Acre 14.6 MBF Total Unit Volume 205 MBF
UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Parts of unit are visible from the Blake Island area. Unit is an irregular shaped area with the south portion adjacent
to the Tyee power line. There are several Class IV streams in the unit and a Class III stream runs parallel with the
north side boundary. The diameter limit prescription will minimize the impact to visuals. Western portion of unit
dropped because of very low volume.
Stand Management Objectives: Future stand to have at least two canopy layers. Stand will be
predominately even aged. Trees are being retained to meet the
visual quality objective and to provide structure. Retain trees until
next rotation. 10% retention.
Silvicultural Prescription: Helicopter with diameter limit.
Regeneration Method: Natural.
Possible Future Treatments: Pre-commercial thinning
RESOURCE CONCERNS & MITIGATION
Water Quality Fisheries
Concern:
Mitigation:
Soils
Concern:
Mitigation:
Wildlife
Concern:
Mitigation:
Anan Bears
Concern:
Mitigation:
Visuals
Concern:
v Mitigation:
Special Contract Concerns
Ensure stream buffers protected.
Class III stream is tributary to Flying V Creek. Class IV streams within
unit.
No harvest within notch of Class III stream. Helicopter yarding achieves
Class IV stream protection.
none
Small mammal dispersal. Loss of large trees for nesting and denning.
Travel corridor. Fragmentation.
Reserves trees within the unit will maintain structural diversity.
Younger stand component and leave trees retained. Unit designed to leave
corridor intact.
Noise of helicopter yarding during denning and during tourist season.
Restrict timing of helicopter yarding during denning period. Restrict flights
over Anan during the tourist season.
Appearance of unit from Bradfield Canal.
Diameter limits will retain trees in unit, North boundary is irregular.
Appendix A ■ 62
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
* v v v y v
w A A /\ A /v <
^ V y N/ V V
UNIT 31
ALTERNATIVE 1, 3 & 4
Proposed Roads
Class I Streams
Class II Streams
Class III Streams
Class IV Streams
Powerline
E Proposed LTF Sites
HC1,MM3,... Channel Types
0 500
1000 feet
Scale 16 1 inch = 0.09 miles
PRESCRIPTIONS
CC = Clearcut
DD = Diameter Limits
PP = Patch Cut
HARVEST SYSTEMS
C = Cable
H = Helicopter
Last Updated: April 02, 1998
14 ACRES
Eagle Nest Tree
Proposed cut unit
Adjacent proposed units
TTRA Buffers
1/4 Mile Eagle Nest Timing Buffers
SI
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix A ■ 63
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
CANAL HOYA Timber Sale Unit Number 33 In Alternative 3 & 4
Harvest method Helicopter
Total Acres 22 Volume per Acre 17.7 MBF Total Unit Volume 389 MBF
UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Unit is split by Flying V Creek tributaries which require V-notch buffers. South boundary of unit is adjacent to the
Tyee power line.
Stand Management Objectives:
Silvicultural Prescription:
Regeneration Method:
Possible Future Treatments:
Future stand to have several canopy layers and at least two age
classes. Trees are being retained to meet the visual
quality objective and to provide structure. Retain trees until next
rotation. 25% retention.
Helicopter with diameter limit.
Natural.
Release and pre-commercial thinning.
RFSOURCE CONCERNS & MITIGATION
Water Quality /Fisheries
Concern: Flying V Creek tributaries (Class III, HC6) flow through unit.
Mitigation: No harvest within notch of Class III streams.
Soils
Concern: none.
Mitigation:
Wildlife
Concern: Small mammal dispersal. Forested corridor beneath powerline. Loss of large
trees for nesting and denning. Fragmentation.
Mitigation: Reserve trees within the unit will maintain some structural diversity.
Younger stand component and leave trees retained. Stream buffer provides
habitat.
Visuals
Concern: Appearance of unit from Bradfield Canal.
Mitigation: Diameter limit reduces the effects of harvest on the visual resource.
Special Contract Concerns
Ensure stream buffers protected.
Appendix A ■ 64
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
UNIT 33
ALTERNATIVE 3 & 4
22 ACRES
Proposed Roads
Class I Streams
Class II Streams
Class III Streams
Class IV Streams
Powerline
E Proposed LTF Sites
HC1,MM3,... Channel Types
0 500
1000 feet
Scale i6 1 inch = 0.09 miles
PRESCRIPTIONS
CC = Clearcut
DD = Diameter Limits
PP = Patch Cut
HARVEST SYSTEMS
C = Cable
H = Helicopter
Last Updated: April 02, 1 998
Eagle Nest Tree
Proposed cut unit
Adjacent proposed units
TTRA Buffers
1/4 Mile Eagle Nest Timing Buffers
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix A ■ 65
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
CANAL HOYA Timber Sale Unit Number 34 In Alternatives 1
Harvest method Helicopter
Total Acres _8 Volume per Acre 13.0 MBF Total Unit Volume 104 MBF
UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Unit was reduced in size due to low timber volume. Unit is mapped as forested wetlands.
Stand Management Objectives:
Silvicultural Prescription:
Regeneration Method:
Possible Future Treatments:
Future stand to have at least two canopy layers. Stand will be
predominately even aged. Trees are being retained to meet the
visual quality objective and to provide structure. Retain trees until
next rotation. 30%retention as unit is close to largest version of Unit
Helicopter with diameter limit.
Natural.
Release, possible planting, and pre-commercial thinning.
RESOURCE CONCERNS & MITIGATION
Water Quality Fisheries
Concern: Verify possible Class III or Class IV stream east of unit.
Mitigation: No harvest within notch of Class III stream. Helicopter yarding
provides Class IV stream protection.
Soils
Concern: none
Mitigation:
Wildlife
Concern: Small mammal dispersal. Loss of large trees for nesting and denning.
Fragmentation.
Mitigation: Reserve trees within the unit will maintain structural diversity.
Younger stand component and leave trees retained.
Anan Bears
Concern: Noise of helicopter yarding during denning and during tourist season.
Mitigation: Restrict timing of helicopter yarding during denning period. Restrict flights
over Anan during the tourist season.
Visuals
Concern: Appearance of unit from Bradfield Canal.
Mitigation: Diameter limit reduces the effects of harvest on the visual resource.
Special Contract Concerns
Ensure stream buffer protected.
Appendix AB66
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
.
:
UNIT 34
ALTERNATIVE 1
8 ACRES
Proposed Roads
Class I Streams
Class II Streams
Class III Streams
Class IV Streams
Powerline
E Proposed LTF Sites
HC1,MM3,... Channel Types
o 500
★ Eagle Nest Tree
llllllj Proposed cut unit
Adjacent proposed units
v v v v n j
0>* TTRA Buffers
1/4 Mile Eagle Nest Timing Buffers
PRESCRIPTIONS
CC = Clearcut
DD = Diameter Limits
PP = Patch Cut
HARVEST SYSTEMS
C = Cable
H = Helicopter
1000 feet
Scale is 1 inch = 0.09 mile6
Last Updated: April 14, 1998
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix A ■ 67
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
CANAL HOYA Timber Sale Unit Number 34 In Alternative 3 & 4
Harvest method Helicopter
Total Acres 8 Volume per Acre 13.0 MBF Total Unit Volume 104 MBF
UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Unit was reduced in size due to low timber volume. Unit is mapped as forested wetlands.
Stand Management Objectives:
Silvicultural Prescription:
Regeneration Method:
Possible Future Treatments:
Future stand to have several canopy layers and more than two age
classes. Trees are being retained to meet the visual
quality objective and to provide structure. Retain trees until next
rotation. 20% retention.
Helicopter with diameter limits.
Natural.
Release, possible planting, and pre-commercial thinning.
RESOURCE CONCERNS & MITIGATION
Water Quality Fisheries
Concern: Verify possible Class III or Class IV stream east of unit.
Mitigation: No harvest within notch of Class III stream. Helicopter yarding
provides Class IV stream protection.
Soils
Concern: none
Mitigation:
Wildlife
Concern: Small mammal dispersal. Loss of large trees for nesting and denning.
Fragmentation.
Mitigation: Trees within the unit will maintain structural diversity.
Y ounger stand component and leave trees retained.
Anan Bears
Concern: Noise of helicopter yarding during denning and during tourist season.
Mitigation: Restrict timing of helicopter yarding during denning period. Restrict flights
over Anan during the tourist season.
Visuals
Concern: Appearance of unit from Bradfield Canal.
Mitigation: Diameter limit reduces the effects of harvest on the visual resource.
Special Contract Concerns
Ensure stream buffer protected.
Appendix AB68
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maos
Proposed Roads
Class I Streams
Class II Streams
Class III Streams
Class IV Streams
Powerline
E Proposed LTF Sites
HCi,MM3f... Channel Types
0 500
Scale i6 1 inch = 0.09 miles
1000 feet
★ Eagle Nest Tree
Proposed cut unit
* v v v < v
• /\ A /\ A /v 1
■ V y V v N'v
Adjacent proposed units
1/4 Mile Eagle Nest Timing Buffers
PRESCRIPTIONS
CC = Clearcut
DD = Diameter Limits
PP = Patch Cut
HARVEST SYSTEMS
C = Cable
H = Helicopter
Last Updated: April 14, 1998
}i
I
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix A ■ 69
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
CANAL HOY A Timber Sale Unit Number 35_ In Alternative 1
Harvest method Helicopter
Helicopter Acres 16 Volume per Acre 14.8 MBF Total Helicopter Volume 237 MBF
Harvest method Cable
Cable Acres 65 Volume per Acre 15.0 MBF Total Cable Volume 972 MBF
UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Unit is adjacent to Cowboy Creek (Class II stream) on west side. Northern and parts of west boundary are adjacent
to beach buffer. Southern boundary of unit adjacent to the Tyee power line. Unit includes 23 acres of forested
wetlands and a small sedge muskeg.
Stand Management Objectives:
Silvicultural Prescription:
Regeneration Method:
Possible Future Treatments:
Future stand to have at least two canopy layers. Stand will be
predominately even aged. Trees are being retained to meet the
visual quality objective and to provide structure. Retain trees until
next rotation. 10% retention.
Helicopter with diameter limit in unit and clearcut
with reserves in unit.
Natural.
Release and pre-commercial thinning.
RESOURCE CONCERNS & MITIGATION
Water Quality Fisheries
Concern:
Mitigation:
Class II stream is MM1 and FP3. Verify buffer width during layout.
No timber harvest within floodplain. Includes no timber harvest within 100
horizontal feet of stream. No harvest within 130 feet of FP3 stream or
within 120 feet of MM1 stream. Fisheries specialist will assist with buffer
layout.
Soils
Concern:
Mitigation:
Wildlife
Concern:
Mitigation:
none
Improved access: impact to bear population and habituated bears. Unit
adjacent to beach buffer. Deer marten and forest songbird habitat
values.
Locate unit boundary at least 1000 feet from beach. Reserve trees within the unit
will maintain structural diversity and are placed west of the road. Highest habitat values
within the beach buffer.
Anan Bears
Concern: Noise of helicopter yarding during denning and during tourist season.
Mitigation: Restrict timing of helicopter yarding during denning period. Restrict flights
over Anan during the tourist season.
Visuals
Concern: Appearance from Bradfield Canal.
Mitigation: Reserve trees will reduce visual impacts.
Special Contract Concerns
Ensure stream buffers protected.
Appendix AH 70
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
Proposed Roads
Class I Streams
Class II Streams
Class III Streams
Class IV Streams
Powerline
E Proposed LTF Sites
hci,mm3,... Channel Types
0 500
Eagle Nest Tree
| Proposed cut unit
Adjacent proposed units
fcCoVoj TTRA Buffers
1/4 Mile Eagle Nest Timing Buffers
PRESCRIPTIONS
CC = Clearcut
DD = Diameter Limits
PP = Patch Cut
HARVEST SYSTEMS
C = Cable
H = Helicopter
1000 feet
Scale is 1 inch = 0.09 mile6
Last Updated: April 14, 1998
UNIT 35 ALTERNATIVE! 81 ACRES
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix A ■ 71
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
CANAL HOYA Timber Sale Unit Number 35 In Alternative 2
Harvest method Cable
Total Acres 47
Volume per Acre 14.8 MBF Total Unit Volume 695 MBF
UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Unit is adjacent to Cowboy Creek (Class II) on west side. Northern and parts of west boundary are adjacent to
beach buffer. Unit will be cable yarded. Southern boundary of unit adjacent to the Tyee power line. Unit includes
about 9 acres of forested and nonforested wetland complex and a small sedge muskeg exclusion.
Stand Management Objectives: Future stand to have at least two canopy layers. Stand will be
predomiately even aged. Trees are being retained to meet the
visual quality objective and to provide structure. Retain trees until
next rotation. 10% retention.
Silvicultural Prescription: Clearcut with reserves.
Regeneration Method: Natural.
Possible Future Treatments: Release, possible planting, and pre-commercial thinning,
and pruning.
RESOURCE CONCERNS & MITIGATION
Water Quality Fisheries
Concern:
Mitigation:
Class II stream is MM1 and FP3. Verily buffer width during layout.
No timber harvest within floodplain. Includes no timber harvest within 100
horizontal feet of stream. No harvest within 130 feet of FP3 stream or
within 120 feet of MM1 stream. Fisheries specialist will assist with buffer
layout.
Soils
Concern:
Mitigation:
none
Wildlife
Concern:
Unit adjacent to beach buffer and beach corridor. Deer,
marten and forest songbird habitat values. Improved access may impact
bear populations and habituated bears.
Mitigation:
Locate unit boundary at least 1000 feet from beach. Reserves trees within the
unit will maintain structural diversity. Highest habitat values within the
beach buffer. Place 2-4 reserves west of the road and adjacent to estuary.
Visuals
Concern:
Mitigation:
none
Special Contract Concerns
Ensure the beach buffers are protected.
Appendix AH 72
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
Proposed Roads
Class I Streams
Class II Streams
Class HI Streams
Class IV Streams
Powerline
E Proposed LTF Sites
HC1.MM3,... Channel Types
0 500 1000 feet
Easle Nest Tree
] Proposed cut unit
Adjacent proposed units
ot LIRA Buffers
1/4 Mile Eagle Nest Timing Buffers
PRESCRIPTIONS
CC - Clearcut
DD = Diameter Limits
PP = Patch Cut
HARVEST SYSTEMS
C = Cable
H = Helicopter
Scale is 1 inch = 0.09 miles
Last Updated: April 02, 1998
UNIT 35 ALTERNATIVE 2 47 ACRES
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix AH 73
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
CANAL HOY A Timber Sale Unit Number 35 In Alternative 3 & 4
Harvest method Helicopter
Total Acres 15 Volume per Acre 15.0 MBF Total Unit Volume 225 MBF
UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Unit is located west of unit 34 and south of beach buffer.
Stand Management Objectives:
Silvicultural Prescription:
Regeneration Method:
Possible Future Treatments:
Future stand to have several canopy layers and at least two age
classes. Trees are being retained to meet the visual
quality objective and to provide structure. Retain trees until next
rotation.
Helicopter with diameter limit.
Natural.
Release, possible planting, and pre-commercial thinning.
RESOURCE CONCERNS & MITIGATION
Water Quality Fisheries
Concern: None.
Mitigation:
Soils
Concern: none
Mitigation:
Wildlife
Concern:
Mitigation:
Anan Bears
Concern:
Mitigation:
Deer, marten, and forest songbird habitat values.
Ensure unit boundary at least 1000’ from the beach. Highest habitat value
is within the beach buffer.
Noise of helicopter yarding during denning and during tourist season.
Restrict timing of helicopter yarding during denning period. Restrict flights
over Anan during the tourist season.
Visuals
Concern: Appearance of unit from Bradfield Canal.
Mitigation: Leave trees in unit to help meet the visual the visual resource.
Special Contract Concerns
Ensure beach buffers protected.
Appendix A ■ 74
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
UNIT 35 ALTERNATIVE 3 & 4 15 ACRES
Proposed Roads
Class I Streams
Class II Streams
Class III Streams
Class IV Streams
Powerline
E Proposed LTF Sites
HC1,MM3,... Channel Types
0 500
★ Eagle Nest Tree
§|||j|||||| Proposed cut unit
Adjacent proposed units
foVo'cKd TTRA Buffers
1/4 Mile Eagle Nest Timing Buffers
PRESCRIPTIONS
CC = Clearcut
DD = Diameter Limits
PP = Patch Cut
HARVEST SYSTEMS
C = Cable
H = Helicopter
1000 feet
Scale i6 1 inch = 0.09 mile6
Last Updated: April 02, 1998
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix A ■ 75
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
CANAL HOYA Timber Sale Unit Number 36 In Alternative 2
Harvest method Cable
Total Acres 52
Volume per Acre 20.6 MBF Total Unit Volume 1,072 MBF
UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Portion of southern boundary is adjacent to Tyee power line. Flying V Creek flows east of unit.
Stand Management Objectives: Future stand to have at least two canopy layers. Stand will be
predominately even aged. Trees are being retained to meet the
visual quality objective and to provide structure. Retain trees until
next rotation. 10% retention.
Silvicultural Prescription: Cable with reserves.
Regeneration Method: Natural.
Possible Future Treatments: Release, possible planting, pre-commercial thinning,
and pruning.
RESOURCE CONCERNS & MITIGATION
Water Quality Fisheries
Concern:
Mitigation:
Flying V Creek east of unit (Class III HC6).
No harvest within notch of stream.
Soils
Concern:
Mitigation:
Inclusion of oversteepened slopes in the unit.
Field verify site stability prior to layout.
Wildlife
Concern:
Small mammal dispersal. Loss of large trees for nesting and denning.
Fragmentation. Improved access in Alternative 2 may increase bear harvest and
impact population and habituate bears.
Mitigation:
Reserve trees within the unit will maintain structural diversity.
Reserve trees will maintain some structural diversity and promote a large
tree component in the regenerating stand.
Visuals
Concern:
Mitigation:
Appearance of unit from Bradfield Canal.
Leave trees in the unit will reduce the effects of harvest on the visual
resource.
Special Contract Concerns
Ensure stream buffers protected.
Appendix AB76
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
500
1000 feet
Scale is 1 inch = 0.09 miles
Last Updated: April 03, 1998
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS Appendix A
UNIT 36 ALTERNATIVE 2
52 ACRES
Proposed Roads
Class I Streams
Class II Streams
Class III Streams
Class IV Streams
Powerline
E Proposed LTF Sites
hci,mm3,... Channel Types
★ Eagle Nest Tree
Proposed cut unit
| Adjacent proposed units
2223 TTRA Buffers
i * ■'*. * * *• 1/4 Mile Eagle Nest Timing Buffers
PRESCRIPTIONS
CC = Clearcut
DD = Diameter Limits
PP = Patch Cut
HARVEST SYSTEMS
C = Cable
H = Helicopter
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
CANAL HOYA Timber Sale Unit Number 36 In Alternatives 4
Harvest method Helicopter
Total Acres 52 Volume per Acre 20.2 MBF Total Unit Volume 1,072 MBF
UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Portion of southern boundary is adjacent to Tyee power line. Flying V Creek flows east of unit.
Stand Management Objectives:
Silvicultural Prescription:
Regeneration Method:
Possible Future Treatments:
Future stand to have at least two canopy layers. Stand will be
predominately even aged. Trees are being retained to meet the
visual quality objective and to provide structure. Retain trees until
next rotation. 10% retention.
Helicopter with diameter limits.
Natural.
Release, possible planting, pre-commercial thinning,
and pruning.
RESOURCE CONCERNS & MITIGATION
Water Quality Fisheries
Concern: Flying V Creek east of unit (Class III HC6).
Mitigation: No harvest within notch of stream.
Soils
Concern: Inclusion of oversteepened slopes in the unit.
Mitigation: Field verify site stability prior to layout.
Wildlife
Concern: Small mammal dispersal. Loss of large trees for nesting and denning.
Fragmentation.
Mitigation: Reserve trees within the unit will maintain structural diversity.
Reserve trees will maintain some structural
diversity and promote a large tree component in the regenerating stand.
Anan Bears
Concern: Noise of helicopter yarding during denning tourist season.
Mitigation: Restrict timing of helicopter yarding during denning period. Restrict flights
over Anan during the tourist season.
Visuals
Concern: Appearance of unit from Bradfield Canal.
Mitigation: Leave trees in the unit will reduce the effects of harvest on the visual
resource.
Special Contract Concerns
Ensure stream buffers protected.
Appendix A ■ 78
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
Proposed Roads
Class I Streams
Class II Streams
Class III Streams
Class IV Streams
Powerline
E Proposed LTF Sites
HC1,MM3,... Channel Types
0 500
★ Eagle Nest Tree
IRKIPIPPI
Proposed cut unit
Adjacent proposed units
V < V
1/4 Mile Eagle Nest Timing Buffers
PRESCRIPTIONS
CC = Clearcut
DD = Diameter Limits
PP = Patch Cut
HARVEST SYSTEMS
C = Cable
H = Helicopter
1000 feet
Scale is 1 inch = 0.09 miles
Last Updated: April 03, 1998
UNIT 36 ALTERNATIVE 4 52 ACRES
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix A ■ 79
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
CANAL HOYA Timber Sale Unit Number 38 In Alternatives 1 & 2
Harvest method Cable
Total Acres 33 Volume per Acre 19.7 MBF Total Unit Volume 649 MBF
UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Unit designed to meet the visual quality objectives of partial retention. Road goes through unit and provides access
to additional units in Alternative 2. Unit size and shape were designed to avoid low volume, poor quality timber.
Stand Management Objectives: Alternative 2 future stand to have at least two canopy layers. Stand
will be predominately even aged. Trees are being retained to meet the
visual quality objective and to provide structure. Retain trees until
next rotation. 10% retention.
Alternative 1 future stand to have several canopy layers and more than
two age classes. Trees are being retained to meet the visual
quality objective and to provide structure. Retain trees until next
rotation. 10 to 15% retention.
Silvicultural Prescription: Clearcut with reserves.
Possible Future Treatments: Release, possible planting, pre-commercial
thinning,
and pruning.
RESOURCE CONCERNS & MITIGATION
Water Quality Fisheries
Concern: none
Mitigation:
Soils
Concern: Steep slopes on southeast side of unit.
Mitigation: Unit located to avoid slopes > 7?%.
Wildlife
Concern: Improved access may impact bear populations and habituated bears. Forest
songbirds, corridor and deer winter range habitat values.
Mitigation: Place reserves within unit. Maintain canopy cover in backline. Higher retention will
help maintain winter range values.
Visuals
Concern: none
Mitigation:
Appendix A ■ 80
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
UNIT 38
ALTERNATIVE 1 & 2
33 ACRES
Proposed Roads
Class I Streams
Class II Streams
Class III Streams
Class IV Streams
Powerline
★ Eagle Nest Tree
mi Proposed cut unit
Adjacent proposed units
y V y yH
<>v TTRA Buffers
• 9.
i .
1/4 Mile Eagle Nest Timing Buffers
E Proposed LTF Sites
HC1,MM3(... Channel Types
o 500
PRESCRIPTIONS
CC = Clearcut
DD = Diameter Limits
PP = Patch Cut
HARVEST SYSTEMS
C = Cable
H = Helicopter
1000 feet
Scale is 1 inch = 0.09 miles
Last Updated: April 02, 1998
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix A ■ 81
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
CANAL HOYA Timber Sale Unit Number 41 In Alternatives _1
Harvest method Helicopter
Total Acres 22 Volume per Acre 16.4 MBF Total Unit Volume 360 MBF
UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Unit is visible from the Marten Creek area of the Bradfield Canal. Unit designed to buffer Class III streams. Unit
designed to meet the visual quality objective of partial retention. There are about 5 acres of forest wetlands
included in this unit. This unit is helicopter yarded with a diameter limit. Logs will be flown to landing in unit 38.
The irregular shape and diameter limit harvest will help the unit to meet the visual quality objective. Retention will
help maintain bear habitat effectiveness.
Stand Management Objectives:
Silvicultural Prescription:
Regeneration Method:
Possible Future Treatments:
Future stand to have several canopy layers and more than two age
classes. Trees are being retained to meet the visual quality objective
and to provide structure. Retain trees until next rotation.
Diameter limits in helicopter portion.
Natural
Release, possible planting, pre-commercial thinning, and pruning.
RESOURCE CONCERNS & MITIGATION
Water Quality Fisheries
Concern:
Mitigation:
Soils
Concern:
Mitigation:
Stream west of unit is Class III, HC6 (Bear Creek). Streams within unit are
small Class III (HC5) and Class IV streams.
No timber harvest within notch of Class III streams. Unit design, temporary
road location (or helicopter yarding) provides Class IV stream protection.
Steep slopes and muskegs.
Unit was shaped to avoid steep slopes and muskeg stringer.
Wildlife
Concern: Bear denning potential.
Mitigation: Create 2-3 reserves within the unit that contain suitable denning trees (>40" DBH).
Leave large low value grade 3, 7, and 8 trees with cavities, downed logs or snags. On
downed trees retain at least 15’ of butt log attached to the rootwad.
Anan Bears
Concern:
Mitigation:
Visuals
Concern:
Mitigation:
Noise of helicopter yarding during denning and during tourist season.
Restrict timing of helicopter yarding during denning period. Restrict flights
over Anan during the tourist season.
Appearance of Unit from Bradfield Canal
Leaving trees in the unit using a diameter limit and 40% retention will help
meet the visual quality objective.
Special Contract Concerns
Ensure stream buffers protected.
Appendix A ■ 82
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
UNIT 41
ALTERNATIVE 1
22 ACRES
Proposed Roads
Class I Streams
Class II Streams
Class HI Streams
Class IV Streams
Powerline
E Proposed LTF Sites
HC1.MM3,... Channel Types
0 500
★ Eagle Nest Tree
Proposed cut unit
Adjacent proposed units
/ V V V V
1TKA Buffers
• f.
s •
1/4 Mile Eagle Nest Timing Buffers
PRESCRIPTIONS
CC = Clearcut
DD = Diameter Limits
PP = Patch Cut
HARVEST SYSTEMS
C = Cable
H = Helicopter
1000 feet
Scale is 1 inch = 0.09 miles
Last Updated: April 02, 1998
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix A ■ 83
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
CANAL HOYA Timber Sale Unit Number 41 In Alternative 2
Harvest method Cable
Cable Acres 18 Volume per Acre 15.8 MBF Cable Unit Volume 284 MBF
Harvest method Helicopter
Helicopter Acres 22 Volume per Acre 16.4 MBF Helicopter Unit Volume 360 MBF
UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Unit is visible from the Marten Creek area of the Bradfield Canal. Unit designed to buffer Class III streams. Unit
designed to meet the visual quality objective of partial retention. There are about 5 acres of forest wetlands included
in this unit. The upper portion of this unit is helicopter yarded with a diameter limit. The low portions of the unit
are cable yarded with 10% retention. The irregular shape and diameter limit harvest will help the unit to meet the
visual quality objective. Retention will help maintain bear habitat effectiveness.
Stand Management Objectives:
Silvicultural Prescription:
Regeneration Method:
Possible Future Treatments:
Future stand to have several canopy layers and more than two age
classes. Trees are being retained to meet the visual quality objective
and to provide structure. Retain trees until next rotation.
Cable Portion will have reserves. Upper and lower diameter
limits in helicopter portion.
Natural
Release, possible planting, pre-commercial thinning, and pruning.
RESOURCE CONCERNS & MITIGATION
Water Quality Fisheries
Concern: Stream west of unit is Class III, HC6 (Bear Creek). Streams within unit are
small Class III (HC5) and Class IV streams.
Mitigation: No timber harvest within notch of Class III streams. Unit design, temporary
road location (or helicopter yarding) provides Class IV stream protection.
Soils
Concern: Steep slopes and muskegs.
Mitigation: Unit was shaped to avoid steep slopes and muskeg stringer.
Wildlife
Concern: Improved walk in access. Bear denning potential.
Mitigation: Create 2-3 reserves within the unit that contain suitable denning trees (>40" DBH).
Leave large low value grade 3, 7 & 8 trees with cavities, downed logs or snags. On
downed trees retain at least 15’ of butt log attached to the rootwad.
Anan Bears
Concern: Noise of helicopter yarding during denning and during tourist season.
Mitigation: Restrict timing of helicopter yarding during denning period. Restrict flights
over Anan during the tourist season.
Visuals
Concern: Appearance of Unit from Bradfield Canal
Mitigation: Leaving trees in the unit using a diameter limit and 40% retention will help
meet the visual quality objective.
Special Contract Concerns: Ensure stream buffers are protected.
Appendix A ■ 84
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
UNIT 41 ALTERNATIVE 2 40 ACRES
Proposed Roads
Class I Streams
Class II Streams
Class III Streams
Class IV Streams
Powerline
E Proposed LTF Sites
HC1,MM3,... Channel Types
0 500 1000 feet
★ Eagle Nest Tree
Proposed cut unit
Adjacent proposed units
1/4 Mile Eagle Nest Timing Buffers
PRESCRIPTIONS
CC = Clearcut
DD = Diameter Limits
PP = Patch Cut
HARVEST SYSTEMS
C = Cable
H = Helicopter
Scale is 1 inch = 0.09 miles
Last Updated: April 02, 1 998
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix A ■ 85
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
CANAL HOY A Timber Sale Unit Number 43 In Alternative 2
Harvest method Cable
Total Acres 58
Volume per Acre 22.5 MBF Total Unit Volume 1.303 MBF
UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Unit has portions of east boundary adjacent to Bear Creek tributary. The reserves in this alternative will help meet
the visual objectives.
Stand Management Objectives: Future stand to have several canopy layers and at least two age
Silvicultural Prescription:
Regeneration Method:
classes. Trees are being retained to meet the visual
quality objective and to provide structure. Retain trees until next
rotation.
Clearcut with 20% retention. Stagger and feather backline.
Natural.
Possible Future Treatments: Release and pre-commercial thinning
RESOURCE CONCERNS & MITIGATION
Water Quality/ Fisheries
Concern:
Mitigation:
Bear Creek (Class III HC6) east of unit.
No harvest within notch of Bear Creek.
Soils
Concern:
Mitigation:
Wildlife
Concern:
Improved walk in access for bear hunters . Bear denning potential. Deer
winter range values.
Mitigation:
Create 5-6 reserves within the unit that contain suitable denning trees
(>40" DBH). Leave large low value grade 3, 7 & 8 trees with cavities, downed logs or
snags. On down trees retain at least 15’ of the butt log attached to
the root wad.
Visuals
Concern:
Mitigation:
View from Bradfield Canal.
Retention will help accomplish the visual quality objective.
Special Contract Concerns
Ensure stream buffers protected.
Appendix A ■ 86
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
UNIT 43 ALTERNATIVE 2 58 ACRES
Proposed Roads
Class I Streams
Class II Streams
Class III Streams
Class IV Streams
Powerline
E Proposed LTF Sites
HC1,MM3,... Channel Types
0 1000
★ Eagle Nest Tree
Proposed cut unit
Adjacent proposed units
fcVoCoj TTRA Buffers
1/4 Mile Eagle Nest Timing Buffers
PRESCRIPTIONS
CC = Clearcut
DD = Diameter Limits
PP = Patch Cut
HARVEST SYSTEMS
C = Cable
H = Helicopter
2000 feet
Scale is 1 inch = 0.18 mile6
Last Updated: April 02, 1998
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix A ■ 87
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
CANAL HOYA Timber Sale Unit Number 44 In Alternatives 1 & 2
Harvest method Helicopter
Total Acres J7 Volume per Acre 24,2 MBF Total Unit Volume 412 MBF
UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Retention in the unit is high to maintain habitat for Anan bears.
Stand Management Objectives:
Silvicultural Prescription:
Regeneration Method:
Possible Future Treatments:
Future stand to have several canopy layers and more than two age
classes. Trees are being retained to meet the visual
quality objective and to provide structure. Retain trees until next
rotation. 40% retention. Harvest unit while leaving a mix
of species.
Helicopter with diameter limits.
Natural.
Release, possible planting, pre-commercial thinning,
and pruning.
RESOURCE CONCERNS & MITIGATION
Water Quality Fisheries
Concern: Class III stream south of unit is HC6 tributary to Canal Creek.
Mitigation: No harvest with notch of Class HI stream.
Soils
Concern: No concerns as planned
Mitigation:
Wildlife
Concern: Bear denning potential.
Mitigation: Leave large low value grade 3, 7 & 8 trees with cavities, downed logs
or snags for suitable denning trees (>40" DBH). On down trees retain 15’ of butt
log attached to rootwad. Leave 6’ stumps of potential den trees.
Anan Bears
Concern: Noise of helicopter yarding during denning and during tourist season.
Mitigation: Restrict timing of helicopter yarding during denning period. Restrict flights
over Anan during the tourist season.
Visuals
Concern: Appearance of Unit from Bradfield Canal.
Mitigation: Leave trees in unit to help meet the visual quality objective.
Special Contract Concerns
Ensure stream buffers are protected.
Appendix A ■ 88
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
★ Eagle Nest Tree
Proposed cut unit
Adjacent proposed units
„ ^ TTRA Buffers
1/4 Mile Eagle Nest Timing Buffers
PRESCRIPTIONS
CC = Clearcut
DD = Diameter Limits
PP = Patch Cut
HARVEST SYSTEMS
C = Cable
H = Helicopter
Last Updated: April 02, 1998
Proposed Roads
Class I Streams
Class II Streams
Class III Streams
Class IV Streams
Powerline
E Proposed LTF Sites
HCi,MM3,... Channel Types
0 500
1000 feet
Scale i6 1 inch = 0.09 miles
UNIT 44
ALTERNATIVE 1 & 2
17 ACRES
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix A ■ 89
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
CANAL HOYA Timber Sale Unit Number 45 In Alternative 1
Harvest method Helicopter
Total Acres _25 Volume per Acre 17.8 MBF Total Unit Volume 444 MBF
UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Unit will be helicopter yarded. This alternative will only harvest ground that could not be accessed by cable yarding
in the future. Retention in the unit was increased in Alternative 1 to maintain habitat for Anan bears.
Stand Management Objectives:
Silvicultural Prescription:
Regeneration Method:
Possible Future Treatments:
Future stand to have several canopy layers and more than two age
classes. Trees are being retained to meet the visual
quality objective and to provide structure. Retain trees until next
rotation. 40% retention.
Harvest unit while leaving a mix of species.
Upper and lower diameter limits and reserves in the helicopter portion.
Natural.
Release, possible planting, pre-commercial thinning.
RESOURCE CONCERNS & MITIGATION
Water Quality/ Fisheries
Concern: Verify Class III or IV streams tributary to Canal Creek within or adjacent
to unit during layout.
Mitigation: No harvest within notch of Class III stream. Unit design (road location and
helicopter yarding provides protection to both Class III and Class IV
streams.
Soils
Concern:
Mitigation:
Wildlife
Concern:
Mitigation:
none
Improved walk in access to bear populations and habituated bears. Bear
denning potential.
Create 2-3 reserves within the unit that contain suitable denning trees (>40" DBH).
Leave large low value grade 3, 7, & 8 trees with cavities, downed logs or snags.
Retain 15’ of butt logs attached to rootwads. Leave 6’ stumps of potential
den trees.
Anan Bears
Concern: Noise of helicopter yarding during denning and during tourist season.
Mitigation: Restrict timing of helicopter yarding during denning period. Restrict flights
over Anan during the tourist season.
Visuals
Concern: Appearance of unit from Bradfield Canal.
Mitigation: Leave trees in unit to help meet the visual quality objective.
Special Contract Concerns
Ensure stream buffers protected.
Appendix A ■ 90
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
UNIT 45 ALTERNATIVE 1 25 ACRES
/v/
Proposed Roads
Qass I Streams
Class II Streams
Qass IH Streams
Qass IV Streams
Powerline
E Proposed LTF Sites
HC1.MM3,... Channel Types
0 500
★ Eagle Nest Tree
Proposed cut unit
Adjacent proposed units
TTRA Buffers
1/4 Mile Eagle Nest Timing Buffers
PRESCRIPTIONS
CC = Clearcut
DD = Diameter Limits
PP = Patch Cut
HARVEST SYSTEMS
C = Cable
H = Helicopter
1000 feat
Scale is 1 inch = 0.09 miles
Last Updated: April 02, 1998
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix A ■ 91
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
CANAL HOYA Timber Sale Unit Number 45 In Alternative _2
Harvest method Cable
Cable Acres 33 Volume per Acre 16.1 MBF Cable Volume 532 MBF
Harvest method Helicopter
Helicopter Acres J_3 Volume per Acre 1 8.7 MBF Helicopter Volume 224 MBF
UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Northern portion of unit will be cable yarded and southern portion will be helicopter yarded.
Stand Management Objectives:
Silvicultural Prescription:
Regeneration Method:
Possible Future Treatments:
Future stand to have several canopy layers and at least two age
classes. Trees are being retained to meet the visual
quality objective and to provide structure. Retain trees until next
rotation. 15% retention .
Cable portion will have reserves. Upper and lower
diameter limits and reserves in the helicopter portion.
Natural.
Release, possible planting, pre-commercial thinning,
and pruning.
Water Quality/ Fisheries
Concern:
Mitigation:
Soils
Concern:
Mitigation:
RESOURCE CONCERNS & MITIGATION
Verify Class III or IV streams tributary to Canal Creek within or adjacent
to unit during layout.
No harvest within notch of Class III stream. Unit design (road location and
helicopter yarding provides protection to both Class III and Class IV
streams.
none
Wildlife
Concern: Improved walking access to bear populations and habituated bears. Bear
denning potential.
Mitigation: Create 2-3 reserves within the unit that contain suitable denning trees (>40" DBH).
Leave large low value grade 3, 7, & 8 trees with cavities, downed logs or snags.
Retain 15’ of butt logs attached to rootwads. Leave 6’ stumps of potential
den trees.
Anan Bears
Concern: Noise of helicopter yarding during denning and during tourist season.
Mitigation: Restrict timing of helicopter yarding during denning period. Restrict flights
over Anan during the tourist season.
Visuals
Concern: Appearance of unit from Bradfield Canal.
Mitigation: Leave trees in unit to help meet the visual quality objective.
Special Contract Concerns
Ensure stream buffers protected.
Appendix AH 92
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
-
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
UNIT 45 ALTERNATIVE 2 46 ACRES
E Proposed LTF Sites
HC1.MM3,... Channel Types
0 500
Scale is 1 inch = 0.09 miles
1000 feet
Proposed Roads
Class I Streams
Class II Streams
Class III Streams
Class IV Streams
Powerline
Eagle Nest Tree
Proposed cut unit
Adjacent proposed units
)cVoV<>v TTRA Buffers
1/4 Mile Eagle Nest Timing Buffers
PRESCRIPTIONS
CC = Clearcut
DD = Diameter Limits
PP = Patch Cut
HARVEST SYSTEMS
C = Cable
H = Helicopter
Last Updated: April 02, 1 998
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix A ■ 93
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
CANAL HOYA Timber Sale Unit Number _47 In Alternative 1
Harvest method Helicopter
Total Acres 23 Volume per Acre 14.6 MBF Total Unit Volume 336 MBF
UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Unit has irregular shaped boundary. South and east boundaries provide stream buffers. The diameter limit
prescription will minimize the impact to visuals. Retention in the unit is high to maintain habitat for Anan bears.
There are about seven acres of non-wetland forest/forested wetlands complex in this unit.
Stand Management Objectives: Future stand to have several canopy layers and more than two age
classes. Trees are being retained to meet the visual
quality objective and to provide structure. Retain trees until next
rotation. 40% retention. Harvest unit while leaving a mix of
species.
Helicopter with upper and lower diameter limit and reserve
clumps.
Natural.
Release and pre-commercial thinning.
Silvicultural Prescription:
Regeneration Method:
Possible Future Treatments:
RESOURCE CONCERNS & MITIGATION
Water Quality/ Fisheries
Concern:
Mitigation:
Bear Creek (Class I) AF1 flows east of unit. A Class II HC6 tributary to
Canal Creek flows south of unit.
No timber harvest within 140 feet of outermost channel on Bear Creek.
This includes no harvest within 100 horizontal feet of stream. No timber
harvest within notch on Class II stream. This includes no harvest within
100 horizontal feet of stream.
Soils
Concern
Mitigation:
Wildlife
Concern:
Mitigation:
No concerns as planned.
Bear denning potential. Adjacent to estuary.
Create 2-3 reserves within the unit that contain suitable denning trees (>40" DBH).
Leave large low value grade 3, 7 & 8 trees with cavities, downed logs or snags. On
downed trees retain at least 15’ of the butt log attached to the rootwad.
Leave 6’ stumps on potential den trees. Locate unit at least 1000’ from
beach.
Anan Bears
Concern: Noise of helicopter yarding during denning and during tourist season.
Mitigation: Restrict timing of helicopter yarding during denning period. Restrict flights
over Anan during the tourist season.
Visuals
Concern: Appearance of unit from Bradfield Canal.
Mitigation: Retain trees in unit. Design unit with an irregular shaped boundary.
Special Contract Concerns
Ensure stream buffers are protected.
Appendix A ■ 94
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
UNIT 47 ALTERNATIVE 1 23 ACRES
Proposed Roads
Class I Streams
Class II Streams
Class III Streams
Class IV Streams
Powerline
E Proposed LTF Sites
HC1,MM3,... Channel Types
0 500 1000 feet
Eagle Nest Tree
] Proposed cut unit
Adjacent proposed units
TTRA Buffers
1/4 Mile Eagle Nest Timing Buffers
PRESCRIPTIONS
CC = Clearcut
DD = Diameter Limits
PP = Patch Cut
HARVEST SYSTEMS
C = Cable
H = Helicopter
Scale i6 1 inch = 0.09 mile6
Last Updated: April 02, 1998
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix A ■ 95
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
High Priority Units for Riparian Buffer or Other Stream Protection Verification
Canal Hoya FEIS Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative)
Unit#
Fish Stream
Adjacent to Unit
Class III Riparian Buffer
Within or Adjacent to Unit
Other
Sensitive
Watershed
3
no
possibly one
Survey
5
four
five
skyline corridors
Survey
8
one
four
alluvial fan
Survey
9
one
three
Survey
10
three
no
alluvial fan
Survey
14
possibly three
no
19
one
no
Class IV protection
Hoya
20
possibly three
one
Hoya
21
three
possibly one
Hoya
22
one
possibly two
Hoya
23
one
no
temp road crossing
Hoya
24
one
no
Hoya
33
no
possibly three
Appendix A ■ 96
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
BRADF/ELD V \ CANAL
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS Appendix A ■ 97
Scale is 1 inch = 1.15 miles
This page intentionally left blank
Appendix AB98
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
BRAD FIELD \ CANAL
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS Appendix A ■ 99
Scale is 1 inch = 1.15 miles
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix A ■ 101
hi o
<
<
Q>
CC
< =- LU
5 to
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix A ■ 103
BRADFIELD , jf X G4AA4Z.
CC
<
£
D
h-
(/)
LL
o
0
5
1
CL
0
1
h-
DC
a
~a
c
3
O
CO
C/D
cC
S
<U
CC
<
g
>>
"O
-3
3
VO
"£
>
>
\
<
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix A ■ 105
A -Unit Cards and Extra Alternative Maps
This page intentionally left blank
Appendix A ■ 1 06
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
BRADFIELD CANAL
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix A ■ 107
Appendix B
Road Cards
B - Road Cards
Appendix B
Road Cards
The following is a summary of interdisciplinary team (IDT) field location and analysis of the proposed road segments in
each of the action alternatives discussed in the EIS. These descriptions would be used during the layout and harvest of
units, and the survey and construction of the roads in the selected alternative.
Each road description tells where construction activities would need to be restricted to prevent damage to fisheries. Timing
restrictions apply to in-stream work where water quality standards would not be compromised. "Timing windows" to allow
in-stream construction of crossings on anadromous fish streams would be June 1 to August 1.
Closures would apply to in-stream construction activities on Survey Creek, which is the only Class I stream that would have
road crossings. Deviation from the timing window would require consultation with ADFG.
Specified roads would be designed with oversized culverts, outfall riprap, armored dips adjacent to culverts, substantial ditch
blocks, drivable waterbars, or other protective measure necessary to prevent culvert failure or erosion of the road surfaces and
ditchlines. These measures would ensure the integrity of the specified roads in the project area during periods of inactivity.
We would close the roads to motorized vehicles (except for administrative use) after the sale is completed under all action
alternatives. Two gates would be installed near the beginning of each road and an administrative closure order would be
written. During harvest, the gates would be open, but only administrative use would be allowed. Following completion of
the sale, only necessary administrative use, such as regeneration surveys, thinning and future harvests, would be allowed.
Non-motorized travel would not be restricted.
Temporary roads would be obliterated after use by removing all drainage structures to restore natural drainage patterns,
adding waterbars as needed to control runoff, and establishing vegetative cover by seeding or other methods. Red alder
(Alnus rubra), an invasive species that naturally colonizes disturbed areas, and Sitka spruce are species that would be used.
In compliance with the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (40 CFR Part 230), we would follow Best Management
Practices listed on Page D-14, and we located roads around wetlands where practical. Due to grades, horizontal alignment and
increased length of roads some wetlands had to be crossed. BMP 12.5 applies to road construction on wetlands. Where terrain
allows, overlay construction will be used, excavation will be avoided, and extra cross drains will be installed to avoid altering
subsurface flow regimes.
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix B ■ 1
B - Road Cards
ROAD DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Canal Hova VCU: 5210
ROAD NUMBER: 6950
FUNCTIONAL CLASS: Local ENTRY CYCLE: Intermittent
LENGTH: 3.1 mi. TRAFFIC SERVICE LEVEL: _D_ DESIGN SPEED: 10 mph
DESIGN VEHICLE: Lostruck CRITICAL VEHICLE: Lowboy
MAINTENANCE LEVELS: (ACTIVE SALE) _3_ POST SALE:_1_ HIGHWAY SAFETY ACT: No
INTENDED PURPOSE: To provide access for cable and helicopter logging in the Canal VCU.
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT STRATEGY : Maintain for administrative use. Two gates will be installed near the LTF to
prevent non-administrative use.
ROAD LOCATION: The road begins at the Canal LTF site. This road is typical overlay construction although some endhaul
may be required in short stretches due to nearness of creeks depending on the road design.
WETLANDS: Where practical the road went around wetlands but due to grades, horizontal alignment and increased length of
roads some wetlands had to be crossed. BMP 12.5 applies to wetland road construction. Where terrain allows, overlay
construction will be used, excavation will be avoided, and extra cross drains will be installed to avoid altering subsurface flow
regimes.
EROSION CONTROL: An erosion control plan for road construction and maintenance will be developed according to standard
project specifications (BMP 14.5). Specific design measures will address erosion control in the vicinity of streams on the approach
to the LTF and stream crossings. All areas of organic or mineral soil exposed during construction shall be grass seeded (with
native species if possible) and fertilized (BMP 12.17, 14.8 El).
I
ROCK PITS: During periods of high rainfall (as defined in current regional specifications) blasting operations will be suspended
at quarries near potentially unstable sites where ground vibration may induce mass movement. No quarries have been located near
streams. Rock pits will require site specific erosion control plans (BMP 14.18).
j
FUTURE NEEDS: Will be intermittently used for general forest administration.
STREAM CROSSINGS: See road description photo for corresponding points on Road 6950. There are three Class II stream
crossings: Cowboy Creek A, Cowboy Creek B, and Bear Creek A (also known as Hydro Site "CH6").
Cowboy Creek A: Stream Channel Type MM1, bankfull width 2.5 meters, incision depth 1 meter, gravel substrate, gradient 4%.
Crossing site is at channel meander and may affect both riffle and pool habitat. Adjust alignment to maintain perpendicular
crossing and avoid channel straightening. Maintain resident fish passage through drainage structure. There is about one mile (all
tributaries considered) of resident fish habitat upstream of this site.
Cowboy Creek B: Stream Channel Type MM1, bankfull width 2 meters, incision depth 1 meter, gravel substrate, gradient 4%.
Crossing site is in pool habitat. Maintain resident fish passage through drainage structure. There is about 0.75 miles (all
tributaries considered) of resident fish habitat upstream of this site.
Bear Creek A (Hydro Site CH6): Stream Channel Type HC3, bankfull width 10 meters, incision depth 10 meters, boulder and
cobble substrate, gradient 10%. Large pool just upstream of crossing site contains fish. Stream has large bedload and debris
transport. A 65 foot bridge is planned.
Appendix B ■ 2
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
B - Road Cards
ROAD NUMBER 6950
A/
Proposed Road Segment
^ 'Ate
Proposed cut units
/V;'
Adjacent Proposed Road Segments
* X T 7
/N A/\ A
A V X v
< AAA,
TTRA Buffers
A/
Class 1 Streams
Saltwater and Lakes
/V
Class 2 Streams
/\/
Class 3 Streams
★ Eagle Nest Tree
Last Updated: April 06, 1998
E Proposed Log Transfer Facility
o
1320 2640 feet
f Proposed Major Stream Crossing
■1 ■■■
Scale iE 1 inch = 0.25 miles
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS Appendix B ■ 3
B - Road Cards
ROAD DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Canal Hova VCU: 5210
ROAD NUMBER: 6952
FUNCTIONAL CLASS: Local ENTRY CYCLE: Intermittent
LENGTH: 1 mi. TRAFFIC SERVICE LEVEL: _D_ DESIGN SPEED: 10 mph
DESIGN VEHICLE: Log Truck CRITICAL VEHICLE: Lowboy
MAINTENANCE LEVELS: (ACTIVE SALE) _J_ POST SALE:_J_ HIGHWAY SAFETY ACT: No
INTENDED PURPOSE: To provide access for cable and helicopter logging in Units 43, 44, and 45.
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT STRATEGY: Maintain for administrative use.
ROAD LOCATION: The road begins at the end of Road 6950 in Unit 45. This road is typical overlay construction.
WETLANDS: Where practical the road went around wetlands but due to grades, horizontal alignment and increased length of
roads some wetlands had to be crossed. BMP 12.5 applies to road construction on wetlands. Where terrain allows, overlay
construction will be used, excavation will be avoided, and extra cross drains will be installed to avoid altering subsurface flow
regimes.
EROSION CONTROL: An erosion control plan for road construction and maintenance will be developed according to standard
project specifications (BMP 14.5). All areas of organic or mineral soil exposed during construction shall be grass seeded (with
native species if possible) and fertilized (BMP 12.17, 14.8 El).
ROCK PITS: During periods of high rainfall (as defined in current regional specifications) blasting operations will be suspended
at quarries near potentially unstable sites where ground vibration may induce mass movement. No quarries have been located near
streams. Rock pits will require site specific erosion control plans (BMP 14.18).
FUTURE NEEDS: Will be intermittently used for general forest administration.
STREAM CROSSINGS: There are no major stream crossings.
Appendix B ■ 4
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
B - Road Cards
ROAD NUMBER 6952
/V Proposed Road Segment
\" Adjacent Proposed Road Segments
A/ Class 1 Streams
♦
Class 2 Streams
Class 3 Streams
Eagle Nest Tree
Proposed Log Transfer Facility
Proposed Major Stream Crossing
■ Proposed cut units
/N /\A/V
V X V
/\/\/\
TTRA Buffers
Saltwater and Lakes
/\
/'\/
Last Updated: April 06, 1998
1320
2640 feet
Scale is 1 inch = 0.25 miles
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix B ■ 5
B - Road Cards
This page intentionally left blank
Appendix B ■ 6
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
B - Road Cards
ROAD DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Canal Hova VCU: 5200
ROAD NUMBER: 6960
FUNCTIONAL CLASS: Local ENTRY CYCLE: Intermittent
LENGTH: 3.30 mi. TRAFFIC SERVICE LEVEL: _D_ DESIGN SPEED: 10 m.p.h.
DESIGN VEHICLE: Log Truck CRITICAL VEHICLE: Lowboy
MAINTENANCE LEVELS: (ACTIVE SALE) POST SALE:_J_ HIGHWAY SAFETY ACT: No
INTENDED PURPOSE: To provide access for cable and helicopter logging in Hoy a VCU.
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT STRATEGY: Maintain for administrative use. Two gates will be installed near the LTF to
prevent non-administrative use.
ROAD LOCATION: The road begins at either Capsize Cove LTF (Road 69601) or Hoy a LTF (Road 69602). Both Roads 69601
and 69602 will require design to control runoff adjacent to streams. This road is mostly typical overlay construction. There will
be areas of full benching and some of these will require endhaul. Alignment near West Fork Survey Creek may require adjustment
to accommodate crossing of overflow channels and small Class II streams. Alignment near Surho Creek tributaries will require
endhaul.
WETLANDS: Where practical the road went around wetlands but due to grades, horizontal alignment and increased length of
roads some wetlands had to be crossed. BMP 12.5 applies to road construction on wetlands. Where terrain allows, overlay
construction will be used, excavation will be avoided, and extra cross drains will be installed to avoid altering subsurface flow
regimes.
EROSION CONTROL: An erosion control plan for road construction and maintenance will be developed according to standard
projects specifications (BMP 14.5). Specific design measures will address erosion control in the vicinity of streams on the
approach to the LTF and stream crossings. All areas of organic or mineral soil exposed during construction shall be grass seeded
(with native species if possible) and fertilized (BMP 12.17, 14.8 El).
ROCK PITS: During periods of high rainfall (as defined in current regional specifications) blasting operations will be suspended
at quarries near potentially unstable sites where ground vibration may induce mass movement. One quarry has been located near
Class II Surho Creek tributary. Rock pits will require site specific erosion control plans (BMP 14.18).
FUTURE NEEDS: Will be intermittently used for general forest administration.
TIMING RESTRICTIONS: Instream construction activities on the East Fork and West Fork of Survey Creek will be restricted
to the period between June 1 and August 1 based on the likelihood of pink salmon, chum salmon, or coho salmon eggs in gravel
immediately downstream of these proposed road crossings during the rest of the year (BMP 14.6).
STREAM CROSSINGS: See road description photo for corresponding points on Road 6960. There are five major fish stream
crossings: East Fork Survey Creek (Hydro Site H2), West Fork Survey Creek (Hydro Site H3), Mainstem Hoya Creek (Hydro Site
H4), West Fork Hoya Creek A (Hydro Site H6) and West Fork Hoya Creek B (temporary road). Also four Class II stream
crossings tributary to the West Fork Survey Creek and two possible Class II crossings tributary to Surho Creek.
East Fork Survey Creek: Stream Channel Type MC2 (transition to FP3). Bankfull width 15 meters, incision depth 1 meter, cobble
and gravel substrate, gradient 3%. Crossing is at riffle habitat just upstream of transition into floodplain stream with side
channels. Anadromous fish observed at crossing site. Bridge (60 feet plus) is planned.
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix B ■ 7
B - Road Cards
West Fork Survey Creek: Stream Channel Type is HC2 (transition to MM1). Main channel bankfull width 7 meters, incision
depth 1 meter, boulder and cobble substrate, gradient 10%. A 3-5 meter wide (recently active) overflow channel initiates upstream
of the crossing site and flows west of main channel. Crossing is at steep riffle habitat just upstream of transition into lower
gradient anadromous fish habitat. Cutthroat trout observed at crossing site. Maintain resident fish passage (0.5 miles habitat
upstream of crossing site). Concern for large bedload and debris transport at this site. Structure design must account for overflow
channel as well as main channel. Road crosses four tributaries immediately west of main channel crossing. All are Channel Type
MM1, bankfull width 1 meter, incision depth <1 meter, cobble substrate, gradient 2-6%. All contain cutthroat trout, though
upstream habitat ends within 100-200 feet of each crossing site.
Two Class II crossings tributary to Surho Creek: East tributary stream Channel Type is MM1. Bankfull width is <1 meter,
incision depth <1 meter, gravel substrate, gradient 3%. Resident fish observed downstream of crossing, habitat ends about 100 feet
upstream of crossing. West tributary stream Channel Type is HC5. Bankfull width is <1 meter, incision depth 3 meters, cobble
and boulder substrate, gradient 15%. Resident fish observed downstream of crossing, habitat ends about 100 feet upstream of
crossing.
Mainstem Hoya Creek: Stream Channel Type is MC2. Bankfull width is 12 meters, incision depth 5 meters, cobble and boulder
substrate, gradient 8%. Resident fish observed upstream of crossing. Crossing is in between impassable bedrock falls. Concern
for large debris and bedload transport at this site.
East Fork Hoya Creek A: Stream Channel Type is MM1. Bankfull width is 7 meters, incision depth 1 meter, cobble and gravel
substrate, gradient 3%. Resident fish observed at crossing. Maintain fish passage (over one mile of habitat upstream).
East Fork Hoya Creek B: Stream Channel Type is MM1. Crossing similar to downstream crossing. This is a temporary road
accessing Unit 23 (Alternative 1 only) This site is a temporary crossing suitable for log stringer bridge which would be removed
upon completion of logging activities. Maintain fish passage (0.7 miles habitat upstream).
Appendix B ■ 8
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
B - Road Cards
/V Proposed Road Segment
Adjacent Proposed Road Segments
A/ Class 1 Streams
♦
Class 2 Streams
Class 3 Streams
Eagle Nest Tree
Proposed Log Transfer Facility
Proposed Major Stream Crossing
Proposed cut units
TTRA Buffers
Saltwater and Lakes
Last Updated: April 06, 1998
1760
Scale i6 1 inch = 0.33 miles
3520 feet
ROAD NUMBER 6960
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix B ■ 9
B - Road Cards
ROAD DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Canal Hova VCU: 5200
ROAD NUMBER: 6961
FUNCTIONAL CLASS: Local ENTRY CYCLE: Intermittent
LENGTH: 0,9 mi. TRAFFIC SERVICE LEVEL: _D_ DESIGN SPEED: 10 mph
DESIGN VEHICLE: Log Truck CRITICAL VEHICLE: Lowboy
MAINTENANCE LEVELS: (ACTIVE SALE) POST SALE:_J_ HIGHWAY SAFETY ACT: No
INTENDED PURPOSE: To provide access for cable and helicopter logging in Units 2, 3, and 9.
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT STRATEGY : Maintain for administrative use.
ROAD LOCATION: The road begins at road 6960 at mile post 0.68 in Unit 9. This road is typical overlay construction to mile
post 0.8. After mile post 0.8 (in the vicinity of the switchback near Unit 3) there are several sections that will require full bench
rock cut. Due to the length of steep side slopes or proximity of steams some endhaul will be required.
WETLANDS: Where practical the road went around wetlands but due to grades, horizontal alignment and increased length of
roads some wetlands had to be crossed. BMP 12.5 applies to road construction on wetlands. Where terrain allows, overlay
construction will be used, excavation will be avoided, and extra cross drains will be installed to avoid altering subsurface flow
regimes.
EROSION CONTROL: An erosion control plan for road construction and maintenance will be developed according to standard
project specifications (BMP 14.5). All areas of organic or mineral soil exposed during construction shall be grass seeded (with
native species if possible) and fertilized (BMP 12.17, 14.8 El).
ROCK PITS: During periods of high rainfall (as defined in current regional specifications) blasting operations will be suspended
at quarries near potentially unstable sites where ground vibration may induce mass movement. No quarries have been located near
streams. Rock pits will require site specific erosion control plans (BMP 14.18).
FUTURE NEEDS: Will be intermittently used for general forest administration.
STREAM CROSSINGS: There are no major stream crossings:
Appendix BH10
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
B - Road Cards
A/
Proposed Road Segment
Proposed cut units
/V"
Adjacent Proposed Road Segments
k x \ r
A ^A/'
y' V X v
< A/\/\
TTRA Buffers
A/
Class 1 Streams
Saltwater and Lakes
/V
Class 2 Streams
/\/
Class 3 Streams
★ Eagle Nest Tree
Last Updated: April 06, 1998
E Proposed Log Transfer Facility
♦. O 1320
Proposed Major Stream Crossing
Scale is 1 inch = 0.25 miles
2640 feet
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix B ■ 11
B - Road Cards
ROAD DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Canal Hova VCU: 5200
ROAD NUMBER: 6962 *
FUNCTIONAL CLASS: Local ENTRY CYCLE: Intermittent
LENGTH: 1.9 mi. TRAFFIC SERVICE LEVEL: _D_ DESIGN SPEED: 10 mph
DESIGN VEHICLE: Log Truck CRITICAL VEHICLE: Lowboy
MAINTENANCE LEVELS: (ACTIVE SALE) _3_ POST SALE:_J_ HIGHWAY SAFETY ACT: No
INTENDED PURPOSE: To provide access for cable and helicopter logging in Units 4, 5, 8, and 10.
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT STRATEGY: Maintain for administrative use.
ROAD LOCATION: The road begins at road 6960 at mile post 1.05. The first 0.6 mile of this road is a series of full bench rock
cuts followed by a filling through a notch then staying on top of a ridge beyond M.P. 0.6 the road is typical overlay construction.
All road beyond this point will be temporary.
WETLANDS: Where practical the road went around wetlands but due to grades, horizontal alignment and increased length of
roads some wetlands had to be crossed. BMP 12.5 applies to road construction on wetlands. Where terrain allows, overlay
construction will be used, excavation will be avoided, and extra cross drains will be installed to avoid altering subsurface flow
regimes.
EROSION CONTROL: An erosion control plan for road construction and maintenance will be developed according to standard
project specifications (BMP 14.5). All areas of organic or mineral soil exposed during construction shall be grass seeded (with
native species if possible) and fertilized (BMP 12.17, 14.8 El)
ROCK PITS: During periods of high rainfall (as defined in current regional specifications) blasting operations will be suspended
at quarries near potentially unstable sites where ground vibration may induce mass movement. No quarries have been located near
streams. Rock pits will require site specific erosion control plans (BMP 14.18).
FUTURE NEEDS: Will be intermittently used for general forest administration
STREAM CROSSINGS: There are no major stream crossings:
Appendix B ■ 12
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
B - Road Cards
Proposed cut units
1 IRA Buffers
Saltwater and Lakes
ROAD NUMBER 6962
A/
Proposed Road Segment
/V;'
Adjacent Proposed Road Segments
A/
Class 1 Streams
/V
Class 2 Streams
/\/
Class 3 Streams
★ Eagle Nest Tree
E Proposed Log Transfer Facility
^ Proposed Major Stream Crossing
Last Updated: April 06, 1998
1320
2640 feet
Scale i6 1 inch = 0.25 miles
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix BB13
B - Road Cards
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act Exemptions
Best Management Practices for Forest Road Construction
33 CFR 323.4 (a) (6)
33 CFR 323.4 (a) (6) identifies Best Management Practices (BMPs) which must be met in order to claim an exemption from
Section 404 permitting requirements for forest roads which are constructed for the sole purpose of silvicultural activities.
These are in addition to, although in many cases are similar to, BMPs developed by the Forest Service and the State of
Alaska, which are discussed throughout this EIS.
Permanent roads, temporary access roads, and skid trails in waters of the US shall be held to the minimum feasible number,
width, and total length consistent with the purpose of specific farming, silvicultural, or mining operations, and local
topographic and climatic conditions;
ii. All roads, temporary or permanent, shall be located sufficiently far from streams or other water bodies (except for
portions of such road which must cross water bodies) to minimize discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the
U.S.;
iii. Road fill shall be bridged, culverted, or otherwise designed to prevent the restriction of expected flood flows;
iv. Road fill shall be properly stabilized and maintained during and following construction to prevent erosion;
v. Road fill shall be made in a manner that minimizes encroachment of heavy equipment within waters of the U.S.,
(including adjacent wetlands) that lie outside the lateral boundaries of the fill itself;
vi. Vegetative disturbance in waters of the U.S. shall be kept to a minimum;
vii. Road crossings shall not disrupt the migration or other movement of those species of aquatic life inhabiting the water
body;
viii. Borrow material shall be taken from upland sources whenever feasible;
ix. The discharge shall not take, or jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or endangered species as defined under
the Endangered Species Act, or adversely modify or destroy the critical habitat of such species;
x. Discharges into breeding and nesting areas for migratory waterfowl, spawning areas, and wetlands shall be avoided if
practical alternatives exist;
xi. The road fill shall not be located in the proximity of a public water supply intake;
xii.
xiii.
xiv.
xv.
The discharge shall not occur in areas of concentrated shellfish production;
The discharge shall not occur in a component of the National Wild and Scenic River System;
The road fill shall consist of suitable material free from toxic materials in toxic amounts;
All temporary fills shall be removed in their entirety and the area restored to its original elevation.
Appendix B ■ 14
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix C
Monitoring and
Improvement
Projects
!
Appendix C
Monitoring and
Improvement Projects
Monitoring Plan
Log Transfer Facility
Objective: Determine permit compliance according to permit requirements.
Method: SCUBA divers run transects and record depth and areal extent of bark accumulation once before and an-
nually during logging activities.
Action: Notify EPA if bark deposition encompasses 100% coverage of an area one acre or larger in which the depth
of bark exceeds ten centimeters at any point in that area. EPA may require removal of bark.
Cost: $1000
Best Management Practice Implementation
Objective: Evaluate application of BMPs for water quality and fish habitat protection.
Method: Follow Alaska Region BMP implementation monitoring protocols. Randomly select completed roads and
units.
Action: If protection is inadequate, apply corrective measures. If protection measures are inadequate or unsuitable,
modify future recommendations.
Cost: $1000
Best Management Practice Effectiveness
Objective: Address priorities indicated in Tongass National Forest effectiveness monitoring strategy. Monitoring
sites may or may not be selected within the Canal Hoya Project Area.
Action: If protection is inadequate, modify BMP.
Cost: Variable
C - Monitoring and Improvement Projects
Predicted Timber Volume
Objective: Determine if harvest prescriptions achieved predicted timber volume.
Method: Prior to harvest, compare cruise volumes of various units with anticipated volumes based on prescription
assumptions. During harvest, work with timber purchaser to obtain volume information if lump sum sale. If scaled
sale, check harvest records as units are logged. District monitoring team would be responsible for implementing.
Action: Refine estimates for future sales.
Cost: $2000
Regeneration
Objective: To determine if there is adequate natural stocking within each unit four years after harvest.
Method: Field exams of each unit.
Action: If adequate stocking is not present in any harvest unit, it will be planted to bring stocking up to at least 300
trees per acre.
Cost: $15,000 - $35,000 depending on the alternative selected.
Prescription Accomplishment
Objective: To determine if timber sale prescriptions met the resource objectives after harvest. Did the leave trees
release? How are leave trees affecting the growth and health of regeneration? Were adequate bear den trees left in
the units? Are the reserves in harvested units being used by wildlife?
Method: IDT members will do a field review of selected units and discuss the results.
Action: Use the results to refine future prescriptions.
Cost: $5000
Blowdown
Objective: To determine if there is any blowdown in reserve clumps, partial harvest units, and unit edges.
Method: Aerial flights and ground reconnaissance.
Action: Use the results to refine future prescriptions.
Cost: $1000
Scenic Resources
Objective: Determine if harvest prescriptions were implemented and effective in meeting the visual quality objec-
tives. Determine how close resulting harvest is to the desired condition.
Method: Before and after photos will be evaluated and site inspections will be made two years following harvest.
Action: Produce a chart showing the number of acres treated, the prescription and the result.
Cost: $2000
Marine Slash
Objective: To determine if the amount of slash escaping from the processing barge poses a hazard to navigation or
creates problems for sport and commercial fishing.
Method: Have the timber sale administrators and operators watch for floating slash and require the operator to re-
trieve it. Request comments from fishermen and boat operators in the area. Use an underwater camera to determine
the amount of debris on the ocean floor.
Action: The contract will require slash containment and pick-up by the operator.
Cost: $2000
C ■ 2 Appendix
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
C - Monitoring and improvement Projects
Wildlife Harvest
Objective: Determine if changes in harvest of big game and furbearers are consistent with predictions in the EIS
and subsistence report. Harvest rates are important in assessing whether the supply of game is adequate to meet de-
mand by subsistence hunters and trappers (marten), to ensure viability of certain species (wolves), and to assess ef-
fects on bears that may also use the Anan Wildlife Viewing Area.
Method: Annually review ADFG harvest data to determine subsistence versus non-subsistence harvest and changes
in the rate of harvest over time. If a marked increase or decrease in harvest is observed, consult with ADFG to de-
termine the cause.
Action: If non-subsistence harvest or increasing total harvest trends indicate that future populations may be insuf-
ficient to meet subsistence demand, assess hunting regulations and travel management (road access) to determine
needed changes. This monitoring is also an essential part of the adaptive management strategy for road construction
alternatives in future entries.
Cost: $350 per year
Road Closure Effectiveness
Objective: To determine if gates are effective in eliminating motorized vehicle traffic and to determine the extent
of administrative use and foot travel occurring on the roads during various seasons. This will give us an idea of the
amount of disturbance and hunting that is occurring in the Project Area.
Method: Traffic counters (pressure activated and/or motion detection), track plates or cameras will be used.
Action: If unauthorized vehicle use occurs, additional barriers will be installed. If administrative use is heavy, re-
strictions on the season of use will be implemented. If foot traffic during hunting seasons is heavy, road construc-
tion alternatives in future entries should be adjusted accordingly. Gates that are damaged or not functioning will be
replaced or improved.
Cost: $2000 per year
Road Maintenance
Objective: To inspect roads for maintenance needs.
Method: A maintenance crew will inspect the road system annually to ensure that the road is not causing resource
damage.
Action: The crew will perform hand work such as culvert cleaning and seeding as necessary. If other maintenance
needs are identified (requiring heavy equipment), maintenance projects will be planned as necessary.
Cost: $1000 per year
Raptor Nests
Objective: To determine if protection measures are adequate to promote continued use of raptor nests.
Method: The sharp- shinned hawk nest found in the Hoya drainage will be visited annually for not less than two
years following harvest to determine if the nest remains active.
Action: If the nest is inactive for two years, protection measures may be removed; however, the size of the buffer
for nests located in the future may need to be increased to promote continued use of the nest.
Cost: $300 annually
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix C ■ 3
C - Monitoring and Improvement Projects
Anan Bears
Objective: To assess changes in the Anan bear population.
Method: Compare information on bear numbers, sex and age composition that is annually gathered at the Anan
Wildlife Viewing Area with bear harvest data for the Canal Hoya area.
Action: If significant increases in bear harvest levels correspond with changes in the population or age/sex compo-
sition of the bears at Anan, assess hunting regulations and travel management for the Canal Hoya area with ADFG.
Modify the design and location of future timber sales if appropriate.
Cost: $2000 annually (as part of the Anan monitoring program)
Sale Area Improvement
Tree planting - Units that are not adequately stocked within 5 years after harvest will be planted to increase stock-
ing. Units may also be planted to increase the species diversity of Sitka spruce. This project complies with Forest
Service K-V Handbook direction (FSH 2409.19) and may be listed in the Canal Hoya Sale Area Improvement Plan.
C ■ 4 Appendix
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix D
LTF Site Selection,
Design, and Marine
Effects
Appendix D
LTF Site Selection,
Design, and Marine
Effects
Log Transfer Facility
Log transfer facilities (LTFs) are necessary to transfer logs from a ground-based transport system of roads and
trucks to a water-based transport system of rafts, barges, and tugboats. The following guidelines are taken from Ap-
pendix G of the Forest Plan (USDA, 1997a). They were developed by the Alaska Timber Task Force Log Transfer
Facility Guidelines Technical Subcommittee in 1985. The guidelines identity physical characteristics necessary for
safe and efficient log transport as well as minimum requirements for mitigation of water quality and aquatic habitat
effects. We consider all of the guidelines and develop LTFs which represent the best mix: allowing activities to
proceed while meeting all applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. The LTFs undergo a complex and rig-
orous permitting process involving multiple federal and state agencies. The information contained in this appendix
is intended to facilitate the permitting process and provide an opportunity for the EIS reader to comment on Canal
Hoya LTF location, construction, operation, and monitoring.
Early in the planning process, we identified four potential LTF sites for the Canal Hoya Project Area. In 1997, a
fifth site was identified to respond to project scoping concerns associated with Capsize Cove. Sites 2, 4 and 5,
which have the most potential for development, are shown on Figure D-l and have been named as follows:
Site 1 - Canal Bay
Site 2 - Canal
Site 3 - Hoya Bay
Site 4 - Capsize Cove
Site 5 - Hoya
Surveys were initially conducted in 1984. US Fish and Wildlife Service personnel conducted SCUBA surveys at
Canal Bay, Canal, and Capsize Cove in 1996, and at Hoya in 1997 (USFWS unpublished LTF field investigation
reports, 1996 and 1997). Canal Bay was dropped in accordance with their recommendations. It does not meet siting
guidelines related to site productivity (S6) and sensitive habitats (S7). Responses to project scoping also expressed
strong opposition to this site from commercial fishermen and guides. Hoya Bay was dropped for similar reasons. It
is near Hoya Creek and would have required an access road crossing Hoya Creek near the estuary.
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix D ■ 1
D - LTF Site Selection, Design, and Marine Effects
Two sites remain proposed for this project: the Canal site for the Canal VCU road system, and the Hoya site for the
Hoya VCU road system. The Hoya Log Transfer Facility site was selected and the Capsize Cove LTF site was
dropped in all alternatives. The Hoya LTF site poses more risk to adjacent resident fish habitat than the Capsize
Cove LTF, but the risk can be mitigated through design and erosion control measures. The Hoya LTF site is pre-
ferred because it has less impact on visuals, wildlife habitat, and anchorage; and there is less road construction
needed. Site specific information pertaining to the guidelines for the two proposed LTFs follows.
Siting Guidelines
51. Proximity to Rearing and Spawning Areas: Avoid sites within 300 feet of the mouth of anadromous fish
streams, or in areas known to be important for fish spawning or rearing.
None of the sites is near important spawning or rearing areas. Canal is about 3200 feet shoreline distance west of
the nearest anadromous fish stream (Flying V Creek). Hoya is about 3300 feet shoreline distance west of the nearest
anadromous fish stream (Hardrock Creek). Hoya is the only site in close proximity to resident fish streams.
The Hoya site is bounded on both sides by small streams (less than 2 m width) containing cutthroat trout. Both
streams were surveyed by electroshocker in 1994 and 1997. The west stream has a steep mouth at salt water which
creates a natural barrier to fish migration at all tides. The east stream mouth is less steep and may be accessible by
salmon at high tide, but no salmon have been observed there. Erosion control and sediment detention will be promi-
nent design features of the LTF and access road at Hoya to ensure the protection and maintenance of fish habitat in
these streams. The proposed access road to the Hoya site is situated on a ridge between the two streams, therefore
providing opportunity for a crowned road bed with frequent drainage to vegetated filtering areas between the road
and the streams.
52. Protected Locations: Choose sites in weather-protected waters with bottoms suitable for anchoring and with at
least 20 acres for temporary log storage and log booming.
Protection from wind and high seas is limited throughout the Bradfield Canal. Both sites are somewhat exposed to
westerly winds, which are expected to be of most concern during the normal operating season. Canal is also ex-
posed to northerly winds out of Blake Passage and Hoya is exposed to northeasterly winds out of the Bradfield
River. The design of the facilities and the log booming and rafting areas will consider site exposure.
53. Upland Facility Requirements: Choose sites with proximity to at least five acres of relatively flat uplands. The
LTF should provide at least 60 linear feet of operating face along the water.
Canal is within 1000 feet of its proposed sort yard and could accommodate a small work and storage area at the top
of the access grade into the LTF. This sort yard will be within the 1000 foot beach fringe. Topography at the other
two sites would probably not accommodate a waterfront storage and work area. Only truck unloading and turn-
around would be possible. Hoya is within 2000 feet of the proposed sort yard. This sort yard is outside of the 1000
foot beach fringe buffer. The size of the sort yards will be limited to about 2 acres. None of the LTF or sort yard
sites could accommodate log storage areas of sufficient size to stockpile logs for barge-only operations.
All sites will require at least 70 feet of tree clearing at the high water line for passage of log bundles. The actual
operating face of the LTF structure may be narrower, depending on the design. There is adequate room at all sites
for 60 feet of operating face along the water. However, visual mitigation measures incorporated into the LTF de-
signs limit the operating face at any site, and resident fish streams adjacent to Hoya limit the length of its fill struc-
ture.
54. Safe Access to a Facility from the Uplands: Choose sites where access roads to the LTF can maintain a grade
of ten percent or less.
Terrain at both sites presents difficulties in access road design. The LTF areas themselves are flat, but incoming
road grades may exceed 10% for pitches up to 2000 feet in length. Due to surrounding steep terrain, logs will have
to be brought into the LTFs by truck only. Loaders would not be able to carry logs perpendicular to the road center
line.
D ■ 2 Appendix
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
D - LTF Site Selection, Design, and Marine Effects
55. Bark Dispersal: Choose sites where currents are likely to disperse sunken or floating wood debris.
Slopes are quite steep off of both the Canal and Hoya sites. Although currents are generally slow in the area they
are anticipated to be sufficient to disperse sunken and floating debris.
56. Site Productivity: Choose sites with the least productive intertidal and subtidal zones.
None of the sites are considered highly productive. LTF development will probably have minimal impacts on bio-
logical productivity in or adjacent to the Project Area. Canal is situated on steeply plunging bedrock. Intertidal
slopes are also steep at Hoya.
57. Sensitive Habitat: Avoid sites on or adjacent to sensitive habitats: extensive tideflats, salt marshes, kelp or eel-
grass beds, seaweed harvest areas or shellfish concentration areas.
Both sites are located well away from the most sensitive Project Area habitats meeting this criteria (Canal and Hoya
estuaries). Design measures will protect resident fish habitat adjacent to the Hoya site.
58. Safe Marine Access to Facilities: Choose sites that are safely accessible to tugboats with log rafts at most tides
and on most winter days.
Tide changes will not affect accessibility at any site. Winter weather (wind and high seas) may be a limiting factor
at both sites. Winter weather is likely to be a limiting factor for all logging operations in the Bradfield Canal.
59. Storage and Rafting: Choose sites where stored logs, log bundles, or log rafts will not ground at low tide.
Minimum depths of 40 feet Mean Lower Low Water are preferred for log storage areas.
Both sites provide log storage areas with sufficient water depth at Mean Lower Low Water.
S10. Bald Eagle Nest Trees: Avoid sites within 330 feet of bald eagle nests.
None of the sites are within 330 feet of bald eagle nests. Canal is about 1800 feet west of the nearest eagle nest.
Hoya is about 4900 feet west of the nearest eagle nest.
Construction and Operation Guidelines
Cl. LTF Design: Design LTFs to be least environmentally damaging as practicable, considering economics, facil-
ity requirements, physical site constraints, site usage (timber volume) and duration, water quality and habitat miti-
gation, other potential uses.
Most environmental concerns are addressed through the siting guidelines described above for each site. Remaining
concerns associated with erosion control, fish habitat protection, and visuals are addressed through design measures
and operating guidelines described below.
Physical constraints due to steep topography, as well as visual objectives, present design challenges at both sites.
For example, Hoya may not accommodate any activities requiring more space than log truck unloading and turn-
around. Each site will require separate, upland sites for sorting, storage, and equipment maintenance.
We anticipate a maximum potential wood volume of about 17 MMBF this sale. Depending on the alternative, a pro-
portion of this volume will go directly from harvest units to barge by helicopter, bypassing the LTF entirely (see
Table 3-3 1). A floating log slide with a minimal-height bulkhead made from native log materials is the most likely
design at each site, with sloped access roadway to the adjacent log unload area (about 150 to 200 feet from the high
tide line).
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix D ■ 3
D - LTF Site Selection, Design, and Marine Effects
C2. Fill Structures: Design and construct fill structures to prevent erosion, pollution, and structural displacement.
Existing beach topography will be incorporated into the design as feasible. Fill structures will be necessary to pro-
vide bulkheads and minimize access road grades coming into the LTF. These structures will be minimum height
native log and/or stable rock revetments reinforced with riprap below storm tide level to protect fill from erosion.
C3. Timing of Inwater Construction: If necessary, limit adverse impacts to marine resources and avoid conflicts
with other users through construction and operation timing restrictions.
Development of the Hoya LTF will avoid conflicts with commercial fishing and charter boats needing safe anchor-
age at Capsize Cove during LTF construction and during logging operations. No construction or operation timing
restrictions specific to LTFs are proposed. We anticipate that herring attempting to spawn at LTF sites may be tem-
porarily displaced by construction and logging operations. However, based on our observations of current spawning
substrate, it is likely that herring would eventually spawn on LTF bulkheads and riprap.
C4. Bark Accumulation Management: Use Best Management Practices to control intertidal and submarine ac-
cumulations of bark and other debris.
The size limitations imposed by terrain at both sites limits the amount of activity (sorting, trimming, etc.) that can
take place at the LTF, thereby limiting the amount of bark and debris accumulation at the shoreline. LTF design
will ensure low entry speed of log bundles into the water.
Some bark and debris will inevitably accumulate in the water during entry and rafting operations. The use of log
booms will contain most of the floating and near-submerged debris that may be of concern to boat navigators in the
area. The contract administrator will ensure that the operator is aware of this concern. The contract will include
provisions to ensure that the operator immediately removes logging-related debris from the water. The monitoring
plan (below and in Appendix C) also addresses this concern.
C5. Solid Waste Management: Remove solid wastes, including wood, generated from the LTF and dispose of it at
an approved upland solid waste disposal site.
The contract will include provisions to ensure proper disposal of solid waste in accordance with NPDES and other
permits. Disposal methods may vary with type of waste accumulated. Daily cleanup of the LTF is required when
accumulations of bark and other wood debris area present.
C6. Bark Accumulation: Comply with permitting agency cleanup requirements (if any) if intertidal and submarine
bark accumulations exceed standards (100% coverage exceeding one acre or an accumulation exceeding ten centi-
meters at any point).
To date, cleanup has not been required at existing LTF sites known to exceed these standards. There is still some
question as to whether cleanup is feasible or even beneficial. Cleanup efforts will require cooperative efforts be-
tween the Forest Service and permitting agencies. If cleanup or remediation plans are developed, they would ad-
dress alternative transfer devices and methods, operational practices, and removal of bark from the ocean bottom.
Remediation plans would be approved by ADEC and permitting agencies.
C7. Bundle Speed: Control log bundle entry into receiving waters to the slowest speed practicable.
Log bundle entry speeds will be limited through passive friction between the log bundles and the proposed log slide
skid and platform beams, and by contractual requirements which will prohibit the watering of logs during tide levels
which cause the slide to be at a slope greater than the maximum slope which limits log bundle water entry velocity
to the maximum allowable speed of 3 feet per second.
C8. Surface Drainage Management: Use Best Management Practices to control surface water runoff from LTFs.
LTF designs, including upland work/storage areas, will meet EPA General Permit NPDES requirements. Designs
will include settling ponds, gradient control, berms, site cleanup requirements, and maximum utilization of existing
natural features for inexpensive, functional, and maintainable drainage features for the collection and sediment
DB4 Appendix
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
D - LTF Site Selection, Design, and Marine Effects
deposition of surface runoff. Removal of collected sediment and debris from each site will be in accordance with
specific contract provisions.
Sort yards have been located well away from LTFs to minimize bare ground adjacent to marine waters. Grade con-
trol, sediment detention ponds, cross-drains and site cleanup requirements will address erosion and sediment trans-
port associated with surface water runoff. Both LTFs and their access roads are in close proximity to small streams
which will require protection. Only the Hoya site is in close proximity to fish habitat.
C9. Control of Hydrocarbons: Utilize oil pollution prevention plans (BMP 12.8) and oil pollution contingency
plans (BMP 12.9) to minimize petroleum products entering waters.
Petroleum product storage and equipment servicing and refueling will be controlled through specific contract provi-
sions. Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure plans provide organizational structure and procedures for re-
sponding to oil spills.
CIO. Onshore Log Storage: Where feasible, give preference to onshore storage and barging of logs.
Commercial and charter fishermen have expressed the concern that log rafting will interfere with their operations in
the Bradfield Canal. This issue is addressed under marine resources and recreation discussions in Chapter 3 of this
Final EIS.
Onshore storage to facilitate a barge-only operation would require many acres of sort yard space for log storage in
both VCUs. LTF design to accommodate barging would require increased excavation and fill at saltwater, thereby
increasing beach fringe disturbance and visual impacts. We anticipate that the amount of timber produced by this
sale will not support the costs of a barge-only operation. For these reasons, it appears that a mixture of floating LTF
development and helicopter-to-barge operations (as described in each alternative) is preferable from both an envi-
ronmental and economic standpoint for this timber sale.
Cll. Facility Maintenance and Reclamation: Maintain active and intermittent LTFs and restore abandoned LTFs.
LTFs in both VCUs will be treated similarly to the Frosty Bay LTF. These LTFs are considered intermittent and
will be seeded upon completion of logging operations. Motorized access will be restricted within the Project Area;
ramps and docks will not be provided in order to be consistent with road management objectives after the sale.
Monitoring and Reporting Guidelines
Ml -6. Monitoring Requirements: Monitor for bark accumulations, oil sheen, surface runoff associated with LTF
construction, operation and maintenance. Assure that corrective actions occur if necessary.
The LTF permits will specify monitoring requirements and methods. Typically, bark accumulation is monitored
annually at the beginning of each operating season according to specific protocols by SCUBA surveys at active
LTFs. Waters in the vicinity of the LTF are monitored daily for the presence of visible oil sheens during LTF op-
eration.
M7. Report results of monitoring annually.
A summary of LTF monitoring results is available and reports are submitted annually to EPA and ADEC. LTF per-
mits establish reporting procedures.
The following pages represent conceptual drawings of the proposed LTF sites for the Canal and Hoya drainages.
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix D ■ 5
D ■ 6 Appendix
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix D ■ 7
^ f 1
# ^ ^ f
,1' - §|i$tf#ff 1^
£H §k^^
''Zi
44'.
‘Z't'S.
WM&*
%%$&k
•^>ii 11 >!
^n' Ml,1"
' ! M Ml
" !»' '. \
N%^%^
x V ' V '\ -\ X'.\"'^
Al«^»
''a
a; ,\'A''n-'x'v\'\
\ \v V ^>^X^\\\^NV \\\^x '
,\V\ s -vS A ^ ^ \ NX\\V .\\<N \\ X \
LU
.M
' \X^M\\\x A /-
■Mw/
i' fm a
/
*
^tfp
/
C- $;
\" ' \ 'V'T- v'-=>^.%
\W\\ ^->4/ ^
D ■ 8 Appendix
£ 3 cdS
9* 73 C5
acb l
^ E 75
O C3-P
>a cjoj
iC7 5 X
ra d d -p
(b l
12 W a»*\
■o oix5'r
S v f'J ai v
£ a» n o) cj
“ c — 75
._, T w
u~ O 9;
<3 + <+; c
o w o ±
i~ < J3 +^
CL « £ Cl C
Q..^ ^ O O
C U U +* U
,\x
w \\v •
Av,\'l
»>■ .1
V'\l"'r
&M1
^\s~-
\\W
'V
o>
^fH
V^v/Vt
N^“/' ' „
- / V-
^ O*
HOYA LTF SITE
WRANGELL RANGER DISTRICT
Appendix E
Reasons for Scheduling the
Environmental Analysis of
the Canal Hoya Timber
Harvest
Appendix E
Reasons for Scheduling the
Environmental Analysis of
the Canal Hoya Timber
Harvest
SUMMARY
The purpose of this Appendix is to address the following questions regarding the relationship of this timber sale project
to the Wrangell Ranger District, Stikine Area, and Tongass National Forest Independent Timber Sale Program:
1 . ) Why are we planning timber harvest projects?
2. ) Why are we planning to harvest timber here?
3. ) Why are we planning to harvest timber in this area now?
4. ) Why can’t we harvest timber in another location at this time?
5. ) Why are we planning to harvest the amount of volume identified for this project?
INTRODUCTION
A goal of the Tongass Land Management Plan (1997) is to mange the Forest to produce desired resource values,
products, services and conditions in ways that also sustain the diversity, function and productivity of ecosystems. The
goals and objectives of the Forest Plan describe a mosaic of land and resource conditions desired for the forest in the
future. The forest mosaic will include areas designated to remain in an old-growth condition such as Wilderness,
National Monument, Congressionally designated Land Use Designation II (LUD II), and Old-Growth Habitat; while
timber harvest is permitted to varying degrees in Modified Landscape, Scenic Viewshed and Timber Production zoned
areas. The timber resource will be managed for production of sawtimber and other wood products from timber lands
available for timber harvest in a sustainable manner (Tongass Land Management Revision, Record of Decision, page 2).
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix E ■ 1
E -Reasons for Scheduling the EA for the Canal Hoya Timber Harvest
WHY ARE WE PLANNING TIMBER HARVEST PROJECTS?
Tongass Timber Reform Act (1990)
Section 101 of the Tongass Timber Reform Act amended the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
(ANILCA); P.L. 96-487) by deleting the following provision:
Sec. 705(a) The Congress authorizes and directs that the Secretary of the Treasury shall make available to the
Secretary of Agriculture the sum of at least $40,000,000 annually or as much as the Secretary of Agriculture
finds necessary to maintain the timber supply from the Tongass National Forest to dependent industry at a rate
of four billion five hundred million board feet measure per decade. Such sums will be drawn from receipts
from oil, gas, timber, coal, and other natural resources collected by the Secretary of Agriculture and the
Secretary of the Interior notwithstanding any other law providing for the distribution of such receipts:
Provided, That such funds shall not be subject to deferral or rescission under the Budget impoundment and
Control Act of 1974, and such funds shall not be subject to annual appropriation.
and inserting in lieu thereof:
Sec. 705. (a) Subject to appropriations, other applicable law, and the requirements of the National Forest
Management Act (P.L. 94-588); except as provided in subsection 9d) of this section, the Secretary shall, the
extent consistent with providing for the multiple use and sustained yield of all renewable forest resources, seek
to provide a supply of timber from the Tongass National Forest which (1) meets the annual market demand for
timber from such forest and (2) meets the annual market demand from such forest for each planning cycle.
The Ninth Circuit found in Alaska Wilderness Recreation and Tourism Association v. Morrison that "TTRA envisions
not an inflexible harvest level, but a balancing of the market, the law, and other uses, including preservation. It thus
gives the Forest Service leeway to choose among various site-specific plans, provided it follows the procedural
requirements of the applicable statutes." The District Court of Alaska likewise found in Alaska Forest Association v.
United States of America that "[a]llocating timber for sale is simply one of many factors which the Forest Service is to
consider within its discretion in determining whether to make timber in the Tongass available for sale." The court also
found: "TTRA’s reference to seek to meet market demand was not a mandate. Instead, it was an admonition to be
considered together with other goals in establishing a timber plan for the Tongass."
Forest Plan
In light of TTRA and the findings of the Ninth Circuit Court, timber volume is one of the desired forest resource outputs
identified in the decision of the Forest Plan signed by Regional Forester, Phil Janik on May 23, 1997. To provide this
output, the Forest Service must balance its availability as stated in the Forest Plan (1997) and the demand for the volume
in Southeast Alaska against other forest uses and funding allocations made by Congress.
The Tongass Land Management Plan (1997) sets forth the management prescriptions that describe how land managers
should operate on the Tongass National Forest. The Forest Plan provides the expectations and limits on how and where
activities will be conducted. The prescriptions include Land Use Designations (LUD’s) with a range of management
objectives, and specific standards and guidelines designed to ensure attainment of those objectives.
Land use prescriptions have been established for 19 LUD’s. Four groups of LUD’s similar in management direction and
environmental effects have been identified. Table E-l shows the 19 LUD’s for the Forest Plan, as they fall within the
four groups. The first two groups are also sometimes referred to as "non-development" LUD’s, and the latter two groups
as "development" LUD’s.
Management prescriptions consist largely of standards and guidelines. Standards and guidelines govern resource
management activities and are key to successful implementation of the Forest Plan. Some of these standards and
guidelines apply to all lands, others to specific LUD’s. These standards and guidelines take precedence over annual
targets or projected outputs. No project or program will be funded for which the applicable standards and guidelines
cannot be carried out.
Appendix E ■ 2
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
E -Reasons for Scheduling the EA for the Canal Hoya Timber Harvest
Table E-1
Land Use Development (LUDs) for the Tongass National Forest
Tongass National Forest
(16.8333 million acres) 1/
Non-development LUD’s
(13,428,299 acres)
Development LUD’s
(3,866,036 acres)
Wilderness and National Monument
Intensive Development
(5,885,387 acres)
(2,747,036 acres)
Wilderness
Timber Production
National Monument
Minerals
Nat. Monument Wilderness
Transportation/Utility Systems
Mostly Natural
Moderate Development
(7,542,912 acres)
(1,119,000 acres)
LUD II
Scenic Viewshed
Old-growth Habitat
Research Natural Area
Remote Recreation
Semi-Remote Recreation
Municipal Watershed
Special Interest Area
Wild River
Scenic River
Recreational River
Experimental Forests
Modified Landscape
1/ In this table, the total area within each LUD is included. However, in some cases, more than one Land Use
Designation can be applied to the same area (such as a Special Interest Area within Wilderness). Therefore,
totaling the acres of the LUD’s will exceed the total National Forest Acreage. No acreage has been calculated
for the Transportation/Utility Systems LUD.
The Record of Decision (May 23, 1997) for the Tongass Land Management Plan (1997) states that the Tongass National
Forest will continue to allow timber harvest while maintaining sustained yield and multiple use goals. The forest-wide
standards and guidelines for timber include general direction to "ensure that silvicultural systems other than clearcutting
are considered through an appropriate project level analysis process. However, uneven-aged management systems will
be limited to areas where yarding equipment suited to selective logging can be used" (Forest Plan, chapter 4, Timber)
The timber standards and guidelines include direction to "use clearcutting only where such a practice is determined to be
the best system to meet the objectives and requirements of Land Use Designations (Forest Plan, Even- aged Systems,
page 4-96)." The Plan estimates that clearcutting, using even-aged management, will predominate regeneration timber
harvesting (about 80 percent). The timber standards and guidelines also state that the two-aged management system, in
which some of the harvest unit is left uncut to provide structural diversity and a biological legacy in the regenerated
timber stand, "may be used where windthrow or dwarf mistletoe are not major threats or can be tolerated" (Forest Plan,
Chapter 4, Timber). This harvest method will account for at least 20 percent of regeneration harvests.
Forest-wide, considering all land allocations where timber harvesting is permitted, it is estimated that 65 percent of
harvesting will involve clearcutting, with the remaining 35 percent utilizing other methods (TLMP ROD, 1997, page 5).
Lands Suitable for Timber Harvest
The Forest Plan classifies lands suitable for timber production and determines where on those lands timber harvesting
should be allowed, in accordance with NFMA regulations, 36 CFR 219.14(e), and Section 102 of the TTRA. Appendix
A of the Forest Plan (1997) details the criteria and process used to determine the forest lands tentatively suitable for
timber production. These are the lands capable of producing commercial volumes of timber on a sustained-yield basis,
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix EB3
E -Reasons for Scheduling the EA for the Canal Hoya Timber Harvest
and are not in areas legislatively withdrawn from timber harvest. They are the only lands where regularly scheduled
commercial timber harvesting may occur.
The LUD’s further define where timber management may occur. Many areas in LUD’s that do not allow commercial
timber harvest contain tentatively suitable forest lands, but these lands will be managed for resource uses other than
timber production. LUD’s which allow timber management; Timber Production, Modified Landscape, Scenic
Viewshed, Scenic River, and Recreational River; total approximately 3.7 million acres, or 22 percent of the Tongass
National Forest, and contain 1.3 million acres of tentatively suitable forest lands. Three of these LUD’s; Timber
Production, Modified Landscape, and Scenic Viewshed; account for nearly all of the 676,000 acres suitable and available
for timber management under the Forest Plan.
Generation of the Allowable Sale Quantity
The ASQ (Allowable Sale Quantity) for timber on the Tongass National Forest is established at 2.67 billion board feet
per decade from the 676,000 acres of suitable and available acres where timber harvest can occur. The 2.67 billion board
feet per decade ceiling is equivalent to an annual average of 267 million board feet (MMBF). While the decadal amount
is an upper ceiling which can not be exceeded, the annual harvest from the Tongass can vary from year to year.
Although the maximum amount of timber that could be harvested during the first decade of the Forest Plan
implementation is an average of 267 MMBF per year, a level of 200 MMBF or less is more likely to be offered over the
next few years, given current market conditions and the transition that both the timber industry and the Forest Service is
experiencing. Therefore, the public can expect the amount of timber to be offered annually to vary between 200 MMBF
or less and 267 MMBF (TLMP ROD, 1997, page 8).
Distribution of the Allowable Sale Quantity Among the Tongass National Forest Administrative Areas
The three Administrative Areas of the Tongass National Forest (Chatham, Stikine and Ketchikan) play a combined role
in providing timber volume for harvest. Each Area is allocated portions of the timber harvest program based on the
availability of suitable and available acres, to meet the goals of the Forest Plan, the Organic Act and implementation of
Section 101 of the Tongass Timber Reform Act (1990). The distribution of the planned ASQ harvest (267 MMBF)
among the three administrative areas is as follows (All volumes are identified as sawlog plus utility) :
Table E-2
Distribution of ASQ Among the Tongass National Forest Administrative Areas
Area
Volume (MMBF)
Chatham
51
Stikine
95
Ketchikan
121
Total
267
The ASQ consists of two Non-Interchangeable Components (NIC’s): NIC I, which is 2.2 billion board feet of timber per
decade, and NIC II, which is .47 billion board feet per decade. While binding as an upper limit, NIC components are
estimates and do not reflect all of the factors that may influence actual sales. NIC components are non- interchangeable
because lower sale levels in one component may not be compensated for by higher sale levels in the other. The separate
limits on each component are binding on a decadal basis. The NIC I component includes land that can be harvested with
normal logging systems. The NIC II component includes land that has high logging costs due to isolation or special
equipment requirements. About 80% of the ASQ comes from NIC I land and about 20% comes from NIC II lands. This
represents a higher reliance on lands in the NIC II component than in the past. The distribution of the NIC I and NIC II
components among the three administrative Areas of the Tongass is as follows (volumes shown are sawlog plus utility):
Table E-3
Distribution of ASQ NIC I and NIC II Quantities Among the Tongass National Forest Administrative Areas
Non-Interchangeable Components (MMBF)
Administrative Area
NIC I
NIC II
Chatham
35
16
Stikine
77
18
Appendix EH4
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
E -Reasons for Scheduling the EA for the Canal Hoya Timber Harvest
Ketchikan
107
14
Total
219
48
Grand Total
267
The Forest Planning Model (FORPLAN)
FORPLAN is the primary modeling tool used to ensure that land allocations and output schedules for alternatives are
realistic and meet standards and guidelines in a cost-efficient manner. FORPLAN also is also used to conduct
"benchmark" analysis of forest outputs. A benchmark is a set of values that indicate a maximum (or minimum) level of
production capable under certain, often limited, constraints.
FORPLAN is used to translate forestland, yield, and constraint information into a linear programming model. This
model is read into a program designed to solve and optimize series of simultaneous mathematical equations. Results
from the modeling process are only approximations of what to expect when any given alternative is implemented. The
objective of modeling is to aid planners in estimating likely future consequences of management actions (alternatives).
A choice between alternatives can be made even though the model may lack precision in describing specific attributes of
a given alternative. FORPLAN, very simply does two things: 1) creates a linear programming model, and 2) interprets
the linear programming results.
FORPLAN models for the Tongass only analyze land classified as tentatively suitable for timber harvest. Tentatively
suitable land are those lands which are capable of producing a growth of 20 cubic feet per acre per year, have not been
withdrawn from timber harvest by law or land use designation, are capable of producing timber without irreversible
damage to soil productivity or watershed conditions, and can be restocked with trees within 5 years after harvest.
The FORPLAN model uses numerous constraints to develop the ASQ, e.g., land management prescriptions, land use
designations, standards and guidelines, and regulation classes, (see the Tongass Land Management Plan Revision FEIS
Appendix B, Modeling and Analysis Process for additional information on the FORPLAN program). To calculate the
ASQ, the model first maximizes timber harvest in the first decade of the 160-year planning horizon. This proceeds while
adhering to all resource, legislative, and operational constraints. One constraint implemented is that all harvest in the
first decade be sustained for the entire planning horizon. The model seeks to maximize the present net value for the
planning horizon.
FORPLAN is a tool used to determine the mathematical allowable sale quantity outputs given numerous resource
constraints and conditions. Given the linear programming function of the program and the models direction to maximize
the present net value of timber outputs to the end of the planning horizon, FORPLAN is not a decision tool for timber
harvest scheduling used by the three administrative areas on the Tongass. It simply provides an upper limit on the
amount of timber that may be harvested as part of the regularly scheduled timber sale program. The actual scheduling of
sales is a management function which takes factors such as infrastructure in place, location of proposed projects to other
activities taking place on the Forest, economics, desired outputs relative to acres available, and many more.
The Tongass Timber Schedule
Each of the three administrative areas of the Tongass National Forest are responsible for planning and implementing
their timber sale programs. In so doing, each annually develops a timber sale schedule based on current year and outyear
timber demand, volume currently under contract, anticipated Congressional funding levels, and availability of resources
to prepare sales for offer. Generally, the goal of each administrative area is to have a combined annual offer level of
approximately 220 MMBF which parallels the NIC I component of the ASQ and the expectations stated in the Record of
Decision for the Tongass Land Management Plan (1997).
An initial plan is developed at the beginning of each fiscal year and submitted in combination with the other two for
budget allocations. Between October and December (1st quarter of the fiscal year) initial allocations to the Areas are
made so work can commence on all or a portion of the initial sale plan submissions. During the second quarter of the
fiscal year (January-March), final allocations are transmitted to the Areas. Should insufficient funding levels be
allocated to the Areas to work on all projects submitted, then projects are delayed into the out-years. Conversely, should
Congress identify a specific volume for offer higher with corresponding funds to produce the projects, sales are moved
from the out-year to current year work. The sale plans become very dynamic in nature due to the number of influences
on each of the three administrative areas of the Tongass.
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix EH5
E -Reasons for Scheduling the EA for the Canal Hoya Timber Harvest
The following table represents a snapshot in time of what is anticipated from each of the three administrative areas of the
Tongass. Table E-4-Tongass Timber Sale Schedule Summary depicts only the total volume anticipated to be offered for
each of the fiscal years (October- September). This summary was created from the initial budget FY98 submissions.
This table is subject to change as described in the preceding paragraphs.
Table E-4
Tongass Timber Sale Schedule Summary. Volume (MMBF) by Fiscal Year
Administrative Area
FY97
FY98
FY99
FY00
FY01
FY02
Average
Chatham
64
46
43
44
40
44
43
Stikine
58
72
88
86
79
79
81
Ketchikan
84
102
104
96
97
104
101
Tongass Total
206
220
235
226
216
228
225
The Stikine Area Timber Schedule
The Stikine Area coordinates with the Chatham and Ketchikan Areas of the Tongass National Forest to supply timber
volume to the Forest’s Independent Timber Sale Program. Each Administrative Area plans timber sale preparation based
on a ten year period. This schedule allows the necessary time to complete preliminary analysis, resource inventories,
environmental documentation, field layout preparations and permit acquisition, appraisal of timber resource values,
advertisement of sale characteristics for potential bidders, bid opening, and physical award of the timber sale. The
schedule is reviewed at least annually. The current ten year timber sale schedule is shown in Figure E-l. The schedule
lists a program level of approximately 77 MMBF per year over a ten year period.
WHY ARE WE PLANNING TO HARVEST TIMBER HERE?
The Stikine Area of the Tongass National Forest has identified a ten year timber sale schedule which includes the Canal
Hoya Project Area location (Stikine Area Timber Sale Plan signed by Acting Forest Supervisor, Patricia Grantham,
10/30/97).
Reasons for scheduling the Canal Hoya Project Area may be summarized as follows:
1 . The Canal Hoya Project Area contains a sufficient number of acres allocated to development land use designations to
make timber harvest in the area appropriate under the Forest Plan. There is an adequate amount of suitable and available
land for timber harvest opportunities. Available information indicates harvest of the amount of timber volume being
considered for this project can occur consistent with the Forest Plan standards and guidelines and other resource
protection requirements. The Canal Hoya Project and proposed timber harvest volume contributes to achieving the goals
and objectives of implementing the Forest Plan.
2. The anticipated effects of timber harvest activities on subsistence at the volume ranges identified is within the effects
disclosed in the Forest Plan (1997). The potential effects on subsistence resources are projected to differ little according
to which sequence these proposed timber sale projects are subjected to harvest. Harvesting other Tongass National
Forest project areas with available timber in lieu of the Canal Hoya Project Area is expected to have similar potential
effects on other resources, including those used for subsistence. This expectation is due to the widespread distribution
and use by southeast Alaska residents. The Canal Hoya Project Area displays similar use patterns as the rest of the
Tongass.
3. The investment in infrastructure (roads, bridges, log transfer facilities, rock pits, etc.) is necessary for sustainable
timber harvest offerings over the course of the rotation.
4. Based on anticipated current year and outyear timber volume demand; volume currently under contract; anticipated
Congressional allocations; and the availability of resources to fully prepare and offer this project for sale, this project is
consistent with Forest Service Policy in the Alaska Region, Regional Guide (11/83); the Tongass Land Management
Plan (1997); and all other laws and regulations governing the removal of timber from National Forest System Lands.
Appendix E ■ 6
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
E -Reasons for Scheduling the EA for the Canal Hoya Timber Harvest
Figure E-1
The Stikine Area Timber Schedule
if Ymt Ti mfear tM W*rtt*h**t
~
Am: MMm
L_ - I t~
Data; Feprery !t 1 tM
_
L >
"" 1
Vol
V*4 | TSSA :
FYM
-1 iM * A
sr
S*U
8*f* SHI Votom*
3 T
Mara < IMMbfl m 8
data
Data
Profrct
1
1 Data
P
3
fyo«; _
G*t* Gat* Gat*
South LJnd*n6*rg EIS
Ooe-96
South Undr n i 2 S
T
2 2
T
•02
Etoin EiS (X)
VM**tart 15 S
15.
15
Sunny Boy 6JS
10
Sunny Boy
IOi S j
F '
- . i -
10
; '0i to
E**t Kim EIS
Kim II
20i 0
| !
! : |
1 22 22
Sumn*r EA
8
Sumnor
61 SI
! 1
8
«
6
WRD Mac Sat** EA
—
5
WRD Small SMi
S' S 1
; 1
: | i
5j_ 5' 5
South Und*nb*rg EJS
Oac-98
fsundrsss
>! s
1 1
i
1 1 if 1
South Undaoboro BS
Dac-98
Souft UryJy 111
2 ' S
1 7 1
21 2
=F
WNsk*y EIS
6
Wvskoy
6
S
-P-H
—
^ r~ ' — ; — • —
6
6
6
—
WRD Mac SatM EA
2
WRDSrmf S*J«
2
s
. J
....
-1
— i —
—
—
—
2i 2. 2
— ; —
T
2.
_s_
...
i
3
1
Foott/SE Cova EIS
10! Foot*
10| s
: i
IOi 10
10
Midway EA
S'uktaay
S' S
; —
! ? —
~ j. "“T T ;
5
5
5
Ryndi EA
SlRynrta
5, S
i —
5
^ 5
5
25
Souft Fanshaar BS
25 South Fanahow
25
O
— r
25
25
T-. -
Kim EIS
BkUmII
15! S
! ■
..
15
_ 2
:_5
7
Sotjth Undanbatg BS
Oac-ee
SUndy
2! s
_j
-1
: :
~
1—
..
J
L.
. ?: sj
7' 7
WRDMHeS***! EA
5
WRO Ui*c SMl
51 S
1=1
ti
h —
— L
' '
—
-
PRD Mr*e SUM EA
f.
lLs Z
r
OT, Bay EIS (X)
15ip<yBay _
151 O
j
15
L »*!- i
4
Sowti Bfind Sleugb EA
4
South Bind
4
s
r
.
r i
! -H
1
4i
OvariooA II EA
r
Overtook 2
4
e
7
—
—
■■
.
4
4
Central Kupreanaf EIS
15
Central Kupraanot
ISt s
r
J -
15j 15
MuddrRnerEA
5
Muddy Raot
51 S
~ 1
—
i
5i
5
5
Todhal CaCM EA
5
TodaNCaW*
5: S
—
■
— t _
-
:
5
So. Kuoraanof Haacopw EA
2
So. Kuprunof H«4o
2
S
r
L
2
CntWn EIS
Cnttan a
10
0
—
■
!
. ....
j
EtoAn EA
10
BadUrt*
10
S ;
—
i
“
“1
i
j
10:
10
IMtO Miae Salaa EA
5
TBD
5
s
*
5'
5
^sr
Total By Gat*:
Funding N**d* (Mt'a): I
Exarm. Planning. Prop, Admwt. Support
E/yi**nng Suppor1_
NEPA Protect- Botd Print-Contract EIS. Bold Prim (rWotanbal NEPA Contract '
I | ' __ 1
7 PIN I FNl I 7* PInJ FNL I PtN_ FNl .
_48J4; ^ 7. l!®2i _ t ~| '45191
1428 1 _| , 1«W| [ | 19881
a.2»2: !a<«8 4| | 8507;
itz-tz=i==trt=t=it=l:
By fa/ Farm Con
Raaourcaa Staff Offtcar
Sutaratlad By: M SHcnan Bratr
Wrangel Diatncr Rangar
Data Oaabtr 24. !M7
Submrttad By faf Gaoroa Dona
Acting Pttaraburg Dtalrtct Rangar
Approved By 01 Patnaa Granmam
Acang Fora j! Suoamaor
Data October 30 1997
E -Reasons for Scheduling the EA for the Canal Hoya Timber Harvest
The Canal Hoya Project Area Land Base by Land Use Designation (LUD)
The Canal Hoya Project Area is comprised of three land use designations (Table E-5) which encompass 25,660 acres of
the Stikine Area. 15, 190 acres are in development LUD’s where 3670 acres are suitable and available for timber harvest.
Table E-5
Land Base of the Pro ject Area
Non-development LUDs
(10,470 acres)
Development LUDs
(15,190 acres)
Old-Growth-Reserve
Modified Landscape
Timber Production
Project Area Land Base
The purpose and need for action specifies the project proposal. The purpose and need for the Canal Hoya project
identifies an expected outcome of 10-17 MMBF. The volume quantity was derived at by performing a site-specific
analysis of available suitable forest land in LUD’s that permit timber harvest. The volume is not a target assigned to
this project area but an amount of timber volume that can be produced from the project area in concert with meeting the
LUD prescriptions, the standards and guidelines, and Best Management Practices while maintaining options for future
harvest entries in the project area. The identified volume represents the estimate of volume that can be harvested at this
time parallel to the capabilities of the land. The purpose and need is analyzed numerous times during the planning
process, for example when reviewing deer winter range, wildlife travel corridors, scenery management etc. During the
alternative formulation process different harvest units are selected based on meeting various issues and public concerns.
The balancing of resource and public issues are kept in focus during the alternative development process and evaluated
during the environmental effects analysis. The volume of timber identified in the purpose and need is used as a basis to
build and compare alternatives to the No- Action baseline alternative.
WHY ARE WE PLANNING TO HARVEST TIMBER IN THIS AREA NOW?
Scheduling sales to meet the needs of the industry is a complex task. If the Stikine Area had one potential operator
capable of harvesting 77 MMBF per year from one project area, then one could expect to see one project or a
combination of projects each year from the Stikine at approximately 77 MMBF. However, this is not the case. The
timber industry is comprised of a number of operators from southeast Alaska as well as the remainder of the U.S.
Demand for sales ranges in size from one tree to large sales where investments can be spread over time. To compound
the complexity of this demand, some purchasers have interest in certain species of timber, have limited harvest and road
building capabilities, own or don’t own processing facilities of varying sizes, meet Small Business concerns, are large
business entities, are community dependent, are capable of large operations with limited support facilities, etc. While
the Forest Service strives to meet the needs of various operators, any individual, depending on how a sale is advertised,
can bid and acquire a timber sale. Should a sale be purchased by a company other than those being targeted, then a
shortage is generated by one segment of the industry.
After termination of the long-term timber sale contracts on the Tongass, the three administrative areas have more
flexibility in producing a wider variety of sales to meet the anticipated needs of the industry. Generally, fust entry sales
(timber sales offered in areas of the Tongass that have previously not had harvest activities, have no infrastructure, or
have limited infrastructure in place to move volume from the stump to the water) have higher volumes in order to pay for
and establish the necessary facilities to move the timber volume. These sales begin the construction of the log transfer
facilities, the primary road system, sort yards, camp facilities, rock sources, and other necessities which support the
personnel and equipment. Once the infrastructure is in place, the Forest Service has the ability to offer smaller sales
tailored to specific industry needs. Examples of where infrastructure is in place are Mitkof Island, Wrangell Island, the
north end of Kuiu Island, portions of Etolin Island, and Zarembo Island. Should timber harvest only be allowed where
infrastructure is currently in place, the ASQ of the Tongass would be substantially less due to the fact that the volume
available would have to be sustainably harvested from less acres over the rotation cycle. The Tongass National Forest is
one of the few in the system that has not developed full access to its suitable and available land for timber harvest
purposes. First entry costs for timber harvest activities is more expensive here than in other portions of the National
Appendix E ■ 8
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
E -Reasons for Scheduling the EA for the Canal Hoya Timber Harvest
Forest System for this reason. Where infrastructure is in place, sales on the Tongass are significantly less expensive than
first entry sales.
Generally, the volume removed is expected to pay for the inffastructure in place. When a project is selected in
undeveloped areas, approximately one-third of the volume from suitable and available timber harvest acres is necessary
to pay for the cost of the timber harvest facilities. This amount of volume varies greatly depending on the quality of the
timber in terms of recovery per acre harvested, the species of trees contained within the project area, the number of miles
of new road construction necessary to harvest the timber, and the protection measures of other resource concerns.
Once the primary road system is in place, the Forest Service then has the ability to schedule significantly less volume on
each successive timber sale entry. Rather than three entries removing one third of the volume each harvest entry, one
can expect approximately one-third of the volume removed on the first entry, small sales following to harvest timber
along existing road systems, then another large sale establishing road access into a portion of the remaining timber,
followed again by small sales. The life cycle of this scheduling is through the timber rotation cycle. Once completed,
the cycle is anticipated to begin again. A significant point of this scheduling cycle is that in order to meet the anticipated
ASQ in whole or in part (e.g. NIC I component of approximately 220 billion board feet and the NIC II of approximately
.47 billion board feet) for the entire rotation, all of the suitable and available lands scheduled for timber harvest must be
entered.
The Stikine Area Timber Sale Plan (signed by Acting Forest Supervisor, Patricia Grantham, 10/30/97) represents a
reasonable solution to meet the Forest Plan goals and objectives while providing a wide variety of timber harvest
opportunities. The Sale Plan responds to allocating harvest across available lands to balance the need and to mitigate
impacts of making timber volume available to the industry. Regardless of the number of sales, the same amount of
acres would be planned for harvest and all suitable and available acres would eventually be entered in order to meet the
anticipated demand for timber volume from the Tongass.
WHY CANT WE HARVEST TIMBER IN ANOTHER LOCATION AT THIS
TIME?
In order to achieve the Regional Forester’s objective of approximately 200 MMBF of annual timber offer in the near-
term as documented in the Record of Decision for the Tongass Land Management Plan (1997), the Stikine Area’s timber
resource goal is to supply approximately 77 million board feet of timber volume annually as part of the total Tongass
National Forest output. The Ketchikan Area’s portion of the Regional Forester’s goal is 107 MMBF and the Chatham
Area’s portion is 35 MMBF.
In essence, all areas with suitable and available timber are being analyzed for timber harvest projects. The goal of the
Stikine has been to provide a wide variety of sales over multiple areas in order to meet the needs of the industry and limit
the effects of timber harvest to a minimum on each entry.
WHY ARE WE PLANNING TO HARVEST THE AMOUNT OF VOLUME
IDENTIFIED FOR THIS PROJECT?
The amount of volume identified for this project is based on 1) the availability of the suitable and available acres within
the project area; 2) the amount of and timing of previous harvest; 3) other resource and subsistence use issues; 4) current
volume under contract and its location of activities; 5) anticipated demand for timber in the future; 6) the amount of
timber volume being prepared on the District, on the Area, and on the Tongass in relation to the availability of resources
to produce the sale; and 7) the funding allocations.
How the volume identified for the project is analyzed has been the subject of many appeals and law suits over recent
times. NEPA requires a reasonable range of alternatives to be addressed through public disclosure but is silent on range
of volume. The Forest Service has presented environmental documents for projects that display a number of alternatives
with a wide range of volume as well as projects that display a number of alternatives with a vary narrow range of
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix EH9
E -Reasons for Scheduling the EA for the Canal Hoya Timber Harvest
volume. In all cases, the Forest Service discloses an anticipated volume to be produced from the project either in the
Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement, the Purpose and Need statement of the environmental
document or the Proposed Action statement.
The goal of the Forest Service in analyzing effects associated with timber harvest activities is to provide the decision
maker, as well as the public, with adequate knowledge of the anticipated effects in order to make a well informed
decision or provide substantive comments for project consideration. When an anticipated volume is disclosed and the
alternatives center around a narrow range of volume, the decision maker can adequately compare difference between
each of the alternatives on other resources. When an anticipated volume is disclosed and the alternatives have
significant differences in the volume produced (acres impacted), it is difficult to weigh the differences between a two
million board foot sale and a sale of thirty million board feet.
By law, the Forest Service is obligated to disclose a no action alternative which serves as the baseline for any activities
which may be approved. This alternative responds to the public that requests that no harvest activities take place. When
the issue of wildlife habitat impacts is raised concerning the similar volume alternatives, spatial movement of the harvest
units can have the same effect as lessening volume (acres impacted) in one alternative verses another alternative. By
treating each alternative similarly, distinct trade-offs can be seen by meeting the same anticipated volume expectations
from the sale.
For the Canal Hoya Timber Sale Project, the anticipated volume to be removed from the sale is approximately 14
MMBF. The alternatives displaying the effects of the project vary in outputs from 12 MMBF to 17 MMBF. The
anticipated volume is the amount needed to achieve the goal of the Regional Forester’s decision for the Tongass Land
Management Plan (1997) and the intent of Section 101 of the Tongass Timber Reform Act.
Timber Demand
Southeast Alaska Economic Market Situation
Timber demand in Southeast Alaska varies dramatically on an annual basis. The level of demand is difficult for the
Forest Service and the Timber Industry to predict with any precision. Numerous factors influence the demand for
Southeast Alaska timber, including interest rates, housing starts, business cycles in the United States and overseas, the
value of the dollar with respect to foreign currencies, changes in import tariffs and changes in export policies locally and
abroad. It can be summarized by stating, demand is not a single number but a set of relationships over a specific period
of time.
The demand for Southeast Alaska timber depends to some extent on how successful local processors are in competing
for market shares in the global economy. Federal timber manufacturers of the Tongass must be able to produce products
from a wide array of species and grades of timber to be competitive given the transportation cost to market and federal
regulations that restrict export. Success of Alaska’s wood products industry hinges on manufacturers achieving a
competitive position in wood markets in the lower 48 and overseas. Alaskan manufacturers face steep competition from
traditional and non-traditional wood suppling countries.
The timber industry in Southeast Alaska is currently in a period of transition from the long-term sales (Alaska Pulp
Corporation and Ketchikan Pulp Company) to a total Independent Timber Sale program. New mills are under
construction (Silver Bay in Wrangell, the Seley Mill in Ketchikan) and others are under going upgrades (e.g., Viking
Lumber Company in Klawock). The capacity of sawmills in Southeast Alaska was estimated to be 284 million board
feet at the close of calendar year 1997 (Fred Walk, Director of Forest Management, December 1997).
Demand can be estimated by using historical figures of actual output or using a set of relationships to determine a range
of timber to offer based on installed mill capacity, mill utilization rates, harvest projections and contribution to
competitive operation of the region and the role in global markets.
Timber Buffer Stock (Volume Under Contract)
For all of the reasons mentioned above, the Forest Service does not try to predict and budget for the actual demand in
any specific year. Instead, the Forest Service approaches annual demand with the concept of a "buffer stock" timber
supply. The approach is to seek to provide an opportunity for the timber industry as a whole to acquire a supply of
purchased but unharvested timber equal to about three years of timber consumption . At the close of calendar year 1997
this amount of timber would be in the range of 600-700 MMBF of uncut volume under contract, (Kathleen Morse, R-10
Appendix El 10
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
E -Reasons for Scheduling the EA for the Canal Hoya Timber Harvest
Regional Economist, work in progress). This quantity considers the average rate of harvest for the past few years, and
any indicators of change in the rate from planning cycle projections or other sources. The idea is that if demand for
lumber and chip grade logs in any year suddenly increases, producers will have enough harvestable timber on hand to
respond to the increase in demand for forest products without waiting for the Forest Service or for Congress to take
action. Normally, the Forest Service would expect that the volume under contract would be drawn down during high
points in the business cycle and would be built up during the low points.
Changes in buffer stocks, the volume under contract, serve as signals to the Forest Service to consider adjusting its
budget and program of work. When harvest activity reduces volume under contract below target levels, the Forest
Service on the Tongass National Forest will consider requesting additional funds from the Regional Office, and
ultimately from Congress, to prepare additional timber sales. Conversely, when the volume under contract goes above
target levels, the Tongass will consider decreasing funding requests and sale preparation efforts. The timber volume in
the process of being prepared for offering is often referred to as the timber "pipeline’. The "pipeline" consists of all
activities associated with timber sale preparation and accounted for by the "Gate System" where the gate is considered
completed when various milestones are produced:
Gate 1- Position Statement
Gate 2- Sale Area Design, Environmental Documentation and Decision
Gate 3- Plan Implementation and Field Layout
Gate 4- Appraisal Offering Package
Gate 5- Bid Openmg
Gate 6- Award
Post Formal Gate Process- Sale Administration
Monitoring
Reforestation
Timber Stand Improvement
The Forest Service’ ability to respond in this way will, of course, be limited by the fiscal policies established by
Congress and the Administration. Timber industry representatives as well as other interested parties have access to the
Regional Forester, other Executive branch officials, and Congress in determining funding for Tongass timber sales
through the appropriations process each year (AFA v. US, et al., Declaration of Frederick Norbury, October 14, 1994).
CONCLUSION
The conclusion is that the timber volume being considered in the Canal Hoya Project Area is reasonable in placement,
timing, and amount; is consistent with the Forest Plan and Record of Decision as well as timber demand estimates by
the Pacific Northwest Research Station, Brooks and Haynes, and Kathleen Morse (Economist, Region 10). The timber
volume identified for the project is necessary to meet overall program goals as stated in the Forest Plan and is a
reasonable and consistent interpretation of the Tongass Timber Reform Act (1990). Based on the above, the Stikine
Area Independent Timber Sale Program is responsive to public issues, subsistence needs, and the timber industry.
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix EB11
.1
Appendix F
Public Comments to
the DEIS
TONY KNOWLES, GOVERNOR
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
PLANNING NEC c
L»i.
o
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
DIVISION OF GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION
SOUTHCENTRAL REGIONAL OFFICE
3601 "Cm STREET, SUITE 370
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503-5930
PH: (907) 269-7470/FAX: (907) 561 -6134
CENTRAL OFFICE
P.O. BOX 110030
JUNEAU, ALASKA 99811-0030
PH: (907) 465-3562/FAX: (907)465-3075
o
PIPELINE COORDINATOR'S OFFICE
41 1 WEST 4TH AVENUE. SUITE 2C
ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99501-2343
PH: (907) 271-4317/FAX: (907) 272-0690
March 17, 1998
Mr. Scott Posner
USFS, Wrangell Ranger District RECEIVED
P.O. Box 51
Wrangell, AK 99929 MAR 24 1998
Dear Mr. Posner: SERVICE
SUBJECT: CANAL HOY A TIMBER HARVEST
STATE I.D. NO. AK 9801-04JJ
FINAL CONSISTENCY FINDING
The Division of Governmental Coordination has completed coordinating the State's review of
the United States Forest Service's (USFS) proposed project for consistency with the Alaska
Coastal Management Program (ACMP) and has developed this finding based on reviewers'
comments.
The State has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the USFS's
proposed Canal Hoya Timber Sale on the south shore of the Bradfield Canal, thirty miles
southeast of Wrangell, Alaska. Specifically, this sale proposes to harvest between 12 and 17
MMBF of timber from approximately 610 to 800 acres, and to construct between 2.8 and 14.2
miles of road, depending on the alternative chosen. In addition, up to two log transfer facilities
(LTF) are proposed at locations near Canal Creek and Hoya Creek. The LTF's will undergo a
separate ACMP consistency review, and will be subject to a Department of Environmental
Conservation Certificate of Reasonable Assurance (401 Certification). All inwater construction
activities below the ordinary high water mark on the East Fork and West Fork of Survey Creek
will be restricted to the period between June 1 and August 1 to protect the habitats of spawning
and rearing fish.
The USFS has identified Alternative 3 as the preferred alternative for this project. This
alternative proposes to harvest approximately 15 MMBF of sawlog and utility timber from 700
acres in 21 units around Canal Creek and Hoya Creek, and to construct a total of 8.9 miles of
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix FBI
Mr. Scott Posner
Page 2
03/18/98
specified and temporary roads as well as the LTF near Hoya Creek. Harvest methods include
clearcuts with reserve trees, patch cuts, and partial cuts with diameter limits. In addition, of the
total 15 MMBF of timber to be harvested, approximately 3 MMBF will be flown by helicopter
directly to a barge.
Consistency Finding
This consistency finding, developed under 6 AAC 50, applies to the federal consistency
determination required for the project per 15 CFR 930 Subpart C.
The State has three broad areas of concern for coastal resources affected by federal timber
harvest activities: fish and fish habitat, wildlife and wildlife habitat, and water quality. The
State enforceable policies that address these concerns are found in the Alaska Forest Resources
and Practices Act (FPA) and its implementing regulations.
The State reviewed the proposed timber harvest activity to determine if state coastal resource
concerns are adequately addressed and to determine if the State agrees that the activity is
consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with ACMP enforceable policies. Based on the
review of the timber harvest activity by the Alaska Departments of Environmental
Conservation, Fish and Game, and Natural Resources and the Wrangell coastal district, the
State concurs with the FS determination of consistency, provided the following alternative
measures are employed during project implementation:
1. If Alternative 3 remains the selected alternative for the ROD, then the West Fork
Survey Creek crossing structure on Road 6960 shall be designed to avoid the high risk
of failure described in the DEIS.
RATIONALE: This alternative measure is necessary to protect habitats, in accordance with 11
AAC 95.185(a). Alternative 4 avoids this unstable crossing site.
2. Specified roads must be designed with oversized culverts, outfall riprap, armored dips
adjacent to the culverts, substantial ditch blocks, drivable waterbars, or any other
protective measure necessary to prevent culvert failure or erosion of the road surfaces
and ditchlines.
RATIONALE: Given the isolated nature of the project area, it is unrealistic to expect the
specified roads will be effectively maintained. This alternative measure is necessary to ensure
the integrity of the specified roads in the project area during inactivity, in accordance with 11
AAC 95.315(c)(l-3).
3. Upon completion of the timber sale, all structures must be removed from temporary
roads.
Appendix F ■ 2
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Mr. Scott Posner
Page 3
03/18/98
RATIONALE: It is unknown when the next timber harvest entry will occur in the project
area. Additionally, due to the remote location of the area and the difficulty of mobilizing
equipment, road maintenance is unlikely and increases the risk of failure associated with
drainage structures. This alternative measure is necessary to be consistent with the road
closure standard of 11 AAC 95.320.
Advisories
Please be advised that the State appreciates the conscientious approach the Canal Hoya team
has taken in keeping the natural resource agencies informed of issues and developments
throughout the planning process and commends them for their efforts.
Please be advised that the State recommends the selection of Alternative 4 for this timber sale.
Alternative 4 proposes less road construction and fewer stream crossings than the other
alternatives and adequately addresses concerns over management-induced landslides from roads
or units on steep slopes. If Alternative 3 remains the selected alternative for the ROD, the
State prefers that the yarding prescription for Unit 5 be changed from cable to helicopter.
Alternative 3 requires yarding across Survey Creek and the cutting of yarding corridors
through the riparian buffer. Though the Tongass Timber Reform Act and the Tongass Land
Management Plan allow yarding corridors, helicopter yarding would minimize the number of
stream crossings and the amount of road construction required for this timber sale.
Please be advised that memorandums from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation are attached to this consistency finding.
The memorandums contain general comments and NEPA comments for FS consideration.
Please be advised that you are still required to meet all applicable State and federal laws and
regulations. Your consistency finding may include reference to specific laws and regulations,
but this in no way precludes your responsibility to comply with other applicable laws and
regulations.
If changes to the approved project are proposed prior to or during its siting, construction, or
operation, you are required to contact this office immediately to determine if further review
and approval of the revised project is necessary. If the actual use differs from the approved
use contained in the project description, the State may amend this consistency finding.
Should cultural or paleontological resources be discovered as a result of this activity, we
request that work which would disturb such resources be stopped, and that the State Historic
Preservation Office be contacted immediately (269-8720).
If you have any questions regarding this finding, please contact me at 465-8798 or email
Jackie_T imothy@gov . state . ak. us .
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix F ■ 3
Mr. Scott Posner
Page 4
03/18/98
Cc:
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
* _
** -
Sincerely,
Jackie Tirnothy
Project Review Coordinator
Kevin Hanley, DEC, Juneau
Jim Cariello, DFG, Petersburg
Bill Hanson, DFG, Juneau
Jim McAllister, DNR, Juneau
Bob Palmer, DNR, Juneau
Rex Blazer. DGC, Juneau
Judith Bittner, DNR/SHPO, Anchorage
Ralph Thompson, COE. Juneau
Mark Jen, EPA. Anchorage
Duane Petersen, FWS, Juneau
Steven Zimmerman, NMFS, Juneau
Carol Rushmore. coastal district, Wrangell
Buck Lmdekugel, SEACC, Juneau
Tom Waldo, SCLDF, Juneau
Richard Harris. Sealaska
fax
: email
Appendix F ■ 4
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
MEMORANDUM
STATE OF ALASKA
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
HABIT A T and RESTORA HON DIVISION
TO: Jackie Timothy
Project Review Coordinator
Division of Governmental Coordination
Juneau
THRU:
FROM: Bill Hanson
Regional Management Coordinator
Habitat & Restoration Division
Douglas
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) submits these comments for use in the
consistency review of the U.S. Forest Services’ (FS) Canal Hoya Timber Sale Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS). The ADF&G concludes that the DEIS is largely consistent with the
ACMP. Specific actions required to achieve full consistency with the ACMP are identified
separately from comments related to the NEPA process.
DATE: February 20, 1998
F.4XNO: 465-4272
HONE NO: 465^292
PLANNING RECORD
NO
SUBJECT: Canal-Hoya DEIS
GENERAL COMMENTS
The Canal-Hoya timber sale project proposes to harvest 10-17 mmbf of timber from 600-800 acres
requiring 3 to 1 1 miles of new road construction in VCUs 5200 and 5210 on the south shore of
Bradfield Canal in the Wrangell Ranger District. The Forest Service has identified Alternative 3 as
the preferred alternative for this project.
The major wildlife concerns with the Canal-Hoya project are associated with bears and mountain
goats. The project area is sandwiched between two notable bear areas: the viewing facility at Anan
Creek and the very productive brown bear area of the Eagle River drainage. The ranges of many
of these bears must inevitably overlap the project area. In addition to the bear issue, the southern
portion of the project area is mountain goat range with a moderate, huntable population of goats.
We are disappointed that the sale does not include a Helicopter-Only alternative. This type of
alternative would have greatly relieved our concerns over effects on the unique wildlife resources in
the area and eliminated the issues related to roading on steep slopes. According to the DEIS (page
2-6), a helicopter only alternative was considered by the planning team for the Canal Hoya project,
but was eliminated from further review due to concerns that it might not meet FS scenic resource
objectives and because it might negatively affect the economic viability of future road entries.
Given the success of other helicopter sales in the area, especially the Campbell Timber Sale, we
question whether this analysis is accurate. Since the timing and location of future entries into the
area are not addressed by the DEIS in detail, it is difficult to evaluate how these may relate to the
concerns that we are expressing for the current alternatives. It seems reasonable, however, to expect
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix F ■ 5
that additional volume outside the currently identified units might become accessible under a
helicopter alternative. Specific concerns related to roads are addressed in the sections below.
Far more than with most Forest Service timber sales, members of the IDT have consulted ADF&G
staff often and kept us informed of issues and developments throughout the planning process. We
commend the team and appreciate their conscientious approach to involving our agency in a
meaningful manner. To a great degree, the DEIS does an excellent job describing the wildlife
issues and concerns of this proposed timber sale. These include: the importance of various habitat
types to bears, the effects on bears of habitat loss and roading, effects of disturbance and access
changes on bears and mountain goats, the effects of logging high volume old growth on species
dependant on such habitat, and the importance of Anan Creek. To us the DEIS description of the
area’s vaffies and issues point to the need for a markedly different approach to timber harvest than
traditronafroading-clearcut-cable methods. Some of the alternatives move in that direction but
clearcuttingfrom roads still plays too large a role in most alternatives. We urge the Forest Service
to weigh carefully the difficulty of mitigating the effects of roads, increased access, and habitat loss
with the special multi-resource values of neighboring Anan Creek and Eagle River. We hope the
link between the wildlife issues presented in the EIS and the Record of Decision will be evident.
We are pleased that the preferred alternative does not road the Canal Creek drainage and that
timber harvest there is limited to selective cut helicopter logging. Its proximity to Anan Creek
makes the Canal VCU unsuitable for any more extensive development activity, particularly in the
absence of any conclusive evidence that Anan bears will not be adversely affected by nearby
operations. Because of the world class value of the Anan Creek bear viewing facility we believe it
is advisable that forest management in areas used by Anan bears proceed conservatively.
Consequently, if logging must occur in Canal-Hoya, we recommend Alternative 4 be selected as it
affects the fewest number of acres, constructs the fewest roads and that is least likely to adversely
affect Anan bears. Considering, as the DEIS notes, pg. 3-41, “the effect of roads on bears is
greater than the direct effects of removing habitat” , the advantages to wildlife of Alt. 4 over the
preferred Alternative 3 are considerable. In exchange for reducing road mileage 70% from Alt. 3,
Alt. 4 would result in only a 17% reduction in sale timber volume. The DEIS acknowledges that if
road costs were included, Alt. 4 would be the most economical to implement. We disagree with the
DEIS statement on page 3-10 that “the value of roads and LTFs may outweigh the immediate cost
of the sale.” In an area like this where roading may be especially detrimental to other resources,
the value of roads is highly questionable if not greatly diminished. The Forest Service needs to
revise its concept of values when in comes to irreplaceable, one-of-a-kind resources such as Anan
Creek.
ACMP COMMENTS
Roads
Although the preferred alternative avoids building road in the Canal Creek Watershed, it still
proposes to construct road through rugged terrain with several difficult stream crossings. We
question the need and the economics of construction of road beyond Hoya Creek due to the small
amount of suitable and operable timber accessed by this road as shown in Figure 3-2. The
preferred alternative harvests most of the available timber south of the powerline in the Hoya
drainage during the first entry. We assume hydro sites H3, H4 and H6 on Road 6960 will be
bridges although this is not specified on the road cards. In addition, we are concerned with the
West Fork of Survey Creek (H3) which as stated on page 3-84, “has a high risk of failure.”
The portion of road number 6961 in Unit 3 (Alt 1 ,2,3) is a concern due to the steep terrain, which
requires full bench construction and endhaul. We recommend eliminating this portion of road and
making Unit 2 helicopter.
Appendix F ■ 6
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
We recommend ending road 6962 at the north end of unit 5 as proposed in Alternative 4. This can
be accomplished by changing the portion of the unit on the east side of Survey Creek and the
narrow portion of the unit to the south from cable to helicopter yarding to avoid the need for yarding
corridors. A short length of temporary road could extend into the north end of the unit for cable
yarding.
ADF&G strongly recommends selection of Alternative 4 which proposes fewer miles of road
construction and stream crossings. This is the only alternative, which adequately addresses
concerns over management-induced landslides from roads or units on steep slopes (as identified in
Issue 5 : Freshwater and Marine Resources.
Due to the high risk of failure associated with drainage structures in this area, length of time
between entries and difficulty in getting equipment on site, the roads should be put to bed and all
structures should be removed upon completion of the sale
Unit Concerns
Unit 5, Alt 2,3: This unit would be better suited for helicopter to avoid yarding corridors and
eliminate a mile of road construction in close proximity to a Class II stream.
Unit 19, Alt 1 ,2,3: It appears that yarding the portion south of the Class 4 stream will likely drag
logs down the channel unless full suspension can be achieved.
LTF location and design
We strongly agree with the concerns expressed by ADEC concerning the design, operation and
location of the proposed LTF.
Anadromous Fish Stream Crossings
As correctly identified on the road card, Appendix B-9, the two crossings on Survey Creek will
require timing windows of June 1 to August 1.
NEPA COMMENTS
Anan bear telemetry study
We ask that the Final EIS acknowledge the cooperation and contributions of ADF&G/DWC to
the Anan Bear Telemetry study. The DEIS, while briefly describing the study on page 3-33
does not mention ADF&G’s involvement. In fact, ADF&G/DWC contributed the expertise and
key staff needed to capture the bears, and division personnel flew at least 44 hours of telemetry
surveys of radio-collared bears during the study. This was a majority of the flight time for the
project. A substantial portion of the cost of our assistance to the project was borne by ADF&G.
We believe this merits mention.
Much of the planning for this sale and alternative development appears to have been linked to the
results of the Anan bear telemetry study of 1993-1995. Although it is a useful study in many
respects, we believe the data set is too small for us to be confident it comprehensively describes
Anan bears' use of the project area. Although the study obtained radio relocations for about three
years, bears were captured and marked only the first year of the study. The data are better than
no data at all, however, and they do indicate that there is considerable use of the western portion of
the project area by Anan bears. It seems evident that the eastern portion of the area is used less
than the western portion. But too few bears were sampled to conclude, as the data and DEIS
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix F ■ 7
imply, that Anan black bears do not use Survey Creek and lower Hoya drainages and would be
mostly unaffected by timber harvest there.
Roadino and access management plan
If logging occurs in the Canal-Hoya project area it is important that roading be kept to a minimum
and roads that are built be effectively closed to ATV use as well as highway vehicle use
immediately after logging. . ATVs are the most likely vehicles used on such an isolated road
system. Gating would not be effective mitigation as it has proved of little use in restricting ATVs.
The DEIS gives little indication of the interval before the next timber sale entry to the project area.
If that interval is 10 years or more, we believe that water quality concerns as well as wildlife
interests argue for removal of culverts and other drainage structures.
Mountain goats
We believe gating the road up Hoya Creek would not mitigate the effect of improved access to the
mountain goat population. See above on the need to close roads to ATV use. Expansion of the
Hoya old growth reserve goes a long way toward alleviating our habitat concerns about mountain
goats in this sale.
Brown bears
Not only is the project area bordered by the Anan bear population on the west but it is bordered on
the east by Eagle River, the most important brown bear hunting area in terms of harvest on the
mainland of Southeast Alaska. Legal brown bear harvest typically increases significantly during
logging or other development operations in or near good brown bear habitats. Both improved
access as a result of development, and more importantly, a greater number of hunters living and
working close to the area are responsible for the increased harvest. This has occurred in the past
notably at Bradfield River near Canal-Hoya. At the same time that logging in Canal-Hoya is
planned, work will likely be proceeding on the Swan Lake-Tyee intertie project through the Eagle
River-Eagle Lake valley. The simultaneous presence and activities of crews from both projects
may increase pressure on the brown bear population . With the harvest rate of Eagle River bears
now about 5% of estimated habitat capability and with females making up a larger than desirable
proportion of recent harvest, we are concerned about cumulative effects on the brown bears of the
area.
Anecdotal evidence and observations at Anan Creek suggest that brown bear populations may be
increasing in the area. Nevertheless, without knowing the current population we cannot be certain
it will support a significant increase in harvest even if only short-term. Consequently we request
that the Forest Service explore with the contractors ways to avoid project-related increases in
brown bear harvest. Mining companies at Greens Creek and Kensington in northern Southeast
Alaska have prohibited hunting in the project area during both on and off-hours as a condition for
employment with the company. Limiting or prohibiting hunting of both bears and mountain goats in
the project area and nearby during operations would substantially alleviate our concerns over
increased harvest.
Another road management tool the Forest Service should consider is daily prohibiting vehicle traffic
for recreation use on the road system after work hours.
We welcome other measures the Forest Service has proposed for reducing impacts to bears
including the use of a floating logging camp and accepting ADF&G’s recommendation of 500-foot
buffers on Hoya, Survey, and “Surho" creeks.
Monitoring plan
It behooves the Forest Service to monitor closely and thoroughly the effects of logging in Canal-
Hoya on the bear populations of both Anan Creek and Eagle River. Ostensibly the Forest Service
expects more logging to occur here. It is likely that future actions will enter Hoya and Canal creek
drainages to a substantially greater degree than this one. Probably more roading will be proposed
Appendix F ■ 8
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EiS
in the future particularly in v^anal Creek if all the suitable timber is to be accessed. With such a
renowned wildlife resource possibly at risk, the burden of proof that further development will be
innocuous must lie on those proposing logging. We believe that such a proof is not possible with
the meager monitoring plan proposed in the DEIS.
An expanded study of Anan bears with a larger sample size and data set and a study of Eagle
River brown bears should be done prior to any new logging entry in Canal-Hoya.
Many factors could contribute to a change in the Anan bear population. An effort needs to be
made to determine if changes in Canal-Hoya affect Anan bears. Marking and monitoring bears in
the project area as well as at Anan is one way of increasing knowledge about bears’ use of both
areas. This technique was useful in studying brown bears’ use of the Hoonah dump. It would also
provide information on use of the project area by Eagle River brown bears.
Monitoring of the nature of post-project road use is as important as monitoring the quantity of use.
Old growth reserve review
Interagency consultation and cooperation in review of the small old growth reserves in the project
area was strong. We believe the process was good and that it worked. Starting the reserve review
process early in planning for the sale was an important reason for its success. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, and ADF&G biologists were able to come to consensus on
the boundaries of the reserves. A field visit to the proposed Canal reserve by ADF&G biologists
was very useful in coming to a final decision. We are pleased the Forest Service has agreed to
expand the Hoya reserve (pp. 2-3, 3-61).
Retention
The DEIS states on page 3-7 “The closure of the pulp mills has drastically reduced the demand for
utility and low grade sawlogs which have historically been processed into pulp products.” We don’t
understand why so little retention is designated for most of the units when the trees would have
much more value for wildlife if left standing. This is especially true of helicopter units, many of
which are only designed to have 10% retention.
In fact Unit 3, Alt 1,2,3 strangely designates10% retention for the cable portion and only 5% in the
helicopter portion.,
We strongly encourage the FS to review utilization standards in light of current market conditions.
Lowering utilization standards might significantly improve the economics of some sales and units
while moderating the influences on wildlife. This is only true, however for retention of live trees, not
for the cutting of low/unmerchantable material and leaving of such material on the ground.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
c: Jackie Timothy, DGC Jim Cariello. ADFG/DH&R
Carol Hale, USFWS Ed Crain, ADFG/DWC
Steve Brockman, USFWS Kim Titus, ADFG/DWC
Kevin Hanley, ADEC
cc: Tom Paul, ADF&G WC, Douglas
Lana Shea Flanders, ADF&G H&R, Douglas
Scott Marshall, ADF&G CFMD, Douglas
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix F ■ 9
Rocky Holmes, ADF&G SF, Douglas
Bob Schroeder, ADF&G SUBS, Douglas
Kim Titus, ADF&G WC, Douglas
Kevin Hanley, DEC, Juneau
Richard Enriques, FWS, Juneau
Cindy Hartmann, NMFS, Juneau
Appendix F ■ 10
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
MEMORANDUM
State of Alaska
PLANNING RECORD department of Environmental Conservation
NO._
X. 3
:o; Jackie Timothy
Project Review Coordinator
OMB - DGC
THRU :
date: February 20, 1998
FILE MO: AK9801-04JJ
TELEPHONE NO: 465-5364
RECEIVED
FEB 26 1990
FOREST SERVICE
FROM : Kevin J. Hanley ^
Environmental Specialist
Division of Air and Water Quality
subject: Canal Hova Timber Sale DEIS
The Department of Environmental Conservation has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) for the U.S. Forest Service's proposed Canal HoyaTimber Sale on the south shore
of Bradfield Canal. Specifically, this sale proposes to harvest between 12 and 17 V1MBF of timber
from approximately 610 to 800 acres, and to construct between 2.8 and 14.2 miles of road,
depending on alternative. In addition, up to two log transfer facilities are proposed at locations near
Canal Creek and Hoya Creek. These facilities will undergo a separate Alaska Coastal Management
Program (ACMP) consistency review, and will be subject to a DEC Certificate of Reasonable
Assurance (401 Certification).
The Forest Service has identified Alternative 3 as the preferred alternative for this project. This
alternative proposes to harvest approximately 15 MMBF of timber from 700 acres, and to construct
a total of 8.9 miles of specified and temporary roads as well as the LTF near Hoya Creek. In
addition, of the total 15 MMBF of timber to be harvested, approximately 3 MMBF will be flown by
helicopter directly to a barge. We offer the following comments pursuant to 6 AAC 50 of the ACMP
and Section 319 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). These comments collectively address ACMP.
CWA Section 319, and NEPA concerns, with ACMP standards cited, where applicable.
Overall, we appreciated the concise format of the DEIS and the non-technical manner in which the
information was presented. In addition, we were very pleased to see the site-specific stream crossing
information that was included in the road cards in Appendix B. This type of information is
extremely useful in that it provides an indication of the channel characteristics at the crossing sites,
including stream width, gradient, incision depth, substrate, and the type of fish habitat present. We
do, however, have concerns regarding the alternatives that were considered in detail and the selection
of the preferred alternative, the lack of information concerning road maintenance, and the design of
the proposed log transfer facilities. These concerns are outlined as follows:
1. Alternatives considered in detail, and the selection of Alternative 3 as the preferred alternative
Given the success of the Campbell Timber Sale, we were surprised and somewhat disappointed to
see that a helicopter only alternative wasn't included as part of the Canal Hoya project. That sale,
which was located directly across Bradfield Canal from the Canal Hoya project area, involved the
selective harvesting of 1 1.6 MMBFof timber, and was yarded entirely by helicopter with no road
construction. The issues of concern for the sale were very similar to those identified tor the Canal
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix F ■ 11
Jackie Timothy
?
February 20. 1998
Hova project, including impacts to bear habitat and scenic and recreation values. Those issues,
however, were effectively mitigated through the implementation of the selective helicopter
harvesting prescription. The Record of decision for the Campbell Sale states “ Public land managers
face an increasing challenge to supply a growing national demand for jobs and wood fibre while
at the same time managing ecosystems to provide aesthetic, wildlife and fishery resources. I believe
we have met that challenge in the Cambell project area by the selected alternative while at the same
time trying new harvest methods that may be applicable to other equally difficult landscapes we
manage. The selected alternative does not propose any clearcutting ” (emphasis added). Given the
steepness of the terrain, and its immediate adjacency to the Anan Creek LUD II and wildlife viewing
area, the Canal Hova project area clearly constitutes an “ equally difficult landscape ” for which the
selective helicopter harvest methods used for the Campbell Timber Sale should be considered as an
action alternative for this project. We would very much support such an alternative and recommend
that road construction be deferred or avoided in the project area.
According to the DEIS (page 2-6), a helicopter only alternative was considered by the planning team
for the Canal Hova project, but was eliminated from further review because “ Harvesting sufficient
timber volume to meet the Purpose and Need for this project would have required adding units to
this alternative that would not have met our desires for the scenic resource nor left enough timber
along potential road corridors to maintain the economic viability of road construction for future
entries. ” However, according to Figures 3-2 and 3-3 in the DEIS, it appears that more than
sufficient volume exists within one mile of saltwater to accommodate selective helicopter harv esting
while meeting the Purpose and Need for this project. This is especially true within VCU 5200 which
contains a relatively large amount of medium and high volume timber. It also appears that this
volume could be obtained from areas outside of the potential road corridors that are depicted on the
alternative maps.
Regarding the concern for the scenic resource, according to the Record of Decision for the Cambell
Timber Sale (page 2), it appears that this concern can be effectively mitigated through the selective
harvest prescription -- ‘7 was also concerned about the scenic and recreation values of the Bradfield
Canal area. I believe my decision provides for the continuation of many of the established uses of
the area because of Alternative P s reliance on helicopter, overstory removal methods, lack of roads,
and'no harvest in the Tom Creek area. Although some people men; notice the harvest areas they will
not be in stark contrast to the surrounding landscape. In addition, the pattern of human use will
remain virtually the same. This will protect wildlife and fishery values as well as primitive and
semi-primitive recreation experiences which I believe will continue to be in demand on a national .
regional, and local scale. ” As is indicated on page 2-6 of the DEIS, a selective helicopter harvesting
alternative would also be “ consistent with the Forest Plan objective of avoiding changes to semi-
primitive non-motorized settings in Modified Landscape management prescription areas, when
feasible. ”
The chief concern that we have with a roaded alternative is the remote location of the project area
and the associated unrealistic expectation that the roads will be effectively maintained. This is
particularly true for the preferred alternative which proposes to construct approximately 7.3 miles
of specified (permanent) road that will require twelve fish stream crossings, several of which appear
to be problematic. Specifically, according to the DEIS (pages 3-38, 3-81, and 3-84), the proposed
location of the West Fork Survey Creek crossing on the 6960 Road is “an unstable site with
overflow channels " and “ a high risk of failure. ” In addition, just beyond this crossing, the proposed
Appendix F ■ 12
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Jackie Timothy
j
February 20, 1998
alignment crosses four Class II streams in less than 500 feet, with all of the crossing sites located
immediately upstream of Class I anadromous fish habitat. In addition to the localized impacts
associated with the installation of such a high density of crossing structures, the ability to maintain
the structure at the West Fork Survey Creek crossing is highly questionable, especially given the
overflow channels and “ large bedload and debris transport at this site. ” Consequently, this road
should not be constructed, at least not in the proposed location.
Although we believe that yarding should be conducted exclusively by helicopter within this project
area, if the Forest Service continues to pursue an alternative that employs both cable and helicopter
yarding, then we strongly recommend that Alternative 4 be selected for the ROD. This alternative
is much more environmentally preferred as it constructs the least amount of specified road (2.6
miles), crosses only two fish-bearing streams, avoids the “ unstable . ” “ high risk of failure " crossing
site on West Fork Survey Creek, and still establishes the '‘infrastructure” (LTF and initial road
system) for future entries. In addition, it avoids harvesting within the Floy a Creek watershed which,
according to the DEIS (page 3-83), “ has a relatively high proportion of steep slopes '' and
“ significant natural sediment source areas in combination with a relatively high proportion of low
gradient streams that are sensitive to sediment deposition "
However, if Alternative 3 remains as the selected alternative for the ROD. then the alignment of the
6960 Road must be moved north of its present location to avoid the unstable crossing site on West
Fork Survey Creek and the four Class II streams located just beyond this site. Given the topographic
features on the unit card and road card maps, it appears that such a relocation is feasible and.
therefore, necessary to be consistent with 11 AAC 95.285(a)(6). which states “An operator shall
minimize the number of stream crossings.” In addition, the yarding prescription for Unit 5 should
be changed from cable to helicopter, as is prescribed for this unit under Alternative 4. This would
avoid the necessity of yarding across Survey Creek and the cutting of yarding corridors through its
riparian buffer. It would also ensure consistency with 11 .AAC 95.285(a)(1) which states “.An
operator shall minimize the amount of road construction.”
2. Road Maintenance
According to the DEIS (page 2-2), all specified roads will be closed to motor vehicles by gates
following completion of this timber sale; however, no information is provided concerning the post-
sale maintenance of these roads. In addition, although the road cards indicate that each road has
been designated for post-sale Maintenance Level 1, no indication is provided as to what this level
of maintenance will consist of. This is especially confusing given that Maintenance Level 1 has been
defined differentlv across the Tongass. with definitions ranging from bridge removal and organic
* W W w w -
encroachment, with all culverts left in place, to “basic custodial maintenance” of the road surface
and drainage structures. Regardless of how it is defined for this timber sale, all of the inactive
specified roads in the project area must be maintained consistent with the standards of 11 AAC
95.315(c)(l-3), which include: (1) keeping ditches and drainage structures maintained as necessary
to assure water flow and fish passage. (2) Keeping the road surface crowned, outsloped.
waterbarred, or otherwise left in a condition not conducive to erosion, and (3) keeping ditches and
drainage structures clear and in good repair.
However, as indicated above in item 1., given the isolated nature of the Canal Hoya project area, it
is unrealistic to expect that these roads will be effectively maintained, let alone monitored, on a
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix F ■ 13
Jackie Timothy
4
February 20, 1998
routine basis. This is especially true given the high costs of mobilizing equipment for the
maintenance of roads in such a remote location, costs which are exponentially higher for road
systems as short as those proposed under the action alternatives for this project (i.e.. high cost per
mile of road maintained).
Although future timber harvest entries will undoubtedly occur within this project area, the DEIS
does not indicate when the next entry will be. Consequently, given the unknown length of time
during which these roads will be inactive, and the apparent unrealistic objectives for road
maintenance, all roads within the project area should either be effectively closed consistent with
standards of 11 AAC 95.320. or they should be designed with the knowledge that maintenance is
unlikely (e.g., outsloped road surfaces, oversized culverts, outfall riprap, armored dips adjacent to
the culverts, substantial ditch blocks, waterbars, etc.). However, as indicated before, we believe that
a road system should not be established within this project area, and that yarding should be done
exclusively by helicopter
3. Log Transfer Facility Design
As depicted in the schematic drawings on page 3-30 of the DEIS, and as described in Appendix D.
the ‘‘ 'floating log slide ’’design of the proposed LTF('s ) for this project is essentially that of a "beaver
slide;'’ a design that is generally no longer used because of the substantial loss of bark that results
from the uncontrolled high velocity at which the log bundles enter the water. Bark loss has been
shown to be directly correlated with log entrance velocity which, in turn, is dependent upon the angle
of the slide. Depending on the tidal stage, the slide angle at which this design would operate varies
from 6 degrees at a -15’ tide to 23 degrees at a -4’ tide (see attachment). These angles will actually
increase during log transfer operations as the weight of the log bundles submerges the free floating
end of the skid rails further into the water.
A similar facility at Sawmill Cove in Yakutat was examined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) to determine the degree of bark loss associated with this type of LTF (Robinson- Wilson
and Jackson - no date). The mean percentage of bark loss from each bundle entering the water at that
facility was determined to be approximately 28 percent. This amount of bark loss was associated
with entrance velocities that ranged from 22 feet per second (fps) to 25 fps. Subtidal investigations
by the USFWS at that facility' identified bark accumulations on the benthic substrate of up to 36
inches thick (USFWS 1984). Given the design similarities between the proposed LTF(s) for the
Canal Hoya project and the Sawmill Cove beaver slide, relatively similar degrees of bark loss can
be expected to occur. Consequently, unless it can be demonstrated that the entrance velocity of the
log bundles will be controlled to 3 fps or less, an alternative design for the LTF(s) must be
considered and must be limited to those which are capable of controlling the speed at which the
bundles enter the water (e.g.. crane, double A-frame, low-angle slide, continuous chain). This is
necessary in order to ensure consistency with 6 AAC 80.130 (Habitats) and 6 AAC 80.140 (Air.
Land, and Water Quality). In addition, by the time the Forest Service goes through the permitting
process for the LTF(s), the EPA NPDES General Permit for LTFs in Alaska will have been finalized.
This permit stipulates that the speed of log bundles entering receiving waters shall not exceed 3 feet
per second. Consequently, in addition to being required for consistency with the ACMP. an
alternative design will need to be developed in order for the LTF(s) to be authorized under the
General Permit.
Appendix F ■ 14
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Jackie Timothy
February 20, 1998
5
We appreciate the opportunity to comment,
cc: Jim Ferguson, ADEC
Deena Henkins, ADEC
Jim Cariello, ADF&G
Bill Hanson, ADF&G
Tom Paul, ADF&G
Carol Hale, USFWS
Bill Ryan, USEPA
t'Scott Posner, USFS
Steve Brady, USFS
Literature Cited
Robinson-Wilson, E.F., and R. Jackson. No date. Relationship between bark loss and log transfer
method at five log transfer facilities in southeast Alaska. U.S. Forest Service. Alaska Region
Administrative Document Number 157. 28 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Distribution of subtidal bark deposits at Sawmill Cove.
Yakutat. Alaska. USFWS, S.E. Alaska Ecological Services, Sitka Substation. Unpublished
report. 12 pp
Attachment
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix F ■ 15
ATTACHMENT
<n o m o - o
n n *— •— in • ^
+ + + + + o i
Appendix F ■ 16
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
ANGLES OF SKID RAILS AT VARIOUS TIDAL ELEVATIONS
United States
Department of
Agriculture
Forest
Service
Alaska Region
Tongass National Forest
Stikine Area
P.O. Box 309
Petersburg, Alaska 99833
File Code: 1950
Date: May 15, 1998
Jackie Timothy
Project Review Coordinator
Division of Governmental Coordination
P.O. Box 110030
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0030
Dear Ms. Timothy,
Thank you for your ACMP review and comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
the proposed Canal Hoya Timber Sale. I appreciate the time and effort you have taken in coordinat-
ing with us to resolve issues that came up during the review. I would like to take this opportunity to
respond to the comments in your letter and the letters that you forwarded from ADFG and ADEC.
Consistency Finding
"If Alternative 3 remains the selected alternative for the ROD, then the West Fork Survey Creek
crossing structure on Road 6960 shall be designated to avoid the high risk of failure described in
the DEIS."
We were able to find a new stable crossing about 150-200 meters downstream from the original
crossing. It avoids 4 fish stream crossings as well as the stability problems associated with the origi-
nal site. Please also note that I have dropped the final 1.3 miles of Road 6960 from the selected al-
ternative for the reasons explained in the Record of Decision.
"Specified roads must be designed with oversized culverts, outfall riprap, armored dips adjacent to
the culverts, substantial ditch blocks, drivable waterbars, or any other protective measure neces-
sary to prevent culvert failure or erosion of the road surfaces and ditchlines. "
We have reviewed 1 1 AAC 95.315 as well as the other pertinent road construction and maintenance
provisions and we have determined that our standard road design, construction, and maintenance
practices are fully consistent with the Alaska Forest Resources and Practices Regulations and the
above stipulations. We plan regular inspections and maintenance of the specified road system in this
sale area.
"Upon completion of the timber sale, all structures must be removed from temporary roads. "
This will be done and was listed as a mitigation measure common to all alternatives on page 2-2 of
the DEIS.
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix F ■ 17
Advisories
" Please be advised that the State recommends the selection of Alternative 4 for this timber sale. "
Careful consideration was given to Alternative 4; however I selected Alternative 3 because I feel it
achieves a better balance of meeting the social, economic and resource concerns for the project area.
Alternative 3 has been refined including some of your suggestions as discussed above. I believe Al-
ternative 3, while fully meeting Forest Plan standards, more closely follows the intent of the Forest
Plan in regard to the timber resource and maintains future options for viable economic timber har-
vest south of the powerline. Alternative 4 does not provide for such harvest south of the power line
and considerable area available for timber harvest exists in this area. For this reasons and others de-
scribed in the Record of Decision I preferred Alternative 3 as, in my opinion, a more balanced deci-
sion consistent with the Forest Plan objectives. Note that Alternative 3 has been modified as previ-
ously noted to reduce total specified roads by 1.3 miles.
"If Alternative 3 remains the selected alternative for the ROD , the State prefers that the yarding
prescription for Unit 5 be changed from cable to helicopter. "
We have already reduced the amount of road construction and stream crossings in this unit by drop-
ping the road originally proposed to cross Survey Creek and access the eastern portion of Unit 5.
This road would have required at least three major stream crossings, two of which represented high
risk of failure. Instead, the use of skyline logging corridors was proposed to eliminate the need for
road on the east side of Survey Creek and stream crossings in the unit, thereby reducing water qual-
ity and fish habitat impacts while still allowing for relatively economical cable yarding. The road on
the west side of Survey Creek in Unit 5 crosses no major streams. Skyline yarding across Survey
Creek will result in less impact than new road construction and stream crossings. Stream protection
measures are detailed in the unit card. We will design Unit 5 to be fully consistent with the Alaska
Forest Resources & Practices Regulations for road location (1 1 AAC 95.285) as well as cable yard-
ing and stream protection (11 AAC 95.360). If the yarding corridors across Survey Creek cannot be
designed to be fully consistent with all regulations and BMPs, we will require the portion of Unit 5
east of Survey Creek to be helicopter yarded.
ADFG Comments
"We are disappointed that the sale does not include a Helicopter-Only alternative. "
The Campbell Timber Sale is cited as an example of a timber sale that provided timber without roads
or clearcuts. Roads are needed to harvest timber in Canal Hoy a because of helicopter limits and the
power line. Helicopters cannot safely yard timber over the powerline. Also, economics generally
restrict helicopters to one mile sling loads for timber. Without roads the majority of the available
timber would be isolated and uneconomical to havest in most economic markets.
No roads will be constructed in the Canal VCU this entry. Alternative 4 provided the decision
maker with an option to select "helicopter yarding only" by specifying in the Record of Decision that
Alternative 4 is to be implemented without the road (which would also omit the units to the south of
the powerline). We have expanded our discussion of that option in the FEIS.
"We disagree with the DEIS statement on page 3-10 that "the value of roads and LTFs may out-
weigh the immediate cost of the sale. "
The Forest Service does view specified road developments as a long term economic benefit (capital
improvement) because specified roads provide access for a variety of silvicultural activities includ-
ing; timber harvest, tree planting, precommercial and commercial thinnings both for the first entry
and any future entries.
Appendix F ■ 18
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
"The portion of road number 6961 in Unit 3 (Alt 1,2,3) is a concern due to the steep terrain,
which requires full bench construction and endhaul. "
Since the road design was not completed when the DEIS was published, we did not include the
length of full bench construction needed, so this road may have looked like it would have more re-
source impacts than would actually occur. This road segment would only require about 200 feet of
full bench road construction with end haul of excavated material to an acceptable stable location.
"... The roads should be put to bed and all structures should be removed upon completion of this
sale. "
We will pull all drainage structures on temporary roads and restore the drainages to their original
pattern. Temporary road beds would also be seeded and revegetated. We will maintain the specified
roads in a drivable condition so we can drive on them to conduct road maintenance work, regenera-
tion surveys, thinning and other administrative work. The specified roads are considered "transpor-
tation infrastructure" for silvicultural purposes only. The Forest Service does not plan to use the
roads for any other purpose at this time. To mitigate wildlife habitat security concerns, the roads
will be closed during and after sale completion to unauthorized motorized vehicle access by means
of gates and an Administrative road closure order.
"Unit 19, Alt 1,2,3: It appears that yarding the portion south of the Class 4 stream will likely drag
logs down the channel unless full suspension can be achieved. "
It does appear from the unit card that partial suspension may be difficult to achieve over this Class
IV stream. However, we would like to further evaluate the situation in the field prior to suggesting
unit modifications. We will ensure during unit layout that 1) the stream is in fact a Class IV stream
suitable for partial suspension, 2) terrain, road location and unit boundaries (tailholds, etc.) assure
adequate suspension over the stream in accordance with 11 AAC 95.360. We will invite the State to
review this unit in the field with us during layout to determine if unit modifications are necessary.
"We ask that the Final EIS acknowledge the cooperation and contributions of ADF&G/DWC to
the Anan Bear Telemetry study. "
We regret the omission and have made the correction in the Final EIS.
"... too few bears were sampled to conclude, as the data and DEIS imply, that Anan black bears
do not use Survey Creek and lower Hoy a drainages and would be mostly unaffected by timber
harvest there. "
We realize there are limitations to this data, yet it represents 19% of the black bear population at
Anan, by our best estimates, which some would argue is a reasonable sample of the population. We
believe it is worthwhile to use information we gained from 3 years of telemetry research. The only
sure way of obtaining an estimate of home range for all Anan bears would be to collar all of the
bears. Aside from the risk of losing animals, it is doubtful that this would be acceptable to tourists or
to the guides. The home range size of the black bears we collared matched what has been found in
other studies. The Hoya VCU is outside of this range for black bears.
"Gating would not be effective mitigation as it has proved of little use in restricting ATVs. "
The area is fairly inaccessible. The roads will not connect to any community and the only way to get
a vehicle to the area is by boat and there will be no loading or unloading ramps. We believe that our
design and location for LTF’s and post sale closure of the LTF’s will be such that the effort to use
boat access will not be encouraging to most users to transport and off- load ATVs at the LTF sites.
Two gates will be designed such that ATVs cannot go under them and they will be placed in
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix F ■ 19
locations that will be extremely difficult to get around. The first gate will be made of iron - not the
usual perforated steel, so ATVs will not have the power to pull over or destroy the barricade. Non-
motorized access will be improved in areas where roads are constructed. Roads will not be con-
structed in the Canal VCU this entry. This gives us time to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of
road closures in the Hoya VCU before constructing roads in the Canal VCU.
"Brown Bears "
An entire section of the DEIS covers the impacts of roads on bears (p 3-44) and cites several recent
studies linking bear mortality with road density. The brown bear viability panel specifically clarified
that the issue was human access and use of roads and not necessarily the physical nature of the road
itself (FEIS 1997). We are managing human access by gating all the roads and only allowing motor-
ized traffic for administrative purposes during and after the sale. The DEIS takes the recommenda-
tions of many leading bear researchers into account (see Literature cited 4-22) by reducing miles of
road and managing access. We have also followed the recommendations of State and USFWS biolo-
gists who visited the site.
" Monitoring the nature of post-project road use is as important as monitoring the quantity of
This will be done as part of the monitoring shown in Appendix C.
"We strongly encourage the FS to review utilization standards in light of current market condi-
tions. "
We recognize the value of leaving low grade sawlogs for wildlife habitat and are attempting to de-
velop a strategy by which we can leave those trees without significantly increasing marking costs or
conflicting with regulations prohibiting "high- grading." Please note that even those prescriptions we
are calling "clearcuts" will retain at least 10% of the original stand on the site. We anticipate that our
choice of leave trees can help address the issue you raise.
APEC Comments
Most of the ADEC comments have been addressed above.
"...although the road cards indicate that each road has been designated for post-sale Maintenance
Level 1, no indication is provided as to what this level of maintenance will consist of
This has been corrected in the FEIS on page 4-12.
Maintenance Level 1 . This level is assigned to intermittent service roads during the time manage-
ment direction requires that the road be closed or otherwise blocked to traffic. Basic custodial main-
tenance is performed to protect the road investment and to keep damage to adjacent resources to an
acceptable level. Drainage facilities and runoff patterns are maintained.
"Log Transfer Facility Design "
A contract stipulation will require the entrance velocity of log bundles be controlled to 3 fps.
use.
n
Sincerely,
CAROL J. JORGENSEN
Assistant Forest Supervisor
Appendix F ■ 20
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Craig Flatten
P.O. Box 9411
Ketchikan, AJK 99901
907-225-2444
PLANNING RECORD
NO
RECEIVED
Scott Posner
Team Leader, Canal Hoya Timber Sale
USD A Forest Service
P.O. Box 51
Wrangell, AK 99929
MAR “4 1998
FOREST SERVICE
March 1, 1998
Dear Scott:
The following are comments I am submitting for the Canal Hoya Timber Sale DEIS. As a wildlife
biologist with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game in Ketchikan, I was involved in the
collection of bear relocation data at Anan in 1993-95, and prepared this information for GIS
digitizing at the request of former Wrangell Ranger District biologist Dennis Chester. This past
August I also visited the Anan Creek bear viewing area over a four day period. As such, I have
some intimate knowledge of both the bear relocation data presented in the DEIS and the Anan area.
With regard to the Canal Hoya Timber Sale DEIS, my primary concern is that this document has not
adequately addressed the possible negative impact of timber harvest and associated activities on the
bears that inhabit this region and frequent the Anan Creek area. The importance and value of Anan
Creek as a world class wildlife resource cannot be overemphasized and any development which may
impinge upon the integrity and future well-being of this resource must be thoroughly researched.
This has not been done. Though the cooperative research project supplied preliminary data on the
movements and habitat use of a small sample of the bears in the Anan Creek, Canal Creek, and
Hoya Creek areas, this effort cannot be viewed as more than a pilot study with cursory and
inconclusive results. While this data may be useful for beginning to understand the basics of bear
movements in this area, I believe it is certainly inadequate --especially in terms of sample size and
depth of analysis— to be considered as the basis for identifying bear use areas and habitat, and
speculating on the future impacts of proposed timber harvest in this area, as was done in the DEIS.
A total of 203 relocations were collected from 13 tagged bears, including 12 black bears and 1
brown bear, during 26 relocation flights over a two year period. This represents an average of only
14 relocations per bear and only 7 relocations per bear per year. It is recognized that for most
wildlife species even the most basic estimates of minimum convex polygon home range require at
least 30 relocations per year (Kenward R., 1987. Wildlife Radio Tagging. Academic Press. 222
pp). Certainly, much larger sample sizes of both bears and relocations are needed to perform the in-
depth data analyses that are necessary to assess the impacts of the timber harvest and other
developments, as proposed in Alternatives 1 through 4 of the Canal Hoya Timber Sale. Simply put.
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix F ■ 21
as derived from the telemetry relocation data and presented in the DEIS, I strongly believe that the
bear use areas, habitat associations, proximities to VCUs, and inferences regarding the impacts of
proposed harvest units on bears in this area, are all very speculative and very weakly supported.
The quantity and quality of telemetry data can greatly affect the suitability of subsequent
management decisions based on this kind of information. Recently, I attended a presentation by
ADF&G biologists who are studying brown bears on the Kenai Peninsula. These researchers have
been gathering and analyzing telemetry data collected from brown bear collars that contain both a
traditional VHF transmitter and a GPS receiver. At this presentation, as an example comparison of
the quantity and quality of data that can be collected by each method, an overlay was first presented
showing the VHF transmitter relocations collected by plane from one bear over a period of a year at
a rate of about one location per week (~50 relocations). A second overlay showing the satellite-
fixed relocations from the GPS receiver worn by the same bear during the same time period and
collected at a rate of about one location every third day (-120 relocations), was then placed on top
of the first overlay. The difference between the data sets was astounding. The GPS data not only
showed a home range 2-3 times larger than the VHF data, but the concentrated use areas identified
in each data set were very different. In fact, the VHF data failed to identify bear presence in areas
where roading and timber harvest were being considered by land managers.
To allow the best possible management decisions for Kenai Peninsula brown bears, these
researchers are conducting a minimum of five to ten years of study using the best research
technology available, involving the collection of hundreds of telemetry relocations from each of
many tagged bears. The tremendous value of this wildlife resource is understood and the most
thorough methods of data collection and analysis available are being used to assure that the best
management decisions are made. The bears at Anan are equally an irreplaceable resource and,
certainly, both they and the future generations of people who will go there to enjoy them deserve no
less than this kind of effort.
Of course, telemetry data forms only one facet of the research necessary to begin to understand this
complex ecosystem at a baseline level before we can venture to propose changes that may have
lasting negative effects. The uniqueness and value of the bears in this area make it implicit that
research on a much greater scale is required. We need to invest the time and resources required to
develope a thorough knowledge and understanding about this great resource before we can even
begin to entertain thoughts about making significant changes in this area. As wildlife managers, I
believe this is one of our most trusted duties to both current and future generations and I strongly
recommend that Alternative 5 (No Action) be accepted for the Canal Hoya Timber Sale until a
thorough and comprehensive study of this area and its wildlife can be performed.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Wildlife Biologist
Canal Hoya Timber Sale Final EIS
Appendix F ■ 22
Alaska Region
United States
Department of
Agriculture
Forest
Service
Tongass National Forest
Stikine Area
P.O. Box 309
Petersburg, Alaska 99833
File Code: 1950
Date: May 15, 1998
Craig Flatten
P.O.Box 9411
Ketchikan, AK 99901
Dear Mr. Flatten,
Thank you for your comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Canal
Hoya Timber Sale. I would like to take this opportunity to respond to your comments. Your main
concern seems to be that the radio telemetry data was not adequate to fully assess the effects of the
Canal Hoya Timber Sale on bears.
We realize there are limitations to this data, yet it represents 19% of the black bear population at
Anan, by our best estimates, which some would argue is a reasonable sample of the population. We
believe it is worthwhile to use information we gained from 3 years of telemetry research. Since it is
a small sample, we also used other more traditional methods of comparing alternatives including the
most recent versions of the black bear and brown bear habitat capability models and measures of
road density. The only sure way of obtaining an estimate of home range for all Anan bears would be
to collar all of the bears. Aside from the risk of losing animals, it is doubtful that this would be ac-
ceptable to tourists or to the guides. The home range size of the black bears we collared matched
what has been found in other studies. The Hoya VCU is outside of this range for black bears.
We did not solely use information from the one collared brown bear to make management decisions.
Decisions were also based on research findings such as the impacts of roads and harvesting to brown
bears that were collared on Chichagof. Estimating brown bear populations in a forested landscape is
inherently difficult and population estimates usually have a high degree of error associated with
them. It is our belief t 
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11