Historic, Archive Document
Do not assume content reflects current
scientific knowledge, policies, or practices.
a?D//
iV 3
United States
Department of
Agriculture
Forest Service
Tongass
National
Forest
Upper Carroll
Timber Sale
Draft Environmental Impact
Statement ™
■■ i i
o
n
ro
O'J
T 3
CO
-J3
70
Summary
jpr
z r
ACRONYMS AND SYMBOLS
ADF&G
AHMU
ANCSA
ANILCA
ASQ
BBF
BMP
CEQ
CFL
CFR
CZMA
DBH
DEIS
EIS
EPA
EVC
FEIS
FSH
FSM
GIS
IDT
KPC
KV
LTF
LUD
LWD
MBF
MELP
MIS
MM
MMBF
NEPA
NFMA
NMFS
NOI
P
PR
R
RM
RN
ROD
ROS
SHPO
SPM
SPNM
TLMP
TRUCS
TTRA
USDA
USDI
USFWS
VCU
VQO
WAA
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Aquatic Habitat Management Unit
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
Allowable Sale Quantity
One billion board feet
Best Management Practice
Council on Environmental Quality
Commercial Forest Land
Code of Federal Regulations
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1976
Diameter at Breast Height
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Environmental Impact Statement
Environmental Protection Agency
Existing/Expected Visual Condition
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Forest Service Handbook
Forest Service Manual
Geographic Information System
Interdisciplinary Team
Ketchikan Pulp Company
Knutsen-Vandenberg Act
Log Transfer Facility
Land Use Designation
Large Woody Debris (same as LOD)
One thousand board feet
Multi-Entry Layout Process
Management Indicator Species
Maximum Modification
One million board feet
National Environmental Policy Act
National Forest Management Act
National Marine Fisheries Service
Notice of Intent
Primitive
Partial retention
Retention
Roaded modified
Roaded natural
Record of decision
Recreation Opportunity Spectrum
State Historic Preservation Officer
Semi-primitive motorized
Semi-primitive nonmotorized
Tongass Land Management Plan
Tongass Resource Use Cooperative Survey
Tongass Timber Reform Act
United States Department of Agriculture
United States Department of the Interior
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Value Comparison Unit
Visual Quality Objective
Wildlife Analysis Area
Acknowledgements
Front cover: By Cindy Ross Barber, 1992. The design illustrates the range of interconnected issues addressed in the EIS.
United States
Department of
Agriculture
Forest
Service
Region 10
Tongass National Forest
Ketchikan Area
Federal Building
Ketchikan, AK 99901
Reply to: 1950
Date: January 9, 1996
Dear Reader:
Enclosed is the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Upper Carroll Project
Area.
If you received a complete set of documents, the following items should be found in the package:
1. Executive Summary
2. Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Volume I)
3. Draft EIS Appendices A - K (Volume II)
4. Large scale color Project Area Map of Existing Condition
Note that 11" x 17" maps of each alternative are included in Chapter 2 of of the DEIS
(Volume I).
If you elected to receive the summary only, you will find 11" x 17" alternative maps bound into
the back of the document as well as a large-scale Project Area Map (Existing Condition Map)
included with the summary.
You are encouraged to review and comment on the Draft EIS. Written comments must be
received by March 9, 1996. Comments should be addressed to:
Forest Supervisor
Ketchikan Area
Tongass National Forest
Attn: Upper Carroll EIS
Federal Building
Ketchikan, AK 99901
Subsistence hearings will be held in Saxman and Ketchikan. Each subsistence hearing will be
preceded by an open house to answer questions you may have. The schedule of hearings and
open houses is as follows:
Caring for the Land and Serving People
Upper Carroll DEIS (continued)
Page 2
Date
Open Subsistence
House Hearing
Time Time Community Location
February 22 6-7:00 pm 7-9:00 pm Ketchikan Westmark Cape Fox
February 23 6-7:00 pm 7-9:00 pm Saxman City Hall
I encourage you to take the time to review and comment on the Draft EIS, as well as to
participate in the subsistence and public hearings. Your input will be used to prepare the Final
EIS and the Record of Decision. Your interest in the management of the Tongass National Forest
is appreciated.
Sincerely,
Enclosures
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Upper Carroll Timber Sale
United States Department of Agriculture
Forest Service— Alaska Region
Alaska
Lead Agency: U.S.D.A. Forest Service
Tongass National Forest
Ketchikan Administrative
Responsible Official: Forest Supervisor
Ketchikan Administrative
Tongass National Forest
Federal Building
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Bill Nightingale, Planning
Ketchikan Ranger District
Tongass National Forest
3031 Tongass
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
907 225-2148
Abstract
The USD A Forest Service proposes to harvest up to approximately 70 million board feet (MMBF) of
timber m the Upper Carroll Project Area, Ketchikan Ranger District, Ketchikan Administrative Area,
Tongass National Forest. Timber volume would be offered to the Ketchikan Pulp Company (KPC)
under the KPC Long-term Timber Sale Contract (A10fs-1041) and/or the Ketchikan Area
independent timber sale program. The actions analyzed m this EIS are designed to implement
direction contained in the Tongass Land Management Plan (TLMP, 1979a, as amended) and the
Tongass Timber Reform Act. The EIS describes five alternative which provide different
combinations of resource outputs and spatial locations of harvest units. The alternatives include: 1)
No Action, proposing no new harvest from the Project Area at this time; 2) configure harvest units to
provide the maximum amount of timber within Forest Plan standards and guidelines; 3) configure
harvest units to emphasize timber sale economics and conventional cable yarding methods; 4)
configure harvest units to emphasize wildlife habitat and mamtam the integrity of large unfragmented
blocks of old-growth forest; and 5) configure harvest units to emphasize a positive net economic
return, while seeking to strike a balance between competmg resource uses.
For Further Information
Contact:
Area
Area
Forester
Hi
MSmz
Table of Contents
Summary S-l
Introduction S-2
Public Participation in the Decision- making Process S-2
Decision to be Made S-3
Purpose and Need for Action S-3
Project Area S-3
Background S-5
KPC Long-Term Contract S-5
Why the Upper Carroll Project Area was Selected S-5
Relationship to Forest Plan S-6
Issues S-8
Significant Issues S-8
Issues Outside the Scope of this Analysis S-9
Development of Alternatives S- 1 1
Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Study S-l 7
Alternative A S- 1 7
Alternative B S-l 7
Alternative C S-l 7
Alternative D S- 1 7
Alternative E S-l 8
Alternatives Considered for Detailed Study S-l 8
Alternative 1 S-l 8
Alternative 2 S- 1 9
Alternative 3 S- 1 9
Alternative 4 8-20
Alternative 5 S-20
Preferred Alternative S-2 1
Summary Comparison S-2 1
Comparison of Alternatives by Proposed Activity S-25
Comparison of Alternatives by Significant Issue S-29
Issue 1 , Timber Harvest Economics S-29
Issue 2. Fish Habitat and Water Quality S-30
Issue 3. Recreation and Scenic Quality S-3 3
Issue 4. Wildlife Habitat S-3 5
Issue 5. Subsistence Use S-36
Issue 6. Transport at ion/l i ti lity Corridor S-3 8
Issue 7. Social and Economic Effects S-41
Issue 8: Marine Environment S-43
Mitigation Measures S-45
TLMP Mitigation S-45
Water Quality and Fish Production S-45
Wildlife S-45
Subsistence S-46
Recreation S-46
Cultural Resources S-46
TES Plants S-46
Monitoring S-46
Forest Plan Monitoring S-46
Mitigation/Monitoring Feedback Loop S-47
Routine Implementation Monitoring S-47
Effectiveness Monitoring S-48
Validation Monitoring S-48
List of Tables
Table Sum-1 Upper Carroll Landscape Management Zones 8-12
Table Sum-2 Summary Comparison of Alternatives S-22
Table Sum-3 Proportion of Volume Classes 6 and 7 Proposed for Harvest by Management Area S-27
Table Sum-4 Proposed Harvest, by Existing & New Log Transfer Facility, in MMBF S-28
Table Sum-5 Estimated Mid-market and Current-market Stumpage Value S-30
Table Sum-6 Cumulative Watershed Effects, Percentage of Watershed Harvested and Roaded in Third Order
or Larger Watersheds S-3 1
Table Sum-7 Stream Crossings to be Constructed S-32
Table Sum-8 Acres of High Hazard Soils Harvested by Alternative S-32
Table Sum-9 Proposed VQOs and Changes in Cumulative Visual Disturbance S-33
Table Sum- 1 0 Potential Changes in Habitat Capability within the Project Area for MIS in 1 997 S-35
Table Sum- 1 1 Effect of Timber Harvest on Forest Fragmentation in Acres S-36
Table Sum- 12 Deer Harvest and Habitat Capability for WAA 406 & 510 S-3 7
Table Sum-13 Potential Transportation/Utility Corridor Access Miles S-41
Table Sum- 14 Estimated Returns to the State of Alaska from Sale of Timber* S-42
Table Sum- 15 Timber Industry Average Annual Employment and Income by Alternative S-42
Table Sum-16 Log Transfer Facilities Required by Alternative and System S-44
Table Sum- 17 Marine Benthic Habitat Affected, by Alternative S-44
List of Figures
Figure Sum-1 Project Vicinity Map S-4
Figure Sum-2 Management Area and VCU Boundaries S-7
Figure Sum-4 Number of Units Proposed for Harvest by Silvicultural System S-25
Figure Sum-5 Total Acres Proposed for Harvest by Silvicultural System S-25
Figure Sum-6 Total Volume Proposed for Harvest S-26
Figure Sum-7 Proposed Harvest by Volume Class Strata S-26
Figure Sum-8 Proposed New Road Construction & Reconstruction S-28
Figure Sum- 9 Timber Harvest by Logging System S-29
Figure Sum-10 Changes in ROS Class by Alternative S-34
Figure Sum-11 Timber Harvest within Roadless Areas S-34
Figure Sum-12 Utility and Transportation Corridors inside Project Area S-39
Summary
—
Key Terms
Alternative - one of several policies, plans, or projects proposed for decision making.
Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ) - the maximum quantity of timber that may be sold each
decade from a national forest.
BMPs - Best Management Practices - practices used for the protection of water quality.
Land Use Designation (LU D) - method of classifying land uses allocated by the Forest
Plan.
MMBF - million board feet.
Management Area - an area for which management direction was written in the Forest
Plan (TLMP 1 979a, as amended 1 986) management areas encompass one or more Value
Comparison Units (VCUs).
Old-growth Forest - an ecosystem distinguished by old trees and related structural
attributes. Old-growth forests encompass the latter stages of stand development. They
typically differ from earlier stages of stand development in a variety of characteristics which
may include tree size, accumulation of large dead woody material, number of canopy layers
and tree species composition, and ecosystem function.
Primary Sale Area (PSA) - the KPC Long-term Sale Contract is comprised of Allotments
E, F, G, and the Rest of Areas E, F, and G. For the purposes of this EIS, Allotments E, F,
and G constitute the Primary Sale Area and the Rest of Areas E, F, and G constitute
Contingency Sale Areas.
Scoping Process - 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.
Subsistence - the customary and traditional uses by rural Alaskan residents of wild
renewable resources for direct personal or family consumption and for customary trade.
Tongass Land Management Plan (TLMP) - the 10-year land allocation plan for the Tongass
National Forest — TLMP was completed in 1 979 and was amended in 1 986 and again in
1991 (TLMP 1979a, as amended). TLMP is currently undergoing revision; a Supplement
to the Revision Draft Environmental Impact Statement was issued in 1991. Until the
Revision is completed, the TLMP, as amended, remains in effect (TLMP Draft Revision
1991a).
Value Comparison Unit (VCU) - areas which generally encompass a drainage basin to
provide a common set of areas where resource inventories could be conducted and resource
interpretations made.
SUMMARY ■ 1
Introduction
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant State and
Federal laws and regulations, the Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) on the effects of timber harvest in the Upper Carroll Project Area (Figure S-l)
on Revillagigedo Island of the Ketchikan Administrative Area, Tongass National Forest. The
proposed action would make up to approximately 70 million board feet (MMBF) of timber
available to the Ketchikan Pulp Company (KPC) under its Long-term Timber Sale Contract
with the Forest Service (Ketchikan Pulp and Paper Co. 1 95 1 , as amended in 1991), and/or the
Ketchikan Area independent timber sale program. The actions analyzed in this EIS are
designed to implement direction contained in the Tongass Land Management Plan (TLMP
1 979a, as amended) and the Tongass Timber Reform Act. They also propose management
consistent with the preferred alternative (Alternative P) in the TLMP Draft Revision
Supplement (TLMP Draft Revision 1991a). The EIS discloses the direct, indirect, and
cumulative environmental impacts and any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of
resources that would result from each proposed alternative.
Public Participation in the Decision-
making Process
Public involvement in the process began formally on August 30, 1 994 with the mailing of a
scoping package to individuals, government agencies. Native corporations, and interested
organizations describing the proposed action and inviting public comment on the scope of the
issues and areas of major concern to be addressed by the environmental analysis.
Announcements about the project were printed in the Island News, Wrangell Sentinel, Sitka
Sentinel, Petersburg Pilot and Juneau Empire. A scoping document describing the project was
placed in the September 3, 1 994 weekend edition of the Ketchikan Daily News. A Notice of
Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register on August 31,1 994.
Public scoping meetings were held in Ketchikan on October 4, 1 994 and in Saxman on October
5, 1 994. Individual consultations were held from October 1 994 through August 1 995 with
local, state, federal and tribal government agencies.
Subsistence hearings on the Draft EIS will be held in Ketchikan and Metlakatla. Open Houses
will be held in conjunction with the subsistence hearings to discuss the analysis process and
answer public questions on the Draft EIS. Public comment on the Draft EIS will also be
accepted at that time. Comments will be recorded and transcribed.
Release of the Draft EIS triggers a minimum 45-day public comment period. The period for
public comment on this Draft EIS and the deadline for receipt of written comments are noted in
the cover letter accompanying this document and will be publicized in the local media. Written
comments on the EIS can be mailed to:
Forest Supervisor
ATTN: Upper Carroll EIS
Tongass National Forest
Federal Building
Ketchikan, AK 99901
Summary
Decision to be Made
Based on the information contained in this EIS, the Forest Supervisor will decide to (1) select
one of the alternatives presented in the Final EIS, (2) modify an alternative as long as the
environmental consequences of the modified action have been analyzed within the Final EIS, or
(3) reject all alternatives and request further analysis. If an alternative is selected, it will be
documented in the Record of Decision (ROD).
Purpose and Need for Action
The purpose and need for action is two-fold. First, it is to provide timber volume that will
contribute to a 3-year current timber supply for the KPC contract (Section B0.61) and/or to the
Ketchikan Area Independent Timber Sale Program, for this project that volume is
approximately 70 MMBF. Second, it is to move toward the desired future condition as
identified in the Tongass Land Management Plan (TLMP 1 979a, as amended) and in the
Tongass Land Management Plan (TLMP) Draft Revision (TLMP 1 99 1 a). This desired
condition is described in the current Forest Plan under the Management Direction/Emphasis for
each management area.
Project Area
The 47,942 acre Upper Carroll Project Area is located approximately 30 air miles northeast of
Ketchikan, Alaska (Figure Sum-1). It encompasses an area of northcentral Revillagigedo
(Revilla) Island that extends from the head of Carroll Inlet north to Neets Bay. It includes the
drainages associated with Neets Creek and Carroll Creek. There are no communities within or
adjacent to the Project Area. Access to the Project Area is by floatplane or boat, generally
originating in Ketchikan.
The Project Area includes Tongass Land Mangement Plan (TLMP 1 979a, as amended)
Management Area K32 (West Revilla) and Management Area K35 (Carroll-Thome). The West
Revilla Management Area includes value comparison units (VCUs) 737 and 744. The Carroll-
Thome Management Area includes a small portion of VCU 746. VCU boundaries generally
follow major watershed divides with a few minor exceptions.
SUMMARY ■ 3
Summary
Figure Sura-1
Project Vicinity Map
MAP LEGEND
StUnue
WDdosoAftetoAna
PrmltiStutOwaeniap
KPC Camel Altanca Ara F
The 47,997-acre Project Area is located approximately 30 miles northeast of Ketchikan. It encompasses an area of northcentral
Revillagigedo (Revilla) Island, from the head of Carroll Inlet north to Neets Bay.
4 ■ SUMMARY
Summary
Background
The Forest Service signed a Long-term Timber Sale Contract with Ketchikan Pulp Company
on July 26, 1951, authorizing KPC to purchase up to approximately 8.25 billion board feet
(BBF) of timber throughout the contract area. Under the terms of the contract, modified in
1991, the Forest Service is required to “develop a tentative Offering Schedule... [which] shall list
sufficient timber volume and schedule commencement of the NEPA process... to provide [KPC]
a Current Timber Supply sufficient for at least three years of operations...” Further, the Forest
Service is required to “seek to specify sufficient Offerings to maintain a Current Timber Supply
in all Offering areas that total at least three years of operations... and which meet the production
requirements of [KPC’s] manufacturing facilities.”
A 3-year supply of timber for KPC’s operations under the contract is currently estimated to range
from 556.2 to 557.5 MMBF. As of June 1 , 1 995, KPC had a current timber supply of
approximately 1 93 MMBF. The maximum volume of timber that can be provided to KPC from
within the contract area in the remainder of fiscal year 1 995 and during 1 996 and 1 997, is about
423 MMBF. The timber supply remaining at the end of 1 995, 1 996, and 1 997 would fall well
short of meeting the objective of specifying a 3 -year supply for operations under the contract,
considering on-going harvest at either maximum or historic rates.
The Forest Service has made efforts to accelerate the preparation of new offerings within the
contract area. However, because of the amount of time required to prepare new offerings in
accordance with applicable laws, none of this volume is projected to be available until after fiscal
year 1 997. It remains to be seen how much of the volume in preparation will be cleared through
the NEPA process and when it will be available.
Consequently, additional timber from outside the KPC contract area is needed in order to meet the
3-year timber supply objective. Sale offerings currently scheduled, undergoing NEPA evaluation,
or at some other stage in the preparation process are projected to be needed to help meet the KPC
Long-term Contract and Independent Sale Program’s three year supply objectives. If any
independent sales were converted to KPC contract offerings, equivalent volume currently planned
for KPC contract offerings would then need to be substituted as independent sale offerings. The
first offerings from the Upper Carroll Project Area could be made available in 1 997 to help meet
either 3 -year supply objective.
In accordance with the background described above, the Upper Carroll Project Area
was selected for environmental analysis for the following reasons:
• Earlier NEPA actions evaluating or authorizing timber harvest are already active throughout
the KPC contract PSA. Withdrawal of lands within the PSA through legislative action (e.g.,
Tongass Timber Reform Act) has also reduced the availablility of timber. Beginning with the
Polk Inlet Project, the Forest Service moved to the next step as stipulated in the KPC contract,
namely harvest in “additional cutting areas” outside the PSA. The Upper Carroll Project Area
is partially within the PSA (VCU 737), but is located primarily within the contingency area
(VCU 744 and 746). The Project Area contains a sufficient amount of harvestable timber
volume under the Forest Plan. Available information indicates that harvest of the amount of
timber being considered for this project can occur within the Forest Plan (TLMP 1 979a, as
amended; TLMP 1991a) standards and guidelines.
SUMMARY ■ 5
Summary
Relationship to
Forest Plan
• Other areas with available timber inside the contract area have or will be scheduled for harvest
during the remainder of the KPC contract term. The sequence in which these areas are
harvested would cause little difference in the effect on subsistence resources. Harvesting other
areas on the Tongass National Forest would likely have similar potential effects on resources,
including those used for subsistence, because of the widespread distribution of subsistence use.
Harvest within these other areas is probable, in any case, over the forest planning horizon
under either the existing or Draft Revision Forest Plan.
• It is reasonable to schedule harvest in the Upper Carroll Project Area now rather than in other
areas in terms of:
— previous harvest entry and access;
— effects on subsistence; and
— ability to complete the NEPA process and make timber available to contribute
to the Ketchikan Area’s Forest Plan timber program, including KPC
contractual requirements, by the time it is reasonably necessary to do so.
For additional details on why the Upper Carroll Project Area was selected, see Appendix A in
Volume II.
The National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) directs each National Forest to prepare
an overall plan of activities. The Forest Plan provides land and resource management direction
for the Forest. It establishes Land Use Designations (LUDs) to guide management of the land for
certain uses. The LUDs describe the activities that may be authorized within the Value
Comparison Units (VCUs), the boundaries of which usually follow easily recognizable watershed
divides.
For the Tongass National Forest, the Forest Plan is the TLMP of 1 979, as amended in 1 986 and
again in February 1991 as a result of the Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA). The Forest Plan
currently is undergoing revision as required by the NFMA. A supplement to the TLMP Draft
EIS (the Draft Revision) was issued in 1 991 (TLMP 1 991a). Until the Record of Decision
(ROD) for the Draft Revision is signed, the TLMP (TLMP 1 979a, as amended) remains in effect.
References in this document to the TLMP Draft Revision mean Alternative P of the Revision
Supplement to the Draft EIS, unless otherwise noted. Figure Sum-2 displays the VCUs,
Management Areas, and LUDs defined by the TLMP (1979a, as amended).
The Upper Carroll EIS tiers to the TLMP EIS (TLMP 1 979a, as amended) and the Alaska
Regional Guide EIS (1983). It also proposes management consistent with the preferred
alternative (Alternative P) standards and guidelines in the TLMP Draft Revision (TLMP 1991a).
In some cases, it incorporates documented analysis from TLMP or the TLMP Draft Revision by
reference (40 Code ofFederal Regulations [CFR] 1502.21) rather than repeating it in this EIS.
In cases of conflicting land use designations, the most restrictive standards and guidelines were
applied.
6 ■ SUMMARY
Summary
Figure Sum-2
Management Area and VCU Boundaries
LEGEND:
TCD 1 e s a d s r I « i
Wiai|tae»t Area B t> « e S « r I e »
i t ad; Area latadir;
li I Id la r
L U D 1111 (WIHeraeit 1 llilllll Area*)
hlntt A Stole One i > k I ;
SUMMARY ■ 7
Summary
Significant
Issues
Issues
The significant public issues, management concerns, and resource opportunities identified
through the public and internal scoping process were used to formulate issue statements. Some
of these issues were raised by the public and some reflect Forest Service concerns. Similar
issues and concerns were grouped when appropriate.
Issues 1 -8 were determined to be significant and within the scope of the project. All these issues
will be addressed in all alternatives. Issues A-G were considered but eliminated from detailed
study because their resolution falls outside the scope of the Upper Carroll project.
Issue 1: Timber Economics
The timber issue addresses public concern for the amount of timber proposed for harvest
and for economical entry into new stands while maintaining or enhancing resource values.
Issue 2: Fish Habitat and Water Quality
This issue addresses public concern for maintaining water quality in streams which provide
suitable habitat for anadromous and resident fish. Fish and shellfish within the Upper Carroll
Project Area are important to sport, commercial, and subsistence users throughout Southeast
Alaska. The Southern Southeast Alaska Regional Aquaculture Association (SSARAA) operates
a fish hatchery at Neets Bay under special use permit from the Forest Service. This issue also
includes concerns about timber harvesting on steep slopes, mass movement of soil, stream
temperature sensitivity, as well as karst and cave protection.
Issue 3: Recreation and Scenic Quality
Forest management activities could affect existing recreational pursuits for users of the Upper
Carroll Project Area. More specifically, increased human access, timber harvest, and other
developments could affect recreation values and opportunities including: hunting, fishing, scenic
quality, and existing recreation facilities. Comments mentioned the importance of protecting the
visual quality along inlets and bays. Other aspects of this issue were related to the visual
impacts to flight-seeing, the visual appearance along the proposed Swan Lake-Lake Tyee
Powerline intertie route, and potential impacts, if any, to Misty Fiords.
Issue 4: Wildlife
This issue includes concerns over several wildlife species and the habitats critical to the
maintenance of those wildlife populations; Alaskan fish and wildlife are valuable for aesthetic,
economic, recreational, ecological, and subsistence purposes. Of primary concern are the effects
of timber harvest and associated road construction upon wildlife species dependent on
old-growth habitat. There is also a concern regarding the proportion of Volume Classes 6 and 7
remaining after harvest in each management area. The long-term disposition of previously
mapped old-growth areas (commonly referred to as retention areas) in the Project Area was
identified as part of this issue. Related to the overall concern is the question of whether timber
harvest operations would further fragment existing large blocks of old-growth habitat and result
in declines in biological diversity. The need for a project specific old-growth habitat strategy
that ties into a larger scale habitat strategy was also identified.
8 ■ SUMMARY
Summary
Issues Outside
the Scope of
this Analysis
On July 27, 1 995, the President signed Public Law 104-19 into effect. This law restricts the
Forest Service from implementing HCAs, except for HCAs up to 300 acres in size around active
goshawk nests. To fully address the wildlife and biodiversity issue, the effects on identified
HCAs are described in this EIS.
Issue 5: Subsistence
Primary concern is for the potential effect, as well as the cumulative effects of timber harvest and
road construction, upon the abundance and distribution of subsistence resources. For many,
subsistence consists of hunting, fishing, trapping, and gathering to supplement their food sources,
income, and other needs. For Southeast Alaska's Natives, it is a way of life directly related to
preserving their culture and traditions. The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
(ANILCA) specifically requires the Forest Service to determine if the proposed activities may
significantly restrict subsistence use. Other aspects to be evaluated are competition from
non-rural subsistence users and access to the resources.
Issue 6: Transportation/Utility Corridor
The State of Alaska (Alaska Energy Authority) recently completed a feasibility study for the
utility/transportation corridor located partially within the Project Area. Ketchikan Public
Utilities has awarded a contract to Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation to complete an
EIS for the proposed electrical intertie from Swan Lake to Lake Tyee. The preliminary preferred
route includes approximately 30 to 40 miles within the Upper Carroll EIS study area. The two
proposed actions appear to be connected actions because of the potential road locations and
opportunity for cooperative agreements. The similar time lines make the issue ripe for a
decision as well. The degree to which each alternative could contribute to a potential
transportation/utility link will be documented in the EIS.
Issue 7: Social and Economic Effects
This issue reflects concerns about effects on community employment and income, population,
community stability, and lifestyles. The economies of most communities in Southeast Alaska
depend almost exclusively on the Tongass National Forest to provide natural resources for uses
such as fishing, tourism, recreation, timber harvesting, mining, and subsistence. Many Southeast
Alaskans want to maintain the natural environment which makes their lifestyle unique. At the
same time, they want to continue maintaining their economic livelihood.
Issue 8: Marine Environment
The marine waters and their associated mud flats and estuaries found in protected coves and bays
within the Project Area provide habitat for species such as Dungeness crab and juvenile salmon.
Since coves and bays are the points of concentrated activity associated with marine transport of
logs, logging camps, and sort yards, some marine species are subject to effects from log transfer
and storage facilities. Four potential or existing Log Transfer Facility (LTF) sites are under
consideration in the alternatives.
The following public issues were considered but eliminated from detailed study because
their resolution is beyond the scope of this document.
Issue A: Land Use Designations
This issue focuses on the stated desire of some commentors to change TLMP Land Use
Designations to eliminate, reduce, or increase the level of harvest and/or maximize specific
resources. Land use allocation is a Forest planning issue. The current Forest Plan is under
SUMMARY ■ 9
revision and provides a forum for people who wish to see the area managed in a manner that
differs from the current direction.
Issue B: Bradfield Road Transportation Link
Some members of the public expressed a concern that the Bradfield Road Transportation Link be
evaluated in whole or in part in this EIS. The Bradfield road connection (excluding
Revillagigedo Island) is not a connected or reasonably foreseeable action that is ripe for a
decision. The portion of the proposed transportation link located within the Project Area that
could be influenced by the proposed activities will be addressed.
Issue C: Development Outside the Project Area
Comments regarding the general level of development outside the Project Area are not
considered issues ripe for decision under the Upper Carroll EIS. These areas include Cleveland
Peninsula, Prince of Wales Island, and Orchard Creek (including Orchard Lake).
Issue D: Below Cost Timber Sales
Below-cost timber sales are a national issue and not within the scope of this project. The
financial impacts of the alternatives, based on a mid-market analysis, are displayed in Chapter
Three in this EIS.
Issue E: Timber Supply and Demand
Timber supply and demand is a regional issue and exceeds the scope of this analysis. A
site-specific environmental analysis documents the effects of the proposed activities; it does not
constitute the selling or conveyance of property rights. The volume of timber cleared in any
NEPA document may be offered (sold) in part, in whole, or not at all.
The timber offered for sale (timber offerings) may occur in one year or be spread over a three- to
five-year period. Trying to predict the effects of the proposed activities upon the regional timber
supply or demand is, therefore, beyond the capability and scope of this document.
Issue F: Manage Upper Carroll for Sustained Yield
The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) directs that a sustainable level of harvest be
identified for each National Forest. A sustainable level of harvest is one in which the level of
harvest is equal to or less than the rate of growth over a period of time (ten years in the case of
NFMA). There is no direction or intent to establish a sustainable level of harvest for individual
project areas or small geographic subdivision of the Forest.
Issue G: Wild and Scenic Rivers
Several comments were received requesting that Carroll Creek be managed as a wild and scenic
river. This is a Forest Planning issue. Carroll Creek was thoroughly analyzed for Wild and
Scenic River eligibility as a part of previous Forest planning efforts. Carroll Creek was
analyzed as part of the TLMP Revision to determine if it was eligible to be included under the
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. That analysis determined that no segment of the Carroll Creek was
eligible for inclusion under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
Summary
Development of Alternatives
Each action alternative presented in this EIS is a different response to the significant issues
discussed in Chapter One. For this EIS, four action alternatives were developed to meet the
stated purpose and need of the project, while minimizing or avoiding environmental impacts.
Each action alternative represents a site specific proposal developed through intensive
interdisciplinary unit and road design using high resolution topographic maps, GIS mapping
capabilities, and aerial photos coupled with resource inventories and site inspections.
The alternative formulation process has been guided by several concepts and principals of
sound resource management. Each alternative follows the standards, guidelines, and direction
contained in the TLMP, the Alaska Regional Guide, and applicable Forest Service manuals and
handbooks. Because of the possibility that the timber volume may be used to satisfy part of the
contractual requirements of a long-term timber sale contract, they are also designed to meet the
requirements of the Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA).
Ecosystem Management
Ecosystem management is a concept incorporated into forest management in recent years. The
philosophy is to emphasize ecological, physical, and social sciences to guide resource
management to sustain the health, productivity, and intangible values of the land. These
concepts were considered in the selection and design of individual harvest units and roads
included in the alternatives.
Ecosystem management looks at forest management on two levels: (1 ) the landscape level,
which may be a geological province (geoprovince) or a large watershed; and (2) the stand level,
which deals with individual harvest units. The forest plan incorporates ecosystem management
at the landscape level through land use allocation and the development of Standards and
Guidelines. This separates incompatible uses and spreads impacts out over time and space.
Many issues — such as maintaining large unfragmented blocks of old growth over time and
maintaining the connectivity between those blocks — can only be resolved over the entire
rotation through the land use allocation or forest planning process. A site-specific project level
plan evaluates the assumptions made in a higher level plan. It then implements that direction
and responds to public comments through the development of alternatives which determine
which stands are treated and how they are managed. Some tools employed at the stand level
may include a deferred entry, reducing harsh edges through unit placement, looking for
opportunities to retain small patches of uncut timber in harvest units (where feasible and
practical), maintaining existing travel corridors, leaving snags in harvest units (where safety
regulations allow), and trying nonstandard harvest practices where resource issues and physical
limitations permit.
The Upper Carroll EOT utilized a combination of public scoping issues and resource knowledge
to subdivide the Upper Carroll Project Area into a variety of important landscape zones.
Definition of these landscape zones considered such aspects as the amount, distribution and
fragmentation of old-growth forests, the level and distribution of previous timber harvest and
reading, travel and dispersal corridors between zones that can be used by animals, the existing
and potential road network for accessing timber, subsistence uses, visually sensitive areas, and
important recreation areas. The landscape zones also considered the recommendations of the
VPOP Committee on such aspects as small, medium, and large Habitat Conservation Areas
SUMMARY m 1 1
Summary
(HCAs). The landscape level considerations included the characteristics of the Upper Carroll
Project Area itself as well as its relationship to adjacent areas such as the Naha Roadless Area,
North Revilla, Orchard Lake and Creek, Misty Fiords National Monument, Swan Lake
hydroelectric facility, and Shelter Cove. Consideration was given to social factors (including
subsistence use, visual concerns, SSARAA Fish Hatchery, timber harvest economics, and
transportation/utility corridors), and proposed land use designations in the development of
landscape zones. Table Sum-1 displays the Landscape Management Zones identified by the ID
Team for the Upper Carroll Project Area.
Table Sum-1
Upper Carroll Landscape Management Zones
Landscape Zone
Description
1 . Large and Medium
sized old-growth
habitat blocks
1(A) Naha Block
1 (B) Traitor's Cove
Block
1(C) Orchard Lake
Block
1(D) Swan Lake
Block
Large and medium Habitat Conservation Areas (HCAs) as defined in the 1 994 Draft Interim
Habitat Management Guidelines EA. No final decision has been issued. The shape and
configuration displayed represents one potential way of providing core areas of unfragmented
old-growth habitat where significant populations of old-growth dependent species can be
maintained.
This large old-growth habitat block is comprised of the Naha LUD II Roadless Area (timber
harvest is not allowed) plus a portion of VCU 744 that connects to the estuary at the head of
Carroll Inlet. This block is approximately 40,088 acres in size.
This medium sized old-growth habitat block was originally identified as old-growth retention in
the North Revilla ROD. It is located inside the Salt Chuck in Traitor's Cove. This block is
approximately 5,498 acres in size.
This medium sized old-growth habitat block is proposed to be managed as a Semi-primitive
Recreation LUD in the Draft TLMP Revision - Alternative P, which would not allow commercial
timber harvest. Orchard Lake and Creek are eligible for inclusion under the National Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act. The North Revilla ROD designated this block as old-growth retention for the
life of the project in 1 993. This block is approximately 1 5,087 acres in size.
This medium sized old-growth habitat block is currently designated LUD IV Timber Emphasis.
This block is located south of the Swan Lake Hydropower facility. This block is approximately
13,474 acres in size.
2. Carroll Creek
Block
The west side of Carroll Creek represents a small block of unfragmented old-growth habitat
located inside the project boundary. The southwest portion of this area is adjacent to the Naha
Block (see 1 A above).
3. Late-successional
Corridors
4. Low and Very Low
Economic Zones
Corridors approximately 1/4 mile wide that provide connectivity between core areas of
unfragmented old-growth habitat. These corridors generally follow riparian zones or other
areas of gentle topographic relief commonly utilized for migration between areas.
These zones represent areas which are only economical to harvest during market cycles with
very high stumpage rates for timber or if augmentation (contributed funds) helps to offset costs.
12« SUMMARY
Summary
Table Sum-1 (Continued)
Upper Carroll Landscape Management Zones
Landscape Zone
Description
West side of Carroll Inlet - Estimated road costs to connect the Shelter Cove Road System north
to the head of Carroll Inlet exceed a million dollars per mile. Virtually all of the timber within
this zone has been classified as unsuitable for timber harvest due to very high mass movement
potential (MMI 4 soils). There is, therefore, insufficient timber value to recover the road
construction costs.
West side of Carroll Creek and the northern 1/3 of VCU 744 - There are three pockets of timber
within these zones; each requires a major bridge crossing (span in excess of 100 feet) of Carroll
Creek. The cost for each bridge is estimated at approximately $500,000. The possibility does
exist of pulling one of the bridges in lower Carroll and re-using it in the northern portion of VCU
744 if offered as a separate offering/sale several years after lower Carroll is sold.
Neets Creek VCU 737 - The head of Neets Bay is within a state land selection, with the majority
of the valley bottom having been extensively harvested during the 1 960s. The existing road
would require major reconstruction prior to being re-used. The entire southern half of the VCU
and the mid-slope portion of the northern half of the VCU have been classified as unsuitable for
timber harvest due to potentially unstable slopes (MMI4). The remaining upper third of the
slope is located at high elevations with low volume, difficult road construction, and long
helicopter yarding distances all contributing to reduce the timber economic value of this area.
5. Riparian Habitat
Riparian areas are made up of plant communities in the vicinity of streams that are adapted to
periodic inundation by water from precipitation, snowmelt, or other flood events. Riparian
areas are important to the stream ecosystem because: (1) they provide shade which regulates
stream temperature; (2) they provide a source of woody debris for fish habitat; (3) they help
maintain the structural integrity of the streambank; and (4) litter from vegetation provides
nutrients to the stream.
6. Riparian Fens
Riparian fens are an important type of wetland found in footslope or valley bottom areas adjacent
to lakes and streams. Hydrologically they act like a saturated sponge, slowly transferring
sub-surface water from neighboring hillslopes to the stream or lake. Because fens are not
stagnant, they provide a steady supply of well -oxygenated, nutrient-rich recharge to receiving
water bodies. For streams, riparian fens also act as flow regulators; they capture excess runoff
during storm events, store it, and then slowly release it during drier periods. This process helps
maintain low flows during droughts and, to a point, buffers the stream from excessive peakflow
during storms.
7. S SARA A
Fish Hatchery
Located in VCU 737 where Neets Creek enters Neets Bay - The Southern Southeast Alaska
Regional Aquaculture Association (SSARAA) operates the Neets Bay Fish Hatchery under a
special use permit from the Forest Service. Fresh water from Bluff Lake is used in the hatchery
operation. Water quality, particularly sedimentation, is a major concern. The Neets Bay Fish
Hatchery is economically significant to the local fishing industry.
SUMMARY B 1 3
Summary
Table Sum-1 (Continued)
Upper Carroll Landscape Management Zones
Landscape Zone
Description
8. Utility Corridor
The utility corridor runs north from the Swan Lake Hydropower facility along the eastern shore to
the head of Carroll Inlet, then follows Carroll Creek north to Neets Creek. At this point, one
potential route proceeds northward around Orchard Lake outside the Project Area. A second
route turns west down Neets Creek and would generally follow the existing and proposed road
locations toward Shrimp Bay until leaving the Project Area. This corridor is identified here
because the roads constructed for timber harvest could reduce the powerline construction and
maintenance costs. It is also used to help address future potential effects on scenic quality and
recreation.
Chapter 3 and the Appendices contain additional maps that present some of the features
described above in greater detail. The landscape zones described in the previous table
(Table Sum-1) are displayed by location in Figure Sum-3 on the following page.
14 ■ SUMMARY
mill
im
Ole CigalN Block!
Summary
Alternative A
Alternative B
Alternative C
Alternative D
Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Study
A number of alternatives were examined, but not considered for detailed study in this Draft EIS.
This section presents those alternatives and the rationale for not considering them further.
Single Resource or Issue — Alternatives that focused upon one resource or issue were eliminated
from consideration as implementable alternatives. While alternatives constructed around a single
resource may not be implementable, the issue itself may still be significant. Each alternative will
be evaluated against all the significant issues.
Transportation/Utility Corridor between Ketchikan and the Project Area — The proposed
road link and utility corridor are separate projects and independent from this EIS. The road link
project is not reasonably foreseeable. Ketchikan Public Utilities has awarded a contract to
Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation to complete an EIS for the proposed electrical
intertie (including associated roads, if any) from Swan Lake to Lake Tyee. The preliminary
preferred powerline route includes approximately 30 to 40 miles within the Upper Carroll
Project Area. The two proposed actions appear to be connected because of the potential road
locations and opportunity for cooperative agreements. The similar time lines could make the
issue ripe for a decision as well. Alternative 2, looks at how much timber and associated
roads could be built and still meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines. The question as to
how much of the transportation/utility corridor could be built is addressed for each alternative,
with Alternative 2 serving as the upper level benchmark. A separate alternative, which
maximizes road construction for the transportation/utility corridor is, therefore, unnecessary.
Avoid Previously Mapped Old-growth Retention Areas — Several commenters asked the
Forest Service to analyze an alternative that would keep intact all previously mapped
old-growth retention during this entry. Under the TLMP Draft Revision standards and
guidelines, old-growth habitat will remain unaltered in beach, estuary, and TTRA buffers,
research natural areas, LUD I and LUD II areas, as well as in unsuitable commercial forest
land. Previously mapped old-growth retention areas are consequently considered as part of
the tentatively suitable and available timber base, unless otherwise excluded. Approximately
5,147 acres of retention were established as part of previous project level EISs.
The IDT examined the possibility of constructing an alternative which avoided all previously
mapped old-growth retention areas. Due to the location and disjointed smaller patch size, it
was impossible to construct an economically viable alternative which completely avoided
existing retention with all roads and units. Many of the retention blocks were located at
higher elevations, in low volume stands, were small and narrow, and did not logically connect
to other high value areas. Current conservation biology theory places greater emphasis on
larger blocks of old-growth which have logical connections for wildlife movement. This
alternative was, therefore, not considered in detail. The effects of the alternatives on
previously mapped old-growth areas are considered in Chapter 3.
Public Comment Alternative — Several commenters asked the Forest Service to eliminate
specific areas or individual units that were of concern to them. For example, the Southern
Southeast Alaska Regional Aquaculture Association (SSARAA) operates the Neets Bay Fish
Hatchery under special use permit from the Forest Service. A number of comments received
indicated that the proposed harvest in Neets Bay would pose a sedimentation risk to the fish
hatchery operation. A citizen's alternative recommended dropping the Neets Bay harvest units and
making up the volume from the Orchard Lake area.
SUMMARY* 17
Summary
Alternative E
Alternative 1
Harvesting in the Orchard Lake area was not considered because: (1) it is a recommended
semi-primitive recreation area under TLMP Revision Supplement Draft EIS, Alternative P; (2)
Orchard Lake and Creek have been determined to be eligible for possible inclusion in the National
Wild and Scenic Rivers System; and (3) it is outside the Project Area boundary.
Concern about sedimentation from timber harvest and associated roads was addressed in various
ways. Alternatives 3 and 4 do not propose any harvest in the Neets Creek watershed, while
Alternatives 2 and 5 propose distinctly different levels of harvest and road construction within the
watershed. A watershed analysis which looks at sedimentation risk was conducted for both the
Neets Creek and Carroll Creek drainages (see Chapter 3). Forest Service standards and
guidelines, as well as BMPs to protect soil and water quality, apply to all alternatives.
Helicopter Logging Alternative — Public comments expressed a concern for the effects of road
and LTF construction on the marine environment as well as the Carroll Creek estuary, water
quality, fisheries, and subsistence values. The IDT constructed an alternative which would cable
log the Shelter Cove (VCU 746) portion of the Project Area while helicopter logging units within
1 .5 miles of Carroll Inlet.
This alternative resulted in the harvest of 4 1 9 acres or 15.3 MMBF. The mid-market analysis
indicated a net stumpage value of negative $-209.73 per MBF. Current market prices yielded a
stumpage value of negative $-5 1 .70 per MBF.
This alternative was not considered for detailed study because it does not appear to be
economically viable at either current- or mid-market values, and provides significantly less
volume than listed in the purpose and need.
Alternatives Considered for Detailed Study
Five alternatives for making timber available to local timber purchasers from the Upper Carroll
Project Area were considered in detail. Each alternative is consistent with the TLMP (1979a, as
amended) and Alternative P of the TLMP Draft Revision (1991a). For each alternative this
section provides a discussion of: (1) the emphasis or intent of the alternative; (2) various resource
outputs associated with implementation; and (3) environmental consequences. Alternatives are
compared in detail later in this chapter and summarized in Table S-2.
Emphasis — The emphasis of this alternative is to propose no new timber harvest from the Upper
Carroll Project Area at this time. It does not preclude timber harvest from other areas at this time,
or from the Upper Carroll Project Area at some time in the future. The Council of Environmental
Quality (CEQ) regulations 40 CFR 1502. 14d requires a "No Action” alternative be analyzed in
every EIS to serve as a benchmark by which effects of the other action alternatives are to be
measured. The Existing Condition map shows the distribution of vegetation associated with no
new timber harvest.
Outputs — There are no new timber harvest outputs associated with this alternative. Visual
quality, wildlife habitat quality, semi-primitive recreation opportunities, as well as other resource
values would remain at their current condition.
18 ■ SUMMARY
Summary
Emphasis — The emphasis of this alternative is to accelerate progress toward the desired future
condition for timber management while meeting Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for other
resources. Timber volume made available to local timber purchasers is maximized this entry
under this alternative. This alternative is designed to evaluate the effects of harvesting as much of
the Project Area as possible in a combination that still meets standards and guidelines. This
alternative serves as an upper level benchmark that can be used to project the cumulative affects of
the reasonably foreseeable future activities (see Appendix A) within the Project Area. Another
feature of this alternative is that it looks at the maximum amount of road that could be constructed
as part of a commercial timber sale that could be used to facilitate the development of a potential
transportation/utility intertie within the project area.
Outputs — Implementation of this alternative would schedule the harvest of 2,498 acres, in 85
harvest units for approximately 72 MMBF of sawlog and utility volume, indicating an average
unit size of 29.4 acres. Of this harvest, 1 9 units totaling 424 acres are planned for partial cut; the
remainder are planned for clearcut harvest. To implement this level of harvest, 58 miles of new
road would be constructed, and 7 miles of existing road would require reconstruction. Road
construction clearing will yield an additional 5 MMBF of right-of-way (ROW) volume. This
indicates an average of 1 .3 MMBF per mile of new road construction and a total of 1 .2 MMBF per
mile of road. It schedules 424 acres or 12.5 MMBF of volume for helicopter yarding. Preliminary
analysis indicates a net mid-market stumpage value of $-87.54 per MBF. This alternative would
result in approximately 24.7 miles of road located within a proposed transportation corridor or
23.8 miles within a utility corridor that could facilitate its future construction and/or maintenance.
The development of one new Log Transfer Facility (LTF) and two existing LTFs will be required
to implement this alternative. Floating or land based logging camps are anticipated with the
Shelter Cove, Carroll Inlet and Shrimp Bay LTFs. The Alternative 2 map provides the spatial
relationship among roads, units and other geographic features of the Upper Carroll Project Area.
Emphasis — The objective of this alternative is to emphasize timber economics and conventional
cable yarding methods. The location of harvest units, selection of silvicultural prescriptions,
logging systems, and a transportation network is primarily based on maximizing the mid-market
value. This entry proposes only limited helicopter timber harvest. This approach emphasizes a
positive net economic return for the proposed harvest units, by avoiding the low and very low
economic zones. Due to the juxtaposition of the landscape management zones within the project
area, this alternative minimizes impacts to old-growth habitat blocks, late-successional corridors,
riparian habitat, fens, and the SSARAA Fish Hatchery in Neets Bay to the greatest extent of all the
alternatives. Development of the transportation/utility corridor could be minimized as a
consequence of harvesting the least amount of timber and constructing the fewest miles of road.
Outputs — Alternative 3 schedules the harvest of 42 individual harvest units, totaling 36 MMBF
of sawlog and utility volume from 1 ,1 92 acres, indicating an average unit size of 28.4 acres. Of
this harvest, 5 units totaling 29 acres are planned for partial cut; the remainder are planned for
clearcut harvest. This alternative requires the construction of 24 miles of new specified roads plus
2 miles of reconstruction. Road construction clearing will yield an additional 1 MMBF of
right-of-way (ROW) volume. This indicates an average of 1 .5 MMBF per mile of new road
construction and a total of 1 .4 MMBF per mile of specified road. It schedules 29 acres or 1
MMBF of volume for helicopter yarding. Preliminary analysis indicates a net mid-market
stumpage value of $+1 8.6 1 per MBF. This alternative would result in approximately 6.0 miles of
SUMMARY ■ 1 9
Summary
Alternative 4
Alternative 5
road located within a proposed transportation corridor or 6.4 miles within a utility corridor that
could facilitate its future construction and/or maintenance.
The development of one new Log Transfer Facility (LTF) and one existing LTF will be required to
implement this alternative. Floating or land based logging camps are anticipated with the Shelter
Cove and Carroll Inlet LTFs. The Alternative 3 map provides the spatial relationship among
roads, units, and other geographic features of the Upper Carroll Project Area.
Emphasis — The emphasis of this alternative is to meet the stated purpose and need while
avoiding harvest on the west side of Carroll Creek and in the Neets Creek drainage (VCU 737).
The west side of Carroll Creek contains the largest block of high value wildlife habitat in the
project area and deferral would avoid any fragmentation this entry. Deferral of the Neets Creek
drainage would avoid any potential increase in sedimentation from timber harvest and road
construction activities that might negatively affect the SSARAA fish hatchery operation in Neets
Bay. Individual unit selection attempted to avoid high volume timber stands and wildlife travel
corridors, with timber sale economics being de-emphasized. This alternative differs from
Alternative 3 in that more volume is harvested and different units were selected for harvest as a
result of less emphasis on timber sale economics.
Outputs— Alternative 4 schedules the harvest of 55 individual harvest units, totaling 42 MMBF
of sawlog plus utility volume from 1 ,562 acres, indicating an average unit size of 28.4 acres. Of
this harvest, 9 units totaling 1 12 acres are planned for partial cut; the remainder are planned for
clearcut harvest. This alternative requires the construction of 34 miles of new specified roads plus
2 miles of reconstruction. Road construction clearing will yield an additional 4 MMBF of
right-of-way (ROW) volume. This indicates an average of 1.4 MMBF per mile of new road
construction and a total of 1 .3 MMBF per mile of specified road. It schedules 1 1 2 acres or 1 3
MMBF of volume for helicopter yarding. Preliminary analysis indicates a net mid-market
stumpage value of $-10.97 per MBF. This alternative would result in approximately 9.4 miles of
road located within a proposed transportation corridor or 10.2 miles with a utility corridor that
could facilitate its future construction and/or maintenance.
The development of one new Log Transfer Facility (LTF) and one existing LTF will be required to
implement this alternative. Floating or land based logging camps are anticipated with the Shelter
Cove and Carroll Inlet LTFs.
Emphasis — The emphasis of this alternative is to meet the stated purpose while striking a balance
between timber sale economics and other resource values. This alternative makes a minor entry
into the Neets Creek drainage approximately six miles upstream from the SSARAA fish hatchery.
A road tie from the LTF in Carroll Inlet to the existing road in Neets Creek would occur under this
alternative, but the Neets Creek road itself would not be reconstructed at this time (roadbed is
overgrown with alder and requires realignment in places). Timber harvest would occur in the
small old-growth block located on the west side of Carroll Creek.
Outputs — Alternative 5 schedules the harvest of 63 individual harvest units, totaling 57 MMBF
of sawlog plus utility volume from 1 ,982 acres, indicating an average unit size of 3 1 .5 acres. Of
this harvest, 1 0 units and 179 acres are planned for partial cut; the remainder are planned for
clearcut harvest. This alternative requires the construction of 45 miles of new specified roads plus
2 miles of reconstruction. Road construction clearing will yield an additional 9 MMBF of
right-of-way (ROW) volume. This indicates an average of 1 .5 MMBF per mile of new road
20 ■ SUMMARY
Summary
Preferred
Alternative
Summary
Comparison
construction and a total of 1 .4 MMBF per mile of road. It schedules 179 acres or 5.7 MMBF of
volume for helicopter yarding. Preliminary analysis indicates a net mid-market stumpage value of
$+2.85 per MBF. This alternative would result in approximately 13.8 miles of road located within
a proposed transportation corridor or 14.4 miles within a utility corridor that could facilitate its
future construction and/or maintenance.
The development of one new Log Transfer Facilities (LTF) and one existing LTF will be required
to implement this alternative. Floating or land based logging camps are anticipated with the
Shelter Cove and Carroll Inlet LTFs. The Alternative 5 map provides the spatial relationship
among roads, units, and other geographic features of the Upper Carroll Project Area.
Using an evaluative process that compares the benefits and adverse effects of each alternative
against the issues, the USDA Forest Service has identified Alternative 5 as the preferred
alternative for this EIS. The identified Preferred Alternative will be examined before preparation
of a Final EIS, taking into consideration public comments received, as well as additional
information and analysis.
Table Sum-2 provides a summary of outputs and environmental consequences by which the
alternatives may be compared.
SUMMARY ■ 21
Summary
Table Sum-2
Summary Comparison of Alternatives
Alternatives
Activity/Resource
Units
1
2
3
4
5
Timber
Units
Number
0
85
42
55
63
Estimated harvest unit volume
MMBF
0
72
36
42
57
Estimated right-of-way (ROW) volume
MMBF
0
5
1
4
9
Partial cut (shelterwood)
Acres
0
424
29
112
179
Clearcut harvest
Acres
0
2,073
1,163
1,450
1,803
Total harvest
Acres
0
2,497
1,192
1,562
1,982
Units over 1 00 acres
Number
0
1
2
2
2
Shovel harvest
MMBF
0
1.8
1.1
1.1
1.9
Running Skyline
MMBF
0
51.3
31.8
36.6
44.1
Live Skyline (Shotgun)
MMBF
0
4.2
1.0
0.4
2.6
Slackline harvest
MMBF
0
1.9
1.0
2.0
2.7
Helicopter harvest
MMBF
0
12.5
1.0
2.7
5.7
Estimated stumpage (mid-market rates)
$/MBF
$0
($87.54)
$+18.61
($10.97)
$+2.85
Estimated stumpage (current rates)
$/MBF
$0
$+73.53
$+176.28
$+150.16
$+162.51
Receipts to State of Alaska
$M
$0
$3,156
$2,119
$2,572
$3,560
Avg. annual jobs over 4 years
# of jobs
0
116
57
67
91
Proportionality Remaining (K32 - TTRA
Base 8.82%)
Percent
8.9
8.88
8.76
8.86
8.77
Proportionality Remaining (K35 - TTRA
Base 5.39%)
Percent
5.44
5.46
5.46
5.46
5.45
Roads & Transportation
Specified road construction
Miles
0
58
24
34
45
Road reconstruction
Miles
0
7
2
2
2
Temporary road construction
Miles
0
21
11
14
16
New Log Transfer Facilities
Each
0
1
1
1
1
Reconstruction/Use of existing Log Transfer
Facilities
Each
0
2
1
1
1
Roads crossing Class I or II streams
Number
0
43
17
23
43
Transportation/Utility Corridor
Transportation Corridor (32-45 miles)
Miles
0
24.7
6.0
9.4
13.8
Utility Corridor (25 miles)
Miles
0
23.8
6.4
10.2
14.4
Road Connection from Shelter Cove to
Carroll Creek
Response
No
No
No
No
No
Road Connection from Carroll Creek to Neets
Creek Road
Response
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Road Connection from Carroll Creek to
Shrimp Bay
Response
No
Yes
No
No
No
22 ■ SUMMARY
Summary
Table Sum-2 (continued)
Summary Comparison of Alternatives
Alternatives
Acti vity/Reso u rce
Units
1
2
3
4
5
Biodiversity
Unfragmented old-growth patches remaining
1 ,000 Acres and larger
Acres
11,735
10,175
10,874
10,877
10,522
500-1,000 Acres
Acres
2,270
2,035
2,152
2,085
2,021
100-500 Acres
Acres
2,243
2,090
2,189
2,144
2,194
Naha old growth habitat - large block
Acres harvested
0
49
0
0
0
Carroll River old growth habitat - small block
Acres harvested
0
370
0
0
394
Corridors connecting old growth blocks
(2,737 acres)
Acres harvested
0
93
34
22
157
Old growth acres remaining in Project Area
Acres
17,641
15,661
16,654
16,467
16,098
Percent of original old-growth remaining
Percent
81
72
77
76
74
Wildlife - Project Area
1997 MIS -deer
Habitat capability
389
373
375
381
375
1997 MIS -bear
Habitat capability
70
69
69
69
69
1 997 MIS - marten
Habitat capability
44
41
42
42
41
1 997 MIS - river otter
Habitat capability
17
16
16
16
16
1 997 MIS - hairy woodpecker
Habitat capability
341
397
314
316
306
1997 MIS - Vancouver Canada goose
Habitat capability
74
64
68
67
66
1997 MIS - bald eagle
Habitat capability
40
40
40
40
40
1 997 MIS - brown creeper
Habitat capability
497
438
455
465
448
1 997 MIS - red squirrel
Habitat capability
22,714
21,398
21,974
21,934
21,646
1997 MIS - gray wolf
Habitat capability
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
Subsistence - WAAs 406 and 510
High & Moderate use subsistence (TRUCS)
Acres harvested
0
0
0
0
0
Deer Habitat Capability
Habitat capability
3,508
3,492
3,493
3,499
3,493
Deer Population Needed to Support Current
Harvest
Habitat capability
1,040
1,040
1,040
1,040
1,040
Significant Possibility of a Significant
Restriction
Deer
Response
No
No
No
No
No
Bear
Response
No
No
No
No
No
Furbearers
Response
May
May
May
May
May
Salmon
Response
No
No
No
No
No
Other Finfish
Response
No
No
No
No
No
Waterfowl
Response
No
No
No
No
No
Marine Mammals
Response
No
No
No
No
No
Indirect & Cumulative Effects of
Response
May
May
May
May
May
Implementing the Forest Plan over the
entire rotation
SUMMARY ■ 23
Summary
Table Sum-2 (continued)
Summary Comparison of Alternatives
Alternatives
Activity/Resource
Units
1
2
3
4
5
Cultural Resources
Impacts to known cultural resources
Each
0
0
0
0
0
Watershed & Fisheries
Fens (watershed assessment — RHCAs) 1,192
Acres harvested
0
20
0
4
18
Rjparian habitat (watershed
assessment — RHCAs) 1,912
Neets Creek Watershed (contains SSARAA
Fish Hatchery)
Acres harvested
0
3
3
3
3
Acres of harvest
Acres
0
452
0
0
71
Miles of road construction & reconstruction
Miles
0
17
0
0
2
Harvest unit acres with high potential for
sediment delivery to Neets Creek
Acres
0
7
0
0
0
Road miles with high potential for sediment
delivery to Neets Creek
Carroll River Watershed
Miles
0
2.7
0
0
0
Acres of harvest
Acres
0
1,887
1,045
1,379
1,812
Miles of road construction & reconstruction
Miles
0
47
25
35
45
Harvest unit acres with high potential for
sediment delivery to Class I streams
Acres
0
309
71
126
326
Road miles with high potential for sediment
delivery to Class I streams
Miles
0
6.5
3.1
3.8
6.3
Soils
Very high mass movement
Acres harvested
0
65
0
39
65
High mass movement
Acres harvested
0
1,280
519
686
983
Medium mass movement
Acres harvested
0
507
435
441
431
Low mass movement
Acres harvested
0
645
215
395
503
Wetlands harvested/roaded
Acres
0
1,361
254
691
1,114
Total Karstlands in each Alternative
Visual Quality
Percent increase in Cumulative Visual
Disturbance
Acres
0
0
0
0
0
Carroll Inlet at Shelter Cove - VCU 746
Percent
0
2
1
2
1
Carroll Estuary - VCU 744
Percent
0
10
5
6
8
Head of Neets Bay - VCU 737
Percent
0
8
0
0
0
Roadless Areas
Change in ROS class from SPNM to RM
Percent
0
27
10
16
24
Roadless areas
Acres (M)
34,415
23,074
30,857
27,708
24,651
Recreation places with some harvest
Number
0
3
1
1
1
24« SUMMARY
Summary
The action alternatives propose the harvest of from 42 to 85 individual units. Alternative 2
proposes the most units for partial cutting (19), while Alternative 3 proposes only 5 units for
partial cutting. Figure S-4 shows the number of units proposed for harvest under each
alternative by silvicultural system.
Figure Sum-4
Number of Units Proposed for Harvest by Silvicultural System
Units
Clearcut
Shelterwood
Alternative 2 proposes the highest level of harvest with approximately 2,497 acres of timber
harvest. Of the action alternatives. Alternative 3 proposes the lowest level of harvest with
1,192. Figure Sum-5 shows the number of acres proposed for harvest for each alternative by
silvicultural system.
Figure Sum-5
Total Acres Proposed for Harvest by Silvicultural System
Acres 2,497
Excluding right-of-way (ROW) volume each action alternative, except Alternative 2, generated
less volume than the identified purpose and need of 70 MMBF. Alternative 3 comes within 48
SUMMARY *25
Summary
percent at 36 MMBF and Alternative 2 slightly exceeds with 72 MMBF. Figure Sum-6 shows the
volume of timber proposed for harvest for each alternative by silvicultural system.
Figure Sum-6
Total Volume Proposed for Harvest
MMBF
Commercial forest land (CFL) is divided into Volume Class Strata according to the Ketchikan
Area's timber type map. This volume class information is used in calculating volume
harvested and economic analysis. Figure Sum-7 shows volume class strata breakdown for each
alternative. Inclusions of stands typed as non-commercial forest that were field verified to be
merchantable were aggregated into the volume class 4 acres.
Figure Sum-7
Proposed Harvest by Volume Class Strata
Volume ClaBs 4 k\\\Y1 Volume Claaa 5
1 1 Volume Claaa 6 E2 Volume Claaa 7
26 ■ SUMMARY
Summary
The Tongass Timber Reform Act of 1 990 modified the long-term contracts to:
Eliminate the practice of harvesting a disproportionate amount of old-growth timber by
limiting the volume harvested over the rotation in Volume Classes 6 and 7, as defined in
TLMP and supporting documents. The proportion of volume harvested in these classes
within a contiguous Management Area does not exceed the proportion of volume
currently represented by these classes within the Management Area.
The Project Area is primarily located within Management Area K32 and contained 8.82 percent
proportion of volume class 6 and 7 timber as of November 1 990 (Date TTRA became law). The
current proportionality is 8.86 percent. Alternatives 2 and 4 would result in a proportionality in
excess of 8.82 percent, while Alternatives 3 and 5 would dip slightly under the base proportion.
A small portion of Management Area K35 (VCU 746) is located within the Project Area. The
TTRA baseline proportion is 5.39 percent and the current proportionality is 5.44 percent. All of
the action alternatives will slightly increase proportionalities over the existing condition.
Table Sum-3
Proportion of Volume Classes 6 and 7 Proposed for Harvest by Management
Area
Volume
Total Timber
Class 6 & 7
Proportionality
Difference
Base (acres)
(acres)
(percent)
(percent)l./
Management Area K32
TTRA Baseline
(on November 28, 1990)
83,049
7,328
8.82
Post TTRA Harvest
76,187
6,812
8.94
+0.12
Alternative 1
76,187
6,812
8.94
+0.12
Alternative 2
73,831
6,555
8.88
+0.06
Alternative 3
75,131
6,582
8.76
-0.06
Alternative 4
74,798
6,629
8.86
+0.04
Alternative 5
74,288
6,512
8.77
-0.05
Management Area K35
TTRA Baseline
(on November 28, 1990)
47,314
2,552
5.39
Post TTRA Harvest
45,108
2,454
5.44
+0.05
Alternative 1
45,108
2,454
5.44
+0.05
Alternative 2
44,966
2,454
5.46
+0.07
Alternative 3
44,972
2,454
5.46
+0.07
Alternative 4
44,935
2,454
5.46
+0.07
Alternative 5
45,024
2,454
5.47
+0.08
SOURCE: Nightingale, 1 995
1/ A positive difference indicates that the percent of Volume Classes 6 and 7 remaining in the Management
Area is higher than the TTRA baseline. A negative difference indicates a lower percentage than the TTRA
baseline.
SUMMARY ■ 27
Summary
Road development is divided into two main categories — construction and reconstruction. Figure
Sum-8 shows the number of miles of new road construction and reconstruction proposed to
access the harvest units for each alternative.
Figure Sum-8
Proposed New Road Construction & Reconstruction
Miles
I Construction
I Reconstruction
There are two existing LTFs and one new LTF required to implement the various alternatives.
Alternative 2 would utilize all three LTFs (Shrimp Bay, Shelter Cove and Carroll Inlet) while the
other action alternatives would not require the use of the Shrimp Bay LTF. This analysis has
roughly estimated which units or groups of harvest units would most economically be hauled to a
given LTF. Actual haul may be different. Table Sum-4 shows the volume of harvest projected to
be hauled to each LTF.
Table Sum-4
Proposed Harvest, by Existing & New Log Transfer Facility, in MMBF
Alt.1
Alt.2
Aft.3
Alt.4
Alt.5
Shrimp Bay
0
15
0
0
0
Shelter Cove
0
4
4
4
2
Carroll Inlet*
0
54
32
38
55
SOURCE: Oien, 1995
* New Log Transfer Facilities
28 ■ SUMMARY
Summary
Issue 1.
Timber Harvest
Economics
Comparison of Alternatives by
Significant Issue
Chapter One presents in detail the significant issues that are the focus of this EIS and the key
indicators for evaluating the impacts of timber harvest on each issue. This section compares the
alternatives in terms of these issues. The baseline for comparing alternatives is Alternative 1 , the
no-action alternative. Chapter Three contains the detailed evaluation of the potential effects of
timber harvest and road construction activities under each alternative on forest resources.
Logging Systems
Estimated timber economics focuses on the residual value (stumpage) of the timber after all
associated logging and transportation costs are subtracted. Generally, the most expensive
logging method is helicopter, followed by slacldine, highlead, live skyline (shotgun), running
skyline and shovel yarding. Average yarding distance, uphill versus dow nhill yarding, volume
per acre, species composition and value, in combination with other factors, will influence the
relative cost of each yarding method. Helicopter yarding is necessary in areas where it is
impractical to build road or where aerial logging is necessary to meet specific standards and
guidelines. Alternative 2 proposes the most helicopter volume (13 MMBF), while Alternative 3
proposes very little (1 MMBF). Figure Sum-9 compares the logging systems proposed for each
alternative.
Figure Sum-9
Timber Harvest by Logging System
MMBF
Altn 1
Altn 2
Altn 3
Altn 4
Altn 5
Helicopter
0
13
1
3
6
Shovel
0
2
1
1
2
Slackline
0
2
1
2
3
Live Skyline
0
4
1
0
2
Running/Skyline
0
51
32
36
44
Runnlng/SkylliCSS Live Skyline (~H Slackllne
Shovel I. -1 1 Helicopter
Mid-market Value
The analysis of timber values in the Timber section of Chapter Three looked at both the
mid-market and current-market values for each alternative. The current-market values are
considerably higher than the average or mid-market values which indicate that: (1) consumer
demand is higher, (2) timber supplies are limited; or (3) some combination of the above is true.
All of the alternatives show a positive net stumpage at current-market values, while only
Alternatives 3 and 5 are positive at mid-market value.
SUMMARY ■ 29
Summary
Issue 2.
Fish Habitat and
Water Quality
Table Sum-5 compares the economics of timber harvest in dollars/thousand board feet (S/MBF)
for each alternative under mid-market conditions (generally representing the average market
condition and product mix) and current-market conditions. The conversion rate expresses the net
dollar value of the timber volume after subtracting the production costs from the log values.
Table Sum-5
Estimated Mid-market and Current-market Stumpage Value
Components
1
Alternatives
2 3
4 5
Mid-Market
Conversion Rate ($/MBF)
0
-87.54
+18.61
-10.97 +2.85
Current-Market
Conversion Rate (S/MBF)
0
+73.53
+176.28
+150.16 +162.51
SOURCE: Marks, 1995
Best Management Practices
There is no measurable effect on water quality or fisheries production by any of the timber
harvest or associated activities proposed by any of the action alternatives. All alternatives
meet the requirements and intent of the Clean Water Act. Implementation of the TTRAs
requirement to provide a minimum 100-foot buffer on Class I streams and Class II streams
flowing directly into Class I streams would effectively mitigate direct stream channel impacts
from proposed timber harvest and road construction. Adherence to BMPs outlined in the Soil
and Water Conservation Handbook (USDA FSH 2509.22) during the design of units and
roads will minimize the potential direct effects to fish as well. Site-specific BMPs were
developed and selected to minimize the potential for impact to fish habitat. These
site-specific BMPs are noted on the individual Harvest Unit and Road Design cards m
Appendix K.
Habitat Capability
Fish habitat capability models are used to estimate the effects of timber harvest on the capability
of streams to provide habitat for selected species of salmon and trout. Because there are many
factors which influence fish populations — including commercial/sport harvest, oceanic
conditions, and predation — these computer models provide only relative measures of habitat
capability. These models indicate that there is no change in habitat capabilities for coho and
pink salmon, or for Dolly Varden char and the species which they represent, among the
alternatives including the no-action alternative.
30 ■ SUMMARY
Summary
TLMP Draft Revision, Alternative P
Every major watershed (VCU) within the Project Area has experienced prior harvest and road
construction. Reentering these drainages may generate a greater potential risk for impacts on
water quality, with the risk expected to be greater in those watersheds with the higher
cumulative percents of harvest. The standards and guidelines associated with Alternative P of
the TLMP Revision Supplement to the Draft EIS (TLMP Draft Revision 1991a) limit the
amount of timber harvest wit hin a given watershed to 35 percent of the total land base within a
1 5 -year period. Table Sum-6 shows the existing direct and indirect effects of timber harvest and
road construction by third order or larger watershed.
Table Sum -6
Cumulative Watershed Effects, Percentage of Watershed Harvested and Roaded
in Third Order or Larger Watersheds
Watershed
Watershed Harvested and
Number
Roaded 1982-1997
Alt.1
Alt.2
Alt. 3
Alt.4
Alt. 5
C41B
0
3
0
0
0
C43A
0
28
0
0
0
C58A
7
3
0
0
0
D69B
0
3
0
2
4
D70C
0
8
5
6
9
D71 A
0
5
10
6
9
D74A
0
0
0
0
0
D79A
0
12
14
14
10
D80B
0
0
0
0
0
SOURCE: Babik, 1995
Stream Crossings
Another measure of potential risk to fish habitat from timber harvest is the associated new road
construction and road reconstruction which crosses streamcourses (see Chapter Three-Fisheries).
During placement of culverts or bridges, sediment may be introduced into the streams which may
have short- or long-term effects on water quality. Alternative 3 proposes the fewest stream
crossings, while Alternative 2 proposes the most. This is shown in Table Sum-7.
SUMMARY ■ 31
Summary
Table Sum-7
Stream Crossings to be Constructed
Alt. 1
Alt. 2
Alt. 3
Alt. 4
Alt. 5
Class I
0
19
7
8
14
Class II
0
24
10
15
29
Class III
0
112
67
77
80
Total Crossings
0
155
84
100
123
SOURCE: Oien, 1995
Mass Movement Index (MMI)
Following timber harvest, there is an increased risk of landslides until second growth and the
brush layer become firmly established. One way of analyzing this risk is to determine the amount
of timber harvest on slopes which have high mass movement index (MMI) soils. This rating does
not imply that such a mass-wasting event will occur; rather, it ranks the alternatives on the basis
of the potential for a mass-wasting event to occur, which may or may not result in an increase m
stream sediment. This increased stream sedimentation may result in some loss or impairment of
resident and anadromous fish spawning and rearing habitat. Table Sum-8 displays the proposed
harvest on high MMI (MMI = 3) and very high MMI (MMI = 4) soils by alternative. Virtually
all very high MMI soils have been removed from the base. Only those sites that appear to be
small inclusions or mistyped have been retained in the unit pool. These sites have been examined
by a professional soil scientist as part of unit reconnaissance.
Table Sum-8
Acres of High Hazard Soils Harvested by Alternative
Alt. 1
Alt. 2
Alt. 3
Alt. 4
Alt. 5
High MMI soils
0
1,280
519
686
983
Very High MMI soils*
0
65
0
39
65
SOURCE: Babik, 1995
* See Chapter 3 -Soils for details of MMI classifications.
Sediment Transfer and Deposition
The Carroll Creek and Neets Creek watersheds were evaluated for sediment delivery and
depositional potential using a watershed-level analysis (Geier and Loggy, 1 995). The watersheds
were divided into sub-basins and reaches. Sediment transport and deposition indices were
developed based upon watershed morphology, discharge, and potential sediment sources (for a
32 ■ SUMMARY
Summary
detailed description of this process see Appendix F, Sediment Transfer and Deposition Analysis
Procedure). This sediment transfer index indicates where in a watershed sediment production
and deposition is a potential problem for maintenance of aquatic habitat. The quantity of
sediment transported and deposited depends upon a number of factors, including nature of
sediment source, stream discharge, and channel morphology. These are factors that resource
managers must consider when they undertake activities on areas that are linked to important
aquatic habitat.
Results of this sediment transport and deposition risk assessment for roads and units in the Upper
Carroll action alternatives indicate that Alternative 3 and 4 have a relatively low overall risk of
sediment delivery to streams. By minimizing harvest unit location and road construction near
streamcourses in high risk sub-basins and proposing no activities in Neets Creek watershed,
Alternative 3 presents the lowest overall risk of sediment production and delivery to sensitive
stream reaches. Alternative 5 presents a higher risk of producing sediment that may affect
beneficial uses, mainly by proposing road construction and timber harvest in the west fork of
Carroll Creek. Alternative 2 poses the highest risk of sediment delivery from road related
sediment. It also proposes a number of timber harvest units in the west fork of Carroll Creek and
within the Neets Creek watershed.
Scenic Quality
There are 3 key viewsheds within the Project Area. The proposed visual quality objectives
(VQOs) for this project establish the minimum visual quality management standards for these
key viewsheds.
Table Sum-9 displays the proposed VQOs for each key viewshed and the percent change in
visual cumulative disturbance level by alternative. Alternative 1 represents the existing visual
condition. In all viewsheds for all alternatives, the proposed harvest units achieve the proposed
visual quality objectives.
Table Sum-9
Proposed VQOs and Changes in Cumulative Visual Disturbance
Proposed
Changes in Percent Visual Condition*
Viewshed
VQQ*
Alt.1**
Alt. 2
Alt. 3
Alt 4
Alt. 5
Carroll/Shelter Cove
PR-M
0
2
1
2
1
Carroll Estuary
PR-M
0
10
5
6
8
Head of Neets Bay
PR-M
0
8
0
0
0
SOURCE: Angelus, 1995
* R = Retention; PR = Partial Retention; M = Modification; MM = Maximum Modification
** Alternative 1 represents the existing condition
SUMMARY ■ 33
Summary
Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS)
Implementing any of the action alternatives will change the existing Recreation Opportunity
Spectrum (ROS) class within the Project Area. Figure Sum- 10 shows the change in ROS class
by alternative.
Figure Sum- 10
Changes in ROS Class by Alternative
Acres (thousands)
Primitive Ifefl Seml-Prlm Non-Motor
I I Roaded Modified
Roadless Areas
The TLMP Draft Revision (1991a) identified two roadless areas which lie within or partially
within the Project Area. The impact of timber harvesting on roadless areas is much larger than
the acres harvested because the sights and sounds associated with the harvest activity affect the
surrounding area. Roadless areas generally need to be at least 5,000 acres in size to be
considered roadless. Figure Sum-1 1 shows the number of roadless area acres that will remain
after implementation of an alternative.
Figure Sum-1 1
Timber Harvest within Roadless Areas
Acres (thousands)
Roadless Acres
I Roaded Acres
34 b SUMMARY
Summary
leciip 4
Wildlife Habitat
The major effect on wildlife habitats in all action alternatives is the reduction of old-growth forest
habitat. Impacts to other habitats were reduced by the interdisciplinary design of units prior to
alternative formulation. All alternatives result in impacts consistent with the implementation of
the TLMP (1979a, as amended) and Alternative P of the TLMP Draft Revision Supplement to
the Draft EIS (TLMP Draft Revision 1 99 1 a), standards and guidelines.
Table Sum- 10 displays the potential reduction in wildlife habitat capabilities, as estimated by
habitat capability models, for the key Management Indicator Species (MIS) found in the Upper
Carroll Project Area. This table displays the 1954 long-term habitat capability and estimated
short-term reduction in habitat capability after potential implementation of the alternatives.
Table Sum- 10
Potential Changes in Habitat Capability within the Project Area for MIS in 1997
Species
Habitat Capability
Changes from 1993 by Alternative
1954
1995
1
2
3
4
5
Sitka b-t deer
629
389
0
-16
-14
-8
-14
Black bear
75
70
0
-1
-1
-1
-1
Otter
26
17
0
-1
-1
-1
-1
Marten
58
44
0
-4
-3
-3
-4
Hairy woodpecker
501
341
0
-44
-27
-25
-35
Van. Can. goose
86
74
0
-10
-6
-7
-8
Bald eagle
54
40
0
0
0
0
0
Brown creeper
993
497
0
-59
-42
-32
-49
Red squirrel
24,637
22,714
0
-1,316
-740
-780
■1,068
Grey wolf
2.3
1.5
0
0
0
0
0
SOURCE: Matson, 1995
Note: Numbers do not incorporate patch size effectiveness calculations (see the Old-Growth/
Biodiversity section)
Forest fragmentation represents a change in the overall forest landscape from large, contiguous
blocks of old-growth forest to smaller blocks separated by timber harvest units. Increased
amounts of forest fragmentation indicate reduced habitat potential for species which are thought
to be dependent on interior old-growth forest habitat. One way to analyze forest fragmentation is
to measure the reduction of large, contiguous blocks of old-growth forest as a result of timber
harvest. Large and medium sized blocks of old-growth (Naha Roadless Area, Misty Fiords
National Monument, Traitor's Cove Retention, Orchard Lake, and Swan Lake) are adjacent to the
Project Area. In addition, the Project Area contains a significant amount of old-growth habitat in
blocks over 1 ,000 acres in size. Table Sum-1 1 displays the number of acres of old-growth
habitat in large blocks that will remain after implementation of an alternative.
SUMMARY a 35
Summary
issue 5.
Subsistence
Use
Table Sum-1 1
Effect of Timber Harvest on Forest Fragmentation in Acres
Alt. 1
Alt. 2
Alt. 3
Alt. 4
Alt. 5
Acres of lg., unfragmented blocks
1 00-500 acres remaining after harvest
2,243
2,095
2,189
2,144
2,194
Acres of lg., unfragmented blocks
500- 1 ,000 acres remaining after harvest
2,270
2,035
2,152
2,085
2,021
Acres of lg., unfragmented blocks
> 1 ,000 acres remaining after harvest
11,735
10,175
10,874
10,877
10,522
Total Acres of Old Growth remaining
after harvest
17,641
15,661
16,654
16,467
16,098
SOURCE: Matson, Nightingale, 1995
Note: Acres include only Volume Class 4 and above
A portion of the Naha old-growth habitat block extends outside of the LUD II area into the
Project Area (see Figure Sum-3). This portion of the block is designated as a LUD IV under the
current Forest Plan and is available for timber harvest. Alternative 2 proposes to harvest two
units totaling 49 acres within this old-growth block. The remaining alternatives do not propose
any harvest within this block primarily for economic and wildlife management reasons.
The west side of Carroll Creek represents a small block of unfragmented old-growth habitat
located inside the project boundary (see Figure Sum-3). The southwest portion of this area is
adjacent to the Naha Block. Alternatives 3 and 4 do not propose any harvest within this block
primarily for economic and wildlife management reasons. Alternatives 2 and 5 would harvest
370 and 394 acres respectively from the Carroll Creek block.
Late successional corridors approximately 1/4 mile wide (see Figure Sum-3) that provide
connectivity between core areas of unfragmented old-growth habitat were identified. These
corridors contain 2,737 acres of which 799 acres are not commercial forest land. Alternative 5
would impact the corridors to the largest degree (157 acres), followed by Alternative 2 (93
acres), Alternative 3 (34 acres), and Alternative 4 (22 acres).
Chapter 3 evaluates the potential site-specific effects on subsistence that could result from
implementing any of the proposed timber harvest and associated road construction alternatives.
The Tongass Resource Use Cooperative Survey (TRUCS) identified areas which are most
heavily used by subsistence households. Based on the TRUCS, the Project Area contains no
36« SUMMARY
Summary
high or moderate use subsistence areas. High and moderate use is interpreted to mean greater
than 50 households ever used the area for subsistence deer hunting.
Deer hunting is one aspect of subsistence use affected by timber harvest. The Wildlife and
Subsistence sections of Chapter 3 discuss the computer models used to estimate the effects of
timber harvest on deer habitat capability — both long range and short range. Based on this
analysis. Alternative 1 will cause no reduction of deer habitat capability. Among the action
alternatives. Alternative 4 would cause the least reduction to deer habitat capabilities (8 deer),
while AJtemative 2 would reduce deer habitat capabilities the most severely (16 deer) within the
Project Area.
Table Sum- 12 displays the number of deer the habitat in the WAAs (406 & 510) can support
now and at the end of the KPC Long Term Sale (2004). The full WAA habitat capability has
not been reduced for the effects of fragmentation.
Table Sum- 12
Deer Harvest and Habitat Capability for WAA 406 & 51 0
Habitat Capability
Alternative Index
Population of Deer
Needed to Meet Demand
1997
2004
1995
1
4,508
4,332
1,040
2
4,492
4,332
1,040
3
4,494
4,332
1,040
4
4,500
4,332
1,040
5
4,494
4,332
1,040
SOURCE: Matson, 1995
Note: Habitat capability for entire WAAs has not been reduced for fragmentation
The Project Area is located within portions of two wildlife Analysis Areas (WAA), 406 and 510.
The harvest is 104 deer per year based on ADF&G hunter surveys for both complete WAAs.
Approximately 1 ,040 deer are needed to support this level of deer harvest. Currently (1995) the
two full WAAs provide habitat capability for 4,508 deer. The habitat capability through the year
2004 is projected to be 4,332 deer.
Competition for subsistence resources in the Project Area is a scoping issue. Subsistence users
are concerned with competition from residents of Ketchikan. Since Ketchikan residents are
considered non-rural, this competition can be regulated if it starts to restrict non-rural residents'
ability to obtain subsistence resources. Deer habitat capability in WAAs 406 and 5 10 is
presently adequate to sustain all current and projected harvest now and through the year 2040
except for wolf in WAA 510. In the Wildlife Section, the cumulative analysis discussed a
potential road connection between the project area and the Ketchikan road system. If such a
connection is made, it would significantly increase the amount of rural and non-rural use of the
SUMMARY ■ 37
Summary
Issue 6.
Transportation/
Utility Corridor
area and could increase the amount of competition to the point that there would be a significant
restriction in subsistence use of deer and marten in the Project Area.
The Federal Subsistance Board may use its authority to regulate non-rural harvest of deer and has
authority to prioritize the harvest of deer among rural residents when necessary to protect the
resource. The current deer population level does not require restrictions on non-rural users.
There is no evidence to indicate that availability of salmon, finfish, shellfish, or other food
resources to subsistence users would be affected by sport or non-rural harvest. Any increase in
competition from non-rural Alaskan residents and nonresidents would not be substantial because
of the availability of resources in the immediate vicinity and in the surrounding areas.
The above analysis indicates that the actions proposed in Alternatives 2 through 5 will not
represent a significant possibility of a significant restriction on subsistence use of deer, black
bear, or otter in the Project Area. Marten harvest in WAA 5 1 0 is at the peak of the level that can
be sustained. With future reductions of habitat capability for deer and marten, and in light of the
fact that Saxman residents' use of the area is underreported for the Project Area, there may be a
significant possibility of a significant restriction of subsistence use of marten and deer at some
point in the future for all alternatives including the No Action Alternative.
The Tongass Land Management Plan Revision team has mapped the transportation and utility
corridors on the Tongass National Forest. The maps show two corridors passing through the
Project Area. The Alaska Legislature passed Senate Joint Resolution 40 during the 1 992 session.
This resolution urges the Forest Service to avoid actions which would preclude the use of any of
the transportation and utility corridors identified by an interagency group.
The Upper Carroll Project Area contains approximately 30 to 40 miles of the various potential
routes identified to date. The IDT reviewed the possibilities of action being taken on the
transportation and utility corridors in the foreseeable future. The review indicated that the
corridor could be used for electrical transmission lines within the next decade. The review
concluded that the road connections proposed are unlikely within the forseeable future and that
no actions proposed under any alternative would preclude use of any of the transportation and
utility corridors.
The "Lake Tyee to Swan Lake Transmission Intertie” (R.W. Beck and Assoc., 1992) presents
a feasible electric power transmission line route within the Project Area. The preferred route
identified in the R.W. Beck study passes through the Project Area by way of Carroll Creek and
Neets Creek drainages (Figure Sum- 12).
38« SUMMARY
Summary
Figure Sum- 12
Utility and Transportation Corridors inside Project Area
SUMMARY ■ 39
Summary
The Ketchikan Gateway Borough and the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public
Utilities cooperated in an examination of highway corridor opportunities. This study, Ketchikan
- Revillagigedo Island Corridor Study (R&M Engineering, 1 992), identified a preferred highway
route that passes through the Project Area along the west side of Carroll Inlet, then north along
Carroll Creek until the junction with Neets Creek and Orchard Creek. At this point, one potential
route heads north outside the Project Area toward Orchard Lake, the other route follows Neets
Creek before heading north to Shrimp Bay. As part of the Upper Carroll field reconnaissance,
the Forest Service located and flagged on the ground the preliminary route from Shelter Cove to
Shrimp Bay. This alternative route uses a ferry terminal at Shrimp Bay as an alternative to the
route on the north side of Orchard Lake and some very difficult highway building terrain north of
Shrimp Bay.
The IDT considered these routes in alternative formulation and also evaluated them for likelihood
of construction within the foreseeable future through other means. For the purpose of this
analysis, the reasonably foreseeable time frame over which the indirect effects are estimated is
until the end of the Ketchikan Pulp Company (KPC) Long-Term Contract (the year 2004). This
determination of reasonably foreseeable is based on the time frame of the KPC contract
commitment.
Based on the feasibility and likelihood of funding for power transmission projects within Alaska,
the IDT concluded that the construction of the Swan Lake-Lake Tyee powerline was likely within
the forseeable future.
The effects of the possible construction of the power line within the Project Area have primary
effects on the visual resource. The clearing of the corridor along the transmission lines would be
seen from a number of view points.
The actions proposed in the Project Area could benefit the transmission project by incidental
transportation and logistics uses. The construction of the transmission lines across National
Forest lands normally requires removal of all merchantable timber felled along the corridor. The
road system will allow shorter flights for helicopters removing the timber which would reduce
costs. The roads will also allow shorter transportation by helicopter for towers, cable, and other
logistics. This activity is expected to result in a reduction of costs. Table Sum- 1 3 displays the
miles of road that would be constructed or reconstructed that could potentially serve as access to
a possible utility corridor or eventually as a transportation link within the Project Area under each
alternative.
40 ■ SUMMARY
Summary
Issue 7. Social
and Economic
Effects
Table Sum- 13
Potential Transportation/Utility Corridor Access Miles
Alternative
Utility Corridor
Miles
Transportation Link
Miles
1
0
0
2
23.8
24.7
3
6.4
6.0
4
10.2
9.4
5
14.4
13.8
SOURCE: Oien, 1995
Based on the historical rate of highway development in Southeast Alaska and limited funding, the
IDT concluded that a road connection would not reach the project area within the forseeable
future.
The IDT evaluated the action alternatives as requested by Senate Joint Resolution 40, and
determined that none of the action alternatives will preclude the identified transportation and
utility corridors within the foreseeable future.
The State of Alaska receives 25 percent of the sum of all net receipts from timber sold on
National Forest System Lands plus any purchaser road credits. This money is earmarked for
public school and road maintenance funding. Table Sum- 14 shows the estimated returns to the
State of Alaska and the Ketchikan Gateway Borough from the harvest of timber (from this project
only) by alternative. Actual returns will be based upon sale volumes and appraised rates and
may differ from this estimate, which is based on mid-market rates.
SUMMARY *41
Summary
Table Sum- 14
Estimated Returns to the State of Alaska from Sale of Timber*
Alternative
Estimated
Total
State of
Alaska
Ketchikan
( KGB )
Volume
Receipts
Returns
Returns **
(MMBF)
($Millions)
($Millions)
($Millions)
1
0
0
0
0
2
77
12.623
3.156
.142
3
37
8.477
2.119
.095
4
46
10.288
2.572
.116
5
66
14.238
3.560
.160
SOURCE: Marks, 1995
♦Based on mid-market rates timber receipts
♦♦Based on historical average percent distribution
Table Sum- 15 displays the employment (jobs) and personal income (salaries) associated with
each alternative averaged over a four-year period. The jobs and salaries listed include those both
directly and indirectly dependent upon the timber industry.
Table Sum- 15
Timber Industry Average Annual Employment and Income by Alternative
Alt. 1
Alt. 2
Alt. 3
Alt. 4
Alt. 5
Volume Harvested
Total (MMBF)
0
77
37
46
66
4 Year Avg (MMBF)
0
19
9
12
17
Employment (Jobs)
0
116
57
67
91
Personal Income
(Millions $)
0
27.6
13.5
16.1
21.8
SOURCE: Marks, 1995
All Alternatives provide sufficient volume, in combination with other scheduled offerings, to
meet short-term contractual obligations to KPC and/or assist the independent timber purchasers
in maintaining timber-related employment in the region. In these alternatives, the total volume
(including ROW volume) harvested ranges from 37 MMBF in Alternative 3 to 77 MMBF in
Alternative 2. Alternatives 4 and 5 provide 46 MMBF and 66 MMBF respectively. These
42 ■ SUMMARY
Summary
Issue 8: Marine
Environment
volumes could be provided to KPC in harvest offerings that would meet contract requirements
and maintain the volume needed to continue production. They could also be sold to independent
timber purchasers.
Under Alternative 1 , the no-action alternative, none of the employment described above would be
supported by timber harvest activity in the Upper Carroll Project Area. This would result in a
negative effect on timber harvest employment should local timber purchasers not be able to
substitute volume from another source. The effects of Alternative 1 are not predictable and could
range from elimination of shifts to partial or even full shutdown of the local mills for an
unspecified period of time. Selection of the no-action alternative could also have potential
long-term ramifications to the contract holder, the core communities, and ultimately Southeast
Alaska, through de-stabilization of the wood products industry.
The projected long-term effects of different harvest levels are contained in the TLMP Revision
Supplement to the Draft EIS (TLMP Draft Revision, 1991a). Timber supply analysis indicates it
is unlikely that sufficient timber supply would be available within the Upper Carroll Project Area
to sustain the scheduled timber harvest through the end of the first rotation (year 2054) when
second growth would become widely available for harvest. However, this conclusion depends on
future timber values and whether improved or more efficient logging systems are developed to
make economically marginal timber more attractive. It also depends on the status of new land
use allocations that would reduce the timber base.
None of the alternatives is expected to have a significant direct impact on the commercial fishing,
recreation, and tourism industry or related employment.
Direct effects to the marine environment are assumed to occur only from development and use
of LTFs, and are limited to the intertidal area affected by rock fill and either the intertidal or
subtidal areas potentially affected by accumulations of bark debris.
A total of 5 potential LTF locations were considered for possible development. There are 4
existing LTF sites and 1 potential new site. The maximum number of LTFs that would be
utilized under any alternative is 3 (1 new site and 2 existing sites), as there are several possible
sites considered for each road system. The final selection of which LTF sites to utilize was based
on the interagency guidelines (Alaska Log Transfer Facility Siting, Construction, Operation, and
Monitoring/Reporting Guidelines). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine
Fisheries Service staff conducted subtidal surveys at the sites that appeared to best meet the
interagency guidelines. The subtidal survey reports and recommendations which are included as
part of Appendix G, were used to further define which of the potential LTF locations were
preferable. Table Sum-16 displays the LTFs involved in the various alternatives. See also the
detailed alternative maps included with Upper Carroll EIS.
SUMMARY ■ 43
Summary
Table Sum- 16
Log Transfer Facilities Required by Alternative and System
LTF
LTF
Alternative
LTF
Name
Number
1
2
3
4
5
System
Shrimp Bay
1
N
I
N
N
N
A Frame
Shelter Cove
3
N
I
I
I
I
A Frame
Carroll Inlet #7
4*
N
I
I
I
I
A Frame
SOURCE: Oien, 1995
I = Planned for intermittent use; N = Not planned for use. * New Log Transfer Facilities
Table Sum- 17 displays the number of LTFs used or developed, the total acreage of the structural
embankment, and the estimated acres to be affected by bark deposition. The combination of the
marine habitat covered by the structural embankment and the area potentially covered by bark
deposition represents the total loss of marine benthic habitat for each alternative.
Table Sum- 17
Marine Benthic Habitat Affected, by Alternative
Alt. 1
Alt. 2
Alt. 3
Alt. 4
Alt. 5
Number of LTF Sites
0
3
2
2
2
Structural Embankment
0.5
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.5
(Acres Affected)
Bark Deposition
(Acres Affected)
0
3.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
Total Acres of Marine
Benthic Habitat Affected
0.5
3.7
2.5
2.5
2.5
SOURCE: Oien, 1995
The No-action Alternative has no additional effect on the marine environment, while Alternatives
3, 4, and 5 affect the marine system (2.5 acres) in a similar fashion. Alternative 2 would have the
greatest impact (3.7 acres). The loss of habitat is much less than one percent of the available
marine habitat in the Project Area. Since all species identified along the subtidal (underwater)
survey transects are common throughout Southeast Alaska, it is concluded that there would not
44 ■ SUMMARY
Summary
be a significant impact to the marine environment from constructing (or continuing to use) LTFs
at the proposed sites.
Mitigation Measures
The Forest Service uses numerous mitigation and preventive measures in the planning and
implementation of land management activities. The application of these measures begins during
the planning and design phases of a project. They link to the overall Forest, Ketchikan
Administrative Area, and Ranger District management direction and continue through all phases
of subsequent forest management. The standards, guidelines, and direction contained in the
current TLMP (1979a), the Supplement to the Draft EIS for the TLMP Revision (1991), Alaska
Regional Guide, and applicable Forest Service manuals and handbooks have been applied in the
development of alternatives and design of harvest units and roads.
Public comment on the Upper Carroll DEIS was helpful in identifying when and where additional
mitigation measures should be considered. Unit and road cards are an important tool for
implementing the project, as they list standards and guidelines and provide a mechanism for
tracking project implementation. Unit and road cards have been developed for each individual
unit that occurs in an alternative and appear in Appendix K.
TTRA. BMPs, Water Quality
Mitigation to protect water quality, fish habitat, and wetlands includes application of the Best
Management Practices (BMPs) stated in the Soil and Water Conservation Handbook (USDA
FSH 2509.22). This handbook provides standard operating procedures for all stream classes. In
addition, the TTRA mandates a minimum 100-foot buffer on all Class I streams and on Class II
streams that flow directly into Class I streams. The width of this buffer strip may be greater than
1 00 feet for reasons such as topography, riparian soils, a windfirm boundary, timber stand
boundaries, logging system requirements, and varying stream channel locations. In addition,
certain Class III streams flow directly into or have been identified as influencing Class I streams.
These Class III streams have been buffered to the slope break of the channel or to a windfirm
boundary to protect water quality. Split yarding or full suspension was built into the logging and
transportation design process, as was partial and full suspension over wetland soils or soils with
a higher mass movement potential. Direct in-stream impacts are minimized through road
construction timing and fish passage requirements on certain Class I and II streams. Refer to
Appendix K (Unit and Road Cards) for the unit-specific stream buffering, suspension, passage,
and timing requirements being applied. Application of BMPs and adherence to the TTRA
requirements will protect water quality fish habitat and wetlands as well as riparian habitat
important to other species such as deer, bear, and furbearers.
Mitigation measures to protect wildlife habitat are a part of the design of the alternatives,
including the location of the harvest units and roads. Harvest units and roads are intentionally
located away from important wildlife habitats (to the extent practicable) to reduce the effects on
wildlife. Beach and estuary habitats are completely avoided by harvest units, while road
incursions are minimized to the extent practicable. Where possible, disturbance of important
travel corridors is minimized to allow the undisturbed movement of wildlife.
Other measures considered to mitigate impacts include road closures, grass seeding of roadbeds,
SUMMARY ■ 45
Summary
retention of snags where safe to do so, and scheduling of harvest activities which reduce
disturbance to bald eagle nesting and rearing activity. Goshawk surveys (vocalizations) have
been conducted. If a goshawk or marbled murrelet nest site is located during the layout process it
will be protected using the latest standards and guidelines.
Subsistence
Because most subsistence use involves harvesting fish and game, mitigation measures that
protect or enhance fish and game resources will also protect and enhance subsistence activities.
By placing units and roads away from beach and estuary fringe habitats, and away from salmon
bearing streams, mitigation measures were built into each of the alternatives considered in the
EIS. Additional subsistence concerns were incorporated into the alternatives to varying degrees.
Recreation
Effects of timber harvest on views from anchorages and known recreational day use areas will be
reduced by leaving buffers of timber along the beaches and inland lakes. The proposed visual
quality objectives for this plan emphasize the protection of the visual resource as viewed from
saltwater. Neets Bay and Carroll Inlet in particular, will reduce the direct effects on visual
quality. Stream riparian buffers will protect fisheries habitat and sport anglers use of class I and
II streams in the Project Area.
Cultural
Resources
Potential effects on cultural resources can be minimized by excluding project activities from
most high probability areas (exceptions are LTFs, camps, a small number of units, and access
roads to these facilities). The high probability areas were all surveyed in 1994 and 1995, except
for exact road locations which cannot be precisely determined until after unit and road layout
occurs. There are no known significant cultural sites located within any of the proposed harvest
unit boundaries. Types of mitigation measures include avoidance, protective enclosures,
monitoring of harvest activities, restrictions on size or road location, and recovery and
documentation of materials.
TES Plants
Choris Bog Orchid (Platanthera chorisana) is a designated sensitive species. Six populations
of this species were discovered in muskeg openings during botanical surveys of the Project Area
conducted in 1 995. Populations were found within the vicinity of harvest units 20 and 59 and
adjacent to a small pond in the Carroll Creek drainage. The primary risk of perturbation to these
populations would be through road construction activities. Road locations have been adjusted to
avoid direct impacts to known locations of Choris Bog Orchid.
Forest Plan
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring activities can be divided into three broad categories: Forest Plan monitoring, routine
implementation monitoring, and project-specific effectiveness monitoring. These broad types are
discussed in the following sections.
The National Forest Management Act requires that National Forests monitor and evaluate
their forest plans (36 CFR 21 9. 1 1). The significance of this requirement is emphasized by the
recent development of a National Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy (Forest Service 1 993).
The Strategy is designed to focus agency attention and resources on evaluating implementation of
forest plans to provide the Forest Service with information necessary to ensure responsive and
efficient management of National Forests. Embodied in the National Monitoring and Evaluation
Strategy are three principles: (1) evaluation of results will be readily available to the public.
46 ■ SUMMARY
Summary
Mitigation/
Monitoring
Feedback Loop
Routine
Implementation
Monitoring
agencies, and other groups; (2) monitoring and evaluation will focus on ecosystems and
emphasize interrelationships among biotic and abiotic components; and (3) the strategy will be
flexible to meet local needs while encompassing forest, regional, and national requirements.
Three levels of monitoring are incorporated into Forest Plan monitoring and evaluation.
Implementation Monitoring is used to determine if goals, objectives, standards and
guidelines, and management prescriptions are implemented as detailed in the Forest Plan
and project specifications;
Effectiveness Monitoring is used to determine if goals, objectives, standards and guidelines,
and management prescriptions, as designed and implemented, are effective in meeting Forest
Plan goals and objectives; and
Validation Monitoring is used to determine whether the data, assumptions, and coefficients
used in the development of the Plan are correct.
Most monitoring elements involve the mitigation measures described previously. The mitigation
measures are part of a process that includes these three types of monitoring to determine if the
measure was implemented and is effective or needs revision. The feedback provided by
monitoring results can be used to develop improved methods or additional treatments to ensure
that the mitigation will be effective in the future.
An annual monitoring report is prepared by each Administrative Area of the Tongass and
incorporated into one report at the end of each year. This report addresses all monitoring
questions contained in the applicable Forest Plan; references all monitoring being conducted on
the Area/Forest; assesses progress toward achieving the goals and objectives described in the
Forest Plan; and either certify that the Forest Plan is sufficient to guide management of the Forest
over the next year or propose needed changes and an approach for dealing with those changes.
Forest Plan monitoring is conducted over the entire Forest on a sample basis. Samples may or
may not be taken within the Upper Carroll Project Area; however, monitoring results are
designed to answer questions regarding the implementation and effectiveness of mitigation within
the Project Area. A total of 38 implementation, effectiveness and validation monitoring items are
identified in the forest-wide monitoring plan described in the TLMP Draft Revision (1991a). All
monitoring is subject to funding and personnel limitations imposed upon the Agency.
Routine implementation monitoring assesses whether the project was implemented as
designed and whether or not it complies with the Forest Plan. Planning for routine
implementation monitoring began with the preliminary design of harvest units and roads.
Specialists used on-the-ground inventories, computer inventories, and aerial photographs to
prepare the documents called unit cards for each harvest unit in each of the alternatives. Cards
were also prepared for each segment of road. Resource specialists wrote their concerns on the
cards and then described how the concerns could be addressed in the design of each unit and
road segment. Resource concerns and mitigation measures will be refined further during final
layout when specialists will have one more opportunity to revise the unit and road card
recommendations. The unit and road card documents will be the basis for determining whether
recommendations were implemented for various aspects of the Upper Carroll Project.
SUMMARY ■ 47
Summary
Effectiveness
Monitoring
Validation
Monitoring
Routine implementation monitoring is part of the administration of a timber sale contract. The
sale administrators and road inspectors ensure that the prescriptions contained on the unit and
road cards are incorporated into contract documents and then monitor performance relative to
contract requirements.
Effectiveness monitoring seeks answers about the effectiveness of design features or mitigation
measures in protecting natural resources and their beneficial uses. Monitoring records will be
kept by the responsible staff. Project-specific monitoring tasks are described in detail in
Chapter 2.
Validation monitoring is conducted to show if the assumptions or models used in planning are
correct. It is usually carried out at the Regional level in conjunction with research. Validation
monitoring may or may not occur within the Upper Carroll Project Area since this type of
monitoring is built into a Forest-wide Action Plan.
48 ■ SUMMARY
Index
access, S-3, S-6, S-8, S-9, S-28, S-40, S-41, S-46
alternatives considered, S-18, S-46
bald eagle, S-23, S-35, S-46
black bear, S-35, S-38
brown creeper, S-23, S-35
Carroll Creek, S-3, S-13, S-14, S-20, S-22, S-32-33, S-38, S-40, S-46
Carroll Inlet, S-3, S-12-14, S-18, S-20, S-21, S-24, S-40, S-44, S-46
cave, S-8
clearcut, S-19, S- 19-20, S-22
comparison of alternatives, S-22, S-29
deer, S-23-23, S-35, S-37-38, S-45
desired future condition, S-3
eagle, S-23, S-35, S-46
fish, S-8-8, S-12-13, S-19-20, S-24, S-30-32, S-43
fragmentation, S- 11, S-20, S-35
goose, S-23, S-35
goshawk, S-9
Landscape Management Zones, S-12, S-12-14, S-19
LTF, S-9, S-18, S-20-21
marten, S-23, S-35
MIS, S-23-23
mitigation, S-45, S-48
monitoring, S-43, S-46, S-48
old-growth, S-ll, S-12, S-19, S-23
otter, S-23, S-35, S-38
partial cut, S-19, S-19-20, S-22
preferred alternative, S-2, S-6, S-21
proposed action, S- 1 -2
recreation, S-8-9, S-ll, S-12, S-14, S-24, S-33-34, S-43, S-46
riparian, S-12-13, S-19, S-24, S-46
road construction, S-8, S-9, S-13, S-17, S-29, S-36, S-46
roadless area, S-12, S-12, S-34, S-35
SSARAA, S-8, S-12-13, S-17, S-19-20, S-24
stumpage, S-12, S-20, S-30
subsistence, S-l-2, S-ll, S-12, S-18, S-36
summary comparison, S-22
transportation/utility corridor, S-9, S-17, S-19, S-22, S-41
TTRA, S-6, S-ll, S-17, S-45
viewshed, S-33, S-33
visual quality, S-8, S-24, S-33
volume class, S-26-27, S-36
VQO, S-33
water quality, S- 1 , S-13, S-18, S-45
watershed, S-3, S-6, S- 1 1, S-18, S-24, S-3 1 , S-33
wetlands, S-24
woodpecker, S-23, S-35
•ft U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1995 - 689-357 / 21935 REGION NO. 10
-
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in its programs on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability,
political beliefs, and marital or familial status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication
of program information (braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA Office of Communications at (202) 720-2791.
To file a complaint, write the Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250, or call (202) 720-7327 (voice) or (202) 720-1 127 (TDD).
USDA is an equal employment opportunity employer.
o
Federal Recycling Program
Printed on Recycled Paper
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300
NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL LIBRARY
1022409520
O ^
■n S-
3? r>
2 ST
£ f
g •=
czi ^
3 *
s ^
C/5 SO
NO
►n
(T
a.
n
65
*
<*D
r^-
n
3 “
7T
so
3
W
=: >
o-
3* n
3 S3
era -
" H
ON c?
4^ 3
<*>CTC
so
II 1/
zr. i/
c/ ^
o
3
03
03
H
*3
2
H
O
*3
O
03
A
’ W
8°
- - 2
a w w
nm ^ 03
03
|T3
USDA Forest Service FIRST CLASS MAIL
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