Skip to main content

We will keep fighting for all libraries - stand with us!

Full text of "Chasina timber sale :draft environmental impact statement.Volume II,Appendices A-J"

See other formats


Historic, Archive Document 

Do not assume content reflects current 
scientific knowledge, policies, or practices. 





rVTT77i 

' V 


United States 
Department of 
Agriculture 


Forest Service 


Tongass 
National Forest 



Chasina 
Timber Sale 


R10-MB-333 
February 1 997 


Draft Environmental Impact 
Statement 



Volume II: Appendices A-J 






Acronymns And Symbols 

AJDF&G Alaska Department of Fish and Game 

AHMU Aquatic Habitat Management Unit 

ANCSA Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 

ANILCA Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act 

ASQ Allowable Sale Quantity 

BBF One Billion Board Feet 

BMP Best Management Practice 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CFL Commercial Forest Land 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act of 1976 

DBH Diameter at Breast Height 

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

EVC Existing/Expected Visual Condition 

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement 

FSH Forest Service Handbook 

FSM Forest Service Manual 

GIS Geographic Information System 

IDT Interdisciplinary Team 

KPC Ketchikan Pulp Company 

KV Knutsen-Vandenberg Act 

LTF Log Transfer Facility 

LUD Land Use Designation 

LWD Large Woody Debris (same as LOD) 

MBF One Thousand Board Feet 

MELP Multi-Entry Layout Process 

MIS Management Indicator Species 

MM Maximum Modification 

MMBF One Million Board Feet 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NFMA. National Forest Management Act 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NOI Notice of Intent 

P Primitive 

PR Partial Retention 

R Retention 

RM Roaded Modified 

RN Roaded Natural 

ROD Record of Decision 

ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer 

SPM Semi-Primitive Motorized 

SPNM Semi-Primitive Nonmotorized 

TLMP Tongass Land Management Plan 

TRUCS Tongass Resource Use Cooperative Survey 

TTRA Tongass Timber Reform Act 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture 

USDI United States Department of the Interior 

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

VCU Value Comparison Unit 

VQO Visual Quality Objective 

WAA Wildlife Analysis Area 




Acknowledgments 

Front cover: By Cindy Ross Barber, 1992. The design illustrates the range of interconnected issues addressed in the EIS. 


Volume II 


Appendices A-J 


Appendices 

A Reasons for Scheduling the Environmental 
Analysis of the Chasina Project Area 
B Harvest Units over 100 Acres 

C Riparian Area Prescriptions 

D Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation 

E LTF Site Guidelines/LTF Evaluation 

F Best Management Practices (BMPs) 

G LSTA Units not in Unit Pool 

H Silvicuture Diagnosis 

I Deer Availability/Demand Maps 

J Road and Unit Cards 



Appendix A 


Reasons for 
Scheduling the 
Environmental 
Analysis of the 
Chasina Project Area 



Reasons For Scheduling The Environmental Analysis Of The Chasina 
Project Area 

KPC Long-term and Independent Timber Sale Contract Offerings 

This appendix explains why the Chasina Project Area is scheduled for environmental analysis at this 
time. 


Summary 

Reasons for scheduling the Chasina Project Area at this time, for detailed consideration of timber harvest 

under the long-term timber sale contract between Ketchikan Pulp Company (KPC) and the Forest Sen/ice 

(Contract No. A10fs-1042) and/or under independent timber sales, may be summarized as follows: 

1. The Chasina Project Area contains a sufficient amount of harvestable timber volume designated 
as LUD III or IV, and therefore appropriate for harvest under the Tongass Land Management 
Plan (TLMP). Available information indicates harvest of the amount of timber being considered 
for this project can occur consistent with TLMP standards and guidelines and other requirements 
for resource protection. Analysis also indicates harvest of the amount of timber being considered 
can occur consistent with the proposed TLMP Revision standards and guidelines and other 
resource protection requirements. 

2. Areas with available timber both inside and outside the designated long-term contract sale area 
will be necessary for harvest in order to meet timber supply requirements under the contract. 
The Chasina Project Area is outside the designated sale area for the long-term contract. The 
Project Area is within the contingency area designated in the long-term contract. The contract 
requires the Forest Service to look first to the designated sale area for timber to meet the contract’s 
supply requirements before offering timber outside that area. 

3 Areas with available timber both within and outside the designated sale area will also be necessary 
to consider for harvest in order to seek to provide a supply of timber from the Tongass National 
Forest which (1) meets the annual market demand for timber from such forest and (2) meets 
the market demand from such forest for each planning cycle, pursuant to Section 101 of the 
Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA). 

4 Effects on subsistence resources are projected to differ little according to which sequence these 
areas are subjected to harvest. Harvesting other areas on the Tongass National Forest with 
available timber is expected to have similar potential effects on resources, including those used 
for subsistence because of widespread distribution of subsistence use and other factors. Harvest 
of these other areas is foreseeable, in any case, over the forest planning horizon under either 
the existing or proposed revised TLMP. 

5. Providing substantially less timber volume than required by the long-term contract with KPC 
and/or required to meet TLMP and TTRA Section 101 timber supply and employment objectives 
in order to avoid harvest in the Chasina Project Area or other project areas would not meet 
contract requirements and is otherwise not necessary or reasonable. 

6. It is reasonable to schedule harvest in the Chasina Project Area at the present time rather than 
other areas in terms of previous harvest entry and access, level of controversy over subsistence 
and other effects, and the ability to complete the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 


Chasina EIS - Appendix A H 1 


process and make timber available to meet long-term contract requirements by the time it is 
reasonably necessary to do so. Other areas that are reasonable to consider for harvest in the 
near future are the subject of other project EISs that are currently ongoing or scheduled to begin 
soon. 

More detail regarding the scheduling of the environmental analysis for the Chasina Poject Area is 
presented in this appendix in four subsections: 

Ketchikan Pulp Company Contract Requirements 
Southeast Alaska Timber Demand 
Tongass Land Management Plan 
Forest Plan Implementation 


Ketchikan Pulp Company Contract Requirements 

Contract Background 

The current management situation consists of a valid contract between the Forest Sen/ice and Ketchikan 
Pulp Company (KPC), Contract Number A10fs-1042. Congress modified the contract in the Tongass 
Timber Reform Act (TTRA) of 1990. This contract bestows rights and obligations on both parties. One 
obligation for the Forest Service is to provide a supply of timber for harvest by KPC. The Forest Sen/ice 
must seek to provide the supply from a designated sale area within the Tongass National Forest before 
offering timber outside that area. 

The "sale area" delineated on maps referenced in Section BO. 3 of the contract occupies approximately 
the northern half of Prince of Wales Island, and the Gedney Pass, Traitors Cove, and Neets Bay areas 
on Revillagigedo Island. This is often referenced as the contract "primary sale area." Section BO. 31 of 
the contract references an area approximately equivalent to the remainder of the Ketchikan Area of the 
Tongass National Forest as an area within which the Forest Service is authorized to make available 
additional timber for harvest under the contract, if the quantity of timber available for harvest within the 
primary sale area is not sufficient to meet contract supply obligations. This additional area is often 
referenced as the contract "contingency area." 

The designated sale area, and as necessary the contingency area, remain the dominant sources for 
meeting KPC contract timber volume obligations. Congress in enacting the Tongass Timber Reform 
Act declined to modify the contract sale area, and by directing in section 301 (e) of the statute that the 
Secretary of Agriculture report to Congress on the effects of eliminating the sale area, indicated an 
intent to reserve this decision to the legislature. 

The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) and Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation 
Act (ANILCA) provide authority to offer timber from outside the Contract sale area or contingency area 
to substitute for areas selected by Native Corporations under ANSCA or designated by Congress as 
Wilderness in ANILCA that are within the sale area or contingency area. This authority can be used as 
needed to meet Contract volume requirements. Although statements have appeared in past EIS 
documents indicating this substitution had been completed, those statements were in error. 

With regard to providing timber volume under the Contract, section BO. 61 and section BO. 62, read as 

follows: 

BO. 61 Timber Offering Schedule. Each year prior to February 1 5, Forest Sen/ice after consultation 
with purchaser shall develop a tentative Offering schedule based upon the Tongass National 
Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, which shall display Offering Areas and timber 


2 H Chasina EIS - Appendix A 


volumes proposed for harvest, and the expected NEPA process commencement and completion 
date for making any additional Offerings under the terms of this contract. To the extent authorized 
by law, Offering Areas may be identified for harvest outside the Sale Area, as needed to meet 
sale volume requirements. The tentative schedule shall list sufficient timber volume and schedule 
commencement of the NEPA process by Offering Area or Areas to provide Purchaser a Current 
Timber Supply sufficient for at least three years of operations hereunder or until the contract 
termination date, whichever occurs first, adjusting for the provisions of BO. 63 and B6.36. In 
developing the schedule, Forest Service will consider the production requirements of Purchaser’s 
manufacturing facilities. 

BO. 62 Specifying Offerings for Harvest. Based upon the tentative schedule and NEPA process, 
and consistent with timber sale planning, management requirements, and environmental 
assessment procedures for independent Tongass National Forest timber sales, Forest Service 
after consultation with Purchaser and completion of the NEPA process, shall specify any additional 
Offerings. Forest Service shall seek to specify sufficient Offerings to maintain a Current Timber 
Supply in all Offering Areas that totals at least three years of operations hereunder or until the 
contract termination date, whichever occurs first, and which meets the production requirements 
of Purchaser’s manufacturing facilities. 


As indicated above, section BO. 62 states in part "Forest Service shall seek to specify sufficient Offerings 
to maintain a Current Timber Supply in all Offering Areas that total at least three years of operations 
hereunder or until the contract termination date, whichever comes first, and which meets the production 
requirements of Purchaser’s manufacturing facilities." "Current Timber Supply" is defined in the contract 
generally as timber which the Forest Sen/ice has specified according to Forest Sen/ice planning 
procedures and for which the NEPA process has been completed. The Forest Service specifies timber 
by approving in writing a timber "Offering" under the contract, comparable to an independent timber 
sale. This approval in writing is represented by issuance of an "A Division" contract document for the 
Offering. 

An EIS such as the Chasina Project Area EIS may cover one or more of these Offerings, which may be 
specified by the Forest Service and therefore added to the contract "Current Timber Supply" concurrently 
or sequentially after issuance of the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Project. Generally, layout on the 
ground of roads and harvest units selected in the ROD will be completed for each Offering prior to 
issuance of the "A Division" approval document. 

Any long-term contract offerings implemented through this Project will help meet long-term contract 
timber supply needs. Section BO. 63 of the contract allows KPC to reject timber offerings specified by 
the Forest Service. In that event, the contract provides for resale of the offering as part of the independent 
timber sale program. Thus, any long-term contract timber offering cleared through the NEPA process 
is subject to reoffer as an independent timber sale. 

As for obligations of KPC, contract provisions require KPC, among other duties, to pay for and harvest 
timber, construct and operate a pulp manufacturing plant, and to recruit labor from residents of Southeast 
Alaska. KPC operates a pulp mill and a sawmill in Ketchikan and a sawmill in Metlakatla. 

Current Timber Supply and Volume Needs 

The maximum average annual rate per year at which KPC is generally allowed to harvest is 192.5 MMBF 
under long-term contract section BO. 52. KPC’s average harvest rate, obtained from contract records, 
during the five-year period from March 1, 1989 through February 28, 1994 was 185.4 MMBF per year. 
Using these figures for planning and projection purposes, a three year supply of timber for KPC’s 
operations under the contract is estimated to range from 556.2 to 577.5 MMBF. 


Chasina EIS - Appendix A @ 3 


Current projections indicate that areas with available timber outside as well as within the designated 
sale area and contingency area will be necessary for harvest in order to meet contract supply 
requirements. As of July 1, 1996, KPC had a current timber supply of approximately 299 MMBF. The 
maximum volume of timber that can be provided to KPC from within the designated sale area in the 
remainder of fiscal year 1996 is about 3.5 MMBF. The maximum amount that can be provided to KPC 
from within the total contract area during 1997 is expected to be about 156 and during 1998 about 
103.7 MMBF. Assuming the maximum annual average harvest rate of 192.5 MMBF, a timber supply of 
110 MMBF would be available at the end of 1996, 75.5 MMBF at the end of 1997, and 0 MMBF at the 
end of 1998. These levels would fall well short of meeting the objective of specifying a three-year supply 
for operations under the contract, considering on-going harvest at either the maximum or historic rates 
noted above. KPC in 1996 or 1997 may harvest far less than the maximum or historical annual average 
harvest. But for purposes of planning and completing the NEPA process for timber sale projects, the 
Forest Sen/ice strives to be prepared for KPC to harvest at maximum levels authorized under the contract, 
to assure ability to meet contract supply needs. 

There have been suggestions that layout and other actions could be expedited to increase the amounts 
available from the KPC sale area and contingency area through 1997. However the current assessment 
is that further expediting layout is not feasible, even with significant increased funding, while maintaining 
a reasonable assurance of quality work. The Forest Sen/ice has made efforts to accelerate the preparation 
of new offerings within the KPC sale area and contingency area. At present, about 591.7 MMBF in new 
timber projects are being planned within the KPC sale area and contingency area over the duration of 
the contract, beyond what is projected in the 1996 - 1998 figures presented above. 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 1998. 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 sale area and contingency area is projected to be 
needed in order to meet the three-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 long-term contract and independent sale program’s three-year supply objectives. 
If any currently planned independent sales were converted to long-term contract offerings, equivalent 
volume currently planned for long term contract offerings would then need to be substituted as 
independent sale offerings in order to meet program objectives. The first offerings from the Chasina 
Project Area could be made available in 1998 to help meet either three-year supply objective. 

The projected need to offer volume from outside both the primary sale area and contingency sale area 
is based on the fact that all remaining areas with available timber within the primary sale area and 
contingency area are expected to have timber offerings under the long-term contract by the year 2004. 
In making this projection, no more than local use levels of timber harvest under contract section BO. 32 
are projected in the primary sale area through 2004. Nevertheless, insufficient quantities of economically 
operable timber appear to remain available within the primary sale area and contingency area to satisfy 
long-term contract requirements through the year 2004. Volume estimates from the TLMP RSDEIS 
preferred alternative indicate that the total ASQ from the total long-term contract sale area would be 
132 MMBF per year, with 119 MMBF per year of that volume considered economically viable. 

The Chasina Project Area is outside the designated sale area for the long-term contract. The Project 
Area is within the contingency area designated in the contract. More information on why the Chasina 
Project Area was scheduled for environmental analysis at this time in addition to other areas is presented 
in the TLMP and Forest Plan Implementation sections below. 


4 B Chasina EIS - Appendix A 


Why Providing Less Than The Needed Contract Supply Was Not Considered In Detail 

Congress in section 301 (e) of the TTRA also indicated its intent to resen/e to itself the question of 
providing less than the contract supply obligation to KPC. The Forest Service can expect a large monetary 
claim from KPC for not meeting contract supply obligations, for which there is no current funding. To 
the contrary, recent federal appropriations legislation has dedicated additional money to providing 
additional timber offerings to KPC and other Tongass National Forest timber purchasers. Volume from 
independent timber sales or sources outside the Tongass National Forest do not fulfill long-term contract 
requirements. In any case, there is not sufficient projected volume from other sources to meet KPC 
supply requirements. 

Logs from Native corporation lands cannot substantially meet the total needs of KPC. Owners of private 
timberland are able to sell their sawlogs on the export market for much higher prices than are being 
paid by local manufacturing. KPC is not prohibited under the contract from purchasing timber from 
Native corporations or other sources, subject to the requirement that, "at least three-fourths of the 
pulpwood requirements of the pulp manufacturing plant and other processing facilities operated in 
conjunction with this sale shall be cut from the areas covered by this agreement during the period 
prior to July 1 , 1 964, and during each 5-year operating period subsequent to that date." (contract section 
B0.53). There are no provisions in the Contract to offset such purchases by adjusting the contract 
timber supply. Harvest from Native corporation lands is decreasing, reducing potential pulp as well as 
sawlog availability from these lands (TLMP RSDEIS page 3-268). 

Canadian timber has been mentioned in the past as a source of supply for Southeast mills. Southeast 
Alaska pulp mills have purchased pulp logs from British Columbia (BC) in the past. However, the political 
and economic situation in British Columbia has changed to decrease the likelihood of a substantial 
supply from this source. The June 1988 issue of British Columbia Lumberman, page W14, states that 
a substantial increase in demand for BC forest products is expected to decrease log exports. The 
Forest Minister stated: "Our main objective is to use BC timber to manufacture wood products in this 
province." It has been more recently stated that British Columbia is considering prohibiting log exports 
and is facing increased environmental pressures. KPC was able to purchase slightly under 10 MMBF 
of pulp logs from Canada in 1996 (Industry sources). However this purchase was considered a rare 
occurrence since it was due to a Canadian pulp mill being temporarily shut down for repairs and KPC 
was willing to pay relatively high prices for the pulp logs. 

Southeast Alaska Timber Demand 

Introduction. 

Another reason for scheduling the environmental analysis of the Chasina Project Area is the overall 
demand for Tongass National Forest timber. This reason is separate but complementary to the long-term 
contract reasons. It is important to note that the Forest Service obligations under the long-term contract 
are clearly separate from the Forest Service obligations under Section 101 of TTRA. The discussion in 
this section does not define any of the Forest Service’s obligations under the long-term contract discussed 
in the previous section. For example, the Alaska Forest Association (AFA) prediction that only 35% of 
all logs will be pulped does not affect long-term contract obligations. 

In general, this section indicates that areas with available timber both inside and outside the KPC sale 
area will also be necessary to consider for harvest in order to seek to provide a supply of timber from 
the Tongass National Forest which (1) meets the annual market demand for timber from such forest 
and (2) meets the market demand from such forest for each planning cycle, pursuant to Section 101 
of the Tongass Timber Reform Act. 


Chasina EiS - Appendix A H 5 


Ketchikan Pulp Company. 

The dissolving pulp mill operated by KPC reportedly requires 190 MMBF of pulpwood and/or chips 
annually to operate at its full annual capacity of 210,000 tons. This capacity exceeds the 525 tons per 
day capacity specified in the long-term contract in section B0. 1 1 . KPC also operates two sawmills with 
a reported combined log processing capacity of 1 1 0 MMBF annually. Chip by-products from the sawmills 
are used in pulp manufacture. The KPC pulp and sawmills are supplied by timber from Tongass 
independent timber sales as well as long-term contract volume. 

Independent Mills. 

At the present time, Viking Lumber (purchasers of the "Klawock mill") and Seaborne Lumber Company 
are the primary processors of timber from the independent sale program. At present, Seaborne Lumber 
Company is not currently operating. The mill is temporarily shut down, citing a lack of certainty about 
Tongass timber supply as one of the reasons. During this shutdown, a relocation to Prince of Wales 
Island is under consideration. This relocation may include restructuring of the mill to produce more 
value added finished products rather than rough lumber. The two sawmills are the largest independent 
mills operating in the region and have a reported combined processing capacity of 65 MMBF per year. 

A third large sawmill is located in Wrangell and owned by Alaska Pulp Corporation (APC). Despite the 
record lumber prices at the time, the mill was closed indefinitely on November 30, 1994. Although APC 
has offered to sell the mill, at least one prospective purchaser has declined to purchase it, citing a 
lack of certainty about Tongass timber supply as one of the reasons. 

Another market segment for independent timber sales includes four relatively small sawmills, with an 
estimated combined processing capacity of 30 MMBF per year. Finally, there are at least 10-12 other 
buyers who use very small amounts of wood in the manufacture of musical instruments, cedar shakes, 
shingles, and lumber using small, portable mills. The combined annual processing capacity of these 
smaller operations is estimated at 7 MMBF. 

Description of Timber Consumption Scenarios 

To develop an estimate of the volume of Tongass timber likely to be consumed by the timber industry 
in Southeast Alaska, this section analyzes: 1) the percent of installed wood processing capacity that is 
typically utilized, 2) the proportion of the wood supply that is typically sawn, and 3) the availability of 
supply from other sources, including Native corporations, the State of Alaska, and imports. The approach 
used to estimate each of these variables is discussed below. 

Capacity Utilization. 

For many years, the Forest Service has monitored installed capacity as reported by the 
firms operating sawmills and pulp mills in Southeast Alaska. These reports cover a twenty-four 
year span (1970-1994) in which the reported total annual mill capacity ranged from a high 
of 785 MMBF in 1980 to a low of 519 MMBF following the 1993 closure of the Sitka pulp 
mill. Processing capacity in sawmilling has been especially volatile over the years, following 
trends in market cycles. Sawmill capacity was reported at 199 MMBF in 1970, increased to 
a high of 435 MMBF in 1979, dropped back down to 240 MMBF in the mid-eighties, and 
increased again to 329 MMBF in 1994. 

Because the bulk of Alaska’s wood products have traditionally moved into export markets, 
trade statistics compiled by the U.S. Department of Commerce can be used to approximate 
the aggregate output of sawmills and pulp mills in Southeast Alaska for a corresponding 
number of years. Estimates such as these have already been generated by the Pacific 
Northwest Research Station for the period 1970-1991 (cite Brooks and Haynes, June 1994) 


6 ■ Chasina EIS - Appendix A 


and recent Forest Service reports provided similar data for more recent years (cite 706(a) 
reports). 

This data was used to calculate the average rate of capacity utilization for sawmills and pulp 
mills in Southeast Alaska over the last decade (1985-1994). This time period was chosen 
because it encompasses both extremes in the market cycle for lumber and pulp. It is also 
representative of industry operations following the period of restructuring that occurred in 
the early eighties, and is therefore more likely to reflect the operational considerations faced 
by the industry today. The available data indicate that over the last decade, sawmills in 
Southeast Alaska actually utilized an average of 54 percent of their reported log processing 
capacity. In contrast, an average of 86 percent of the reported pulp mill capacity was utilized 
over the same period of time. 

Proportion of Wood Sawn. 

It is important to recognize that sawmill consumption and capacity both refer only to the 
sawable portion of the timber supply. This in turn depends on end product selling values 
and the physical characteristics of the timber. The lower quality logs included in most timber 
sales are generally not sawn. The Alaska Forest Association (AFA) reports that the "best 
utilization of the Tongass fiber" is for 65 percent of the spruce and hemlock harvested to be 
sawn, with the remainder used in pulp manufacture (Source: FAX dated 10/26/95 - Minimum 
Tongass National Forest Timber to Support Ketchikan Pulp Company). Thus, it is assumed 
in all the calculations for this report that the sawmills in the region process about 65 percent 
of all spruce and hemlock purchased. However, it is recognized that this percentage does 
fluctuate depending on market price swings for both lumber and pulp and other factors, 
and varies by mill (706(a) Supply and Demand Report, 1994; pages 2-4; 11-12; 15-17; 23-26; 
and 29-31). 

Additional Sources of Supply. 

This section repeats some of the same items presented under the KPC long-term contract 
discussion. They are being repeated here since other mill owners in Southeast Alaska face 
the same situation. Mill owners in Southeast Alaska have stated that their operations are 
dependent on the supply of timber provided from the Tongass National Forest. As is noted 
below, other sources of timber supplies are expected to be available only intermittently and 
in small quantities. For purposes of this analysis we assume that other supply sources will 
continue to make a relatively small contribution to total timber availability in the region each 
year, on the order of 20 MMBF of generally pulp quality material. 

Although Canadian logs were obtained at a very low cost in the early 1980’s, they typically 
do not serve as an economical supply for Alaska’s mills. Canada’s log exports in general 
have declined as cutbacks in timber supply were initiated as the Canadian government 
responded to environmental concerns. A subsequent rise in selling values for Canadian 
pulp logs has kept Alaska’s import volumes at a near-zero level for the past several years. 
KPC was able to purchase slightly under 10 MMBF of Canadian pulp logs during 1996, 
however this was due primarily to the temporary shut down of a British Columbia pulp mill 
and KPC’s willingness to pay high prices for the logs. 

Since 1983, timber harvest on lands owned by Alaska Native corporations has exceeded 
harvest levels on the Tongass. However, in contrast to National Forest timber supplies, timber 
from Native lands is not subject to in-State processing requirements. Because export market 
prices greatly exceed those paid by local manufacturers, all but the lowest quality Native 
timber is sold overseas. Therefore, although some Native pulp logs are sold locally, this 


Chasina EIS - Appendix A Si 7 


timber is not well-suited for lumber production and generally does not meet the needs of 
the local sawmills. 

Some 58,000 acres of State land are available for timber management in the Haines vicinity 
and another 3,000 acres near Yakutat. After several years of inactivity, the timber sale program 
was recently resumed on the Haines State Forest. The State's timber program in Southeast 
is relatively small, however, with an average annual harvest of 9 MMBF over the last five 
years. 


8 ■ Chasina EIS - Appendix A 


Table 1. Timber Consumption Scenario #7 -- Reported Mill Capacity 


Ketchikan Pulp Company 

Capacity 

Log 

Consumption 

By-Product 

Chips 

Pulp 

Logs 

Pulp Mill 

190 



Ketchikan Sawmill 

50 

20 

27 

Annette Island Sawmill 

60 

24 

32 

Larger Sawmills 




Viking Lumber Chip Mills 

30 

12 

16 

Seaborne Lumber Company 

35 

14 

19 

APC Wrangell Mill 

110 

44 

59 

Smaller Sawmills 




Metlakatla Indian Tribe (MITE) 

10 

4 

5 

Pacific Rim Cedar 

10 

4 

5 

The Mill, Inc. 

5 

2 

3 

Jim Ensley 

5 

2 

3 

Misc Other Small Purchasers 

(This includes music wood, 

7 

3 

4 


cedar salvage, and small 
portable sawmilling operations) 


Chasina EIS - Appendix A 


m 9 


Summary la. Reported Capacity Consumption Scenario w/Wrangell Mill 


Total Wood Consumption 512 MMBF 

Sawn 322 MMBF 

Pulped 190 MMBF 


Total chip by-products generated 

Total pulp log harvest 

Pulp logs from Native Corps./imports 


129 MMBF 
173 MMBF 
20 MMBF 


322 MMBF 


Subtotal spruce/hemlock = sawlog + pulp log = 322 MMBF + 173 MMBF = 495 MMBF 
Cedar component (12% of harvest) = 68 MMBF 

TOTAL TONGASS HARVEST = 495 MMBF spruce/hemlock + 68 MMBF cedar = 563 MMBF 

Note: Under these conditions it appears excess pulp fiber would be available in Southeast Alaska, i.e. 
129 MMBF in chip by-products + 173 MMBF pulp log plus 2- MMBF from other sources harvest - 190 
MMBF = 132 MMBF in excess of that needed to run pulp mill at capacity. Under these conditions, a 
higher percentage of the wood supply would likely be sawn, and, depending on market conditions, 
surplus chips might also be exported. 


Summary 1b. - Reported Capacity Consumption Scenario w/o Wrangell Mill 

Assuming the Wrangell mill remained closed and all other mills operated at capacity, the summary 
numbers would be as follows: 


Total Wood Consumption 

402 MMBF 

Sawn 

212 MMBF 

Pulped 

190 MMBF 

Total chip by-products generated 

85 MMBF 

Total pulp log harvest 

114 MMBF 

Pulp logs from Native Corps./imports 

20 MMBF 


219 MMBF 


Subtotal spruce/hemlock = sawlog + pulplog = 212 MMBF + 114 MMBF = 326 MMBF 
Cedar component (12% of harvest) = 44 MMBF 

TOTAL TONGASS HARVEST = 326 MMBF spruce/hemlock + 44 MMBF cedar = 370 MMBF 

Note: Most chip by-products and pulp logs harvested would be likely consumed by the KPC pulp mill 
under this scenario, leaving an estimated 29 MMBF of pulp material for export or other uses (85 + 114 
+ 20 - 190 = 29). 


10 ■ Chasina EIS - Appendix A 


Table 2. Timber Consumption Scenario #2 - Reported Decade Average Capacity Utilization (KPC 


pulp mill 86 percent of capacity; sawmills 54 percent of capacity) 



Average 

By-Product 

Pulp 

Ketchikan Pulp Company 

Pulp Mill 

Log Consumption 

163 

Chips 

Logs 

Ketchikan Sawmill 

27 

11 

15 

Annette Island Sawmill 

32 

13 

17 

Larger Sawmills 

Viking Lumber/Chip Mill 

16 

6 

9 

Seaborne Lumber Company 

19 

8 

10 

APC Wrangell Mill 

59 

24 

32 

Small Sawmills 

Metlakatla Indian Tribe (MITE) 5 


2 

3 

Pacific Rim Cedar 

5 

2 

3 

The Mill, Inc. 

3 

1 

1 

Jim Ensley 

3 

1 

1 

Misc Other Small Purchasers 

4 

2 

2 


(This includes music wood, cedar 
salvage, and small portable 
sawmilling operations) 


Summary 2a. Reported Decade Average Capacity Utilization Scenario w/ Wrangell Mill 


Total Wood Consumption 

337 MMBF 

Sawn 

174 MMBF 

Pulped 

163 MMBF 

Total chip by-products generated 

70 MMBF 

Total pulp log harvest 

94 MMBF 

Pulp logs from Native Corps./imports 

20 MMBF 


184 MMBF 


Subtotal spruce/hemlock = sawlog + pulp log = 174 MMBF + 94 MMBF = 268 MMBF 
Cedar component (12% of harvest) = 36 MMBF 

TOTAL TONGASS HARVEST = 268 MMBF spruce/hemlock + 36 MMBF cedar = 304 MMBF 

Note: Under these conditions the fiber supply from the Tongass (and the by-products generated from 
it) would be exactly equal to the volume of wood consumed by the pulp mill and sawmills. 


Chasina EIS - Appendix A 


m 


Summary 2b. Reported Decade Average Capacity Utilization Scenario w/o Wrangell Mill 


Assuming the Wrangell mill remained closed and all other mills operated at the decadal average capacity 
utilization level, the summary numbers would be as follows: 


Total Wood Consumption 

Sawn 

Pulped 


278 MMBF 
115 MMBF 
163 MMBF 


Total chip by-products generated 

Total pulp log harvest 

Pulp logs from Native Corps./imports 


46 MMBF 
62 MMBF 
20 MMBF 


128 MMBF 


Subtotal spruce/hemlock = sawlog + pulplog = 115 MMBF + 62 MMBF = 177 MMBF 
Cedar component (12% of harvest) = 24 MMBF 

TOTAL TONGASS HARVEST = 177 MMBF spruce/hemlock + 24 MMBF cedar 
= 201 MMBF 

35 MMBF 
236 MMBF 
*see note below 

Note: Under this scenario, there would not be enough pulp logs and chips generated from operation 
of the sawmills to run the KPC pulp mill at 86 percent of capacity. Approximately 35 MMBF of additional 
timber sale volume would be required to meet the production assumptions in this scenario. 


12 | Chasina EIS - Appendix A 


Tongass Timber Outlook 


As of July 1996, a total of 110 MMBF of timber was under contract to independent sale operators and 
299 MMBF was released and unharvested under the long-term contract with KPC. 

An additional 275.3 MMBF of timber is currently projected to be offered as independent sales before 
the end of fiscal year 1998 and 376.2 MMBF is projected to be offered under the long-term contract. 


Table 3. Projected Timber Sales FY 1996 Through FY 1998 
Remaining 1996 Independent Sales 


Rod’n Apple 

Chatham Area 

9.0 MMBF 

Shamrock 

Stikine Area 

21.0 MMBF 


TOTAL FY 1996 

30.0 MMBF 


FY 1997 Independent Sales 



Sentinal Island 

Ketchikan Area 

6.8 MMBF 

Heceta Sawfly 

Ketchikan Area 

12 MMBF 

District Small Sales 

Ketchikan Area 

6.8 MMBF 

Poison Cove 

Chatham Area 

19.1 MMBF 

Lisa Creek 

Chatham Area 

6.6 MMBF 

Waterwold 

Chatham Area 

9.5 MMBF 

Duffield 

Chatham Area 

20.5 MMBF 

Indian River 

Chatham Area 

10 MMBF 

King George 

Stikine Area 

20 MMBF 

South Lindenburg 

Stikine Area 

22 MMBF 

King George II 

Stikine Area 

2 MMBF 

PRD Small Sales 

Stikine Area 

3 MMBF 


TOTAL FY 1997 

138.3 MMB! 


FY 1998 Independent Sales 


Control Lake Misc. 

Ketchikan Area 

5 MMBF 

District Small Sales 

Ketchikan Area 

4 MMBF 

Nakwasina 

Chatham Area 

3 MMBF 

Ushk Bay 1 

Chatham Area 

20 MMBF 

Lindy 

Stikine Area 

30 MMBF 

Fanshaw 

Stikine Area 

40 MMBF 

King George III 

Stikine Area 

2 MMBF 

PRD Small Sales 

Stikine Area 

3 MMBF 


TOTAL FY 1 998 

107 MMBF 


Chasina EIS - Appendix A 


m 13 


Remaining 1996 KPC Contract Volume 


Neka 1 Chatham Area 30.0 MMBF 


TOTAL FY 1996 30.0 MMBF 

FY 1997 KPC Contract Volume 


Naukati/Sarkar 

Ketchikan Area 

13.0 MMBF 

Polk 

Ketchikan Area 

35.9 MMBF 

Carroll 

Ketchikan Area 

20.0 MMBF 

Control Lake 1 

Ketchikan Area 

30.0 MMBF 

Control Lake 2 

Ketchikan Area 

30.0 MMBF 

Lab Bay 1 

Ketchikan Area 

20.0 MMBF 

Lab Bay 2 

Ketchikan Area 

20.0 MMBF 

Neka 2 

Chatham Area 

15.0 MMBF 


TOTAL FY 1 997 

183.9 MMBF 


KPC Contract Volume 



12 Mile South 

Ketchikan Area 

9.1 MMBF 

Teal 

Ketchikan Area 

23.7 MMBF 

Bluff Lake 

Ketchikan Area 

20.0 MMBF 

Control Lake 3 

Ketchikan Area 

30.0 MMBF 

Control Lake 4 

Ketchikan Area 

30.0 MMBF 

Port Houghton 1 

Chatham Area 

30.0 MMBF 

Canal/Hoya 

Stikine Area 

20.0 MMBF 


TOTAL FY 1998 162.8 MMBF 


14 ■ 


Chasina EIS - Appendix A 


Meeting Market Demand 

Timber demand in Southeast Alaska can vary dramatically from year to year. The level of demand is 
dependent on complex interactions among factors that are difficult, if not impossible, for the industn/ 
or the Forest Sen/ice to predict with accuracy. Such factors include fluctuations in interest rates, housing 
starts, business cycles in the United States and overseas, changes in the value of the dollar with respect 
to foreign currencies, changes in import tariffs, and changes in export policies in other countries. 

To be responsive to market demand, the Forest Service attempts to provide an opportunity for the 
industry as a whole to accumulate a supply of purchased but unharvested timber (i.e. volume under 
contract) equal to about three years of timber consumption. There are a number of reasons for allowing 
the accumulation of volume under contract. First, this allows the industry ample time to plan an orderly 
and systematic harvest schedule that meets all timing restrictions and permit requirements. Second, it 
allows the industry to better manage its financial resources and to secure financing on the basis of 
longer term timber supply. Third, it allows time for the necessary infrastructure (roads, log transfer 
facilities, and logging camps) to be put in place prior to timber harvest. Finally, an ample timber supply 
gives the industn/ more opportunity to sustain itself through market cycles. If demand for pulp or lumber 
in any year suddenly increases, producers will have access to enough timber to respond to the increase 
in demand without waiting for the Forest Service or the Congress to take action. Normally, the unharvested 
volume under contract will be drawn down during high points in the market when mills increase production, 
and built up when markets are poor and production declines. In response to changes observed in the 
volume under contract the Forest Service may consider adjusting its budget and timber program. 

For purposes of this analysis, the same alternative measures of timber consumption described previously 
are used to approximate the three-year timber supply goal. The forest-wide average cedar component 
of 12 percent is added to the consumption estimates to put the three-year supply goal in terms of total 
timber sale volume. Again, under Scenario 1 it is assumed that reported mill capacity is the best 
approximation of short-term timber consumption. Using this assumption, a three-year timber supply 
equates to 1,689 MMBF (including cedar) (Table 4). Under Scenario 2, it is assumed that the reported 
average capacity utilization over the last decade is the best approximation of short term timber 
consumption. Using these assumptions, a three-year timber supply equates to 912 MMBF (including 
cedar) (Table 5). The effect of a permanent closure of the Wrangell mill is also examined for each 
alternative. 


Chasina EIS - Appendix A 


H 15 



Table 4. Three-Year Supply-Scenario 1 



Capacity 

Consumption 

Cedar 

3-Year 

Supply 

All mills including Wrangell 
All mills excluding Wrangell 

495 MMBF 
326 MMBF 

68 MMBF 
44 MMBF 

1689 MMBF 
1110 MMBF 


Table 5. Three-Year Supply-Scenario 2 



Decade Avg. 

Capacity 

Utilized 

Cedar 

3-Year 

Supply 

All mills including Wrangell 
All mills excluding Wrangell 

268 MMBF 
212 MMBF 

36 MMBF 
24 MMBF 

912 MMBF 
708 MMBF 


16 ■ 


Chasina EIS - Appendix A 


Summary 


It is reasonable to anticipate that the independent mills currently in operation and KPC will seek to 
purchase a minimum of 15 MMBF in timber sale volume from the Forest Service at the earliest possible 
opportunity in order to meet decadal average consumption rates through FY 1998 (Table 6). For all 
mills to operate at reported capacity throught FY 1998, an estimated 243 MMBF in timber sale volume 
would need to have been made available by the Forest Sen/ice in time for logging and road building 
activities to be completed early in the season. This figure should be viewed as an absolute minimum. 

It is highly unlikely that timber purchasers could obtain the necessary permits and meet all timing 
restrictions on road construction and harvest and still make use of the entire timber volume provided 
in a single season. Additional offerings would allow for these constraints as well as provide the opportunity 
for the mills to increase capacity utilization, accumulate volume under contract, and/or for the Wrangell 
sawmill and others to be reopened. Under the timber consumption scenarios described above, a minimum 
of 636 MMBF in additional (roaded and accessible) timber sale volume would be needed to satisfy the 
objective of providing a three-year supply of volume under contract. Thus, timber offerings of 855 MMBF 
by the end of FY 1998 would provide a supply of timber for KPC and the independent mills currently in 
operation while allowing for the accumulation of three years of volume under contract (based on the 
10-year average rate of timber consumption) as a buffer to market volatility. The projected sale offerings 
for FY 1996-FY 1998 falls short of this mark by 203 MMBF. 

Should the Wrangell mill reopen it is reasonable to anticipate that the independent mills currently in 
operation and KPC will seek to purchase a minimum of 127 MMBF of timber from the Forest Service at 
the earliest possible opportunity in order to meet projected consumption rates through FY 1998 (Table 
7). For all mills to operate at reported capacity through FY 1998, an estimated 581 MMBF in timber 
sale volume would need to be made available by the Forest Sen/ice in time for logging and road building 
activities to be completed early in the season. Again, for reasons discussed above, this should be 
viewed as a conservative estimate. Under the timber consumption scenarios described above, a minimum 
of 804 MMBF in additional timber sale volume would be needed to satisfy the objective of providing a 
three-year supply of volume under contract to independent operators and KPC. Thus, timber offerings 
of 931 MMBF by the end of FY 1998 would provide a supply of timber for KPC and the independent 
mills currently in operation while allowing for the accumulation of three years of volume under contract 
(based on the 10-year average rate of timber consumption) as a buffer to market volatility. The sale 
schedule for FY 1996-98 falls short of this mark by 279 MMBF. 

These projections do not include any additional volume that may become available in fiscal year 1997 
or 1998 as a result of supplemental NEPA analysis required to lift the current AWARTA vs. Morrison 
court injunction, which affects about 175 MMBF of timber cleared in prior EIS’s. It is not reasonable to 
project availability of any of this enjoined timber volume at least until after completion of the additional 
NEPA analysis. The projected sale offerings do include the Poison Cove sale that is the subject of a 
current court challenge and other sales offerings which may be subject to administrative appeals and 
litigation. 


Chasina EIS - Appendix A 


■ 17 


Table 6. Summary Excluding Wrangell Mill 



1/Volume 

24-mo. - 

Likely 

3-year 


Projected 



Under 

Consump- 

Purchaae 

Supply 


Offerings 



Contract 

tion 

(a) 

(b) 

(a + b) 

96-97 

Shortfall 

Scenario 1: 

220 

652 

432 

978 

1410 

568.9 

841.1 

Scenario 2i 

220 

424 

204 

636 

840 

568.9 

271.1 


Note: Volumes are in MMBF (sawlog + utility). Volume under contract and scheduled sales do not 
include volume enjoined. 


Table 7. Summary Including Wrangell Mill 



1/Volume 

24-mo. 

Likely 

3-yr. 


Projected 



Under 

Consump- 

Purchase 

Supply 


Offerings 



Contract 

tion 

(a) 

(b) 

(a + b) 

96-97 

Shortfall 

Scenario 1: 

220 

990 

770 

1485 

2255 

568.9 

1686.1 

Scenario 2: 

220 

536 

316 

804 

1120 

568.9 

551.1 


18 ■ 


Chasina EIS - Appendix A 


Tongass Land Management Plan 


TLMP As Amended Winter 1985-86 

Chapter 1 of this EIS includes an explanation of how this project relates to the Tongass Land Management 
Plan. That section describes the Land Use Designations (LUDs) which allocate land areas to different 
types of management. Chapter 1 also explains that these LUDs were assigned to land areas known as 
Value Comparison Units (VCUs), and that one or more contiguous VCUs were formed into Management 
Areas (MAs). This section also describes the management emphasis for the Management Areas likely 
to be affected by the Chasina Project. 

The Tongass Land Management Plan, As Amended Winter 1985-1986, not only detailed Management 
Direction/Emphasis for each Management Area, it also scheduled specific acres for timber harvest 
over time. Table 8 displays acreage in each Management Area scheduled for harvest and how many 
of those acres have already been harvested. 


Chasina EIS - Appendix A 


m is 


Table 8 

TLMP, As Amended Winter 1985-86, Suitable Scheduled Acres 


Management 

Area 

Acres Scheduled 

Existing 

Harvest 

Percent Harvested 

C03 

4506 

0 

0 

C07 

2235 

0 

0 

CIO 

18228 

79 

0 

C13 

25727 

140 

1 

C14 

19495 

20 

0 

Cl 5 

4502 

1821 

40 

Cl 8 

5664 

460 

8 

Cl 9 

3502 

820 

23 

C21 

27139 

0 

0 

C24 

2190 

0 

0 

C25 

7365 

0 

0 

C27 

9807 

681 

7 

C28 

21399 

1742 

8 

C29 

14081 

2940 

21 

C30 

34200 

9479 

28 

C31 

22358 

4220 

19 

C32 

9800 

1920 

20 

C34 

19376 

1937 

10 

C35 

8745 

1898 

22 

C36 

10723 

240 

2 

C37 

48754 

18937 

39 

C39 

16301 

439 

36 

C40 

32374 

9341 

29 

C41 

22321 

7864 

35 

C43 

22453 

3183 

14 

C44 

25694 

6187 

24 

C45 

9096 

80 

1 

C48 

13650 

0 

0 

C53 

17708 

1722 

10 

C55 

3550 

541 

15 

C58 

33073 

0 

0 

CHATHAM 

516016 

76691 

15 

TOTAL 





20 ■ 


Chasina EIS - Appendix A 


Table 8 (continued) 

TLMP, As Amended Winter 1985-86, Suitable Scheduled Acres 


Management 

Area 

Acres Scheduled 

Existing 

Harvest 

Percent Harvested 

SOI 

11954 

60 

1 

S04 

58630 

20593 

35 

S07 

13690 

60 

0 

S08 

11051 

0 

0 

S09 

29929 

3356 

11 

S10 

28642 

3481 

12 

Si 1 

32532 

7308 

22 

S13 

32767 

3478 

11 

SI 6 

21908 

3903 

18 

Si 7 

25782 

8567 

33 

Si 8 

5220 

4266 

82 

SI 9 

38901 

13225 

34 

S20 

15441 

4014 

26 

S21 

6436 

2699 

42 

S22 

3293 

1081 

33 

S23 

41368 

5306 

13 

S25 

30389 

6601 

22 

S26 

11766 

180 

2 

S29 

9020 

5392 

60 

S31 

4201 

200 

5 

S33 

8902 

1780 

20 

S35 

STIKINE 

15022 

5698 

38 

TOTAL 

456844 

101248 

22 


Chasina EIS - Appendix A 


a 21 


Table 8 (continued) 

TLMP, As Amended Winter 1985-86, Suitable Scheduled Acres 


Management 

Area 

Acres Scheduled 

Existing 

Harvest 

Percent Harvested 

KOI 

30689 

15444 

50 

K02 

8112 

317 

4 

K03 

50689 

22072 

44 

K04 

20098 

4559 

23 

K05 

30331 

15710 

52 

K07 

67082 

36078 

54 

K08 

63864 

15096 

24 

K09 

45100 

25009 

55 

K10 

16714 

6177 

37 

K11 

30261 

15083 

50 

K13 

18655 

20 

0 

K14 

26872 

16303 

62 

K15 

20932 

4759 

23 

K17 

26377 

16303 

62 

K18 

29827 

5805 

19 

K19 

8816 

60 

1 

K20 

14201 

702 

5 

K21 

37920 

1796 

5 

K22 

27030 

420 

2 

K24 

30426 

1704 

6 

K25 

16048 

0 

0 

K28 

10864 

0 

0 

K29 

30968 

0 

0 

K30 

30885 

841 

3 

K32 

45414 

16723 

37 

K34 

171 

20 

12 

K35 

27446 

10436 

38 

K39 

14491 

1199 

8 

K41 

1664 

603 

36 

K44 

1306 

0 

0 

KETCHIKAN 




TOTAL 

783253 

219817 

28 


22 


Chasina EIS - Appendix A 


The Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ), calculated in TLMP and used in Congressional deliberations and 
decisions on ANILCA, assumed harvest in all LUD III and LUD IV VCUs, in compliance with the Southeast 
Area Guide, on a three entry, 100 year rotation. Some selected areas were scheduled for 4 entries in 
120 years (LUD IV) and 6 entries in 200 years (LUD III) for visual considerations. A three entry rotation 
assumes the first entry will be made within 30 to 40 years. If areas are not entered, and the ASQ is 
harvested, other areas will have to receive a heavier entry, resulting in a pattern of high percentage 
first entries being established, and therefore creating conditions under which the three-entry rotation 
may not be achievable. 

The TLMP as amended also scheduled as anticipated management outputs from the Tongass National 
Forest timber volume ranging from 300 million to 450 million annually (Tongass Land Management 
Plan Amended Winter 1985-86, page 4). 

Revised Supplemental TLMP Revision Draft EIS (TLMP RSDEIS) 

1 . Sufficient Volume for Long Term Contract and Independent Timber Sale Program Needs in TLMP 
RSDEIS. 

The TLMP RSDEIS Chapter 3 section on timber (pages 3-166, 167 and 168) provides the following 
summary statements in terms of the timber supply and the long-term timber sale programs. 

The total projected output varies from 0 MMBF in Alternative 1 to 282 MMBF in Alternative 7; the 
NIC I component varies from 0 to 252 MMBF. Alternatives 7 and 9 appear to have the capability 
of satisfying contractual planning needs. However, the remaining alternatives may jeopardize 
the Forest Service's ability to satisfy the contract planning needs from the contract area; volume 
would probably have to be obtained from elsewhere on the Forest... There appears to be sufficient 
additional volume from Chatham and Stikine in Alternatives 2, 3 6 and 8 to meet contractual 
planning needs. Alternatives 1, 4 and 5 still appear to jeopardize the Forest Service’s ability to 
meet its contract planning needs. 

The available NIC I ASQ portions of Alternatives 2, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are sufficient to meet the 100 
MMBF SBA goal. Alternative 3 could support a reduced SBA goal. Alternatives 1, 4 and 5 could 
not supply any timber beyond the KPC amount. 

These statements indicate that timber supply exceeds the level which is required to satisfy the long-term 
timber sale contract in alternatives 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9 with additional timber available for independent 
sales. The data to support these statements is displayed in Table 3-66 on page 3-167, Table 3-67 on 
page 3-167 and Table 3-68 on page 3-168 of TLMP RSDEIS. 

Furthermore, TLMP RSDEIS estimates the number of acres of tentatively suitable lands that are scheduled 
to be harvested over the planning horizon for each Management Area. The following Table displays 
the results of that analysis for the preferred alternative. This table indicates that the scheduling of the 
Chasina Project Area and other project areas within and outside the KPC sale area and contingency 
area to meet contract volume requirements over the next several years is anticipated. In addition, this 
table shows that there are adequate suitable acres in these Management Areas, scheduled to be 
harvested, to provide that volume. It displays, for the preferred alternative, the scheduled suitable acres 
by Management Area. Table 9 is similar to Table 8 which showed the Management Areas scheduled 
for timber harvest. A comparison of these two tables indicates that the Management Areas identified 
as appropriate for timber harvest activities in the existing TLMP (as amended winter 1985-86) are also 
identified as appropriate in the preferred alternative of TLMP RSDEIS. 


Chasina EIS - Appendix A B 23 


Table 9 

TLMP RSDEIS Preferred Alternative Scheduled Acres (selected Management Areas) 


Management 

Area 

Acres Scheduled 

Existing 

Harvest 

Percent Harvested 

C02 

5101 

500 

10 

C03 

4413 

78 

2 

C07 

1310 

0 

0 

CIO 

8002 

874 

11 

Cl 3 

22148 

0 

0 

Cl 4 

23291 

0 

0 

Cl 5 

4309 

1509 

37 

Cl 7 

78 

0 

0 

Cl 8 

888 

0 

0 

Cl 9 

5621 

1167 

21 

C27 

2042 

240 

12 

C28 

10895 

548 

5 

C29 

10446 

1795 

17 

C30 

24442 

5344 

22 

C31 

17760 

4250 

24 

C32 

2320 

500 

22 

C33 

2711 

78 

3 

C34 

14441 

999 

7 

C37 

32456 

10388 

32 

C39 

3700 

38 

1 

C40 

10919 

1493 

14 

C41 

19036 

3893 

20 

C43 

3648 

888 

25 

C44 

12945 

3546 

27 

C46 

684 

194 

28 

C48 

680 

0 

0 

C53 

15275 

7197 

47 

C54 

CHATHAM 

1586 

1022 

64 

TOTAL 

261047 

46622 

18 


24 ■ 


Chasina EIS - Appendix A 


Table 9 (continued) 

TLMP RSDEIS Preferred Alternative Scheduled Acres (selected Management Areas) 


Management 

Area 

Acres Scheduled 

Existing 

Harvest 

Percent Harvested 

SOI 

9124 

0 

0 

S04 

54806 

18257 

33 

S07 

9172 

260 

3 

S08 

3483 

0 

0 

S09 

22256 

1650 

7 

S10 

21861 

3038 

14 

Si 1 

27349 

6786 

25 

S13 

26820 

2725 

10 

Si 4 

218 

0 

0 

Si 6 

13036 

2771 

21 

Si 7 

20543 

5663 

28 

Si 8 

1918 

1278 

67 

Si 9 

32225 

10052 

31 

S20 

10694 

1170 

11 

S21 

3180 

2300 

72 

S22 

4020 

884 

22 

S23 

22779 

3885 

17 

S24 

1742 

277 

16 

S25 

22583 

4648 

21 

S26 

10743 

100 

1 

S29 

5426 

2668 

49 

S31 

2928 

0 

0 

S32 

304 

140 

46 

S33 

7215 

1177 

16 

S35 

STIKINE 

11248 

3455 

31 

TOTAL 

345673 

73184 

21 


Chasina EIS - Appendix A 


9 25 


Table 9 (continued) 


TLMP RSDEIS Preferred Alternative Scheduled Acres (selected Management Areas) 


Management 

Area 

Acres Scheduled 

Existing 

Harvest 

Percent Harvested 

KOI 

16078 

7414 

46 

K02 

1844 

872 

47 

K03 

21030 

11996 

57 

K04 

5160 

2459 

48 

K05 

17681 

11810 

67 

K07 

40117 

23194 

58 

K08 

23347 

9539 

41 

K09 

23150 

14113 

61 

K10 

9199 

3275 

36 

K11 

14195 

9793 

69 

K14 

16935 

1275 

8 

K15 

11210 

3082 

27 

K17 

16358 

8181 

50 

K18 

18474 

4803 

26 

K19 

2204 

0 

0 

K20 

7385 

1065 

14 

K21 

8969 

694 

8 

K22 

2314 

0 

0 

K24 

6475 

1101 

17 

K25 

10239 

0 

0 

K28 

1947 

0 

0 

K29 

8871 

152 

2 

K30 

16571 

919 

6 

K32 

32776 

7598 

23 

K34 

1098 

0 

0 

K35 

18865 

4657 

25 

K39 

7316 

458 

6 

K44 

499 

0 

0 

KTN. TOTAL 

360307 

128450 

36 


26 


Chasina EIS - Appendix A 


2 . 


Cumulative Effects 


The TLMP RSDEIS considers the cumulative effects for forest-wide acres managed for timber 
production for both the long-term and short-term timber sale programs. These effects are 
discussed at the end of their respective sections. 

Analysis points to the need to schedule harvest in VCUs assigned management prescriptions 
which permit consideration of timber harvest, including the VCUs within the Chasina Project 
Area. These VCUs in the current Forest plan, and in the draft revised Forest Plan would be 
needed to help meet KPC Contract volume needs, and TLMP and TTRA timber supply 
objectives. The forest-wide cumulative effects analysis in the TLMP RSDEIS supports the 
conclusion that this harvest can be accomplished within existing and proposed revised 
TLMP standards and guidelines and other requirements for resource protection. 

3. Subsistence 

With the passage of the ANILCA, Congress recognized the importance of subsistence 
resources to rural residents of Alaska. In particular, prior to any disposition of public lands, 
an agency must first complete a subsistence effects evaluation, including consideration of 
the availability of other lands (ANILCA 810 (a)). 

Based on a review of available harvest volumes for each VCU in the KPC Sale Area and 
Contingency Area, it appeared that in order to meet contract volume commitments, most of 
the LUD III and IV VCUs would need some level of harvest prior to the end of the KPC contract 
in 2004. In addition, some volumes from outside of the primary and contigency sale areas 
would also need to made available to KPC contractual obligations. A tentative offering schedule 
was developed and approved for implementation based on this analysis. In short, almost all 
LUD III and IV VCUs in the KPC Long-term Sale Area and Contingency Area as well as those 
outside the Sale Area would be scheduled for harvest by the year 2004, indicating a level of 
impact to all subsistence use areas. However, the most significant impacts on the subsistence 
resource habitat would not occur until 20 to 30 years after the timber harvest when the second 
growth canopy closes. When those impacts to subsistence resources are viewed from a 
reference point 20 years in the future, the particular importance of which areas are scheduled 
first during a 5-year period appears to be minor. In considering communities that may be 
most affected by any proposed timber harvest in the Chasina Project Area, Metlakatla, Hollis, 
Hydaburg, Saxman, and Ketchikan appear to have the strongest cultural and subsistence 
ties to the area. Each community has its own level of reliance on subsistence as well as its 
own level of reliance on the Chasina Project Area for supplying subsistence resources. The 
following information about each communities subsistence use is a summary of more detailed 
information provided in chapter 3 of the Chasina Project EIS. 

Metlakatla Boat access areas adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of Kitkun Bay and 
North Arm Moira are some of the subsistence use areas for the community. 

Hollis Boat access areas adjacent to or within the immediate vicinity of Kitkun Bay and North 
Arm Moira Sound is the subsistence use area used on a limited basis by the community. 

Saxman Boat access areas adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of Kitkun Bay and North 
Arm Moira are some of the subsistence use areas for the community. 

Hydaburg Boat access areas adjacent to or within the immediate vicinity of Cholmondeley 
Sound and North Arm Moira Sound are some of the subsistence use areas used on a limited 


Chasina EIS - Appendix A |f 27 


basis by this community. This area will be more accessible to the community with the 
construction of the logging roads through Sulzer Portage on native corportation land. 

Ketchikan Boat access areas adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of Kitkun Bay and 
North Moira Sound of the Project Area are some of the subsistence use areas for the community. 

Craig Boat access areas adjacent to or within the immediate vicinity of Kitkun Bay and North 
Arm Moira Sound is the subsistence use area used on a limited basis by the community. 

Kaasan Boat access areas adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of Kitkun Bay and North 
Arm Moira are some of the subsistence use areas for the community. 

Klawock Boat access areas adjacent to or within the immediate vicinity of Kitkun Bay and 
North Arm Moira Sound is the subsistence use area used on a limited basis by the community. 

Thorne Bay Boat access areas adjacent to or within the immediate vicinity of Kitkun Bay 
and North Arm Moira Sound is the subsistence use area used on a limited basis by the 
community. 

As a result of several considerations, including the availability of subsistence resources in 
undisturbed areas of South Prince of Wales Island, including LUD I and LUD II areas adjacent 
to the Project Area (such as the Nutkwa LUD II Area and the Prince of Wales Wilderness 
Area), the relative independence of most communities from subsistence resources in the 
Project Area, as weil as analysis contained in the Tongass Land Management Plan RSDEIS, 
the Forest Service determined to schedule an environmental analysis of the Chasina area. 
Other projects including Sea Level, North Revilla, Port Stewart, Vixen Inlet, Central Prince of 
Wales, Lab Bay, Ratz Harbor, Heceta Island, and Upper Carroll are being implemented, or, 
will undergo environmental analysis within the next 3 to 5 years. 

Extensive forestwide cumulative effect analysis has been included in the TLMP RSDEIS 
(TLMP SDEIS pages 3-628 through 3-765 and TLMP RSDEIS pages 3-328 through 3-441). 
That analysis, and the tables of data shown in appendix K of TLMP SDEIS and the maps 
shown in appendix C of the TLMP RSDEIS are incorporated by reference into this document. 
The data in Appendix K and L indicates subsistence hunting of deer and other uses in virtually 
every area of the Tongass with substantial quantities of harvestable timber. The following 
information is extracted directly out of the Tongass Land Management Plan Revision, 
Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, pages 3-762 and 3-763: 

In conducting the subsistence evaluation it is determined that, in combination with 
other past present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, none of the alternatives 
would pose a significant possibility of significant restriction for salmon, other finfish, 
marine mammals, invertebrates, plants, mountain goat, moose, waterfowl, sea birds, 
or other small game. Together these resources account for an average of 79 percent 
of the total harvest of subsistence resources (Kruse and Muth, 1990). 

In considering the impacts of future actions that may take place under the proposed 
alternatives on deer, two types of analysis was conducted. Potential effects were first 
determined for those WAAs where residents have successfully harvested deer, then 
for those WAAs where residents have ever gone to harvest deer. Both 10 percent 
and 20 percent harvest levels of the deer population were used. 

Considering only those WAAs where residents successfully harvested deer and 
assuming a harvest level of 10 percent of the population, there would be sufficient 
deer in all alternatives for the next 50 years to meet all subsistence needs for all 


28 ■ Chasina E1S - Appendix A 


communities except Gustavus, Hoonah, Kake, Pelican, Sitka, and Yakutat (appendix 
K). For these communities, there would be insufficient habitat capability to support 
harvest by all subsistence users (regardless of the community of orgin). However, at 
20 percent of the population, all subsistence needs for these communities would be 
met by all alternatives for the next 50 years (appendix K). 

If instead of considering only those WAAs in which hunters were successful, we consider 
all WAAs ever hunted by community residents, then there would be sufficient deer 
habitat capability to support all subsistence hunters in the WAAs used for hunting by 
all subsistence communities except for Pelican and Gustavus. If instead of assuming 
a 10 percent harvest level, a 20 percent harvest level is used, there would be sufficient 
habitat capability to support all subsistence harvest in all WAAs used for hunting by 
all subsistence communities. 

As a result of the analysis of the impacts of projects that would be permissible under 
each of the alternatives considered for adoption in the Forest Plan, it has been 
determined that all of the alternatives, if all permissible projects were fully implemented, 
have the potential to impact subsistence uses of deer, brown bear, and furbearers 
(specifically martens) due to potential effects of projects on abundance/distribution, 
and competition. 

The analysis shown in chapter 3 of this Project EIS is supported by the analysis shown 
above in the TLMP RSDEIS. The conclusion stated above, "it has been determined that all 
of the alternatives, if all of the permissible projects were fully implemented, have the potential 
to impact subsistence uses of deer. . .", supports the conclusion that any environmental 
analysis area within the Tongass would have a similar chance of having a significant possibility 
of a significant restriction on subsistence resources for Sitka Black-tailed deer, and other 
mammals. 

The analysis for ANILCA section 810 are shown in the Subsistence section of chapter 3, in 
this EIS. The determinations made from the ANILCA section 810 analysis and findings will 
be a part of the Record of Decision for this project. 


Forest Plan Implementation 

Review of Available Volume 

A review was conducted of each Managment Area for available volume. This analysis was 
based on computer inventories and Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ) calculations from TLMP 
Draft Revision (1996). 

All areas allocated to LUD III or IV under the current TLMP, as amended, and all areas available 
for timber harvest under the revised TLMP can be expected to entered for substantial timber 
harvest sometime in the future if the plan is to be fully implemented. The review used the 
following guidelines to identify likely areas to schedule for environmental analysis in the near 
future: 


Chasina EIS - Appendix A H 29 


(1) Evaluate by area the total available volume within the suitable land base. 

(2) Identify a tentative ten year sale schedule which addresses volume to be offered. 

(3) Prepare a schedule of environmental analysis areas which shows how the Tongass 
will proceed through the end of ten year sale schedule. 

The results of the first step by the working group analysis are presented in table 10. The 
results of this volume review, further supported by TLMP revision information, provided the 
basis for scheduling the next series of environmental analyses. 


30 ■ Chasina EIS - Appendix A 


Table 10 

Available Volume By Project 


Timber Project Location 
and Projected Volume 

1 

| Projected 
| Volume 

l 

|Tent. 
j Suitable 
j Acres 

1 

| Previous 
| Harvest 
| Acres 

I 

| Projected 
| Project 
| Acres 

i 

Chatham Area 

1 

1 

i 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

i 

1 

1 

i 

89 SEIS Analysis Area 2 VCUs 1 93; 1 98 
200;201 ;202;222;223 

1 

1 

1 

l 

1 

| 15,998 

1 

1 

| 2,583 
| (16.2%) 

1 

1 1,305 
(8.2%) 

Kelp Bay EIS VCUs 291-294; 296-298; 
314-315 

1 

1 1 1 7MMBF 

1 

1 

1 

| 22,584 

1 

1 

1 

| 4,781 
| (21.2%) 

1 4,238 
|(18.8%) 

Southeast Chichagof EIS MA 29;33;34; 
36;37;37a & VCU 227-247 

1 

1 130MMBF 

1 

l 

1 

| 58,054 

1 

1 

1 

| 13,260 
(22.8%) 
l 

1 

1 3,765 
(6.5%) 

Ushk Bay EIS VCUs 279-281 

1 

| 67MMBF 

1 

1 

1 

| 5,070 

1 

i 

1 

| 38 
| (0.8%) 
1 

1 

1 2,1 66 

|(42.7%) 

1 

Eight Fathom EIS VCUs 193-198; 
200-202 

1 

1 130MMBF 

1 

1 

1 

| 16,645 

1 

1 

1 

| 1,806 
| (10.9%) 

1 

1 3,498 
(21.0%) 

1 

Northwest Baranof EIS VCUs 287-292; 
299-302 

1 

| 66MMBF 

1 

l 

1 

| 17,936 

1 

1 

1 

| 3,307 
| (18.4%) 

l 

1 

1 2,500 
|(13.9%) 

l 

Port Houghton EIS VCUs 79-89 

1 

| 93MMBF 

1 

i 

1 

| 32,415 

1 

| 

1 

1 0 

| (0.0%) 

1 

1 3,1 00 
(9.6%) 

1 

Indian River EIS VCUs 220-222 

1 

| 20MMBF 

1 

i 

1 

| 5,688 

1 

1 

I 1,277 
j (22.5%) 

1 

1 660 
|(11.6%) 

Whitestone EIS VCUs 205; 207-211 

1 

| 30MMBF 

1 

i 

1 

| 15,241 

1 

1 

| 3,476 

j (22.8%) 

l 

1 

1 900 
j (5.9%) 

l 

Moore Mountains EIS VCUs 227-246 

1 

| 67MMBF 

1 

1 

1 

| 48,118 

1 

1 

| 11,465 
| (23.8%) 
1 

1 

1 2,010 
| (4.2%) 

i 

Kennel Creek EIS VCUs 215-218 

1 

| 36MMBF 

1 

1 

1 

| 19,178 

1 

1 

1 

| 4,604 
| (24.0%) 

l 

1 

1 1,170 

|(6.1%) 

l 

Windham EIS VCUs 68-70; 72-74 

1 

| 50MMBF 

1 

1 

1 

| 16,236 

1 

1 

1 

1 0 

| (0.0%) 
1 

1 1,500 
| (9.2%) 

W.Baranof/Kruzof EIS VCUs 287; 299; 
300;301 ;31 2;31 3;31 8-324 

1 

| 41MMBF 

1 

i 

| 8,084 

1 

1 

| 1,374 

| (17.0%) 
1 

1 

1 1,400 

j 17.3%) 
1 

Upper Tenakee EIS VCUs 202; 224-226 

1 

| 33MMBF 

1 

i 

1 

| 5,801 

1 

1 

| 1,018 
| (17.6%) 

l 

1 

| 990 
|(17.1%) 

l 

Neka Heli EIS VCUs 193-198; 
200-201 

1 

| 37MMBF 
1 

1 

| 12,973 
1 

1 

| 788 
| (6.1%) 

1 

1 1,1 10 
(8.6%) 


Chasina EIS - Appendix A H 31 


Port Houghton II EIS VCUs 79-84 

Couverden/Mansfield VCUs 116-123; 
125-132 

Stikine Aea 

North & East Kuiu EIS VCUs 398-402; 
416-421 

Bohemia EIS VCUs 424; 442 
Campbell EIS VCU 510 
Shamrock EIS VCUs 429;436;438 
King George EIS VCU 462 
Lindenberg EIS VCU 437 
Canal/Hoya EIS VCUs 520-521 
S. Zarembo EIS VCUs 458-459 
S33 EIS VCUs 525-526 
Scott Peak EIS VCUs 443;444;446 
Mitkof Sales EIS VCUs 449-450 
Crystal River EIS VCUs 486;487;489 
Etolin EIS VCUs 462-469 
Mad Critter EIS VCUs 501;502;504 
Woronofski EIS VCU 461 


34MMBF 

| 23,291 

1 

1 

1 0 

| (0.0%) 

24MMBF 

1 

| 5,640 
1 
1 
1 

1 

| 1,167 
| (20.7%) 

1 

i 

120MMBF 

1 

1 

| 77,042 

1 

| 

1 

1 

| 19,907 
j (25.8%) 

40MMBF 

1 

| 7,571 

1 

| 

1 

| 400 
j (5.3%) 

8MMBF 

1 

| 830 

1 

| 

1 

1 0 

| (0.0%) 

44MMBF 

| 17,895 

1 

1 

1 

| 358 

j (2.0%) 

27MMBF 

1 

| 3,611 
1 

1 

| 240 
1 (6.7%) 
1 

46MMBF 

| 7,794 

1 

| 

| 2,126 
j (27.3%) 
1 

20MMBF 

| 2,098 

1 

I 

1 

1 o 

| (0.0%) 

20MMBF 

| 15,718 

1 

| 

1 

1 3,854 
| (24.5%) 

22MMBF 

1 

| 3,296 

1 

i 

1 177 
| (5.4%) 
| 

20MMBF 

1 

| 14,290 

1 

| 

1 

| 2,638 
j (18.5%) 

30MMBF 

1 

| 7,463 

1 

i 

1 

| 2,650 
j (35.5%) 
1 

16MMBF 

1 

| 10,666 

1 

i 

1 

| 3,315 
| (31.1%) 

50MMBF 

1 

| 21,876 

1 

1 

| 3,885 
| (17.8%) 
1 

25MMBF 

| 10,723 

1 

| 

| 100 
j (0.9%) 

11MMBF 

1 

| 4,006 

1 

1 

1 

| 820 
j (20.5%) 
1 


32 ■ Chasina EIS - Appendix A 


1,020 

(4.4%) 

720 

( 12 . 8 %) 


5,203 

( 6 . 8 %) 

1,381 

(18.2%) 

390 

(47.0%) 

1,500 

(8.4%) 

750 

( 20 . 8 %) 

1,560 

( 20 . 0 %) 

600 

(28.6%) 

660 

(4.2%) 

700 

( 21 . 2 %) 

600 

(4.2%) 

1,000 

(13.4%) 

550 

(5.2%) 

1,700 

(7.8%) 

833 

(7.8%) 

330 

( 8 . 2 %) 


Cape Fanshaw EIS VCUs 85-89 

| 37MMBF 

1 

1 

| 9,124 

1 

1 

1 0 

(0.0%) 

1 1,200 
(13.2%) 

1 

South Kupreanof EIS VCUs 430-434 

1 

| 28MMBF 

1 

i 

| 10,694 

1 

i 

1 

| 1,170 
(10.9%) 

1 

| 840 

|(7.9%) 

1 

Zarembo EIS VCUs 458-459 

1 

| 20MMBF 

1 

1 

1 

| 15,718 

1 

| 

1 

| 3,854 
| (24.5%) 

1 

1 600 
| (3.8%) 

Woewodski EIS VCU 448 

1 

| 11MMBF 

1 

1 

1 

| 4,006 

1 

i 

1 

| 820 
| (20.5%) 

1 

1 330 

j (8.2%) 

North Kupreanof EIS VCUs 424;443 

1 

| 22MMBF 

1 

1 

1 

| 9,438 

1 

1 

1 

| 799 
j (8.5%) 
| 

1 

| 660 

|(7.0%) 

| 

Wrangell EIS VCUs 476-480:505 

1 

| 11MMBF 

1 

1 

1 

| 20,845 

1 

i 

1 

| 4,488 
| (21.5%) 

1 

1 370 
|(1.8%) 
| 

Ketchikan Area 

Central Prince of Wales EIS VCUs 557; 
577;579-590;598-601 .1 ;549.2-554; 
571-574 

1 

1 

1 267MMBF 

1 

1 

l 

1 

1 

| 87,529 
1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

| 47,862 
| (54.7%) 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 7,870 
| (9.0%) 

1 

1 

North Revilla EIS VCUs 732;733;735-74 

1 

1 200MMBF 

1 

1 

1 

| 26,861 

1 

i 

1 

| 7,051 
j (26.3%) 

1 

1 6,485 
|(24.1%) 

Polk Inlet EIS VCUs 610-613; 618-622 
624;674;675 

1 

1 125MMBF 

1 

I 

1 

| 34,832 

1 

1 

1 

| 12,984 
| (37.3%) 

1 

1 4,1 1 6 

j(11.8%) 

1 

Lab Bay EIS VCUs 527-540;551 

1 

| 40MMBF 

1 

i 

1 

| 34,736 

1 

1 

1 

| 17,361 
j (50.0%) 

1 1,400 
| (4.0%) 

Control Lake EIS VCUs 574-578; 
591-597.2 

1 

1 140MMBF 

1 

1 

1 

| 37,358 

1 

i 

1 

| 11,335 
j (30.3%) 

1 

1 4,700 

j(12.6%) 

Upper Carroll EIS VCUs 737;744;746 

1 

| 40MMBF 

I 

i 

1 

| 10,076 

1 

1 

| 2,960 
| (29.4%) 
1 

1 1,400 
|(13.9%) 

Vixin Inlet EIS VCUs 708-71 0;71 8; 
720;721 

1 

| 40MMBF 

1 

1 

1 

| 7,094 

1 

1 

1 

| 152 
| (2.1%) 
1 

1 

1 1,400 

j(19.7%) 

1 

Ratz EIS VCUs 572; 579-585 

1 

| 10MMBF 

1 

1 

1 

| 23,150 

1 

1 

1 

| 14,113 
| (61.0%) 

1 

1 300 

|(1.3%) 

1 

Tuxekan EIS VCUs 554.2;556;557;560; 
571 

1 

| 15MMBF 

1 

1 

1 

| 20,472 

1 

1 

1 

| 12,515 

j (61.1%) 

1 

| 500 
j (2.3%) 
1 

Chasina EIS VCUs 677-681 

1 

| 40MMBF 

1 

1 

1 

| 6,475 

1 

1 

1 

I 1,101 

| (17.0%) 

1 

1 1,400 
|(21.6%) 

Sea Level EIS VCUs 746;753;755-757; 
759 

| 20MMBF 

1 

1 

1 

| 18,845 

1 

1 

1 

| 4,657 
| (24.7%) 
1 

1 

| 600 
| (3.2%) 

Port Stewart EIS VCUs 713-717;719; 

1 

| 35MMBF 

1 

| 16,571 

1 

| 919 

1 

1 1,200 


Chasina EIS - Appendix A H 33 


722:723 

1 

1 

1 

i 

| (5.6%) 
1 

1 (7.2%) 
1 

Moira EIS VCUs 694;695;699; 700-704 

1 

| 40MMBF 

1 

1 

1 

| 10,293 

1 

1 

1 

1 0 

1 

1 

1 

1 1,400 
(13.6%) 

Chomley EIS VCUs 691-693 

1 

| 60MMBF 

1 

1 

1 

| 7,501 

1 

1 

1 

1 0 

1 

1 

1 2,000 
| (26.7%) 

South Prince of Wales EIS VCUs 694; 
695:699; 700-704 

1 

| 36MMBF 

1 

l 

| 7,565 

1 

1 

1 

1 0 

1 

i 

1 1,200 
(15.9%) 

i 

North Prince of Wales EIS MA K01;K03 
K07;K08 

| 90MMBF 

1 

I 

1 

| 98,812 

1 

1 

| 51,157 
| (51.8%) 

|3,000 

j(3.0%) 

1 

Luck Lake EIS MA K08;K09 

1 

| 60MMBF 

1 

1 

1 

| 42,777 

1 

| 

1 

| 21,416 
j (50.1%) 

1 2,000 
1 (4.7%) 
1 

Lower Carroll EIS VCU 744 

1 

| 40MMBF 

1 

i 

1 

| 9,393 

1 

1 

| 1,642 
| (17.5%) 
1 

1 

1 1,400 
j(14.9%) 

Cleveland EIS MA K29; K30 

1 

| 90MMBF 

1 

1 

1 

| 25,442 

1 

1 

1 

| 919 
j (3.6%) 

1 3,000 
|(11.8%) 

Dali Island EIS MA K22 

1 

| 25MMBF 

1 

i 

| 2,314 

1 

| 

1 

1 0 
1 

1 

1 750 
(32.4%) 

| 

Sukkwan EIS MA K21 

1 

| 30MMBF 

1 

i 

1 

| 8,969 

1 

1 

1 

| 694 
1 (7.7%) 
1 

1 

1 1,000 
(11.2%) 

S. Revilla EIS VCUs 743;747;748 

1 

| 20MMBF 

i 

1 

1 

| 6,891 

1 

| 

1 

| 439 
| (6.4%) 
| 

1 

| 600 
|(8.7%) 
1 

K-1 5 EIS MA K15 

1 

| 15MMBF 

i 

i 

1 

| 10,102 

1 

1 

1 

| 3,003 
| (29.7%) 

1 

| 500 
j(5.0%) 

K-32 EIS MA K15 

i 

| 10MMBF 
1 

1 

| 26,861 
1 

| 7,051 
j (26.3%) 

1 

1 350 
|(1.3%) 


34 ■ 


Chasina EIS - Appendix A 


Analysis Area Reviews 


For each area identified as having sufficient volume available to consider for further environmental 
analysis at this time, a review was conducted to decide which areas to schedule first, considering the 
current TLMP and proposed revised TLMP schedule, and other resource factors such as amount of 
past harvesting, log transfer facilities (LTF’s) required, amount of road systems in place, amount of 
additional roads required, if in long term sale contract sale area and wildlife and recreation values. The 
results of this review appear below: 


Table 11 

Available Volume By Project 


Timber NEPA Projects, Location, 

Projected 

Projected 

and Projected Offerings 

NEPA Process Dates 

Volume 

MMBF 

Chatham Area 

89 SEIS Analysis Area 2 VCUs 1 93;1 98; 
200;201 ;202;222;223 

11/89 ROD; 


Kelp Bay EIS VCUs 291-294; 296-298; 
314-315 

3/1/90 NOI;2/92 ROD; 

117 

Southeast Chichagof EIS MA 29;33;34; 
36;37;37a & VCU 227-247 

5/2/90 NOI;8/92 ROD; 

130 

Ushk Bay EIS VCUs 279-281 

9/94 ROD; 

67 


5/22/93 NOI 


Eight Fathom EIS VCUs 193-198; 

7/31/95 DEIS;3/96 ROD; 

130 

200-202 

6/1/2/93 NOI 


Northwest Baranof EIS VCUs 287-292; 

7/21/95 DEIS;3/96 ROD; 

66 

299-302 

9/12/94 NOI; 


Port Houghton EIS VCUs 79-89 

10/95 DEIS; 4/96 ROD; 

93 


1/96 NOI; 


Indian River EIS VCUs 220-222 

6/96 DEIS; 12/96 ROD; 

20 


’96 NOI; 


Whitestone EIS VCUs 205; 207-211 

'96 DEIS; 5/97 ROD; 

30 


'97 NOI; 


Moore Mountains EIS VCUs 227-246 

’98 DEIS; 1/99 ROD; 

67 


'97 NOI; 


Kennel Creek EIS VCUs 215-218 

'98 DEIS; 5/99 ROD; 

36 


’98 NOI; 


Windham EIS VCUs 68-70; 72-74 

'99 DEIS; 01/00 ROD; 

50 


’99 NOI; 


W.Baranof/Kruzof EIS VCUs 287; 299; 
300;301 ;312;313;31 8-324 

’00 DEIS; 01/01 ROD; 

41 


'01 NOI; 


Upper Tenakee EIS VCUs 202; 224-226 

’02 DEIS; 01/03 ROD; 

33 


’01 NOI; 


Neka Heli EIS VCUs 193-198; 
200-201 

’02 DEIS; 05/03 ROD; 

37 


Chasina EIS - Appendix A 


■ 35 


'02 NOI; 


Port Houghton II EIS VCUs 79-84 ’03 DEIS; 05/04 ROD; 34 

'03 NOI; 

Couverden/Mansfield VCUs 116-123; '04 DEIS; 01/05 ROD; 24 

125-132 

Stikine Area 

North & East Kuiu EIS VCUs 398-402; 6/90 NOI; 1/20/93 ROD; 120 

416-421 

Bohemia EIS VCUs 424; 442 4/95 ROD; 40 

Campbell EIS VCU 510 9/29/93 ROD; 8 

Shamrock EIS VCUs 429;436;438 5/96 ROD; 44 

King George EIS VCU 462 12/93 NOI; 5/96 ROD; 27 

Lindenberg EIS VCU 437 7/93 NOI; 4/96 ROD; 46 

'96 NOI; 

Canal/Hoya EIS VCUs 520-521 9/96 DEIS; 12/96 ROD; 20 

Houghton/Fanshaw EIS (NEPA shown on Pt. Houghton EIS) 

'96 NOI; 

S. Zarembo EIS VCUs 458-459 '97 DEIS; 10/98 ROD; 20 

'96 NOI; 

S33 EIS VCUs 525-526 '97 DEIS; 10/98 ROD; 22 

'96 NOI; 

Scott Peak EIS VCUs 443;444;446 ’97 DEIS; 10/97 ROD; 20 

'96 NOI; 

Mitkof Sales EIS VCUs 449-450 '97 DEIS; 10/97 ROD; 30 

'96 NOI; 

Crystal River EIS VCUs 486;487;489 '97 DEIS; 10/98 ROD; 16 

'96 NOI; 

Etolin EIS VCUs 462-469 ’97 DEIS; 10/98 ROD; 50 

'96 NOI; 

Mad Critter EIS VCUs 501 ;502;504 '97 DEIS; 10/98 ROD; 35 

'97 NOI; 

Woronofski EIS VCU 461 '98 DEIS; 10/99 ROD; 10 

'97 NOI; 

Cape Fanshaw EIS VCUs 85-89 '98 DEIS; 10/99 ROD; 37 

'98 NOI; 

South Kupreanof EIS VCUs 430-434 '99 DEIS; 10/00 ROD; 28 

'99 NOI; 

Zarembo EIS VCUs 458-459 ’00 DEIS; 10/01 ROD; 20 

'00 NOI; 

Woewodski EIS VCU 448 '01 DEIS; 10/02 ROD; 11 

'00 NOI; 


36 ■ Chasina EIS - Appendix A 


North Kupreanof E1S VCUs 424;443 

Wrangell EIS VCUs 476-480;505 

Ketchikan Area 

Central Prince of Wales EIS VCUs 557; 
571-574; 577;579-590;598-601 .1 ; 
549.2-554 

North Revilla EIS VCUs 732;733;735-740 

Polk Inlet EIS VCUs 610-613; 618-622; 
624;674;675 

Lab Bay EIS VCUs 527-540;551 

Control Lake EIS VCUs 574-578; 
591-597.2 

Upper Carroll EIS VCUs 737;744;746 

Vixin Inlet EIS VCUs 708-71 0;71 8; 
720;721 

Ratz EIS VCUs 572; 579-585 

Tuxekan EIS VCUs 554.2;556;557;560; 
571 

Chasina EIS VCUs 677-681 

Sea Level EIS VCUs 746;753;755-757; 
759 

Port Stewart EIS VCUs 713-717;719; 
722;723 

Moira EIS VCUs 694;695;699; 700-704 

Chomley EIS VCUs 691-693 

South Prince of Wales EIS VCUs 694; 
695;699; 700-704 

North Prince of Wales EIS MA KOI ;K03; 
K07;K08 

Luck Lake EIS MA K08;K09 


'01 DEIS; 10/02 ROD; 

22 

’00 NOI; 

'01 DEIS; 10/02 ROD; 

20 

8/91 NOI; 7/93 ROD; 

267 

4/91 NOI; 8/93 ROD; 

200 

9/91 NOI; 3/95 ROD; 

125 

9/92 NOI; 

7/95 DEIS; 8/96 ROD; 

40 

10/93 NOI; 

9/95 DEIS; 6/96 ROD; 

140 

6/94 NOI; 

9/95 DEIS; 6/96 ROD; 

40 

5/97 NOI; 

12/97 DEIS; 12/98 ROD; 

40 

5/97 NOI; 

12/97 DEIS; 12/98 ROD; 

10 

5/97 NOI; 

12/97 DEIS; 12/98 ROD; 

15 

11/95 NOI; 

7/96 DEIS; 4/97 ROD; 

40 

5/96 NOI; 

11/97 DEIS; 12/98 ROD; 

20 

4/97 NOI; 

12/97 DEIS; 12/98 ROD; 

35 

’98 NOI; 

'99 DEIS; ’00 ROD; 

40 

'98 NOI; 

'99 DEIS; '00 ROD; 

60 

'99 NOI; 

'00 DEIS; '01 ROD; 

36 

'99 NOI; 

'00 DEIS; '01 ROD; 

90 

'99 NOI; 

'00 DEIS; '01 ROD; 

60 


Chasina EIS - Appendix A 


M 37 


Lower Carroll EIS VCU 744 

'00 NOI; 

'01 DEIS; '02 ROD; 

40 

Cleveland EIS MA K29; K30 

'01 NOI; 

’02 DEIS; '03 ROD; 

90 

Dali Island EIS MA K22 

'02 NOI; 

'03 DEIS; '04 ROD; 

25 

Sukkwan EIS MA K21 

'02 NOI; 

'03 DEIS; '04 ROD; 

30 

S. Revilla EIS VCUs 743;747;748 

'02 NOI; 

'03 DEIS; '04 ROD; 

20 

K-15 EIS MA K15 

'02 NOI; 

'03 DEIS; '04 ROD; 

15 

K-32 EIS MA K15 

’02 NOI; 

’03 DEIS; '04 ROD; 

10 


38 ■ 


Chasina EIS - Appendix A 


Results of Analysis 

Upon completion of the above analysis, several project areas were identified and scheduled for 
environmental analysis first. Those projects were initiated which had a high priority. In addition to project 
area’s relative ability to provide timber, other factors considered in scheduling the Chasina Project for 
environmental analysis at this time with an associated, projected approximate timber volume included: 
(1) this harvest level is consistent with the sale schedule in the TLMP (1979a, as amended); (2) sufficient 
volume has been determined to be available in the project area; (3) there is a limited road network in 
place; (4) the number and location of Log Transfer Facilities (LTF’s) is sufficient to handle this volume 
of timber within a three-year time frame; (5) there are existing logging camps within the area to handle 
this volume; and (6) the current Forest Plan (TLMP 1979a, as amended) provides for harvest in this 
project area. Harvest in the project area is also consistent with proposed land allocation in the preferred 
alternative in TLMP Revision RSDEIS. 

Substantial changes in timber demand or other circumstances could affect the rate at which various 
areas proceed through the NEPA process or the timing of actual timber sale offerings, but are not 
expected to change the sequence for initiating and completing the NEPA process for various areas. 
Time periods of relatively low market demand provide an opportunity to increase available timber supply 
in anticipation of cyclical higher demand periods. All areas in which commercial timber harvest is 
authorized under the existing or revised TLMP are expected to receive some level of timber harvest at 
some time if the Forest Plan is to be fully implemented. Total environmental impacts viewed in the long 
term are not expected to differ substantially depending upon the order in which different areas are 
entered. The "No-Action" Alternative of not proceeding with further harvest at the present is considered 
in detail in each timber sale project NEPA process. But generally, projects farthest along in the NEPA 
process are the most efficient and logical to consider for implementation first in order to meet timber 
supply, timber sale program, and Forest Plan objectives. 


Chasina EIS - Appendix A 


a 39 














■ 





















Appendix B 

Harvest Units Over 
100 Acres 






APPENDIX B 


Appendix B 

Harvest Units Over 100 Acres in Size 
By Alternative 


NFMA regulations provide that 100 acres is the maximum size of created openings 
to be allowed for the hemlock-Sitka spruce forest type of coastal Alaska, 
unless excepted under specific conditions. The Alaska Regional Guide (page 
3~20) provides 

Recognizing that harvest units must be designed to accomplish management 
goals, created openings may be larger where larger units will produce a 
more desirable contribution of benefits. Factors to be considered to 
determine when a larger size may be permitted are: 

1 . Topography 

2. Relationship of units to other natural or artificial openings and 
proximity of units 

3 . Coordination and consistency with adjacent management areas 

4. Effect on water quality and quantity 

5 Visual absorption capacity 

6 Effect on wildlife and fish habitat 

7- Regeneration requirements for desirable tree species, based upon 
latest research 

8. Transportation and harvesting system requirements 

9- Natural and biological hazards to the survival of residual trees and 
surrounding stands 

10. Relative total costs of preparation, logging, and administration of 
harvest cuts 

Where it is determined by the interdisciplinary team that exceptions to the 
size limitation are warranted, the actual size limitation of openings may 
be up 100 percent greater for factor 9 and up to 50 percent greater for all 
other factors with the approval of the Forest Supervisor. 

Exceptions to the 100 acre size limit in excess of 50 percent greater (100 
percent greater for factor 9) are permitted on an individual timber sale 
basis after 60 days public notice, and review and approval by the Regional 
Forester. 

The following table display the units by alternative which exceed 100 acres in 
size. The reasons for exceeeding the size limits are also displayed. 


CHASINA DRAFT EIS 


APPENDIX B - 1 


APPENDIX B 


Units Over 100 Acres in Size 


HARVEST ALTERNATIVE NUMBER 

UNIT# ACRES REASON 2 3 4 5 6 

* 679-^25 110 1 , 8,10 4 6 

681-368 110 1,8,10 234 6 


Over 100 Acres by Alternative 11202 

* Because of cumulative watershed impact concerns, this unit will be 
decreased in size between draft and final EIS. 


CHASINA DRAFT EIS 


APPENDIX B - 2 


Appendix C 


Riparian Area 
Prescriptions 





RIPARIAN AREA PRESCRIPTIONS 


RP LUDs 


Goals 


Objectives 


Desired Future 
Condition 


The Riparian Area Land Use Designation (RP) is applied where more 
development-onented riparian management would otherwise normally occur. 
At a minimum, the land area encompassed by this designation includes: 1) the 
ripanan area required to meet the National Forest Management Act's imple- 
menting regulations for fish habitat and water quality; and, 2) the land area in 
which the commercial timber harvest restrictions of the T ongass Timber Reform 
Act (P.L 101-931) are applied. Risks of effects to riparian resources are reduced 
by extending the Riparian Area Land Use Designation to beyond the area 
required by law. 

To maintain riparian habitat for fish and other riparian-associated species and 
resources. 

To meet the requirements of the National Forest Management Act and the 
Tongass Timber Reform Act for the protection of fish habitat and/or water 
quality. 

To emphasize the maintenance and improvement of fish habitat and popula- 
tions by integrating aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems management. 

Manage the habitat for riparian-associated wildlife species in Class I stream and 
lake areas to achieve old-growth characteristics. 

Prohibit commercial timoer harvest within 100 feet of either side of Class I 
streams, and within 100 feet of those Class II streams which flow directly into 
Class I streams. Allow timber harvest in other areas where it does not conflict 
with the maintenance or imorovement of riparian-associated resources. 

Objectives for fish habitat management: 

Maintain or improve fish hamtat capability; 

Maintain natural stream bank and stream channel processes; 

Maintain natural and beneficial quantities of large woody debris over the 
short- and long-term; 

Maintain water quality to provide for fish production: 

Maintain optimum water temperatures for salmomds; 

Maintain or improve primary or secondary stream biological production 
in second-growth forests: 

Maintain fish passage througn stream crossing structures. 

Accommodate recreation facilities and uses associated with water-related activ- 
ities which avoid adverse effects on water quality and riparian shorelines. 

Riparian areas througnout the forest provide high-quality habitat for fish and 
riparian-associated wildlife soecies. A wide variety of vegetative conditions and 


C - 1 


Riparian Prescriptions 


Timber Harvest 
Prescription 


Harvest 

Definitions 


types are present, benefiting a variety of species: also provided are reserve 
trees for wildlife, large trees for brown bear bedding areas, and associated 
waterfowl habitats. The areas also provide wiidlife travel corridors. 


The following tables provide the standards and guidelines fdr timber harvest 
activities. Distances are in slope distance measured from the ordinary high 
water mark (see glossary). Distances shown are for windfirm leave strips; 
greater distance may be required to achieve reasonable assurance that 
windthrow as the result of adjacent harvest activity will not occur within the 
windfirm distance. To design windfirm leave strips, consider conditions such as 
soils, local wind patterns, tree height and size, and other site-specific factors. 
Forest-wide and Land Use Designation-wide standards and guidelines aDply 
for each channel process group. 

‘no commercial timber harvest* - A standard that means commercial timber 
harvest shall be prohibited (T° n 9 ass Timber Reform Act of 1990)). 

*no programmed commercial timber harvest* - A guideline and means that no 
timber harvest will be scheduled, but that unorogrammed commercial timber 
harvest could be allowed. Among other reasons, unprogrammed commercial 
timoer harvest may include timber sold as part or a salvage sale, for msec: and 
disease abatement purposes, and for specialty wood products.) 


Riparian Prescriptions 


C 


2 


Flood Plain Process Group 

(Channel types FP1, FP2, F?3, FP*. FF5) 


Stream Class 



1 

Objectives 

• Maintain or imorove aquatic bioiogical productivity 

- Assure the protection of riparian habitat 

- Allow no measurable reduction in smort habitat caoability exceot wnen change is a result of 
natural orocesses 

- restore stream and/or watershed condition where naoitat caDabiiity has been reduced from 
the natural caoaoility 

- Maintain/manage old-growTh characteristic haoitat 'or rioarian-associatea wiiclife species 

- Maintain long-term suooiies or large woody aeons sources within the process grouQ 

- Allow no activities wnicn may cause rloodDiain destaoilization 

Harvest Control 

- Allow no commercial timber narvest within 100 feet in width on each side of all channel tyP es 

- Allow single tree selection har/est within 100 to GOO feet in width on eacn sice ot FP3 channel 
types not associated with other channel types 

- Allow no orogrammed commercial timoer harvest within 100 to 200 feet in width on each side 
tor remainder or cnannel types 

- Consider ail harvest methods, on a case-oy-c3se oasis, in the riparian area oevond 200 feet if 
the noanan area is greater than 200 feet 

Harvest Rate 

- 3eyond '00 feet from the stream, strive to maintain 30% of the normal oasai area with trees 
IS"- abn within areas with no orogrammed commercial timoer harvest. 

Salvage 

- Allow no salvage in the ‘no commercial timoer narvesf areas unless needed to meet process 
grouD ooteenves (e.g.. winathrown trees restricting fisn oassage in streamsi 

- Allow salvage in other areas while meeting oojectives 

Roading 

• _ocate roaas in this process group omv wnen ctner reasonaoiy feasible routes do not exist. 


NOTES: - A pnmaiv consideration ror Timoer harvest within this Lana Use Designation is to maintain wmdfirmness or 

the unharvested trees. Where additional distance is reouirea to provide for reasonaDte assurance ot wind- 
firmness. narvest mav be allowed, but wiil be limited to uneven-aged silvicultural svstems. 

Commercial timber harvest guidelines beyond 100 feet mav vary, cased on site-specific analysis, but must 
meet process group objectives. 

Beyond "CO feet of the stream, incidental cutting of trees may be allowed in areas not programmed for 
commercial timoer harvest on a case-by-case basis (e.g.. 'or bridge stringers, totem coles, etc.). 

Stream Classes II ana III ao not normally occur in this process grouo. If they snould occur, harvest control 
must meet management oojectives for Class II and III of tbe Alluvial Fan Process Grouo. 


C - 3 


Rioarian Prescnotions 


Alluvial Fan Process Group 

(Channel types AF1, AF2, AF8) 


Stream Class 



1 

II 

Ill 

Objectives 

- Allow no activities which 

- Allow no activities which 

- Allow no activities wnich 

may causa flooaoiain 

may cause floodplain 

may cause floodplain 


destabilization 

destabilization 

destabilization 


- Assure the protection of 

- Assure the protection of 

- Assure the protection of 


ripanan haDitat 

npanan habitat 

riparian habitat 


- Maintain or imorove aquatic 

- Maintain habitat capability 

- Minimize the erfects ot 


biological productivity 

for resident fish to the extent 

timoer haivest and related 


- Allow no measuraole reduct 
ion in smort hacitat capability 
except wnen cnange is a 
result of natural processes 

- Restore stream and/or 
watershed condition where 
habitat caoaoiiity has been 
reduced from the natural 
capability 

- Maintain/manage old-growth 
characteristic habitat for 
ripanan-associated wildlife 
species 

practicable 

land disturbance activities 
on the beneiicial uses of 
water by aoolying 3est 
Management Practices. 

Harvest Control 

- Allow no commercial timoer 

- Allow no commercial timoer 

- Allow no programmed 


harvest within active portion 

harvest within active portion 

commercial timber harvest 


of fan or 1 00 feet or cnannel. 

of fan or 100 feet of channel. 

within active portion of fan 


wnichever is greater 

if the stream flows directly 
into a Class 1 stream (25 
feet if not tnbutary to a Class 
1 stream). 

or 25 feet of streambanK. 
wnicnever is greater 


- All harvest methods are 

- All harvest methods are 

- All harvest methods are 


available on remaining 

available on remaining 

avaiiaoie on remaining 


inactive portion of fan while 

inactive portion of fan wmle 

inactive portion of fan wmie 


meeting oojectives 

meeting objectives 
- Allow single tree selection 
harvest within 25 to SO feet 
from streambank if not 
within active portion of fan 
and not flowing directly 
into a Class 1 stream. 

meeting objectives 


Ripanan Prescnptions 


C - 4 


Stream Class 



1 

II 

Ill 

Harvest Rate 

- Beyond 100 feet of the 
stream, strive to maintain 
90% of the normal basal 
area with trees 16*->- dbh 
within areas with 'no 
programmed commercial 
timber harvest* (see note 
below) 

- Harvest should not exceed 50% of the forest land of individual 
fan. Remaining forested land is not to be harvested until 
created openings contain 50 foot tall conifer trees 
(approximately 30 yrs.) 

Salvage 

- Allow no salvage in the no commercial timber harvest area 
unless needed to meet process group objectives (e.g.. 
wmethrown trees restneting fish passage in streams) 

- Allow salvage in other areas while meeting objectives 

- Allow salvage in all areas 
wntle meeting objectives 

Reading 

- Anticipate unstable stream channels in determining the feasibility and/or most practical road 
locations, stream crossings, and design. 


NOTES: - A primary consideration for nmoer harvest within this Lana Use Designation is to maintain windfirmness of the 

unnarvested trees. Where additional distance is required to provide for reasonaole assurance of windfirmness. 
harvest may be ailowed but will be limited to uneven-aged silvicultural systems. 

Except within 1 00 feet of a Class I stream and 1 00 feet of a Class il stream which flows directly into a Class I stream, 
commercial timber harvest guidelines may van/, based on site-specific analysis, out must meet process group 
ob|ectives. 

Except within 1 00 feet of a Class I stream and tOO feet of 3 Class il stream which flows directly into a Class I stream, 
incidental cutting of trees may be ailowed in areas not programmed for commercial timoer harvest on a case-by- 
case basis (e.g. for bridge stnngers. totem poles, etc.). 


C - 5 


Riparian Prescriptions 


Moderate Gradient Mixed Control Process Group 

(Channel types MM1, MM2) 


Stream Class 



1 

II 

III 

Objectives 

- Assure protection of riparian 

- Assure protection of rioanan 

- Assure protection of riparian 

habitat 

haPitaL 

habitat. 


- Allow no activities which 

- Allow no activities which 

- Allow no activities which 


may cause floodplain 

may cause •looaolam 

may cause floodDlain 


destabilization. 

destabilization 

destabilization. 


- Maintain or improve aquatic 

- Maintain haortat caDaoility 

- Minimize the effects of 


biological productivity 

- Allow no measuraole reduct 
ion in smolt habitat caoabiiity 
except wnen change is a 
result of natural processes 

- Restore stream and/or 
watershed condition wnere 
hanrtat caoabiiity has been 
reduced from the natural 
capability 

- Maintain/manage old-growth 
cnaracte fistic haoitat for 
riparian-associated wiidlife 
species 

for resident risn to the extent 
practicable 

timber harvest and related 
land disturbance activities 
on the beneficial uses of 
water by applying Best 
Management P'actices. 

Harvest Control 

- Allow no commercial timoer 

- Allow no commercial timoer 

- Allow single tree selection 


harvest within 1 00 feet or 

harvest within ' 00 feet of 

within 25 feet of MM1 


channels. 

streams wmc.n ; !cw directly 
into Class i streams. For 
other streams, allow single 
tree selection 'arrest within 
25 feet of MM* tnanneis 
and 50 ; eet of MM2 
channels. 

channels 


- Allow single tree selection 

- All harvest methods are 

- All harvest methods are 


on remainder of the area. 

available on remaining area; 
where timoer oarvest is 
allowed within "00 feet of 
the stream, trial harvest 
should incorcorate 
undulating unit coundaries 
to limit the amount of 
continuous oisturoance 
parallel to the streambank 

available on remaining 
area while meeting 
objectives 


Riparian Prescriptions 


C 


6 


Stream Class 



1 II III 

Harvest Rate 

- Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for timber apply 

Salvage 

- Allow no salvage in the 'no commercial timber harvest areas' unless needed to meet process 
group objectives (e.g., windthrown trees restncting fish passage in streams) 

- Allow salvage in all areas while meeting objectives 

- Allow salvage in other areas while meeting objectives 

Roading 

- Special road construction techniques may be required to ensure fish passage 


NOTES; - A primary consideration for timoer harvest wrthin this Land Use Designation is to maintain windfirmness of the 

unharvested trees. Where additional distance is required to provide for reasonable assurance of windfirmness. 
harvest may be allowed but wiil be limited to uneven-aged silvicultural systems. 

Except within 100 feet of a Class I stream and 100 feet of a Class II stream wmch flows directly into a Class I stream, 
commercial timber harvest guiaelines may vary, based on srte-specific analysis, but must meet process group 
objectives. 

Except wrthin 100 feet of a Class I stream and 100 feet of a Class II stream wnich flows directly into a Class I stream, 
incidental cutting of trees may oe allowed in areas not programmed for commercial timber harvest on a case-by- 
case basis (e.g. for bridge stringers, totem poles, etc.). 


c 


7 


Riparian Prescriptions 


Large Contained Process Group 

(Channel types LCl, LC2) 


Stream Class 



I 

II 

Objectives 

- Maintain or improve aauaric biological 
productivity 

- Assure the protection of noanan habitat 

- Allow no activities which may cause floodplain 
destaoiiization 

- Allow no measurable reduction in smolt 
habitat capability except wnen change is a 
result of natural processes 

- Maintain/manage old-growth cnaractenstlc 
habitat for nDanan-associated wildlife soecies 

- Maintain habitat capability for resident fish 
to the extent practicable 

- Assure the protection of hparian habitat 

- Allow no activities which may cause flood- 
plain destabilization 

Harvest Control 

- Allow no commercial timcer narvest within 
100 feet 

- All harvest methods are available on remain 
ing area while meeting detectives 

- Full susoension yarding Is required to cross 
stream channel 

- Allow no commercial timoer harvest within 
100 feet of streams whicn flow directly into 
Class 1 streams 

- Allow no programmed commercial timoer 
harvest within 25 reet of other streams 

- All siivicuitural systems are available on 
remaining area wmie meeting objectives 

- Minimize soil disturbance associated with 
yarding within inner gorge 

- Full suspension yarding is required to cross 
stream channel 

Salvage 

- Allow no salvage in the 'no commercial timber harvest" areas unless needed to meet process 
grouo ODjectives (e.g.. wmcthrown trees restricting fisn passage in streams) 

- Allow salvage in other areas wmle meeting objectives 

Roading 

- Road construction is generally not aoproonate in this process grouD; wnere road crossings are 
required, minimize erosion and sedimentation associated with road crossing approaches within 
inner gorge 


NOTES: - A primary consideration for timber harvest within the Lana Use Designation is to maintain wmafirmness of the 

unnarvested trees. Where additional distance is reauirea to orovide for reasonaole assurance of wmafirmness. 
harvest may be allowed but wiil be limrtea to uneven-aged siivicuitural systems. 

Except within 1 00 feet of a Class I stream ana 100 feet or a Class II stream whicn flows directly into a Class I stream, 
commercial timber harvest guidelines mav vary, based on site-specific analysis, but must meet process grouD 
objectives. 

Except within 1 00 feet of a Class I stream ana 100 feet of a Class il stream which flows directly into a Class I stream, 
incidental cutting of trees may be allowed in areas not programmed for commercial timber harvest on a case-oy- 
case oasis (e.g. for bridge stringers, totem coles, etc.). 

Stream Class III does not normally occur in this orocess group. If it should occur. Harvest Control must meet 
Management Objectives for Class III of the Moderate Gradient Contained Process Group. 


Riparian Prescriptions 


C 


a 


Moderate Gradient Contained Process Group 

(Channel types MCI, MC2, MC3) 


Stream Class 



1 

1! 

III 

Objectives 

- Assure the protection of 

- Assure the protection of 

- Assure the protection of 

riparian habitat 

npanan habitat 

riparian habitat 


- Allow no activities which 

- Allow no activities which 

- Allow no activities which 


may cause floodplain 

may cause floodplain 

may cause floodplain 


destaDilization 

destabilization 

destaDilization 


• Maintain or improve aquatic 

- Maintain haoitat caoabiiity 

- Minimize the effects of 


biological productivity 

- Allow no measuraoie reduc 
tion in smolt haoitat 
caoaoility exceot wnen 
change is a result of natural 
processes 

• Restore stream and/or 
watersned conaition wnere 
habitat caDaQiiity has been 
reduced from the natural 
caoability 

• Maintain/manage oid-growth 
characteristic haoitat for 
riparian-associated wildlife 
species 

for resident fisn to the extent 
practicable 

timber harvest and related 
land disturbance activities 
on the beneticial uses of 
water by aDPlying Best 
Management Practices. 

Harvest Control 

- Allow no commercial timoer 

- Allow no commercial timber 

- All harvest methods are 


harvest within 1 00 feet 

- Beyond 1 00 feet, selectively 
leave trees with crowns 
that do not extend above 
the slooe breax 

harvest within 100 feet of 
streams whicn flow airectly 
into Class I streams 
- Selectively leave trees with 
crowns that do not extend 
above the siooe oreak along 
streams whicn do not flow 
directly into Class 1 streams, 
and beyond 1 00 feet for 
other streams 

available wmle meeting 
objectives 


- Minimize soil disturoance 

- Minimize soil disturbance 

- Minimize soil disturbance 


associated with yarding 

associated with yarding 

associated with yarding 


within the inner gorge 

- Full suspension yarding 
required to cross stream 
cnannel 

- Maintain near-natural reserve 
tree comDonent of stand 

within inner gorge 
- Full susoension yarding 
required to cross stream 
cnannei 

within the inner gorge. 


C - 9 


Riparian Prescriptions 


Stream Class 



1 II III 

Salvage 

- Allow no salvage in the 'no commercial timber harvest areas* 
unless needed to meet process group objectives (e.g.. 
wmathrown trees restncting fisn passage in streams) 

- Allow salvage in other areas 
while meeting ob|ectives 

Roading 

- Where road crossings are required, minimize erosion and 
sedimentation associated with road crossing approaches 
wrthin the inner gorge 



NOTES: - A primary consideration for timoer harvest wrthin this Land Use (Designation is to maintain windfirmness of the 

unharvested trees. Where additional distance is required to provide for reasonable assurance or windfirmness. 
harvest may be ailowed but wiil be limited to uneven-aged silvicultural systems. 

Except within 1 00 feet of a Class I stream and 1 00 feet of a Class II stream which flows directly into a Class I stream, 
commercial timoer harvest guidelines may vary, based on site-specific analysis, but must meet process group 
objectives. 

Except within 1 00 feet of a Class I stream ana ICO feet of a Class II stream wnich flows directly into a Class I stream, 
inciaental cutting of trees mav be allowed in areas not programmed for commercial timoer harvest on a case-oy- 
case basis (e.g. for bndge stringers, totem ooles. etc.). 


Riparian Prescriptions 


C - 10 


High Gradient Contained Process Group 

(Channel types HCl, HC2, HC3, HC4, HC5, HC6, HC3, HC9) 


Stream Class 



II 

in 

Objectives 

- Maintain nabrtat oaoaoility for 

- Minimize the effects of timoer harvest and 

resident fisn to the extent practicable 

related land disturbance activities on the 
beneficial uses of water by applying Best 
Management Practices. 


- Assure the orotection of npanan 
habitat 

- Assure the protection or noarian habitat 


- Allow no activities which may cause 

- Allow no activities which may cause 


floodplain destabilization. 

floodplain destabilization 

Harvest Control 

- Allow no commercial timber harvest 

- Allow harvest to streamoank while meeting 


within f 00 feet of streams which 
flow oirectly into Class 1 streams 

- Selectively leave trees with crowns 
that do not extend above the slope 
break along streams which do not 
flow oirectiy into Class 1 streams 
and oeyona 100 feet for other 
streams. 

- Minimize soil disturbance associated 
with yarcing within inner gorge. 

oojecrives 


- Full susoension yarding required to 

- Full suspension reauirea to cross stream 


cross stream channel. 

cnannel 

Harvest Rate 

- Harvest rate not to exceed 25% of 
the acres every 20 years of a 3rd 
order or 'arger watershed. (Note: 
this guiaeiine aoDlies oniy to those 
acres associated with this UJD) 


Salvage 

- Allow no salvage in the ‘no commeri 
cal timDer narvest areas' unless 
neeaea to meet process grouD 
objectives (e.g., windthrown trees 
restncting fisn passage in streams) 

- Allow salvage in other areas wniie 

- Allow salvage while meeting objectives 


meeting ooiectives. 



NOTES: - Commercial timber harvest guiceiines may vary, based on site-specific analysis, but must meet process group 

objectives. 

Stream Class I does not normally occur in this process group, if they snould occur, Harvest Control must meet 
Management Objectives for Class I of the Moderate Gradient Contained Process Grouo. 


C - 11 


Riparian Prescriptions 


Palustrine Process Group 

(Channel types PA1, PA2. PA3, PA4, PA5) 


Stream Class 



1 

II 

Objectives 

- Maintain or improve aquatic biological 
productivity 

- Assure the protection of nparian habitat 

- Allow no activities wmch may cause 
floodplain destabilization 

- Restore stream ana/or watersned conaition 
where haoitat caDabiiity has been reduced 
from the natural caoaoilrty 

- Allow no measuraoie reduction in smoit 
habitat caoabiiity exceot wnen change is a 
result of natural processes 

- Maintain/manage old-growth charactenstic 
haoitat for ripanan-associatea wildlife species 

- Maintain habitat caDabiiity for resident fish 
to the extent practicaole 

- Assure the protection of riparian habitat 

- Allow no activities which may cause 
floodplain destabilization 

Harvest Control 

- Allow no commercial timoer narvest within 
100 feet 

- Allow no programmed commercial timoer 
harvest beyond 100 reet 

- Allow no commercial timoer harvest within 
10Q feet of streams wnicn flow directly into 
Class 1 streams 

- Allow no programmed commercial timber 
harvest along other streams and. for all 
streams, beyona 100 feet 

Salvage 

- Allow no salvage in the 'no commercial timber harvest areas' unless neeaea to meet process 
grouo ooiecnves (e.g.. wmathrown trees restricting fish passage in streams) 

- Allow salvage in other areas using non-ground disturomg methods, while meeting objectives 
e.g. helicopter) 

Roading 

- Wetland values should receive soecial consideration in locating roads. 


NOTES: - A primary consideration for timber Harvest within this Land Use Designation is to maintain winafirmness of the 

unnarvested trees. Where additional distance is required to provide for reasonaoie assurance of winafirmness. 
harvest may be allowed but wiil be limited to uneven-aged silvicultural systems. 

Except within 100 feet of a Class I stream and 100 feet of a Class II stream wnicn rlows directly into a Class I stream, 
commercial timber harvest guiaeiines may vary, based on site-soecific analysis, but must meet process grouD 
objectives. 

Except within 100 feet of a Class I stream and 100 feet of a Class II stream which flows directly into a Class I stream, 
incidental cutting of trees may be allowed in areas not programmed for commercial timoer harvest on a 
case-by-case basis (e.g. for bridge stnngers. totem poles, etc.). 

Stream Class III does not normally occur in this process grouo. If it snould occur. Harvest Control must meet 
Management Ob|ectrves for Class ill of the Moaerate Gradient Contained Process Grouo. 


Riparian Prescriptions 


C - 12 


Lakes and Ponds 

(Channel types not classified as streams) 

Stream Class 



1 

ii 

m 

Objectives 

- Maintain or improve aquatic 

- Maintain habitat capability 

- Minimize the effects of 

biological productivity 

for resident fish to the extent 

timber harvest and related 



practicable 

land disturbance activities 
on the beneficial uses of 
water by applying Best 
Management Practices. 


- Assure the protection of 

- Assure the protection of 

- Assure the protection of 


riparian haDitat 
- Restore stream and/or 

.noanan habitat 

riparian habitat 


watershed condition where 
habitat capability has been 
reduced from the natural 
capability 




- Allow no measuraole reduc 




tion in smoit haoitat 
caoaoility exceot when 
cnange is a result of natural 
change 

- Maintain/manage old-growth 
charactenstic haDitat for 
npanan-associated wildlife 




species 



Harvest Control 

- Allow no commercial limner 

- Allow no commercial timber 

- Maintain a minimum of 


harvest within 100 feet 

harvest wrthin 100 feet in 

50% of natural shading 



«iath of lakes and ponds 

vegetation for temoerature 



wnicn: 1) flow directly into 
a Class 1 stream, or 2) flow 
nto a Class II stream whicn 
•'lews directly into a Class 1 

sensitive lakes 



stream 



- Allow uneven-aged manage- 

- : or lakes and ponds not 



mem 100 to 500 feet of 

"lowing directly into a Class 1 



lake or pond, or the extern 

stream, allow uneven-aged 



of this LUD. whenever is 

management within 100 



iess 

•eet of lakes and pones 
ess 50 acres 



- Any silvicultural system 

- Allow uneven-aged manage- 

- All silvicultural systems 


applies for remainder of 

mem 1 00 to 500 feet or 

available wmle meeting 


area while meeting ooject- 

extent of land use designa- 

ob|ectives 


ives. 

non wnichever Is less, of 
axes greater than 50 acres 
- Any silvicultural systems 
aoory for the remainder of 
me area wmle meeting 
oojectrves 

• “real as the adjacent LUD 

- Treat as the adjacent LUD if 



t iaxe or pond is less than 

lake or pond is less than 5 



5 acres 

acres 


C - 13 


RiDanan Prescriptions 


Stream Class 



1 II 

III 

Salvage 

- Allow no salvage in the 'no commercial timber harvest areas' 
unless needed to meet process group objectives (e.g.. 
.vinothrown trees restricting fish passage in streams) 

- —How salvage in other areas while meeting objectives 

- Allow salvage in all areas 
wmle meeting oojectives 

Roading 

- noads may be aliowed if other practical alternatives are not available or if needed to access the 
.vater body for recreation or other needs 


NOTE: - A primary consideration for timoer harvest within this Land Use (Designation is to maintain wincfirmness of the 

unharvested trees. Where additional distance is required to provide for reasonable assurance of winafirmness. 
harvest may ce allowed but will be limited to uneven-aged silvicuituraJ systems. 

Except within ( 00 feet of a Class I stream and 1 00 feet of a Class II stream which flows directly into a Class I stream, 
commercial timoer harvest guidelines may vary, based on site-specific analysis, but must meet process grouD 
objectives. 

Except within : 00 feet or a Class I stream and 1 00 feet of a Class II stream which flows directly into a Class i stream, 
incidental cutting or trees may oe allowed in areas not programmed for commercial timber harvest on a case-by- 
case basis (e.g. for bndge stringers, lotem poles, etc.). 


C - 14 


Riparian Prescriptions 


Estuarine Process Group* 

(Channel types ESI, ES2, E33, ES4, E33) 


Stream Class 



' 1 

Objectives 

- Maintain or improve aquatic biological productivity 

- Assure the protection of npanan habitat 

- Allow no measurable reduction in smoit habitat capability except when cnange is a result of 
natural processes 

- Restore stream and/or watershed condition where haortat capability has oeen reduced from 
the natural capability 

- Maintain/manage old-growth characteristic habitat for npanan-associatea wilciife species 

Harvest Control 

- Allow no commercial timber harvest within 100 feet 

- Allow no programmed commercial timoer harvest within 1 00 to 500 feet of ES-i ana ESS estuarine 
channels, or the extent of this Land Use Designation, wnichever is less 

- Allow no Drogrammed commercial timoer harvest within 100 to 200 feet or ES2 and E53 estuarine 
channels, or the extent of this Land Use Designation, wnichever Is less 

- Allow uneven-aged silvicultural system for remainder of area 

Harvest Rate 

- 3eyond 100' from the stream, stnve to maintain 90% of the normal basal area with trees 16" — 
dbh within areas with no programmed commercial timber harvest (see note ceiowj 

Salvage 

- Allow no salvage in the ‘no commercial timber harvest areas" unless neeaea to meet process 
group objectives (e.g., winathrown trees restricting fisn passage in streamsi 

- Allow salvage in other areas while meeting objectives 

Roading 

- Juvenile fish passage may require special attention 

- Generally, no roading should occur in estuarine wetland areas 


MOTES: ' This area is orten covered by the 3eacn Fringe ana Estuarine rorestwide Standards ana Guicelines which would 

take oreceaence over management unaer the Riparian Area Prescnption. 

A primary consideration for timoer harvest within this Land Use Designation is to maintain winafirmness of the 
unnarvestea trees. Where aaditional aistance is required to provide tor reasonable assurance of winafirmness, 
harvest may be allowed but will be limited to uneven-aged silvicultural systems. 

- Commercial timber harvest guidelines beyond 100 feet may vary, based on site-specific analysis, but must meet 
process group objectives. 

3eyona 100 feet of the stream, incidental cutting oftrees may be allowea in areas not programmea for commercial 
timber harvest on a case-by-case oasis (e.g., for bridge stnngers, totem poles, etc.). 

Stream Classes II and III do not normally occur in this orocess group. If they should occur, -iarvest Control must 
meet Management Objectives for Class II and III of the Lakes and Ponds Process Grouo. 


c 


15 


Ricarian Prescriptions 




































Appendix D 


Biological Assessment 
and Biological 
Evaluation 




APPENDIX D 


Draft 

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT and BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION 
for the Chasina Project Area 


April 1996 


This combined draft Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation was prepared for the Chasina Project 
Area as required by Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (as amended) and the USDA Forest Service 
threatened, endangered, and sensitive plant and animal species policy (FSM 2670). This document describes 
the occurrence of and project effects on species that are Federally listed or proposed for threatened or 
endangered status. Although not required, candidate plant and animal species within the Project Area are 
also addressed. This document also serves as a BE by including equivalent information on Forest Service- 
listed sensitive species. The BE is not required under ESA, but is required by the Forest Service for all internal 
programs and activities (FSM 2672.4). 

An Environmental Impact Statement is being prepared forthe Chasina Project Area. The Chasina Project Area 
includes 68,927 acres, approximately 25 air miles southwest of Ketchikan, Alaska. It encompasses an area 
of southern Prince of Wales Island, from West Arm Cholmondeley Sound east to include all of Chasina Point. 
The Project Area includes Wildlife Analysis Areas (WAA’s) 1210, 1211, and 1213. The action includes the 
harvest of approximately 1 ,200 to 4,300 acres of old-growth forest, construction of 1 2-64 miles of new roads, 
the use of one existing log transfer facility, and the construction of two new log transfer facilities. 

This BA/BE addresses a total of 31 plant and animal species. It covers the endangered humpback whale 
(Megapter novaeangliae), American peregrine falcon ( Falco peregrinus anatum ), and the Eskimo curlew 
(, Numenius borealis)] the threatened Aleutian Canada goose (Branta canadensis leucoparela), and the Steller 
sea lion ( Eumetopias jubata)] one frog, four plant, and six bird species that are Federal Species of Concern. 
It also includes three bird species and 10 plant species on the Forest Service Region 10 sensitive species 
list, but are not listed as endangered, threatened or species of concern under the Endangered Species Act. 


I. IDENTIFICATION OF ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES AND/OR CRITI- 
CAL HABITATS FOR SUCH SPECIES WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA. 


A. Federal Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species 

Federally listed threatened and endangered species are those plants and animal species formally listed by 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), under the 
authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. An endangered species is defined as one 
which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A threatened species is 
defined as one which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range. 

Species of Concern are species that the USFWS remains concerned about the long-term viability of the 
species, and the potential for listing as threatened or endangered still remains. 


Biological Assessment - 1 


APPENDIX D 


Species listed as endangered or threatened are provided statutory protection under the Endangered Species 
Act of 1973, as amended; species of concern are not. Therefore, under the Endangered Species Act, 
agencies technically have no legal obligation to take action on species of concern. Although the USFWS and 
NMFS do not have legal authority to regulate management of National Forest lands for species of concern, 
the Forest Service has agreed to coordinate closely with the USFWS and NMFS in an effort to prevent species 
of concern declining to where they need to be listed as threatened or endangered (Memorandum of 
Understanding January 25, 1994). 

The State of Alaska has an Endangered Species Law which authorizes the Commissioner of the Alaska 
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) to list Alaska endangered species and species of concern. 

Table 1 summarizes the threatened, endangered, and species of concern plants and animals occurring on 
or near the Chasina Project Area which are addressed in this Biological Assessment and Biological Evalua- 
tion. 


Biological Assessment - 2 


APPENDIX D 


Table 1 

Status* of Threatened, Endangered, and Species of Concern Occurring On or Near the Chasina Project 
Area with Summary BA/BE Finding. 


SPECIES 


STATUS 

BA/BE 

FINDING 



USF- 

FS 

STATE 



WS 




Animals 





Humpback whale 

E 


E 

Not...Adversly Effect 

Steller sea Lion 

T 



Not...Adversly Effect 

Alexander Archipelago wolf 

C 



May Effect - 

American Peregrine falcon 

E 


E 

Not...Adversly Effect 

Arctic Peregrine falcon 

C 


E 

Not...Adversly Effect 

Aleutian Canada goose 

T 


E 

Not...Adversly Effect 

Trumpeter swan 


S 


No Effect 

Eskimo curlew 

E 


E 

Not...Adversly Effect 

Marbled Murrelet 

C 


CS 

May Effect - 

Kittlitz’s murrelet 

C 



No Effect 

Osprey 


s 


No Effect 

Queen Charlotte Goshawk 

c 

s 

cs 

May Effect - 

Harlequin Duck 

c 



No Effect 

Olive-sided flycatcher 

c 



May Effect + 

Spotted Frog 

c 



No Effect 

Fish 





Bull Trout 

c 



No Effect 


Biological Assessment - 3 


APPENDIX D 


SPECIES 


STATUS 

BA/BE 

FINDING 


Plants 





Aster yukonensis 

C 



No Effect 

Calamagrostis crassiglumis 

C 



No Effect 

Carex lenticularis var. dolia 

C 

S 


No Effect 

Montia bostockii 

C 



No Effect 

Cirsium edule 


s 


No Effect 

Glyceria leptostachya 


s 


No Effect 

Hymenophyllum wrightii 


s 


No Effect 

Isoetes truncata 


s 


No Effect 

Ligusticum calderi 


s 


No Effect 

Platanthera chorisianna 


s 


May Effect - 

Platanthera gracilis 


s 


No Effect 

Poa laxiflora 


s 


No Effect 

Rannunculus orthorhynchus 





var. alaschensis S 




No Effect 

Senecio moresbiensis 


s 


No Effect 

* E = Endangered, Federal or State; 





T = Threatened, Federal; C = Species 





of Concern, Federal; CS = Candidate, 





State; S = Sensitive, FS Region 10. 






Biological Assessment - 4 


APPENDIX D 


There has been no critical habitat officially designated for any of these species at this time in Southeast 
Alaska, except for specific rookery (Mating and pupping) and haulout locations for Steller sea lions (CFR part 
226, August 27, 1993). 

The USFWS has identified Queen Charlotte goshawk, Alexander Archipelago wolf, harlequin duck, olive- 
sided flycatcher and marbled murrelet as being "Species of Concern" that may be affected by the proposed 
project in a recent letter responding to the NOI for the Chasina project. 

The endangered American peregrine falcon may migrate through the project area, as may the Eskimo curlew, 
and the Aleutian Canada goose. The Harlequin duck and the Steller sea lion occurs in the adjacent saltwater. 
There has been no evidence of the existence of any other listed species within the Project Area. 

The humpback whale ( Megaptera novaeangliae) and Steller sea lion ( Eumetopias jubata) were listed by the 
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in an assessment of the Project Area (Pennoyer February 6, 1 992). 
During 1 991 , NMFS completed final recovery plans for the humpback whales. The Steller (northern) sea lion 
is currently listed as threatened ( Federal Register Dec. 4, 1990; NMFS 1992). Presently, critical habitat has 
not been designated for either species (Pennoyer February 6, 1992). 

No plant species known to occur in the Project Area have been determined to be threatened or endangered. 
A Forest Sen/ice listed sensitive species was found within the project boundary-Choris bog orchid ( Platan - 
thera Chorisiana). Plant species of concern, Calamagrostis crassiglumis and Carex lenticularis could poten- 
tially occur within the Project Area, but have not been documented or found. 

No fish species known to occur in the Project Area have been determined to be threatened, endangered, or 
sensitive. 


IS. THREATENED/ENDANGERED SPECIES ASSESSMENTS 


HUMPBACK WHALE ( Megaptera novaeangliae) 

Distribution and Population 

Humpback whales are the most abundant of the eight species of endangered whales that occur in Southeast 
Alaska waters. Their population in the North Pacific is about 1,200, which is about eight percent of the 
prewhaling population. These whales are regularly sighted in the Inside Passage and coastal waters of the 
Southeast Alaska panhandle from Yakutat Bay south to Queen Charlotte Sound. Humpback whales feed in 
Southeast Alaskan panhandle waters from about May through December, although some have been seen 
every month of the year. Peak numbers of whales are usually found in nearshore waters during late August 
and September, but substantial numbers usually remain until early winter. Baker et al. (1985) estimate that 
300-350 humpback whales inhabit Southeast Alaska during the summer and fall. 

The local distribution of humpbacks in Southeast Alaska appears to be correlated with the density and 
seasonal availability of prey, particularly herring ( Clupea harengus) and euphausiids. Important feeding areas 
include Glacier Bay and adjacent portions of Icy Straight, Stephens Passage/Frederick Sound, Seymour 
Canal and Sitka Sound. Glacier Bay and Icy Straight appear to be an important feeding area early in the 
season, when whales prey heavily on herring and other small, schooling fishes. Frederick Sound is important 
later in summer, when whales feed on swarming euphausiids. During autumn and early winter, humpbacks 


Biological Assessment - 5 


APPENDIX D 


move out of the Sound to areas where herring are abundant, particularly Seymour Canal. Other areas of 
Southeast Alaska may also be important for humpbacks and need to be evaluated. These include: Cape 
Fairweather, Lynn Canal, Sumner Strait, Dixon Entrance, the west coast of Prince of Wales Island, and 
offshore banks such as the Fairweather Grounds. 

Because the humpback inhabits shallow coastal areas, it is increasingly exposed to human activity. Conse- 
quently, these whales may be more susceptible to confrontational disturbance, displacement, and loss of 
habitat from environmental degradation than some other whale species. Humpbacks summering in South- 
east Alaska have been linked to each of three wintering areas in Mexico, Hawaii, and Asia. 


Effects of Chasina Proposed Actions on Population or Habitat 

The recovery plans for the humpback whale identified six known or potential categories of human impacts 
to these species: hunting, entrapment and entanglement in fishing gear, collisions with ships, acoustic 
disturbance, habitat degradation, and competition for resources with humans. 

National Forest management activities which may have an effect on whale habitats or populations generally 
fall into the categories of acoustic disturbance and habitat degradation. These management activities include: 
the development and use of log transfer facilities (LTF’s) and their associated camps, the movement of log 
rafts from log transfer facilities to mills, and the potential development of other docks and associated facilities 
for mining, recreation, and other forest uses and activities. Generally, with the development and use of LTF’s 
and other docking facilities for projects, there is an associated increase in recreational boating in the 
immediate vicinity during the construction and use of the facilities. 

Most of the information and data for whales in Southeast Alaska are associated with one species, the 
humpback whale, because it is the most abundant whale to occur in Southeast Alaska waters. The other 
seven species of whales are either present only seasonally as they migrate along the outer coastal areas, 
or are only occasionally found in the inside coastal waters of Southeast Alaska. The following discussion and 
analysis is primarily based on humpback whales, but is assumed to be applicable to the other species of 
whales. 

Construction and operation of LTF’s and other docking facilities are restricted to small, very localized areas 
of the marine environment. There is one LTF currently on National Forest System lands (Lancaster Cove). An 
estimated 2 acres of marine benthic disturbance associated with this existing LTF’s could occur as a result 
of bark deposition. There are also several LTF’s on Kootznoowoo Inc. lands (Dora Bay and Port Johnson). 
Two additional LTF’s are proposed for construction in various alternatives (Cannery Creek and North Arm 
Moira Sound). Both sites have been checked by USFWS biologists and have been found to be suitable for 
LTF development. 

There is little potential to directly affect whales with these facilities. During the summer of 1989, there was a 
report of a humpback whale entangled in some cables from an inactive LTF site on the Stikine Area. This is 
the only known direct effect incident related to LTF's. 

Two potential indirect effects of LTF’s and other docking facilities and associated activities have been 
identified: 1) effects on whale prey species, and 2) disturbances of whales by boat traffic associated with 
LTF’s. 

Effects on Prey. Nemoto (1970) noted that euphausiids and gregarious fish are the primary prey of hump- 
backs. Thirteen species of fish and 57 species of invertebrates were identified as humpback whale prey in 
Southeast Alaska. Humpbacks studied in Glacier Bay and Stephens Passage-Frederick Sound were found 
most frequently in areas of high prey density (Wing and Krieger 1983). 


Biological Assessment - 6 


APPENDIX D 


Construction and operation of all LTF’s and similar facilities require U.S. Army Corps of Engineer and U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency permits, and State of Alaska tidelands permits. The permitting process 
provides that construction and operation maintain water quality in the specific facility locations, and that 
marine circulation and flushing are maintained. All facilities must be in conformance with permit standards. 
Although the effects may vary locally, the major effect of leachates (ie. terpene, alpha-conindentric acid, 
alpha-conindentrin, hydroxymatairesinol, linoletic acid, and dehydroabientic acid) from stored log rafts, is 
upon invertebrates. 

Crustaceans, shrimp, and crab larvae, seem especially sensitive (Pease 1 973, Buchanan and Tate 1 976). EPA 
measuring techniques may be required to monitor the LC 50 levels at each LTF (Peltier and Weber 1985) in 
order to insure impacts are limited to the approved "zone of deposit”. A local increase in the herring and 
herring egg fishery could also impact this food item. 

Effects from Disturbance. Humpback whale response to nearby boating activity varies from no apparent 
response to pod dispersal, sounding, breaching, evasive underwater maneuvers, and maintaining distance 
(Baker and Herman 1 983, Baker et. al. 1 982). Disturbance by boat activity has been suggested as one of the 
possible causes of observed changes in whale distribution in Southeast Alaska. Direct pursuit of whales by 
boats, and frequent changes in boat speed and direction appear to elicit avoidance behaviors more frequent- 
ly than other types of boat traffic. However, whales may readily habituate to constant and familiar noise (Norris 
and Reeves 1 978). Whales can be commonly found in some areas of Southeast Alaska which have considera- 
ble boat traffic. Whether they are habituated to boat traffic has not yet been documented. Adverse effects from 
current levels of boat traffic have not yet been documented. 

Two basic types of boat activity associated with LTF's are log raft towing and recreational boating by workers. 
Log raft towing frequency would vary between camps, seasons, and years, with an average of about once 
a week during the working season (U.S.D.A. Forest Service 1989). Tug boats maintain relatively constant 
speeds and directions during log raft towing; constant speed and direction elicit less avoidance behavior from 
whales than other types of boating activity. Log raft towing routes are generally well established, and adverse 
effects from log raft towing have not been documented. 

Recreational boating activity by camp residents would vary between seasons, years, and camps of different 
sizes. This activity would be concentrated near LTF sites, other docking facilities, and camps. It is estimated 
that most recreational boating would occur within a few miles of the site, few trips would be made over 10 
miles, and activity greater than 30 miles from a site would be negligible. This boating would involve frequent 
changes in speed and direction and may include some small amount of whale pursuit, if the whales are within 
sight of the camp or an occupied boat. The effect of such recreational activity on whales would depend on 
many factors such as size of the bay, depth of the waters in the bay, number of boats, individual behavior 
responses of the whales, etc. At the present time, there is not a quantifiable way to estimate these possible 
effects. 

The following Forest-wide standards and guidelines have been developed for application on all Forest Service 
permitted or approved activities and will be incorporated into the Chasina DEIS from the Supplement DEIS 
Tongass Land Management Plan by reference: 

Provide for the protection and maintenance of whale habitats: 

1 . Avoid intentional aircraft flights below 500 feet above ground level in the known vicinity of whales 
on Forest Service permitted or approved activities, when weather ceilings permit. 

2. Avoid intentional approach in a vessel of 100 feet or more in length to within 1/4 mile of whales 
on Forest Service permitted or approved activities, when safe passage exists. 

3. Avoid intentional approach in a vessel of less than 100 feet in length to within 100 yards of 
whales on Forest Service permitted or approved activities, when safe passage exists. 


Biological Assessment - 7 


APPENDIX D 


No adverse effects on whales from implementation of Forest management activities are anticipated. Indirect 
effects may be associated with possible increased boating activity, but are mitigated by Forest Service and 
NMFS standard and Guidelines 


STELLER SEA LION ( Eumetopias jubata) 

Distribution and Population 

The Steller (northern) sea lion ranges from Flokkaido, Japan, through the Kuril Islands and Okhotsk Sea, 
Aleutian Islands and central Bering Sea, Gulf of Alaska, Southeast Alaska, and south to central California. 
There is not sufficient information to consider animals in different geographic regions as separate popula- 
tions. The centers of abundance and distribution are the Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian Islands, respectively. 

In 1990, because of an abrupt population decline observed over the last 31 years (primarily in the former 
Soviet Union, Gulf of Alaska, and Aleutian Islands), the NMFS listed the Steller sea lion as a threatened 
species throughout its range. The number of sea lions observed on certain rookeries from Kenai Peninsula 
to Kiska Island declined by 63 percent since 1985 and by 82 percent since 1960. Significant declines have 
also occurred on the Kuril Islands. Information on population trends in Southeast Alaska is sketchy, but what 
data does exist suggests that Southeast populations are stable or perhaps slightly decreasing. 

The cause of overall population declines has not been confirmed. However, incidental mortality of sea lions 
in commercial fishing gear, shooting by fishermen, and reduced prey species due to commercial fishing 
operations have probably contributed significantly to declines (Reeves et al. 1992). 

When the sea lion was given emergency listing as a threatened species in the Federal Register (April 5, 1 990), 
buffer zones restricting human activities were established around rookeries west of 150 degrees west 
longitude (does not include Southeast Alaska). The closest Steller sea lion rookery to the Chasina Project 
Area is on Forrester Island, west of Prince of Wales Island. Sea lion haulouts used for sunning and resting 
occur on Grindall Island, of the south tip of Kasaan Peninsula and Cape Addington on Noyes Island. They 
are not designated as critical habitat. A recovery team has prepared a draft recovery plan. 

Important food resources include walleye pollock, salmon, eulachon, and cephalopod mollusks. Steller sea 
lions forage predominantly in nearshore areas and over the continental shelf. 


Effects of Chasina Proposed Actions on Population or Habitat 

The NMFS provides a summary of factors affecting the Steller sea lion ( Federal Register April 5, 1 991 ). These 
factors include reductions in the availability of food resources, especially pollock, which is the most important 
prey species for sea lions; commercial harvests of sea lion pups; harvests for subsistence and for public 
display and scientific research purposes; predation by sharks, killer whales, and brown bear; disease; the 
inadequacy of existing regulations regarding quotas on the incidental harvesting of sea lions during commer- 
cial fishing operations; other natural or human incidences such as shooting adult sea lions at rookeries, 
haulout sites, and in the water near boats. None of these factors are regulated by or within the jurisdiction 
of the Forest Service. 

Southeast Alaska populations of Steller sea lions have not declined to the extent that other populations have. 
Harassment or displacement of sea lions from preferred habitats by human activities such as boating, 
recreation, aircraft, log transfer facilities, log raft towing, etc., is a concern with regard to long-term conserva- 
tion of the sea lion in Southeast Alaska. Forest-wide standards and guidelines direct the Forest Service to 


Biological Assessment - 8 


APPENDIX D 


prevent and/or reduce potential harassment of sea lions and other marine mammals due to activities carried 
out by or under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service, and these will be incorporated by reference into the 
Chasina DEIS from the Supplement DEIS Tongass Land Management Plan. 

No direct effects on sea lions from Forest management activities are anticipated. Compliance with these 
standards and guidelines will result in no anticipated adverse effects on sea lion populations or their habitats 
for any of the alternatives 


AMERICAN PEREGRINE FALCON (Falco peregrinus anatum) 

Distribution and Population 

The American peregrine falcon is primarily associated with interior Alaska for breeding, nesting and rearing 
of young. The falcon is highly migratory, wintering as far south as northern Argentina and occurring in 
Southeast Alaska only during migration periods (Ambrose, et al., 1988). Reproduction has increased popula- 
tion numbers three-fold in Alaska (ADF&G letter Feb. 6, 1987, Ambrose, et al., 1988, minutes of Interagency 
Wildlife Technical Committee Meeting of March 29, 1991). Population numbers of the American peregrine 
falcon are continuing to increase (ADF&G letter dated February 6, 1987; Ambrose et al. 1988). 


Effects of Chasina Proposed Action on Population or Habitat 

The American peregrine falcon occur in Southeast Alaska only during migration. The primary reason for past 
declines in peregrine falcon populations was the proliferation of organochlorine pesticides, especially DDT 
and its principal metabolite DDE (Ratcliff 1 969; Peskall 1 976; Cade et al. 1971; Peskall and K(ff 1 979; USFWS 
1982). No organochlorine pesticides are authorized for use on the Tongass National Forest. 

During migration through Southeast Alaska, the availability and abundance of prey species will most likely 
be the primary habitat factor affecting peregrine falcons. In coastal areas of Washington, the primary prey 
species for peregrine falcons were shorebirds and waterfowl species; passerine birds were also identified in 
the diet (Anderson and Debruyn 1 979; Anderson et al. 1 980). It is assumed that food sources would be similar 
for coastal Alaska. Peregrines forage over open sites such as over bodies of water, marshes, grasslands, and 
shorelines, as well as above wooded areas. Peregrines attack flying prey from above or by chasing them. 
Although they forage over wide areas, they also have preferred foraging sites (White 1974). 

Actual migration routes and patterns, and foraging areas, have not been identified for these two subspecies 
of peregrines in Southeast Alaska. Forest-wide standards and guidelines have been developed for protecting 
seabird rookeries and waterfowl concentration areas (pages 4-1 02 to 4-104 in U.S.D. A. Forest Service 1 991 b). 
A wide variety of passerine (perching and song) birds will be available from numerous open and forested 
communities under all alternatives associated with the Chasina Project. 

No adverse effects on American peregrine falcon populations or their habitats are anticipated with any Forest 
management activities under any of the alternatives. 


Biological Assessment - 9 


APPENDIX D 


ALEUTIAN CANADA GOOSE (Branta canadensis leucopareia) 

Distribution and Population 

The breeding, nesting, and rearing of young Aleutian Canada geese is primarily associated with the Aleutian 
Islands. The Aleutian Canada goose winters in western Oregon, and in northwestern and central California. 
Although their movements within Alaska are not well known, the Aleutian Canada goose may occur in 
Southeast Alaska during migration. Population numbers in Alaska are increasing, and the USFWS is consider- 
ing removing the species from the threatened list. 


Effects of Chasina Proposed Action on Population or Habitat 

The Aleutian Canada goose is not primarily associated with Southeast Alaska. Although migration patterns 
in Alaska are not well known, Aleutian Canada geese may occur in Southeast Alaska as migrants. Due to the 
limited use of the Project Area by Aleutian Canada geese, no adverse effects on their population by any of 
the alternatives is anticipated. 


ESKIMO CURLEW ( Numenius borealis) 

Distribution and Population 

The Eskimo curlew is primarily associated with western and northern Alaska. The Eskimo curlew is rare and 
not typically found in Southeast Alaska, but it may occur as a migrant. 

Effects of Chasina Proposed Action on Population or Habitat 

Due to the limited use of the Project Area by the Eskimo curlew, no adverse effects on their population by 
any of the alternatives is anticipated. 


III. SPECIES of CONCERN ASSESSMENTS 


ALEXANDER ARCHIPELAGO WOLF (Canis lupus ligoni) 

Taxonomic Status and Range 

The Alexander Archipelago wolf is a small subspecies of the gray wolf (Goldman 1937, Pedersen 1983), 
similar in appearance to the Vancouver Island wolf (C./. crassodon). Kirchhoff (1 992) described the Alexander 
Archipelago wolf as occurring on the Southeast Alaska mainland and all large island in Southeast Alaska 
except for Admiralty, Baranof, and Chichagof. 

On December 17, 1993, the USFWS received a petition from the Biodiversity Legal Foundation to list the 
Alexander Archipelago wolf of Southeast Alaska as threatened pursuant to the Endangered Species Act. On 
May 13, 1994, the USFWS found that the petitioners had presented substantial information indicating that 


Biological Assessment - 10 


APPENDIX D 


listing may be warranted and a status review of the species was initiated. On February 1 6, 1 995, the USFWS 
found that there was not enough scientific evidence to warrant listing. 

The primary food of most Southeast Alaskan wolves is deer (Wood 1990, Person 1993). Beaver, mountain 
goat, and moose are also primary prey in some mainland areas and spawning salmon are fed on when 
available (Wood 1990). Alexander Archipelago wolf abundance is likely linked to deer abundance and 
availability, particularily in southern island habitats (Suring et al. 1988, Wood 1990, Person 1993). 

Based on field observations, discussions with trappers and anedotal information, the wolf population in 
Southeast Alaska is estimated to be 635 to 690 individuals, distributed in 85 packs (Morgan 1 990). However, 
Person (per. comm. 1994, as cited in USFWS letter) estimates that the current Southeast population is 1,000 
individuals and that 30-40 percent of them occupy Prince of Wales Island. 

Many studies have shown that wolf abundance may be correlated with road density (Theil 1985, Jensen et 
al. 1986, Mech et al. 1988, Fuller 1989). In one study, wolves generally were not present where the density 
of roads used by humans exceeded 0.93 mi/sq mi (0.58 km/sq km) (Mech et al. 1988). However, other work 
has suggested that wolves could exist in areas with higher densities if these areas were adjacent to roadless 
areas (Mech et al. 1988). The primary threat of high road densities is the increased access to humans who 
kill wolves by shooting, snaring, or trapping (Van Balleriberghe et al. 1975, Mech 1977). 

Based on application of the Tongass Habitat Capability Model for the gray wolf (see Chasina DEIS), habitat 
capability declined by about 16% in the Project Area between pre-logging and existing conditions. This 
decline is directly related to a reduction in deer habitat capability associated with conversion of old-growth 
forest to young second growth. Accompanying this decline has been an increase in road density associated 
with logging activities. Road density under existing conditions is approximately 1 .6 mi/sq mi across the Project 
Area when including native and state ownership, and .34 mi/sq mi when only considering roads on National 
Forest System lands. 

Effects of Chasina Proposed Action on Population or Habitat 

Implementation of any of the Chasina Project action alternatives will result in a reduction in deer habitat 
capability. Wolf habitat capability is predicted to be reduced in proportion to the reduction in deer habitat 
capability. The wolf habitat capability reduction is predicted to range from 4 percent for Alternative 2 to 16 
percent for Alternative 6, and 7, 10, and 9 percent respectively for Alternatives 3, 4 and 5. 

Road densities will also increase in the Project Area as a result of implementation of one of the action 
alternatives. Total road density would range from 0.46 mi/sq mi for Alternative 2 and 1 .3 mi/sq mi for Alternative 
6 after implementation. However, the effect of increased road density would be substantially mitigated by 
access management and the fact that the road system in the Project Area is not connected to a population 
center (not connected to a road system to Craig, Thorne Bay, Hydaburg etc.). 

Because of the reduction in deer habitat capability and the increase in road density associated with imple- 
mentation of one of the action alternatives, the Chasina Project may affect the Alexander Archipelago wolf. 

ARTIC PEREGRINE FALCON (Falco peregrinus tundris) 

Distribution and Population 

The Artie peregrine falcon is primarily associated with the area north of the Brooks Range and Seward 
Peninsula; it is highly migratory, wintering as far south as northern Argentina (Ambrose et al. 1988). It occurs 
in Southeast Alaska only during miration periods. Population numbers have increased three-fold in Alaska 
(ADF&G letter Feb. 1987; Ambrose et al. 1988; minutes of Interagency Wildlife Technical Committee Meeting 


Biological Assessment - 11 


APPENDIX D 


of March 20, 1991). Effective November 4, 1994, the USFWS removed the species from the threatened list. 
It now has the status of a species of concern. 

Effects of Chasina Proposed Action on Population or Habitat 

As described for the American peregrine falcon, no effects on the population or habitat of the Artie peregrine 
falcon are anticipated due to the Chasina action alternatives. 

MARBLED MURRELET ( Brachyramphus marmoratum) 

The marbled murrelet is a small seabird that belongs to the family Alcidae. It is found throughout the North 
Pacific. The North American subspecies (B. m. marmoratus ) ranges from the Aleutian Archipelago in Alaska, 
eastward to Cook Inlet, Kodiak Island, Kenai Peninsula, and Prince William Sound, southward coastally 
throughout the Alexander Archipelago of Alaska and through British Columbia, Washington, Oregon to 
central California, with individuals wintering as far south as southern California (Marshall 1 988, USFWS 1 992). 
The species feeds below the water’s surface on small fish and invertebrates in near-shore marine waters 
(Marshall 1988, USFWS 1992). 

Marbled murrelets nest on land or in trees and lay only one egg. They are semi-colonial in their nesting 
habitats; nesting marbled murrelets are often aggregated (USFWS 1992). Alaska is the only state where 
marbled murrelets are known to nest on the ground in treeless areas. At least 18 ground nests have been 
identified with certainty as of 1 994, based on sightings of the incubating bird (Mendenhall 1 992, pers. comm., 
K. Nelson, Oregon Coop. Wildl. Res. Unit, Corvallis 1995 as cited in Polk Inlet BA/BE). Through 1994, a 
minimum of 73 tree nests have been located in North America (26 in Oregon, 6 in Washington, 1 1 in California, 
1 1 in British Columbia and 1 9 in Alaska). Of 47 nests found in Washington, Oregon and California where data 
were available, all were located in old-growth trees that ranged in diameter at breast height from 35 inches 
to 21 0 inches. Nest trees located in Alaska ranged from 1 2 to 41 inches DBH (pers. comm., K. Nelson as cited 
in Polk Inlet BA/BE). Nests were located high above the ground and usually had good overhead protection 
(USFWS 1 992). Both males and females incubate the eggs; one bird stays at the nest for 24 hours, while the 
other is feeding on the ocean. After hatching their young, the adults stay at the nest with the young bird for 
only about four days. After that, the young bird is left alone in the nest, except when the adults return to the 
nest to feed it (Interagency Meeting Records June 12, 1989). 

Except for the fall period when they are molting, flightless, and stay on the ocean, birds have been known 
to fly to tree stands every month of the year. In Washington, birds have been recorded up to 50 miles inland 
(Hamer and Cummins 1991, in USFWS 1992). 

Overview of work in Alaska. There is a current upland study of marbled murrelets on Naked Island in Prince 
William Sound. In the study area, murrelets flew most frequently into two areas with steep slopes facing west, 
and 70-80% cover of hemlock old-growth. A cursory review of the small sample suggested greater murrelet 
use of inland areas at the heads of bays as opposed to the outer peninsulas. Slopes facing northeast, west 
or southwest may have greater use than slopes facing north, northeast or southeast on Naked Island (Kuletz 
1991). 

A cooperative pilot study/survey between the Forest Service and the USFWS began in the summer of 1991, 
to evaluate possible at-sea survey techniques. Data from this study will be used to develop a statistically valid 
sampling design for a region-wide inventory to ascertain abundance and distribution of marbled murrelets 
in Southeast Alaska. This work will continue in 1993 and will include studies to evaluate factors which affect 
daily and seasonal distributions of murrelets. 

Marbled murrelets are common along the coast of the Project Area. Boat transect surveys were conducted 
along the shoreline of logged and unlogged areas by the Craig and Misty Fiords Ranger Districts in 1991; 


Biological Assessment - 12 


APPENDIX D 


these surveys counted 7.5 and 10 marbled murrelets respectively, per kilometer traveled parallel to the 
shoreline in transects 200 meters wide. Assuming that marbled murrelets along the Prince of Wales Island 
coast nest within the Chasina Project Area, and assuming a consen/ative estimate of seven marbled murrelets 
per kilometer of shoreline for the Project Area, then Chasina (270 km of shoreline) might provide habitat for 
1,890 marbled murrelets. This figure is likely low, because the Craig and Misty survey figures were for 200 
meter wide transects, not for all distances out from the shoreline. The estimate for Chasina assumes that the 
figure from the survey vicinity can be extrapolated to Chasina and that birds nest in the general vicinity of 
where they are seen at sea. 

In 1984 during a marbled murrelet research project conducted by the ADF&G, a tree nest was found on 
Baranof Island. This nest was on a large horizontal limb, 82 feet up in a mountain hemlock tree. In 1989, two 
more tree nests were found in California. Both nests were in large Douglas-fir trees, on large horizontal limbs, 
and were watched 24 hours a day. A newly hatched bird at one of these nests was carried off by a raven 
(Interagency Meeting Records, June 12, 1989). Thorne Bay Ranger District personnel collected data on a 
nesting stand on Prince of Wales Island in 1990, An occupied marbled murrelet ground nest was found in 
1992 on Thorne Bay Ranger District. Stand data were collected in association with this sighting. 

In 1992, marbled murrelet at-sea surveys were conducted in the Project Area (Lancaster Cove, Kitkun Bay, 
and Dora Bay) on July 22. The number of murrelets surveyed were 255 in Lancaster Cove (8 km), 31 in Kitkun 
Bay (6.5 km) and 80 in Dora Bay (8 km), which averaged 1 6.5 murrelets/km of survey. In 1 995 morning counts 
were conducted from the Tongass Ranger boat while anchored in McLean Arm and Hunter Bay (SW Prince 
of Wales Island, approximately 20 south of Project Area). The morning of July 14th, 23 birds were counted 
in McLean Arm and on July 14th, 44 marbled murrelets were counted in Hunter Bay. 

Old growth removal is not the only factor which may be influencing murrelet populations; other known factors 
include oil spills, predation, and commercial fishing (murrelets are caught in fishing nets). Mendenhall (1992) 
estimated the marbled murrelet population for Southeast Alaska ranged from 75,000 to 150,000 during the 
summer, based on surveys by M. McAllister from 1981-1988. C.J. Ralph et al. (1995) estimated the marbled 
murrelet population in the Alexander Archipelage to be approximately 96,200, based on at-sea survey data. 

Effects of Chasina Proposed Action on Population or Habitat 

No nesting sites for marbled murrelets have been identified within the Project Area, although eggshells were 
found at several sites. It is assumed that much of the old-growth forest within the project area is suitable 
nesting habitat. 

Since all inland forest stands on the Tongass National Forest are less than 25 miles from salt water, all could 
be potential marbled murrelet nesting habitat (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1992). However, these birds 
more commonly occupy larger stands (greater than 500 acres) than smaller stands (less titan 100 acres) in 
California; marbled murrelets are usually absent from stands less than 60 acres in size (Paton and Ralph 1 988, 
Ralph et al. 1 990). Without precise knowledge to delineate the differences, all old-growth habitat greater than 
8 MBF/acre is assumed to be suitable for nesting. 

All action alternatives will harvest stands which may be capable of providing nesting habitat (old-growth 
forests) for marbled murrelets. Table 3 shows that Alternative 2 harvests 5 percent, Alternative 3 harvests 8 
percent, Alternatives 4 harvests 12 percent, alternative 5 harvests 9 percent, and Alternative 6 harvests 17 
percent of the old-growth habitat (VC 4-7) in the Project Area, leaving at least 19,953 acres of old-growth 
unharvested. 

Timber harvesting will reduce the amount of nesting habitat for marbled murrelets. Due to the amount of 
unknowns associated with marbled murrelets, such as no identified limiting factors, or the amount of old- 


Biological Assessment - 13 


APPENDIX D 


growth currently being used; it is not known what the actual effects of timber harvest will be. Fragmentation 
or increased edge effects may also reduce habitat capability for marbled murrelets. 

If the current population assumptions found in the Distribution and Population section are correct, and if it 
is assumed that nesting habitat is the limiting factor for the population, then a reduction in nesting habitat 
may have a proportional effect on the population. If so, then after a 17 percent reduction in potential nesting 
habitat (T able 2), the Chasina Project Area might still support 1 ,569 or more birds. This assumes no influence 
caused by fragmentation or increased edge, and a uniform use of the available, suitable habitat. 

In summary, the Chasina Project may effect marbled murrelets, but the extent of this effect is unknown. 


Table 2 

Acres and Percent of Wildlife Habitats Proposed for Harvest, by Alternative 




Alt. 1 

Alt. 2 

Alt. 3 

Alt. 4 

Alt. 5 

Alt. 

6 

Habitat 

Existing 

Acres % 

Acres % 

Acres % 

Acres % 

Acres % 

Acres 

% Chg 


Acres 

Cut Chg 

Cut Chg 

Cut Chg 

Cut Chg 

Cut Chg 

Cut 


Old Growth 

24,178 

0 0 

1,160 5 

1 ,900 8 

2,891 12 

2,261 9 

4,225 

17 


SOURCE: Matson 1996. Data derived from GIS data base. 


Murrelet nests are exceedingly difficult to find, and no intensive nest searches in Chasina harvest units are 
planned. However, if any nests are discovered, they will be protected by a minimum 30 acre buffer to maintain 
microclimatic conditions around the nest tree. If research, monitoring, or administrative studies uncover new 
information addressing murrelets in Southeast Alaska, they will be reviewed for use in and/or replacement 
of this guideline. 


QUEEN CHARLOTTE GOSHAWK {Accipiter gentilis laingi) 

Distribution and Population 

The American Ornithologists Union (AOU) recognizes two subspecies of the northern goshawk in North 
America, Accipiter gentilis atricapillus and A.g. laingi , the Queen Charlotte goshawk (AOU 1957). Taverner 
(1940) first described the darker plumaged Queen Charlotte goshawk as a distinct race occurring in the 
coastal temperate rainforests of the Queen Charlotte Islands and Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Web- 
ster (1 988) found that the Queen Charlotte goshawk occurred from Vancouver Island north to the Taku River 
near Juneau. The northern goshawk is identified as a species of concern throughout its range. 

On May 9, 1994, the USFWS received a petition from the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity and 
numerous co-petitioners, to list the Queen Charlotte goshawk as endangered pursuant to the Endangered 
Species Act. On August 1 9, 1 994, the USFWS found that the information presented by the petitioners together 
with the information in USFWS files was substantial and indicated that listing may be warranted. Therefore, 
a status review of the species was initiated. After seeking publics and reviewing all the available information 
on the goshawk, a finding was issued June 28, 1995, that protection under the Endangered Species Act is 
not warranted at this time for the Queen Charlotte goshawk. 

The goshawk is a wide-ranging forest raptor that generally occurs in low densities, from 2.4 pairs (Central 
Alaska, McGowan 1975) to 1 1.0 pairs (Arizonia, Crocker-Bedford and Cheney 1988) per 100 square kilome- 
ters, although population densities in Southeast Alaska may be much lower (Crocker-Bedford 1992). The 
most recent estimates of the goshawk population in Southeast Alaska range from 100 to 381 pairs (USDA 


Biological Assessment - 14 


APPENDIX D 


Forest Service 1991a; Crocker-Bedford 1994) to 100 to 800 pairs (Alaska Interagency Goshawk Committee, 
Report of June 30, 1994). 

As of December, 1991, the Alaska Region Status Report for USDA Region 10 Sensitive Species Consider- 
ation, stated, "The two factors causing concern for the goshawk in southeast Alaska are: low current 
population numbers and potential declines in habitat capability. Both factors expose the Queen Charlotte 
Goshawk to increased susceptibility to local or widespread extirpation. A review of goshawk observations 
during the past decade has revealed 1 6 confirmed or probable nesting sites in southeast Alaska. "There was 
a high association between goshawk nesting stands and higher volume/tree size stands: 8 (50%) of the 16 
sites were clearcut or planned for timber harvest until the goshawk nests were found" (Iverson unpubl. rep.). 
This relationship has also been established in other parts of the goshawks range. Recent results of studies 
within the range of the Queen Charlotte goshawk(ADF&G 1993, Titus et al. 1994), indicated a greater 
frequency of relocations of radio-tagged goshawks in mature and old-growth forest. Of 1 8 nest trees for which 
habitat attributes were characterized, 1 6 were in old-growth and two were in second growth trees greater than 
90 years of age. Of 661 radio relocations, over 90% were in habitat classified as volume class 4 or greater 
and 68% were in habitats classified as volume class 5 or greater (Titus et al. 1994). 

Home ranges have been reported to be 2,000 to 3,200 hectares (Reynolds 1983). These home ranges may 
include a mosaic of habitat types, with a strong preference for mature forest with flight space beneath the 
canopy (Reynolds 1989, USDA Forest Service 1990). Home range size is strongly dependent upon quality 
of the foraging habitat and prey availability (Kenward 1982). Titus et al. 1994 reported breeding period home 
ranges for 16 adult goshawks in Southeast Alaska as large as 19,613 hectares and year-round home ranges 
as large as 114,728 hectares. 

A recent review of the Queen Charlotte goshawk summarized habitat use as follows (Crocker-Bedford 1 994): 

"Analyses of habitat use have shown similar results throughout the geographical range of the northern 
goshawk in the United States. Home ranges include stands of large trees for nesting, as well as for greater 
abundance of some prey. The higher canopy provided by large trees, along with sparser than normal shrubs 
and small trees, appears to facilitate goshawk flight and prey capture. Closed canopies appear to provide 
preferred microclimate in the nesting stand, increased productivity of some important prey species, and 
reduced competition and predation by open-forest raptors. A literature review indicated that goshawk 
densities tend to decrease with the amount of timber harvest, and that goshawks may sometimes be impacted 
by forest fragmentation. In Southeast Alaska 92 percent of the relocations on radio-tagged goshawks were 
in old-growth forests having over 8 mbf/ac. Old-growth having over 20 mbf/ac was most preferred." 

Goshawks generally select forest stands with large trees on gentle slopes at lower elevations for nesting and 
foraging (Reynolds 1 989, USDA Forest Service 1 990). Foraging habitat is generally characterized by a greater 
diversity of age classes and structural characteristics (e.g., snags, woody debris) than nesting areas; foraging 
areas also comprise the largest percentage of goshawk home ranges (Reynolds et al. 1991). Goshawks feed 
primarily on ground-dwelling birds and small animals. 

Goshawk sensitivity to timber harvest has resulted in management recommendations to protect nest site 
integrity (USDA Forest Service 1 990, USDA Forest Sen/ice 1 991 a, USDA Forest Service Alaska Region 1 992, 
USDA Forest Service 1 994). Other management recommendations recognized the importance of the foraging 
area within the post-fledging area (Crocker-Bedford 1990, USDA Forest Sen/ice 1991, and USDA Forest 
Service Alaska Region 1992). There is now widespread recognition of the importance of most foraging habitat, 
including areas far from the nesting site (Reynolds 1989, USDA Forest Service 1990, Crocker-Bedford 1990, 
Crocker-Bedford 1991, Crocker-Bedford 1992, USDA Forest Service 1992, Marshall 1992). 

Twenty-one goshawk nest areas were documented in Southeast Alaska with activity between 1 990 and 1 993 
(Titus et al. 1994). In 1994, a total of 33 historic and current sites with at least one documented nest were 


Biological Assessment - 15 


APPENDIX D 


checked; active nests were located at 21 of these sites (ADF&G 1994). Goshawk nesting has not been 
observed in the Chasina Project Area. 

Inventories were conducted in the Project Area during the summer of 1 995 by Craig Ranger District personnel 
utilizing the Alaska Region Goshawk survey protocol. Goshawk calls were broadcast from more than 326 call 
stations in approximately 68 harvest units. There were not any responses to the calls and no confirmed 
sightings. More than 84 biologist days were spent surveying the Project Area. Although the inventory 
techniques were among the best available, there is a high likelihood that nests were missed even in the stands 
that were sampled (Kimmel, J. T. and R. H. Yahner 1 990; Kennedy et al., in press; and ADF&G 1 992 Goshawk 
Survey Progress Report). Any pairs of goshawks missed to date will not be protected unless chance 
observations are made during the timber sale layout process. 


On August 18, 1992, the Alaska Region issued Interim Management Guidelines for the goshawk on the 
Tongass National Forest. A review and evaluation of the guidelines will occur. All units laid out for the Final 
EIS will follow the management guidelines for goshawks in effect at the time of layout. 

Effects of Chasina Proposed Action on Populations or Habitat 

None of the alternatives propose timber harvest of known nest areas or designated post fledging areas. 
Alternatives that harvest the most timber would have the greatest potential to effect goshawks, therefore the 
Chasina Project may effect Queen Charlotte goshawks. 

Any pairs of goshawks not discovered prior to timber harvest may be affected if the harvest units correspond 
to key stands of habitat. Any goshawk nest found prior to harvest will be protected utilizing the current 
goshawk management guidelines, which normally provide more careful management only within the post 
fledging area. 


HARLEQUIN DUCK ( Histrionicus histrionicus) 

Distribution and Population 

The harlequin duck’s range is divided into two separate and distinct regions: eastern and western. The 
eastern range embraces Iceland, parts of Greenland, and Labrador, with the winter range extending as far 
south as New Jersey. The western range includes northeast Siberia west to the Lena River, east to the 
Kamchatka Peninsula and the Commander Islands and north to the Arctic Circle, then across the Bering Sea 
to the Aleutian Islands, much of interior Alaska, and south to northwest Wyoming and central California 
(Bellrose 1980). For Alaska, the harlequin duck has been reported as a fairly common year-round resident, 
and at one season or another, has been recorded over much of the State, except the Arctic coast (Gabrielson 
and Lincoln 1959). 

Available evidence indicates that the species breeds locally over much of southern Alaska, probably the 
Aleutians, and north to Anaktuvuk Pass. All ornithologists who have worked during the spring and summer 
months in the Alexander Archipelago and other parts of Southeast Alaska, have commented upon the 
numbers of these ducks, frequently summarizing their observations by stating that they were common or 
abundant (Gabrielson and Lincoln 1959). 

Harlequins nest along inland rivers and streams. Usually the nest site is usually 6 feet (but up to 60 feet) from 
water (DeGraff et al. 1991). The site chosen usually has shelter overhead - a recess in a stream bank, or 
among rocks, or under shrubs, trees, or stranded debris. Occasionally the nest is in an open area, but under 


Biological Assessment - 16 


APPENDIX D 


shrubbery of other low vegetation, or even on a stream bar. There is no proof that harlequins nest in tree 
cavities (Bellrose 1980; Armstong et al. 1983; Kortright 1962; Godfrey 1979; Palmer 1975). During the winter 
the harlequin duck is common to abundant in the coastal waters of Southeast Alaska, Prince William Sound, 
Cook Inlet, the bays of the Alaska Peninsula, the Aleutians and the Pribilofs (Gabrielson and Lincoln 1959). 
Preferred winter habitat is reported to be areas along surf-pounded rocky coasts not in sheltered bays and 
fjords, but instead where water is one to two fathoms deep and turbulent, and where bottom fauna abounds 
(Palmer 1975). 

Harlequins feed on molluscs, crustaceans, insects, fish, and echinoderms (Bellrose 1980). 

Effects on Population or Habitat 

Nesting habitat for the harlequin duck occurs along inland rivers and streams. Riparian habitats along all 
rivers and streams on the Forest will be managed according to the Stream and Lake Protection management 
prescription or a more restrictive management prescription (such as when a stream or river is in a Wilderness 
Area). The Stream and Lake Protection Management Prescription is on pages 3-180 to 3-205 of the TLMP 
Revision SDEIS Proposed Revised Forest Plan and have been adopted by the Chasina Project. Nesting 
habitat requirements are expected to be maintained. Since winter habitat occurs in the marine environment, 
in areas of high surf and rocky beaches, no effect on harlequin ducks is anticipated with any alternatives of 
the Chasina Project. 


OLIVE-SIDED FLYCATCHER ( Contopus borealis) 

Distribution and Population 

The olived-sided flycatcher breeds in wooded regions from central Alaska east to Newfoundland and south 
to northern Baja California and central Arizonia in the west, central Minnesota and northern Michigan in the 
Central States, and North Carolina and Tennessee in the East. The species winters in South America. 

It inhabits open coniferous forests and forest edges along lakes, streams, and muskegs (Bent 1 942). Godfrey 
(1979) described the habitat of the species as "Burntlands with standing dead trees, bogs, lakeshores with 
water-killed trees, lumbered areas, and other clearings in woodland". DellaSala et al. (1994) noted that the 
species was often observed using habitats associated with lakes and muskegs during a breeding bird study 
on central Prince of Wales Island. 


Effects of Chasina Proposed Action on Population or Habitat 

| 

Riparian habitats along all lakes, rivers, and streams on the Forest will be managed according to the Stream 
and Lake Protection management prescription or a more restrictive precription (such as when a stream or 
river is in a Wilderness Area). The Stream and Lake Protection management prescription is on pages 3-180 
to 3-205 of the Proposed Revised Forest Plan in the TLMP Draft Revision (1991b) and has been adopted by 
the Chasina Project. 

Upland habitat value for the olive-sided flycatcher may improve due to logging in the Chasina Project. Created 
openings will produce greater edge, and if reserve trees and snags are retained, flycatcher habitat could 
actually be improved. Therefore, though the Project may affect olive-sided flycatcher habitat, the effect is likely 
to be positive. 


Biological Assessment - 17 


APPENDIX D 


SPOTTED FROG (Rana pretiosa) 

Distribution and Population 

The spotted frog occurs in or near fresh water and is believed to range south from the Taku river, other 
transboundary rivers and some islands of Southeast Alaska and British Columbria (Holmberg, April 1 7, 1 992). 
Spotted frogs have been documented in the Stikine River basin (Waters 1992). Presence of spotted frogs on 
Prince of Wales Island has not been confirmed. 

Effects of Chasina Proposed Action on Population or Habitat 

Riparian habitats along all lakes, rivers and streams on the Forest will be managed according to the Stream 
and Lake Protection management prescription or a more restrictive management prescription (such as when 
a stream or river is in a Wilderness Area). The Stream and Lake Protection Management Prescription is on 
pages 3-180 to 3-205 of the TLMP Revision SDEIS and have been adopted by the Chasina Project. With 
implementation of Stream and Lake Management Prescriptions, no effects on the spotted frog is anticipated 
by the Chasina Project, even if they are found to occur within the Project Area. 


BULL TROUT ( Salvelinus confluentus) 

Distribution and Population 

Although the range of Bull trout in the contiguous United States has become greatly restricted in recent times 
(Goetz as cited in Has and McPhail 1991), it still exists as far south as the Oregon-California border, north 
through Canada and in the Yukon River system in Alaska (Haas and McPhail 1991). Bull trout are largely 
confined to interior regions throughout their distribution, only reaching the Pacific coast in the Puget Sound 
area of Washington and in the Fraser River drainage in British Columbia (Haas and McPhail 1991). Since bull 
trout have only been observed in the interior drainage of other major river systems, it is not likely that bull trout 
occur in the streams of the Chasina Project Area. 


Effects of Chasina Proposed Action on Population or Habitat 

Riparian habitats along all lakes, rivers and streams on the Forest will be managed according to the Stream 
and Lake Protection management prescription or a more restrictive management prescription (such as when 
a stream or river is in a Wilderness Area). The Stream and Lake Protection Management Prescription is on 
pages 3-180 to 3-205 of the TLMP Revision SDEIS and have been adopted by the Chasina Project. With 
implementation of Stream and Lake Management Prescriptions, no effects on the bull trout is anticipated by 
the Chasina Project, even if they are found to occur within the Project Area. 


Biological Assessment - 18 


APPENDIX D 


PLANT SPECIES of CONCERN 


Aster yukonensis 

This taxon is known from an area near Betties, north of the Yukon River, and from the north side (continental 
side) of the St. Elias Range, north of Yakutat (Murray and Lipkin 1987). The plant would not be expected to 
occur in the Project Area (DeMeo 1992). 

Searches for candidate and sensitive plants were made by interdisciplinary-trained teams and trained 
botanists of the Project Area. No observations of this species were made. Sine e Aster yukonensis is not known 
to occur in the Project Area, there are no anticipated effects of the Chasina proposed action on its population 
or habitat. 


CaSamagrostis crassiglumis 

Disjunct populations of this grass are known along the Pacific coast from Kodiak Island south to northern 
California. The plant grows in marshy wet areas, muddy areas near lakes, beach meadows, and rocky soil. 
This plant does not grow in muskeg habitats (Muller 1991). Based on collections in Alaska and British 
Columbia, the plant may be found in the Project Area. 

No observations of this species were made during field reconnaissance. Furthermore, this species is not 
known to occur in forested areas; therefore, no direct effects from timber harvest are anticipated. Changes 
in drainage due to roading or other activities may affect habitat and populations of the plant (DeMeo 1992). 
Stream, estuary, and lakeshore buffers should provide adequate protection for this plant. 


Carex lenticularis var. dolia 

This sedge is known to be in the coastal mountains of southern Alaska and may be expected to occur in the 
Project Area (DeMeo 1992). 

No observations of this species were made during field reconnaissance. This species is not known to occur 
in forested areas; therefore, there are no effects anticipated from timber harvest (DeMeo 1992). 


Montia bostockii 

This small herb occurs in alpine and subalpine meadows in the Brooks Range through the Wrangell-St. Elias 
Range (Muller 1991). It would not be expected to occur in the Project Area. 

No observations of this species were made during field reconaissance. Since Montia bostockii is not known 
to occur in the Project Area, there are no effects anticipated from Chasina timber harvest activities (DeMeo 
1992). 


Biological Assessment - 19 


APPENDIX D 


IV. SENSITIVE SPECIES EVALUATION 


OSPREY (Pandion haliaetus) 


Ospreys occur in low numbers in Southeast Alaska during the spring/summer nesting period from late April 
through August. They are believed to overwinter in Mexico and Central America. All documented osprey nest 
sites occur outside the Chasina Project Area. There are eight documented osprey nest sites and four known 
nesting pairs at Thomas Bay, Wrangell Narrows near Finger Point, and near the mouth of McCormick Creek 
on Wrangell Island (Hughes, undated, as cited in Forest Service 1991b). Nest trees in these areas consist 
of broken-top spruce (live or dead) and snags of western hemlock in hemlock/spruce forest types near 
streams or coastal beaches. Historically, the Southeast Alaska population of osprey appears to have re- 
mained stable but low. It is unknown why osprey occur in relatively low numbers in this region, but available 
nest sites and foraging areas do not appear to be limiting factors. 


Effects of Chasina Proposed Action on Population or Habitat 


The Chasina Project is not expected to affect nesting osprey as no known nest sites occur in the Project Area 
and availability of nesting and foraging areas does not appear to be a factor limiting population growth. In 
addition, minimal or no effect on preferred osprey habitat are expected from project activities as uncut buffers 
will be maintained near streams, lakes, and coastal areas. If nests are discovered in the Project Area, standard 
and guidelines outlined in the Forest Plan will be followed. 


TRUMPETER SWAN (Cygnus buccinator) 


The swan is the largest waterfowl species in the world. Its present range is only a vestige of the once vast 
region of North America that it frequented in both summer and winter (Bellrose 1980). Trumpeter swans 
breeding in Alaska spend the winter along the Pacific Coast from the Alaska Peninsula to the mouth of the 
Columbia River, where they take advantage of open waters of saltwater estuaries and freshwater lakes and 
rivers. Trumpeter swans are present in the Project Area primarily during the fall and early spring migration 
periods and during winter. The only documented nesting trumpeter swans occur north of the Project Area 
at Yakutat (19 pairs). Nests in Southeast Alaska occur in wetlands and/or riparian habitat along streams, 
rivers, lakes and ponds. 

No high use resting stops/wintering areas for swans have been found in the Project Area, however during 
the 1995 winter swan survey 3 swans were observed in Dora Bay. 


Effects of Chasina Proposed Action on Population or Habitat 

Most timber harvest activity will not be in conflict with the TLMP Draft Revision (1991a) standards and 
guidelines for trumpeter swans, since swans are not present in the Project Area when most of the timber 
harvest activity occurs. There is a potential for conflict when swans are migrating through or returning to 
wintering areas. Noise from road construction, timber harvest, and hauling of logs could frighten swans away 


Biological Assessment - 20 


APPENDIX D 


from their preferred resting and feeding areas. However, limiting timber harvest operations to periods when 
swans are not present (April 1 through November 1 ) would mitigate these potential impacts. While swans have 
been observed in Dora Bay during the last survey, Kitkun Bay and the head of South Arm are two potential 
areas that swans could use as wintering areas. 


GOOSE GRASS SEDGE (Carex lenticularis var. dolia) 

This sedge is known to occur in the coastal mountains of Alaska and British Columbia and the Rocky 
Mountains from Jasper, B.C., south to Glacier National Park, Montana. Its range in Alaska is limited to the 
alpine of coastal Southcentral and Southeast Alaska and the Aleutian Islands. There are nine documented 
occurrences in Alaska (Forest Service 1994), in Southeast, at the Mendenhall Glacier, Bailey Bay on Cleve- 
land Peninsula, and the Chickamin Glacier. This species is not known to be found within the Project Area. 
Its habitat is wet alpine meadows and bare edges of snowbeds. 

No observations of this species were made during field reconnaissance of harvest units and roads. This 
species is not known to occur in forested areas; therefore, there are no effects anticipated from timber harvest. 


Edible Thistle (Cirsium edule) 

This regionally endemic thistle species is distributed primarily along coastal Oregon, Washington, and British 
Columbia and barely reaches southern most Southeast Alaska. The only documented occurrence is near 
Hyder in interior Southeast Alaska near the border of Canada (Forest Service 1994). It is not expected to occur 
in the Project Area. Its habitat in Alaska is characterized as wet meadows and open woods along glacial 
streams. 

No observations of this species were made during field reconnaissance and no sightings have been docu- 
mented in the Project Area. Since timber harvest activities generally avoids wet meadows and stream margins 
where this species would be expected to be found, no direct effects from timber harvest are anticipated even 
if the species were to occur in the Project Area. 


DAVY MANNAGRASS (Glyceria leptostachya) 

This grass species is distributed from Southeast Alaska to central California. Its distribution in Alaska is limited 
to central and southern Southeast Alaska. It is known to occur in only two documented locations: near 
Wrangell Alaska and on Prince of Wales Island, however it is easily overlooked and likely to be more 
widespread in Southeast (Forest Service 1994). 

No observations of this species was made during field reconnaissance and there are no documented 
sightings of this plant in the project area. No impacts to this population as a result of road construction and 
timber harvest are anticipated because stream and lakeshore buffers should provide adequate protection for 
this plant. 


WRIGHT FILMY FERN (Hymenophyllum wrightii) 

This fern species occurs in coastal areas of Southeast Alaska and British Columbia. Three sightings have 
been documented in Alaska and are limited to Biorka and Mitkof Islands (Forest Service 1994). It is unknown 
if the species occurs in the Project Area. This species appears to prefer humid shaded boulders, cliffs, tree 


Biological Assessment - 21 


APPENDIX D 


trunks, and damp woods in the wettest maritime regions. In Alaska, it has been found in small populations 
on the base of trees and rock outcrops in damp woods. 

No observations of this species were made during field reconnaissance and no sightings have been docu- 
mented in the Project Area. Since Wright filmy fern is not known to occur in the Project Area, no effects are 
anticipated from Chasina timber harvest activities. However, potentially undetected specimens could be 
affected by the removal of trees from damp woods of the Project Area. 


TRUNCATE QUILLWORT (Isoetes truncata) 

This rooted aquatic species is known from a few widely isolated populations on Vancouver Island and 
southcentral Alaska on the Copper River Delta (Forest Service 1994). It is unknown if this species occurs in 
the Project Area. Truncate quillwort occurs in shallow water of lakes and streams. 

No observations of this species were made during field reconnaissance and no sightings have been docu- 
mented in the Project Area. Furthermore, due to its rooted aquatic nature, this species does not occur in 
forested areas; therefore, no direct effects from the Chasina Project are anticipated. Even if the species does 
exist in the Project Area, stream and lakeshore buffers should provide adequate protection for this plant. 


CALDER LOVAGE (Liqusticum calderi) 

This plant species occurs in British Columbia and Southcentral and Southeast Alaska. Documented occur- 
rences in Alaska are limited to two disparate areas at Kodiak Island and Dali Island (just west of Prince of 
Wales Island) in Pleistocene refugia on limestone substrate (Forest Service 1 994). It is unknown if this species 
occurs in the Project Area. Calder lovage occurs on rocky cliffs, open boggy or rocky slopes, and edges of 
coniferous forests. In Alaska it is known from alpine meadow habitats and edges of subalpine mixed 
coniferous forest. 

No observations of this species were made during field reconnaissance and no sightings have been docu- 
mented in the Project Area. Since Calder lovage is not known to occur in the Project Area, no effects are 
anticipated from Chasina timber harvest activities. However, potentially undetected specimens could be 
affected by the removal of timber along subalpine coniferous forest edges. 


CHORIS BOG ORCHID (Platanthera chorisana) 

In Alaska, this bog orchid species is limited to the Aleutian Islands and southern coastal areas (Forest Service 
1 994). Eight occurrences have been documented in Alaska, primarily from the Aleutians. Elsewhere in Alaska, 
reported sightings are disjunct and infrequent and are limited to areas near Juneau (primarily Chichagof 
Island) and Prince William Sound. Recent botanical surveys on Revillagigedo Island have revealed a minimum 
of 12 populations of this species. This species has been found in the Project Area near harvest unit 679-363 
adjacent to a small drainage. 

With the increasing number of observations, it is possible that this species is not as rare as previously thought. 
With more surveys planned in the Project Area, it is likely that more populations of Choris bog orchid will be 
found. The two plants located in the Project Area are outside of unit boundaries and are not in any planned 
road locations, so no impacts are expected. It is also possible that timber harvest and road construction 
activities may inadvertingly destroy some individual plants that have not been observed. 


Biological Assessment - 22 


APPENDIX D 


BOG ORCHID (Platanthera gracilis) 

This species of bog orchid is limited to a small geographic range in southern most Southeast Alaska and 
adjacent British Columbia (Forest Service 1994). Two documented sightings have been made in Alaska near 
Pearse Canal and on Dali Island. It is unknown if this species occurs in the Project Area. This plant occurs 
in wet open meadow habitat. It is undetermined whether the taxon of this species is distinct; if it is not, it may 
be more common than previously believed (Forest Service 1994). 

No observations of this species were made during field reconnaissance of harvest units and roads. This 
species is not known to occur in forested areas; therefore, there are no effects anticipated from timber harvest 
or road construction activities. 


LOOSE-FLOWERED BLUEGRASS (Poa laxiflora) 

The distribution of this grass species is scattered between Southeast Alaska and Oregon. Seven sightings 
have been documented in Southeast Alaska near Hoonah, Sandborn Canal at Port Houghton, and Admiralty 
Island (Forest Service 1994). It is not known if this species occurs in the Project Area. Loose-flowered 
bluegrass is associated with moist, open lowland woods and open-forest meadows. 

No observations of this species were made during field reconnaissance and no sightings have been docu- 
mented in the Project Area. Since loose-flowered bluegrass is not known to occur in the Project Area, no 
effects are anticipated from Chasina timber harvest activities. However, potentially undetected specimens 
could be affected by the removal of timber from harvest units encompassing open lowland woods and 
open-forested meadows. 


STRAIGHT-BEAK BUTTERCUP (Ranunculus orthorhynchus) 

This species of buttercup is distributed from coastal southern Southeast Alaska to adjacent British Columbia 
and Vancouver Island (Forest Sen/ice 1 994). It is unknown if the species occurs in the Project Area. It occurs 
in moist, open lowland meadows and other moist open habitats. 

No observations of this species were made during field reconnaissance and no sightings have been docu- 
mented in the Project Area. Since straight-beak buttercup is not known to occur in the Project Area, no effects 
are anticipated from Chasina timber harvest activities. Even if this species does occur in the Project Area, 
direct effects due to removal of timber from Chasina harvest units are not anticipated to be significant as 
preferred open, moist habitats are generally avoided for timber harvest. 


QUEEN CHARLOTTE BUTTERWEED (Senecio moresbiensis) 

This species of butterweed is limited to the Queen Charlotte Islands of British Columbia and to disjunct 
populations in southeastern Alaska and northwestern Vancouver Island (Forest Service 1994). Five occur- 
rences have been documented in Alaska on Prince of Wales, Baker, Coronation, and Dali Islands. It is not 
known if this species occurs in the Project Area. Queen Charlotte Butterweed occurs in shady wet areas and 
bogs of montane to alpine habitats, to open, rocky or boggy slopes, and in open, rocky heath or grass 
communities (Douglas 1982 in Forest Service 1994). 

No observations of this species were made during field reconnaissance and no sightings have been docu- 
mented in the Project Area. Since Queen Charlotte butterweed is not known to occur in the Project Area, no 


Biological Assessment - 23 


APPENDIX D 


effects are anticipated from Chasina timber harvest activities. Even if this species does occur in the Project 
Area, direct effects due to removal of timber from Chasina harvest units are not anticipated to be significant 
as preferred open, moist habitats are generally avoided for timber harvest. 


Biological Assessment - 24 


APPENDIX D 


V. LITERATURE CITED 


ADF&G. 1993. Goshawk Ecology and Habitat Relationships on the Tongass National Forest-1993 Field 
Season Progress Report. USDA Forest Service Contract No. 43-0109-3-0272. Alaska Dept, of Fish and Game, 
Division of Wildlife Conservation. 12pp. 

ADF&G. 1994. Goshawk Ecology and Habitat Relationships on the Tongass National Forest-1994 Field 
Season Progress Report. USDA Forest Service Contract No. 43-01 09-4-0209. Alaska Dept, of Fish and Game, 
Division of Wildlife Conservation. 24 pp. 

Ambrose, R. E., R. J. Ritchie, C. M. White, P. F. Schempf, T. Swem, R. Kittrick. 1988. Changes in the Status 
of Peregrine Falcon Populations in Alaska. Chapter 1 1 in Peregrine Falcon Populations - Their Management 
and Recovery, edited by T. J. Cade, J. H. Enderson, C. G. Thelander, and C. M. White. The Peregrine Fund, 
Inc., Boise, Idaho. 1988. 

American Ornithologists Union (AOU). 1957. Checklist of North American Birds. Fifth Edition. 

Anderson, C. M. and P. M. DeBruyn. 1979. Behavior and Ecology of Peregrine Falcons Wintering Upon the 
Skagit Flats, Washington. Washington Department of Game. PF-79-1. 53pp. 

Anderson, C. M., P. M. DeBruyn, T. Ulm, and B. Gassoin. 1980. Behavior and Ecology of Peregrine Falcons 
Wintering Upon the Skagit Flats, Washington: A Report on the 1980 Field Season. Washington Department 
of Game. 54pp. 

Armstrong, R. H. and Editors of Alaska Magazine. 1 983. A New Expanded Guide to the Birds of Alaska. Alaska 
Northwest Publishing Company, Anchorage, Alaska, p. 71. 

Baker, C. S., L. M. Herman, B. G. Gays, and W. F. Stipel. 1982. The Impact of Vessel Traffic on the Behavior 
of Humpback Whales in Southeast Alaska. Kewalo Basin Marine Mammal Laboratory. Univ. of Hawaii, 
Honolulu, Hawaii. 

Baker, C. S. and Louis Herman. 1983. The Impact of Vessel Traffic on the Behavior of Humpback Whales in 
Southeast Alaska. Kewalo Basin Marine Mammal Laboratory. Univ. of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii. 

Baker, C. S., L. M. Herman, A. Perry, W. S. Lawton, J. M. Strategy. 1985. Population Characteristics and 
Migration of Summer and Late-Season Humpback Whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in Southeastern Alas- 
ka. Mr. Mamm. Sci. 1 (4):304-323. 

Bellrose, F. 1980. Ducks, Geese and Swans of North America. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, Penn., and The 
Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, DC. pp. 380-384. 

Bent, A.C. 1942. Life Histories of North American Flycatchers, Larks, Swallows, and their allies. U.S. Gov’t. 
Printing Office, Smithsonian Institution, United States National Museum Bulletin 179. 

Cade, T. J., J. L. Lincer, C. M. White, D. G. Roseneau, and L. G. Swartz. 1971. DDE Residues and Eggshell 
Changes in Alaskan Falcons and Hawks. Science 172:955-957. 


Biological Assessment - 25 


APPENDIX D 


Crocker-Bedford, C. 1990a. Status of the Queen Charlotte Goshawk. Planning Records, TLMP. 

Crocker-Bedford, C. 1990b. Goshawk reproduction and forest management, Wildl. Soc. Bull. 18:262-269. 

Crocker-Bedford, C. 1 991 . Goshawk Reproduction at Different Levels of Timber Harvest. Annu. Meeting Soc. 
Conserv. Biol. Abstracts 5:208. 

Crocker-Bedford, C. 1 992. A Conservation Strategy for the Queen Charlotte Goshawk in the T ongass National 
Forest. Unpublished, March 1992 draft. Ketchikan area, Tongass National Forest. 

Crocker-Bedford, C. 1994. Conservation of the Queen Charlotte Goshawk in Southeast Alaska. Unpublished 
Rep., May 1994. Revision of Crocker-Bedford (1992). Tongass National Forest. 

Crocker-Bedford, and C., D. Cheney. 1988. Characteristics of Goshawk Nesting Stands. Pages 210-217 in 
R. L. Glinski et al., eds. Proc. Southwest Raptor Management Symposium and Workshop. Natl. Wildl Fed., 
Washington, D. C. 

DeGraaf, R. M., V. Scott, R. H. Hamre, L. Ernst, and S. H. Anderson. 1991. Forest and Rangeland Birds of 
the United States. U.S.D.A. Forest Service-Ag. Handbook #688. 625 pp. 

DeMeo, Thomas 1 992. Letter of concurrence that Category 2 candidate plant species are not known to occur 
within the CPOW Project Area. 

Ehrlich, P.R., D.S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1988. The Birder’s Handbook: A Field Guide to the Natural History 
of the North American Birds. Simon & Sshuster Inc., New York, NY. 

Fay, F. H. 1 985. Preliminary Status Survey of Selected Small Mammals. Institute of Marine Science. University 
of Alaska, Fairbanks. 53pp. 

Fuller, T.K. 1989. Population Dynamics of Wolves in North-central Minnesota. Wildl. Mongr. 105. 41pp. 

Gabrielson, I. N. and F. C. Lincoln. 1959. The Birds of Alaska. The Stackpole Company, Harrisburg, Penn., 
and The Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D. C. pp. 206-211. 

Godfrey, W. E. 1979. The Birds of Canada. National Museum of Natural Sciences, Ottawa, Canada, pp. 73-74. 
Goldman, E. A. 1937. The Wolves of North America. J.Mamm. 18: 37-45. 

Hall, E. Raymond and Keith R. Kelson. The Mammals of North America, Vol. I and II. The Ronald Press 
Company, N.Y. 1959. 

Hass. G.R. and J.J. McPhail. 1 991 . Systematics and Distributions of Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) and bull 
trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in North America. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. Vol. 48, 
No. 11. Pp 2191-2211. 

Howell, A. H. 1934. Description of a New Race of Flying Squirrel from Alaska. Journal of Mammalogy. 

Jensen, W.F., T.K. Fuller, and W.L. Robinson. 1986. Wolf, Canis lipus , Distribution on the Ontario-Michigan 
Border near Sault Ste. Marie. Can. Field-Naturalist 100:363-366. 

Johnsgard, P. A. 1990. Hawks, Eagles, and Falcons of North America, Biology and Natural History. Smithso- 
nian Inst. Press, Washington. 403pp. 


Biological Assessment - 26 


APPENDIX D 


Johnson, D. R. 1989. Body Size of Northern Goshawks on Coastal Islands of British Columbia. Wilson Bull. 
101:637-639. 

Kennedy, P. L. 1988. Habitat Characteristics of Cooper’s Hawks and northern Goshawks nesting in New 
Mexico. Pp. 21 8-227 in R.L. Glinski et al., eds. Proceedings of the Southwest Raptor Management Symposium 
and Workshop. Natl. Wildl. Fed. Sci. and Tech. Series No. 12. 

Kennedy, P. L. 1989. The Nesting Ecology of Cooper’s Hawks and Northern Goshawks in the Jamez 
Mountains, NM— a Summary of Results, 1984-1988. U.S. Dept. Agric., For Ser., Final Rep. Contract P.O. # 
43-8379-8-346. 21pp. 

Kennedy, P. L., D. W. Stahlecker and G. A. Rinker. In Press. Responsiveness of Nesting Northern Goshawks 
to Taped Broadcasts of Three Conspecific Calls. Journal of Wildlife Management. 

Kenward, R. E. 1 982. Goshawk Hunting Behavior, and Range Size as a Function of Food Habitat Availability. 
J. Anim. Ecol. 51 :69-80. 

Kirchoff, M.D. 1992. The Alexander Archipelago Wolf. Pp. 166-186. In: Suring, L.H. et al. A Strategy for 
Maintaining Well-distributed, Viable Populations of Wildlife Associated with Old-Growth Forests in Southeast 
Alaska. Report of an Interagency Committee. Review Draft, Juneau, Alaska. April 1992. 307 pp. 

Kuletz, Kathy 1991. Identification of Upland Habitats used by Wildlife affected by the EVOS: Marbled Murre- 
lets. Restoration Feasibility Study No. 4. Final Report, USFWS w/revisions 5/12/92. 34pp. 

Marshall, David B. 1988. Status of the Marbled Murrelet in North America: With Special Emphasis on 
Populations in California, Oregon, and Washington. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 88(30). 
19pp. 

Marshall, D. B. 1 992. Status of the Northern Goshawk in Oregon and Washington. Audubon Society, Portland. 
35pp. 

McCarthy, C., W. D. Carrier, and W. F. Laudenslayer. 1989. Coordinating Timber Management ctivities with 
Raptor Nesting Habitat Requirements. Pages 229-235 in B. G. Pendleton, C. E. Ruibal, D. L. Krahe, K. 
Steenhof, M. N. Kochert, and M. N. LeFrack, Jr., eds. Proc, Western Raptor Management Symposium and 
Workshop. Matl, Wilsl. Fed. Sci. and Tech. Ser. 12. 

McGowan, J. D. 1 975. Distribution, Density, and Productivity of Goshawks in Interior Alaska. U. S. Dept. Inter., 
Fed. Aid Wildl. Rest. Proj. Rep. W-17-3, W-17-4, W-17-5, W-17-6, Job 10.6R. Final Report. 65pp. 

Mech, L.D. 1977. Productivity, Mortality, and Population Trends of Wolves in Northeastern Minnesota. J. 
Mamm. 58(4):559-574. 

Mech, L.D., S.H. Fritts, G.L. Radde, and W.J. Paul. 1988. Wolf Distribution and Road Densities in Minnesota. 
Wildl. Soc. Bull. 16:85-87. 

Meehan, William R. 1974. The Forest Ecosystem of Southeast Alaska, 4. Wildlife Habitats. U. S. D. A. Forest 
Sen/ice General Technical Report PNW-16. 32 pp. 

Mendenhall, Vivian M. 1992. Distribution, Breeding Records, and Conservation Problems of the Marbled 
Murrelet. H. Carter and M. Morrison (Eds.) Proceedings of the Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology. Vol. 
5 No. 1. 


Biological Assessment - 27 


APPENDIX D 


Merriam, C. Hart. 1900. Papers from the Harriman Alaska Expedition. I. Descriptions of Twenty-six New 
Mammals from Alaska and British North America. Proceedings of the Washington Academy of Sciences, Vol. 
II: 13-30. 

Muller, Mary C. 1991. Field Guide to Rare Vascular Plants of the National Forests in Alaska. USDA Forest 
Service, Juneau Ak. R10-MB-128. 63pp. 

Murray, David F. and Robert Lipkin. 1 987. Candidate Threatened and Endangered Plants of Alaska. University 
of Alaska Museum, Fairbanks Alaska. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1 991 . Recovery Plan for the Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae). 
Prepared by the Humpback Whale Recovery Team for the National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, 
Maryland. 105pp. 

Nemoto, T. 1970. Feeding Patterns of Baleen Whales in the Ocean, pp. 241-381 in J. H. Steele (ed), Marine 
Food Chains. Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh. 

Noble, R. E. and P. Harrington. 1978. Snag Characteristics in Old-Growth Forests on Prince of Wales Island 
in Alaska. U. S. D. A. Forest Service, Juneau, AK. 88pp. 

Norris, Kenneth S. and Randall R. Reeves (ed). 1978. Report on a Workshop On Problems Related to 
Humpback Whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in Hawaii, U. S. Marine Mammal Commission. Washington, D. 
C. Report No. MMC-77/03 (available from National Technical Information Service PB-280794). 

Palmer, R. 1975. Handbook of North American Birds, Volume 3. Yale University Press, London, England, pp. 
323-344. 

Patla, S. 1991. Nothern Goshawk Monitoring Report #2, 1990. USDA Forest Service, Targhee Nat. For., Final 
Report P.O. # 43-02s2-0-01 84. St. Anthony, Idaho. 42pp. 

Paton, P.W.C. and C.J. Ralph 1988. Geographic Distribution of the Marbled Murrelet in California at Inland 
Sites during the 1 988 Breeding Season. Nongame Bird and Mammal Section, California Dept. Fish and Game, 
Sacramento, CA, Job II. B. 2. 35pp. 

Pease, B. 1 973. Effects of Log Rafting and Dumping on the Marine Environment of Southeast Alaska. Thesis, 
Univ. of Washington. 

Pederson, s. 1982. Geographical Variation in Alaskan Wolves. Pp. 345-361 in Harrington, F.H., and P.C. 
Paquet (eds.). Wolves of the World: Perspectives of Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation. Noyes Publica- 
tions, Park Ridge, NJ. 

Peltier, W. and C. Weber, eds. 1 985. Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents to Freshwater and 
Marine Organisms. EPA 600/4-85-113. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinati, OH. 

Peskall, D. B. 1976. Peregrine Falcons (Falco peregrinus) and Pesticides. Canadian Field-Naturalist 
90:301-307. 

Peskall, D. B. and L. F. Kiff. 1 979. Eggshell Thinning and DDE Residue Levels Among Peregrine Falcons, Falco 
peregrinus: A Global Perspective. Ibis 121:200-204. 


Biological Assessment - 28 


APPENDIX D 


Peterson, R.T. 1990. A Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, MA. 

Ralph, C.J., P.W.C. Paton, A. Zakis, and G. Strachan. 1990. Breeding distribution of the Marbled Murrelet in 
Redwood National Park and vicinity during 1 988. pp. 57-70 In C.van Riper, et al. (Eds.). Examples of Resource 
Inventory in National Parks of California. U.S. Dept, of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington D.C. 
Transactions and Proceedings, Series No. 8 

Ralph, C.J., G.L. Hunt Jr., M.G. Raphael, and J.F. Piatt. 1995. Ecology and Conservation of the Marbled 
Murrelet in North America: an Overview. In: Ecology and Conservation of the Marbled Murrelet (C.J. Ralph 
et al. eds.) Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service. Gen. Tech. Report PSW-GTR-152. 
Pp. 3-23. 

Ratcliffe, D. A. 1969. Population Trends of the Peregrine Falcon in Great Britian. Pages 239-269 in J. J. Hickey, 
ed., Peregrine Falcon Populations, Their Biology and Decline. Univ. Wis. Press, Madison. 

Reeves, R.R., B.S. Stewart, and S. Leatherwood. 1992. The Sierra Club Handbook of Seals and Sirenians. 
Sierra Club Books, San Francisco. 

Reynolds, R. T. 1 983. Management of Western Coniferous Forest Habitat for Nesting Accipiter Hawks. USDA 
Forest Service, GTR RM-102. 7pp. 

Reynolds, R. T. 1989. Accipiters. Pages 92-101 in B. G. Pendleton et al., ed., Proc. Western Raptor Manage- 
ment Symposium and Workshop. Natl. Wildl. Fed., Washington, D. C. 

Reynolds, R. T. and E. C. Meslow. 1 984. Partitioning of Food and Niche Characteristics of Coexisting Accipiter 
During Breeding. Wilson Bull. 90:182-196. 

Reynolds, R. T., E. C. Meslow, and H. M. Wright. 1982. Nesting Habitat of the Goshawk ( Accipiter gentilis) 
on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest, McCloud District. M.S. Thesis, California State Univ., Chico. 57pp. 

Reynolds, R. T., Graham, M. H. Reiser, R. L. Bassett, P. L. Kennedy, D. A. Boyce, Jr., G. Goodwin, R. Smith, 
and E. L. Fisher. 1991. Management Recommendations forthe northern Goshawk in the Southwestern United 
States. USDA Forest Service, Southwest Region, Albuquerque, N.M. 184 pp. 

Robbins, C.S., B. Bruun, and H.S. Zim. 1983. A Field Guide to Identification of Birds of North America. Golden 
Press, New York, NY. 

Rosenberg, K. V. and M. G. Raphael. 1986. Effects of Forest Fragmentation on Vertebrates on Douglas-Fir 
Forests. Pages 263-272 in J. Verner, M.L. Morrison, and C. J. Ralph, eds., Wildlife 2000: Modeling Habitat 
Relationships of Terrestrial Vertebrates. Univ. Wise. Press., Madison. 

Schempf, P.F. 1981. Unpublished survey information. US Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Schempf.P.F. 1982. Unpublished survey information. US Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Schuster, W. C. 1980. Northern Goshawk Nest Site Requirements in the Colorado Rockies. Western Birds 
11:89-96. 

Stebbins, R.C. 1985. Western Amphibians and Reptiles. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, Massachusetts. 

Suring, L.H., E.J. DeGayner, R.W. Flynn, M.L. Orme, L.C. Shea, R.E. Wood. 1988. Habitat Capability Model 
for Gray Wolves in Southeast Alaska. Review draft. 16 pp. 


Biological Assessment - 29 


APPENDIX D 


Taverner, P. A. 1940. Variation in the American Goshawk. Condor 42:157-160. 

Theil, R.P., 1 985. Relationships Between Road Densities and Wolf Habitat Suitability in Wisconsin. Amer. Midi. 
Naturalist 1 13(2):404-407. 

Titus, K., C.J. Flatten, and R.E. Lowell. 1994. Northern Goshawk Ecology Habitat Relationships on the 
Tongass National Forest (goshawk nest sites, food habits, morphology, home range and habitat data)-Final 
Annual Project Report. USDA Forest Service Contract No. 43-0109-0272. Alaska Dept, of Fish and Game, 
Division of Wildlife Conservation. 69pp. + appendices. 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982. Pacific Coast Recovery Plan for the American Peregrine Falcon. 
Prepared by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Cooperation with The Pacific Coast American Peregrine 
Falcon Recovery Team. 87pp. 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1 982. Peregrine Falcon Recovery Plan, Alaska Population. Prepared 
by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Cooperation with the Alaska Peregrine Falcon Recovery Team. 69pp. 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plant Species: Determination 
of Threatened Status for the Wash. Ore. and Calf. Population of Marbled Murrelet. Federal Register 57 (191): 

45328-45337. 

U. S. Department of Commerce-National Marine Fisheries Service. April, 5 1991. 

Emergency Listing of Steller Sea Lion. Federal Register 55 (66). 

USDA Forest Service. Forest Service Manual (FSM) Chapter 2670, Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive 
Plants and Animals. 

USDA Forest Service. 1982. National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning. Federal 
Register 47:43026-43052. 

USDA Forest Service. 1989. 1989-1994 Operating Period for the Ketchikan Pulp Company Long-term Sale 
Area - Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 6. Tongass National Forest, R10-MB-66f. 

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Old-growth Habitats and Associated Wildlife Species in the Northern Rocky 
Mountains. Publ. R1 -90-42, Northern Region, Missoula, MT. 

USDA Forest Service. 1991a. Management Guidelines for the Northern Goshawk in the Southwest Region, 
Federal Register 56(1 99):51 672-51 680. 

USDA Forest Service. 1991b. Tongass Land Management Plan, Supplement to the Draft Environmental 
Impact Statement, Proposed Revised Forest Plan. R10-MB-146. Alaska Region, Juneau, Alaska. 

USDA Forest Service. 1992. Management Guidelines for the Northern Goshawk in the Southwest Region, 
Federal Register 57(1 99):27424-27435. 

USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region. 1992. Recommended Management Guidelines for the Northern Gos- 
hawk Management Area. Unpublished. Juneau, Alaska. 

USDA Forest Service. 1994. Interim Habitat Management Guidelines for Maintaining Well-distributed Viable 
Wildlife Populations within the Tongass National Forest. Draft Environmental Assessment. USDA Forest 
Sen/ice, Alaska Region, Juneau, Alaska. 


Biological Assessment - 30 


APPENDIX D 


USDA Forest Service. 1994. A Working Guide to the Sensitive Plants of the Alaska Region. USDA Forest 
Service, Alaska Region, Juneau, Alaska. 

Van Ballenberge, V., A.W. Erickson, and D. Byman. 1975. Ecology of the Timber Wolf in Northeastern 
Minnesota. Wildl. Monogr. 43. 43 pp. 

Ward, L. Z., D. K. Ward, and T. J. Tibbitts. 1992. Canopy density Analysis at Goshawk Nesting Territories on 
the North Kaibab Ranger District, Kaibab National Forest. P.O. # 43-81 56-0-0487. Nongame and Endangered 
Wildlife Program, Arizona Game and Fish Dept. , Phoenix. 61pp. 

Webster, J. D. 1988. Some Bird Specimens from Sitka, Alaska. Murrelet 69:46-48. 

West, J.N. 1 991 . Late Winter Swan Survey results on the Ketchikan Area-Tongass National Forest 1 989-1 991 . 
Memorandum reply to 2630 from J.N. West, Wildlife Biologist, USDA Forest Service, Ketchikan, Alaska, to C. 
Crocker-Bedford, USDA Forest Service, Ketchikan, Alaska. 

West, E.W. 1993. Rare Vertebrate Species of the Chugach andTongass National Forests, Alaska. Report of 
Alaska Natural Heritage Program, The Nature Conservancy, Anchorage, AK. 254 pp. 

White, C. M. 1974. Hunting Range of A Breeding Peregrine Falcon on the Sagavanirktok River. (Unpubl. 
Rept.). Brigham Young Univ., Provo, Utah, and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, AK. 

Wing, Bruce L. and Kenneth Krieger. 1983. Humpback Whale Prey Studies in Southeastern Alaska, Summer 
1 982. Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center, Auke Bay Laboratory. National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA. 
Auke Bay, Alaska. 

Woodbridge, B., P. Detrich, and P.H. Bloom. 1988. Territory Fidelity and Habitat Use by Nesting northern 
Goshawks: Implications for Management. Unpublished. Rep. Klamath Natl. For., Macdoel, CA. 23p. 


Biological Assessment - 31 


APPENDIX D 


VI. DOCUMENTATION OF CORRESPONDENCE WITH OTHER AGENCIES 


June 5, 1987: 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service memorandum, recommended changing the Prince 
of Wales flying squirrel from a Category 2 candidate species to a Category 3c 
candidate species. 

Dec. 4, 1990: 

NMFS publishes final rule in the Federal Register listing the Steller sea lion as a 
threatened species. 

March 20, 1991: 

Interagency Wildlife Technical Committee Meeting. 

April 2-4, 1991: 

Marbled murrelet workshop sponsored by the USFWS. 

Sept. 5, 1991: 

USF&W letter critique of USDA Forest Service Region 3 Management Guidelines 
for the Nothern Goshawk in the Southwestern Region, (56 FR 122, 28853). 

Dec. 17, 1991: 

Status report on RIO sensitive species candidates. 

Jan. 28, 1992: 

Forest Service letter to NMFS requesting list of T & E species in proposed project 
areas. 

Feb. 6, 1992: 

NMFS letter listing humpback whale and Steller sea lion as being within the central 
Prince of Wales project area. 

March 5, 1992: 

Letter from USFWS concerning T & E in Lab Bay, Prince of Wales, Polk and Revilla 
timber sale areas. 

April 8, 1992: 

Phone conversation with NMFS about the status of recovery plans for whales and 
the Steller sea lion, and proposed regulations for approaching marine mammals. 

April 8, 1992: 

Letter to USFWS requesting updated list of T & E and proposed and candidate 
species. 

April 9, 1992: 

Phone conversation with the Alaska Natural Heritage Program to check on any 
changes in the listing of candidate plants. 

April 15, 1992: 

Letter from USFWS updating the list of threatened, endangered, and candidate 
species likely to occur on the Forest. 

April 17, 1992: 

Phone conversation with the USFWS clarifying that the Aleutian Canada goose is 
not likely to occur on the Forest. 

June 24, 1992: 

USDA Forest Service memo describing current status of goshawk call survey. 

Aug. 13, 1992: 

USF&W letter critique of USDA Forest Service Region 3 Management Guideline 
Revision for the Northern Goshawk in the Southwestern Region, (57 FR 119, 
27424). 

Aug. 18, 1992: 

Interim habitat recommendations for the northern goshawk, USDA Forest Sen/ice, 
Alaska Region, Juneau. 


Biological Assessment - 32 


APPENDIX D 


Nov. 24, 1995: 
Jan. 29, 1996: 


Letter from USFWS in response to the Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environ- 
mental Impact Statement (EIS) for timber harvest in the Chasina Project Area. 

Meeting with ADF&G and USFWS on Chasina Project old-growth retention Strate- 
gy- 


Biological Assessment - 33 




























































Appendix E 


LTF Site Guidelines/ 
LTF Evaluation 



EVALUATION OF LOG TRANSFER FACILITIES 
Using 404(b)(1) Guidelines of the Clean Water Act 


CHASINA PROJECT 


US Forest Service 
Tongass National Forest 
Ketchikan Area 
Ketchikan Alaska 


June 12, 1996 




























CONTENTS 


1 


Project area Map ii 

404(b)(1) Guidelines of the Clean Water Act 1 

Proposed N. Moira Site #4N 1 

Helicopter Transfer Sites #1 thru 5 4 

Proposed W. Cholmondeley Site #6 6 

ATTACHMENTS 

A. N.Arm Moira Site #4N 

B. Site Map of N.Arm Moira sites investigated 

C. W. Arm Cholmondeley site #6 



APPENDIX E 


EVALUATION OF LOG TRANSFER FACILITIES 
Using 404(b)(1) Guidelines of the Clean Water Act. 


Guidelines governing siting, construction, operation and monitoring of log 
transfer facilities (LTF) under 40 CFR 230 . 12 ( a) ( 3 ) read as follows: 


V. Log Transfer Facilities Siting, Construction, Operation, and Monitoring 

A. Site log transfer facilities in locations which will best avoid or 
minimize potential impacts on water quality, aquatic habitat and other 
resources. During site analysis, cooperate with State and Federal agencies 
per stipulations in Memoranda of Understanding or cooperative agreements to 
assemble required data and evaluate alternatives. 

Evaluate alternatives using the 404(b)(1) guidelines to determine if "(i) 
There is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge that would 
have less adverse effect on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as such 
alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental 
consequences; or (ii) The proposed discharge will result in significant 
degradation of the ecosystem; or (iii) The proposed discharge does not 
include all appropriate and practicable measures to minimize potential harm 
to the aquatic ecosystem; or (iv) There does exist sufficient information 
to make a reasoned judgement as to whether the proposed discharge will 
comply with these guidelines. 


Log transfer facilities under the various action alternatives for the CHASINA 
project were evaluated on the basis of items i through iv noted above. That 
evaluation is presented in subsequent discussions. 

Specific Log Transfer (LTF) site locations are contained in Attachments A and 

C. 

CONSTRUCTION OF N. MOIRIA LTF SITE #4N 

Includes constructing the LTF to a Low Angle Ramp system with 
associated uplands log sorting area. 

Evaluation of Alternatives. 

Determine if; (i) There is a practicable alternative to the proposed 
discharge that would have less adverse effect on the aquatic ecosystem, so 
long as such alternative does not have other significant adverse 
environmental consequences . 


CHASINA DRAFT EIS 


APPENDIX E, Part 1-1 


APPENDIX E 


Description: 

The N. Arm Moira area has no existing LTFs at this time. The site 
(#4N) is aproximately 2 miles northwest of the mouth of N.Arm where it 
connects with Moira Sound. The site would be developed as a Low-Angle 
Ramp system costing approximately $80,000 to construct. 


N. Arm Moira LTF would serve approximately 5^00 acres of land in the 
Port Johnson/N. Arm area of which approximately 914 acres are proposed 
for harvest. 


Alternatives to construction of N. Arm Moirat LTF(#4N) : 

No action alternative: No harvest of timber resources in Port Johnson- 
N.Arm Moira area. 

Relocate LTF 

Construct road connections to existing, active LTF's. 

Sub-altenatives to the proposed LTF construction. 

Dry land transfer from bulkhead to barge 
Chain Slide system. 

A-frame lift off system. 

Other alternatives not demonstrated as practicable were not 
considered any further. For example; pile supported bridge ramp 
and barge or special slide out ramps etc. 

Evaluation between alternatives 

No Action: The No Action alternative would eliminate the need for an 

LTF, thus producing no discharge of any pollutants. Accordingly, 
access to 4500 acres of timber resources would be forgone. 

Relocate LTF: Relocation of the LTF to another site in the area would 

create the same or greater impacts to other undisturbed portions of 
the aquatic habitat. Haul and fuel use would be more than that of the 
proposed site. There were five other sites evaluated in the immediate 
area(2N, 3N, 5N, 6N, 7N, see attachment B for locations), and only 
this site was deemed acceptable by the NMFS and USFWS divers. 

Accessing these other sites would require additional road which in 
turn would cause greater impacts to the ecosystem other than the 
aquatic habitat. 


2 - APPENDIX E, Part 1 


CHASINA DRAFT EIS 


APPENDIX E 


Construct Road Connections to Existing, Active LTF's : Road connections 
to an existing LTF at Lancaster Cove is feasible. The connection to 
the Lancaster Cove road system and LTF would require construction of 
an additional 3 miles of road. The road as planned would be entirely 
within a Habitat Conservation Area so would access no addtional volume 
for the project or for any near future projects. Esitmated cost of 
the additional road is approximately $600,000. The cost of 
construction of the N. Moira LTF is approximately $200,000 including 
the associated road access and log sorting areas. The road connection 
to Lancaster Cove road system and LTF would disturb an additional 27 
acres of productive land, but would disturb less acreage of marine 
habitat . 

Sub-alternatives to the proposed LTF modification 

Dry Land Bulkhead to Barge Transfer : Use of the site for barge 

loading would require construction of a 3 to 5 acre sort yard, 
relocation of the access road, and expansion of the existing fill 
with bulkhead to deep water. 

The barge system will effect 4 to 6 acres of forested wetlands, 
0.2 acres of additional fill in aquatic habitat and cost 
approximately $1,000,000. Haul and fuel use would be about the 
same as modification of the existing site to an A-frame system. 

Chain Slide System : Modification to a chain slide would require 

relocation of the access road. This would effect about 1.5 acres 
of forested wetlands and about 0.2 acres of aquatic habitat 
associated with fill and slide structure. Road and LTF 
construction costs would be about $627,000. Fuel use and haul 
would be the same as the proposed action. 


Determine if ; (ii) The proposed discharge will result in significant 
degradation of the aquatic ecosystem 

N. Moira #4N is an new site that has moderate bathymetric 
characteristics with strong tidal currents that will provide good 
flushing characteristics. 

The proposed Low Angle Ramp system is capable of transferring logs 
without any significant entry velocity. This capability will minimize 
discharge of bark into the aquatic ecosystem. 

Surface runoff into the aquatic ecosystem will be kept to a minimum by 
insloping the road and LTF surface, collecting and settling runoff, 
and periodic surface cleanup of bark and woody debris. (40CFR 122.27 
Silvicultural Point Sources; applicable to State NPDES programs, see 40 
CFR 123.25) . 

Determine if; (ill) The proposed discharge does not include all appropriate 
and practicable measures to minimize potential harm to the aquatic 
ecosystem 


CHASINA DRAFT EIS 


APPENDIX E, Part 1-3 


APPENDIX E 


The existing site will adapt to a Low Angle Ramp system with the least 
amount of impacts to both the uplands and aquatic ecosystem. The Low 
Angle Ramp system is capable of eliminating entry velocities. 

Surface runoff into the aquatic ecosystem will be kept to a minimum by 
insloping the road and LTF surface, collecting and settling runoff, 
and periodic surface cleanup of bark and woody debris. (40CFR 122.27 
Silvicultural Point Sources; applicable to State NPDES programs, see 40 
CFR 123.25) . 

The National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service have found the site to be acceptable. See attached National 
Marine Fisheries and US Fish and Wildlife agencies report. 

The construction of the new site into a Low Angle Ramp system is 
preferred to relocation or modification into other systems. 

A low-angle ramp is the most economical for such intermittent 
operations. The next most economical method is the single A-Frame 
system . 

HELICOPTER TRANSFER SITES #1H thru #8H (Port Johnson/N . Arm Moira and South Arm 

of Cholmondely) 

Includes flying logs from the harvest area directly to a barge. 


Evaluation of Alternatives. 

Determine if ; (x) There is a practicable alternative to the proposed 
discharge that would have less adverse effect on the aquatic ecosystem, so 
long as such alternative does not have other significant adverse 
environmental consequences . 

Description: 

Helicopter transport of logs from the harvest area directly to a barge 
eliminates need for constructing roads on steep ground and allows the 
economic harvest of isolated forest lands. 

There are alternatives in the environmental impact statement that will 
utilize some but not all of these sites and there are alternatives 
that utilize all the helicopter barge sites. 

Alternatives to the proposed Helicopter Transfer System. 

No action alternative: No harvest of timber resources in the tributary 
areas . 

Connect isolated harvest areas to existing or planned road systems. 
Evaluation between alternatives 


4 - APPENDIX E, Part 1 


CHASINA DRAFT EIS 


APPENDIX E 


No Action : The No-Action alternative would eliminate the need for 

reactivating the LTF, thus producing no discharge of any pollutants. 
Accordingly, access to 600 acres of timber resources would be forgone. 

Helicopter Transfer : (Preferred Alternative) Helicopter transport 

directly to a barge will eliminate use of any fill in the aquatic 
ecosystem . 

Connect isolated areas to existing road systems. Connecting to 
Lancaster Cove and or W.Arm Cholmondeley road systems would require 
numerous miles of road construction across existing slide areas, have 
massive rock cuts, and very steep adverse haul grades making haul 
practicability marginal. A connection to W.Arm Cholmondeley site 
would cost $1,200,000 and would disturb about 27 acres of productive 
land. Numerous mass failures would be expected. This alternative 
would increase fuel use and haul costs $37,000. The total additional 
construction costs for connecting to, and using W.Arm Cholmondely 
proposed LTF would be about $1,482,000 more than helicopter transfer. 
From a visual standpoint, high impacts would be expected due to 
massive full bench cuts and mass failures. 


Determine if; (ii) The proposed discharge will result in significant 
degradation of the aquatic ecosystem 

Helicopter transfer of logs from the harvest area directly to a barge 
minimizes impacting the shallow high value marine habitat near the 
shoreline. The need for fill in the aquatic ecosystem is eliminated 
by using this system. 

Landing logs on a barge will eliminate discharge of bark into the 
aquatic ecosystem. Periodic cleaning of the barge deck would minimize 
surface runoff into the aquatic ecosystem. 


Determine if ; (iii) The proposed discharge does not include all appropriate 
and practicable measures to minimize potential harm to the aquatic 
ecosystem 

The Helicopter transfer system will create the least amount of impacts 
to both the uplands and aquatic ecosystem. The need for filling in 
aquatic habitat and surface runoff control is eliminated by use of 
this system. 

The use of helicopter transfer for the isolated S.Arm Cholmondely and 
Port Johnson areas is preferable to developing additional land LTF's 
or connecting to other LTF sites as it will minimize both upland and 
aquatic ecosystem impacts and costs. Development of roads and the LTF 
would be uneconomical for the amount of timber volume being harvested 
at this area. 

Surface runoff into the aquatic ecosystem will be kept to a minimum by 
periodically cleaning the barge deck of bark and woody debris. 


CHASINA DRAFT EIS 


APPENDIX E, Part 1-5 


APPENDIX E 


CONSTRUCTION OF W. ARM CHOLMONDELEY LTF SITE if 6 

Analysis of this site was completed in the Final 
Environmental Impact Statement for the 1989-199^ Operating 
Period for the Ketchikan Pulp Company Long Term Sale Area. 
Portions of this analysis is included in attachmnent C, the 
remainder of the analyais is included by reference. 


6 - APPENDIX E, Part 1 


CHASINA DRAFT EIS 


& 'a/t A- 


48/20 



NORTH ARM MOIRA 
SITE 4-N 

Location: 

NE1/ 4, NE1/ 4, Sec. 14, T.78 S. R.88 E. Graig A-l 
55° 06' 49 "N 132° 06' 07"W 

Proposed Volume: 

10-15 MMBF for total rotation. 

Facility type: 

Low-Angle (12%) ramp. 

Upland Area: 

Upland area has moderate slopes. Excavation would be 
about 7,500 cy . 

Rafting Area: 

Ample room for rafting adjacent to the site. The site 
does not lie within any area designated for forestry 
activities in the AK POW PLAN. 

Camp Facilities: 

It is expected that the float camp would be located in 
Cannery or Nowiskay Cove. Cannery Cove has a stream 
that may serve as a water supply. The commute distance 
would be about l.S miles. 

Access : 

The access road would have up to 16% grades. It does 

not appear feasible to connect the area served by Site 
4-N, to the existing Lancaster Cove LTF as- the terrain 
between 3-N and 4-N is extremely steep. 

Fisheries : 

There are no cataloged fish streams near the site. 

Marine Conditions: 

The beach slopes to seaward at 12% for about 200 ft. 

The footprint would be minimal both in the marine and 
uplands as the bathymetric and topographical 
characteristics are almost ideal for such a structure. 

This site has been impacted by past log storage 
activities. Because of past impacts, this site was 
preferred . 

Other Environmental: 

Initial landings could be made at the site. 

Tideland Plans: 

Site 4-N is not within any area managed for forestry 
activities . 


49/50 


Recommendations : 


Site 4— N is recommended for use due to the following: 

The site is preferred from a marine biological 
standpoint, primarily because the area has been 
impacted in the past. Further use would retain impacts 
to currently impacted areas. 

The facility will create the smallest footprint on both 
the marine and upland areas. 

Site 4-N requires the least amount of access road in 
serving the tributary area. 

It is further recommended that the feasibility of a 
road link to Lancaster Cove LTF be explored on the 
ground. This may eliminate the need for an LTF for the 
tributary area. 



SOUNDINGS 

EEW to EW; (Exposed beach) 

-12% for 125’ 

11 30 36 49 50+ 

66 108 121 155 184 

AREAS AEFECTED (Prelim. Footprint) 
Marine habitat 0.2 ac . 

Upland area 0.5 ac . 




MOIRA SOUND 


?LAN VZIW 

o sva i COO&- 


NORTH ARM MOIRA 4-N 
Low- Angle Ramp LTF 



/■& 90 


} 4rm^r — 


> 0 / 50 / 


fansen 


Ml/rtle W 
Ltf/re -;Jl 



Al+AchtoeNT & 


CHOLMONDELY *6 

PROPOSED L.TF 



I p’-.’.E in Yards 

i 



ALTERNATIVE ' 

! 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 i 

ilised 


X 



X 



1 

i 

j 

Reconstruction 









SYSTEM TYPE 

Double A-Frame 









Slide 


X 



X 




Float -Off 






i 

i 



O - 45 


West Arm Cholmondeley #6 


Legal Location: 


Operations : 


Development : 


Access : 


Marine Conditions: 


Environmental : 


Recommendations : 


- NE1/4SE1/4, Sec. 27, T. 76 S.R. 86 E. , CRG A-l. 

- Latitude 55° 14 1 53" N Longtitude 132° 18 ' 55" W 

- Site is suitable for an A-frame facility. 

- Rafting and booming of logs is possible on the south side 
of West Arm Cholmondeley near the proposed site. 

- Rock source for facility is available on site. 

- Beachhead mobilization will need to be accomplished in a 
shallow area just to the west of the site. 

- Road access is intended to come from the west around the 
abandoned Cholmondeley town site. 

- Route location around the Cholmondeley town site should 
avoid private land holdings in the cove. 

- Site is acceptable by the NMFS and USF&WS for use as an 
A-frame site. 

- Site bathemetry exhibits good flushing and excellent 
depth in front of the wall and no conflicts with site 
productivity. 

- There are no conflicts with eagle nesting habitat at the 
proposed site. 

- Since this site access the timber on the south side of 
West Arm Cholmondeley from Big Creek to the west to South 
Arm to the east. 

- In order to harvest timber from this area without this 
facility, it would require a road and a bridge to be 
built across Big Creek and traverse a vertical wall on 
the east side of the Big Creek outlet which would be 
prohibitively expensive. 


O - 68 


LOG TRANSFER SITE EVALUATION 


New log transfer sites were selected and evaluated with respect to the 
interagency Log Transfer Siting Guidelines. Additionally, these guidelines were 
applied to the existing log transfer sites to examine their suitability under 
current guidelines. 

Following are evaluations of the individual sites in accordance with the 
interagency siting guidelines. 


0 - 69 


SITE NAME: Cholmondeley (West Arm #6) 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT ID: 


TLMP VCU NO: 674 


SITE STATUS: Proposed 


GUIDELINE ATTF 

ID GUIDELINES 

51 Proximity to Rearing and Spawning 

Areas : Siting of log transfer and 

log raft storage facilities within 
300 feet of the mouths of 
anadromous fish streams, or in 
areas known to be important for 
fish spawning or rearing, is 
normally prohibited. 

52 Protected Locations : Log transfer 
and log raft storage facilities 
should be sited in weather 

protected waters with bottoms 
suitable for anchoring and with at 
least 20 acres for temporary log 
storage and log booming. 

53 Upland Facility Requirements : Log 
Transfer Facilities (LTF) generally 
should be sited in proximity to at 
least 5 acres of relatively flat 
uplands. There should also be a 
body of water sufficient to provide 
a minimum of 60 lineal foot 
facility face. 

54 Safe Access to a Facility from the 

Uplands : To provide safe access to 

the LTF adjoining log sort yard, 
the facility should be sited where 
access roads to the facility can 
maintain a grade of 10 percent or 
less for trucks and 4 percent for 
specialized equipment. 

55 Bark Dispersal : LTFs should be 

sited along or adjacent to straits 
and channels or deep bays where 
currents may be strong enough to 
disperse sunken or floating wood 
debris. Siting LTFs in embayments 


EVALUATION OF SITE 
AGAINST GUIDELINES 
Meets this guideline. 


Ample rafting area. Bottom 
unknown. Protected from the 
weather. 


Sufficient upland area for 
small sort area. Sufficient 
facility face available. 


Moderate approach grades to 
site . 


Site has good dispersal 
characteristics. Site has 
very steep shore and is 
adjacent to very deep channel. 
Site has good tidal currents. 











O - 75 


GUIDELINE 

ID 


ATTF 

GUIDELINES 


EVALUATION OF SITE 
AGAINST GUIDELINES 


S6 


S7 


S8 


SIO 


Cl 


with sills or other natural 
restrictions to tidal exchange 
should be avoided. 

Site Productivity : Sites for 

in-water storage and/or transfer of 
logs should be located in areas 
having the least productive 
intertidal and subtidal zones. 

Sensitive Habitats : LTFs and log 

raft storage areas should not be 
sited on or adjacent to (i.e., near 
enough to effect) extensive 
tideflats, salt marches, kelp or 
eelgrass beds, seaweed harvest 
areas, or shellfish concentration 
areas . 

Safe Marine Access to Facilities : 
Log rafting and storage facilities 
should be safely accessible to tug 
boats with log rafts at most tides 
and on most winter days. 

Storage and Rafting Logs, log 
bundles, or log rafts should be 
stored in areas where they will not 
ground at low tide. A minimum 
depth of 40 feet or deeper measured 
at Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) for 
log raft storage is preferred. 

Avoid Bald Eagle Nest Trees : Site 

LTFs to avoid bald eagle nests. No 
project construction or operations 
should be closer than 330 feet to 
any bald eagle nest tree. 

LTF Design : LTF design should be 

the least environmentally damaging, 
practicable alternative. Factors 
to be considered in selection of 
design alternatives include: 1) 

economic practicality; 2) facility 
requirements; 3) physical site 
constraints; 4) timber volumes to 


Estimated ranges of impact: 
Low is 1 ; High is 10 

1 


Estimated ranges of impact: 
Low is 1 ; High is 10 

1 


True of this site. 


Ample water depth. 


No nest trees. 


Site has suitable 
characteristics for an A-frame 
life off system. 


0 


76 


EVALUATION OF SITE 
AGAINST GUIDELINES 

be transferred (site usage and 
duration) ; 5) total potential 
effects on biota and water quality 
(including biological productivity 
and sensitivity) ; and 6) other 
potential uses of the site and 
f acility . 

02 Fill Structures : Fill structures 

shall be designed and constructed 
to prevent erosion, pollution, and 
structural displacement. 

C3 Timing of In-water Construction : 

In-water construction, blasting, 
and/or filling associated with LTF 
sites should be timed to limit 
adverse impacts to marine and 
estuarine fishery resources and 
avoid conflicts with other user 
groups . 

C4 Bark Accumulation Management : The 

siting, design, and operation of 
the LTF and contiguous collateral 
upland facilities shall utilize 
best practicable procedures and 
methodologies to control intertidal 
and submarine accumulations of 
bark. 

C5 Sold Waste Management : Solid waste 

including wood and other solid 
waste generated from the LTF, 
contiguous and other collateral 
facilities shall be routinely 
removed from the LTFs and adjacent 
facilities and disposed of at an 
approved upland solid waste 
disposal site. 

C6 Bark Accumulation: The regulatory 

agency (ies) will impose an interim 
intertidal and submarine threshold 
bark accumulation level. When 
accumulations exceed the threshold 
level, cleanup--if any--will occur 


GUIDELINE 

ID 


ATTF 

GUIDELINES 


GUIDELINE 

ID 


ATTF 

GUIDELINES 


EVALUATION OF SITE 
AGAINST GUIDELINES 


C7 


C8 


C9 


CIO 


Oil 


at the discretion of the permitting 
agency (ies). The interim threshold 
bark accumulation level is 
described as 100 percent coverage 
exceeding both 1 acre in size and a 
thickness greater than 10 cm (3-9 
inches) at any point. 

Entry velocity will be 
controlled by the operator 
and equipment. 


Surface Drainage Management : The 

design, construction, and operation 
of LTFs, contiguous sort yards, 
and/or log storage yards shall 
utilize practicable procedures for 
control of surface water runoff 
from facilities. 

Control of Hydrocarbons : The log 

transfer system and adjacent sort 
yard handling equipment shall be 
operated and maintained to minimize 
petroleum and lubricating products 
from entering waters. 

On-shore Log Storage : Where 

feasible, preference must be given 
to on-shore storage and barging of 
logs . 

Facility Maintenance and 
Reclamation : The permittee shall 

maintain the structure or work 
authorized in good condition and in 
reasonable accordance with the 
approved plans and drawings. If 
and when the permittee desires to 
abandon the authorized activity 
herein, unless such abandonment is 
part of a transfer procedure by 


Bundle Speed : The speed of log 

bundles entering receiving waters 
should be the slowest practicable 
speed achievable. Decisions on the 
allowable transfer system that can 
be used will occur on a 
site-specific basis during the 
permitting process. 


0 


78 


GUIDELINE 

ID 

ATTF EVALUATION OF SITE 

GUIDELINES AGAINST GUIDELINES 


which the permittee is transferring 
its interests to a third party, the 
permittee must restore the area to 
a satisfactory condition. 


O - 79 


APPENDIX E 


ALASKA TIMBER TASK FORCE 
SITING GUIDELINES 


CHASINA DRAFT EIS 


APPENDIX E, Part 2-1 


APPENDIX E 


LOG TRANSFER SITE EVALUATION 


Log transfer sites were selected and evaluated with respect to the interagency 
Log Transfer Siting Guidelines. Following are the siting guidelines used to 
evaluate both new and existing Log Transfer Sites. 


SITING GUIDELINES 

Proximity to Rearing and Spawning Areas : Siting of log storage and transfer 

facilities within 300 feet of mouths of anadromous fish streams or in areas 
known to be important for fish spawning or rearing is normally prohibited. 

Protected Locations : Log transfer and log raft storage facilities should be 

sited in weather protected waters with bottoms suitable for anchoring and at 
least 20 acres for temporary log storage and booming. 

Upland Facility Requirements : Log transfer facilities should be sited near at 

least five acres of relatively flat uplands. There should also be a body of 
water sufficient to provide a minimum of 60 linear foot facility face. 

Safe Access to a Facility From the Uplands : To provide safe access to the log 

transfer facility and adjoining log sort yard, the facility should be sited 
where access roads can maintain a grade of 10 percent or less for trucks and 
four percent specialized equipment. 

Bark Dispersal : Log transfer facilities should be sited along or adjacent to 

straits and channels or deep bays where currents may be strong enough to 
disperse sunken or floating wood debris. Siting log transfer facilities in 
embankments with sills or other natural restrictions to tidal exchange should be 
avoided . 

Site Productivity : Sites for in-water storage and/or transfer of logs should be 

located in areas having the least productive inter-tidal and sub-tidal zones. 


2 - APPENDIX E, Part 2 


CHASINA DRAFT EIS 


APPENDIX E 


Sensitive Habitats : Log transfer facilities and log raft storage areas should 

not be sited on or adjacent to extensive tide flats, flat marshes, kelp, or eel 
grass beds, seaweed harvest areas, or shellfish concentration areas. 

Safe Marine Access to Facilities : Log rafting and storage facilities should be 

accessible to tug boats with log rafts at most tides and on most days. 

Storage and Rafting : Logs, log bundles, or log rafts should be stored in areas 

where they will not ground at low tide. A minimum depth of forty feet or 
deeper, measured at mean lower low water (MLLW) , for log raft storage is 
preferred. 

Avoid Bald Eagle Nest Trees : Site log transfer facilities to avoid Bald eagle 

nests. No project construction or operations should be closer than 330 feet to 
any Bald Eagle nest tree. 

Additional interagency guidelines concerning LTF site construction and 
monitoring are included in Appendix E. 

Existing sites were examined in accordance with the interagency siting 
guidelines to evaluate current adequacy. The existing sites do not necessarily 
meet all guides. For instance, several sites within the Project Area may be 
located within 300 feet of an anadromous fish stream. 

An additional log transfer siting guideline dealing with recreation and 
visual considerations is as follows: log transfer facilities should be located 

where conflicts with existing boat anchorages will be minimized and views of the 
facility will be considered as seen from travel routes and use areas. 


CHASINA DRAFT EIS 


APPENDIX E, Part 2-3 


























. 




. 




































Appendix F 


Best Management 
Practices {BMPs) 







APPENDIX F 


BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 


The Clean Water Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-500), as amended in 1977 (Public Law 95-217) and 1987 
(Public Law 100-4), has the objective to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological 
integrity of the Nation’s waters. The Act provides a means to protect and improve the quality of the 
water resources and maintain their beneficial uses. Sections 208 and 319 of The Clean Water Act 
recognizes the need for control strategies for nonpoint source pollution. 

To provide environmental protection and improvement emphasis for water and soil resources and 
water-related beneficial uses, the National Nonpoint Source Policy (December 12, 1984), the Forest 
Service Nonpoint Strategy (January 29, 1985), and the USDA Nonpoint Source Water Quality Policy 
(December 5, 1986) were developed. Best Management Practices (BMPs) were recognized as the 
primary control mechanisms for nonpoint sources of pollution on National Forest System lands. 

In order to comply with State water quality standards, the Forest Service applies BMPs that are 'consistent' 
with the Alaska Forest Resources and Practices Act (1990) and other applicable State water quality 
regulations. In recognition of the importance of BMPs, they are identified as one portion of the 'Forest 
Service Alaska Region Water Quality Management Plan,' as described in the USDA Forest Service/Alaska 
Department of Environmental Conservation Memorandum Of Agreement (1992). 

Best Management Practices may be defined as: land management methods, measures or practices 
intended to minimize or reduce water pollution including, but not limited to, structural and nonstructural 
controls, operation and maintenance procedures, other requirements, and scheduling and distribution 
of activities. The site-specific application of the BMPs is designed with the consideration of geology, 
land type, hydrology, soil type, erosion hazard, climate, cumulative effects, and other factors in order 
to fully protect and maintain soil, water, and water-related beneficial uses, and to prevent or reduce 
nonpoint source pollution. 

Direction for the use of BMPs on National Forest System lands in Alaska is included in Chapter 10 of 
FSH 2509.22, The Soil and Water Conservation Handbook. The handbook describes the application, 
monitoring, evaluation, and refinement of these BMPs. The following list is a summary of the BMPs, 
and includes the practice number (from the Soil and Water Conservation Handbook), name, and objective 
of the Best Management Practices used in the Alaska Region. 


Chasina Draft EIS 


Appendix F ■ 1 


No. 

PRACTICE 

OBJECTIVE 

12.1 

Cumulative Watershed Ef- 
fects Analysis 

To determine the Cumulative Watershed Effects (CWE) on 
the beneficial uses of water caused by multiple land 
management activities, distributed over both time and space. 

12.2 

Soil and Water Resource 
Monitoring and Evaluation 

To determine the effects of land management activities on 
water quality through a well planned, coordinated, and 
executed monitoring program; to ensure the health and 
safety of water users; to evaluate BMP effectiveness; and 
to determine the adequacy of data, assumptions, and 
coefficients in the Forest Plans. 

12.3 

Watershed Improvement 
Planning and Implementation 

To improve degraded watershed conditions, to minimize 
soil erosion, and to improve water availability or quality. 

12.4 

Floodplain Analysis and 
Evaluation 

To protect floodplain values and avoid, where possible, the 
long and short-term adverse impacts to soil and water 
resources associated with the occupancy and modification 
of floodplains. 

12.5 

Wetlands Analysis and 
Evaluation 

To maintain wetland functions and avoid adverse soil and 
water resource impacts associated with the destruction or 
modification of wetlands. 

12.6 

Riparian Area Designation 
and Protection 

To maintain and protect water quality and fisheries habitat, 
and to minimize adverse effects on riparian areas from 
logging and other land disturbing management activities. 

12.7 

Streambank Protection 

To minimize sediment production from streambanks and 
structural abutments in natural waterways. 

12.8 

Oil Pollution Prevention and 
Servicing/Refueling Opera- 
tions 

To prevent contamination of surface and subsurface soil 
and water resources from spills of petroleum products. 

12.9 

Oil and Hazardous Sub- 
stances Pollution Contin- 
gency Planning. 

To minimize contamination of waters from accidental spills 
of oil and hazardous substances by use of appropriate 
contingency plans. 

12.10 

Control of Activities Under 
Special Use Permit 

To protect surface and subsurface soil and water resources 
from physical, chemical, and biological pollutants resulting 
from activities that are under special-use permit. 

12.11 

Management by Closure to 
Use 

To exclude activities that could result in significant damage 
to facilities which would result in impaired water quality. 

12.12 

Water Well Construction and 
Management 

To protect ground water resources from contamination 
transmitted from water well developments. 


2 ■ Appendix F 


Chasina Draft EIS 


No. 

PRACTICE 

OBJECTIVE 

12.13 

Administrative Site Planning 
and Management 

To locate, design, and manage administrative sites to prevent 
water pollution and other adverse environmental and health 
impacts. 

12.14 

Planning, Design and Man- 
agement of Utility Corridors 

To assure that construction and maintenance of powerlines 
and pipelines are accomplished in a manner that minimize 
effects on water quality. 

12.15 

Management of Sanitary 
Facilities and Sanitary Guide- 
lines for Temporary Camps 

To prevent water pollution and health risks from the disposal 
of sewage at Forest Service Facilities, facilities under special 
use permit, and temporary camps of all types. 

12.16 

Control of Solid Waste 
Disposal 

To protect surface and subsurface soii and water resources 
from nutrients, bacteria, and chemicals associated with 
solid waste disposal. 

12.17 

Revegetation of Disturbed 
Areas 

To protect water quality by minimizing soil erosion. 

13.1 

Timber Sale Planning 

To incorporate soil and water resource considerations into 
Timber Sale Planning. 

13.2 

Timber Harvest Unit Design 

To ensure that timber harvest unit design will secure favorable 
conditions of water flow, or maintain water quality and soil 
productivity, and minimize soil erosion and sedimentation. 

13.3 

Designating Water Quality 
Protection Needs on Sale 
Area/Unit Release Maps 

To delineate the location of protection areas and to ensure 
their recognition, proper consideration, and protection on 
the ground. 

13.4 

Limiting the Operating Period 
of Timber Sale Activities 

To minimize soil erosion and sedimentation by ensuring 
the Purchaser conducts operations, including erosion control 
work and road maintenance, in a timely manner. 

13.5 

Protection of Potentially 
Unstable Areas 

To protect potentially unstable areas and to avoid triggering 
mass movements of the soil mantle and resultant erosion 
and sedimentation. 

13.6 

Determining Suitability for 
Tractor Logging 

To protect water quality from degradation by identifying 
those areas where tractor yarding techniques are appropri- 
ate, and by establishing guidelines for the yarding operation. 

13.7 

Determining Suitability for 
Shovel Logging 

To protect soil resources and water quality from degradation 
by identifying those areas where shovel yarding techniques 
are appropriate, and by establishing guidelines for the 
yarding operation. 

13.8 

Protection of Alluvial Soils 
With Shallow Organic Layers 

To protect alluvial soils and the overlying organic layer to 
maintain soil productivity. 


Chasina Draft EIS 


Appendix F i 3 


No. 

PRACTICE 

OBJECTIVE 

13.9 

Suspended Log Yarding in 
Timber Harvesting 

To protect water quality by protecting the soil from excessive 
disturbance and accelerated erosion and to maintain the 
integrity of the riparian area and other sensitive watershed 
areas where it is determined that ground-based machinery 
is inappropriate. 

13.10 

Log Landing Location and 
Design for Erosion Control 

To design and construct landings to minimize soil erosion 
and water quality degradation. 

13.11 

Erosion Prevention and 
Control Measures During 
Timber Sale Operations 

To ensure that the Purchaser’s operations shall be conducted 
reasonably to minimize soil erosion and water quality 
degradation. 

13.12 

Revegetation of Areas Dis- 
turbed by Harvest Activities 

T o establish a vegetative cover on disturbed sites to minimize 
erosion and sedimentation. 

13.13 

Erosion Control Structure 
Maintenance 

To ensure that constructed erosion control structures are 
stabilized and working effectively. 

13.14 

Acceptance of Erosion Con- 
trol Measures Before Sale 
Closure 

To assure the adequacy of required erosion control work 
on timber sales. 

13.15 

Wetland Protection During 
Timber Harvest 

To avoid damage to the ground cover, soil, and water quality 
in wetlands during timber harvest. 

13.16 

Stream Channel Protection 
(Implementation and Enforce- 
ment) 

1) To protect the natural flow of streams; (2) to provide 
unobstructed passage of stormflows; (3) to reduce sediment 
and other pollutants from entering streams; and (4) to restore 
the natural course of any stream as soon as practicable, if 
the stream is diverted as a result of timber management 
activities, (5) to maintain channel integrity and stability for 
protection of aquatic habitat and other beneficial uses, and 
(6) to avoid adverse changes in the natural stream tempera- 
ture regime. 

13.17 

Nonrecurring "C' Provisions 
For Soil and Water Quality 
Protection 

To insert nonrecurring (Special) "C" provisions into the 
Timber Sale Contract to protect soil and water resources, 
where standard 'B' or , C‘ provisions do not apply or are 
inadequate to protect watershed values. 

13.18 

Modification of the Timber 
Sale Contract 

To seek an Environmental Modification of the timber sale 
contract if new circumstances or conditions indicate that 
the timber sale will cause irreparable damage to soil, water, 
or watershed values. 

13.19 

Reforestation Requirement 

To promote prompt reforestation and to mitigate watershed 
disturbance on areas with limited regeneration potential. 


4 a Appendix F 


Chasina Draft EIS 


No. 

PRACTICE 

OBJECTIVE 

14.1 

Transportation Planning 

To assure soil and water resource considerations in 
Transportation Planning activities. 

14.2 

Location of Transportation 
Facilities 

To locate roads and trails with minimal soil and water resource 
impact. 

14.3 

Design of Transportation 
Facilities 

To design roads and trails with minimal soil and water 
resource impact. 

14.4 

Location and Design of Log 
Transfer Facilities (LTF’s). 

To locate and design LTF’s with minimal soil, water and 
biological impact. 

14.5 

Road and Trail Erosion 
Control Plan 

Design to minimize and mitigate erosion, sedimentation, 
and resulting water quality degradation prior to the initiation 
of construction and maintenance activities. Ensure compli- 
ance through effective contract administration and timely 
implementation of erosion control measures. 

14.6 

Timing Restrictions for Con- 
struction Activities 

Where effective minimize erosion by conducting operations 
during low risk periods. 

14.7 

Slope Stabilization to Mini- 
mize Mass Failures 

To reduce sedimentation by minimizing the chances for 
road-related mass failures, including landslides and embank- 
ment slumps. 

14.8 

Slope Stabilization to Mini- 
mize Surface Erosion 

To minimize soil erosion from cutslopes, fillslopes, and the 
travelway. 

14.9 

Control of Road Drainage 

To minimize the erosive effects of concentrated water and 
the degradation of water quality by proper design and 
construction of road drainage systems and drainage control 
structures. 

14.10 

Pioneer Road Construction 

To minimize sediment production associated with pioneer 
road construction. 

14.11 

Timely Erosion Control Mea- 
sures on Incomplete Roads 
and Streamcrossing Projects 

To minimize erosion of and sedimentation from disturbed 
ground on incomplete projects. 

14.12 

Control of Excavation and 
Sidecast Material 

To reduce sedimentation from unconsolidated excavated 
and sidecast material caused by road construction, recon- 
struction, or maintenance. 

14.13 

Control of Construction in 
Riparian Areas 

To minimize the adverse effects of road and trail construction 
on riparian areas. 

14.14 

Control of In-Channel Opera- 
tions 

To minimize stream channel disturbances and related 
sediment production. 


Chasina Draft EIS 


Appendix F * 5 


No. 

PRACTICE 

OBJECTIVE 

14.15 

Diversion of Flows Around 
Construction Sites 

To minimize downstream sedimentation. 

14.16 

Streamcrossings on Tempo- 
rary Roads 

To prevent temporary roads from damaging streamcourses, 
degrading water quality, or obstructing fish passage. 

14.17 

Bridge and Culvert Design 
and Installation 

To minimize the impact on water quality and fisheries 
resources from the installation of bridges and culverts. 

14.18 

Development of Borrow Pits, 
Gravel Sources and Quarries 

To minimize sediment production from borrow pits, gravel 
sources, and quarries, and limit channel disturbance in 
those gravel sources suitable for development in floodplains. 

14.19 

Disposal of Right-of-Way 
and Roadside Debris 

To ensure that debris generated during road construction 
is kept out of streams and to prevent slash and debris from 
subsequently obstructing channels. 

14.20 

Road Maintenance 

To maintain all roads in a manner which provides for soil 
and water resource protection by minimizing rutting, failures, 
sidecasting, and blockage of drainage facilities. 

14.21 

Road Surface Treatment to 
Prevent Loss of Materials 

To minimize the erosion of road surface materials and 
consequently reduce the likelihood of sediment production. 

14.22 

Access and Travel Manage- 
ment 

Reduce the potential for erosion and sedimentation from 
road surface disturbance during periods of high runoff and 
spring thaw conditions. 

14.23 

Snow Removal Controls 

To minimize the impact of snow melt on road surfaces and 
embankments and to reduce the probability of sediment 
production resulting from snow removal operations. 

14.24 

Obliteration of Temporary 
Roads 

To reduce sediment generated from temporary roads and 
return land to production by obliterating them at the 
completion of their intended use. 

14.25 

Surface Erosion Control at 
Facilities 

To minimize the amount of erosion and sedimentation at 
facilities. 

15.1 

Pesticide Use Planning 

To incorporate water quality and hydrologic considerations 
into the Pesticide Use Planning Process. 

15.2 

Follow Pesticide Label and 
EPA Registration Directions 

To prevent water contamination and risk to humans from 
pesticide application, cleaning of equipment, and disposal 
of pesticide containers. 

15.3 

Pesticide Application Moni- 
toring and Evaluation 

To determine and document that pesticides have been 
applied safely and to provide an early warning for any 
contamination of water or non-target areas or resources. 


6 ■ Appendix F 


Chasina Draft EIS 


No. 

PRACTICE 

OBJECTIVE 

15.4 

Pesticide Spill Contingency 
Planning 

To reduce contamination of water from accidental pesticide 
spills. 

15.5 

Protection of Water Quality, 
Wetlands, and Riparian Areas 
During Pesticide Application 

To minimize the risk of pesticide contamination of surface 
or subsurface waters, riparian areas, wetlands, and other 
non-target areas. 

16.1 

Recreation Facilities Planning 

To protect soil and water resources through appropriate 
planning, design and location of recreational facilities. 

16.2 

Providing Safe Drinking 
Water Supplies 

To protect water quality and provide safe drinking water to 
Forest Service facilities such as campgrounds, picnic 
grounds, trailheads, Visitor information Centers, winter 
sport areas, and developed roadside facilities. 

16.3 

Assuring Proper Sanitation 
and Water Supplies For 
Special Use Facilities and 
Administrative Sites 

To protect the quality of water both consumed by and 
discharged from facilities under Special Use Permit, and 
from administrative sites not on public water and sewer 
systems. 

16.4 

Trail Construction and Main- 
tenance 

To minimize soil erosion and water quality problems 
originating from trails and their drainage structures. 

16.5 

Management of Off-Road 
Vehicle Use 

To control Off-Road Vehicle (ORV) use which is causing 
soil erosion and adverse effects on water quality and to 
identify corrective measures. 

16.6 

Protection of Water Quality 
Within Developed Recreation 
Areas 

To protect water quality by regulating the discharge and 
disposal of potential pollutants. 

16.7 

Protection of Water Quality 
Within Dispersed Recreation 
Areas 

To avoid slope erosion and trampling in riparian and wetland 
areas, and consequent loss of vegetation and degradation 
of water quality. 

17.1 

Mining Site Conditions, 
Planning, and Design 

To incorporate soil and water resource considerations into 
the planning process for mining and mineral exploration 
operations. 

17.2 

Placer Mining 

To incorporate soil and water resource considerations into 
the planning process for mining plans of operation for placer 
mining. 

17.3 

Hard Rock Mining 

To incorporate soil and water resource considerations into 
the planning process for mining plans of operation for lode 
mining operations. 


Chasina Draft EIS 


Appendix F a 7 




No. 

PRACTICE 

OBJECTIVE 

17.4 

Permits and Administration 
of Geophysical Operations 

To protect the quality of surface and ground water from 
degradation resulting from geophysical activities on National 
Forest System lands. 

17.5 

Site Closure and Rehabilita- 
tion 

To incorporate soil and water resource considerations into 
the planning process for mining plans of operation 

17.6 

Abandoned Mine Land 
Reclamation 

To reduce erosion and water quality degradation by sediment 
and toxic substances from abandoned mined lands and 
mining facilities through reclamation of these lands. 

18.1 

Fish and Wildlife Habitat 
Improvement Planning 

To incorporate soil and water resource considerations into 
planning for fish and wildlife improvement projects. 

18.2 

Development of 
Groundwater-fed Spawning 
and Rearing Habitat from 
Gravel Extraction and Other 
Sites 

To minimize sediment production from gravel extraction 
and/or ground reshaping during and following construction 
of groundwater-fed spawning and rearing streams and 
ponds. 

18.3 

In-Channel Excavation or 
Disturbance During Fish and 
Wildlife Habitat Improvement 
Projects 

To minimize stream channel disturbances and related 
sediment production during and after development of fish 
and wildlife habitat improvement projects. 

18.4 

Ground Fertilization for 
Wildlife Habitat Improvement 

To minimize impacts to water quality in stream systems 
and lakes within and adjacent to areas being fertilized. 

18.5 

Lake Fertilization for Fish 
Habitat Improvement 

To limit eutrophication in Forest lakes. 

19.1 

Fire and Fuel Management 
Activities and Prescriptions 

To reduce flooding and erosion by reducing the frequency, 
intensity, and destructiveness of wildfire. 

19.2 

Protection of Water Quality 
Through Prescribed Burning 
Prescriptions 

To maintain soil productivity, minimize erosion, and prevent 
ash, sediment, nutrients, and debris from entering surface 
waters, through the formulation of the burning prescription. 

19.3 

Minimizing Watershed Im- 
pacts from Fire Suppression 
Efforts 

To avoid watershed impacts in excess of that which would 
be caused by the fire itself. 

19.4 

Stabilization of Fire Suppres- 
sion Related Watershed 
Damage 

To stabilize all areas that have had their erosion potential 
significantly increased, or their drainage pattern altered by 
suppression related activities. 

19.5 

Emergency Watershed Reha- 
bilitation Following Wildfires 

To minimize the loss of soil and on-site productivity, the 
deterioration of water quality, and threats to life and property, 
both on-site and off-site. 


8 ■ Appendix F 


Chasina Draft EIS 


Appendix G 

LSTA Units not in 

Unit Pool 






















































































Appendix G 


Units Not Considered for Analysis After Paper Plan Development and Initial 
Field Evaluations With Reason for exclusion (P=Paper Plan, F=Field Review). 


Stream/ High Land Econ. / 


vcu 

Acres 

When 

Drop 

Def er 

Adjac . 

Estuary 

Hazard 

Con- Unmerch 

Unit # 


Removed 



Requi . 

Buffer 

Soils 

veyed antable 

677-303 

5 

F 

5 




5 


677-304 

80 

P 

80 




80 


677-306 

10 

P 

10 




10 


677-307 

15 

P 


15 

15 




677-308 

40 

P 


40 

40 




677-310 

15 

P 


15 




15 

677-312 

30 

P 


30 

30 




677-313 

70 

P 


70 

70 




677-314 

25 

P 


25 

25 




677-316 

60 

P 


60 

60 




677-317 

45 

P 


45 




45 

677-318 

25 

F 

25 




25 


677-320 

10 

F 

10 




10 


677-321 

10 

P 


10 




10 

677-322 

10 

P 


10 




10 

677-323 

50 

P 


50 

50 




677-326 

30 

P 


30 

30 




TOTAL 

530 


130 

4 00 

320 


130 

80 

678-302 

20 

P 


20 

20 




678-304 

20 

P 


20 

20 




678-306 

25 

P 


25 

25 




678-307 

20 

P 


20 

20 




678-308 

30 

P 


30 

30 




678-309 

25 

P 


25 

25 




678-311 

40 

P 


40 

40 




678-313 

15 

P 


15 

15 




678-315 

40 

P 


40 

40 




678-317 

20 

P 


20 

20 




678-318 

25 

P 


25 

25 




678-320 

20 

P 


20 

20 




678-321 

30 

P 


30 

30 




678-322 

30 

P 

30 




30 


678-323 

10 



10 

10 




678-326 

40 

F 

40 




40 


678-327 

30 

F 

30 




30 


678-328 

10 



10 

10 




678-329 

10 

P 

10 




10 


678-330 

20 

P 

20 




20 


678-332 

15 

P 

15 




15 


678-333 

30 

P 

30 




30 


678-335 

25 

P 

25 




25 


Chasina 

Draft 

EIS 






Appendix G - 1 


Appendix G 








Stream/ 

High 

Land 

Econ . / 

vcu 

Acres 

When 

Drop 

Defer 

Ad jac . 

Estuary 

Hazard 

Con- 

Unmerch- 

Unit # 


Removed 



Requi . 

Buffer 

Soils 

veyed 

antable 

678-336 

40 

P/F 

40 



6 


34 


678-337 

15 

P 

15 




15 



678-338 

25 

P 


25 

25 





678-3^0 

65 

P 


65 

65 





678-3^1 

15 

P 

15 




15 



678-342 

15 

P 


15 





15 

678-345 

40 

P 

40 




40 



678-346 

15 

P 

15 




15 



678-347 

45 

P 

45 



15 

30 



678-349 

15 

P 

15 



15 




678-350 

30 

P 


30 

30 





678-351 

40 

P 

40 




40 



678-352 

35 

P 


35 

35 





678-353 

65 

P 


65 

65 





678-354 

5 

P 

5 





5 


678-355 

70 

P 

70 





70 


678-356 

60 

P 

60 





60 


678-357 

55 

P 

55 





55 


678-358 

70 

P 

70 





70 


678-359 

40 

P 

40 





40 


678-360 

30 

P 

30 





30 


678-361 

30 

P 

30 





30 


678-362 

30 

P 

30 





30 


678-363 

25 

P 

25 





25 


678-364 

50 

P 

50 





50 


678-365 

55 

P 

55 





55 


678-366 

60 

P 

60 





60 


678-367 

45 

P 

45 





45 


678-368 

70 

P 

70 





70 


678-369 

40 

P 

40 





40 


678-370 

80 

P 

80 





80 


678-371 

90 

P 

90 





90 


678-372 

105 

P 

60 

45 

45 



60 


678-373 

85 

P 

85 




85 



678-374 

60 

P 


60 

60 





678-376 

75 

P 


75 

75 





678-377 

40 

P 


40 

40 





678-378 

25 

P 


25 

25 





678-38O 

35 

P 


35 

35 





678-382 

35 

P 


35 

35 





678-384 

60 

P 


60 

60 





678-386 

60 

P 


60 

60 





678-387 

45 

P 


45 

45 





678-388 

60 

P 


60 

60 





678-389 

60 

P 

60 




60 



678-390 

60 

P 


60 

60 





TOTAL 

2720 


1535 

1185 

1170 

36 

500 

999 

15 


2 - Appendix G 


Chasina Draft EIS 


Appendix G 


vcu 

Unit # 

Acres 

When 

Removed 

Drop 

Defer 

679-301 

25 

P 

25 


679-302 

10 

P 


10 

679-304 

10 

P 

10 


679-306 

20 

P 


20 

679-307 

25 

P 


25 

679-308 

30 

P 


30 

679-309 

60 

P 

60 


679-310 

35 

P 

35 


679-311 

60 

P 

60 


679-312 

40 

P 

40 


679-313 

40 

P 

40 


679-314 

20 

P 

20 


679-315 

35 

P 

35 


679-316 

30 

P 

30 


679-317 

65 

P 

65 


679-319 

25 

P 

25 


679-322 

25 

P 


25 

679-324 

35 

P 


35 

679-326 

30 

P 


30 

679-327 

30 

P 


30 

679-329 

60 

P 


60 

679-330 

40 

P 


40 

679-332 

25 

P 


25 

679-333 

35 

P 


35 

679-334 

10 

P 


10 

679-335 

15 

P 


15 

679-336 

70 

P 


70 

679-338 

35 

P 


35 

679-339 

35 

P 


35 

679-340 

20 

P 


20 

679-342 

35 

P 


35 

679-343 

30 

P 


30 

679-344 

45 

P 


45 

679-347 

40 

P 


40 

679-348 

30 

P 


30 

679-349 

15 

P 


15 

679-350 

20 

P 


20 

679-351 

40 

P 


40 

679-352 

10 

P 


10 

679-353 

25 

P 


25 

679-354 

10 

P 

10 


679-356 

15 

F 

15 


679-357 

30 

P 


30 

679-358 

15 

P 


15 

679-359 

15 

P 


15 

679-360 

20 

P 


20 

679-362 

40 

P 


40 

679-364 

10 

P 


10 

679-365 

60 

P 


60 


Chasina Draft EIS 


Stream/ High Land Econ./ 

. Estuary Hazard Con- Unmerch- 
. Buffer Soils veyed antable 


25 

10 


60 

35 

60 

40 

40 

20 

35 

30 

65 

25 


Appendix G - 3 


Adjac 

Requi 

10 

20 

25 

30 

25 

35 

30 

30 

60 

40 

25 

35 

10 

15 

70 

35 

35 

20 

35 

30 

45 

40 

30 

15 

20 

40 

10 

25 

30 

15 

15 

20 

40 

10 

60 


Appendix G 


vcu 

Unit # 

Acres 

When 

Removed 

Drop 

Def e: 

679-366 

5 

P 


5 

679-368 

5 

P 


5 

679-369 

20 

P 


20 

679-370 

10 

P 


10 

679-371 

15 

F 

15 


679-372 

15 

P 


15 

679-373 

5 

P 


5 

679-374 

10 

P 


10 

679-375 

25 

P 


25 

679-377 

30 

P 


30 

679-380 

5 

P 


5 

679-381 

35 

P 


35 

679-385 

10 

P 


10 

679-387 

10 

P 


10 

679-388 

10 

P 


10 

679-389 

40 

P 


40 

679-390 

5 

F 


5 

679-391 

15 

P 


15 

679-393 

50 

P 


50 

679-394 

35 

P 


35 

679-395 

20 

P 


20 

679-396 

20 

P 

20 


679-397 

35 

P 


35 

679-398 

10 

P 

10 


679-401 

45 

P 


45 

679-402 

15 

P 


15 

679-404 

75 

P 


75 

679-405 

5 

P 


5 

679-406 

25 

P 


25 

679-408 

20 

P 


20 

679-410 

25 

P 


25 

679-412 

15 

P 


15 

679-415 

50 

P 


50 

679-416 

30 

P 


30 

679-417 

20 

P 


20 

679-418 

50 

P 


50 

679-419 

15 

P 


15 

679-426 

60 

P 


60 

679-427 

50 

P 


50 

679-430 

25 

P 


25 

679-431 

10 

P 


10 

679-432 

10 

P 


10 

679-434 

45 

P 


45 

679-435 

35 

P 


35 

679-436 

40 

P 


40 

679-438 

30 

P 


30 

679-439 

30 

P 


30 

679-440 

80 

P 


80 

679-442 

60 

P 


60 

679-443 

70 

P 


70 


4 - Appendix G 


Stream/ High Land Econ./ 

Adjac. Estuary Hazard Con- Unmerch- 

Requi. Buffer Soils veyed antable 

5 

5 

20 

10 

15 

15 

5 

10 

25 

30 

5 

35 

10 

10 

10 

40 


15 

50 

35 

20 


45 

15 

75 

5 

25 

20 

25 

50 

30 

20 

50 

15 

60 

50 

25 

10 

10 

45 

35 

40 

30 

30 

80 

60 

70 


Chasina Draft EIS 


Appendix G 


Stream/ High Land 


vcu 

Acres 

When 

Drop 

Def er 

Adjac . 

Estuary 

Hazard 

Con- 

Unit # 


Removed 



Requi . 

Buffer 

Soils 

veyed 

679-444 

70 

P 


70 

70 




679-445 

50 

P 


50 

50 




679-448 

50 

P 


50 

50 




679-449 

65 

P 


65 

65 




679-452 

40 

P 


40 

40 




679-453 

10 

P 

10 





10 

679-454 

10 

P 

10 





10 

679-455 

50 

P 

50 





50 

679-456 

60 

P 

60 





60 

679-457 

20 

P 

20 





20 

679-458 

5 

P 

5 





5 

679-459 

30 

P 


30 





679-460 

50 

P 

50 





50 

679-461 

35 

P 

35 





35 

679-462 

45 

P 

45 





45 

679-463 

30 

P 

30 





30 

679-464 

10 

P 

10 





10 

679-465 

50 

P 

50 





50 

679-466 

5 

P 

5 





5 

679-469 

20 

P 


20 

20 




679-472 

40 

P 


40 

40 




679-474 

25 

P 


25 

25 




679-478 

25 

P 


25 

25 




679-480 

25 

P 


25 

25 




679-481 

15 

P 


15 

15 




679-482 

55 

P 


55 

55 




679-484 

30 

P 


30 

30 




679-485 

25 

P 


25 

25 




679-486 

35 

P 


35 

35 




679-487 

20 

P 


20 

20 




679-489 

10 

P 


10 

10 




679-490 

15 

F 

15 



15 



679-491 

5 

P 


5 





679-492 

35 

P 


35 

35 




679-493 

10 

P 


10 

10 




679-494 

5 

P 


5 

5 




679-495 

5 

P 


5 

5 




679-496 

25 

P 


25 

25 




679-498 

25 

P 


25 

25 




679-499 

5 

P 


5 

5 




679-500 

5 

P 


5 

5 




TOTAL 

4005 


910 

3095 

3040 

45 

40 

825 


Econ. / 
Unmerch- 


30 


55 


Chasina Draft EIS 


Appendix G - 5 


Appendix G 








Stream/ 

High 

Land 

Econ . / 

vcu 

Acres 

When 

Drop 

Defer 

Adjac . 

Estuary 

Hazard 

Con- 

Unmerch- 

Unit # 


Removed 



Requi . 

Buffer 

Soils 

veyed 

antable 

680-301 

10 

P 

10 



10 




680-302 

15 

F 

15 



15 




680-303 

15 

P 


15 

15 





680-304 

5 

P 


5 

5 





680-305 

25 

F 

25 



25 




680-306 

30 

F 

30 



30 




680-307 

15 

P 


15 

15 





680-308 

10 

P 


10 

10 





680-309 

15 

F 

15 



15 




680-311 

25 

P 


25 

25 





680-312 

5 

P 


5 

5 





680-314 

20 

F 


20 





20 

680-315 

15 

P 

15 



15 




680-316 

5 

F 

5 



5 




680-318 

20 

P 


20 

20 





680-319 

10 

P 


10 

10 





680-320 

5 

P 


5 





5 

680-321 

50 

P 


50 





50 

680-322 

15 

P 


15 





15 

680-323 

35 

P 


35 





35 

680-324 

40 

P 


40 

40 





680-325 

30 

P 


30 





30 

680-326 

20 

P 


20 

20 





680-327 

20 

P 


20 

20 





680-328 

20 

P 


20 





20 

680-329 

35 

P 


35 





35 

680-331 

20 

P 


20 

20 





680-332 

25 

P 


25 

25 





680-334 

35 

P 


35 

35 





TOTAL 

590 


115 

475 

265 

115 



210 


681-301 

5 

P 


5 

5 



681-302 

15 

P 


15 

15 



681-303 

25 

P 


25 

25 



681-305 

25 

P 


25 

25 



681-307 

20 

P 


20 

20 



681-309 

55 

P 


55 

55 



681-310 

25 

P 


25 

25 



681-311 

10 

P 


10 



10 

681-312 

20 

P 


20 



20 

681-313 

5 

P 


5 



5 

681-314 

20 

P 


20 



20 

681-315 

25 

P 


25 

25 



681-317 

20 

P 


20 

20 



681-318 

10 

P 


10 

10 



681-319 

15 

F 

15 



15 


681-320 

10 

P 


10 

10 



681-321 

20 

P 


20 



20 


6 - Appendix G 


Chasina Draft EIS 


Appendix G 








Stream/ 

High 

Land 

Econ . / 

vcu 

Acres 

When 

Drop 

Defer 

Adjac . 

Estuary 

Hazard 

Con- 

Unmerch 

Unit # 


Removed 



Requi . 

Buffer 

Soils 

veyed 

antable 

681-324 

55 

P 


55 

55 





681-325 

50 

P 

50 




50 



681-326 

30 

P 


30 

30 





681-327 

20 

P 


20 

20 





681-328 

40 

P 


40 

40 





681-329 

60 

P 


60 

60 





681-331 

50 

P 


50 

50 





681-333 

30 

P 


30 

30 





681-334 

45 

P 


45 

45 





681-335 

30 

P 


30 

30 





681-339 

10 

P 


10 

10 





681-340 

40 

P 


40 

40 





681-341 

30 

P 


30 

30 





681-342 

20 

P 


20 

20 





681-343 

35 

P 


35 

35 





681-344 

10 

P 


10 





10 

681-345 

10 

P 


10 





10 

681-346 

15 

P 


15 

15 





681-348 

35 

P 


35 

35 





681-350 

25 

P 


25 

25 





681-351 

30 

P 


30 

30 





681-354 

40 

P 


40 

40 





681-355 

25 

P 


25 

25 





681-356 

20 

P 


20 





20 

681-358 

20 

P 

20 



20 




681-359 

10 

P 

10 



10 




681-362 

20 

P 


20 

20 





681-366 

20 

P 


20 

20 





681-371 

25 

P 


25 

25 





681-374 

15 

P 


15 

15 





681-375 

40 

P 


40 

40 





681-380 

15 

F 


15 





15 

681-381 

15 

P 


15 

15 





TOTAL 

1260 


95 

1165 

1035 

30 

65 


130 







Stream/ 

High 

Land 

Econ. / 

VCU 

Acres 

When 

Drop Defer 

Adjac . 

Estuary 

Hazard 

Con- 

Unmerch 

Unit # 


Removed 


Requi . 

Buffer 

Soils 

veyed 

antable 

682-301 

35 

P 

35 

35 





682-302 

20 

P 

20 

20 





682-303 

25 

P 

25 

25 





682-304 

25 

P 

25 

25 





TOTAL 

105 


105 

105 






Chasina Draft EIS 


Appendix G - 7 


Appendix G 


VCU SUMMARY 


VCU # 

Acres 

When Drop 

Removed 

Defer 

677 

530 

130 

400 

678 

2720 

1535 

1185 

679 

4005 

910 

3095 

680 

590 

115 

475 

681 

1260 

95 

1165 

682 

105 


105 

PROJECT 

TOTAL 

9210 

2785 

6425 



Stream/ 

High 

Land 

Econ. / 

Adjac . 

Estuary 

Hazard 

Con- 

Unmerch- 

Requi . 

Buffer 

Soils 

veyed 

antable 

320 


130 


80 

1170 

36 

500 

999 

15 

3040 

45 

40 

825 

55 

265 

115 



210 

1035 

30 

65 


130 

105 





5935 

226 

735 

1824 

490 


8 - Appendix G 


Chasina Draft EIS 


Appendix H 

Silviculture Diagnosis 





CHASINA UNIT DIAGNOSIS— APPENDIX H 


«> 

I *= 

£ s 


«— CM *— 


(/)(/)</) 


^ r r 


cn cr> co uo co 


O (J U O O 


(/)</)</></)(/></)</)(n</)</) 00 </> 

CrCtCCQrQrcrQrQrQrQrQrQ: 




</)</)<o<o<0C0<n(/></></><ow</></>(/></></>co 


0:0:0:12:0:0:0:0: 


o: o: o: 0: o: 


fc 
a 3 

CL 03 


>->->->•> 


111 LU UJ ^ $ 

Z Z (D (S) Z 


00 Z Z 


2 55 


> 

< <0 


CD CD CD CD 


T3 > 

o £ 

!- U 

a. d 


5 < £ 


j. s 

<0 -Z 


U1 


o 

> 


O) 1 n 
« > 
K W 


a </) 

o > 
_i w 


UJ HI ill 111 


HI LU LU LU 111 W 


(T> 00 (f) LU LU 


o: o: q: ce q: 


UJUJUJUJUJLULLJLJJUJIULUlULUUJLJJdO 


o: </) co 


CN ' — > — 


LI 

r- Q 
O 
> 

co 
O 
> 

10 

+ 

O 

> 

10 

o 
> 

■Cf 
+ 
o 
> 

3 

> 

'f 

2 


CO CN CD CD 


10 cr> cn in 




CO CO CD 10 


2 a 


CM •«— 


— CO 


— CD — 


CO CO CD CO 


2 a 


co cn o cn 


•«r »— r— 


C 

D 

3 

O 

> 


CO CO ’ — CN CO > — CO 

' — CD O CD O ' — * — 

CN CN CO CO CO CO CO 




CN CN CO 


to co 10 cd o *- 


CDCOCOCDCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO 




cocococococococo 


CO CO CO CO CO CO 


CD 03 CD CD CD 


CD CD CD 03 03 CO 03 CD 


CO CO CO CO CO CO CO 


COCOCOCOCOCOCOCO 


H-l 


CHASINA UNIT DIAGNOSIS— APPENDIX H 


U I 

o — 

a £ 

£ «l 
a. 2 


«- CN CN 


0 

0 

m 

c 

in 

in 

O 

0 

0 

0’ 

0 

m 

CJ 

in 

m 

(J 



CJ 

(ft 

in 

(J* 

m 

CJ 

in 

U 

CJ 

u 


0 

0 

in 






CN 

CN 

►— 

h" 



H- 

£ 


>— 

h“ 


1 — 

£ 

*— 

h— 

£ 

jjJ 

UJ 

£ 

(ft 

CN 

h- 


yl 



—f 

-J* 

_j' 

0 

CN 

K 

CN 

CN 

0 





CJ 

CJ 

O 


O 

(J 


O 

0 

c; 


CJ 

-J 

O 

CJ 


z 

z 

-J 

-J 

CJ 

-J 

cj 


CJ 

LU 

LU 

UJ 

GO 

CJ 

CJ 

CJ 

(ft 





CL 

LL 

LL 

0 - 

a. 

CL 

CL 

CL 

CL 

CL 

U. 

CL 

CL 

CL 

LL 

LL 

X 

X 

CL 

LL 

LL 

CL 

LL 

LL 

LL 

LL 

cr 

Lt 

0 

CL 

GL 

CL 

0 





CO 

(0 

<0 

CO 

(D 

GO 

(ft 

CO 

(O 

(ft 

(ft 

CO 

CO 

CO 

■ft 

(ft 

<0 

(0 

CO 

CO 

(O 

(O 

(ft 

CO 

CO 

(ft 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

(ft 

CO 

(O 

CO 

(ft 

Lt 

it 

it 

(t 

it 

Lt 

Lt 

ir 

Lt 

it 

it 

O 

tr 

it 

ir 

It 

tr 

Lt 

Lt 

ir 

Lt 

Lt 

It 

It 

Lt 

c t 

ct 

Lt 

Lt 

It 

Lt 

Ct 

ct 

Lt 

Lt 

Ct 

ct 


. "O 

o i 


O 3 

n. m 


> V V > 


>>>->->- 


a 

_< 

— ! w 

5 35 


> — : 
< to 

■o > 

o — 

k- u 

a 3 

I- in 

5 E 


■ <u 
« £ 
I 3 


* £ 


D) (/> 

* >j 

tr c/> 


05 (ft 

O > 

-j (n 


£ 5 


o 

> 


<o 

O 

> 

m 

+ 

O 

> 


m in 
O t'J 
> 

-IT o 

+ <N 

O 

> 


- s 


Tj- 

o 

> 


o 

> 


§ 5 5 


5 

t/> UJ 


§ 5 5 

UJ UJ (T) (f) If) 


z V) cn z z z z 


§55 


g g 


Z Z Z Z 2 I 


g g g 


CD QD CD CD 


co co x ct 


GO CO CO 


< 0 < 0 C 0 < 0 C 0 < 0 C 0 UJC 0 

ttctcrctcrcrcrxa: 


in cd cd m 


mincDCOinminm 


tf) W CO tf) tf> 

0 : 0 : 010 : 0 : 


CD CD CN m CD 

— — CD — 


UJ LU LU 


in in <d cn 


S CD CD 


CO CD CD 


CD CO CD CD 

CD lO CD CD 


— m — cd 


CN — — - 


CD CD CD CD CD CD 


CO CD CD CO 


OD CD CD CD 

CD CD CD CD 


O — — 


CX)05 CDCr) 05 CDCD(DCDC 75 

COCDCOCOCOCOCDCDCOCO 


05 03 05 

CD CO CD 


CD — D" 


— cd in 


CD CD CO 


H-2 


CHASINA UNIT DIAGNOSIS— APPENDIX H 


(A 

o 

g- E 
£ « 

a. S 


(NCNCNCN — CN(N — 

0- h* H - H- H- H- ►— 

uuuuuuuu 


x x x x 


x x a: x x 


GO GO <n 

C D (f) if) 


(/)(/)(/)(/)(/)(ft(nw(/)(n(/)(n(/)c/)vi(/)(/)(/)(/)(/)(rt(/)(/)(/)(/)(/)(/)(n(/)(/)(/)oo(/)(/)(/)(/) 


cr x x x ct: 


“3 


> >- >- 


o ? 

CL © 


> > > 


>>>->- 


> > > 


2 S £ 


0) 

> 

< m 


CD CO CD CD 


CD CO CO CO 


CO CO CD CD CO CD 


•O > 

O W 

u, U 

fi. 3 


X X 2 X 


-J22XXX22X2 




i ffii 

■K 2 


at 

ill 


O CJ 
9 s > 


CO CD — 


ra in 
«» > 
a: (/> 


SI <A 

o > 

_J <0 


JL> 

i*. o 
o 10 
> 

CD 

2 

+ 

O 

> 

m in 
O cn 
> 

+ s 

£ 

3 ^ 

> 


ID in LU ID LU 


cn — cn — — 


l u <f) (f) <f) 


<70 00 00 


X CO X X 


CO CO CO CO CO 


(f) (f) <f) (f) (f) 


CO CN CD CD CO 


X <n cn X 


co co cn cn 


cn id cn cn cn cn 


O 

> 


in 03 — 


— cn — 


cd go cn — 


— — n- 


— cn cn —■ 


C 

D 

3 

U 

> 


CD CD CO 


m co cn co 


CT) CT) CT) CT) CT) CT) 


O — — 


cncncncncncncncncncncncncncncn 


CD CD CD CD CD CD CO CO 


CD CD Q? CD 


CO CD CO CD CD CD 

cn cn co cn cn 


CD QD OD CD 


CD (N CD CD 


cn cn cn cn 


COCOCOCOCOCDCOCOCOCOCOCOCDCOCOCO 


H-3 


CHASINA UNIT DIAGNOSIS— APPENDIX H 


O *J 

8 - E, 
2 « 
CL £ 




lOoimioMinmniiiiOK) 

iiitiririritttiriQ: 


O 3 

a. cq 


5 S3 


< co 


•a 

2 u 

CL 3 


5 £ 


i D 

M £ 


* z 


oc co 


O CO 

o > 

_J CO 


R 2 


O 

o ^ 

> 

CO O 

a ^ 

> 

ID O 
+ PO 
O 
> 

LD ID 

O <N 


•cr o 
+ cn 
O 
> 


LD 


o 

> 


CJ 

> 


ffl J) (0 ») UJ 


CO (0 CO 


□ m in m m 

CD CD a) CD r*- 


— — in 


cd m m cd 


cn cn cn cn 


cn m m m 


r^cMCMr^rNCNrwr^ 


cocnSScncncocncncDcoco 


H-4 


Appendix I 


Deer Availability/ 
Demand Maps 



Deer Demand as a Percentage of Deer 
Supply: 1990 and 2040 


SOURCE: ADF&G Division of Subsistence, Toss Analysis 
Maps, Chatham Area GIS 


1-1 



0 23 22 Kilo 


Hole This map displays dw demand (proected harvest) is i pertsnUg* of the 
1390 ae*r supply (101 of Lhe habitat capability) for each likflift Analysis 
Arts (IAA). Arras »htrr demand for deer esctecs 120 percent of the IAA supply, 
indicate that existing deer habitat b not sufficient to sustain present 
harvest levels. Harvest data 3 from Alaska Dept of Fish and Came (ADFJcG) 

1967- 1990 deer hunlar surveys detr habitat capability estimates are from the 
Tongas land Management Plan Revision (7LMP) 

Source ADFK Du, of Subsistence Toss Analysis Map 111 Chatham Area CIS. 


rrw tun c i* e uata tv. 


Figure £-47 coni 

19D0 Deer Demand as a Percentage 
of Deer Supply 


1 Deer Demand less than or equal to 40% 
_> of Deer Supply 

Deer Demand greater than 40% but less 
than or equal to 80% of Deer Supply 
Deer Demand greater than 50% but less 
than or equal to 120" of Deer Supply 
Deer Demand greater than 120% but less 
than or equal to 160" of Deer Supply 
1 Deer Demand greater than 160% but iess 
j than or equal to 200" of Deer Supply 
Deer Demand greater than 200% but less 
Us than or equal to 240% of Deer Supply 
ip; Deer Demand greater than 240" 
of Deer SucdIv 


1-2 



Figure F-48 conL 

2040 Projected Deer Demand as a Percentage 
of Deer Supply 


, j Deer Demand iess than or equal to 40% 
1 of Deer Supply 


0 Efl ifiW 



Deer Demand greater than 40% but iess 
than or equal to 80% of Deer Supply 
Deer Demand greater than 80% but less 


Note The map displays dear demand (1987-90 mean hanesi) versus deer supply 
(IE of habitat capability) 50 yean from no» (or each lildlife Analyse Area 
(SAAf Demand is assumed to increase aith proecied population groith at 185 
per decade through 2010 and 155 per decade through 2040. Areas ibere demand 
(or deer esaeds 120 percent of the f AA supply, indicate that existing deer 
habitat is not sufficient to sustain present harvest levels. Harvest data is 
from Alaska Dept of Tab and Came (ADFicC) 1987- 1990 deer hunter surveys deer 
habitat capability estimates are from the Tongass Land Management Plan /tevsion 
(TLMPf 

Source ADF&C Div. of Subsistence Toss Analysis Map 112. Chatham Area CIS 




than or equal lo 120% of Deer Supply 
Deer Demand greater than 120% but less 
than or equal Lo 160% of Deer Supply 
Deer Demand greater than 160% but less 
than or equal to 200% of Deer Supply 
Deer Demand greater than 200% but less 
than or equal to 240% of Deer Supply 
Deer Demand greater than 240% 
of Deer Supply 


fustoe hits a e km t»™j 


1-3 









Appendix J 


Road and Unit Cards 



Acronymns and Symbols Used on 
Unit Cards 


A or AC 

acre 

AHMU 

aquatic habitat management unit 

B/W or B&W 

blue/white 

BDRY 

boundary 

BMP 

Best Management Practice 

CC 

clearcut 

CMT 

culturally modified tree 

CRG 

Craig 

DBH 

diameter at breast height 

DF 

directional falling 

E 

east 

ELEV 

elevation 

FS 

full suspension 

G/W or G&W 

green/white 

GS 

group selection 

GIS 

geographic information system 

HE 

helicopter yarding 

KTN 

Ketchikan 

MBF 

thousand board feet 

MGMT 

management 

MMI 

mass movement index 

MOD 

moderate 

MOU 

memorandum of understanding 

N 

north 

O/W or O&W 

orange/white 

OSR 

overstory removal 

PC 

partial cut 

PCT 

precommercial thinning 

PS 

partial suspension 

PVT 

private 

RS 

running skyline 

RSDEIS 

Revised Supplement to the Draft EIS TLMP 

S 

south 

SH 

shovel yarding 

SILVI 

silvicuture 

SL 

slack line 

SY 

split yarding 

TES 

threatened/endangered/sensitive species 

TLMP 

Tongass Land Management Plan 

TPA 

trees per acre 

TTRA 

Tongass Timber Reform Act 

VCU 

value comparison unit 

W 

west 

YC 

yellowcedar 


ROAD MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES 


CO 

c 

f-t 

<v 

o 

c 

o 

O 


o 


d 

c 

cd 


CO 

tn 

cd 

E 

<u 

cc 


^ < o: cn h 


C/2 O M *J CO 


(0 

c 

o 

(0 *H 

a; 4 — > 

•H O 

t-i -H 

<V $-1 

x: -»-> 

CO CO 

•H <U 

Oh OS 


Oh 


H 


d 

a/ 


c 

<i/ 

d 


cd 

a/ 

(-> 

C/2 


d 

o 

x: 


<u 

cd 

C/2 


CO 

o 

Oh 


bO 

C 


CO 

X 

CO 


d 

cd 

o 

cc 



o 


<u 

o 

c 

cd 

c 

a> 


3 

<u 


o 


c 

<u 

E 


<v 

to 

cd 

c 

cd 


<v 

t-. 

3 

CO 

o 

o 


< 12 
> 
<U 
-3 


c 

o 


o 

3 

Ih 

4 -> 

CO 

c 

o 

o 

CO 

a/ 

> 


o 

X) 

O 


o a/ 

•h o 

C*-H *H <— I 

> <U 

Cd ^ > 

Ch a> O) 

H C/2 J 


Ch 

<v 

Xi 

E 

3 

2 



X 


X 


X 


Ch 

<L> 

•H 

Ch 

Ch 

cd 

CO 


CO 

\ 

u 


c 

a> 

a 

O 

\ 

<u 

CO 

O 

o 


Q 


O 

o 

o 

o 

vD 

CM 


O 

v£> 


L 


ROAD MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES 


Chasina Unit Cards 

Resource Recommendations/Considerations 


The recreation review of the Chasina Planning Area occurred during the 1995 field 
season. Previously inventoried recreation sites were visited, as well as high probability 
sites for recreation. There were no recreation sites located in or adjacent to proposed 
timber sale units. 

There are no recommendations for changes to the timber sale units due to their proximity 
to recreation sites. Therefore, “Recreation” has not been included on the unit cards for 
this project. While visual quality is important to the integrity of the recreation sites, this 
is covered by the landscape architect in the “Visuals” section of the unit cards. 


CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCU-IJNIT#: 674-213 ACRES:_53 VOL: 1877 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 5.6 

PHOTO YR/#: '91-590-65.64 1/4 OUAD: CRGA-l NW 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: SL 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 67404- Windthrow potential is high. Productivity of site is high. Difficult terrain - potential blind 
leads in lower portion. Verify feasibility and modify unit bdry as required. Profiles needed. Midslope and/or upperslope road 
need verification. Unit has been expanded to the east and north (leave setting between units). Dropped lower portion due to blind 
leads and buffer. Avoid unstable chutes. Split-yarding required on stream. Suspension requirements (see soils or fish). Buffers 
(see fisheries). Unit changed to provide proportionality of volume classes. 


ROADS: May not need lower road. 

R. Johnson, 
8/04/95 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils Tolstoi with Tokeen, and riparian below 310’. Slopes generally 60-75%, although generally less 
than 45% below 480’. Delete riparian below 310’ for buffer on Cannery creek, which at 210’ NW comer unit (BMPs 12.6, 12.6a). 
Partial suspension for MMI3, small areas slumping (MMI4) too small to delete (BMP 13.5), and few areas >75% slopes (BMP 
13.9). Possible add upslope to W done. Third order watershed (BMP 12.1). Streams reviewed and prescribed by fisheries (BMPs 
12.6, 12.6a, 13,16). Doubt 100’ buffer desired O&W class III middle unit because potential blowdown and small areas MMI4 
inside drainage. Even slope break buffer potential to blowdown; could diameter limit harvest, slope break buffer. Keep lower 
road above riparian in bottom (BMPs 12.6, 12.6a, 14.2). 

K. McCartney, 

J. Hannon, 

6/30/95 

K. McCartney, M. 
Solomon, S. 

Deck, B. Johnston 
6/28/96 

FISHERIES: Stream 1 is a class IV green/ white. Stream 2 is a class IV green/white; below the junction with stream 1, stream 2 is 
a class III orange/white. Stream 3 is a class II blue/white that will require a 120’ TTRA buffer (BMP 12.6). Above this, stream 3 
is a class III orange/white that requires a slope break plus 25’ buffer (BMP 1 3.16). Stream 7 is a class IV green/white; below 750’ 
of elevation stream 7 turns into a class III orange/white. Stream 8 is a class III orange/white. Stream 9 is a class III orange/white. 
Stream 10 is a class III orange/white. The class III orange/white streams require directional falling, split yarding or full suspen- 
sion, and immediate cleaning of introduced debris from the channel (BMP 13.16). The class IV green and white streams require 
directional falling, and split yarding (where practical) or partial suspension . Clean class IV streams of introduced debris before 
the end of the operating period or before the yarder leaves the area (BMP 13.16). 

D. Parker, 

M. Pacheco, J. 
Wrate 6/20/95 
B. Johnston 
6/28/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Deer forage and sign seen throughout. Bear sign also common. Recommend leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to 
maintain habitat structure and snag density. 6/28/96 Prolific deer and bear sign at beaver ponds along SW edge of unit. Deer 
bones along stream. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/97 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cuttine unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in cIuitids or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain laree live trees and hard snaes. Use: tvoe A clear-cut. O&W streams 
require DF, full over or SY, and cleaning of introduced debris immediately. Partial suspension required for soils protection. 


C h o s i n a 


Study Area 


Interim Layout NOI Unit 674-213 

Mopscole 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 


„ i „ i c i , i ,, i ,, i ,,, i 



i C i 0 ! E i F i G i H 


I J ! K i L I M i N I 0 


i i i i i i i i 

PiOiRiSi TiUiVtWiX 


Class I Stream 
Closs 2 Stream ^ 


Closs 3 Stream 
' Existing Roods 
' Proposed Roods 
' Unit Boundary 


% 


> Salt Water 


Fresh Water lakes 


No Cut Stream Butlers by Chontyp 
Partial Cut Stream Butlers by Chontyp 


m 


\ Estuary Butlers 
500' Beoch Butter 



32 
3 1 
30 
29 
28 
27 
26 
25 
24 
23 
22 

2 I 
20 
t 9 
t 8 
I 7 
I 6 
I 5 
t 4 
I 3 
t 2 
t I 

1 0 
9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 
I 


Y i Z 


Crested by Sally Uerfeld on November 01, 1996 




CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCU-UNIT#: 674-265 ACRES:_53 VOL: 1716 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 5.6 

PHOTO YR/#: ’91-590-65 1/4 QUAD: CRG A-l NW 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: HE . SL 


REV1EWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: Productivity of site is moderate, low windthrow risk, difficult terrain - potential blind leads in lower 
portion. Verify feasibility and modify unit bdry as required. Profiles needed. Avoid unstable chutes. Roading difficult - 
mid-slope vs upper road needs verification. Buffers (see fisheries): Class III buffers for retention needs. Unit has adequate 
buffer at bottom. 


ROADS: No concerns. 

R.j 

8/04/95 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils riparian above Cannery Creek; Tolstoi, Traitors, McGilvery, with Tokeen above bottom to mid-unit; 
McGilvery and rock walls and outcrops upper portion. Slopes less than 30% riparian; 60-75% lower unit; greater than 80% upper 
unit. Delete rmarian below 260’ (Cannery Creek at 220’) SW comer, to 200’ (Cannery Creek 120’) NW comer. Delete unner 
portion unit above irregular line at 500’ to 600’ to avoid rock walls and McGilverv. MM14 and unstable soils on slopes below and 

between rock walls on rock walls on slopes greater than 75%, and V-notches from rock walls that are often slide paths (BMP 13.5; 
TLMP 1991). Remaining lower oortion of unit Dartial suspension for MM13 and McGilverv (BMP 13.9: TLMP 1991). Doubts 
100’ buffer desired south boundary if class III, appears former slide shoot with disturbance species, and potential blowdown. Rec- 
ommend O&W protection (BMP 13.16). Need O&W protection upper portions some or all streams in unit due MMI4 and un- 
stable sideslopes, and former slide paths (BMP 13.16). Doubts feasibility upper road (BMP 14.2). Lower road planned, also, 
should be above riparian below unit (BMPs 12.6, 12.6a, 14.2). Third order watershed (BMP 12.1). 

K.. Buckley, 

K.Kitchel 

6/28/96 

FISHERIES: Recommend a 300’ TTRA buffer on Cannery Creek (BMP 13.16). NOTE: Stream 8 is flagged class II orange/white 
at its confluence with Cannery Creek; it should be flagged class II blue/white and requires a 120" TTRA buffer (BMP 13.16). At 
180" elevation stream 8 changes to a class III orange/white. At an elevation of 260’, stream 8 changes to a class IV green/white. 
Stream 9 is a class IV green/white. Stream 7 is class IV green/white. Stream 5 is a class IV green/white. Stream 10 is a class IV 
green/white. Stream 1 1 is a class III orange/white. The class III orange/white streams require directional felling and split yarding 
or full suspension. Clean stream of introduced debris immediately (BMP 13.16). The class IV green/white streams require direc- 
tional felling and split yarding (where practical) or partial suspension (BMP 13.16). 

D. Parker, 
M. Pacheco, 
J.Wrate 
6/20/95 
C.Tighe, 

B. Johnston 
6/28/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Deer forage throughout unit. Deer and bear sign seen throughout unit. Recommend leaving live reserve trees and snags where 
possible to maintain habitat structure and snag density. 6/28/96 Lots of bear sign in NW part of unit. 

T.Fifield. J. Short 
5/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: This unit will be surveyed in 1996. 

VISUALS: Entire unit harvested in a way that retains at least 50% of stand throughout every acre of unit or creates about (5-7) 2 
or 3 acre openings. Dispersed throughout this stand. 

G. Lawton 5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cuttine unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumps or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use: type B clear-cut on 2/3 of the 
unit with slackline system and use type C clearcut using helicopter logging system on 1/3 (upper portion). Helicopter has diameter 
limit of 20" DBH and 25% reduction of volume. Unit dropped from preferred alternative due to proportionality based on acres. 


C h o s i n a 


Study Area Interim Layout NOI Unit 674-265 

Mopscole 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 



I I I I I ! I ! ! ! I I i i i i i 


0 i C 1 D 1 

E 

i F ! G 

i H 

1 i J i K 

L i M i N 

s 0 i P 

i 0 i R i Si 

T i U i 

V i W 

C 1 o s s 
11111 C 1 o s s 

1 

2 

S t r e o m 
Stream 


Soli W o t e r 

■ 

No Cut 

Stream Buffers 

by Chon 

i yp 

OOOOO C | 0SS 

3 

Stream 


fresh Water 

L ° k e s ||gj 
WimM. 

P o r t i o 1 

Cut Stream 0u 

f e r s by 

C h o n t y p 

Existing 

Proposed 

Roods 

Roods 

& 

Estuary But 

e r s 






Creoted by Solly Uerfeld on November 01, 1996 


CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCU-UNIT#: 677-301 ACRES: J_0 VOL: _500 MBF ALTERNATIVES:_6 

PHOTO YR/#: '91-590-142 1/4 QUAD: CRG A-l NW 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: HE 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 67701-10, high windthrow risk, mod. elev. Productivity of site is high. Adjacent to private land. 
Windy funnel valley edge. Avoid steep slopes. Isolated stand, should only be logged with adjacent units. 

J.Oien 

5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

Field 

D.J.Landwehr, 

10/18/95 

EIS - R. Johnson 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soil Tolstoi. Slopes 111 30-90%. Approximately 4 acres on slopes greater than 75 % below cliff. High 
MM1 soils in most of the unit. Minimum partial suspension required throughout unit (BMP 13.9). Full suspension should be 
achieved via prescribed helicopter yarding. One class III stream in the avalanche area south of the unit needs O&W protection 
(directional fall, split yard or full suspension over, and immediately clean out introduced debris; BMP 13.16). Small intermittent 
stream in the northeast comer of the unit does not need protection with helicopter yarding. The unit is in a watershed that has been 
heavily harvested in the past (BMP 12.1). This is a third order watershed. 

K. Buckley, 7/96 

FISHERIES: No streams found in the unit. Orange/ white stream identified by soils is thought to be outside the unit but recom- 
mend protection described by soils. 

M.Dillman 7/96 

WILDLIFE: 

To provide for adequate snag density and distribution within the VCU, recommend leaving a 0. 1 acre or larger snag patch for each 
10 acres of unit. Recommend leaving live reserve trees where possible to maintain habitat structure. This unit did not rate as a 
high priority unit for wildlife because its elevation is above that recommended in the current goshawk protocol. Therefore, wildlife 
did not survey in 1995 or 1996. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cuttine unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumrts or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use: type C clear-cut helicopter log- 
ing. Minimum partial suspension throughout the unit required for soils protection. 


C h a s i n o 


Study Area 


Interim Layout NOI Unit 677-301 

Mapscole 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 


c d , e ; r , c ; h ; i ; j ; k ; l m ; n ; o | p | o | r \ s i t j u \ v | w ; x ! y 1 


i * i 1 i 



52 

3 I 
30 
29 
28 
27 
26 
25 
24 
23 
22 
2 1 
20 
I 9 
1 8 
I 7 
I 6 
I 5 
1 4 
1 3 
1 2 
I I 

1 0 
9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 
3 

2 
1 


B i C 

i 0 : E 

i F 


G © — 

Class 1 

S t r 

eom 


C 1 o s s 2 

S t r 

e o m 

ooooo 

C 1 o s s 3 

S t r 

eom 


Existing 

Ro 

ads 


Proposed 

Ro 

ads 


Unit Boundo 

' i 


I I I I I ! I ! I 

E I F ! G I H I IiJiKiLiMiNiOiP 


Q 


i i i i 

T i U i V i W i 


2 : 




Salt ff o t e r 


HHH No Cut Stream Butlers by Chonlyp 
Fresh W o t e r lokes Portiol Cut Stream Butters by Chonlyp 


^ Estuary Butlers 


500' Beach Buffer 



Created by Solly Uerleld on November 01. 1995 




CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCU-UNIT#: 677-302 ACRES:_3 VOL: _60 MBF ALTERNATIVES :_6 

PHOTO YR/#: ' 9 1-590- 142 1/4 OUAD: CRGA-l NW 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: HE 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 67701-7, high windthrow risk, high elev. Productivity of site is low, very steep, rocky with slides 
adjacent. Adjacent to private land. Windy funnel valley edge. Isolated, only log with adjacent units. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

Field 

D.J.Landwehr, 

10/18/95 

EIS - R. Johnson 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils Tolstoi, McGilvery, Remedios, and Kaikli. Slopes 40 to 100%. Approximately 1 acre of forested 
wetland. About 2 acres high MMI soils. A minimum of partial suspension is required (BMPs 12.5, 13.9). Full suspension should 
be achieved via prescribed helicopter yarding. Recommendation to drop approximately 4 A, very thin McGilvery on talus slopes 
greater than 75% in south portion of unit, has been done (TLMP 1991). Two class III streams, one on the north and one on the 
south boundary, need O&W protection (directional fall, split yard or full suspension, clean out introduced debris immediately; 
BMP 13.1 6). A small intermittent stream flowing from the forested wetland does not need protection with helicopter yarding. The 
unit is in a watershed that has been heavily harvested in the past (BMP 12.1). This is a third order watershed. Potential add about 
one A in northwest comer; backline at base of large cliff. 

K.. Buckley 7/96 

FISHERIES: Streams identified by soils are thought to be outside the unit boundaries. However, if they are within the unit 
boundaries, follow the soils prescriptions for stream protection. 

M.Dillman 

7/96 

WILDLIFE: 

To provide for adequate snag density and distribution within the VCU, recommend leaving a 0.1 acre or larger snag patch for each 
10 acres of unit. Recommend leaving live reserve trees where possible to maintain habitat structure. This unit did not rate as a 
high priority unit for wildlife because its elevation is above that recommended in the current goshawk protocol. Therefore, wild- 
life did not survey in 1995 or 1996. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Unsuitable soils, dron from timber base. Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cuttine unit, where feasible 
and safe. Areas should be in clumps or patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard 
snags. Use: type C clear-cut, helicopter logging. Minimum of partial suspension is required for soils protection. 


C h a s i n a 


302 


Study Areo Interim Layout NOI Unit 677- 

Mapscole 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 


E , f 


i i ,i . i 


i H , I, J, K| L M, N 0 


I n ' „ I „ I 


STD 


I ' I " I A 


l , 



32 
3 1 
30 
29 
28 
2 7 
25 
25 
24 
23 
22 
2 1 
20 
1 9 
1 8 
1 7 
1 6 
1 5 
1 4 
1 3 
I 2 
! I 
1 0 
9 


A i 0 i C 
g — e — 


D i E i F i G i H i I i J i K 
Class I Streom \ \ N Soil Water 


L i M i N 


l U i V i U I 


R i S i ! i U i V i W i X i Y : 2 


^ Closs 2 Streom 
Closs 3 Streom 
Existing Roods 
' Proposed Roods 

' Unit Boundary 


Fresh Water Lakes 


V/, 

Estuary Butlers 
Sit 500' Beach Butter 


No Cut Streom Butlers by Chontyp 
Portiol Cut Stream Buffers by Chontyp 



Creoted by Solly Meifeld on November 01, 1996 



CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCU-UNIT#: 677-305 ACRES:_19 VOL: 485 MBF ALTERNATIVES :_6 

PHOTO YR/#: '72-40-142 1/4 QUAD: CRG A-l NW 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: HE 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 67702-4, high windthrow risk, high elev. Productivity of site is low. Adjacent to private land. 
Surrounding isolated ridgetop. Low value / high defect. Keep unit on ridgetop, avoid steep slopes surrounding. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

R. Johnson, 6/96 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils mapped 528D (Tolstoi - McGilvery 35-60%), with 29EF (McGilvery 60-100%). Partial suspension 
for McGilvery (TLMP1991). Helicopter prescribed. Unit basically top of ridge. Deletions by silviculture include steep McGil- 
very NW comer and steep MMI4 on W side (BMP 13.5; TLMP 1991). E boundary at break from flatter top to steep slopes below 
for MMI4 and McGilvery (BMP 13.5; TLMP 1991). Probable O&W protection needed headwaters class III streams both E and W 
sides of ridge (BMP 13.16). W portion in third order watershed (BMP 12.1). 

K. McCartney, K. 
Kitchel, S. Deck, 
6/19/96 

FISHERIES: Stream 1 is a class III orange/ white that requires directional falling, and split yarding or full suspension. Remove 
introduced debris immediately (BMP 13.16). 

M.Dillman 

7/96 

WILDLIFE: 

To provide for adequate snag density and distribution within the VCU, recommend leaving 0. 1 acre or larger snag patch for each 
10 acres of unit. Recommend leaving live reserve trees where possible to maintain habitat structure. This unit was not a high pri- 
ority unit for wildlife. The steepness and elevation of this unit were over that which is called for in the current goshawk protocol. 
Wildlife did not survey unit in 1995 or 1996. Estuary requires 1000 foot buffer. 

T.Fifteld 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cutting unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumps or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use: type C clear-cut. 

O&W streams reauire DF. full over or SY. and cleaning of introduced debris immediatelv. Partial suspension required for soils 
protection. 


Chosino Study 


Area 


305 


Interim Layout NOI Unit 677- 

Uapscole 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 


0 E F 


H , I 


L , M N , 0 


I n I n 1 - I , I ,, 1 „ I I „ I „ I 


l W| "I S, T| U, V, n. A, 


y ; z ; 



32 
3 1 
30 
29 
28 
27 
26 
25 
24 
23 
22 
2 I 
20 
1 9 
1 8 
1 7 
I E 
1 5 
1 4 
I 3 
1 2 
1 I 
1 0 


0 : E I F : G I H I I i J 


Class I Stream \\ N Salt Water 


L I M ! N i 0 


PiQiRiSiTiUiViW 
No Cut Stream Butlers by Chantyp 


H Closs 2 Stream ^ 


000<X> Closs 3 Stream 
t==== Existing Roods 
' 1 ‘ _1, Proposed Roods 
' Unit Boundary 




Fresh Water lakes Partiol Cut Stream Butters by Chantyp 


^ Estuary Buffers 


500' Beoch Buffer 



Created by Sally Uerteld on November 01. 1990 



CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCU-UNIT#: 677-311 ACRES:J_7 VOL: 204 MBF ALTERNATIVES:^ 

PHOTO YR/#: -91-490-47 1/4 QUAD: CRG A-l NW 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: RS 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 67703-28, low windthrow risk, portion downhill yarded. Productivity of site is low. Buffers (see 
fisheries'). Steep near lake allows onlv uneven-aged memt: for regeneration and structure retention. Diameter limit - heliconter 
system, leave all trees less than 26" DBH. Surrounded by low volume. If harvested continue UNEVEN-AGED management for 
rotation on eastern 1/2. Western 1/2 - Unit design calls for RS regeneration method. Verify roads/and/or landing locations. 
PLANT 12 AC of YC. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns on helicopter portion. Road should avoid open muskeg where possible. 

Field 

D.J.Landwehr, 

10/12/95 

EIS R. Johnson 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils Tolstoi, StNicholas, and McGilvery. Slopes 30 to 100%. Approximately 2 acres on slopes greater 
than 75% below base of cliff. High MMI soils are common. Partial susnension is reauired throughout the unit (BMP 13.91. Sev- 
eral small streams require G&W protection (BMP 13.16). See fisheries section on this card. Place backline at the base of cliff 
below muskeg. Road appears feasible (BMP 14.2). Predominately McGilvery soil, with inclusions of Tolstoi. Slopes 50 to 90%. 
About 5 acres on slopes greater than 75%. Partial suspension required throughout the unit, believed adequate based field review. 
Full suspension should be achieved via prescribed helicopter yarding (BMP 13.9). Recommend monitor McGilvery (BMP 1 1 .6). 
A minimum of a 100 foot buffer should be left on Newt Lake and the stream feeding into Newt Lake (BMPs 12.6, 12.6a). 150 
foot width between stream and cliff may eliminate south half of unit. Do not harvest above cliff. 

J. Hannon, M. 
Becker, K. Mc- 
Cartney, J.Wrate 
6/27/95 

FISHERIES: Stream 1 is a class III green/white. Stream 2 is a class III green/ white. Stream 3 is a class III green/ white. Stream 
4 is a class III green/ white. Stream 5 is a class III green/white. Stream 6 is a class III green/ white. Class III green and white 
streams require directional falling and split yarding, (where practical), or partial suspension over. Clean streams of introduced de- 
bris before the end of the operating period or before the yarder leaves the area (BMP 13.16). Along the east half of the unit , a 
100’ buffer is required around the lake. Stream 9 has adfluvial habitat between the lake and the muskeg. It is a class II AHMU 
stream that requires a 120’ buffer (BMP 12.6). 

C.Tighe, 

T.Belfield 

7/26/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Unit was not a high priority for wildlife and was not surveyed in 1995, as it did not meet the habitat requirements called for in the 
current goshawk protocols.. To maintain adequate snag density and distribution within the VCU, recommend leaving a 0.1 acre or 
larger snag patch for each 10 acres of unit. Recommend leaving live reserve trees where possible to maintain habitat structure. 
7/26/96 TES nlant survey found the sensitive olant. Platanthera chorisiana (Choris bog-orchidl in the vicinitv of the unit. Sham- 
shinned hawk seen soaring above unit along lake. A pair of hairy woodpeckers were seen in the unit’s east half (by the lake). 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Half of unit clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cutting unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in 
clumps or patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use: type C clear-cut. Half 
of unit uneven-aged mgmt: for regeneration and structure retention. Diameter limit - heliconter svstem. leave all cedar trees less 
than or eaual to 26" DBH. For G&W streams: directional fall, and split vard (where Dracticall or partial over. Clean the stream 
of introduced debris before the end of the operating period or before the yarder leaves the area. Partial suspention required for 
soils protection. 


C h a s i n a 


Study A r e o 


Interim Layout NOI Unit 

Mapscole 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 


6 7 7 - 3 1 1 



A 


8 i C 0 

E 

i E 
S t r 

; 0 

® e ~ Class 

1 

e o m 

11111 C 1 o s s 

2 

S t r 

earn 

OOOOO c 1 o s s 

5 

S t r 

earn 


H 



I I t i I I I i I I ! I I I I 

I I I ! I I ! ! I I ! I I I I 


1 i J i K i L i M i 

N : O : P 

i 0 

R i S i T i 

U i V i 

W 

Soil » o 1 e r ■ 

m No Cut 

S 1 r e o m 

Buffers by 

C h o n t y p 


Fresh Water Ink 

Partial 

Cut SI 

1 r e a m Buffer 

s by Chon 

1 yp 


I I ! 

I I I 

Y I Z ; 


Existing Roods 
Proposed Roods 
Unit Boundary 



Esluory Buffers 



500' Beach Buffer 



52 
5 1 
50 
29 
28 
27 
26 
25 

24 

25 
22 
2 I 
20 
I 9 
I 8 
I 7 
I 6 
1 5 
1 4 
1 5 
1 2 
I I 

1 0 
9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

5 

2 
i 




Created by Solly Uerfeld on November 01, 1996 






CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCU-UNIT#: 677-315 ACRES:J0 VOL: 160 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 6 

PHOTO YR /#: ’91-490-47 1/4 OUAD: CRGA-l NW 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: RS 


REV1EWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 67703-28, low windthrow risk, portion downhill yarded. Productivity of site is low. Spur above 
steep areas. Seed tree w/ reserves: Leave 5 TPA of YC of nhenotvDicallv superior trees for seed sources to maintain diverse stand 
composition, (option type D clear-cut) 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: Road should avoid open muskegs when possible. No end haul material to be placed on wetland areas. 

Field 

D.J.Landwehr, 

10/12/95 

E1S R. Johnson 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils Tolstoi, McGilvery, StNicholas and Wadleigh. Slopes 30-90%. Approximately 10 acres on slopes 
greater than 75%. About 5 A forested wetland. About 1 acre of very high MMI soils. Several cliffs in the unit range from 10 to 40 
feet high. Areas of McGilvery soils are common on the extremely steep slopes. Six streams for G&W protection. Two streams 
for O&W protection. Two streams for B&W protection (BMP 13.16). A small 2 acre area of low volume timber should be deleted 
alone the south unit boundary. Partial suspension reauired in the southwest half of the unit (BMP 13.91. Full suspension required 
in the north half of the unit (677-328). Delete the extremely steep slopes and verv hieh MMI soils in the northwest part of the unit 
(BMP 13.5), combine with fish stream buffers. Approximately 1-2 A boulder field with thin McGilvery in southeast comer of unit 
has been deleted. UNIT REQUIRES CHANGES TO MEET TENTATIVELY SUITABLE CRITERIA. Delete cliffs in middle of 
unit and adjacent low volume timber. Approximately 4 acres upslope of cliff added as unit 677-328 in northeast portion of unit, 
and must be helicopter yarded (BMP 13.9). Road appears feasible (BMP 14.2). 

S.Deck, 

K.. McCartney, 
7/12/96 

FISHERIES: Stream 1 is a class III orange/white that requires a slope break buffer (BMP 13.16). Streams 2 , 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are 
class IV green/white. Streams 8 and 10 are class IV green/white tributaries to stream 9. Stream 9 is a class II AHMU (adfluvial 
habitat) above the lake and requires 120’ buffer (BMP 12.6). Above the muskeg, stream 9 is a class IV green/white. The class IV 
green/ white streams require directional falling, and split yarding (where practical) or partial suspension. Clean streams of intro- 
duced debris by the end of the operating period or before the yarder leaves the area (BMP 13.16). Class III orange/white streams 
require directional falling, split yarding or full over, and immediate removal of introduced logging debris (AMP 13.16). 

M. Pacheco 

7/19/95 

C.Tighe, 

T.Belfield 

7/26/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Game trails throughout. Bear sign seen in unit and in muskeg to the west of unit. Karst/caves at north end of unit. Recommend 
leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat structure and snag density. To provide adequate distribution 
of snags within the VCU, recommend leaving a snag patch of 0.1 acre or larger for each 10 acres of unit. 7/26/96 TES plant sur- 
vey done in area: Platanthera chorisiana. (choris bog-orchid), found in the vicinitv. Sham-shinned hawk seen soaring above near- 
by unit, 377-3 1 1, by the lake (to the north). Western toads seen near unit. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Seed tree w/ reserves: Leave 3 TPA of YC of nhenotvnicallv superior trees for seed sources to maintain diverse 
stand composition. Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cutting unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumps or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type D clear-cut. B&W streams 
require minimum of 100 foot buffers. O&W streams require DF, SY, or full suspension, and cleaning of introduced debris im- 
mediately . G&W streams require DF, SY (where possible) or partial over, and cleaning of introduced debris before the end of the 
operating period. Combine extremely steep slopes and M M I 4 soils in NW part of unit with stream buffers and delete. Delete 
cliffs and adjacent low volume timber in middle of unit. 


C h a s i n o 


Study Area Interim Layout NOI Unit 677-315 

Mopscole 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 



Existing Roods 
Proposed Roods 
Unit Boundary 


& 


Estuory Buffers 



500' Beach Buffer 



Created by Sally M e r f e I d on November 01. 1996 






CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 



VOL: Unit deleted ALTERNATIVES: 


D: LOGGING SYSTEMS: 

“ 






















































. 















































Chosino Study Area Interim Layout NOI 

Mopscole 1 : 15 8 4 0 (4 inch lo Mi 


i „ i ,i i 


0 £ F C , H , I , J K L M N 0 


U n 

I e ) 
Q 


it 677-319 



A 


I C I D I E ! F ; G I H I I ! J ! K ! L I M I N I 0 


P : Q i R ! S . I i U I 

No Cut Slreom Buffers by Chon 


Class I Stream 
1—1111 Closs 2 Stream 
Closs 3 Stream 
Existing Roods 
' Proposed Roods 

1 Unit Boundary 


V/s 


' Salt Water 


i i 

V : W I 


y p 


x . y , i 


Fresh Water Lakes 


Partial Cut Stream Buffers by Chanlyp 


\ Estuary Buffers 


500' Beach Buffer 



Created by Solly fferfeld on November 04, t 9 9 & 


CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCU-UNIT#: 677-327 ACRES:_L5 VOL: _284 MBF ALTERNATIVES:^ 

PHOTO YR/#: ’91-490-48 1/4 OUAD: CRGA-l NW 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: HE 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 67703-36. low windthrow risk, high elev. Productivity of site is moderate. Helicopter access 
through private land. Suspension requirements (see soils or fish). Very difficult terrain, stay off extreme slopes and cliffs. Plant 5 
acres of YC. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

Field 

D.J.Landwehr, 

10/16/95 

E1S R. Johnson 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils McGilvery, StNicholas, Tolstoi, Kaikli, with Wadleigh and Shakan. Slopes 35-130%. Lands in- 
cluding MMI 4, slopes greater than 75%, cliffs, and some McGlivery have been deleted. Unit now about 15 A. Approximately 5 
acres of McGilvery soil scattered throughout the unit. About 10 acres are high MMI soils. Minimum of partial suspension is re- 
quired. Helicopter yarding is prescribed and should provide full suspension (BMP 13.9). Locate the unit boundary below the first 
cliffs in the east and southwest portions of the unit. A 150 to 200 foot buffer on the lake (BMPs 12.6, 12.6a, 13.5). G&W protec- 
tion on streams 2 through 7 (BMP 13.16). Place unit boundary on streams 4 and 7. See fisheries section of this card. 

D. Kuntzsch, K. 
Buckley, 8/17/95 

FISHERIES: Recommend that the lake adjacent to this unit be given a minimum 150’ no cut buffer due to unstable soils and steep 
slopes on the East, South, and West sides of the lake (BMP 12.6). Stream 2 is a class III green/white. Stream 3 is a class III 
green/white. Stream 4 is a class III green/white. Stream 5 is a class III green/ white. Stream 6 is a class III green/ white. Stream 7 
is a class III orange/ white that requires a slope break buffer plus 30’ (BMP 13.16). The class III green/ white streams require di- 
rectional falling, and split yarding (where practical) or partial suspension. Clean streams of introduced debris before the end of the 
operating period or before the yarder leaves the area (BMP 13.16). 

M.Dillman 

7/96 

WILDLIFE: 

To provide for adequate snag density and distribution within the VCU, recommend leaving a 0.1 acre or larger snag patch for each 
10 acres of unit. Recommend leaving live reserve trees where possible to maintain habitat structure. This unit did not rate as a 
high priority unit, due to steepness, for wildlife. Portions of this unit were steeper then what is recommended for goshawk surveys 
according to the current protocols. It was not surveyed by wildlife in 1995 or 1996. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Uneven-aeed Mamt: for regeneration and structure retention. Diameter limit - helicopter system, leave all SDe- 
cies less than 24" DBH. G&W streams: DF. SY (where practical) or partial over. Clean stream of introduced debris before the 
end of the operating period or before the yarder leaves the area. 


32 

3 I 

30 

29 

28 

2 7 

26 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 I 

20 

I 9 

I 8 

I 7 

1 6 

1 5 

1 4 

I 3 

1 2 

I I 

I 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

I 

o I I 


32 

3 1 

30 

29 

28 

27 

26 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 I 

20 

I 9 

I 8 

1 7 

I 6 

I 5 

I 4 

1 3 

1 2 

I I 

! 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

I 


Chosino Study Area 


Interim Layout NOI Unit 677-327 

Mopscole 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 



A ! 8 I C I 0 i E ! F i G 

® ® Class I Streom 

11111 Closs 2 Streom 

Closs 3 Streom 
" Existing Roods 

,L Proposed Roods 

' Unit Boundary 


i i 

i i 

i H i 



i i 

I i J i K 
Soil Water 

Fresh Water 

Estuary But 

500' Beoch 


i L i M i N 



e r s 
utter 


I I ! i i 

! I ! i i 

. O i P i 0 i R i S 

No Cut Streom Butler 


Portial Cut Streom B 


i i i i 

i i i i 

I i U i V ! W i 

by Chonlyp 

ters by Chonlyp 



i i 

Y i Z , 


Uerfeld on November 01. 1996 


CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCU-UNIT#: 677-328 ACRES:J4 VOL: 189 MBF ALTERNATIVES:_6 

PHOTO YR/#: '91-490-47 1/4 QUAD: CRG A-l NW 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: HE 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: Low windthrow risk. Productivity of site is low - moderate. Helicopter yarding 

method above cable reach of lower unit, adjust bdry accordingly. Due to steep slopes. Partial cut buffer. Uneconomic, low vol- 
ume area surrounding. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

field 

D.J.Landwehr, 

10/12/95 

E1S R.Johnson 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Expansion up slope of cliff and low volume timber in NE end of 677-3 15. Partial cut by helicopter in- 
cludes harvest of laree suitable areas between cliffs, but no harvest on small cliffs (BMP 1 3.91. 

K. McCartney, 
S. Deck, 
7/12/96 

FISHERIES: Stream 3 isa class IV green/white. Stream 4 is a class IV green/ white. Stream 5 is a class IV green/ white. Stream 6 
is a class IV green/ white. Stream 8 is a class IV green/ white. Stream 9 is a class IV green/ white. Stream 10 is a class IV green/ 
white. The class IV green/ white streams require directional falling, and split yarding (where practical) or partial suspension. 

Clean stream of introduced debris by the end of the operating period or before the yarder leaves the area (BMP 13.16). 

M.Dillman 

7/96 

WILDLIFE: 

To provide for adequate snag density and distribution within the VCU, recommend leaving a 0. 1 acre or larger snag patch for each 
10 acres of unit. Recommend leaving live reserve trees where possible to maintain habitat structure. This unit did not rate as a 
high priority unit, due to elevation, for wildlife. The elevation of the unit is above the criteria in the current goshawk protocol. It 
was not surveyed by wildlife in 1995 or 1996. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Seed tree w/ reserves: Leave 3 TPA of YC of Dhenotvnicallv sunerior trees for seed sources to 
maintain diverse stand composition. Harvest large areas between cliffs, but not on small cliffs. 


C h o s i n o 


Study Area Interim Layout NOI Unit 677-328 

Mopscole 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 

i n i 'i °i "i L| M, N| 



A i B i C 
0 — e — 


: i i i i i i i i 

OiEtFiGiHi Ii JiKiLsM 


i i i 

i 0 i P i Q 


i i i i i i 

R i S i T i U i V i W i 


ooooo 


Closs I Stream 
Closs 2 Stream 
Closs 3 Stream 
Existing Roods 
Proposed Roods 
Unit Boundor y 




' So I t Water 


fresh Woter Lakes 


No Cut Stream Butlers by Chontyp 
Partial Cut Stream Butlers by Chontyp 


'N Estuary Butlers 
500' Beach Buffer 



Created by Solly Iterleld on November 01, 1990 


CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCU-i 
PHOTO 




VOL: Unit deleted ALTERNATIVES:. 


>: 




LOGGING SYSTEMS: 
































* 






















































































Chasino Study Area Interim Layout NOI Unit 677-501 

M a p s c o I e 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 


| C 0 E ! F 0 I H I I I J I K I L 1 M 


I r I W I " I 0 I 1 I U I V I 


v : z ; 



1 0 1 c 

! D i 

E 

1 F ! 

G © — 

Class 

1 

S t r e om 

1 1 -HH 

Class 

2 

Stream 

ooooo 

C 1 o s s 

3 

Stream 

■ ■ 1 

Exist 

i n g 

Roads 


Proposed 

Roods 

1 

Unit 

B o u n d o r y 


i i i i 


R i S ! T i U i V i W i X 


% 


' Sail Water 


gjjj No Cut Stream Butlers by Chantyp 
fresh Water Lakes Partial Cut Stream Butters by Chantyp 


\ Estuary Butlers 


500' Beach Buffer 



Created by Sally Uerleld on November 01. 199b 



CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCU-IJNIT#: 678-301 ACRES:J4 VOL: _468 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 5,6 

PHOTO YR/#: *9 1-590-65 1/4 QUAD: CRG A-l NW 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: RS /HE 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 678- , low windthrow risk, portion downhill yarded. Productivity of site is high. Op- 

tion to extend unit uphill to meet road for uphill yarding potential. Buffers (see fisheries). Leave setting between adjacent unit. 
Suspension requirements (see soils or fish). Unit changed to provide proportionality of volume classes. Field checking alterna- 
tive regeneration methods. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: Avoid Karst formations when possible. 

R. Johnson, 6/96 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils mapped 32D, 32E (StNicholas 35-75%). Partial suspension for MM13 and forested wetland (BMPs 
12.5, 13.9). Third order watershed (BMP 12.1) 

D. Kuntzsch, M. 
Becker, 9/7/95 

FISHERIES: Stream 1 is a class III orange/ white that requires a slope break plus 25’ buffer (BMP 12.6). Stream 2 is a class III 
green/ white. Stream 3 is a class III green/white. The green and white streams require directional falling, and split yarding (where 
practical) or partial over. Clean stream of introduced debris before the end of the operating period or before the yarder leaves the 
area (BMP 13.16). Recommend deletion of the bowl in the southeast comer of the unit. 


WILDLIFE: 

C.Tighe, J. Wrate, 
J.Baichtal 6/12/95 
B. Johnston, 

G. Lawton 
5/23/96 

Deer sign within unit. Recommend leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat structure and snag den- 
sity. 5/23/96 -Great-homed owl heard in unit. Maintain 1000 foot estuary buffer. 

J.Baichtal 

5/15/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: No minerals concerns, access for harvest will improve mineral exploration access. Possibly on Ruby 
Tuesday Claim Block. Sinking karst stream along NW unit boundary. Pull back unit boundary to protect water quality. 


LANDS: 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 


VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cuttine unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumns or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type D clear-cut. Partial suspen- 
sion required for soils protection. Unit dropped from the preferred alternative due to proportionality based on acres. 


32 

3 I 

30 

29 

28 

27 

26 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 1 

20 

1 9 

I 8 

I 7 

I 6 

I 5 

1 4 

I 3 

t 2 

I I 

1 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

I 

0 I I 


Chosino Study Area Interim Layout NOI Unit 678-301 

Mopscole 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 



A i B i C 
o © — 


OOOOO 


i i i i 

i i 


i i i i 


0 i E 

i r ; G 

i H i 

i i 

J ■ K i L r M N 0 i P i 0 i R i S 

Class 1 

Stream 


Soil 

Water EM 1 No Cut Slreom Butler 

Class 2 

Stream 



Class 3 

Stream 

% 

Fresh Water Lakes Partial Cut Slreom B 

Existing 

Roods 

y/ 



Proposed 

Roods 

& 

E s 1 u 

o r y Butlers 

Unit Boundary 


5 0 0 ' 

Beach Butter 



Uerfeld on November 01, 1996 


CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCU-UNIT#: 678-303 ACRES:^5 VOL: J47J MBF ALTERNATIVES: 3.4.5.6 

PHOTO YR/#: '91-590-20 1/4 OUAD: CRGA-l NW 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: RS /HE 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 67802-136, low windthrow risk, portion downhill yarded. Productivity of site is high. Buffers 
(see fisheries). KARST POTENTIAL. Partial cut buffer. Retain stand structure for wildlife where feasible. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: Avoid Karst formations when possible. 

R. Johnson, 6/96 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils mapped 32D (StNicholas 35-60%) and 87CD (Grindall - StNicholas 5-60%). Partial suspension for 
MMI3 and forested wetlands (BMPs 13.9, 12.5). Reported karst in unit, could alter prescription. Mapping and photos indicate 
possible deletions open muskeg center E portion (may be a blowdown patch). More rugged topography than mapped NE and W 
portions, could be confusion with map unit 29EF (McGilvery). 

J. Hannon, M. 
Becker, 6/26/95 

FISHERIES: Stream 1 is a class I blue/white that requires a 150’ TTRA buffer due to steep slopes (BMP 1 2.6). Stream 2 is a 
class I blue/white that requires a 120’ TTRA buffer (BMP 12.6). The road will require fish passage and timing (BMP 14. 14). 


WILDLIFE: 

C.Tighe, J.Wrate 
6/12/95. C.Tighe, 
B. Johnston, A. 
Mueller 5/24/96 

This unit has been identified as an important wildlife travel corridor. Partial harvest is recommended to maintain forest structure 
and lessen the impact on wildlife migration and dispersal. Recommend leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to 
maintain habitat structure and snag density. Lots of blowdown in unit as well as steep rock outcrops and slides. The unit has an 
open understory. Maintain 500 foot beach and 1000 foot estuary buffer. 

J.Baichtal 

5/15/96 

10/22/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: No minerals concerns, access for harvest will improve mineral exploration access. Possibly on Ruby 
Tuesday Claim Block. Numerous sinks reported by engineering recon. Unit is predominately underlain by massive to thin-bedded 
marble interbedded with phyllite. Karst features are developed throughout unit. Soils are a mosaic of shallow to deep residual 
soils and shallow organic soils atop the epikarst ridges. The majority of the unit is moderate vulnerability karstlands, partial sus- 
pension required within unit as a minimum to minimize shallow soil displacement. Yarding should be across karst ridges not 
along to help minimize soil displacement. It is recommended that the knob in the center of the unit be deleted from the unit due to 
well developed karst features and the cliffs bounding the knob on two sides. During road construction, surface runoff should not 
be directed in collapse features and sinkholes adjacent to the alignment. Quarry placement and development should be approved 
by both Forest Geologist and District Fishery Staff. 


LANDS: 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 


VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRiPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cuttine unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumns or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type D clear-cut. Partial suspen- 
sion required for soils protection. 


C h o s i n a 


Study A r e a 


Interim Layout NOI 


Unit 678-303 



A i B ! C 
0 — e — 

i t-t i 

ooooo 


0 i E 
C I o s s f 
C I o s s 2 
Class 3 


I ! 

i F i 

Stream 
Stream 
S t r e om 


G I H 



i i i 

i i i 

I i J i K i 

Salt Water 

fresh Water 


L i M I N 



a k e s 



i I I I I ! 

i i i i i i 

, 0 i Pi 0 i R i Si 

No Cut Streom Butters 

Partial Cut Stream Bu 


i i i i 

i i i i 

I i U i V i W i 

by C h o n t y p 

ters by Chonlyp 


i i 

! I 

Y i Z 


Existing Roods 
Proposed Roads 
Unit Boundary 



Estuory Buffers 



500' Beach Butter 



Creoted by Solly Uerfeld on November 01. 1995 






CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCIJ-UNIT#: 678-305 ACRES:_6 VOL: ^16 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 3.4.S.6 

PHOTO YR/#: ’91-590-21 1/4 QUAD: CRG A-l NW 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: RS 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 67802-144, low windthrow risk. Productivity of site is high. Buffers (see fisheries). Partial cut 
buffer. Field checking alternative regeneration methods. Wildlife structure desired. Maintain setting width between units. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: Avoid Karst formations when possible. 

R. Johnson, 
8/04/95 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils mapped 87CD (Grindall - StNicholas 5-60%). Partial suspension MMI3 and forested wetlands; 
delete if open muskeg (BMPs 12.5, 13.9), but open muskeg not visible on photo. Unit on ground may lie more upslope on lands 
mapped as 32E/29EF. 

M. Becker, J. 
Hannon, 6/26/95 

FISHERIES: Stream 1 is a class I blue/ white TTRA that requires a 150’ buffer due to steep slopes (BMP 12.6). Stream 2 is a 
class I blue/ white TTRA that requires a 100’ buffer (BMP 12.6). The estuary requires a 1000’ buffer. 


WILDLIFE: 

C.Tighe, 

A. Mueller 
5/24/96 

Baichtal 10/1/96 

Wildlife recommends leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat structure and snag density. This unit 
was not surveyed in 1995. Maintain 1000 foot estuary buffer. Incredible bear usage in early October because of pink and coho 
run. 

J.Baichtal 

10/22/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: No minerals concerns, access for harvest will improve mineral exploration access. Possibly on Ruby 
Tuesday Claim Block. Numerous sinks reported by engineering recon. Unit is predominately underlain by massive to thin-bedded 
marble interbedded with phyllite. Karst features are developed throughout unit. Soils are a mosaic of shallow to deep residual 
soils and shallow organic soils atop the epikarst ridges. One cave located along the southern unit boundary. Large discrete karst 
features throughout unit. Karst springs well up along northern unit boundary and feed through beaver pond complex into anadro- 
mous stream. Steep carbonate cliff/slope along southern unit boundary. With the density of karst features, the cave, and associ- 
ated fisheries, this unit would be entirely of high vulnerability karst. Based on this, it is recommended that all of the unit be ex- 
cluded from harvest as per the standards and guidelines outlined in the RSDEIS for the TLMP. 


LANDS: 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 


VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cuttine unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumps or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type D clear-cut. Partial suspen- 
sion required for soils protection. Possibly combine with 678-312. Recommend deletion of unit to meet standards and guidelines 
for karst protection. 


32 

3 I 

30 

29 

28 

27 

26 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 I 

20 

I 9 

I 8 

I 7 

t 6 

I 5 

I 4 

I 3 

I 2 

1 I 

1 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

o l I 


32 

3 1 

30 

29 

28 

27 

26 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 1 

20 

1 9 

1 8 

I 7 

I 6 

1 5 

I 4 

t 3 

I 2 

1 I 

1 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 


Chosino Study Area 


Interim Layout N 0 I Unit 6 7 8 - 3 0 5 

Mopscole 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 



A ! B ' C 
g e — 


COOOO 


0 i E ! F i G 
Class I Stream 
Class 2 Stream 
Closs 3 Stream 
Existing Roods 
Proposed Roods 
Unit Boundor y 


r 

i H 



iii: 

III: 

I I J I K I L I 
So I t Wo t e r 

Fresh Water Lakes 

Estuary Suffers 

500' 8eoch Buffer 


M ! N 



i i i i i i i i i i 

i i i i i i i i i i 

OiPiQiRiSiTiUiViWi 
No Cut Stream 8 u f f e r s by Chantyp 


Portial Cut Stream Buffers by Chantyp 



i 

2 


Ueifeld on November 01. I 9 9 & 


CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCIJ-UNIT#: 678-310 ACRES:^9 VOL: 821 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 3A5.6 

PHOTO YR/#: ’9 1-590-65 1/4 QUAD: CRG A-l NW 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: RS 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 67802-137, high windthrow risk. Productivity of site is high. Partial cut buffer. Field checking 
alternative regeneration methods. Maintain setting width between units. High mistletoe deflect. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: Avoid karst formations when possible. 

R. Johnson, 6/96 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils mapped primarily 32E (StNicholas 60-75%) with small amount 32C (StNicholas 5-35%). Partial 
suspension forested wetlands and MMI3 (BMPs 12.5, 13.9). Reported cliffs, which corresponds with photos and confusion map- 
ping 29EF. These may need protection or deleting. W portion in third order watershed (BMP 12.1). 

K. McCartney, J. 
Hannon, 6/21/95 

FISHERIES: Recommend that the lower boundary of the unit be no lower than 400’ elevation (approximate road line). Stream 1 is 
a class II orange/ white stream that requires a 100’ AHMU buffer (BMP 12.6). This stream will require fish passage and timing 
(BMP 14.14). Stream 2 is a class III green/ white. Stream 3 is a class III green/ white. The green/ white streams require direc- 
tional falling, and split yarding (where practical) or partial suspension. Clean stream of introduced debris before the end of the 
operating season or before the yarder leaves the area (BMP 13.16) 

M.Dillman, 
J.Wrate 6/27/95 
C.Tighe, A. 
Mueller 6/28/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Recommend leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat structure and snag density. Snags were seen in 
unit. 

J.Baichtal 

10/22/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS:No minerals concerns, access for harvest will improve mineral exploration access. Possibly on Ruby 
Tuesday Claim Block. Karst cliff reported by engineering recon. Northern edge of unit is by marble. Southern half of unit was 
not reconned by Forest Geologist, there may be karst developed there, resource concerns should be addressed during layout. Very 
steep marble slopes/cliffs (i.e. >100%) have very shallow organic soils atop them. These areas would fall into high vulnerability 
karstlands or McGilvery Soils. Based on this, it is recommended that the cliff portion of the unit be excluded from harvest as per 
the standards and guidelines outlined in the RSDEIS for the TLMP. 


LANDS: 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 


VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: Use tvpe A clear-cut. Partial suspention required for soils protection. Dropped steep 
areas to the south and northeast. 


32 

3 1 

30 

29 

28 

27 

2 6 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 1 

20 

I 9 

I 8 

! 7 

I 6 

1 5 

1 4 

I 3 

I 2 

t t 

1 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

I 

o I I 


C h o s i n o 


Study Area 



ocooo 




CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCU-IJNIT#: 678-312 ACRES:_Y3 VOL: _89] MBF ALTERNATIVES: 3.4.5.6 


PHOTO YR/#: ’91-590-21 1/4 QUAD: CRG A-l NW 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: RS 


REV1EWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 67802-138, high windthrow risk. Productivity of site is moderate. Partial cut buffer. Maintain 
setting width between units. Possibly combine with unit 305. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: Avoid Karst formations when possible. 

field P.Krosse, 
8/01/95 

EIS R. Johnson 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils McGilvery, Remedios, Kupreanof. Slopes 65-85%, plus rock outcrops. Partial suspension for 
MMI3 and McGilvery (BMP 13.9; TLMP 1991). Limited field review, but concern potential greater than 41% McGilvery, and 
may need to delete or modify unit if so (TLMP 1991). Concerns blowdown if 100’ buffer stream center of unit. Karst reported N 
end. 

K. McCartney, J. 
Hannon, 6/20/95 

FISHERIES: This unit will require a 1000’ estuary buffer. Stream 1 is a class III green/ white that requires directional falling, and 
split yarding (where practical) or partial suspension. Clean stream of introduced debris before the end of the operating season or 
before the yarder leaves the area (BMP 13.16). Stream 2 is a class III orange/ white that needs a 100’ buffer due to its location 
and proximity to fish habitat (BMP 12.6). 

D. Parker, 
J.Wrate, 

M. Pacheco 
6/21/95 
C.Tighe, A. 
Mueller 5/23/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Deer forage and browsed plants were seen throughout unit. Bear sign seen in unit. Recommend leaving live reserve trees and 
snags where possible to maintain habitat structure and snag density. 5/23/96 Wolf scat seen in unit with shells in it. Estuary re- 
quires a 1000 foot buffer. 

J.Baichtal 

5/15/96 

10/22/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: No minerals concerns, access for harvest will improve mineral exploration access. Possibly on Ruby 
Tuesday Claim Block. Karst cliff reported by engineering recon. Not visited by Forest Geologist. Suggest Geologist / Soils join 
visit. Moderate vulnerability karst as a minimum. Partial suspension required on karst portion of unit as a minimum. 10/96 still 
did not get to unit but based on adjacent geology karst is probable and steep marble cliffs may be found in unit. 


LANDS: 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 


VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cutting unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in chimps or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type D clear-cut. Partial suspen- 
sion required. 


C h a s i no 


Study Area 


Interim Layout NOI 


Unit 678-312 



o- 


ooooo 


Class 

t S t i 

r e am 

Class 

2 S t i 

’ e o m 

C 1 o s s 

3 S t i 

' e o m 



Soil Water 
Fresh Water Lakes 



No Cut Stream Batters by Chantyp 
Portial Cut Stream Butters by Chonlyp 


Existing Roods 
Proposed Roods 
Unit Boundary 



Estuory Butlers 



500' Beach Butter 



Created by Solly Uerfeld on November 01. 1 9 9 & 



CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCIJ-IJNIT#: 678-314 ACRES: 15 VOL: 378 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 3.4.5. 6 

PHOTO YR/#: ’91-590-21 1/4 QUAD CRGA-1NW1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: RS 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
6/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMESER: 67802-132, Mod. windthrow risk. Productivity of site is high. Partial cut buffer. Field checking 
alternative regeneration methods. Keep unit narrow for windfirmness. Maintain setting width between units. Potential option: 
corridor thin settings. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: Avoid Karst formations 

field P.Krosse, 

8/01/95 

EIS R. Johnson 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Similar to 678-312. Soils 50% McGilvery; 40% Kupreanof, Remedios; 10% StNicholas, Kaikli. Slopes 
65-80%, with 25-35% on lower backslopes, which are wetter. Partial suspension MMI3, forested wetlands, and McGilvery (BMP 
13.9; TLMP 1991). Believed 50% McGilvery, so may need to delete or modify unit. Unit dissected by jointed bedrock. Joints 
hold drainages and concave wetlands. 

K. McCartney, 

J. Hannon 
6/21/95 

K. McCartney, K. 
Kitchel, 6/20/96 

FISHERIES: Stream 1 in the unit is a class III orange/ white. Stream 3 is a class IV green/ white. Stream 4 is a class IV green/ 
white. Stream 5 is a class IV green/ white. The orange/ white stream requires a slope break plus 25’ buffer (BMP 13.16). The 
green/ white streams require directional falling, and split yarding( where practical) or partial over. Clean streams of introduced 
debris by the end of the operating season or before the yarder leaves the area (BMP 13.16). 

D. Parker, 
J.Wrate, M. 
Pacheco 6/12/95 
C.Tighe, A. 
Mueller 5/23/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Deer browse and pellets, and game trails seen throughout area. Recommend leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible 
to maintain habitat structure and snag density. Estuary requires 1000 foot buffer. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cutting unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumns or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type D clear-cut. Partial suspen- 
tion required. 


C h a s i no 


Study Area 


Interim Layout NOI Unit 

Mapscole 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 


678-314 



s e — 

i i i i i 


ooooo 


Class I 
Class 2 
Class 3 


Stream 

Stream 

Stream 



Soil Water 
Fresh Water Lakes 


j/l 

N a 

Cut Stream 


P O 1 

• t i o 1 Cut S 

ii 'il 




tiers by Chontyp 
am Baiters by Chonlyp 


Existing Roads 
Proposed Roods 
Unit Boundary 



Estuary Butters 



500' Beoch Bulfer 



32 
31 
30 
29 
28 
27 
2 6 
25 
24 
23 
22 

2 t 
20 
I 9 
I 8 
I 7 
I 6 
1 5 
1 4 
I 3 
i 2 
I I 

1 0 
9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 
1 


I r 6 a ted by Solly U e r Feld on November 01. 1996 


CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCU-UNIT#: 678-316 ACRES: 37 VOL: 1332 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 3.4.S.6 

PHOTO YR /#: ’91-590-65 1/4 OUAD: CRGA-l NW 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: SL 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 67802-131, low windthrow risk, mod. to high elev. Productivity of site is high. Unit design calls 
for clear-cut regeneration method. Verify roads/and/or landing locations. Maintain setting width between units. Dropped 2 acres 
of cliffs-weather boundary. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: Avoid Karst formations when possible. 

R. Johnson, 6/96 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils mapped 32E (StNicholas 60-75%). Corresponds to partial suspension for MMI3 and forested wet- 
land (BMPs 12.5, 13.9). Possible confusion with map unit 29EF as upper portion to W reported very steep. Field review planned 
to verify. GIS shows W edge in third order watershed (BMP 12.1); does not correspond to location on ground. 

D. Kuntzsch, M. 
Solomon, S. 
Deck, 6/20/96 

FISHERIES: Stream 1 is a class IV green/ white. Stream 2 is a class III orange/ white. Stream 3 is a class III orange/ white. The 
green/ white stream requires directional falling, and split yarding (where practical) or partial over. Clean stream of introduced 
debris before the end of the operating season or before the yarder leaves the area (BMP 13.16). The orange/ white streams require 
directional falling, split yarding or full suspension, and immediate cleaning of introduced debris (BMP 13.16). 

M.Dillman, 
J.Wrate 6/27/95 
C.Tighe, 

B. Johnston, A. 
Mueller 6/13/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Bear sign seen in area. Recommend leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat structure and snag den- 
sity. 6/13/96 Deer sign- beds, pellets, and browse seen in unit. Unit also had game trails throughout. Bear scat and dug up 
skunk cabbage seen. Wolf scat also seen in muskeg. Karst along ridge. Great goshawk habitat. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cuttine unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumps or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type D clear-cut. Partial suspen- 
tion required. Dropped 2 acres of cliffs - feather boundry. 


32 

3 1 

30 

29 

26 

27 

26 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 1 

20 

I 9 

I 8 

I 7 

I 6 

I 5 

1 4 

1 3 

I 2 

1 t 

1 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

I 

0 I I 


C h a s i no 


Study Areo Interim Layout NOI Unit 678-316 

M a p s c a I e 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 



A i B ! C 

o e — 

i — e — i i h 

OOOOO 


0 I 

E 

i F i 

Class 

1 

Stream 

C 1 o s s 

2 

Stream 

Class 

3 

S t r e om 

E x i s 1 

i n g 

Roods 

P r o p a 

s e d 

Roods 

Unit 

B o u 

n d a r y 


i 

i H 



III! 

I I I I 

I i. J i K i L i 
Soil Water 

fresh Water Lakes 

Estuary Butlers 

500' Beoch Butler 


I I I I I I ! i i i i 

i i i i i i i i i i i 

i N i O i P i 0 i R i S i T i U i V i W i 


No Cut Stream Butlers by Chantyp 


Partial Cut Stream Butters by Chonlyp 




Y 


i 

i 


Uerfeld on Nonember 01, 1995 



CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCIJ-IJNIT#: 678-319 ACRES: 10 VOL: 237 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 3.4.5.6 

PHOTO YR/#: , 91-590-64 1/4 QUAD: CRGA-1 NW 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: SL 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 67802-132, high windthrow risk, high elev. mod. mistletoe present. Productivity of site is moder- 
ate. Unit design calls for clear-cut regeneration method. Verify roads and/or landing locations. Maintain setting width between 
units. Potential to add on to the west on flat. Drop top of unit and stay off oversteepen slopes to north. Maintain cedar component 
through planting. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: Avoid karst formations whenever possible. 

R. Johnson, 6/96 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils mapped 32E (StNicholas 60-75%). Partial suspension for MMI3 and forested wetland (BMPs 12.5, 
13.9). Believed continued confusion with 29EF based photos and field review others. Dropped S third unit based upon observa- 
tions made by silviculture and fisheries: gorge 130%, unstable, cliff, landslides. N boundary reported as V-notch. Recommend full 
suspension, which is obtainable if helicopter yarded. Due to possible limitations to road access (BMPs 13.9, 14.1), may need to 
change logging system to helicopter yarding. 

McCartney, M. 
Becker, C. Tighe, 
J. Wrate, D. 
Kuntzsch, J. 
Frank, J. Baichtal, 
6/13/95 

FISHERIES: Stream 1 is a class III green/ white. Stream 2 is a class III green/ white. Stream 3 is a class III green/ white. The 
green/ white streams require directional falling, and split yarding (where practical) or partial over. Clean streams of introduced 
debris before the end of the opperating period or before the yarder leaves the area (BMP 13.16). 

C. Tighe, J. Wrate, 
M. Becker, K. 
McCartney 
6/13/95 
C. Tighe, 

B. Johnston, A. 
Mueller 6/13/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Recommend leaving live reserve trees and snags to maintain habitat structure and snag density. 6/13/96 Deer sign in unit. 

J. Baichtal 

5/15/96 

10/22/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: No minerals concerns, access for harvest will improve mineral exploration access. Possibly on Ruby 
Tuesday Claim Block. Well developed epikarst / sink holes / and small cave along upper unit boundary. The karst portion of the 
unit is of high vulnerability. The karst portion of the unit should be removed from the unit as per the standards and guidelines 
outlined in the RSDEIS for the TLMP. 


LANDS: 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 


VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20%> of cuttins unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumps or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type B clear-cut. Leave less 
than or equal to 14" cedars. Full suspension required for soils protection. 


32 

3 1 

30 

29 

28 

27 

2 6 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 I 

20 

t 9 

1 8 

I 7 

I 6 

1 5 

1 4 

1 3 

I 2 

I 1 

1 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

I 

o I I 


Chasino Study Areo Interim Layout NOI Unit 678-319 

Mopscole 1:15840 (4 inch lo Mile) 



ooooo 


Class 1 Stream 
Class 2 Stream ^ 


Closs 3 Streom 
Existing Roods 
Proposed Roods 
Unit Boundary 


V/,. 


Soli Water 


Fresh Water Lakes 


No Cut Streom Buffers by Chonlyp 
Partial Cut Stream Butters by Chonlyp 


\ Estuary Butlers 


500' Beoch Butter 



llerfeld on November 01, 1996 


CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCU-IJNIT#: 678-324 ACRES :JJ) VOL: 225 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 4,6 

PHOTO YR /#: ’91-590-64 1/4 QUAD: CRG A-l NW 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: HE 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 67802-127, low windthrow risk, high elev. Productivity of site is moderate. 2-3 layer canopy, 
regeneration abundant. Unit extended to the west. Only economical if adjacent units harvested. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

R. Johnson, 6/96 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils mapped 32 E (StNicholas 60-75%). Partial suspension for MM13 and forested wetland (BMPs 12.5, 
13.9); helicopter prescribed. Third order watershed (BMP 12.1). 

J. Frank, M. 
Becker, K. Mc- 
Cartney, D. 
Kuntzsch, J. Ba- 
ichtal, C. Tighe, J. 
Wrate, 6/13/95 

FISHERIES: This unit has no fisheries concerns. 

C. Tighe, J. Wrate 

D. Kuntzsch, J. 
Frank, M. Becker 
6/13/95 C. Tighe, 
B.Johnston, A. 
Mueller 6/13/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Few snags. Trees spaced out. Deer sign and browse rare. Recommend leaving live reserve trees and snags to maintain habitat 
structure and snag density. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G, Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Overstory removal. Leave all unmerchantable trees standing. Leave 1 cedars/acre for seed. Partial suspension 
required for soils protection. 


32 

3 1 

30 

29 

28 

27 

26 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 1 

20 

1 9 

1 8 

I 7 

I 6 

1 5 

I 4 

I 3 

1 2 

1 I 

I 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

I 

o I I 


C h o s i n o 


Study Area Interim Layout NOI Unit 678-324 

Mopscole 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 



A i B i C 
© e — 


i i i i i 

ooooo 


I 0 I E i F ! G 
Closs I Stream 
Class 2 Stream 
Closs 3 Stream 
Existing Roods 
Proposed Roods 
Unit Boundory 


i 


' H ! 



i i i i 

I i J ! K I L i' 
Salt Water 

Fresh Water Lakes 

Estuory Buffers 

500' Beoch Butter 


! N 



! I l I I l I I I I 

I l l I I l I I I I 

i 0 i P i Q i R i S i T i U i V i W i 

No Cut Stream Butters by Chontyp 

Portiol Cut Stream Butlers by Chontyp 



Y i Z 


Uerfeld on November 01, 1996 




CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCtJ-IJNIT#: 678-325 ACRES:_62 VOL: 1245 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 3.4.6 

PHOTO YR/#: '91-590-63/'72(44)-772-160 1/4 OUAD: CRGA-l NW 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: HE 


REV1EWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 67802-126, high windthrow risk, high elev. mod. mistletoe present. Productivity of site is mod- 
erate. Helicopter log only. Suspension requirements (see soils or fish). Soils added to unit below the slope break. May need to 
drop portions of steep slopes. May have to leave more structure if soil protection increased. Unit changed to provide proportional- 
ity of volume classes. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

R.Johnson, 

8/01/95 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Unit expanded downslope to include area between this original unit and above N half former unit 678- 
327. Soils at bottom Traitors, Tolstoi, McGilvery, slopes 80% and greater. MMI3 on mineral soils; McGilvery, less than 41%. 
Overstory primarily western hemlock. This continues to about 1280’ where soil changes to StNicholas, which on these slopes is 
MMI4. Canopy is open cedars with western hemlock, and mountain hemlock, similar to sub-alpine. Slopes break at 1400’ to 55- 
65% but StNicholas and Helm soils characteristic of MMI4 with creeping and slumping, pistol butted cedars and hemlock, and 
leaning spruce. Conditions appear stable from 1460’ to 1660’ with Mitkof and McGilvery on 55-85% slopes. Yellow cedar 
comes in 1660’ to 1700’. Soil lower end Helm, changes to McGilvery upper end before top backline. Finger to the N center de- 
leted because rock face and McGilvery. Prescribed helicopter logging should provide full suspension (BMP 13.9). Added section 
from 500-700’ to 1280’ best for harvest. Section from 1280’ to 1460’ MMI4 potential to slide following harvest could be deleted 
(BMP 13.5), versus the potential from slides due to windthrow if left. Best to delete from 1280’ to top for both MMI4 and McGil- 
very (BMP 13.5; TLMP 1991). Question if obtain adequate regeneration above 1280’, may need to plant. Unit changed to only 
include from 1460’ feet and above. 

K.Kitchel, 

M. Solomon, 
7/16/96 

FISHERIES: Stream 1 is a class IV green/ white. Below the junction with stream 2 , stream 1 is a class 111 orange/ white. Stream 
2 is a class IV green/ white. Stream 3 is a class IV green/ white. Stream 4 is a class III orange/ white. Stream 5 is a class III or- 
ange/ white. Stream 9 is a class III orange/ white. Stream 10 is a class III orange/ white. The class III orange/ white streams re- 
quire directional falling, and split yarding or full suspension. Clean streams of introduced debris immediately (BMP 13.16). The 
class IV green/ white streams require directional falling, and split yarding (where practical) or partial suspension. Clean streams of 
introduced debris by the end of the operating period or before the yarder leaves the area (BMP 13.16). 

M.Dillman 

7/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Wildlife recommends leaving live reserve trees and snags to maintain habitat structure and snag density. This unit did not rate as 
high priority for wildlife because due to steepness and elevation both of which are more than what is recommended in the current 
goshawk protocol. Therefore, wildlife did not survey in 1995 or 1996. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/M rNERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: Lower portions of this unit and the adjacent dropped unit 678-327, were surveyed in search of remnants of the 
Friendship Mine. The modem prospect was located in 678-327. Nothing was located in 678-325. No concerns with this unit, 

VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cuttins unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumns or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type C clear-cut. Harvest above 
1460’ only, see man. Unit added to the Dreferred alternative due to proportionality based on acres. 


32 

3 I 

30 

29 

28 

27 

26 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 I 

20 

1 9 

1 8 

I 7 

I 6 

I 5 

I 4 

I 3 

I 2 

I t 

1 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

I 

o I I 


Chasino Study Area Interim Layout NOI Unit 678-325 

Mopscole 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 



OOOOO 


Class I Stream 
1111 Class 2 Streom 
Class 3 Streom 
Existing Roods 
Proposed Roods 
Unit Boundory 


V/,. 


> Salt Water 


No Cut Streom Buffers by Chontyp 
fresh Water Lakes Portiol Cut Streom Butlers by Chontyp 


^ Estuory Buffers 


500' Beoch Buffer 



Uerleld on November 01, 1990 



CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCU-UNIT#: 678-331 ACRES:_6 VOL: J35 MBF ALTERNATIVES :_6 

PHOTO YR/#: ’9 1-590-24 1/4 OUAD: CGRGA-l NW 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: HE 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 67801-15, low windthrow risk, high elev. Productivity of site is high. Partial cut buffer. Adja- 
cent to private clear-cutting. Defer until adjacent cuts have grown into poles with canopy closure. 95% hemlock composition. 
Avoid PCT due to minor financial return in hemlock. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

R. Johnson, 6/96 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils mapped 528E (Tolstoi - McGilvery 60-75%). Partial suspension for MMI3, and McGilvery (BMP 
13.9; TLMP 1991); helicopter prescribed. May need delete SW comer for unstable, disturbed, MM1 4 soils (BMP 13.5). May 
need protection lake SW comer and stream leaving lake (BMPs 12.6, 12.6a, 13.16). 

K. Buckley 7/96 

FISHERIES: Office review identified that lake needs a 100’ no cut buffer (BMP 12.6). 

M.Dillman 

7/96 

WILDLIFE: 

To provide for adequate snag density and distribution within the VCU, recommend leaving a 0. 1 acre or larger snag patch for each 
10 acres of unit. Recommend leaving live reserve trees where possible to maintain habitat structure. This unit did not rate as a 
high priority area for wildlife because its elevation is above that recommended in the current goshawk protocol. Therefore, wild- 
life did not survey in 1995 or 1996. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Isolated stand, defer for better/future economics. 


32 

3 I 

30 

29 

26 

2 7 

2 6 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 1 

20 

1 9 

1 8 

I 7 

1 6 

1 5 

1 4 

I 3 

I 2 

1 I 

I 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

I 

o I I 


32 

3 1 

30 

29 

28 

27 

26 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 I 

20 

I 9 

i a 

1 7 

1 6 

1 5 

1 4 

1 3 

1 2 

I I 

I 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

I 


000 


Chosino Study Area 


Interim Layout NOI Unit 678-331 

Mopscole 1:15840 (4 inch lo Mile) 



A 


I B I C 
o e — 


i i — i - t - i 

ooooo 



! 

0 ! E 
Class I 
Class 2 
Class 3 
E x i s I i n 
Propose 
Unit Bo 


I ! 

i f : G 

Stream 
Stream 
Stream 
Roods 
Roods 
n d a r y 


i 

i H 



i i i i i 

i i i i i 

I i J i K i L i M i N 

S o I t Water 

Fresh Water Lokes 

Estuary Butlers 

500' Beoch Buffer 



i 0 I P 
No C u I 

Partial 


i i i i i i i i 

i i i i i i i i 

. Q i R ! S i I i U i V i W i 

Stream Butlers by Chontyp 


Cut Stream Bulfers by Chanlyp 



i Z 


Uerteld on November 01, 1995 


CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCIJ-UNIT#: 678-334 ACRES:J7 VOL: 340 MBF ALTERNATIVES :_6 

PHOTO YR/#: ' 9 1-590-26 1/4 QUAD: CRG A-l NW 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: HE 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 67801-25, high windthrow risk, high elev., high mistletoe present. Productivity of site is low. 
Adjacent to private clear-cuts. Short trees, high defect. Lake on map is actually rock. Drop scrub at top of unit, avoid steep 
dropoff to north and convex slope to the west. Defer for adjacency greenup. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

R. Johnson, 6/96 

SOU S/WATF.RSHF.D: Soils mapped 528D (Tolstoi - McGilverv 35-60%'). aDDears steeper on photos. Partial suspension for 
MMI3 and McGilvery (BMP 13.9; TLMP 1991); helicopter yarding prescribed. May need to bring E boundary down slope to 
exclude disturbed, MMI4 soils (BMP 13.5). Probably buffer S boundary stream, since it appears unstable (BMPs 13.16, 13.5). 
Potential to expand downslope. Most in third order watershed (BMP 12.1). 

K. Buckley 8/96 

FISHERIES: Office review determined possibility of streams in unit needing protection. Stream protection measures will be iden- 
tified during unit layout. 

M.Dillman 

7/96 

WILDLIFE: 

To provide for adequate snag density and distribution within the VCU, recommend leaving a 0. 1 acre or larger snag patch for each 
10 acres of unit. Recommend leaving live reserve trees where possible to maintain habitat structure. This unit did not rate as a 
high priority area for wildlife because its elevation is above that recommended in the current goshawk protocol. Therefore, wild- 
life did not survey in 1995 or 1996. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cuttina unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumps or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type C clear-cut. 

Defer for better and future economics and greenup on private land. Need partial suspension for soils protection. 


32 

3 I 

30 

29 

28 

27 

26 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 I 

20 

I 9 

1 8 

I 7 

1 6 

I 5 

] 4 

1 3 

I 2 

I I 

1 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

o l I 


C h a s i no 


Study Area Interim Layout NOI Unit 678-334 


Mopscole 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 



A I B I C 

g — e — 


ooooo 


! I I 

0 I E I r I G 

Class I Stream 
Class 2 Stream 
Class 3 Stream 
Existing Roods 
Proposed Roods 
Unit Boundary 


i 

i H 



i i 

i i 

I i J i K 


Soil W a t e r 


Fresh Water 


i i 

L i U i N 



Estuary Butlers 
500' Beach Buffer 


i i i i i i i i i i 

i 0 i P i 0 i R i S i T i U i V i W i 

No Cut Stream Buffers by Chontyp 

Portiol Cut Stream Buffers by Chanlyp 



32 

3 I 
30 
29 
28 
27 
2 6 
25 
24 
23 
22 

2 I 
20 
I 9 
I 8 
I 7 
I 6 
1 5 
I 4 
I 3 
1 2 
t I 

1 0 
9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 
I 


M e r f e 1 d on November 0 t . 19 9 5 


CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCIJ-IJNIT#: 678-339 ACRES: 15 VOL: 600 MBF ALTERNATIVES :_6 

PHOTO YR/#: ’91-590-27 1/4 OUAD: CRGA-l NW 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: HE 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 67801-44, high windthrow risk. Productivity of site is high. Partial cut buffer. Adjacent to pri- 
vate dear-cuts. Very unstable area. PCT 25 years if access feasible. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

R. Johnson, 
9/ 12& 13/95 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils primarily Tolstoi and McGilvery, with lithic Shakan, Kitkun, in remaining portion of unit. Slopes 
less than 70%. eenerallv highest uDner backline. and decreasing downsloDe. Partial susDension for MMI3. McGilverv. and numer- 
ous small drainages (BMPs 13.9, 13.16; TLMP 1991). Helicopter yarding prescribed. Deleted W portion S from where stream on 
unit card changes from N to S direction to SW direction, to avoid riparian (BMP 12.6). Deleted E portion from second stream 
from E shown on unit card, which point unit changes from S to SW aspect, to avoid unstable forested wetland. Lower boundary 
above riparian on creek on S, swings to N at middle creek shown on unit card to exclude alders and shrubs. Upper boundary ex- 
tended upslope to break where slopes increase above 65-70%. Slopes above much steeper and unstable (BMP 13.5). Twelve 
drainages in unit includes seeps. Most drainages from slides and snow avalanches above, most dry or minimal flow, alders and 
salmonberry common along channels. Green and white for drainage #6 (west of slide channel #8 shown on unit card in center of 
unit) and #12 on new east boundary (BMP 13.16). Fish has bottom of this creek as O&W. Deleted west piece S of main creek 
because riparian and MMI4 on steep slopes (BMPs 12.6, 13.5). Believe E piece S of main creek acceptable as above riparian; 
break upper boundary slopes >70% for MMI4 and McGilvery (BMP 13.5; TLMP 1991). Third order watershed (BMP 12.1). 

D.Kuntzsch, 
J. Frank 
R. Johnson 
9/12-13/95 

FISHERIES: Stream 1 is a Class III orange/ white. Stream 2 is a class II orange/ white AHMU that requires a 120’ buffer (BMP 
12.6). Stream 3 and 4 are side channels of stream 2 and require a 120’ AHMU buffers (BMP 12.6). Stream 5 (stream 8 in soils 
report) is a class III green/ white. Stream 6 (stream 12 in soils report) is a class III orange/ white at the bottom of the unit, and 
changes to class III green/ white near the top of the unit. Refer to soils report for an additional green/ white stream that is west of 
stream 5. The orange/ white streams require directional falling, and split yarding or full suspension. Clean stream of introduced 
debris immediately (BMP 13.16). The green/ white streams require directional falling, and split yarding (where practical) or par- 
tial suspension. Clean streams of introduced debris by the end of the operating period or before the yarder leaves the area 
(BMP 13. 16). 

M.Di liman 
7/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Wildlife recommends leaving live reserve trees and snags to maintain habitat structure and snag density. This unit exceeds the 
steepness and elevation criteria recommended by the current goshawk protocol so it was no surveyed by wildlife during 1995 or 
1996. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cutting unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should he in chimps or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type C clear-cut. 


C h a s i n a 



I I I I I 

ooooo 


CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCIJ-UNIT#: 678-343 ACRES:^5 VOL: _250 MBF ALTERNATIVES:^ 

PHOTO YR/#: '91-590-58 1/4 OUAD: CRGA-l NW 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: HE 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: , high windthrow risk. Multistoried. Productivity of site is low. Avoid 

steep areas to the north and west (see soils). Moderately high elevation. Plant YC for maintenance of YC composition. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

R.Johnson, 

9/15/95 

SOILS/WATERSHED: West, upper boundary is top of side slope where breaks to flattish top at about 850’. Top relatively flat 
but muskeg and low volume forest wetland (Kaikli, Kina) not part of unit (BMP 12.5). Sideslope in unit, continues down to sec- 
ond growth. Soils Tolstoi. Traitors, with McGilverv. Slopes 50-90%. Partial suspension due to MMI3 and McGilverv (BMP 
13.9; TLMP 1991). Helicopter prescribed. Areas steeper slopes (about 90%) from midslope to near bottom unit. Concerns be- 
cause trees were pedestaled, pistol butted, leaning and blowdown was observed; believe trees are unstable due to wind rather than 
soil types. Believe possible expand unit to N and E on sideslope. S end unit changes to forest wetland (StNicholas). Has numer- 
ous small V-notches (approx. 10’ deep) from top of unit, which combine into main V’s. All V-notches orange and white class III 
because unstable side slopes, even though some dry (BMP 13.16). Not believe able provide O&W protection due closeness of 
streams. SW boundary junction N-S ridge on W, and rock face to S, and all lands N aspect down slope from rock face. Exclude 
all lands in N facing bowl between two units due to unstable MMI 4, colluvial McGilvery, numerous drainages, landslides, and 
disturbed ground (BMP 13.5, 13.16; TLMP 1991). Third order watershed (BMP 12.1). 

K. McCartney, M. 
Solomon, 6/13/96 

FISHERIES: Stream 1 is a class IV green/ white. Stream 2 is a class III orange/ white. Stream 3 is a class IV green/ white. 
Stream 4 is a class IV green/ white. Stream 5 is a class III orange/ white that turns into a class IV green/ white at 1 120’ of eleva- 
tion. Karst is present in the unit. The orange/ white streams require directional falling, and split yarding or full suspension, and 
cleaning of introduced debris immediately (BMP 13.16). The green/ white streams require directional falling, and split yarding 
(where practical) or partial over. Clean streams of introduced debris before the end of the season or before the yarder leaves the 
area (BMP 13.16). 

M.Dillman 

7/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Wildlife recommends leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat structure and snag density. This unit 
exceeds the steepness recommended by the current goshawk protocol so was not surveyed by wildlife during 1 995 or 1 996. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cuttine unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumps or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type C clear-cut. Unit dropped 
from the preferred alternative due to proportionality based on acres. 


32 

3 1 

30 

29 

28 

27 

26 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 I 

20 

I 9 

I 8 

1 7 

1 6 

I 5 

1 4 

I 3 

1 2 

t 1 

1 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

a I I 


32 

3 I 

30 

29 

28 

27 

2 6 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 1 

20 

1 9 

I 8 

I 7 

I 6 

1 5 

1 4 

I 3 

1 2 

I I 

I 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

I 


343 


Chasina Study Areo Interim Layout NOI Unit 678- 

Mopscole 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 



©- 




OOOOO 


Class 

1 Stream 


Salt Wo 1 e r 

No Cut Stream Buffers 

by Chantyp 

C 1 o s s 

2 Stream 

' - - 



Class 

3 Stream 

/Z' 

Fresh Water Lakes 

Partial Cut Stream Bui 

Ifers by Chonlyp 








Exisling Roods 
Proposed Roods 
Unit Boundory 



Estuory Buffers 



500' Beoch Buffer 



Uerfeld on November 01, I99S 


CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCIJ-UNIT#: 678-344 ACRES:_21 VOL: 525 MBF ALTERNATIVES :_6 

PHOTO YR/#: ’9 1-590-58 1/4 OUAD: CRGA-l NW 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: HE 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: , high windthrow risk, high elev. Productivity of site is moderate. Soils 

changed original shape to avoid unstable steep slopes to south and expanded unit to west and north. Helicopter yarding distance 
3/4 mile. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

R. Johnson, 
9/15/95 

SOILS/WATERSHED: W boundary slope break above rock faces that above landslide east side of N facing bowl between units. 

N boundary continues above rock wall which above second growth. E boundary at slope break where drops E to drainage flowing 
S. Slope break buffer on this class III due unstable MMI4 (BMPs 13.5, 13.16). E boundary S to rock knob 1 160’, which SE cor- 
ner. Keep below knob and then diagonal to ridge about 1400’, cross ridge heading W, then S to approx. 900’ above slide which 
NW comer where started. Soils Tolstoi, StNicholas, McGilvery, Kitkun, Traitors, with Tokeen, shallow Shakan. Slopes 45-110%. 
Steeper slopes C>75%1 associated with rock faces orimarilv NW Dortion unit. Full suspension prescribed bv helicopter vardins 
should protect MMI3, inclusions MMI4, forested wetlands, McGilvery mixed throughout unit (BMPs 12.5, 13.9; TLMP 1991). 
Still, marginal unit due amount McGilvery, rock faces, inclusions MMI4, and unstable. Maybe two O&W class III small V’s, 
which continuation creeks on unit card (BMP 13.16). Several lesser drainages G&W class IV small V’s, and non-flag drainages 
(BMP 13.16). Third order watershed (BMP 12.1). 

K. Kitchel, 
K. Buckley, 
S. Deck, 
6/13/96 

FISHERIES: Stream 2 is a class III orange/ white that changes to a class IV green/ white at 1280’ of elevation. Stream 3 is a 
class IV green/ white. Stream 4 is a class III orange/ white; at 1220’ of elevation stream 4 becomes a class IV green/ white. This 
unit is very steep. The class III orange/ white streams require directional falling, split yarding or full suspension, and immediate 
removal of introduced debris (BMP 13.16). The class IV green/ white streams require directional falling, and split yarding (where 
practical) or partial suspension. Clean stream of introduced debris before the end of the season or before the yarder leaves the area 
(BMP 13.16). 

M.Dillman 

7/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Wildlife recommends leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat structure and snag density. This unit 
exceeds the steepness recommended by the current goshawk protocol so was not surveyed by wildlife during 1995 or 1996. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cutting unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumps or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type C clear-cut. 

G&W streams reauires DF. SY (where nracticaH or partial over, and cleaning the stream of introduced debris before the end of 
the operating period or before the varder leaves the area. O&W streams reauire DF. full over or SY. and immediate cleaning of 
introduced debris. Unit dropped from preferred alternative due to proportionality based on acres. 


32 

3 I 

30 

29 

20 

27 

26 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 1 

20 

I 9 

1 0 

I 7 

I 6 

I 5 

1 4 

I 3 

I 2 

I 1 

I 0 

9 

0 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

Soil 


Chosina Study Areo 


Interim Layout NOI Unit 678-344 

Mopseole 1:15040 (4 inch to Mile) 


A 8 ; C 0 E , F : G , H , I , J ; K ; L ; M I N ! 0 ; P I 0 ; R I S i I ! U I V I W | X I Y I Z ; 



coooo 


0 i 

E 

i F 

! C 

Class 

1 

S t r 

e om 

C 1 o s s 

2 

S t r 

e om 

C 1 o s s 

3 

S t r 

earn 

Exist 

i ng 

R o 

ads 

P r a p o 

s e d 

Ro 

o d s 

Unit 

B a u 

n d a 

< i 


I ! 

I I 


A i B i C 0 i Ei F ! G i Hi li JiKiLrMiNiO; PiOiRiS; T 1 U 1 V 1 W 1 X 




Soil Water 


Fresh Water Lakes 


No Cut St ream Buffers by Chontyp 
Partial Cut Stream Butlers by Chontyp 


^ Estuary Buffers 


500' Beach Buffer 



Uerfeld on November 01 , 1896 


CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCIJ-UNIT#: 678-348 ACRES:_16 VOL: _640 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 6 

PHOTO YR/#: '91-590-54 1/4 QUAD: CRG A-l SW 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: HE 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTUREfTIMBER: 67801-93, high windthrow risk, mistletoe present. Productivity of site is high. Buffers (see fish- 
eries). Dropped bottom of unit near stream buffer. Unit was shifted to the north. Suspension requirements (see soils or fish). 
Helicopter yarding distance 1/2 mile. Within designated old growth reserve. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

R. Johnson, 
10/18/95 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils McGilvery and Tolstoi, with StNicholas, Remedios, Kitkun; riparian Traitors above main creek, 
which to W in bottom. Slopes generally 60-85%, although lower bottom SW comer riparian about 240’ and riparian about 200’ 
NW comer; much steeper above 900’. Recommend delete, primarily McGilvery on colluvial rock and on rock faces, and riparian 
bottom of unit (BMPs 12.6, 12.6a; TLMP 1991). Much blowdown with salmonberry and alder, may limit tree regeneration. May 
need to plant seedlings if harvest, but McGilvery could prevent establishment. Looked to add to N, believe not feasible due rock 
outcrops and colluvial rock with McGilvery, blowdown with disturbance species. Probably slope break buffer or diameter limit 
cut, upper portion S boundary class III creek due to depth (100’), slope (70%), and soils (McGilvery and Remedios) (BMP 13.16). 
Other streams as fisheries prescribe, although note upper portion unit more subsurface flows able hear but not see, ephemeral 
drainages SW portion, and doubt 50’ buffer middle stream due potential blowdown (diameter limit cut is an option). 

D.Kuntzsch, B. 
Johnston, K. 
Buckley 8/14/95 

FISHERIES: Stream 1 is a class I blue/ white TTRA that will require a 120’ buffer (BMP 12.6). Stream 2 is a class III orange/ 
white. Stream 3 is a class III orange/ white that requires a 50’ buffer (BMP 13.16). Stream 4 is a class III orange/ white. Stream 5 
is a class III orange/ white. The orange and white streams require directional falling, split yarding or full suspension, and immedi- 
ate removal of introduced debris from the stream channel (BMP 13.16). 


WILDLIFE: 

B. Johnston 
8/14/95 

Bear sign in unit (salmonberry thickets throughout unit). This unit is within a designated old growth reserve so was not surveyed 
during 1 996. If current policy changes and this unit is harvested, wildlife recommends leaving live reserve trees and snags where 
possible to maintain habitat structure and snag density. Also, if this unit is to be harvested, wildlife will need to conduct surveys 
in the area prior to harvest. 


GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 


LANDS: 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cutting unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumps or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use tvoe C clear-cut. Recommended 
delete for final. Unit droDDed from the preferred alternative due to proportionality based on acres. 


Chasino Study Area Interim Layout NOI Unit 678-348 

Mopscole 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 


E , F , G H I J 


L M ; N 0 


S T U 


W . X 



ooooo 


: D I E I F s ( 

Closs I Stream 
Class 2 Stream 
Closs 3 Stream 
Existing Roods 
Proposed Roods 
Unit Boundary 


V/,. 


H ! I i J i K 
s Soil Water 


fresh Woter Lokes 


l i Hi N • Oi Pi 0i R ! Si 1 i Ui V ! ■! X 


No Cut Stream Butlers by Chontyp 
Partial Cut Stream Buffers by Chanlyp 


Z ; 


\ Estuary Buffers 


500' Beach Buffer 



Created by Solly Merfeld on November 04, 1996 


CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCU-UNIT#: 678-375 ACRES :_36 VOL: 1440 MBF ALTERNATIVES:_6 

PHOTO YR /#: '91-390-103 1/4 QUAD: CRG A-2 NE 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: HE 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: , high windthrow risk, high elev. Productivity of site is high. Within desig- 

nated old growth reserve. Partial cut buffer. Avoid oversteepen slopes. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

R. Johnson, 6/96 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils mapped 528D (Tolstoi - McGilvery 35-60%). Partial suspension for McGilvery (TLMP 1991 ). 
Helicopter logging prescribed (BMP 13.9). W boundary at steeper lands which MMI4 and McGilvery. V-notches located in N, E 
center, and E parts of the unit may require slope break buffers, diameter limit cuts, or be unit boundaries on slope breaks as ap- 
plicable (BMP 13.16). Cliff should be S boundary. 

D.Kuntzsch, 7/96 

FISHERIES: Protect water quality streams in unit per soils instructions. GIS has a class II AHMU stream as the east unit bound- 
ary. This stream will need to be field verified by a fisheries biologist during layout, but should be given a 100’ no-cut buffer for 
planning purposes. 

M.Dillman 

7/96 

WILDLIFE: 

This unit is within an old growth reserve. Wildlife did not survey in 1995 or 1996. If current policy is changed and this unit is 
harvested wildlife recommends leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat structure and snag density. 
Also, if this unit is harvested wildlife will need to conduct surveys in the area prior to harvest. Unit is within 1/2 mile of a known 
eagle nest. If the unit is harvested all road construction must be accomplished in accordance with the requirements of the Bald 
Eagle Protection Act, and must also comply with the MOU between the Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 
Written coordination with the USF&WS must be documented. If unit is helicoptered location of eagle nest may effect fly/drop 
zones. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cutting unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumps or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type C clear-cut. 

Unit dropped from the preferred alternative due to proportionality based on acres. 


32 

3 1 

30 

29 

28 

27 

26 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 1 

20 

I 9 

I 8 

I 7 

I 6 

I 5 

I 4 

I 3 

1 2 

I I 

1 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

I 

g I I 


32 

3 1 

30 

29 

28 

27 

26 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 1 

20 

I 9 

I 8 

t 7 

I 6 

I 5 

I 4 

I 3 

t 2 

1 I 

I 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

I 


Chasino Study Area 


Interim Loyout NOI Unit 678-375 


Mopscole 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 



A i B ! C 
g e — 

i i t -i i 

ooooo 


D I E ! F ! C 
Closs I Stream 
Class 2 Stream 
Class 3 Stream 
Existing Roods 
Proposed Roods 
Unit Boundar y 


i H 



i i i i 

I i J ! K ! L I 
Salt ff o t e r 

Fresh Water Lakes 

Estuary Butlers 

500' Beach Buffer 


i 

i N 



I ■ i I I : i I I I 

I I I I I ! I I I I 

! 0 i P I Q I R I S I 1 I U I V I W I 

No Cut Stream Buffers by Chonlyp 

Partial Cut Slream Bulfers by Chonlyp 



Y i Z 


Ueifeld on November 01. 199b 



CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCIJ-IJNIT#: 678-379 ACRES:Ji VOL: _640 MBF ALTERNATIVES :_6 

PHOTO YR/#: '91-390-104 1/4 QUAD: CRG A-2 NE 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: HE 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: , high windthrow risk. Productivity of site is high. Within designated 

old growth reserve. Use streams for unit boundaries. Avoid oversteepen slopes. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

R. Johnson 6/96 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils mapped 528D (Tolstoi - McGilvery 35-60%), 528E (Tolstoi - McGilvery 60-75%), IF (Vixen 75- 
100%), ID (Vixen 35-60%). Most MMI3 and McGilvery, require partial suspension (BMP 13.9; TLMP 1991). Helicopter yard- 
ing prescribed. May be more steep than mapped based on review of photos. V-notches in E half of the N and S boundaries may 
require slope break buffers (BMP 13.16). Lake to W may require buffer (BMPs 12.6, 12.6a). 

K. Buckley 7/96 

FISHERIES: GIS identifies two class III streams. Possibly additional streams present in unit. Stream protection measures will be 
identified during unit layout. 

M.Dillman 

7/96 

WILDLIFE: 

This unit is within an old growth reserve. Wildlife did not survey in 1995 or 1996. If current policy changes and this unit is har- 
vested wildlife recommends leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat structure and snag density. 
Also, if this unit is harvested, wildlife will need to conduct surveys in the area prior to harvest. Unit is within a 1/2 mile of a 
known eagle nest. Road construction must be accomplished in accordance with the requirements of the Bald Eagle Protection Act, 
and must comply with the MOU between the Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlide Service. Written coordination with the 
U.S. F.&W.S. must be documented. If the unit is helicoptered the location of the eagle nest may effect fly/drop zones. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w / reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cutting unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumos or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type C clear-cut. 

Unit dropped from the preferred alternative due to proportionality based on acres. 


C h a s i n o 


32 

3 i 

30 
29 
28 
27 
2 6 
25 
24 
23 
22 
2 I 
20 
I 9 
I 8 
I 7 
I 6 
I 5 
1 4 
I 3 
1 2 
I I 
I 0 
9 


Study Area Interim Layout NOI Unit 678-379 

M a p s c o I e 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 


7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

I 



A I G i C 

0 e — 

1 i i i i 

ooooo 


0 i 

E 

! F 

i G 

i H i 

1 i J i K i Li 

Class 

1 

S t r 

e o m 


S o 1 t Wafer 

Class 

2 

S t r 

earn 

\V\ 


Class 

3 

S t r 

earn 


fresh Wafer Lakes 

E x i s 1 

i ng 

Ro 

o d s 



P r o p o r 

> e d 

Ro 

o d s 

Lx 

Estuary Butlers 


Unit Boundary 


500' Bench Buffer 



i i i i i i i i i 

I I I I ! i i i i 


0 i P 

i Q i R i S i 1 i 

U i V i 

W 

No Cut 

Stream Buffers by 

C h a n 1 y p 


Portia 

1 Cut Stream 8 u t ter 

s by Chon 

t yp 



Y I l 



Created by Solly Uerfeld on November 01. 1996 



CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCU-UNIT#: 678-381 ACRES:^8 VOL: 1920 MBF ALTERNATIVES :_6 

PHOTO YR7#: VI -390- 105 1/4 QUAD: CRG A-2 NE 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: J4E 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: High windthrow risk. Productivity of site is high. Within designated old growth reserve. Use 
streams as unit boundries. Avoid oversteepen slopes. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

R.Johnson, 

8/01/95 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils mapped 528D (Tolstoi - McGilvery 35-60%), with IF (Vixen 75-100%), 33D (StNicholas - McGil- 
very 35-60%). Partial suspension for MMI3, McGilvery, forested wetlands (BMPs 12.5, 13.9; TLMP 1991). Helicopter pre- 
scribed. May be steeper than mapped based review photos. W boundary very steep, MMI4, and McGilvery present. Probable 
O&W protection or slope break buffers streams N and S boundaries, and center of unit (BMP 13.16). Could be diameter limit cut 
in V-notch below slope break center of unit. 

D.Kuntzsch, 7/96 

FISHERIES: Protect water quality streams in unit per soils instructions. No other fisheries concern known at this time. 

M.Dillman 

7/96 

WILDLIFE: 

This unit is within an old growth reserve. Wildlife did not survey this unit in either 1995 or 1996. If current policy is changed and 
this unit is harvested wildlife recommends leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintian habitat structure and 
snag density. Also, if this unit is harvested, wildlife will need to conduct surveys in the area prior to harvest. Unit is within 1/2 
mile of a known eagle nest. Road construction must be accomplished in accordance with the requirements of the Bald Eagle Pro- 
tection Act and must also comply with the MOU between the Forest Service and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Written coor- 
dination with the USF&WS must be documented. If this unit is helicoptered the location of the nest may effect fly/drop zones. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cutting unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumps or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type C clear-cut. 

Unit dropped from the preferred alternative due to proportionality based on acres. 


Chasino Study Area 


Interim Layout NOI Unit 678-381 

Mopscole 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 



A 


! B I C 
0 e — 


i i i i i 

ooooo 



0 I E 
Class I 
C I o s s 2 
C I o s s 3 
E x i s I i n 
Propose 
Unit Bo 


i F ! C 
S t r e o m 
Stream 
Stream 
Roods 
Roods 
n d o r y 


i 

i H 



i i i i i 

I I J I K I L I M I N 

Salt Water 

Fresh Water lakes 

Estuary Butlers 

500' Beoch Buffer 



i i i i i i i i i i i 

i 0 I P ! 0 ! R ! S ! I i U I V ! ty I X ! 

No Cut Stream Buffers by Chontyp 

Portiol Cut Stream Butters by Chantyp 



Y 


Crested by Salty Uerfeld on November 01, 19 9 5 



CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCt J-IJNIT#: 678-383 ACRES:_96 VOL: 2400 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 4,5,6 

PHOTO YR/#: '9 1-390- 106 1/4 QUAD: CRG A-2 NE 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: HE 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: High windthrow risk, high elev. Productivity of site is moderate. Within designated old growth 
reserve. Use streams as unit boundaries. Avoid oversteepen soils. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

R. Johnson, 6/96 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils mapped 35 ID (Karta - Tolstoi 35-60%), with 34D (StNicholas - Shakan 35-60%), 33D (StNicholas 
- McGilvery 35-60%). Partial suspension for MMI3, forested wetland, McGilvery, (BMPs 12.5, 13.9; TLMP 1991). Prescribed 
helicopter yarding. May be steeper than mapped, based on photos. Probable slope break buffer V-notch N boundary, and O&W 
protection streams center and S boundary (BMP 13.16). 

D.Kuntzsch, 7/96 

FISHERIES: Protect streams in unit per soils instructions. No other fisheries concerns identified during office review. 

M.Dillman 

7/96 

WILDLIFE: 

This unit is within an old growth reserve. Wildlife did not survey this unit in either 1995 or 1996. If current policy is changed and 
this unit is harvested wildlife recommends leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat structure and 
snag density. Also, if this unit is harvested, wildlife will need to conduct surveys in the area prior to harvest. Maintain 1000 foot 
estuary buffer. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cutting unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumns or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type C clear-cut. 

O&W streams require DF. full over or SY. and cleaning of introduced debris immediately. 


32 

3 I 

30 

29 

28 

2 7 

25 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 1 

20 

I 9 

I 8 

I 7 

I 6 

1 5 

1 4 

I 3 

1 2 

I 1 

I 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

oil 


C h o s i n o 


Study 


A r e o 


Interim Layout NOI Unit 

M a p s c a I e 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 


678-383 



A I B I C 
0 © — 


ooooo 


0 I E ! F i G 
Class I Stream 
Closs 2 Streom 
Class 3 Streom 
Existing Roods 
Proposed Roods 
Unit Boundary 


i 

i H 



i i i i 

III! 

I i J i K i L i 
S o I t Water 

fresh Water lakes 

Estuary Butters 

500' Beach Buffer 


M ! N 



l i i i 

i i i i 

i 0 . P . 0 i 

No Cut Stream 

P a r t i o I Cut S 


i > i i i 

i i i i i 

R i S i T i U i V i 

Butlers by Chonlyp 

r tom Butlers by Chan 


i 

W i 


I y p 



I i 

I I 

Y . Z i 


Merfeld on November 01. 1996 



CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCIJ-IJNIT#: 678-385 ACRES: 50 VOL: 1250 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 4,5.6 

PHOTO YR/#: "91-390-106 1/4 QUAD: CRG A-2 NE 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: HE 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/T1MBER: High windthrow risk, high elev. Productivity of site is moderate. Within designated old growth 
reserve. Use streams as unit boundaries. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

R. Johnson, 6/96 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils mapped 35 ID (Karta - Tolstoi 35-60%), with 35D (StNicholas - Tolstoi 35-60%), 35E (StNicholas - 
Tolstoi 60-75%). Partial suspension for MM13 and forested wetland (BMPs 12.5, 13.9). May be steeper than mapped based on 
photos. Helicopter yarding prescribed. Probable slope break buffer V-notch S boundary, and O&W protection streams center and 
N boundary (BMP 13.16). S half in third order watershed (BMP 12.1). 

D.Kuntzsch, 7/96 

FISHERIES: Protect streams in unit per soils instructions. No fisheries concerns were identified during an office review. 

M.Dillman 

7/96 

WILDLIFE: 

This unit is within an old growth reserve. Wildlife did not survey this unit in 1995 or 1996. If current policy is changed and this 
unit is harvested wildlife recommends leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat stucture and snag 
density. Also, if this unit is harvested wildlife will need to conduct surveys in the area prior to harvest. Maintain 1000 foot estuary 
buffer. 


GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cutting unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumns or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type C clear-cut. 

O&W streams require DF. full over or SY. and cleaning of introduced debris immediately. 


32 

3 I 

30 

29 

28 

27 

26 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 I 

20 

1 9 

1 8 

I 7 

I 6 

I 5 

I 4 

1 3 

I 2 

I I 

I 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

Soli 


C h o s i n a 


385 


Study Area Interim Layout NOI Unit 678 

Mopscole 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 



ooooo 


0 ! 

E 

i F 


Class 

1 

S t r 

e o m 

Class 

2 

S t r 

e o m 

Class 

3 

S t r 

earn 

E x i s 1 

i n g 

Ro 

o d s 

P r o p o 

s e d 

Ro 

o d s 

Unit 

8 a u 

n d a 

r y 


V/,. 


I I i J I K I L 
> Salt Water 


Fresh Water Lakes 


1 O 1 P 1 O 1 R 1 S 1 T 1 U 1 V 1 W 1 X 1 Y 1 Z 
No Cut Stream Butlers by Chontyp 

Partial Cut Stream Bulfers by Chontyp 


^ Estuary 8 u f f e r s 


500' Beoch Buffer 



Uerfeld on November 01, 1996 



CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCU-UNIT#: 679-303 ACRES:_6 VOL: _8] MBF ALTERNATIVES:_6 

PHOTO YR /#: ’91-490-84 1/4 QUAD: CRG A-l NW 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: HE 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 67901-50, high windthrow risk, high elev. Productivity of site is low. Uneconomic, low volume 
area surrounding. Unit is within an old growth reserve. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

Field 

D.J.Landwehr. 

9/22/95 

EIS R. Johnson 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils Traitor with McGilvery. Slopes 60 to 90%. Approximately 2 acres high MM I soils. Partial suspen- 
sion is required throughout the unit. Helicopter yarding prescribed should provide full suspension (BMP 13.9). The lake should 
receive a 100 foot buffer (BMPs 12.6, 12.6a). A small stream on the north unit boundary should receive G&W protection, do not 
use this stream as a yarding corridor (BMP 13.16). 

D.Kuntzsch, 7/96 

FISHERIES: The lake on the south side of the unit needs a 100’ no cut buffer. Follow soils instructions for stream protection 
within and adjacent to the unit. 

C.Tighe 8/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Recommend leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat structure and snag density. This unit did not 
rate as a high priority area for wildlife because its elevation is above that recommended in the current goshawk protocol. There- 
fore, wildlife did not survey in either 1995 or 1996. This unit is also within an old growth reserve which is another reason it was 
not surveyed by wildlife. If current policy changes and this unit is to be harvested wildlife will need to survey the area prior to 
harvest. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Seed tree w/ reserves: Leave 3 TPA of YC of Dhenotvnicallv superior trees for seed sources to maintain di- 
verse stand composition. G&W stream: DF. SY twhere practical) or partial over. Clean the stream of introduced debris before 
the end of the operating period or before the yarder leaves the area. 


32 

3 I 

30 

29 

28 

27 

2 6 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 1 

2 0 

I 9 

1 8 

I 7 

I 6 

I 5 

1 4 

I 3 

! 2 

t t 

I 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

I 

a I I 


Chasino Study Area Interim Loyout NOI Unit 679-303 

Mopscole 1:15840 (4 inch to Uile) 


A B ! C D t | f ! C | H | I | J ; K i L | U | N I 0 | P I 0 | R | S | I | 0 | V | W | X | Y | Z 



A 


i i 

I 0 I C 
g — e — 


i i i i i 

ooooo 



D i E 
Class I 
Class 2 
Class 3 
E x i s I i n 
Propose 
Unit Bo 


i i 

i F i 

S t r e om 
S t r o om 
Stream 
g Roods 
d Roods 
u n d o r y 


G 


i i 

i i 

i H i 



111 ! 

till 

I i J i K i L i 
Salt Water 

Fresh Water lakes 

Estuory Buffers 

500’ Beoch Buffer 



i i i i i i i i i i 

I I 1 I I ! I I I I 


O 1 P 

1 0 1 R 1 Si 

I i 

U i V i 

W 

No Cut 

Stream Buffers 

b y 

C h o n t y p 


P o r t i 0 1 

Cut Stream 0 u 

1 f e r 

s by Chon 

1 y p 



Veileld on November 01, 1995 


CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCU-UNIT#: 679-305 ACRES:_9 VOL: J35 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 4.5,6 

PHOTO YR/#: ’91-490-45 1/4 OUAD: CRGA-l NW 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: HE 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 67901-56, high windthrow risk, high elev. Productivity of site is low. Uneconomic, low volume 
area surrounding. Isolated stand, defer for better / future economics. Within designated old growth reserve. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

Field 

D.J.Landwehr. 

9/22/95 

EIS R. Johnson 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils Shakan, Tolstoi, McGilvery. Slopes 30-140%. Deleted north half MMI 4, brushfields. and cliffs 
(BMP 1 3.5); southeast comer cliffs, MMI 4; west side low volume on very steep slopes. Remaining unit: Moderate MMI soils 
with a few areas of McGilvery soils. Partial suspension is required. Full suspension should be provided via prescribed helicopter 
yarding (BMP 13.9). A small stream is present in the brushfteld on the north side of the unit, designate G&W, DF, and clean the 
stream of any introduced debris before the end of the operating season (BMP 13.16). 

D.Kuntzsch, 7/96 

FISHERIES: Lake on the north side of the unit requires a 100’ no cut buffer. Protect streams in and near the unit per soils instruc- 
tions. 

C.Tighe 8/96 

WILDLIFE: 

This unit is within a designated old growth reserve so was not surveyed in 1995 or 1996. If current policy changes and this unit is 
harvested, wildlife recommends leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat structure and snag density. 
Also, if this unit is harvested wildlife will need to conduct surveys in the area prior to harvest. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/M INERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cuttine unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumns or 
natches. buffers or blind-leads. disDersed. and should contain laree live trees and hard snaas. Use tvoe C clear-cut. G&W streams 
requires DF, SY or partial over, and cleaning the stream of introduced debris before the end of the operating period. 


Chosina Study Area 


nterim Layout NOI Uni 

Mopscole 1:15840 (4 inch io Mile) 


679-305 


b ; c o ; e ; f ; c ; h | i ; j , 


t M , N 


S , I 


I „ I „ I I 


I u I * 1 " I 


w , x 



32 

3 I 
30 
29 
28 
27 
26 
25 
24 
23 
22 

2 I 
20 
I 9 
I 8 
I 7 
1 6 
I 5 
I 4 
I 3 

1 2 
t I 
1 0 
9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 


A i B i C 
g e — 


0 

E 

i F 


Class 

1 

S t r 

e om 

C 1 o s s 

2 

S t r 

e om 

Class 

3 

S t r 

earn 

Exist 

' " 9 

Ro 

o d s 

P r o p o 

s e d 

Roods 

Unit 

B o u 

n d o 

< y 


i i i i 




S o I t W o t e r 


Fresh Water Lakes 


M i N i 0 i P i 0 i R i S r T i U i V i W i 
No Cut Streom 8 u f f e r s by Chontyp 

Portiol Cut Streom Butters by Chontyp 


X i Y i Z i 


^ Estuory 8 u f t e r s 


500' Beach Buffer 



Created by Sally Merteld on November 01, 1996 


CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCU-UNIT#: 679-318 ACRES:_72 VOL: 1381 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 4,5,6 

PHOTO YR /#: '91-490-85 1/4 QUAD: CRGA-1 NW 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: RS 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
6/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 67901-65, low windthrow risk, portion downhill yarded, high elevation. Productivity of site is 
moderate. Adjacent to state selection. Buffers (see fisheries). Split-yarding required on stream. Retain Pacific yew where fea- 
sible. Anticioate unit to shift east, across creek (split on). ODtion: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cuttine unit, where 
feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumps or patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and 
hard snags. Use type D clear-cut. Within designated old growth reserve. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

R. Johnson, 
10/12/95 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils primarily forested wetland with Kaikli predominant top unit, StNicholas lower portion. Inclusions 
McGilvery and Kitkun small knobs center unit. Tolstoi bottom unit, and probably W facing side slopes added to E. Slopes gener- 
ally less than 65%. Partial suspension for wetlands, MM13 and McGilvery (BMPs 12.5, 13.9; TLMP 1991). N end deleted for 
State selection. Additions to E and W sides unit. Protect muskeg included in W end unit (BMP 12.5). Protection streams and 
associated small V-notches as designated by fisheries (BMP 13.16). Defer harvest on Kailkli (TLMP 1996). All of Kitkun Bay 
requires a 1000’ estuary buffer because it is confined by a salt chuck (TLMP 1996). Delete the bottom of the unit (TLMP, 1991 
estuary class I). 

D. Kuntzsch, 
K. Buckley, 
10/11/95 

FISHERIES: Stream 1 is a class III green/ white. Stream 2 is a class III green/ white. Stream 3 is a class III green/ white. Stream 
4 is a class III green/ white. The class III green/ white streams require directional falling, and split yarding (where practical) or 
partial suspension. Clean streams of introduced debris before the end of the operating period or before the yarder leaves the area 
(BMP 13.16). The lower one-third of the unit may be dropped due to estuary definition. 

M.Dillman, 

B. Johnston 
9/6/95 

M.Dillman 10/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Bear and deer sign in unit: trails, pellets and scat. Otter signs in beach buffer. Loon and geese heard at lake. 

The unit boundary may change depending on the final definition of an estuary buffer. The way the unit is currently mapped in G1S 
indicates that the southern 1/3 of the unit is in an estuary buffer and will need to be dropped. This unit is within a desiginated old 
growth reserve and was was not surveyed in 1996. If current policy changes and this unit is harvested, wildlife recommends leav- 
ing live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain the habitat structure and snag density. Also, if this unit is harvested 
wildlife would need to conduct surveys in the area prior to harvest. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: This low sensitivity unit was surveyed in 1996. No cultural resources were noted. There are no concerns with the 
unit. 

VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
6/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Uneven-ased Memt: for reeeneration and structure retention. Diameter limit - svstem. leave all snecies less 
than 16" DBH. Partial suspension required. Protect muskeg in west end of unit. 


32 

3 I 

30 

29 

28 

27 

26 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 1 

20 

1 9 

I 8 

I 7 

I 6 

I 5 

I 4 

t 3 

I 2 

I I 

I 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

I 

0 I I 


32 

3 1 

30 

29 

20 

27 

2 6 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 I 

20 

1 9 

I 8 

1 7 

1 6 

I 5 

I 4 

t 3 

1 2 

I I 

1 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 


C h o s i no 


Study Area 


nterim Layout NOI Unit 

Mopscale 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 


679-318 



A 


e 1 c 


i i i i— i 

ooooo 


D I E I F ! G 
Class I Stream 
Class 2 Streom 
Class 3 Stream 
Existing Roods 
Proposed Roods 
Unit Boundory 


! H 



i i i i 

I I J I K ! L i M 
Salt W o t e r 

fresh Water Lakes 

Estuary Butlers 

500' Beach Bulfer 


! N 



i i i i i 

0 ! P ; 0 ! R ! S : 
No Cut Streom Butlers 

Partial Cut Streom Bu 


i i i i 

t ! u ! v ! w ! 

by Chontyp 
fers by Chontyp 



i 

1 ; 


Uerleld on November 01, 1990 



CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCU-UNIT#: 679-320 ACRES: 40 VOL: 1160 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 4.5.6 

PHOTO YR/#: ’91-490-85 1/4 QUAD: CRG A-l NW 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: RS 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURETTIMBER: 67901-64, high windthrow risk, portion downhill yarded. Productivity of site is moderate. Partial 
cut buffer. Adjacent to state selection. Unit design calls for running skyline regeneration method. Verify roads and/or landing 
locations. Difficult terrain - potential blind leads throughout unit. Verify feasibility and modify unit bdry as required. Profiles 
needed. Reach up where possible and helicopter the rest above (679-503). Split-yarding required on center stream. Within desig- 
nated old growth reserve. Suspension requirements (see soils or fish). 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: Class 11 road crossing. PVT land boundary needs to be established prior to layout. 

R. Johnson, 
10/12/95 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Bottom of unit forested wetland, primarily Kitkun on slopes less than 40%. Partial suspension on wet- 
lands (BMPs 12.5, 13.9). Break about 350’ to Tolstoi and McGilvery on slopes generally 45-75%. Area characterized by numer- 
ous small rock outcrops and rock faces and associated steeper slopes, with flatter benches between. Major rock wall about 950’ 
center of unit, continues E and W in unit. Above 900’ generally Traitors and McGilvery on slopes 70 to 75%. Another rock wall 
above this. Unit designed for partial suspension down to road for MMI3, McGilvery, non-streams (BMPs 12.5, 13.9, 13.16; 
TLMP 1991). Upper portion designated helicopter yarding as unit 679-503 where suspension not obtainable (BMP 13.9). Suspect 
679-503 will have to be brought downslope from elevation shown on unit card because of blind leads from rock faces and benches. 
Slope break buffer above stream, V-notch and bowl N side unit because rock walls, seeps, wetlands, McGilvery, MM14, unstable, 
steep slopes, and stream flows to lake (BMPs 12.6a, 12.5, 13.5, 13.16; TLMP 1991). Delete from rock wall about 950’ to bottom 
of this E facing ridge adjacent to V-notch also because of same reasons. Rock face about 600’ this ridge continues around to S 
facing portion unit but does not seem to continue through unit. Portion E end unit deleted by. State selection. Two additional 
G&W streams in center of unit (BMP 13.16). Relocation of2160 road down slope should avoid blasting through rock outcrops 
and faces on original route (BMPs 14.6, 14.7). Delay harvest on Kitkun (TLMP 1996). 

D.Kuntzsch, 7/96 

FISHERIES: This unit was not visited by fisheries. Follow soils/watershed recommendations for protection of V-notches and 
streams. If this unit is selected for harvest, fisheries will field review during unit layout. 

M. Pacheco 
7/6/95 

M.Dillman 10/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Deer sign and game trails seen throughout unit. This unit is within an old growth reserve so was not surveyed in 1 996. If current 
policy changes and this unit is harvested, wildlife recommends leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain 
habitat structure and snag density. Also, if this unit is harvested, wildlife will need to conduct surveys in the area prior to harvest. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

R.J. 10/95 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cuttine unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumDS or 
Batches, buffers or blind-leads. disDersed. and should contain laree live trees and hard snaes. Use tvr>e A clear-cut. G&W streams 
requires DF, and SY (where practical) or partial over, and cleaning the stream of introduced debris before the end of the operating 
period or before the yarder leaves the area. Partial suspension required. 


C h a s i no 


Study Area 



A i B i C i D i 

E 

i F i G 

i H 

Class 

1 

S t r e am 


11111 Class 

2 

Stream 

ooooo C | 0SS 

3 

Stream 

% 

- Exist 

i n 

9 Roods 



CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCIJ-UNIT#: 679-321 ACRES:23 VOL: 428 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 4,5.6 

PHOTO YR/#: *9 1-490-44.45 1/4 QUAD: CRGA-1 NW 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: RS 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: , high windthrow risk, portion downhill yarded, high elev. Productivity of site 

is moderate. Difficult terrain - potential blind leads in upper portion. Verify feasibility and modify unit bdry as required. Profiles 
needed. Reach where possible with cable and helicopter the above portion (504). Downhill yarding will be difficult. Maintain 
cedar component through planting. Within designated old growth reserve Use helicopter around slide chutes. Suspension re- 
quirements (see soils or fish). 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: Avoid open muskeg whenever possible. 

R. Johnson, 6/96 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils mapped 6 (McGilvery - Traitors 60-100%), with small amount 4C (Helm 5-35%) E edge. Minimum 
of partial suspension for MMI3, forested wetlands, and McGilvery if less than 41% (BMPs 12.5, 13.9; TLMP 1991). Full suspen- 
sion reccommended. Suspect McGilvery greater than 41%, MMI4, cliffs, disturbance species, slide N center unit based silvicul- 
ture review and photos; unit probably should be deleted (BMP 13.5; TLMP 1991). Portion above cliff was made into helicopter 
unit 679-504. Probable streams needing protection (BMP 13.16). 

D.Kuntzsch, 7/96 

FISHERIES: GIS review shows two class III streams in the unit. Stream protection measures will be identified during unit lay- 
out. 

C.Tighe 8/96 

WILDLIFE: 

This unit is within an old growth reserve so was not surveyed by wildlife in either 1995 or 1996. If current policy changes and 
this unit is harvested, wildlife recommends leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat structure and 
snag density. Also, if this unit is harvested, wildlife will need to conduct surveys in the area prior to harvest. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cutting unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumt>s or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type D clear-cut. Leave clumps 
of small trees untouched along chutes. Minimum of partial suspension. 


Chasino Study Area Interim Layout NOI Unit 679-321 

Mopscole 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 

b ; c o : e ; f c j h ; i ; j ; k ; i \ m ; n ; o | ? j o ; r ; s j t i u ; v ; » ; x i y ; z 



A i 0 i C 
g — e — 


OOOOO 


I 0 : E I F I G 

Closs I Streom 
C I o s s 2 Streom 
Closs 3 Streom 
Existing Roods 
Proposed Roods 
Unit Boundary 


Hi I i J i K i L 
N Soil W o t e r 

Fresh Water Lakes 


Mi N i 0 Pi Oi R i S 


T 


U 


V I W I X I Y 


2 i 


V/,. 


No Cut Streom Butlers by Chonlyp 
Portiol Cut Streom But I e r s by Chontyp 


Estuory Butlers 


500' Beach Buffer 



Created by Stilly Uerteld on November 01, 19 9 5 


CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCU-UNIT#: 679-323 ACRES:J4 VOL: _850 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 4,5.6 

PHOTO YR/#: ' 9 1-490-44,45 1/4 OUAD: CRGA-l NW 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: RS 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 67901-61, high windthrow risk, portion downhill yarded, high elev. Within designated old growth 
reserve. Productivity of site is moderate. Difficult terrain - potential blind leads in upper portion. Verify feasibility and modify 
unit bdry as required. Profiles needed. Suspension requirements (see soils or fish). Reach where possible with cable - helicopter 
the unit above (505). Downhill yarding will be difficult. Dropped uneconomic, low volume area to S.E. Avoid cabling over 
cliffs. Partial cut buffer. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

R. Johnson, 6/96 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils mapped only in W portion of unit, include 4C (Helm 5-35%), 48C (Helm - Kitkun 5-35%), 33D 
(StNicholas - McGilvery 35-60%), 20C (Maybeso - Kaikli 5-35%). Minimum of partial suspension for forested wetlands, MM13, 
McGilvery (BMPs 12.5, 13.9; TLMP 1991). Silviculture review noted steeper slopes, McGilvery, rock faces, cliffs. These condi- 
tions could change this recommendation to possible deletion. Upper portion unit above cliffs made into helicopter unit 679-505. 
Probable slope break buffer V-notch W boundary unit, protection stream E unit boundary, and additional streams in unit needing 
protection (BMP 13.16). 

D.Kuntzsch, 7/96 

FISHERIES: Protect water quality streams (class III and IV) in and near unit per soils instructions. GIS indicates a possible class 
II TTRA stream along the south unit boundary. If harvested, this should be field verified during layout and appropriate protection 
applied. 

M. Pacheco 
7/6/95 

M.Dillman 10/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Game trails throughout. This unit is within an old growth reserve so was not surveyed in 1996. If current policy changes and this 
unit is harvested, recommend leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat structure and snag density. 
Also, if this unit is harvested, wildlife will need to conduct surveys in the area prior to harvest. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cuttine unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumos or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type A clear-cut. Partial suspen- 
sion required. 


Chosino Study Area 


Interim Layout NOI Unit 679-323 

Mopscole 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 



Existing Roods 
Proposed Roods 
Unit Boundary 



Estuory Butlers 



500' Beoch Buffer 



Created by Solly Uerfeld on Norember 01. 1994 


CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCU-UNIT#: 679-325 ACRES:_45 VOL: 1093 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 4,5,6 

PHOTO YR /#: ' 9 1-490-44 1/4 QUAD: CRG A-l NW 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: SL 


REV1EWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTUREfTIMBER: 67901-60, high windthrow risk, mod. elev. Within designated old growth reserve. Productivity of 
site is moderate. Partial cut buffer. Unit added to the west. Avoid yarding over steep changes in slope to the N.W. , N.E., and N. 
Several parallel creeks in NW comer. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

R. Johnson, 6/96 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils not mapped. Estimating 20C (Maybeso - Kaikli 5-35%) bottom unit, 33D and 33E (St. Nicholas - 
McGilvery 35-75%) rest of unit. Partial suspension for forest wetlands, MM13, and McGilvery (BMPs 12.5, 13.9; TLMP 1991). 
Keep upper backline below unstable, MMI4, snow avalanche area (14EF Shakan 60-150%) (BMP 13.5). Additional protection for 
cliffs and streams designated by silviculture and fisheries (BMP 13.16). 

J. Frank, 

J. Hannon, 
10/11/95 

FISHERIES: Stream 1 is a class II blue/ white that needs 100' TTRA buffer. Stream 2 is a class II blue/white TTRA that requires 
a 120’ buffer; this stream becomes a class III orange/white along the unit boundary. It requires at least a slope-break buffer, and 
possibly an additional buffer. Stream 5 is a class II AHMU orange/ white that requires a 25’ buffer (BMP 12.6). On the west 
boundary, stream 3 is a class III orange/white that requires directional falling, and split yarding or full suspension and immediate 
slash removal (BMP 13.16). Stream 3 branches about half-way through the unit. The portion of the unit west of stream 3 was 
added on and has not been field reviewed by fisheries; there may be additional streams in this area of the unit. Recommend using 
the cliff as the north boundary of the unit. 

M.Dillman, 

B. Johnston 
10/4/95 

M.Dillman 10/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Bear sign and game trails in unit. This unit is within an old growth reserve so was not surveyed in 1 996. If current policy is 
changed and this unit is harvested, recommend leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat structure and 
snag density. Also, if this unit is harvested, wildlife will need to conduct surveys in the area prior to harvest. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cutting unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumDS or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type D clear-cut. Partial suspen- 
sion. Keep upper backline below unstable soils and snow slide area. 


32 

3 1 

30 

29 

28 

27 

2 6 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 I 

20 

I 9 

1 8 

1 7 

I 6 

t 5 

1 4 

I 3 

1 2 

I 1 

I 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

o I I 


• o o o v 


Chosino Study 


A r e o 


Interim Layout N 0 I Unit 679-325 

Mopscole 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 



A i B i C 
0 — e — 


i i i i i i 

E I F i G ! H ! I ! J I K 


Closs I Streom 


_l— 1 Closs 2 Stream ^ 


Closs 3 Streom 
— Existing Roods 
' ' ' ' Proposed Roods 
1 Unit Boundary 


% 


> S o I t W o t e r 


Fresh Water Lakes 


NiOiPiOiRiSiTiUiViWiX 
No Cut Stream Butlers by Chontyp 

Partial Cut Stream Butters by Chontyp 


N Estuary Buffers 


500' Beach Butter 



32 
3 1 
30 
29 
28 
27 
2 6 
25 
24 
23 
22 

2 I 
20 
1 9 
1 8 
1 7 
I 6 
I 5 
I 4 
t 3 
t 2 
t I 

1 0 
9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 
t 


MerFeld on November 01, 1996 


CHASIN' A PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCU-IJNIT#: 679-328 ACRES:_65 VOL: 2193 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 4,5,6 

PHOTO YR/#: *9 1-490-86 1/4 OUAD: CRGA-l NW 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: SL. LS 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 67901-88, high windthrow risk. Within designated old growth reserve. Productivity of site is 
high. Partial cut buffer. Buffers (see fisheries). Move road above estuary buffer. Profiles needed. Unit design calls for cable 
regeneration method. Verify roads and/or landing locations. Retain stand structure for wildlife where feasible. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: Coordinate logging systems with road location and wildlife due to estuary buffer. 

R. Johnson, 6/96 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils not mapped. Wildlife reported very steep. Appears potential problem with slopes, cliffs, McGil- 
very, MM1, particularly with downhill yarding to road bottom of unit (BMPs 13.5, 13.9; TLMP 1991). Potential to delete most of 
unit, and expand on bottom to beach buffer. One major V-notch and lesser stream/V-notch center of unit, stream N boundary, and 
possibly other streams in unit needing protection (BMP 13.16). Possible estuary buffer. 

D.Kuntzsch, 7/96 

FISHERIES: East unit boundary conflicts with 1000’ estuary buffer. Follow soils recommendations for protection of V-notches. 
Office review indicates a class II TTRA stream along the north unit boundary (100’ minimum buffer), and several class III streams 
in the unit. Appropriate protection will be identified during unit layout (BMP 13.16, 12.6a). 

M. Pacheco 
7/7/95 
M.Dillman, 
B. Johnston 
9/7/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Bear sign, deer sign and game trails. Wolf scat in muskeg. This unit is within an old growth reserve so was not surveyed during 
1996. If current policy changes and this unit is harvested, the unit has been identified as an important travel corridor and partial 
harvest is recommended to maintain forest structure and lessen impact on wildlife migration and dispersal. Recommend leaving 
live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat structure and snag density. Also, if the unit is harvested, wildlife 
will need to conduct surveys in the area prior to harvest. The east boundry conflicts with the estuary buffer as it is currently de- 
fined and mapped. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: This unit was surveyed in 1996. No cultural resources were encountered. There are no concerns with the unit. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cuttine unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumDS or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type D clear-cut. 


32 

3 1 

30 

29 

28 

27 

2 6 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 1 

20 

t 9 

I 8 

! 7 

I 6 

I 5 

1 4 

I 3 

I 2 

I 1 

t 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

Soil 


Chosino Study Area Interim Layout NOI Unit 679-328 

Mopscole 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 



C D ; E i F : G i H i I 1 J 1 K 1 I 1 M 1 N 1 O 1 P 1 Q 1 R 1 S 1 I 1 U 1 V 1 W 


ooooo 


Class I Stream 
Closs 2 Stream 
Closs 3 Stream 
Existing Roods 
Proposed Roods 
Unit Boundary 




Soil Wo t e r 


Fresh Water Lakes 


No Cut Stream Butlers by Chonlyp 
Partial Cut Stream Bulfers by Chonlyp 


^ Estuary Butlers 


500' Beach Butter 



lierfeld on November 01. 1996 


CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCIJ-IJNIT#: 679-331 ACRES:^2 VOL: 1233 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 4,5.6 

PHOTO YR/#: '91-490-43 1/4 OUAD: CRGA-l NW 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: HE 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 67901-94, high windthrow risk, high elev. Within designated old growth reserve. Productivity of 
site is moderate. Field checking alternative regeneration methods. Partial cut buffer. Suspension requirements (see soils or fish). 
Retain stand structure for wildlife where feasible. 

J. oien 5/96 

ROADS: Avoid muskeg areas whenever possible. 

R. Johnson 6/96 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils not mapped. Unit does not appear viable as planned. 2160-520 road would have to come from top 
of 679-325 to access, may require much blasting to reach this unit, and then still may not allow access to all of this unit because of 
bowl shape of hill side. Upper unit high elevation, very steep, with disturbances. Indications rock faces, cliffs, McGilvery, low 
volume, MMI4, all which not viable unit even for helicopter (BMPs 13.5, 13.9; TLMP 1991). W side lower portion low volume 
scrub/shrub wetland not harvestable (BMP 12.5). Leaves only small area SE portion bottom unit, which appears volume class 4. 
Stream, possibly V-notch, S boundary require protection as flows to estuary (BMPs 12.6, 13.16). Probably not viable unit. 

D.Kuntzsch, 7/96 

FISHERIES: Office review indicates a class 11 blue/white TTRA stream along the south unit boundary that will require at least 
100’ no-cut buffer. At a minimum there are two class III streams (probably orange/white) near the west unit boundary. Probably 
additional streams within the unit. Will need to verify with field review during layout (BMP 13.16, 12.6a). Class 111 orange/white 
streams require directional falling, and split yarding or full suspension over, and immediate removal of introduced logging debris 
(BMP 13.16). 

C.Tighe 8/96 

WILDLIFE: 

This unit is within an old growth reserve so was not surveyed by wildlife in either 1 995 or 1 996. If current policy changes and this 
unit is harvested, recommend partial harvest because unit has been identified as an important wildlife travel corridor. This will 
help maintain forest structure and lessen impact on wildlife migration and dispersal. Recommend leaving live reserve trees and 
snags where possible to maintain habitat structure and snag density. Also, if this unit is harvested wildlife will need to conduct 
surveys in the area prior to harvest. Maintain 1000 foot estuary buffer. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: This very steep, low sensitivity unit was surveyed in 1996. No cultural resources were found. There are no con- 
cerns with the unit. 

VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cuttine unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumos or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type D clear-cut. Possible delete. 


32 

3 I 

30 

29 

28 

2 7 

26 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 1 

20 

1 9 

I 8 

1 7 

I 6 

I 5 

1 4 

I 3 

I 2 

I 1 

1 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

I 

o l l 


Chosino Study Areo Interim Layout NOI Unit 679-331 


Mapscole 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 



i i 

A I B ! C 
g e — 

i i i i i 

ooooo 


D 

Class 
C I o s s 
Class 
Exist 
P r o p a 
Unit 


i 

E i 

1 S t 

2 S t 

3 St 
i n g R 
s e d R 
Bound 


i 

i 

F i G 
ream 
ream 
ream 
a a d s 
o a d s 
o r y 


i 

i H 



i i i 

i i i 

I i J i K i L 

Salt Water 

Fresh Water Lo 

Estuary Butter 

500 ' Beach But 


i i i i 

! M I N I 0 I 



! I I 

P I 0 I R ! S 
I Stream Butler 

at Cut Stream B 


i i i i i 

T I U I V I W I X I 
by Chonlyp 

Iters by Chonlyp 



Y 


! 

: 


Uerteld « n Norem&er 01. 1996 


CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCU-UNIT#: 679-337 ACRES:_50 VOL: 1302 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 4,5,6 

PHOTO YR/#: ’91-490-87 1/4 OUAD: CRGA-l NW 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: HE 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 67901-124, high windthrow risk, portion downhill yarded, high elev. Within designated old 
growth reserve. Productivity of site is moderate. Very broken unit. Uneconomic, low volume area scattered throughout. Avoid 
oversteepen areas scattered throughout (see silvi field map/photo). Helicopter log only for soil protection. Maintain YC compo- 
nent by planting. Retain stand structure for wildlife where feasible. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

R. Johnson, 6/96 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils only partially mapped, include 33D (StNicholas - McGilvery 35-60%), 74E (Kupreanof 60-75%), 
35E (StNicholas - Tolstoi 60-75%), 87CD (Grindall - StNicholas 5-60%). Silviculture and fisheries deletions and protections de- 
sirable for McGilvery, cliffs, over steep, low volume, streams, lake, in conjunction with helicopter logging (BMPs 12.5, 12.6, 
12.6a, 13.9, 13.16; TLMP 1991). Possible upgrade needed for protection stream and V-notch NW portion unit and stream NW 
unit boundary to O&W (BMP 13.16). 

D. Kuntzsch, 
J. Frank, 
10/3/95 

FISHERIES: Stream 1 is class III orange/white stream. The lake requires a 200’ no-cut/300’ partial cut buffer (BMP 12.6). The 
lake should be surveyed for resident fish. Stream 2 is a class III orange/ white along the unit boundary. It is contained within a 
deep V-notch that requires a slope break buffer plus a 50’ windfirm buffer (may need to feather edge or diameter cut this 50’ to 
achieve windfirmness) (BMP 12.6). Streams 4,5, and 6 are class III green/whites. Believe stream 4 is the only one of the three 
that enters the unit; the other two are below the north unit boundary. Green/white streams require directional falling, and split 
yarding (where practical) or partial over. Clean streams of introduced debris before the end of the operating season or before the 
yarder leaves the area (BMP 1 3.16). Orange/white streams require directional falling, and split yarding or full suspension over, 
and immediate removal of introduced logging debris (BMP 13.16). 


WILDLIFE: 

B. Johnston, 

G. Lawton 
10/3/95 

M.Dillman 10/96 

Abundant wildlife signs. Deer browse, beds and pellets. Wolf and bear tracks and scat. This unit is within an old growth reserve 
so was not surveyed in 1996. Unit has been identified as important travel corridor so if current policy changes and this unit is har- 
vested, recommend partial harvest to maintain forest structure and lessen impact on wildlife migration and dispersal. Also, 
recommend leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat structure and snag density. If this unit is har- 
vested, wildlife will need to conduct surveys in the area prior to harvest. Small northern tip is in an estuary buffer as it is curently 
mapped in GIS. 


GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 


LANDS: 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cuttine unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumDS or 
natches. buffers or blind-leads, disnersed. and should contain laree live trees and hard snass. Use tvne D clear-cut. O&W streams 
require DF, full over or SY and cleaning of introduced debris immediately. 


C h a s i n o 


Study Area 


Interim Layout N 0 I Unit 

Mopscole 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 


679-337 



i i 

A ! B i C 
o — e — 


ooooo 


i 0 i E I F i 

Class I Stream 
Closs 2 Stream 
Class 3 Stream 
Existing Roods 
Proposed Roods 
Unit 8oundory 


C 


i 

i H 



i i i i 

i i i i 

I i J i K i Li 

S o I t Water 

Fresh Woter Lakes 

Estuary Butlers 

500' Beach Buffer 


M I N 



i i 

i i 

I 0 ; P 
No Cut 

Partial 


t i 

0 i 

S I r e o m 
Cut St 


i i 

R i S ! 
Buffers 

ream B u 


i i i i 

i i i i 

1 i U i V i W i 


by Chontyp 


fers by Chonlyp 



i i 

i i 

Y I Z : 


32 
3 1 
30 
29 
28 
27 
26 
25 
24 
23 
22 

2 I 
20 
I 9 
1 8 
1 7 
I E 
I 5 
I 4 
I 3 

1 2 
t I 
1 0 
9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 
i 


Created by Sally M e r Feld on November 01, 1996 




CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCU-IJNIT#: 679-341 ACRES:J6 VOL: 945 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 4,5.6 


PHOTO YR/#: '9 1-490-87 1/4 QUAD: CRGA-1 NW 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: RS 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

S1LVICULTURECTIMBER: 67901-106, low windthrow risk. Within designated old growth reserve. Productivity of site is 
moderate. Partial cut buffer. Retain stand structure for wildlife where feasible. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

R. Johnson, 6/96 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils mapped primarily 74E (Kupreanof 60-75%) with 32D (StNicholas 35-60%) N part unit, and 33D 
(StNicholas - McGilvery 35-60%) S part unit. Partial suspension for MM13 and forested wetlands (BMPs 12.5, 13.9). Probably 
need to bring upper S boundary of S unit down below cliffs and McGilvery center portion unit. May require additional spur to 
reach SW comer. Not evident if class I stream and why two portions of unit. Appears too steep, but at minimum protection of 
stream and V-notch (BMP 13.16). Protection needed stream W side S unit. Possible to expand unit to E, N, and W. 

K. McCartney, 
D. Kuntzsch, 
7/1 1/96 

FISHERIES: Stream 1 is a class IV green/ white. Stream 1 turns into a class III orange/ white just above the confluence with 
stream 2. Stream 2 is a class IV green/ white. Stream 3 is a class IV green/ white. The class III orange/ white streams require 
directional falling, and split yarding, or full suspension. Clean stream of introduced debris immediately (BMP 13.16). The class 
IV green/ white streams require directional falling, and split yarding (where practical), or partial suspension. Clean streams of 
introduced debris by the end of the operating period or before the yarder leaves the area (BMP 13.16). 


WILDLIFE: 

M.Dillman, 

B. Johnston 
8/28/95 

M.Dillman 10/96 

Deer browse and pellets seen. Game trails also seen. This unit is within an old growth reserve so was not surveyed in 1 996. 

Unit identified as important travel corridor so if current policy changes and the unit will be harvested, partial harvest is recom- 
mended to maintain forest structure and lessen impact on wildlife migration and dispersal. Recommend leaving live reserve trees 
and snags where possible to maintain habitat structure and snag density. Also, if unit is harvested wildlife will need to conduct 
surveys in the area prior to harvest. Mine shaft located in unit. Maintain 1000 foot estuary buffer. 

J.Baichtal 

10/22/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS:This No minerals concerns, access for harvest will improve mineral exploration access. Unit is partially 
underlain by massive to thin-bedded marble interbedded with phyllite. Karst features are developed within this portion of the 
unit. Soils are a mosaic of shallow to deep residual soils and shallow organic soils atop the epikarst ridges. One deep vertical 
shaft accepting a stream was identified within the northeastern unit comer. A 100 foot no harvest buffer is required around the 
shaft and stream feeding into the shaft as per the standards and guidelines outlined in the RSDEIS for the TLMP. Partial suspen- 
sion required on remainder of unit underlain by marble for karst appears to be of at least moderate vulnerability. 


LANDS: 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

CULTURAL: This unit was surveyed in 1996 to determine if historic materials associated with the San Juan Shaft are located in or 
near the unit. Wildlife reported finding the mine shaft within the proposed unit boundary. The shaft was not located after two 
attemps to locate it. If this shaft is located during layout, archaeology should be alerted to assess the significance and determine 
mitigation measures if needed. 


VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cutting unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumns or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type D clear-cut. Partial suspen- 
sion required. 


C h a s i no 



i i i i i i i i i i 

n ! o ! p ! o ! r ! s ! i ! u ! v ! w I 

— I No Cut St ream Buffers by Chontyp 

Part i a I Cut Stream Buffers by Chonlyp 


Created by Solly Uerfeld on November 01, 1996 





CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCU-UNIT#: 679-355 ACRES:_56 VOL: 1737 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 4.5.6 


PHOTO YR/# : ’9 1-490-8 7 1/4 QUAD: C RG B-l SE 1/4 L OGGING SYSTEMS: SL 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 67901-106, low windthrow risk, portion downhill yarded, mod. elev. Within designated old 
growth reserve. Productivity of site is moderate. Maintain setting width between units. Buffers (see fisheries). Retain stand 
structure for wildlife where feasible. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

R. Johnson, 6/96 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils mapped primarily 3E (Vixon - Traitors 60-75%), with 3D (Vixon, Traitors 35-60%), 6 (McGilvery - 
Traitors 60-100%). Partial suspension for MMI3 and McGilvery (BMP 13.9; TLMP 1991). Lower boundary NW comer above 
cliff/rock face. Stream protection, per fisheries (BMP 13.16). Potential additions S, SW, NE portions of unit. 

S. Deck, 

K. Buckley, 
7/10/96 

FISHERIES: Stream 1 is a class III orange/ white for 20 meters into the unit; it then becomes a class IV green/ white. Stream 2 is 
a class III orange/ white. Stream 3 is a class III orange/ white. Steam 3 is a class III orange/ white. Stream 5 is a class III orange/ 
white. The class III orange/ white streams require directional falling, and split yarding or full suspension. Clean streams of intro- 
duced debris immediately (BMP 13.16). The class IV green/ white streams require directional falling, and split yarding (where 
practical) or partial suspension. Clean streams of introduced debris by the end of the operating period or before the yarder leaves 
the area (BMP 13.16). 

C.Tighe 8/96 

WILDLIFE: 

This unit is within an old growth reserve so was not surveyed by wildlife in either 1995 or 1996. Unit has been identified as an 
important travel corridor for wildlife so if current policy changes and this unit is harvested, partial harvest is recommended to 
maintain forest structure and to lessen the impact on wildlife migration and dispersal. Recommend leaving live reserve trees and 
snags where possible to maintain habitat structure and snag density. Also, if unit is harvested wildlife will need to conduct sur- 
veys in the area prior to harvest. Maintain 1 000 foot estuary buffer. 

J.Baichtal 

10/22/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS:No minerals concerns, access for harvest will improve mineral exploration access. Unit is partially un- 
derlain by massive to thin-bedded marble interbedded with phyllite. Karst features are developed within this portion of the unit. 
Soils are a mosaic of shallow to deep residual soils and shallow organic soils atop the epikarst ridges. Numerous sinks and 
epikarst ridges reported by Fisheries Staff. Unit not visited by Forest Geologist. Resource concerns need to be addressed during 
unit layout. Mitigation if necessary as per the standards and guidelines outlined in the RSDEIS for the TLMP. Partial suspension 
required on portion of unit underlain by marble based on discription by field recon team. Karst appears to be of at least moderate 
vulnerability. 

LANDS: 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

CULTURAL: This unit was surveyed in 1996 to determine if historic materials associated with the Croesus adit are located in or 
near the unit. No cultural materials were located. There are no concerns with the unit as planned. 


VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cuttine unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumns or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type D clear-cut. Partial suspen- 
sion required. 


C h o s i n o 


Study 


A r e o 


Interim Layout NOI Unit 679-355 

Mopscole 1:15840 (4 inch !o Mile) 



3 2 

3 I 

30 

29 

28 

27 

26 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 I 

20 

I 9 

I 8 

1 7 

I 6 

I 5 

I 4 

I 3 

i 2 

I I 

I 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

i 


Created by Solly Uerfeld on November 01. 1996 



CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCU-UNIT#: 679-361 ACRES: 38 VOL: _809 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 3,5.6 

PHOTO YR /#: ’91-390-225 1/4 OUAD: CRGB-l SE 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: RS 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 67903-47, low windthrow risk, high mistletoe present. Unit changed to provide proportionality of 
volume classes. Productivity of site is low. Partial cut buffer. Set landings near edge of cliff. Maintain YC component through 
planting if needed. Helicopter yarding method above cable reach of lower unit, adjust bdry accordingly. Due to equipment (501). 
Uneconomic, low volume area surrounding unit. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

Field D. J. Land- 

wehr 

8/16/95 

EIS R. Johnson. 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils Tolstoi, StNicholas, McGilvery. Slopes 30-80%. High MMI soils throughout most of the unit. 
About two acres forested wetland. Partial suspension is required throughout the unit (BMPs 13.9, 12.5). A 100’ buffer is required 
at least on the lower portion of stream 1 (BMPs 12.6, 12.6a). The remainder of the stream should be designated O&W, with direc- 
tional felling, and split yarding or full suspension, and cleaning of introduced debris immediately (BMP 1 3 . 1 6). Two smaller 
streams on the west side of the unit should receive G&W protection (DF, stream cleaning before the end of the operating season). 
No road line, but believe road can be located with stub outs to several landings (BMP 14.2). 

M. Becker, 
K. Buckley, 
8/28/95, 
8/29/95 

FISHERIES: Stream 1 is a class II blue/ white that requires a 120’ TTRA buffer (BMP 12.6). The upper section of this stream is a 
class III orange/ white. Stream 2 is a class II blue/ white that requires a 120’ TTRA buffer (BMP 12.6). The upper section of this 
stream is a class III orange/ white. Stream 3 is a class III orange/ white. Stream 4 is a class III orange/ white. Stream 5 is a class 
III orange/ white. Stream 6 is a class II blue/ white that requires a 120’ TTRA buffer (BMP 12.6). Stream 7 is a class III orange/ 
white. Stream 8 is a class III orange/ white. Stream 9 is a class III orange/ white. The orange/ white streams require directional 
falling, and split yarding or full suspension and immediate removal of introduced debris from the stream channel (BMP 13.16). 

M. Pacheco 

6/27/95. 

C.Tighe, 

B.Johnston, 

A. Mueller 

6/26/96 & 

7/19/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Recommend leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat structure and snag density. 6/26/96 A pair of 
lesser yellow-legs in muskeg helispot. 7/19/96 Deer pellets and beds, bear scat, and game trails throughout the area. Unit 679- 
501 is the helicopter potion of this unit. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: Although survey of this unit was planned for 1996, closer inspection suggests it lies in low sensitivity terraine. 
The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned.. 

VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cutting unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumps or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain larse live trees and hard snaes. Use tvne A clear-cut. O&W streams 
require DF. SY or full over, and cleanine of introduced debris immediately. G&W streams reauires DF, and SY (where nracti- 
cal) or partial over, and cleaning the stream of introduced debris before the end of the operating period or before the yarder leaves 
the area. Partial suspension required. "Unit added from the preferred alternative due to proportionlity based on acres." 


3? 

3 1 

30 

29 

28 

27 

26 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 1 

20 

t 9 

I 8 

1 7 

1 6 

1 5 

t 4 

I 3 

I 2 

1 I 

I 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

Soil 


Chosino Study Area 


Interim Loyout NOI Unit 679-361 

Mopscole 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 



Uerfeld on November 01. 1956 


CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCU-UNIT#: 679-363 ACRES:_66 VOL: 1359 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 3,5,6 


PHOTO YR/#: ’91-390-225 1/4 QUAD: CRG B-l SE 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: HE.RS.LS 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 67903-54, low windthrow risk. Unit changed to provide proportionality of volume classes. Produc- 
tivity of site is moderate. Partial cut buffer. Maintain setting width between units. Unit design calls for clear-cut regeneration 
method. Verify roads and/or landing locations. Uneconomic, low volume area surrounding. Six acres dropped for cliffs and low 
value timber. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

Field D. J. Land- 

wehr 

8/17/95 

EIS R. Johnson 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils StNicholas, Kaikli, with McGilvery and Tolstoi. Slopes 20-130%. Deleted low volume forested 
wetland north end (BMP 12.5), and 4A very steep McGilvery southeast comer. Remaining unit: High MM1 soils upslope of the 
road and downslope of the road north of the stream buffer. Expand the 100 foot buffer in the north portion of the unit to encom- 
pass lower portions of the V-notches because of MMI 4 soils in V-notches (BMPs 13.16, 13.5). Approximatedly 10 acres of for- 
ested wetlands occur along the proposed road line in center, southwest, south boundary. Partial suspension is required over the 
entire unit (BMPs 13.9, 12.5). Helicopter may be needed in the area upslope of road and slope break along water quality creeks. 
See fisheries section of this card for stream course protection. Preliminary road line reviewed and appears feasible (BMP 14.2). 
Area about 100’ full bench and end haul with controls on blasting where road crosses 70% slope less than 100’ up slope from 
O&W creek (BMPs 14.3, 14.6, 14.7, 14.12). Additional roads may be required down slope portion unit below the break; profiles 
may be necessary. 

D. Kuntzsch, 
K. Buckley, 
M. Becker, 
8/25/95 

FISHERIES: Stream 1 is a class I blue/white that requires a 120’ TTRA buffer (BMP 12.6). Stream 2 is a class 11 blue/white that 
requires a 120’ TTRA buffer (BMP 12.6); just downstream of the junction with stream 16, stream 2 becomes class III orange/white 
and requires a slope break buffer. Streams 16 and 17 are class III green/white tributaries to stream 2. Stream 4 is a class III 
orange/white tributary to stream 1. Streams 8 and 15 are green/white class III tributaries to stream 4. Stream 14 is an orange/white 
class III tributary to stream 4. Stream 5 is a class III orange/white tributary to stream 1 . Streams 6, 11,9, and 12 are class III 
orange/white. The class III orange/white streams require directional falling, and split yarding or full suspension over, and im- 
mediate slash removal (BMP 13.16). The class III green/ white streams require directional falling, and split yarding (where practi- 
cal) or partial over. Stream road crossings will require fish passage and timing on blue/white streams #1 and 2 (BMP 14.14). Fol- 
low soils protection instructions for V-notches. 

M. Pacheco 

6/27/95 

C.Tighe, 

B. Johnston, 
A. Mueller 
6/26/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Recommend leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat structure and snag density. There were two 
sensitive Diants. Platanthera chorisiana. the choris boe orchid, found bv a botanist in this unit in 1 995. Harvesting this unit as it is 
currently laid out will destroy these plants. A pair of lesser yellow-legs was seen in the muskeg helispot. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: May have to drop south end of unit at O/W streams. Partial suspension required for soils. Helicopter maybe 

needed upslope of road and slope breaks water quality creeks. Include lower portions large v-notches in 120’ stream buffers. 

"Unit added from the preferred alternative due to proportionality based on acres." Overstory removal diameter of 16" DBH on 
northern 1/2 of unit. Possible patch cuts between streams at southern end between streams. Several 1-2 acre patches. Retain 10% 
at north end and approximatley 75% in south end. 6 acres dropped. 


32 

3 1 

30 

29 

28 

27 

26 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 I 

20 

I 9 

1 8 

1 7 

I 8 

I 5 

I 4 

t 3 

1 2 

1 I 

I 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

I 

5 g I I 


Chosino Study Areo Interim Layout NOI Unit 679-363 

Mopscole 1:15840 (4 inch 1o Mile) 



ooooo 


32 
3 1 
30 
29 
28 
27 
2 6 
25 
24 
23 
22 

2 I 
20 
1 9 
1 8 
1 7 
I 6 
1 5 
1 4 
1 3 
1 2 

1 I 
1 0 
9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 
1 


u 1 1 


feld on November 01. 1996 


CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCU-UNIT#: 679-367 ACRES:^0 VOL: _778 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 3,5.6 

PHOTO YR/#: ’71(511-1472-46 1/4 QUAD: CRG B-l SE 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: RS 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTUREATIMBER: 67903-58, low windthrow risk. Productivity of site is moderate. Partial cut buffer. Uneconomic, 
low volume area surrounding. Split-yarding required on stream where possible. Dropped 4 acres due to scrub timber. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

R.Johnson, 6/96 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils mapped 57D (Petrel 35-60%), with 550C (StNicholas - Kaikli 5-35%). Partial suspension for for- 
ested wetlands (BMPs 12.5, 13.9). Probable adjustment of boundary lines to exclude and protect non-harvestable low volume 
wetlands (BMP 12.5), and to delineate harvestable unit. Protection of streams per fisheries (BMPs 12.6a, 13.16). 

D. Kuntzsch, 
M. Becker, 
9/1/95 

FISHERIES: Stream 6 along east and north boundaries is a class II blue /white that requires a slope break buffer plus 100’ TTRA 
(BMP 12.6). At the concfluence of streams 7 and 6, stream 6 becomes a class III orange/white. Recommend slope break buffer 
for this reach of stream 6; in some cases the slope break is a rock ledge or cliff. Streams 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 are class III 
orange/white. Below the unit, stream 1 is a class II orange/white, but in the unit it is a class III green/white; stream 3 is a class 111 
green/white tributary to stream 1. Stream 2 is a class III orange/white and stream 4 is a class III green/white (trib to stream 2). 
The class III orange/white streams require directional falling, and split yarding or full suspension over, and immediate slash re- 
moval (BMP 13.16). The class III green/white streams require directional falling, and split yarding (where practical) and partial 
suspension over. Clean streams of introduced debris before the end of the operating period or before the yarder leaves the area 
(BMP 13.16). 

M.Dillman, 

B. Johnston 
8/31/95 

C. Tighe, 

B. Johnston, 
7/1 1/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Deer, bear and wolf signs. Two wolf killed deer found. Recommend leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to main- 
tain habitat structure and snag density. Unit is within a half mile of known baeagle nest. Road construction must be accomplished 
in accordance with the requirements of the Bald Eagle Protection Act and must also comply with the MOU between the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service and the Forest Service. Written coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service needs to be docu- 
mented. 7/1 1/96 Deer sign was seen throughout the unit. Maintain 1000 foot estuary buffer. 

T.Fifteid 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: This unit was surveyed in 1996. No cultural resources were noted. There are no concerns with the unit as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Partial suspension required. Expect wetland soils unit falldown. Unevenaged group selections, 1-2 acres in 
size covering 1/5 of the unit. Select largest diameter stumps (mainley cedar). Could be in strips for easy yarding. 


32 

3 I 

30 

29 

20 

27 

26 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 1 

20 

I 9 

I 0 

I 7 

1 6 

I 5 

1 4 

I 3 

I 2 

I I 

I 0 

9 

0 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

I 

i i i 


32 

3 1 

30 

29 

20 

27 

26 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 1 

20 

I 9 

I 0 

I 7 

I 6 

1 5 

1 4 

I 3 

1 2 

I I 

I 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

I 


200.000 


C h o s i n o 


Study Areo Interim Layout NOI Unit 679-367 


Mapscale 1:15040 (4 inch to Mile) 














T tz ff \.J 


1 /r 




5 \ 


i i 

A I 0 I C 
o — e — 


ooooo 


till 

0 i E I E : G ! H 


Class 1 Stream 
Class 2 Stream 
Class 3 Stream 
Existing Roods 
Proposed Roods 
Unit Boundary 


V/,. 

& 



I I I 

I I I 

I I J I K I 

Soli Water 

Fresh Water 

Estuary Buff 

500' Beach B 


! i 

L i M ! N 



e r s 
u f f e r 


i i i i i i i i i i 


0 i P 

i 0 i R i S i I i 

U i V i 

lit i X i Y i Z 

No Cut 

Stream Butters by 

C h o n 1 y p 


Port i a 

1 Cut Stream Butter 

s by Chan 

1 y p 



i 


Uerfeld on November 01. 1996 


CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCU-UNIT#: 679-376 ACRES:.J3 VOL: _310 NffiF ALTERNATIVES: 3.5.6 

PHOTO YR/#: , 71(5h-1472-45/'91-390-150 1/4 QUAD: CRG A-l NE 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: RS 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 67903-16, low windthrow risk. Retain stand structure for wildlife where feasible. Type D clear- 
cut. Productivity of site is low. Uneconomic, low volume area surrounding. Dropped NE edge - low volume. Split-yarding 
required on stream. Buffers (see fisheries). 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

R. Johnson, 6/96 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils mapped 550C (StNicholas - Kaikli 5-35%), with 3D (Vixen - Traitors 35-60%). Partial suspension 
for forested wetlands (BMPs 12.5, 13.9). Stream protection per fisheries (BMP 13.16). 

D. Kuntzsch, 
B. Steel, 

R. Reeves, 
8/1/95 

K. McCartney, 
M. Solomon, 
6/26/96 

FISHERIES: Stream 1,2, and 3 are class IV green/white systems. They require directional falling, and split yarding (where practi- 
cal) and partial suspension (BMP 13.16, 12.6). Clean streams of introduced logging debris before the end of the operating season 
or before the yarder leaves the area. 

C.Tighe, 

B. Johnston, A. 
Mueller 6/19/96 

WILDLIFE: 

This unit has been identified as an important wildlife travel corridor. Partial harvest is recommended to maintain forest structure 
and lessen the impact on wildlife migration and dispersal. This unit was not surveyed during 1995 as it did not meet the habitat 
requirements called for in the current goshawk protocols.. Recommend leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to 
maintain habitat structure and snag density. This unit is within one-half mile of a known bald eagle nest. Road construction must 
be accomplished in accordance with the requirements of the Bald Eagle Protection Act and must also comply with the MOU be- 
tween the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Forest Service. Written coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
needs to be documented. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: This unit was surveyed in 1996. No cultural materials were noted. There are no concerns with the unit as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cutting unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumns or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type D clear-cut. Partial suspen- 
sion required. 


T 


V 


X 


Y 


Z 



ooooo 


a t e d by Sally Uerfeld on November 01, 1996 



CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCU-UNIT#: 679-378 ACRES:^J VOL: _703 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 3.5.6 

PHOTO YR/#: VI (5 IE 1472-45 1/4 QUAD: CRGA-1 NE 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: RS 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 67903-38, low windthrow risk, portion downhill yarded. Retain stand structure for wildlife where 
feasible. Partial cut buffer. Productivity of site is low. Field checking alternative regeneration methods. Maintain setting width 
between units. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: Evaluate temporary roads for specified road criteria. 

R. Johnson, 6/96 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils mapped 550C (StNicholas - Kaikli 5-35%), 57D (Petrel 35-60%), 3D (Vixen - Traitors 35-60%). 
Primarily forested wetlands, minimum of partial suspension (BMPs 12.5, 13.9). Protection streams per fisheries (BMPs 12.6a, 
13.16a). 

D. Kuntzsch, 
B. Steel, 

R. Reeves, 
8/1/95 

FISHERIES: Stream 1 is a class II blue/white (TTRA) along most of the west unit boundary. Approximately at the confluence of 
stream 6, stream 1 becomes a class III orange/white that requires at least a slope break buffer and probably a 25-50’ windfirm edge 
to protect the V-notch. Streams 3, 4, and 5 are class III orange/white, but are outside the current south boundary of the unit. 
Streams 6 and 7 are class III orange/white. Streams 9 and 10 are class II blue/ white (TTRA) that change to orange/ white class 
III. The class III orange/ white streams require directional falling, and split yarding or full suspension, and immediated slash re- 
moval (BMP 13.16, 12.6). The class III green/ white streams require directional falling, and split yarding (where practical) or 
partial suspension. Clean streams of introduced debris before the end of the operating period or before the yarder leaves the area. 
Roads crossing blue/white streams will require fish passage and timing (BMP 14.14). 

C.Tighe, 

B. Johnston 
7/11/96 

WILDLIFE: 

This unit has been identified as an important wildlife travel corridor. Partial harvest is recommended to maintain forest structure 
and lessen the impact on wildlfe migration and dispersal. This unit was not surveyed during 1995, as it did not meet the habitat 
requirements called for in the current goshawk protocols. Recommend leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to main- 
tain habitat struture and snag density. Deer sign seen throughout unit. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: This unit was surveyed in 1996. No cultural resources were noted. There are no concerns with the unit as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cuttine unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumDS or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type D clear-cut. Minimum par- 
tial suspension. Delete 7 acres (2 for uneconomical scrub, 2 steep, 2 unreachable). 


32 

3 1 

30 

29 

28 

27 

26 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 1 

20 

I 9 

I 8 

1 7 

1 6 

1 5 

I 4 

1 3 

I 2 

I I 

I 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

Soil 


C h o s i n o 


Study Area Interim Layout NOI Unit 679-378 

Mopscole 1:15840 (4 Inch to Mile) 



A i B i C 

G 0 — 


D i E i F i 
Closs I Stream 
111 Closs 2 Stream 

Closs 3 Stream 
“ Existing Roods 
' Proposed Roods 

===== Unit Boundary 


i i i i i i i 

i i l i i i l 

G i H i I i J i K i Li Mi N 


i i i i i i i 

QiRiS:t!u!vIw!x!y!z! 


I I 

I I 




So I t Wo I e r 


i 0 i P 

No Cut Streom Butlers by Chantyp 


Fresh Water Lakes Portiol Cut Streom Butlers by Chantyp 

^ Estuory Buffers 


1|| 500' Beach Buffer 



Uerfeld on November 01, 1996 



CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCIJ-UNIT#: 679-379 ACRES:_J VOL: 250 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 3,5,6 

PHOTO YR/#: ' 1 1(5 0-1472-45 1/4 QUAD: CRG A-l NE 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: HEL 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 67901- , low windthrow risk. Productivity of site is moderate. New road option from east. 

Field checking alternative regeneration methods. Uneconomic, low volume area surrounding. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

R. Johnson, 6/96 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils mapped 550C (StNicholas - Kaikli 5-35%), with 4C (Helm 5-35%). Partial suspension for forested 
wetlands (BMPs 12.5, 13.9). Probable adjustment boundary lines for harvestable timber, particularly deletion center S line for 
exclusion low volume. No streams evident, possible non-streams should be protected by partial suspension (BMP 13.16). 
Changed from helicopter to road and cable logging, to helicopter yarding, full suspension should be provided (BMP 1 3.9). 

D.Kuntzsch, 7/96 

FISHERIES: Office review revealed no apparent fisheries concerns. 

C.Tighe, 

B. Johnston, 
A. Mueller 
6/19/96 

WILDLIFE: 

This unit is within one-half mile of a known bald eagle nest. Road construction must be accomplished in accordance with the Bald 
Eagle Protection Act and must also comply with the MOU between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Forest Service. Written 
coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service needs to be documented. This unit did not rate as a high priority area for 
wildlife because of its size, only 3 acres. It was not surveyed during 1995. Recommend leaving live reserve trees and snags where 
possible to maintain habitat structure and snag density. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cuttina unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumDS or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type C clear-cut. 3 acres with 
helicopter. 


Chosino Study Area 


t e d 




Interim Layout NOI Unit 679-379 

Mopscale 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 



i i i i i i 

a! b! ci o! e! f; g 

Class I Stream 
Closs 2 Stream 
Class 1 Stream 
Existing Roods 
Proposed Roods 
Unit Boundory 

Sally UerEeld on November 01. 1 9 9 & 


o e- 


OOOOO 


i 

i H 



I I I i I I I ! I I I I I I I 

I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I 

liJ.KiL.M NfOiPiOrRiSiTiUiViWi 
Soil Water WBk N 0 u 1 Stream Butlers by Chonlyp 

m 

Fresh Water lakes Partial Cut Stream Buffers by Chonlyp 

Estuary Butters 
500' Beach Buffer 



Y i 


i 

Z 





CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCTJ-UNIT#: 679-382 ACRES: 44 VOL: 1276 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 3A5.6 

PHOTO YR/#: ’7 1( 5 I V 1472-44 1/4 OUAD: CRGA-l NE 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: RS 


REV1EWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTUREfTIMBER: 67903-1 1 , high windthrow risk, portion downhill yarded. Retain stand structure for wildlife where 
feasible. Partial cut buffer. Productivity of site is low. Maintain setting width between units. Field checking alternative regen- 
eration methods. Road line was moved upslope and further east. Helicopter yarding method above cable reach of lower unit, 
adjust bdry accordingly. Due to resource protection. (502). 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: Numerous stream crossings - evaluate split yarding and road network. 

R. Johnson 6/96 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils mapped 1C (Vixen 5-35%), 3D (Vixen - Traitors 35-60%), 4D (Helm 35-60%), with 4C (Helm 5- 
35%), 550C (StNicholas - Kaikli 5-35%), 40D (Sarkar - McGilvery 35-60%). Partial suspension for areas of forested wetland, 
McGilvery, karst (BMPs 12.5, 13.9; TLMP 1991). Appears slopes to E steeper than mapped, maybe MMI3, which requires partial 
suspension, if so (BMP 13.9). Concern relocation of road upslope may require full bench, end haul, and blasting (BMPs 14.2, 

14.6, 14.7, 13.5, 14.12). Protect other streams prescribed by fisheries (BMPs 13.16, 12.6, 12.6a). Potential blowdown of buffers. 

K. McCartney, 
H.Roerick, 

K.. Buckley, 
8/1/95 

B. Johnston, 

K. Buckley, 

M. Solomon, 
R. Johnson, 
6/21/96 

FISHERIES: Stream 4 is a class I blue/ white streams that requires a 200’ TTRA buffer. Stream 1 is a class I blue/ white that 
requires 120’ TTRA buffer. Stream 6 is a class 11 blue/white that requires a 120’ TTRA buffer (BMP 12.6). Stream 7 is a class II 
orange/white AHMU that is a tributary to stream 6. Streams 2, 3, 5, and 8 are class III orange/white. Streams 9, 10, 11, and 12 are 
class III green/white. The class III orange/white streams require directional falling, and split yarding or full suspension over, and 
immediate removal of introduced logging debris (BMP 13.16). The class III green/white streams require directional falling, and 
split yarding (where practical) or partial over. These streams must be cleaned of introduced debris before the end of the operating 
period or before the yarder leaves the area (BMP 13.16, 12.6). Roads crossing blue/white streams will require fish passage and 
timing (BMP 14.14) A lot of blowdown and wet soils noted in unit. 

M. Pacheco 
7/20/95 
B. Johnston, 
K.. Buckley, 
R. Johnson, 
M. Solomon 
6/21/96 

WILDLIFE: 

This unit identified as an important wildlife travel corridor. Partial harvest is recommended to maintain forest structure and lessen 
impact on wildlife migration and dispersal. Recommend leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat 
structure and snag density. Four CMT’s, (Culturally Modified Trees), found in the unit, 2 in live trees and 2 in snags. Deer 
browse and pellets seen in unit. Woodpecker species heard. Alder in overstory. Unit 679-502 is the helicopter portion of this unit. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: This unit was surveyed in 1996 to determine if historic materials associated with the Saco and Equator Prospects 
are located in or near the unit. No cultural materials were noted. There are no concerns with the unit as planned. 

VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cuttine unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumns or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type D clear-cut. Potential sus- 
pension required. Redo map drop portion in top. Dropped NE steep portion (presale check if helicopter option). Dropped scrub 
in center. Salvage windthrow patch in SE. Move unit to existing clearcut. Helicopter groups select up to 3/4 acre patches for 
unevenaged management. Around streams at south end. 3-4 patches. Regeneration harvest (cc) the remainder of the unit. 


C h o s i n a 


Study Area Interim Layout NOI Unit 679-382 

Mopscole 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 



52 
3 I 
30 
29 
28 
2 7 
2 6 
25 
24 
23 
22 
2 I 
20 
I 9 
I 8 
I 7 
t 6 
I 5 
1 4 
I 3 
1 2 
I 1 
I 0 
9 


7 

6 

5 


3 

2 

I 


A B I C 
g — e— 


OOOOO 


o r f s it 


Class I 
Class 2 
Class 3 
E x i s I i n 
Propose 
Unit 0 a 


S t r e om 
Stream 
Stream 
g Roods 
d Roods 
u n d o r y 



i i i i 

i i i i 

I i J i K i Li 

Soil Water 

Fresh Water Lakes 

Estuory Buffers 

500' Beach Buffer 


M ! N 



I l i I I : 

I Or Pi 0 I R I Sr 

No Cut Stream Butlers 

Portiol Cut Stream 8u 


i i i i 

r t i i 

I i U i V i W i 

by Chonlyp 

fers by Chanlyp 



7 


i 


e d by Solly He i I e N on November 01, 1996 


CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


vrtl-IINIT#: 679-383 ACRES:_9 VOL: JA5 NffiF ALTERNATIVES: 6 

PHOTO YR/#: 71(51)-1472-45/ , 91-390-223 1/4 QUAD: CRG A-l LOGGING SYSTEMS: RS 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 67903- , high windthrow risk. Productivity of site is low. Uneconomic, low volume area 

surrounding. Maintain setting width between units, unless can be connected into one. Field checking alternative regeneration 
methods. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

R. Johnson. 6/96 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils mapped 550C (StNicholas 5-35%). Partial suspension forested wetland (BMPs 12.5, 13.9). Con- 
cerns whether adequate tail holds and anchors for guy lines for suspension. Probable stream(s) needing protection (BMP 13.16). 
Slight potential to expand. Third order watershed (BMP 12.1). 

K. Buckley, 8/96 

FISHERIES: G1S review shows potential for two class III orange/ white streams. Field verification will be required if unit is se- 
lected for harvest. 

C. Tighe, 

B. Johnston, 
A. Mueller 
6/14/96 

WILDLIFE: 

This unit did not rate as a high priority area for wildlife because of its size of only 9 acres. It was not surveyed during 1995. Deer 
sign, browse, beds, and game trails seen in unit. Bear sign seen as well. One dead deer found in area. Fisheries crew reported see- 
ing a mouse-like mammal along the creek. Sparse/scrub timber. Recommend leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to 
maintain habitat structure and snag density. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cutting unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumps or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type A clear-cut. Partial suspen- 
sion required. 


32 

3 I 

30 

29 

28 

27 

26 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 I 

20 

1 9 

I 8 

1 7 

I 6 

I 5 

I 4 

I 3 

1 2 

I I 

I 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

I 

0 I I 


383 


Chasino Study Area Interim Layout NOI Unit 679- 

Mapscole 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 



A I B i C 

0 e — 

1 i i t i 

ooooo 


D t 

E i F i C 

i H i 

1 i J i K 

i L i 

Class 

1 Streom 


Soil Water 


Class 

2 Streom 



Class 

3 Streom 

V/,. 

Fresh Wole 

r Lakes 

Exist 

i n g Roods 




Proposed Roods 


E s 1 u o r y B u 

tiers 

Unit 

Boundor y 


500' Beach 

Buffer 



I I I I 

1111 
I 0 I Pi Q I 


No Cut Streom 


P o r t i o I Cut S 


i i i i i i 

i i i i i i 

RiSiTiUiViWi 


Butlers by Chontyp 


ream Butlers by Chontyp 



Y 


2 


i 


M e r Feld on November 01. 1 S S 5 



CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


vriJ-lJNIT#: 679-384 ACRES: 17 VOL: _255 MBF ALTERNATIVES :_6 

PHOTO YR/#: 1 7W5n/1472-45/ , 91-390-224 1/4 QUAD: CRGA-1 NE 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: RS/SH 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 67903- , low windthrow risk, partial downhill yarded. Productivity of site is low. 

Maintain setting width between units. Partial cut buffer. Uneconomic, low volume area surrounding. Depending on final road 
location - may want to drop portion north of northernmost creek. Shovel yard southern 1/2. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

R. Johnson. 6/96 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils mapped 550C (StNicholas - Kaikli 5-35%) and 86CD (Kaikli - Grindall 5-60%). Partial suspension 
for forested wetlands (BMP 12.5, 13.9). Concerns adequate tail holds and anchors for guy lines for suspension. Potential to ex- 
pand to limits of merchantable timber. Protection streams designated by fisheries; question B&W and O&W on these slopes, plus 
potential for blowdown of buffers. Third order watershed (BMP 12.1). Shovel yarding must meet standards of slopes, drainages, 
topography, walking on waste wood to protect wetland soils, etc., per BMP 13.9. Defer harvest on Kaikli soils (TLMP 1996). 

K. McCartney, 

J. Frank, 

8/1/95 

K. McCartney, 
S.Deck, 
K.Kitchel, 
6/14/96 

FISHERIES: Stream 1 is a class I blue/ white that requires a 120’ TTRA buffer (BMP 12.6). Above the confluence with stream 3, 
stream 1 is a class II blue/ white that requires a 120’ TTRA buffer (BMP 12.6). Above the confluence with stream 4, stream 1 is a 
class III orange/ white that requires directional falling, and split yarding or full suspension. Clean stream of introduced debris 
immediately (BMP 13.16). Stream 2 is a class IV green/ white. Stream 3 is a class IV green/ white. Stream 4 is a class IV green/ 
white. The class IV green/ white streams require directional falling, and split yarding (where practical) or partial suspension. 

Clean streams of introduced debris by the end of the operating period or before the yarder leaves the area (BMP 13.16). Road 
crossing stream 1 will require fish passage and timing (BMP 14.14). 

C.Tighe, 

B. Johnston, 
A. Mueller 
6/14/96 

WILDLIFE: 

This unit did not rate as a high priority area for wildlife due to its low volume class. It was not surveyed during 1 995. Deer and 
bear sign seen in unit: scat, pellets, beds, and trails. One dead deer found near unit. Fisheries crew reported seeing a mouse-like 
mammal in the area. Recommend leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat structure and snag den- 
sity. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cutting unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumps or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type A clear-cut. Partial suspen- 
sion required. Shovel yard eastern 1/2. North end of unit maybe effected by buffer. 


3 2 

3 I 

30 

29 

28 

27 

26 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 I 

20 

I 9 

I 8 

I 7 

I 6 

t 5 

I 4 

1 3 

1 2 

1 I 

I 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

o l l 


384 


Chosino Study Area Interim Layout NOI Unit 679- 

Mopscole 1:15640 (4 inch lo Mile) 



A ! 0 I C 

g — e — 


OOOOO 



D i 

E 

' 

f i 

C 1 

0 s s 

1 

S t 

ream 

C 1 

ass 

2 

S t 

ream 

C 1 

ass 

3 

S f 

ream 

E * 

i s 1 

i n g 

R 

o a d s 

P r 

o p 0 

s e d 

R 

a a d s 

Jn 

i t 

0 a u 

n d 

a r y 


i 

i H 



l i i i 

> i i i 

I i J i K i L i 

Salt Water 

Fresh Water takes 

Estuary Buffers 

500' Beach Buffer 


M I N 



i i i i i i i i i i 

i i i i i i i i i i 

iOiPiOiRiSiTiUiViWi 
No Cut Stream Buffers by Chanlyp 

Partial Cut Slream Buffers by Chanlyp 



i 


lierleld on November 01, I 9 9 & 



CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


vriJ-IJNIT#: 679-386 ACRES: 22 VOL: 450 MBF ALTERNATIVES :_6 

PHOTO YR/#: ’71(51)-1472-45/’91-390-224 1/4 QUAD: CRG A-l NE 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: RS 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 67903- , high windthrow risk, portion downhill yarded. Productivity of site is moderate. 

Partial cut buffer. Maintain setting width between units, or join with unit 384. Uneconomic, low volume area surrounding. Ad- 
just road upslope as far as possible. May have to drop steep center and area to the west above it. Reach up to NW as far as pos- 
sible. Optional western road coming from the south may replace eastern bottom road. Maintain YC component by planting. 
Commercial thin if uphill. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

R. Johnson, 6/96 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils mapped 550C (StNicholas - Kaikli 5-35%), with 86CD (Kaikli - Grindall 5-60%). Steeper slopes 
and McGilvery noted by silviculture. Partial suspension forested wetlands and McGilvery (BMPs 12.5, 13.9;TLMP 1991). Con- 
cerns adequate tail holds and anchors for guy lines for suspension. Better timber to NW may be limited by reach from road. May 
need to extend roading to S because curve of hill slope. Protect streams per fisheries (BMPs 13.16, 12.6a). Third order watershed 
(BMP 12.1). Defer harvest on Kaikli soils (TLMP 1996). 

K. McCartney, 
J. Hannon, 
8/1/95 

FISHERIES: Streams 1 and 2 are class I blue/white TTRA. They require 120’ TTRA buffers and road crossing timing (BMP 
12.6, 14.14). Streams 6 and 7 are class III orange/whites that require directional falling, and split yarding or full suspension over, 
and immediate removal of introduced logging debris (BMP 13.16). Streams 3, 4, 5, 8, and 9 are class III green/white. They re- 
quire directional falling, and split yarding (where practical) or partial suspension. Clean streams of introduced logging debris be- 
fore the end of the operating period or before the yarder leaves the operating area (BMP 13.16, 12.6a). 

C.Tighe, 

B. Johnston, 
A. Mueller 
6/14/96 

WILDLIFE: 

This unit did not rate as a high priority for wildlife due to its low volume class. It was not surveyed in 1995. Deer and bear sign 
seen in unit: trails, scat, pellets, beds. One dead deer found near unit. Fisheries crew reported seeing a mouse-like mammal in the 
area. Recommend leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat structure and snag density. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cutting unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumps or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type A clear-cut. Partial suspen- 
sion required. 


32 

3 I 

30 

29 

28 

27 

26 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 I 

20 

I 9 

I 8 

I 7 

I 6 

I 5 

I 4 

1 3 

1 2 

I 1 

t 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

Soil 


32 

3 I 

30 

29 

28 

27 

2 6 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 I 

20 

I 9 

1 8 

1 7 

t 6 

I 5 

I 4 

1 3 

I 2 

1 I 

I 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

I 


C h a s i n a 


Study Areo Interim Layout NOI Unit 679-386 

Mopscole 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 



i i 

i i 

A i B i C 
0 — e — 


ooooo 



c 


H 


Class I Stream 
Class 2 Stream 
Class 3 Stream 
Existing Roads 
Proposed Ronds 
Unit Boundory 



i i 

i i 

I i J i K 
Salt Water 

Fresh Water 

Estuary But 

500' Beach 


i i i 

i L i M i N 



utter 


i i i i i i 

I I I I I ! 

0 i Pi Q i R i Si 

No Cut Streom Butlers 

Part i a I Cut Stream Bu 


i i i i i 

i i i i i 

T i U i V i W i X i 


by Chantyp 


lers by Chantyp 



Y 


Z i 


U e r f e I d on November 01. 1998 


CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


vrU-IJNIT#: 679-392 ACRES: 50 VOL: 2250 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 4.6 

PHOTO YR/#: '71(51 V1472-44 1/4 QUAD: CRG A-l NE 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: RS. SL. SH 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: , low windthrow risk. Unit changed to provide proportionality of vol- 

ume classes. Productivity of site is high. Field checking alternative regeneration methods. Wildlife corridor structure main- 
tained by unevenaged mgmt. Strip cuts running SW - NE perpendicular to contours would have little impact on visuals. Eastern 
1/2 of clear-cut will be adjacent in with private cut. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

R. Johnson, 
6/96 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils mapped primarily 3D (Vixen - Traitors 35-60%), with 550 C (StNicholas - Kaikli 5-35%) and 4D 
(Helm 35-60%) N end, and 28 (McGilvery & Tolstoi 5-60%) S end. Appears from photos more wet than mapped. N boundary 
may be limit merchantable timber, S boundary open. Partial suspension on wetlands (BMPs 12.5, 13.9). Potential expand down 
slope to E with spur road. Probable streams needing protection (BMP 13.16). E half in third order watershed (BMP 12.1). Shovel 
yarding per requirments BMP 13.9: slope, topography, walking on wood or pads, crossing streams, felling, spur roads, and turns. 

J. Frank, 

M. Pacheco, 

D. Kennemore 
7/25/95 

FISHERIES: Stream 1 is a class III orange/ white. Stream 2 is a class III orange/ white. Stream 3 is a class III orange/ white. 
Stream 4 is a class III orange/ white. Stream 5 is a class III green/ white. The class III orange/ white streams require directional 
falling, and split yarding or full suspension. Clean streams of introduced debris immediately (BMP 13.16). The class III green/ 
white stream requires directional falling, and split yarding (where practical) or partial suspension. Clean stream of introduced 
debris by the end of the operating period or before the yarder leaves the area (BMP 13.16). 

M. Pacheco, 
J.Baichtal 
7/25/95 
C.Tighe, 

A. Mueller 
6/20/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Game trails common. Wolf howls heard. Karst in area. To provide for adequate snag density and distribution within the VCU, 
recommend leaving 0. 1 acre or larger snag patch for each 10 acres of unit. Recommend leaving live reserve trees and snags 
where possible to maintain habitat structure and snag density. 6/20/96 Deer sign, pellets: beds, browse and trails seen in unit. 
Karst in unit. Blueberry very heavily browsed. 

T.Fifield 

10.28/96 

GEOLOGY/M rNERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Unevenaaed Memt: for regeneration and structure retention. Strin/corridor selection - cable selections. Partial 
suspension required forested wetlands and McGilvery. Shovel yarding per requirments BMP 13.9. "Unit dropped from the pre- 
ferred alternative due to proportionality based on acres." Type A clearcut. 


32 

3 I 

30 

2 9 

20 

27 

26 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 1 

20 

I 9 

1 8 

I 7 

I 6 

1 5 

1 4 

1 3 

I 2 

1 I 

t 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

o I I 


Chosino Study Area 


Interim Layout NOI Unit 679-392 

Mopscole 1:15840 (4 inch la Mile) 



A ! B I C 

G 0 — 


ooooo 


0 I E ! F i C 
Class I Stream 
Closs 2 Stream 
Closs 3 Stream 
Existing Roods 
Proposed Roods 
Unit Boundory 


i i 

i i 

i H i 



i i i i i 

i i i i i 

I i J i K i L > Mi N 

Soil Water 

Fresh Water Lokes 

Estuary Butlers 

500' fleoch Buffer 



I i r I I i 

I I I I I I 

I 0 i Pi 0 i R i Si 

No Cut Stream Butlers 

Portiol Cut Stream Bu 


i i i i 

i i i i 

T i U i Vi W i 


by C h o n t y p 


lers by Chontyp 



Y 


Z 


i 

i 

i 


llerfeld on Noxernber 01. 1995 



CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCU-IJNIT#: 679-403 ACRES:_7J VOL: 3195 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 4.6 

PHOTO YR/#: , 71(51)-1472-43 1/4 QUAD: CRG A- 1 NE 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: RS 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: , low windthrow risk. Unit changed to provide proportionality of volume classes. 

Productivity of site is high. Greenup of adjacent unit should be attained by harvest. Unevenaged mgmt. Could retain wildlife 
structure for corridor. Field checking alternative regeneration methods. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

R. Johnson, 6/96 

SOILS/WATERSFIED: Soils mapped 3D (Vixen - Traitors 35-60%). No concerns apparent. Marble karst reported, partial sus- 
pension if so (BMPs 13.9, 13.16). Potential to expand unit with adequate roading to reach areas. 

K. McCartney, 
J. Frank, 

D, Kuntzsch 
7/24/95 

FISHERIES: No streams in this unit. Unit contains Karst. 

M. Pacheco, 
J.Baichtal 
7/25/95 
C.Tighe, 

A. Mueller, 
6/20/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Game trails in unit. Karst. Recommend leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat structure and snag 
density. 6/20/96 Deer beds, pellets, trails and browse seen in unit. Blueberry very heavily browsed. 

J. Baichtal 
10/22/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: No minerals concerns, access for harvest will improve mineral exploration access. Unit underlain by 
marble. Sinkholes numerous, none holding water. Even though sinkhole development is widespread and epikarst is moderately 
well developed, soils tend to be moderately deep, weathered, yellowish-brown silts. Soils seem to be developed as a result of min- 
eralization which has weathered. These deep soils seem prone to windthrow. Based on sinkhole densities unit should be high 
vulnerability. Based on soil / epikarst development unit should be of moderate vulnerability. Because of the lack of discrete karst 
features taking water, the lack of caves, and the soil development and depth, the unit is proposed for harvest. Partial suspension 
required within unit as a minimum. Yarding should be perpendicular to the karst ridges when ever possible. Because of the bro- 
ken nature of the ground, more temporary spurs may be needed to log the unit. It can be expected that 10-20% of the acres of 
harvest proposed will be deleted to protect discrete karst features. Mitigation to protect such features should be designed during 
final layout to insure windfirmness of buffers. Unit design should consider windthrow potential. Suggest adopting proposal to 
access unit by spurring in from the north and south instead of building road through unit. 

LANDS: 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 


VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Uneven-aaed Memt: for reaeneration and structure retention. StriD/corridor selection - cable selections. 
"Unit dropped from the prefered alternative due to proportionality based on acres." Use type B clearcut. 


C h o s i no 


Study Area Interim Loyout NOI Unit 679-403 

Mopscole 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 



coooo 


32 
31 
30 
29 
28 
27 
2 6 
25 
24 
23 
22 

2 I 
20 
I 9 
1 8 
1 7 
I E 
I 5 
I 4 
1 3 
1 2 

1 I 
1 0 
9 

8 

7 

E 

5 

4 

3 

2 
1 


Existing Roods 
Proposed Roods 
Unit Boundory 


& 


Estuary Buffers 



500' Beoch Buffer 



treated by Solly Uerfeld on November 01. 1996 


CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VPI J-IJNIT#: 679-407 ACRES: 43 VOL: 1 131 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 4.6 

PHOTO YR/#: '71(51 )-1472-43/ , 91-390-163 1/4 OUAD: CRGA-l NE 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: RS 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: , high windrows risk. Unit changed maybe to provide proportionality of 

volume classes. Productivity of site is high. Partial cut buffer. Uneconomic, low volume area, to the south and SE. Unit design 
calls for clear-cut regeneration method. Verify roads and/or landing locations. Karst also in uneconomical area and in unit. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

R. Johnson, 6/96 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils mapped 3D (Vixen - Traitors 35-60%) N half, 442 C (Ulloa - Sarkar 5-35%) S half. Partial suspen- 
sion on believed moderate vulnerability karst, no shovel logging. Deletions made by silviculture beneficial. 

H. Roerick, 

K. McCartney, 
K. Buckley, 
7/19/95 
K.Kitchel, 

M. Solomon, 

S. Deck, 
6/27/96 

FISHERIES: Stream 1 is a class III orange/ white that requires a slope break plus 25’ buffer (BMP 13.16). Stream 2 is a class IV 
green/ white. Stream 3 is a III orange/ white that requires a slope break plus 25’ buffer (BMP 13.16). The class IV green/ white 
stream requires directional falling, and split yarding (where practical) or partial suspension. Clean stream of introduced debris by 
the end of the operating season or before the yarder leaves the area ( BMP 13.16). 

M.Dillman, 

J.Wrate 

7/12/95 

C.Tighe, 

B. Johnston, 

A. Mueller 5/17- 
18/96 T.Beifield 
7/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Deer sign seen in unit. Recommend leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat structure and snag den- 
sity. 5/17-18/96 Karst and deep sinkholes in unit. Deer sign seen throughout. Fresh beaver activity in lake to south of the 
unit. Flying squirrel traps were set in this unit on 7/13/96. We were unsuccessful in catching any squirrels. This unit was sur- 
veyed bv a botanist for sensitive Diants. Platanthera chorisiana . (choris boa orchid), found in the vicinitv of the unit.. 

J.Baichtal 

5/15/96 

10/22/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: No mineral concerns, access for harvest will improve mineral exploration access. Unit is underlain by 
marble. Below the road are deep sinkholes and insurgences, resurgences feeding into small lake, one small cave, and extremely 
steep cliff faces. Above the road epikarst is extremely well developed. Thin soil atop epikarst ridges, moderately deep soil in 
epikarst channels. Huge (greater than 1 00 feet dia.) sinkholes / insurgences along northeastern comer of unit. Only the northwest 
comer of the unit is moderate vulnerability karst, the rest of the unit is high vulnerability karst. Based on this, nearly all of the unit 
should be excluded from harvest as per the standards and guidelines outlined in the RSDEIS for the TLMP. 10/96 reviewed unit to 
check earlier prescription. No changes. From a karst perspective, the majority of the unit would be classified as high vulnerability 
and should be deleted from proposed harvest. 


LANDS: 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cutting unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumps or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type A clear-cut. Minimum par- 
tial suspension. May be deleted. "Unit dropped from the prefered alternative due to proportionality based on acres. 


Chosino Study Areo Interim Layout NOI Unit 679-407 


M o p s c o I e 1:15840 (4 inch la Mile) 



D 


E 


F 


G 1 H 1 IiJiKiLiMiNiO 


R 


S 


T i U i V i W i 


OOOOO 


Class 1 Stream 
Class 2 Stream 
Class 3 Stream 


V/, 


> Salt Water 


Fresh Water Lakes 


No Cut Streom Butlers by Chontyp 
Partial Cut Stream Butters by Chontyp 


Y 


i 

i 

i 


Existing Roods 
Proposed Roods 
Unit Boundary 



Estuary Butlers 


mix 5 0 0' Beach Butter 

H 



u r e a t e d by Sally Uerfeld on November 01. 1996 


CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCU-IJNIT#: 679-409 ACRES:_66 VOL: 1607 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 4.5.6 

PHOTO YR/#: ’7 1(5 0-1472-43 1/4 QUAD: CRG A-l NE 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: LS 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 67902-128, high windthrow risk, portion downhill yarded. Unit changed to provide proportional- 
ity of volume classes. Retain stand structure for wildlife where feasible. Productivity of site is moderate. Adjacent to previous 
cut. Should meet greenup requirements. May be impacted by recent salvage sale. Partial cut buffer. Stay out of estuary buffer. 
High mistletoe cantent. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

Field 

D.J.Landwehr 

10/13/95 

EIS R. Johnson 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils StNicholas, Sarkar, and McGilvery. Slopes 20-1 10%. Deleted 2 A MMI 4 on west boundary (BMP 
13.5) and salvage sale on east. Still small areas MMI 4 on south side of ridge on slopes greater than 100%. High MMI soils on 
the north and south facing slopes. Karst features on top and north side of ridge. About 17 acres on slopes greater than 75%. A 
minimum of partial suspension is reauired throughout the unit (BMP 13.91. Full suspension is desirable on south facing slone in 
the southwest portion of the unit but not reauired to meet standards. A small stream at the east unit boundary reauires G&W pro- 
tection (BMP 13.16). A larger stream along the south unit boundary should have O&W protection if the stream is not fish habitat. 
Two streams on the north side of the ridge require protection. The larger stream should be designated O&W and the smaller 
stream G&W. Potential for blowdown, especially on Karst. Planned road top of ridge appears feasible (BMP 14.2). Additional 
road may be required access both sides of ridge, and provide split yarding on O&W creeks (BMP 13.16). 

M. Solomon, 
K. Kitchel, 
7/13/96 

FISHERIES: Stream 1 is a class III orange/ white that requires directional falling, and split yarding or full suspension. Clean 
stream of introduced debris immediately (BMP 13.16). Stream 2 is a class II blue/ white that requires a 120’ TTRA buffer (BMP 
12.6). 

M. Pacheco, 
J.Baichtal 
7/26/95 
D. Parker, 

M. Pacheco, 

B. Johnston 
8/16/95 
M.Dillman, A. 
Mueller, 6/1/96 
B. Johnston, A. 
Mueller 6/6/96 
T.Belfield 7/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Deer signs and game trails in area. Wolf killed deer found. Also marbled murrelet eggshell fragments were found near the units 
western boundary. Karst throughout unit. Unit identified as important travel corridor. Partial harvest is recommended to maintain 
forest structure and lessen impact on wildlife migration and dispersal. Unit is within a half mile of known bald eagle nest. Road 
construction must be accomplished in accordance with the requirements of the Bald Eagle Protection Act and written coordination 
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must be documented. Any road construction must also comply with the MOU between the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Forest Service. Recommend leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to 
maintain habitat structure and snag density. A marbled murrelet dusk and dawn survey was done from the Lancaster cabin. No 
birds were recorded. A sensitive plant survey was done by the botanist in this unit but no sensitive plants were found. Maintain 
1000 foot estuary buffer. 

J.Baichtal 

5/15/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: No minerals concerns, access for harvest will improve mineral exploration access. Unit underlain by 
marble. Moderately well developed epikarst on top of ridge, thin shallow soils. Moderate vulnerability karst throughout unit. 
Partial suspension required within unit as a minimum. 

LANDS: 

T. Fifield 5/96 

CULTURAL: This unit was surveyed in 1996 to determine if historic materials associated with the Gladstone Prospect are located 
in or near the unit. No cultural materials were noted. There are no concerns with this unit as planned. 

VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 5/96 
D.J.L., R.J. 10/95 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cutting unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumns or 
catches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snaes. Use tvr>e A clear-cut. G&W streams: 
DF, SY (where practical), or partial over. Clean the stream of introduced debris before the end of the operating period or before 
the varder leaves the area. O&W streams: DF. full over or SY. Clean the stream of introduced debris immediatelv. Minimum of 
partial suspension required. Full suspension south facing slope southwest portion of unit. "Unit dropped from the preferred alter- 
native due to proportionality based on acres". Dropped 5 acres south side no tailholds (low volume). 


32 

3 I 

30 

29 

28 

27 

26 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 I 

20 

I 9 

1 8 

I 7 

I 6 

I 5 

I 4 

I 3 

1 2 

1 1 

I 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

I 

o I I 


32 

3 1 

30 

29 

28 

27 

2 6 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 1 

20 

I 9 

I 8 

I 7 

1 6 

1 5 

1 4 

t 3 

I 2 

I t 

t 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

I 


C h o s i n a 


Study Area 


409 


Interim Layout NOI 


Unit 679- 


Mopscale 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 



A i B i C 
g e — 


i i i i 

i i i i i i i 


i i i i 


i i i i 

i i i i 


0 : E I F I G I H I I I J I K I L I M i N i 0 i P i 0 i R i S i I i U i V i W i X i Y i Z 


Class I Stream 
11111 Closs 2 Stream 
Class 3 Stream 
= “” = Existing Rands 
‘ ■ 1- 1 Proposed Roods 

' Unit Boundary 




Salt Water 


Fresh Water Lakes 


No Cut St ream Buffers by Chanlyp 
Partial Cut Stream Butters by Chonlyp 


\ Estuory Buffers 


500' Beach Bulfer 



Uerfeld on November 01. 1996 



CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCTJ-IJNIT#: 679-413 ACRES:_Jj VOL: _275 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 3.4.5.6 

PHOTO YR/#: , 71(51)-1472-42/ , 91-390-163 1/4 QUAD: CRGA-1 LOGGING SYSTEMS: HE /RS 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
6/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: , low windthrow risk. Productivity of site is low. Uneconomic, low vol- 

ume area surrounding. Field checking alternative regeneration methods. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

R. Johnson 6/96 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils mapped primarily 74E (Kupreanof 60-75%), with 4D (Helm 35-60%) SE and 86CD (Kaikli - Grind- 
all 5-60%) SW and W. Partial suspension for slopes and forested wetlands (FSM 2554; BMPs 12.5, 13.9). Helicopter prescribed. 
Probable delete low volume SE comer and W of creek SW and W side (BMP 12.5). Probable protection slope break buffer stream 
and V-notch SW comer, and protection along W side unit (BMP 13.16). Stream should be unit boundary. 

K.. McCartney, 
S. Deck, 
7/12/96 

FISHERIES: Stream 1 is a class III orange/ white that requires directional falling, and split yarding or full suspension. Clean 
stream of introduced debris immediately (BMP 13.16). Unit side slopes are steep and there are many pistol butted trees. 

M. Pacheco 
7/26/95 

A. Mueller, 

B. Johnston 
7/20/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Deer and bear sign in unit. Recommend leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat stmcture and snag 
density. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/M INERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
6/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cuttine unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumns or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Helicopter yard using overstory 
removal with 18" diameter limit (all species). 


32 

3 I 

30 

29 

28 

27 

26 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 1 

2 0 

I 9 

I 8 

1 7 

1 6 

I 5 

I 4 

1 3 

I 2 

I I 

I 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

I 

o I I 


Chasino Study Area 


Interim Loyout NOI Unit 679-413 

Mopscole 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 



B i C 

I 0 ! 

E i F i 

o © — 

C 1 o s s 

1 Stream 

1 - 1 1 — 1 - 1 

C 1 o s s 

2 S t r e om 

ooooo 

Class 

3 Stream 

• 

Exist 

i n g Roads 


Proposed Roods 


Unit 

Boundary 


L i Mi N i 0 




' So I I Water 


Fresh Water Lakes 


No Cut St ream Butters by Chontyp 
Partial Cut Stream Butlers by Chontyp 


^ Estuary 8uflers 
500' Beach Butter 



U e r Feld on November 01. 1 9 S 6 



CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCU-UNIT#: 679-414 ACRES:_52 VOL: J780 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 3A5.6 

PHOTO YR/#: , 71(51)-1472-42/ , 91-390-163 1/4 QUAD: CRG A-l NE 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: RS 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
6/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 67902-101, low windthrow risk, portion downhill yarded. Productivity of site is low. Uneco- 
nomic, low volume area to north and between western area settings. Downhill yarding shortens road (more feasible - slopes). Re- 
tain cedar component through planting and/or seed trees remaining. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

R. Johnson. 6/96 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils mapped primarily 48C (Helm - Kitkun 5-35%) and 57D (Petrel 35-60%), with 3D (Vixon - Traitors 
35-60%), 33D (StNicholas - McGilvery 35-60%), 32C (StNicholas 5-35%). Unit basically forested wetland. Minimum partial 
suspension for wetlands and inclusions, MMI3, and McGilvery (BMPs 12.5, 13.9; TLMP 1991). Unit includes muskeg areas, in 
addition to low volume areas already deleted, that should be avoided (BMP 12.5). Streams present, not designated yet, will need 
protection (BMP 13.16). 

K. McCartney, 
S. Deck, 
7/12/96 

FISHERIES: Stream 1 is a class IV green/ white. Stream 2 is a class IV green/ white. Stream 3 is a class IV green/ white. Stream 
4 is a class IV green/ white. Stream 5 is a class III orange/ white that requires a slope break plus 25’ buffer (BMP 13.16). Stream 
6 is a class IV green/ white. The class IV green/ white streams require directional falling, and split yarding (where practical) or 
partial suspension. Clean streams of introduced debris by the end of the operating period or before the yarder leaves the area 
(BMP 13.16). 

M. Pacheco 
6/28/95 
M.Dillman, A. 
Mueller 5/31/96 
T.Belfield 7/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Game trails and bear scat seen in unit. Recommend leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat struc- 
ture and snaa density. 5/31/96 Deer sign seen in unit. This unit was surveyed bv the botanist and sensitive plants (Platanthera 
chorisiana). choris boa-orchids, were found in the vicinity. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
6/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cuttina unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumns or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type A clear-cut, leave up to 20" 
DBH seed trees on edges of unit for cedar seed source. Minimum of partial suspension required. Protect muskeg areas included in 
unit. 


Chosino Study Areo 


Interim Loyout NOI Unit 679-414 

Mapscole 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 



A ! B ! C 
o e — 


ooooo 


D i E 
Class I 
C I oss 2 
C I o s s 3 


i F i 

S I r e om 
S t r e om 
Stream 


C ! H 



i i 

i i 

I i J i K 


Salt IV o t e r 


Fresh Water 


L I M i N 



i i i i i i 

i i i i i i 

i 0 i Pi Q i R i Si 

No Cot Stream Buffers 

Part i a I Cut Stream Bu 


i i i i 

i i i i 

T i U i Vi IV i 

by Chontyp 

fers by Chontyp 


i 

Y 


i 


Existing Roods 
Proposed Roods 
Unit Boundory 



Estuary Butlers 


5 0 0 1 B eoch Butter 



Created by Solly Uerleld on November 01. 1990 


CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCt J-IJNIT#: 679-420 ACRES:_53 VOL: 2650 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 3A5.6 

PHOTO YR/#: ^9 1-390- 164 1/4 QUAD: CRG A-l NE 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: RS 


REV1EWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 67902- , high windthrow risk. Unit changed to provide proportionality of volume classes. 

Productivity of site is high. Field checking alternative regeneration methods. Major karst fault to the south. Adjacent to native 
clear-cut. Unit design calls for clear-cut regeneration method. Verify roads and/or landing locations. Optional unevenaged 
mgmt. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

R. Johnson 
6/15/95 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils remaining unit mix Tolstoi, Traitors, Tokeen, Sarkar, Ulloa, McGilvery, Kitkun, Kaikli, StNicholas. 
Slopes up to and greater than 75%, though generally less than 55%. Partial suspension for mixed moderate vulnerability karst 
(BMP 1 3.9). Deleted from top of W to E ridge about 15-16 on unit card to proposed S boundary because blind lead top of ridge, 
high vulnerability karst primarily McGilvery beyond ridge, and MMI4 forested wetland on steep lsopes upper backline (BMPs 
12.5, 13.9, 13.5, 13.6; TLMP 1991). 2160 - 800 road needs to be moved N on W end avoid steep slopes (BMP 14.3). 2160-820 
and -82 1 roads not feasible due toDoeraDhv and karst (BMP 14.2). Need to delete NW comer adjacent clear-cut due steep slones. 
karst, McGilvery and resurgence (BMPs 13.9, 13.16; TLMP 1991). May affect route of 2160-810 road (BMP 14.2). Other resur- 
gences N. boundary need protection (BMP 13.16). E half in third order watershed (BMP 12.1). 

J. Frank, 

J. Baichtal, 
D. Kuntzsch, 
J. Wrate, 
6/15/95 

FISHERIES: Stream 1 is a class III green/ white. Stream 2 is a class III green/ white. Stream 3 is a class III green/ white. The 
class III green/ white streams require directional falling, and split yarding (where practical) or partial suspension. Clean streams of 
introduced debris by the end of the operating period or before the yarder leaves the area (BMP 13.16). There are also karst resur- 
gences below the proposed road that will need split yarding (BMP 13.16). 


WILDLIFE: 

D. Parker, J. Wrate 

6/15/95 

C.Tighe, 

B. Johnston, A. 
Mueller 5/16/96 

Deer browse, pellets, trails and beds seen throughout unit. Many karst features found. Recommend leaving live reserve trees and 
snags where possible to maintain habitat structure and snag density. Large diameter tall snags in unit- great wildlife trees. 

J. Baichtal 
5/15/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: No minerals concerns, access for harvest will improve mineral exploration access. Unit on interbedded 
marble and phyllite. Southern 2/3 of unit is high vulnerability karst based on epikarst development, frequency of large collapse 
features and insurgences. This portion of the unit was excluded from the unit as per the standards and guidelines outlined in the 
RSDEIS for the TLMP. The northern 1/3 of the unit in on moderate vulnerability karst with resurgences along the northern limit 
of the unit. Design the unit to exclude the resurgences and partially suspend logs on the remainder of the unit. 


LANDS: 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

CULTURAL: This unit was surveyed in 1996. No cultural resources were noted. There are no concerns with the unit as planned. 


VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cutting unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumps or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type A clear-cut. Partial suspe- 
nion required. Delete NW comer. "Unit dropped from the preferred alternative due to proportionality based on acres." 


32 

3 I 

30 

29 

28 

27 

26 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 1 

20 

I 9 

I 8 

1 7 

I 6 

I 5 

1 4 

I 3 

1 2 

I I 

1 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

I 

i l I 


Chosino Study Area 


Interim Layout NOI Unit 679-420 


M o p s c □ I e 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 



-4 I 6 fl A n it 


A ! 8 | C 

0 e — 


OOOOO 


D i 

E 

i F 

i G 

Class 

1 

S t r 

e o m 

Class 

2 

S t r 

com 

C 1 o s s 

3 

S t r 

e om 

Exist 

i ng 

Ro 

o d s 

P r o p 0 

s e d 

Ro 

o d s 

Unit 

B o u 

n d o 

< y 


i 

i H 



i i 

i i 

I i J i K 
Soil Water 

Fresh Water 

Estuary Q u f 

500' Beach 


L ! M ' N 



u f f e r 


i i i i i i i i i i 

i i i i i i i i i i 

i 0 i P i Q i R i S i T i U i V i W i 


No Cot Stream Butlers by Chontyp 


Portiol Cut Stream Butters by Chontyp 



i 

i 

Y i 


i 

i 


32 
3 1 
30 
29 
28 
27 
26 
25 
24 
23 
22 

2 I 
20 
I 9 
I 8 
t 7 
1 6 
I 5 
I 4 
1 3 

1 2 
t I 
! 0 
9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 
I 


Uerfeld on Norember 01 , 1996 


CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCIJ-UNIT#: 679-422 ACRES:_47 VOL: 1880 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 3.4.5.6 

PHOTO YR/#: VI -390- 163 1/4 QUAD: CRG A-l LOGGING SYSTEMS: RS 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 67902- , high windthrow risk. Productivity of site is high. Split-yarding required on 

stream. Maintain setting width between units. Uneconomic, low volume area to south. Extend spur to western edge of unit for 
good suspension. Add eastern setting to stream. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

R. Johnson, 6/95 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils mapped primarily 3D (Vixen - Traitors 35-60%), with 48C (Helm - Kitkun 5-35%) on S boundary. 
Karst reported in unit. Partial suspension for karst and forest wetlands (BMPs 12.5, 1 3.9), although wetlands appear open and low 
volume not suitable for harvest. Protect cave and streams per geology and fisheries (BMP 13.16). 

M. Becker, 

K. McCartney, 
J. Frank, 
6/15/95 

FISHERIES: Stream 1 is a class III green/ white. Stream 2 is a class III orange/ white. Class 3 is a class 111 orange/ white that 
requires a slope break plus 25’ buffer (BMP 13.16). The class III orange/ white streams require directional falling, and split yard- 
ing or full suspension. Clean stream of introduced immediately (BMP 13.16). The class III green/ white streams require direc- 
tional falling, and split yarding (where practical) or partial suspension. Clean streams of introduced debris by the end of the oper- 
ating season or before the yarder leaves the area (BMP 13.16). Recommend keeping unit boundary above road (BMP 12.6, 
13.16). 

D. Parker, 
C.Tighe, 

J.Wrate 

6/15/95 

C.Tighe, 

B. Johnston, A. 
Mueller 5/16/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Recommend leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat structure and snag density. Orange and pink 
mining flagging and stakes with yellow and pink flagging seen throughout unit. 

J.Baichtal 

5/15/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: No minerals concerns, access for harvest will improve mineral exploration access. Unit is underlain by 
interbedded phyllite and marble. Unit is on moderated vulnerability karst except for cave system located in western 1/3 of unit. A 
100 foot no harvest buffer is required around the cave and stream feeding into cave as per the standards and guidelines outlined in 
the RSDEIS for the TLMP. Partial suspension required on remainder of unit. 


LANDS: 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

CULTURAL: This unit was surveyed in 1996. No cultural materials were noted. There are no concerns with the unit as planned. 


VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cutting unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumps or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type A clear-cut. Partial suspen- 
sion required. 


32 

3 I 

30 

29 

28 

2 7 

26 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 1 

20 

I 9 

1 8 

I 7 

1 6 

I 5 

1 4 

I 3 

I 2 

1 I 

t 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

I 

a I I 


Chosino Study Area Interim Layout NOI Unit 679-422 

Mopscole 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 



i i i 


8 i C i D i 

E 

1 f ! G 

i H 

C 1 o s s 

1 

Stream 


11111 C 1 o s s 

2 

S t r e om 

OOOOO C | ass 

3 

Stream 


===— = E x i s 1 

n g 

Roods 



Proposed Roods 
Unit Boundory 




i i i i 

I i J i K i L ! M 
Soil Water 

Fresh Water Lakes 

Fstuory Butlers 

500' Beoch Buffer 


i N 



I r i I I i i I I I 

I 0 I P I 0 ! R ' S ' T I U ! V I W I 

No Cui St ream Buffers by Chonlyp 


Portial Cut Stream Buffers by Chonlyp 



Y 


i 


M e r F e I d on November 01. 1996 



CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCI J-IJNIT#: 679-425 ACRES: 42 VOL: 1166 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 4.5,6 

PHOTO YR/#: ’9 1-390- 163 1/4 QUAD: CRG A- 1 NE 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS:_SL 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 67902- , high windthrow risk, portion downhill yarded. Retain stand structure for wild- 

life where feasible. Eliminate cut in various buffers. Field checking alternative regeneration methods. Maintain setting width 
between units. Productivity of site is low. Check option of unevenaged mgmt / OSR. East side deffered for wildlife corridor 
and watershed concerns. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

R. Johnson, 6/95 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils mapped 3D (Vixen - Traitors 35-60%) N 2/3; 32C (StNicholas - McGilvery 5-35%), 442D (Ulloa- 
Sarkar 35-60%V and 13 (SaltChuck 0-1 0%3 S 1/3. Partial susDension forested wetlands. McGilverv. karst (BMPs 12.5. 1 3.9V 
Stream and V-notch N boundary probable slope break buffer (BMP 12.6a). Protection of streams per fisheries (BMPs 13.16). 

2 1 60-790 road not viable as shown unit card. Needs to be on top of ridge to access timber N end of unit ( BM P 14.2). 

D.Kuntzsch, 
K. Buckley, 
K.Kitchel, 
S.Deck, 

K. McCartney, 
6/1/96 

FISHERIES: Stream 1 is a class II blue/white TTRA that flows along the north boundary of the unit; it requires a slope break plus 
100’ buffer (BMP 12.6). Stream 3 is a class II blue/white TTRA that flows into stream 1 and it requires a 100’ TTRA buffer 
(BMP 12.6). This stream turns into a class III orange/white (refer to map). Below the unit boundary, stream 2 is a class I that 
turns into a class II blue/white. Approximately at the west unit boundary, stream 2 becomes a class III orange/white system. 

There is a patch of blowdown in the headwaters of this stream (near the south unit boundary). Stream 4 is a tributary to stream 2 
and is a class III orange/white; in its upper section, it becomes a class IV green/white. The orange/white streams require direc- 
tional falling, and split yarding or full suspension, and immediate removal of introduced logging debris (BMP 13.16). The 
green/white streams require directional falling, and split yarding (where practical) or partial suspension. Clean these streams be- 
fore the end of the operating period or before the yarder leaves the area (BMP 13.16, 12.6a). Northwest comer of unit is impacted 
by 1000’ estuary buffer. 

M.Dillman, 

J.Wrate 

7/12/95 

C.Tighe, 

B. Johnston, A. 
Mueller 5/16- 
17/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Deer sign seen in unit. Unit identified as an important travel corridor. Partial harvest is recommended to maintain forest structure 
and lessen impact on wildlife migration and dispersal. Recommend leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain 
habitat structure and snag density. Two different trap lines were set up this unit to catch Prince of Wales flying squirrels. We were 
unsuccessful. Maintain 1000 foot estuary buffer. 

J.Baichtal 

5/15/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: No minerals concerns, access for harvest will improve mineral exploration access. Soils reported mod- 
erate vulnerability karst along southern unit boundary. Partial suspension required over top of karst. 

LANDS: 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

CULTURAL: This unit was surveyed in 1996. No cultural resources were noted. There are no concerns with the unit as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cuttine unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumDS or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type D clear-cut. Partial suspen- 
sion required. Stay off of steep slopes to the west. Defer eastern 1/2 of unit to mitigate watershed effects. Stay out of V-notch 
lip to the north. 


Chosina Study Area Interim Layout NOI Unit 679-425 

Mopscole 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 



ooooo 


Existing Roods 
Proposed Roods 
Unit Boundary 



Estuary Butters 



500' Beoch Buffer 



Created by Solly Uerfeld on November 01, 1996 



CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCIJ-IJNIT#: 679-433 ACRES:_8J VOL: 2133 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 3.4.5.6 

PHOTO YR/#: ’91 -390- 165 1/4 QUAD: CRGA-1 LOGGING SYSTEMS: RS. SH 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 67902-83. low windthrow risk. Productivity of site is hieh. Partial cut buffer Field checkins 
alternative regeneration methods. Maintain setting width between units. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: Evaluate temporary roads for specified road criteria. 

R. Johnson 6/95 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils mapped primarily 1C (Vixen 5-35%), with 550C (StNicholas - Kaikli 5-35%), 442D (Ulloa - Sarkar 
35-60%), 4C (Helm 5-35%). Partial suspension of wetlands and karst (BMPs 12.5, 13.9). Probable adjustments boundaries due 
low volume wetlands particularly on E and S. Probable cliffs in NW comer need protection. Probable protection pond SW comer 
and streams in unit (BMPs 12.6, 12.6a, 13.16). E third in third order watershed (BMP 12.1). 

K. Buckley, 

K. McCartney, 
M. Solomon, 
D. Kuntzsch, 

S. Deck, 

K. Kitchel, 
6/7/96 

FISHERIES: Stream 1 is a class 11 blue/ white that requires a 200’ TTRA buffer (BMP 12.6). Stream 2 is a class IV green/ white. 
Stream 3 is a class IV green/ white. Stream 5 is a class III orange/ white. Stream 6 is a class IV green/ white. Stream 7 is a class 
IV green/ white. Stream 8 is a class IV green/ white. Stream 9 is a class III orange/ white. Stream 10 is a class IV green/ white. 
Stream 1 1 is a class III orange/ white. Stream 12 is a class IV green/ white. Stream 13 is a class IV green/ white. The class III 
orange/ white streams require directional falling and split yarding or full suspension. Clean stream of introduced debris im- 
mediately (BMP 13.16). The class IV green/ white streams require directional falling and split yarding (where practical) or partial 
suspension. Clean streams of introduced debris by the end of the operating season or before the yarder leaves the area ( BMP 
13.16). 

M.Dillman, 

J.Wrate 

7/13/95 

C.Tighe, 

B. Johnston, 
A. Mueller 
6/15/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Game trails, beaver ponds with beaver seen at lake on units southern boundary. Common mergansers on lake. Recommend leav- 
ing live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat structure and snag density. 6/15/96 This unit has many game 
trails, deer pellets and beds. Blueberry and skunk cabbage have been browsed. Some bear sign in unit. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cutting unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumns or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type A clear-cut. Partial suspen- 
sion required. Drop two acres in center due to unsuitable, uneconomical timber. Shovel yard flat portions where possible. 


32 

1 I 

JO 

29 

28 

27 

26 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 I 

20 

1 9 

1 8 

1 7 

1 6 

I 5 

I 4 

1 3 

I 2 

I I 

I 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

o I I 


32 

3 I 

30 

29 

28 

2 7 

26 

25 

24 

2 J 

22 

2 I 

20 

I 9 

I 8 

1 7 

{ 6 

1 5 

1 4 

I 3 

I 2 

I I 

I 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

I 


C h a s i n o 


Study Area Interim Layout NOI Unit 679-433 

Mopscole 1:15840 (4 inch lo Mile) 



6 0 7 9 2 


1 8 0 7 9 5 / 


A ; B I C 
o — e — 

I I I I I 

OOOOO 


0 i E 
Class I 
Class 2 
Class 3 
Existing 
Proposed 


i i 

i F i G 
Stream 
Stream 
Stream 
Roods 
Roads 


Unit Boundary 


I i 


Salt 


J I K 
Wo t e r 



Fresh Water Lakes 
Estuory Butlers 
500' Beach Butter 



! I I I I ! 

I ! I I I i 

i 0 i P ! Q I R i S 

No Cut Stream But ( e r s 

Partial Cut Stream Bu 


i i i i 

i i i i 

T i U i V i W i 

by Chontyp 


lers by Chontyp 



i i 

i i 

Y , 2 ; 


U e r f e i d on November 01, 1995 



CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


vnr-IJNIT#: 679-437 ACRES:^8 VOL: 1198 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 3A5.6 

PHOTO YR/#: ’91-390-145 1/4 QUAD: CRG A-l NE 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: RS. SL 


REV1EWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 67902-39, low windthrow risk. Retain stand structure for wildlife where feasible. Productivity of 
site is moderate. Partial cut buffer. Maintain setting width between units. Complex streams and protection thereof. Option: un- 
evenaged mgmt. High mistletoe defect. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

R. Johnson. 6/95 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils mapped 550C (StNicholas - Kaikli 5-35%), 62 (Karheen - McGilvery 0-70%), 1C (Vixen 5-35%), 
32C (StNicholas 5-35%). Karst reported W side. Partial suspension primarily forested wetlands with McGilvery and karst (BMPs 
12.5, 13.9; TLMP 1991). Streams protected see fisheries (BMPs 12.6a, 13.16). Potential to expand unit to SE, E, and N. Defer 
harvest on Kaikli and Karheen (TLMP 1996). 

D. Kuntzsch, 
K. Buckley, 

J. Frank, 

C. Tighe, 

K. McCartney, 
7/25/95 and 
7/26/95 

FISHERIES: Stream 1 is a class I blue/ white that requires a 200’ TTRA buffer due to it’s deep V notch channel (BMP 12.6). 
Stream 2 is a class II blue/ white that requires a 120’ TTRA buffer (BMP 12.6). Stream 3 is a class III green/ white. Stream 4 is a 
class I blue/ white that requires a 120’ TTRA buffer (BMP 12.6). Stream 4 changes to class III orange/ white at 200’ of elevation. 
Stream 5 is a class III orange/ white that flows into a karst sink hole. Stream 6 is a class III orange/ white. Stream 7 is of no con- 
cern. Stream 8 is a class III green/ white. Stream 9 is of no concern. Stream 10 is a class III green/ white. Some Karst features 
present in unit, including sink holes. The class III orange/ white streams require directional falling, and split yarding or full sus- 
pension. Clean streams of introduced debris immediately (BMP 13.16). The class III green/ white streams require directional 
falling, and split yarding (where practical) or partial suspension. Clean streams of introduced debris by the end of the operating 
season or before the yarder leaves the area (BMP 13.16). 

C. Tighe 
7/25/95 

D. Parker, 

M. Pacheco, 

B. Johnston 
8/4/95 

C. Tighe, 

B. Johnston, A. 
Mueller 6/12/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Deer and bear sign seen in unit. Unit identified as important travel corridor. Partial harvest is recommended to maintain forest 
structure and lessen impact on wildlife migration and dispersal. Recommend leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to 
maintain habitat structure and snag density. Doe seen near unit 6/12/96. Maintain 1000 foot estuary buffer. 

J.Baichtal 

5/15/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: No minerals concerns, access for harvest will improve mineral exploration access. Loosing karst 
stream into large karst collapse along northern unit boundary. Minimum 100 foot no harvest buffer along stream deleting this 
feature from the unit. 


LANDS: 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 


VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cuttins unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumns or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type D clear-cut. See write up 
PC 1/4 of unit CC 3/4 dropped 5Ac. scrub. Partial suspension required. Dropped 5 acres of scrub in NE comer. Most of unit that 
in uphill yarded will be unevenaged - groups selected with corrider/strip openings. Retain 75% of volume between corridors. 


C h a s i n o 



Created by Solly Uerfeld on November 01. 1996 



CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCTJ-IJNIT#: 679-441 ACRES:^6 VOL: _750 MEE ALTERNATIVES: 3.4.5.6 

PHOTO YR/#: ’9 1-390- 165 1/4 QUAD: CRG A-l NE 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: RS. HE. SH 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 67902- , low windthrow risk. Productivity of site is moderate. Partial cut buffer. Field 

checking alternative regeneration methods. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

R. Johnson 6/96 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils mapped primarily ID (Vixen 35-60%). No concerns apparent (BMP 13.9). 48C (Helms -Kitkun 5- 
35%) in SE comer appears low volume wetland, has been deleted (BMP 12.5). Potential to expand to SW probably not feasible if 
class I stream continues. Streams by fisheries (BMPs 12.6a, 13.16). Part in third order watershed (BMP 12.1). 

D. Kuntzsch, 

J. Frank, 

K. McCartney, 
8/2/95 

FISHERIES: Stream 1 is a class III green/ white. Stream 2 is of no concern. Stream 3 is a class III green/ white. Stream 4 is a 
class 1 blue/ white that requires a 120’ TTRA buffer (BMP 12.6). Stream 5 is a class I blue/ white that requires a 120’ TTRA 
buffer (BMP 12.6). Stream 6 is a class 1 blue/ white that requires a 120’ TTRA buffer (BMP 12.6). Stream 7 is a class I blue/ 
white that requires a 100’ TTRA buffer (BMP 12.6). Stream 7 has a beaver dam and pond located at its junction with stream 8. 
Stream 8 is of no concern. Stream 9 is of no concern. Stream 10 is a class I blue/ white that requires a 120’ TTRA buffer (BMP 
12.6). The class III green/ white streams require directional falling, and split yarding (where practical) or partial suspension. 
Clean streams of introduced debris by the end of the operating season or before the yarder leaves the area (BMP 13.16). Kootz- 
noowoo Inc. has special use permit to locate road across southern boundary of this unit. 

M.Dillman, 

J.Wrate 

7/13/95 

M.Dillman, 

B. Johnston 

7/13/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Beaver ponds directly west of NW comer of unit. Deer sighted in muskeg north of unit. Bear signs in unit. Recommend leaving 
live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat structure and snag density. 7/13/96 Bear/game trails throughout 
unit. This unit has a proposed road connection between private land and Forest Service land in it. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: WT outside NE stream buffers at south end are dropped already. Dropped 2 acres - wetland soils. Ap- 
proximatley 8 ac helicopter at south end, useing groups selections (1-2 Ac cuts) around streams in SE and NW. Shovel yard the 
center of the unit by OSR >14:” diameter limit. 


32 

3 I 

30 

29 

28 

2 7 

26 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 I 

20 

1 9 

I 8 

1 7 

I 6 

1 5 

t 4 

I 3 

I 2 

1 I 

I 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

Soil 


32 

3 I 

30 

29 

28 

27 

26 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 I 

20 

I 9 

I 8 

1 7 

t 6 

I 5 

I 4 

1 3 

1 2 

I I 

I 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

t 


Chosino Study Area 


Interim Loyout NOI Unit 679-441 

M □ p s c a I e 1:15840 (4 Inch to Mile) 


a 8,0 o e , f , c | h ; i , j ; k | i , u ; n ; o , p ; q ; r ; s , r ; u ; v ; w | x | y | z | 



0 


E 


F 


ooooo 


C I o s s I Stream 
Closs 2 Stream 
Closs 3 Stream 
Existing Roods 
Proposed Roods 
Unit Boundary 


C i H i I i J i K i L 
> Salt Water 


M i N i O 


T 


i V i W i X i Y i Z i 




Fresh Water Lakes 


Estuary Butters 


500' Beach Butter 


No Cut Stream Butters by Chontyp 
Portiol Cut Stream Butlers by Chontyp 



U e r Feld on November 01, 1996 


CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


vriJ-IJNTT#: 679-446 ACRES: 13 VOL: 234 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 2.3A5.6 

PHOTO YR/#: ’9 1-390- 145 1/4 QUAD: CRGA-1 LOGGING SYSTEMS: SH.RS 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 67902- , high windthrow risk, portion downhill yarded. Productivity of site is high. Par- 

tial cut buffer. May not be a unit after buffer retention. Option: unevenaged group selections. 


ROADS: 

R. Johnson, 6/96 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils mapped primarily 550 C (St. Nicholas - Kaikli 5-35%), with 442 D (Ulloa - Sarkar 35 - 60%) W 
side. Partial suspension forested wetlands and karst (BMPs 12.5, 13.9). Deleted low volume NE, may be more. Potential addi- 
tions small amount SW and SE comers. Streams by fisheries (BMPs 12.6a, 13.16). Changed to shovel yarding. Procede per re- 
quirment BMP 13.9 for slope, topography, walking on wood or pads, topography, crossing streams, felling, spur roads, turns. 

K. McCartney, K.. 
Buckley, H. Roer- 
ick, 7/21/95 

FISHERIES: Streams 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 10 are class I blue/white streams that all require 100’ TTRA buffers (BMP 12.6). Beaver 
ponds in the unit also require 100’ buffers (BMP 12.6). Stream 7 is a class 111 orange/white that requires directional falling, and- 
split yarding or full suspension, and immediate slash removal (BMP 13.16, 12.6a). Recommend deleting unit. Road to the south 
of unit needs timing and passage (BMP 14.14). 

D. Parker, 
M. Pacheco 
8/11/95 
C.Tighe, 

B. Johnston, 
A. Mueller 
5/18/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Deer and bear sign common. Recommend leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat structure and 
snag density. 5/18/96 Active beaver ponds found on stream near unit. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cutting unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumos or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Patch cuts. Stay out of streams N 
and SE. Shovel yarding. Road change: through center of unit going west rather then through south end of unit. Apply un- 
evenaged management by cutting 3-4, 1-2 acre patches centered on the high volume patches w/heavy mistletoe. Shovel yard. 


32 

3 I 

30 

29 

28 

27 

2 6 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 t 

20 

I 9 

I 8 

1 7 

I 6 

1 5 

I 4 

I 3 

I 2 

I 1 

I 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

o I I 



A ! B I C 
g — e — 

i i i i i 

ooooo 


M e r f e I d on November 01. 1995 


CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


vril-IJNTT#: 679-447 ACRES:_5] VOL: 1381 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 3.4.5.6 

PHOTO YR/#: ’91-390-145 1/4 QUAD: CRGA-1 LOGGING SYSTEMS: RS.SH 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 67902-35, mod. windthrow risk. Retain stand structure for wildlife where feasible. Possibly karst 
to S.E.. Productivity of site is high. Field checking alternative regeneration methods. Maintain setting width between units. 
Steep. Option: helicopter G.S. / cc type C. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

R. Johnson, 
11/07/95 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils mapped 57D, 40E, 3D, 57E, 442, 442D. Soils N side and top primarily Tolstoi, Traitors, Tokeen, 
Helm. Slopes generally less than 75%, although inclusions up to 110% with rock outcrops - such as SW corner, and top less than 
45%. N boundary limited below top of ridge because steep slopes, wet, unstable, blind leads (BMPs 12.5, 13.5, 1 3.9); should be 
close to as shown on unit card. Potential problem getting road to top of ridge making grade (BMP 14.2). Potential delete NW 
comer because low volume. Addition made to SE comer. Partial suspension forested wetlands, MMI3, rock outcrops, potential 
karst (BMPs 12.5, 13.9). May be additional streams needing protection (BMP 13.16). 

J. Frank, 

B. Johnston, 
K Buckley, 
10/5/95 

FISHERIES: Stream 1 is a class I blue/white at its mouth; where it enters the unit in the northwest, it is a class III orange/white 
that requires a slope break buffer plus 25’ (BMP 12.6). Streams 2, 4, 5, and 6 are class III green/white streams. Recommend 
possible deletion of the protion of unit west of the orange/ white class III stream. Steep slopes, maybe soils concern. 
Orange/white streams require directional falling, and split yarding or full suspension, and immediate removal of introduced log- 
ging debris (BMP 13.16). Green/white systems require directional falling, and split yarding (where practical) or partial suspen- 
sion. Streams must be cleaned of introduced logging debris before the end of the operating season or before the yarder leaves the 
area (BMP 13.16, 12.6a). May be additional streams in the section that was added on in the SE comer. 

D. Parker, 

M. Pacheco 
8/10/95 
C.Tighe, T. 
Belfield 7/13/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Game trails, pellets, browse and beds. This unit is identified as an important travel corridor. Partial harvest is recommended to 
maintain forest structure and lessen impact on wildlife migration and dispersal. Recommend leaving live reserve trees and snags 
where possible to maintain habitat structure and snag density. 7/1 3/96 Unit surveyed for TES plants, w/ T. Belfield, botanist. 
Malaxis monoDhvlla . boe adder’s-mouth orchid .was found in the vicinity of the unit. This nlant is not on the Forest Service sen- 
sitive species list. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cutting unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumos or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type D clear-cut. Partial suspen- 
sion required. Dropped 18 acres for scrub and steep slopes. 1/3 of unit w/running skyline, 2/3 shovel yarding. 


C h o s i no 


Study A r e o 



Creoted by Solly Merfeld on November 01, 1996 



CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


Vru-IJNIT#: 679-450 ACRES:_57 VOL: 1425 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 3.4.5.6 

PHOTO YR /#: ’91-390-144 1/4 QUAD: CRGA-1 NE 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: RS 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 67902-53, high windthrow risk. Productivity of site is high. Expanded to the east. Unit design 
calls for clear-cut regeneration method. Verify roads and/or landing locations. Option: helicopter group selections. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

R. Johnson, 6/96 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils mapped primarily 57E (Petrel 60-75%), with 40E (Sarkar - McGilvery 60-75%) and 57D (Petrel 35- 
60%). Partial suspension for MMI3, forested wetland, McGilvery, karst (BMPs 12.5, 13.9; TLMP 1991). 

K. McCartney, 

K.Kitchel, 

S.Deck, 

D.Kuntzsch. 

6/21/96 

FISHERIES: Stream 1 is a V-notch in the east half of the unit; it is a class III orange/white. Stream 2 is a class IV green/white 
tributary to stream 1 . There are karst sink holes in the west portion of the unit. There are several non-streams scattered through 
the unit, and pistol butted trees. Orange/white stream requires directional falling, and split yarding or full suspension, and immedi- 
ate removal of introduced logging debris (BMP 13.16, 12.6a). Green/white stream requires directional felling and split yarding 
(where practical), or partial suspension. Must be cleaned of introduced logging debris before the end of the operating season or 
before the yarder leaves the area (BMP 13.16, 12.6a). The area that was added on to the unit in the northeast is steep. The foots- 
lope area has two class II blue/white streams present (possibly class I blue/ white). This area may need to be modified due to steep 
slopes, soils and buffers. 

D. Parker, 
M.Dillman, 

C. Tighe 
7/26/95 

D. Parker, 

B. Johnston 
8/17/95 C.Tighe, 
B. Johnston, A. 
Mueller 5/22/96 
T.Belfield 7/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Deer browse, tracks and pellets throughout unit. Bear signs and wolf tracks . Dead bear found between this unit and unit 679- 
45 1 . Karst canyons and faults in unit. Recommend leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat struc- 
ture and snae density. 5/22/96 Laree bear in helisnot. This unit was surveyed for sensitive plants bv the botanist. Malaxis mono- 
nhvlla. boe adder’s-mouth orchid, was found in the vicinity. No plants off the Forest Sertvice sensitive species list were found. 

J.Baichtal 

5/15/96 

10/22/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: No minerals concerns, access for harvest will improve mineral exploration access. Karst is only a 
minor component of the unit and of low vulnerability. There are no resource concerns for this unit. 

LANDS: 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 


VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cuttine unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumps or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type A clear-cut. Large deep V- 
Notch SE comer-original unit better, go back to orgional - propably pending review. Partial suspension required. Dropped 7 
acres for scrub at east end. No karst. 


32 

3 1 

30 

29 

28 

27 

26 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 I 

20 

I 9 

1 8 

1 7 

I 6 

t 5 

I 4 

I 3 

I 2 

I I 

I 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

1 1 l 


C h o s i no 


Study Area Interim Layout NOI Unit 679-450 

Mopscole 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 



A i 0 ! C 
g e — 

i i i i i 

ocooo 


0 1 

E 

i F i C 

C l o s s 

1 

S t r e om 

Class 

2 

S t r e o m 

Class 

3 

Stream 

Exist 

i n 

g Roods 


Proposed Roods 
Unit Boundary 


i i 

i i 

I It ! 



I I I I 

I I I I 

I I J i K i L i 

Soil Water 

fresh Water Lakes 

Estuory Butlers 

500' Beoch Butter 



i i i i i i i i i i 

lOiPiQiRiSiT.UiViWi 
No tut Stream Buffers by Chontyp 

Portiol Cut Stream Butters by Chontyp 



i 

i Y 


i 


beiteld on November 01. I 9 S & 



CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCtJ-UNIT#: 679-451 ACRES: drop VOL: drop MBF ALTERNATIVES:. 


PHOTO YR/#: ’91-390-144 1/4 QUAD: CRG A-l NE 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: HE 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 67902-51, low windthrow risk. Productivity of site is high? Uneconomic, low volume area sur- 
rounding. Field checking alternative regeneration methods. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

R. Johnson 6/96 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils mapped 57C (Petrel 5-35%). Helicopter yarding prescribed, should adequately protect watershed 
resources (BMPs 12.5, 13.9, 13.16). 

K. Buckley 8/96 

FISHERIES: Office review determined no fisheries concerns. 

D. Parker, 
M.Dillman, 
C.Tighe 
7/26/95 
C.Tighe, B. 
Johnston, A. 
Mueller 5/22/96, 
Baichtal 10/2/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Deer and bear siens in area. Dead bear and orchid. ( Platanthera chorisiana). choris bog-orchid. found between this unit and #679- 
450. Recommend leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat structure and snag density. 5/22/96 
Bear tracks in muskeg. Large bear in helispot. Unit 679-450 was resurveyed by botanist T.Belfield on 7/96 and no sensitive plant 
species were found. 10/96 high deer usage. 

J.Baichtal 

10/22/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: No minerals concerns. Unit is primarily underlain by marble interbedded with chlorite schist. Unit is 
surrounded by muskegs developed on schist. Waters from these muskegs sink into large karst features along the southern edgs of 
the unit. Epikarst is very well deveoped and sinkholes are numerous. Soils are a mosaic of shallow to deep residual soils and shal- 
low soils atop epikarst ridges. Because of the density and size of karst features within the unit unit is high vulnerability. It is rec- 
ommended that this unit be deleted from the proposed unit pool as per the standards and guidelines outlined in the RSDEIS for 
the TLMP. 


LANDS: 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 


VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Drop very low volume. 


Chosino Study Area Interim Layout NOI Unit 679-451 

Mopscole 1:15840 (4 inch lo Mile) 



i i 

A I 0 I C 
o — e — 


ooooo 


0 - E 
Class I 
Class 2 
Class 3 


i i 

i : 

i F ! 

Stream 

Stream 

Stream 


G I H 



i i i i 

i i i i 

I I J i K i Li 

Sait Water 

Fresh Water Lakes 


i i i i i i 

i i i i i i 

iNiOiP.OiRiS 

No Cut Stream Buffer 
Partial Cut Stream 6 



i i i i i 

i i i i i 

T i U i V i W i X i 

by Chontyp 

fers by Chontyp 


! 

I 


Existing Roads 
Proposed Roads 
Unit Boundory 



Estuary Butlers 



500' Beach Buffer 



32 
3 1 
30 
29 
28 
27 
2 6 
25 
24 
23 
22 

2 I 
20 
I 9 
1 8 
t 7 
t 6 
I 5 
1 4 

1 3 
1 2 
t I 
t 0 
9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 
1 


Created by Solly Uerfeld on November 01, 1996 


CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCU-UNIT#: 679-467 ACRES: 23 VOL: 920 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 3.4.5.6 

PHOTO YR/#: ’91-390-145 1/4 OUAD: CRGA-l NE 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: SL 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTUREATMBER: 67901-55, low windthrow risk, portion downhill yarded. Retain stand structure for wildlife where 
feasible. Productivity of site is high. Partial cut buffer. Field checking alternative regeneration methods. A maze of streams at 
South end. Helicopter group selections may be the only option. - May drop. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

Field 

D.J.Landwehr 

10/13/95 

E1S R. Johnson 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils Tolstoi, Kupreanof, McGilvery, with Kaikli and Kitkun. Slopes 30-160%. About 7 acres forested 
wetlands. Deleted areas MMI 4, slides, extremely steep and low volume on south and east side of unit (BMP 1 3.5). Ap- 
proximately 5 acres on slopes greater than 75% in the northeast comer of the unit. About 15 acres of high MMI soils in the unit. 

A minimum of partial suspension is required (BMP 13.9). About 5 acres of McGilvery soils on boulders just west of main stream 
south end of unit. Full suspension is required over the McGilvery / boulder / slide area, although area should be deleted (TLMP 
1991). Full suspension is also required in the northeast comer of the unit above the first cliff where slopes exceed 75% gradient 
(BMP 13.9). Helicopter yarding recommended, done as unit 679-506. A minimum of a 100 foot buffer should be placed on the 
main creek (BMPs 12.6, 12.6a). Two streams for O&W protection. Two streams for G&W protection (BMP 13.16). Road access 
to unit appears feasible (BMP 14.2). 

K. McCartney, 
J. Hannon, 
6/22/95 

FISHERIES: Stream 1 is a class II blue/ white that requires a 120’ TTRA buffer and fish passage and timing (BMP 12.6, 14.14). 
Stream 2 is a class III green/ white. Stream 3 is a class III green/ white. Stream 4 is a class III orange/ white. Stream 5 is a class 
III green/ white. Stream 6 is a class III green/ white. Stream 7 is a class III orange/ white. Stream 10 is a class III green/ white. 
Stream 1 1 is a class III green/ white. The class III orange/ white streams require directional falling, and split yarding or full sus- 
pension. Clean stream of introduced debris immediately (BMP 13.16). The class III green/ white streams require directional fall- 
ing, and split yarding (where practical) or partial suspension. Clean stream of introduced debris by the end of the operating season 
or before the yarder leaves the area (BMP 13.16). Recommend deleting south half of unit, and not taking the road or unit past the 
headwall around the top of the unit. 

D Parker, 

J.Wrate, 

M. Pacheco 
6/21/95 

M.Dillman 10/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Deer sign in unit. This unit identified as an important travel corridor. Partial harvest is recommended to maintain forest structure 
and lessen impact on wildlife migration and dispersal. Recommend leaving live trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat 
structure and snag density. This unit exceeds the steepness recommended by the current goshawk protocol so was not surveyed 
during 1996. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 5/96 
D.J.L., R.J. 10/95 

PRESCRIPTION: Uneven-aeed Memt: for regeneration and structure retention. Groun selection - helicopter group selections, of 
5 groups at 2 acres each - 4 entries / rotation in size groups. O&W streams: reauire DF. SY. or full suspension, and cleaning of 
introduced debris immediatelv. G&W streams: reauire DF. SY (where possible) or partial over, and cleaning the stream of intro- 
duced debris before the end of the the operating period or before the yarder leaves the area. Drop South 1/4 for streams. Drop 
west of streams - hard to read. Minimum of partial suspension required. 


32 

3 I 

30 

29 

28 

2 7 

26 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 I 

20 

I 9 

1 8 

I 7 

1 6 

I 5 

I 4 

I 3 

t 2 

I 1 

I 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

Soli 


32 

3 1 

30 

29 

28 

27 

26 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 I 

20 

I 9 

I 8 

1 7 

I 6 

I 5 

I 4 

I 3 

I 2 

1 I 

t 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 


C h a s i no 


Study Area Interim Loyout NOI Unit 679-467 

Mopscole 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 



ooooo 


Existing Roods 
Proposed Roods 
Unit Boundory 



Estuary Butlers 



500' Beoch Butter 



Uerleld on November 01. 1996 





CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCIJ-IJNIT#: 679-470 ACRES:^5 VOL: .625 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 2.3,6 

PHOTO YR /#: ’9 1-490- 137 1/4 QUAD: CRGA-1 NE 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: RS 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 67901-160, high windthrow risk, portion downhill yarded. Unit changed to provide proportionality 
of volume classes. Retain stand structure for wildlife where feasible. Productivity of site is moderate. Suspension requirements 
(see soils or fish). Drop off eastern 1/2 above 300' elevation due to cliffs and low volume timber. 


ROADS: 

R. Johnson 
8/03/95 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils remaining unit Tolstoi and Traitors, with Tokeen,'Kitkun, and colluvial McGilvery. Slopes 30 to 
75%. Partial suspension for MMI3, forested wetlands, McGilvery (BMPs 12.5, 13.9; TLMP 1991). Blowdown common, espe- 
cially S end. Small portion below road on 30-45% acceptable above riparian on class I stream (BMPs 12.6, 12.6a). Deleted above 
370’ on S end to 200’ on N end for steep, rock faces and cliffs, MMI4 Helm, and McGilvery (BMP 13.5; TLMP 1991 ). Three 
ephemeral drainages S end some protection partial suspension; O&W on stream N boundary (BMP 13.16). 

D. Kuntzsch, K. 
McCartney, 

J. Wrate, 

C. Tighe. 
6/16/95 

FISHERIES: Stream 1 is a class III green/ white. The 2 is a class III green/ white. The green/ white streams require directional 
falling, split yarding (where practical), or partial suspension. Remove introduced debris from the stream channel before the end of 
the operating season or before the yarder leaves the area (BMP 13.16). Recommend leaving a strip of timber between land slide 
and rock pit and keep unit boundary above the road. Below the cliffs that run north-south halfway through the unit, water is mov- 
ing through the soils across the entire slope. 

C. Tighe, J. Wrate 
6/16/95 
B. Johnston, A. 
Mueller 6/7/96 

WILDLIFE: 

This unit is identified as an important wildlife travel corridor. Partial harvest is recommended to maintain forest structure and 
lessen the impact on wildlife migration and dispersal. Recommend leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain 
habitat structure and snag density. Maintain 1000 foot estuary buffer. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: This unit was surveyed in 1996. No cultural resources were noted. There are no concerns with the unit as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cuttina unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumDS or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain laree live trees and hard snaas. Use tvne A clear-cut. O&W streams 
require DF, full over or SY and cleaning of introduced debris immediately. Take unit body to stream buffer (100’) to the west. 
Partial suspension required. "Unit dropped from the preferred alternative due to proportionality based on acres." 


32 

3 1 

30 

29 

28 

27 

26 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 I 

20 

I 9 

t 8 

1 7 

1 6 

I 5 

1 4 

1 3 

I 2 

f 1 

I 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

Soil; 


32 

3 1 

30 

29 

28 

27 

2 6 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 I 

20 

I 9 

1 8 

I 7 

I 6 

t 5 

I 4 

I 3 

1 2 

1 I 

1 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

I 


C h o s i n o 



ooooo 




ooo ' ooo I 


CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCIJ-IJNIT#: 679-471 ACRES:_8 VOL: J_20 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 3A5.6 

PHOTO YR /#: '91-490-136 1/4 QUAD: CRG A-l NE 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS:_HE 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 67901-165, high windthrow risk, moderate elevation. Productivity of site is low. Cliffs to the west 
dropped out and low volume to the east dropped out. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

Field 

D.J.Landwehr 
9/1 1/95 
E1S R. Johnson 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils StNicholas with McGilvery and Tolstoi. Slopes 60-100% and cliffs. Deleted upper portion low 
volume forested wetlands (BMP 12.5). Deleted MM1 4, cliffs, very steep lower portion unit (BMP 13.5). Remaining unit: High 
MM1 soils throughout unit. A minimum of partial suspension is required. Helicopter yarding prescribed should achieve full sus- 
pension (BMP 13.9). South boundary stream should be designated O&W with a variable width slope-break buffer (BMP 12.6a). 
The stream in the middle of the unit should be designated O&W. Two smaller streams in the north end of the unit should be desig- 
nated G&W but should have cleanout of introduced debris within 24 hours due to high debris torrent potential (BMP 13.16). 

K. Buckley, 7/96 

FISHERIES: Office review determined that stream protection should follow soil/ watershed directions. The green/ white streams 
require directional falling, and split yarding (where practical) or partial suspension. Clean streams of introduced debris within 24 
hours due to high debris torrent potential (BMP 13.16). 


WILDLIFE: 

D. Parker, 

M. Pacheco, 

B. Johnston 
7/31/95 

M.Dillman 10/96 

Game trails, pellets and browse in unit. Deer snorted in response to goshawk call. Recommend leaving live reserve trees and 
snags where possible to maintain habitat structure and snag density. Wildlife did not survey in 1996 due to the elevation and 
steepness of this unit: both are over the standards in the current goshawk protocol. 


GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 


LANDS: 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cutting unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumns or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use tvoe C clear-cut. G&W streams 
requires DF, and SY (where practical) or partial over, but should have cleanout of introduced debris within 24 hours due to high 
debris torrent potential (BMP 13.16). O&W streams reauire DF. full over or SY and cleaning of introduced debris immediately 
(BMP 13.16). 


C h o 


sino Study Area Interim Layout NOI Unit 679-471 

Mopscole 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 



ooooo 



0 i 

E 

1 F 

; G 

C 1 

ass 

1 

S t r 

e om 

C 1 

OSS 

2 

S t r 

eom 

C 1 

Q S S 

3 

S t r 

earn 

E x 

i s t 

i n 

g R a 

ads 


V/,. 


L i M i N i 0 


T i U i V i W 


Fresh Water Lukes 


No Cut Stream But f e r s by Choniyp 
Partial Cut Stream Butlers by Choniyp 


Proposed Roods 
Unit Boundory 


^ Estuory Butlers 


500' Beach Buffer 



Creeled by Sally Uerleld on November PI. 1996 



CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCIJ-IJNIT#: 679-473 ACRES:_31 VOL: J15 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 4.5,6 

PHOTO YR/#: '91-490-136 1/4 QUAD: CRG A-l NE 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: HE 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 67901- , high windthrow risk. Productivity of site is moderate. Uneconomic, low 

volume area above approximately 1400’. Suspension requirements (see soils or fish). Very steep. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

Field 

D.J.Landwehr 

10/17/95 

EIS R.Johnason 

SOILS/WATERSF1ED: Soils Remedios, Tolstoi, McGilvery. Slopes 40-90%. About 2 acres of very high MMI soils along the 
south boundary creek deleted, as was MMI 4 area upper portion of unit (BMP 13.5). High MMI soils in the rest of the unit, with 
small cliffs. Full suspension recommended, and should be achieved with prescribed helicopter yarding (BMP 1 3.9). The north 
and south boundary streams should be designated O&W, because old avalanche shoots (BMP 13.16). Directional fall, split yard 
and clean of introduced debris. One small tributary to the south boundary creek requires no protection and is in the area deleted. 
One stream in the middle of the unit for G&W protection, DF, SY, or partial suspension, and clean of introduced debris before the 
end of the operating season. 

K.. McCarntey, 
M. Solomon 
6/13/96 

FISHERIES: Stream 1 is a class III orange/ white. Stream 2 is a class III orange/ white. Stream 3 is a class IV green/ white. 
Stream 4 is a class IV green/ white. Stream 5 is a class IV green/ white. Stream 6 is a class III orange/ white. The class III or- 
ange/ white streams require directional falling, and split yarding or full suspension. Clean introduced debris immediately from the 
stream channel (BMP 13.16). The class IV green/ white streams require directional falling, and split yarding (where practical) or 
partial suspension. Clean stream of introduced debris by the end of the operating period or before the yarder leaves the area (BMP 
13.16). 


WILDLIFE: 

D. Parker, 

M. Pacheco, B. 
Johnston 8/1/95 
M.Dillman 10/96 

Deer pellets and game trails and browsed blueberries in unit. Bear sign also present. Narrow bands (<3 feet) of white marble in 
stream in southwest comer of unit. Recommend leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat structure 
and snag density. Wildlife did not survey in 1996 due to the steepness and elevation of the unit. Both are over the standards in 
the current goshawk protocol. 


GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 


LANDS: 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

CULTURAL: The lower portions of this very steep unit were surveyed in 1996. No cultural resources were noted. There are no 
concerns with the unit as planned. 


VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cutting unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumns or 
Datches. buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snaes. Use tvoe C clear-cut. O&W streams 
reauire DF. full over or SY and cleaning of introduced debris immediatelv. G&W streams reauires DF. and SY (where oracticaB 
or partial over, and cleaning the stream of introduced debris before the end of the operating period or before the yarder leaves the 
area. Full suspension required. 


Chosino Study Area Interim Layout NOI Unit 679-473 

Mopscole 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 



o- 


OOOOO 


Closs I Stream 
Class 2 Stream 
Class 3 Stream 



Salt Water 
Fresh Water Lakes 



No Cut Stream Buffers by Chantyp 
Partial Cut Stream Butters by Chantyp 


Existing Roods 
Proposed Roods 
Unit Boundary 



Estuory Butters 



500' Beach Butter 



32 
3 1 
30 
29 
28 
27 
26 
25 
24 
23 
22 

2 I 
20 
I 9 
t 8 
I 7 
I 6 
I 5 
I 4 
I 3 
t 2 

1 I 
1 0 
9 

B 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 
I 


Created by Solly Merfeld on November 01, 1996 


CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCU-IJNIT#: 679-475 ACRES:_L4 VOL: _350 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 4.5,6 

PHOTO YR/#: ’91-490-136 1/4 OUAD: CRGA-l NE 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS:_HE 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER:67901- , high windthrow risk, portion downhill yarded. Productivity of site is low / 

moderate. Suspension requirements (see soils or fish). Helicopter yarding method above cable reach of lower unit, adjust bdry 
accordingly. Due to resource protection (507). Small cable portion if soils can be protected. Option: helicopter. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

R. Johnson 
10/19/95 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Unit converted to helicopter 679-507 to avoid crossing stream on ok. Get info, from 679-507 if this unit 
# used. 

K. Buckley, 
M. Solomon, 
6/21/96 

FISHERIES: Stream 1 is a class III orange/ white that requires a slope break plus 25’ buffer ( BMP 13.16). Stream 2 is a class IV 
green/ white. Stream 3 is a class IV green/ white. Stream 4 is a class III orange/ white. The orange/ white stream requires direc- 
tional falling, and split yarding or full suspension . Clean stream of introduced debris immediately (BMP 13.16). The green/ 
white streams require directional falling, and split yarding (where practical) or partial suspension. Remove introduced debris be- 
fore the end of the operating season or before the yarder leaves the area (BMP13.16). 

M.Dillman, J. 
Wrate 7/11/95 
C.Tighe, 

B. Johnston, 

A. Mueller 
6/27/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Recommend leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat structure and snag density. Wildlife surveyed 
this unit with 679-507 which is the helicopter portion of 679-475. Rocky unstable ground/landslides and blowdown in the unit. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The lower portions of this very steep unit were surveyed in 1996. No cultural resources were noted. There are no 
concerns with the unit as planned. 

VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cutting unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumps or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snaes. O&W streams reauire DF. full over 
or SY and cleaning of introduced debris immediatlv. G&W streams reauires DF, and SY (where practical) or partial over, and 
cleaning the stream of introduced debris before the end of the operating period or before the yarder leaves the area. Type C heli- 
copter. Overstory removal of everything above 16" DBH. Logging be helicopter. Leave snags standing and intact where pos- 
sible. 


C h o s i n o 


Study Area Interim Layout NOI Unit 679-475 


Mopscole 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 



0 e- 


ooooo 


Class 1 Stream 
Closs 2 Streom 
Closs 3 Streom 
Existing Roods 
Proposed Roods 
Unit Bounder y 






Soil Water 
Fresh Water Lakes 
Estuory Butlers 
5 0 0 1 Beoch Buffer 


No Cut Stream Butters by Chontyp 



32 

3 I 
30 
29 
28 
2 7 
26 
25 
24 
23 
22 

2 t 
20 
t 9 
I 8 
t 7 
1 6 
1 5 
t 4 
I 3 
I 2 

1 I 
1 0 
9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 
1 


Created by Sally Uerfeld on November 01. 1996 


CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCU-UNIT#: 679-477 ACRES:.!! VOL: 1085 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 3,4.5 

PHOTO YR/#: VI -490- 137 1/4 QUAD: CRG A-l NE 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: HE 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 67901- , high windthrow risk, portion downhill yarded. Productivity of site is high. 

Helicopter yarding method above cable reach of lower unit, adjust bdry accordingly. Due to resource protection (unit 508). Bring 
in road from north if possible. Suspension requirements (see soils or fish). Buffers (see fisheries). Unit may be greatly reduced. 
Avoid soils problems. Option: helicopter. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

R.Johnson 

8/02/95 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Lower boundary at 150 to 100’ for riparian buffer on flatter lands above class I stream. These lands ex- 
tend 75 to 100 yards from creek (BMPs 12.6, 12.6a). Upper boundary about 400’ where discontinuous rock faces preclude cable 
yarding from road. Soils in unit mix Traitors, Tolstoi, Vixon, colluvial McGilvery, Tokeen, Hofstad. Slopes generally less than 
75%, but inclusions greater and rock faces. Partial suspension for MM13 and McGilvery (BMP 13.9; TLMP 1991). O&W protec- 
tion stream on S boundary, G&W N boundary (BMP 13.16). Addition N end unit between existing clear-cut up slope, and riparian 
buffer down slope. Keep 2160-788 road above riparian above class I stream (BMPs 12.6, 12.6a, 14.2). Do not believe road fea- 
sible on bench above suggested by engineers (BMP 14.2). Lands above 400’ converted to helicopter unit 679-508. 

K. Buckley, 

K. Kitchel, 

M. Solomon, 
K. McCartney, 
S. Deck, 

6/6/96 

FISHERIES: The stream along the east boundary, the main stream (ADF&G # 102-40-10150), is a class I blue/ white that re- 
quires a 120’ TTRA buffer (BMP 13.16). Stream 1 is a class I blue/ white that requires a 120’ TTRA buffer (BMP 12.6). Stream 
1 changes to a class III orange/ white 120’ up from the main stream. Stream 2 is a class I blue/ white that requires a 120’ TTRA 
buffer (BMP 12.6). Stream 3 is a class 1 blue/ white the requires a 120’ TTRA buffer (BMP 12.6). Stream 3 changes to a class III 
orange/ white 120’ above the main stream. Stream 4 is a class III orange/ white. Stream 5 is a class III orange/ white. Stream 6 is 
a class III orange/ white. Stream 7 is a class III orange/ white. Stream 8 is a class III orange/ white. Stream 9 is a class III or- 
ange/ white. The class III orange/ white streams require directional falling, and split yarding or full suspension. Clean stream of 
introduced debris immediately (BMP 13.16). 

D. Parker, M. 
Pacheco 6/16/95 
C.Tighe, 

B. Johnston, A. 
Mueller 6/27/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Game trails and alder seen in unit. Recommend leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat structure 
and snag density. Unit identified as an important wildlife travel corridor. Recommend partial harvest to maintain forest structure 
and lessen the impact on wildlife migration and dispersal. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: This unit was surveyed in 1996. No cultural resources were noted. There are no concerns with the unit as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G, Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cuttine unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumps or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snaes. Use tvne C clear-cut. O&W streams 
reauire DF. full over or SY and cleaning of introduced debris immediatelv. G&W streams reauires DF. and SY (where practical) 
or partial over, and cleaning the stream of introduced debris before the end of the operating period or before the yarder leaves the 
area. Move boundry to the south adjacent to existing cut. Partial suspension required. Protect steep slopes. 


C h a s i no 


Study Area Interim Layout NOI Unit 679-477 

Mopscole 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 




D ; Ei F ! G 

i H i 

1 i J i K 

i L i M i N 

i Or Pi Or 

Closs 1 Stream 


Salt HZ o t e r 

mm 

No Cut Stream 

Closs 2 Stream 




Closs 3 Stream 

% 

Fresh Water 

Lakes 

Partial Cut St 




;V S 


Enisling Roods 





Proposed Roods 


Estuary Butlers 


Unit Boundary 


500' Beoch 

Buffer 




Created by Solly Merfeld on November 01, 1996 


CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCU-IJNIT#: 679-479 ACRES: 15 VOL: .600 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 3.4.5.6 

PHOTO YR/#: '91-490-137 1/4 QUAD: CRGA-1 LOGGING SYSTEMS: HE 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 67901-151, high windthrow risk, high mistletoe present. Retain stand structure for wildlife where 
feasible. Productivity of site is high. Dropped out major cliff on NE area. Leave 3 cedar seed trees / acre, clear-cut w/ reserves. 
Maintain setting width between units. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

R. Johnson 6/96 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils mapped 3D (Vixen - Traitors 35-60%) and 4D (Helm 35-60%). Helicopter prescribed meets partial 
suspension on forested wetlands (BMPs 12.5, 13.9). Steep and rock face N boundary deleted by silviculture. Protection class 111 
or IV streams per fisheries(BMP 13.16). Karst reported by fisheries and wildlife. 

K. Buckley, 
M. Solomon, 
6/14/96 

FISHERIES: Stream 2 is a class IV green/ white. Stream 3 is a class III orange/ white, this stream was not flagged. The green/ 
white stream requires directional falling, and split yarding ( where practical) or partial suspension. Clean stream of introduced 
debris by the end of the operating period or before the yarder leaves the area (BMP 13.16). The orange/ white stream requires 
directional falling, and split yarding or full suspension and immediate removal of introduced debris from the stream channel (BMP 
13.16). 

D. Parker, 

B. Johnston, M. 
Pacheco 8/3/95 
B. Johnston, A. 
Mueller 6/7/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Game trails and bear scat throughout. Loon was heard from northwest area of unit (Kitkun Bay). Karst fault seen in unit. Unit is 
in an important wildlife travel corridor. Recommend partial harvest to maintain forest structure and lessen the impact on wildlife 
migration and dispersal. Recommend leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat structure and snag 
density. 6/7/96 Deer sign in unit. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cuttine unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumns or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type C clear-cut - leave 1 0% 
structure. 


Chosino Study Areo Interim Layout NOI Unit 679-479 

Mopscole 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 



A I B I C 

e — e — 


OOOOO 


D ■ E 
C I o s s I 
C I o s s 2 
C I o s s 3 
Existing 
Proposed 


i i 

i F i G 
Stream 
Stream 
Stream 
Roods 
Roods 


Unit Boundary 


i i 

i i 

i H i 



i i i 

i i i 

I i J i K i 

Salt Water 

Fresh Water 


i i 

! I 

L i M i N 



Estuory Butlers 
500' Beach Buffer 


i i i i i i 

i i i i i i 

0 i Pi Or R i S ! 

No Cut Stream Buffers 

Portiol Cut Stream Bu 


i i i i 

i i i i 

T i U i V i W i 

by Chontyp 

lers by Chontyp 



i i 

i i 

Y i 2 i 


32 

3 I 
30 
29 
28 
27 
2 6 
25 
24 
23 
22 

2 I 
20 
t 9 
1 8 
I 7 
t 6 
t 5 
I 4 
I 3 
1 2 
t I 

1 0 
9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 
I 


Created by Solly lierleli on Noyember 01, 1998 


CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCT J-IJNIT#: 679-483 ACRES:_9 VOL: 270 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 4,5.6 

PHOTO YR/#: '91-490-135 1/4 QUAD: CRG A-l NE 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: RS 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 67901-140, high windthrow risk, portion downhill yarded. Within designated old growth reserve. 
Retain stand structure for wildlife where feasible. Productivity of site is high / moderate. Salmonberry flats. Partial cut buffer. 
Dropped eastern area above cliffs and below road for stream protection. Suspension requirements (see soils or fish). Windthrow 
too high risk for partial cuts. Keep small. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

Field 

D.J.Landwehr 

10/25/95 

EIS R. Johnson 

SOILS/WATERSFIED: Soils Tolstoi, Karta, with McGilvery, Tuxekan, Tonowek. Slopes 10 to 90%. Deleted wetlands, riparian, 
estuary buffer below road (BMPs 12.5, 12.6). Deleted above 400 feet MMI 4, cliffs, very steep, one stream (BMPs 12.6, 13.5). 
Remaining unit: High MMI soils throughout. A minimum of partial suspension required (BMP 13.9). The north and south bound- 
ary streams occur in the avalanche areas, and should be designated O&W (BMP 13.16). Directional fall, and split yard or full 
suspension. Clean of introduced debris within immediately. Several fish streams occur downslope of the road. An estuary lies 
northwest of the proposed unit. A 1 ,000 foot estuary buffer from the edge of the bay will include about 1 acre of the proposed 
unit. The tidal influence and grass flat extends several hundred feet up the stream around the first bend. If the 1,000 foot estuary 
buffer is measured from the tidal influence then about 70% of the proposed unit is in the estuary buffer. Planting recom- 
mended because of disturbance species present. 

K. Buckley, 
M. Solomon, 
6/14/96 

FISHERIES: Stream 1 is a class III orange/ white that requires directional falling, and split yarding or full suspension. Clean 
stream of introduced debris immediately (BMP 13.16). 

M.Dillman, 

J.Wrate 

7/11/95 

M.Dillman 10/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Bear sign throughout-more common than deer sign. This unit is within a designated old growth reserve. If current policy changes 
and this unit is to be harvested, wildlife will need the chance to survey the area again prior to harvest.. Also, unit is in an important 
wildlife travel corridor. Therefore, if harvested, recommend partial harvest to maintain forest structure and lessen impact on wild- 
life migration and dispersal. Recommend leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat structure and snag 
density. This unit was not surveyed in 1996 due to the fact that it is in an old growth reserve. This unit may have a significant 
portion of its acreage in the estuary buffer depending on the final definition of an estuary. If unit is harvested wildlife will the 
opportunity to conduct surveys in the area prior to harvest. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cutting unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumDS or 
catches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snaes. Use tvpe A clear-cut. O&W streams 
reauire DF. full over or SY and cleaning of introduced debris immediatelv. DroDned due to estuarv buffer. 


C h o s i no 


Study Area Interim Layout NOI Unit 679-483 

M a p s c o I e 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 



Created by Sally Uerleld on Norember 01. 1996 


CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCI J-IJNTT#: 679-497 ACRES: 21 VOL: 683 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 3A5.6 

PHOTO YR/#: ^l^O-MS 1/4 QUAD: CRGA-1 LOGGING SYSTEMS: RS/SH 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 67902-82, high windthrow risk. Productivity of site is high. Maintain setting width between units. 
Spur roads will need extending, shovel flat ground. Partial cut buffer. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

R.J. 6/96 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils mapped 1C (Vixen 5-35%) and 550C (StNicholas - Kaikli 5-35%). Partial suspension for forested 
wetlands (BMPs 12.5, 13.9). Shovel log per protection guidlines BMP 13.9 for slope, topography, support shovel, crossing 
streams, felling, spur roads, and turns. 

K. McCartney, J. 
Hannon, 6/22/95 

FISHERIES: Stream 1 is a class I blue/ white that requires a 150’ TTRA buffer (BMP 12.6). Stream 2 is a class 1 blue/ white that 
requires a 120’ TTRA buffer (BMP 12.6). Stream 3 is a Class I Blue/ white that requires a 120’ buffer (BMP 12.6). The existing 
culvert on this stream is not passable. Stream 4 is a class I blue/ white that requires 1 20’ TTRA buffers on all channels (BMP 
12.6). Stream 5 is a class I blue/ white that requires a 120’ TTRA buffer (BMP 12.6). Stream 5 turns into a class III orange/ white 
200’ into the unit. The class III orange/ white requires directional falling, and split yarding or full suspension. Clean stream of 
introduced debris immediately (BMP 13.16). Existing culverts are not be passable to fish and may need work (BMP 14.14). 

D. Parker, 
J.Wrate, M. 
Pacheco 6/21/95 
M.Dillman 
7/11/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Deer and bear sign seen in unit. Fawn hoof found— wolf kill. 7/1 1/96 Deer and bear sign-pellets, trails, scat, tracks, and dug-up 
skunk cabbage seen in unit. Recommend leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat structure and snag 
density 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cutting unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumps or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type A clear-cut. Partial suspen- 
sion required and shovel yarding. Dropped 3 acres in SW comer buffer between creeks. Shovel yard where possible set boundry 
lines with windthrow potential in mind. 


Chosino Study Area Interim Layout NOI Unit 679-497 

Mopscole 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 



A : B ! C 

g — e — 


OOOOO 


D ! 

£ 

i f 

i G 

C 1 o s s 

1 

S t r 

earn 

Class 

2 

S t r 

earn 

C 1 o s s 

3 

S t r 

eom 

Exist 

i n 

g R o 

o d s 


Proposed Roods 
Unit Boundary 


i 

i H 



i i 

i i 

I i J i K 
Soil Water 

fresh Water 

Estuary But 

500' Beach 


i i i 

! L I M ! N 



utter 


i i i i i 

i i i i i 

i 0 i P i Q i R i S 

No Cut Stream Butler 


Partial Cut Stream B 


i i i i 

i i i i 

T i U i V i W i 

by Chanlyp 

fers by Chanlyp 



i i 

Y i Z i 


Created by Solly Uerfeld on November 01, 1994 





CHASIN’ A PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCIJ-UNIT#: 679-501 ACRES:J5 VOL: _300 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 3.5.6 

PHOTO YR/#: ’91-390-225 1/4 QUAD: CRG A 1 LOGGING SYSTEMS: HE 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: , low windthrow risk. Unit changed to provide proportionality of volume 

classes. Productivity of site is low. Partial cut buffer. Helicopter yarding method above cable reach of lower unit, adjust bdry 
accordingly. Due to equipment limitations (679-361). Maintain YC component through planting / selection cut if needed. Uneco- 
nomic, low volume area surrounding unit. May be dropped due to low volume. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

field 

D.J.Landwehr 

8/16/95 

EIS R. Johnson 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Add on to unit 679-361, made into helicopter unit. Mixed conifer wetland, minimum partial suspension 
(BMPs 12.5, 13.9). Full suspension should be acheived by helicopter yarding. Believed non-merchantable, and not worthwhile 
with 100 foot buffer on stream. 

M. Becker, K.. 

Buckley, 

8/28-29/95. 

K. Buckley 7/96 

FISHERIES: Stream 2 is a class II blue/ white that requires a 120’ TTRA buffer (BMP 12.6). Stream 6 is a class 11 blue/ white 
that requires a 120’ TTRA buffer (BMP 12.6). Stream 7 is a class III orange/ white. Stream 8 is a class III orange/ white. Stream 
9 is a class III orange/ white. The orange/ white streams require directional falling, and split yarding or full suspension. Clean 
stream of introduced debris immediately (BMP 13.16). 

C.Tighe, 

B. Johnston, A. 
Mueller 6/26/96 
Johnston/Mueller 
7/19/96 

WILDLIFE: 

This is the helicopter portion of unit 679-361 . A pair of lesser yellow-legs were seen in the muskeg helispot. Deer pellets and 
beds, game trails, and bear scat were seen throughout the area. Recommend leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to 
maintain habitat structure and snag density. This unit was not surveyed in 1995 because at the time it was within unit 679-361 . 

In 1996 it was pulled out of 679-361 and made a seperate helicopter unit. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G.Lawton 

5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cutting unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumps or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type C clear-cut. "Unit added 
from the preferred alternative due to proportionality based on acres." 


32 

3 I 

30 

29 

28 

2 7 

26 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 I 

20 

I 9 

I 8 

1 7 

I 6 

t 5 

I 4 

I 3 

I 2 

I I 

t 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

I 

Sail 


C h a s i n o 


Study Area Interim Layout NOI Unit 679-501 

U o p s c □ I e 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 



OOOOO 


Closs I Streom 
Class 2 Streom ^ 


Closs 3 Streom 
Existing Roods 
Proposed Roods 
Unit Boundary 






> S o I t W □ t e r 


Fresh Water Lakes 


No Cut Streom Buffers by Chantyp 
Porliol Cul Slreom Buffers by Chonlyp 


^ Estuory Buffers 


500' Beoch Buffer 



llerfeld on November 01, 1995 



CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCI J-I JNIT#: 679-502combinedw/382 ACRES: 18 VOL: 180 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 3.5.6 

PHOTO YR/#: ’71(5 0-1472-44 1/4 QUAD: CRG A-l LOGGING SYSTEMS:_HE 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: , high windthrow risk. Unit changed to provide proportionality of vol- 

ume classes. Retain stand structure for wildlife where feasible. Productivity of site is low. Partial cut buffer. Ontion: Uneven- 
aged Mgmt: for regeneration and structure retention. Group selection - helicopter group selections. 5 groups of 2 acres each in size 
groups. Adjacent to 679-382. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

R. Johnson. 6/96 

SOILS/WATERSHED: SW comer of 679-382 converted to helicopter unit to protect streams and buffers prescribed by fisheries 
(BMPs 12.6a, 13.9, 13.16). Soils mapped 1C (Vixen 5-35%), 3D (Vixen - Traitors 35-60%), 550C (StNicholas - Kaikli 5-35%), 
40D (Sarkar - McGilvery 35-60%). Confusion because unit card and 1971 photos do not match. Potential not harvestable low 
volume and open wetland included in helicopter unit (BMP 12.5). Potential blowdown of buffers. Fisheries noted both very wet 
soils, and blowdown. Potential to delete helicopter unit (BMPs 12.6, 12.6a, 13.16, 12.5). 

K. Buckley, 
M. Solomon, 
B. Johnston, 
R. Johnson. 
6/21/96 

FISHERIES: Stream 1 is a class 1 blue/ white that requires a 200’ TTRA buffer (BMP 12.6). Stream 2 is a class III orange/ white 
that requires a 25’ buffer because the stream is flowing through an unstable alluvial fan directly above fish habitat (BMP 13.16). 
Stream 4 is a class I blue/ white that requires a 140’ TTRA buffer (BMP 12.6). At an elevation of 240’, stream 4 becomes a class 
III orange/ white. The orange/ white stream requires directional falling, and split yarding or full suspension. Clean stream of 
introduced debris immediately (BMP 13.16). 

B. Johnston, 
K. Buckley, 
R. Johnson, 
M. Solomon 
6/21/96 

WILDLIFE: 

This unit is the helicopter portion of unit 679-382. Unit has been identified as an important wildlife travel corridor. Partial har- 
vest is recommended to maintain forest structure and lessen impact on wildlife migration and dispersal. Recommend leaving live 
reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat structure and snag density. Four CMT’s, ( Culturally Modified Trees), 
were found in the unit. Deer browse and pellets seen in unit. Woodpecker species heard. 

T.Fifteld 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: This unit was surveyed in 1996. No cultural resources were noted. There are no concerns with the unit as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cutting unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumps or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type C clear-cut. Dropped com- 
bined with 679-382. "Unit dropped from the preferred alternative due to proportionality based on acres." Combined with 679- 
382. Helicopter 3-4 patches of 3/4 acre in size. 


Study 


Area 


C h o s i n o 


Interim Layout KOI Unit 679-502 



A 8 . c 
o e — 


ooooo 


0 E F - Ci Hi 

1 1 

J < 

loss 1 S ! i eon \V 
loss 2 S t r e o m ^ ' 

Salt 

W o t e r 

lass 3 S t r e om j_|_ i 

5 0 0 1 

0 e o c h 

■listing Roods 



roposeo Roods 

£ s t u 

r o r y 3 

nit Soundory 

No C 

u t Sir 


Pori 

■ o 1 Co 


I I I I I I 

! I I I I I 

■ SiTiUiViWiX 
fresh Woier Lakes 



05 Miles 


Porllol Cot Stream 5 j I ; e ' s b y Chonlyp Mapsrale 1:15840 


CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


vn J-IJNIT#: 679-503 ACRES: 19 VOL: 257 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 4.5.6 

PHOTO YR/#: ’91-490-85 1/4 QUAD: CRGA-1 LOGGING SYSTEMS: HE 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: high windthrow risk, highelev. Productivity of site is moderate. Partial cut buffer. Adjacent to 
state selection. Helicopter yarding method above cable reach of lower unit, adjust bdry accordingly. Due to equipment limits. 
Difficult terrain - potential blind leads throughout unit. Verify feasibility and modify unit bdry as required. Profiles needed. 
Within designated old growth reserve. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

R.Johnson. 

10/12/95 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Helicopter portion of unit 679-320. Partial cut with helicopter yarding to avoid rock faces and rock out- 
crops throughout unit (BMP 13.9). Believe unit should extend downslope from elevation shown on unit card. Avoid drainage N 
boundary, and delete lands below 950’ on E facing ridge adjacent to this drainage (BMPs 12.5, 12.6a, 13.5, 13.16; TLMP 1991). 
E portion unit deleted for State selection. See unit card for 679-320 for additional information. 

K. Buckley, 8/96 

FISHERIES: GIS review determined possibly one class III orange/ white needed protection. Field review will be necessary if unit 
is selected for harvest. 

M. Pacheco 
7/6/95 

M.Dillman 10/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Deer sign and game trails seen throughout unit. This unit is within an old growth reserve so was not surveyed in 1 996. If current 
policy changes and this unit is harvested, wildlife recommends leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain 
habitat structure and snag density. Also, if this unit is harvested wildlife will need to survey the area prior to harvest. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Uneven-aeed Memt: for reeeneration and structure retention. Diameter limit - helicopter svstem. leave all 
species less than 16" DBH. Partial cut avoiding rock faces and rock outcrops. Avoid drainage on north boundry, and lands below 
950 feet on east facing ridge adjacent to this drainage. 


32 

3 1 

30 

29 

28 

2 7 

26 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 I 

20 

I 9 

I 8 

1 7 

I 6 

I 5 

I 4 

t 3 

1 2 

1 1 

I 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

I 

a I I 


C h a s i n o 


503 


Study Area Interim Layout NOI Unit 679- 


M o p s c o I e 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 



A 


B ! C i D ! E I F I G 
Class I Streom 
11111 Closs 2 Streom 
Closs 3 Streom 
Existing Roods 
' 1 ' Proposed Roods 
Unit Boundory 


i 

i H 



i i i i 

i i i i 

I i J i K i L , 

Salt Water 

fresh Woter Lakes 

Estuary Butlers 

500' Bench Butter 



i i i i 

l O' Pi 0 i 

No Cut Streom 

P o r t i a I Cut S 


i i i i i 

i i i i i 

R i Sr T I U I V| 

Butlers by Chontyp 

reom Butters by Chon 


i 

W i 


I y p 



X 


I 

Y i 


! 


erfeld on November 01, 199b 



CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCU-UNIT#: 679-504 ACRES :_7 VOL: _[26 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 4.5,6 

PHOTO YR/#: '91-490-44.45 1/4 QUAD: CRGA-1 LOGGING SYSTEMS: HE 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: low windthrow risk, high elev. Within designated old growth reserve. Helicopter yarding method 
above cable reach of lower unit, adjust bdry accordingly. Due to 679-321 equipment limitations. Productivity of site is low. 
Maintain setting width between units. Stand spacing variable with clumps of large trees. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

R.Johnson. 6/96 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Portion of 679-32 1 above cliff made into helicopter unit . Soils mapped 6 and small amount 4C E edge. 
Possible deletion greater than 41% McGilvery and MM14 (BMP 13.5; TLMP 1991). See unit card 679-321 for additional infor- 
mation. 

K. Buckley 7/96 

FISHERIES: Office review determined no fisheries concerns in this unit. 

C.Tighe 8/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Unit 679-504 is the helicopter portion of 679-321. This unit is within a desiginated old growth reserve so wildlife did not survey 
in either 1995 or 1996. If current policy changes and this unit is harvested, wildlife recommends leaving live trees and snags 
where possible to maintain habitat structure and snag density, and will need to survey the area prior to harvest. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Uneven-aged Mgmt: for regeneration and structure retention. Group selection - helicopter group selections, 3- 
4 groups of 1 acre in size groups. Select groups away from existing slides. Leave half of unit acreage intact for resource protec- 
tion. 


Chosina Study Area Interim Layout NOI Unit 679-504 

Mapscole 1:15840 (4 inch !o Mile) 



32 
3 1 
30 
29 
28 
27 
2 6 
25 
24 
23 
22 
2 1 
20 
I 9 
1 8 
1 7 
1 6 
I 5 
I 4 
I 3 
1 2 

1 I 
1 0 
9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 


I ! I I I I I 

E i F i G i H i I i J i K i L 


N i 0 


0 


I I I I 


T . U 


i i i i 


W 


Closs 1 Streom 
11111 Closs 2 Streom 
Closs 3 Streom 
Existing Roods 
‘ ‘ " 1 Proposed Roods 
' Unit Boundory 




> Soil Water 


fresh Water Lokes 


No Cut Streom Buffers by Chontyp 
Portiol Cut Streom Butlers by Chontyp 


^ Estuary Buffers 


500' Beoch Buffer 



Created by Solly Uerfeld on November 01, I 9 9 & 



CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCU-UNIT#: 679-505 ACRES:JJ VOL: 306 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 4,5.6 

PHOTO YR/#: ’91-490-44.45 1/4 QUAD: CRG A-l LOGGING SYSTEMS: HE 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: high windthrow risk, high elev. Within designated old growth reserve. Helicopter yarding method 
above cable reach of lower unit, adjust bdry accordingly. Due to equipment limits (679-323). Productivity of site is low. Main- 
tain setting width between units. Uneconomic, low volume area near top of stand. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

R. Johnson. 6/96 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Upper portion 679-323 converted into helicopter unit. Soils only partially mapped, 4C and 33D, forested 
wetland and MMI3. Silviculture review notes steeper slopes, rock faces, cliffs, McGilvery. Possible deletion for MM14 and 
McGilvery (BMP 13.5; TLMP 1991). Protection streams and additional information unit card 679-323. 

K. Buckley 7/96 

FISHERIES: Office review identifies potential for a class III orange/ white and a class IV green/ white. Orange/ white streams 
require directional falling, and split yarding or full suspension. Clean stream of introduced debris immediately (BMP 13.16). 
Green/ white streams require directional falling, and split yarding ( where practical) or partial suspension. Clean stream of intro- 
duced debris by the end of the operating period or before the yarder leaves the site (BMP 13.16). 

M. Pacheco 
7/6/95 

M.Dillman 7/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Unit 679-505 is the helicopter portion of unit 679-323. Game trails throughout unit. This unit is within an old growth reserve so 
was not surveyed by wildlife in 1 996. If current policy changes and this unit is harvested, recommend leaving live reserve trees 
and snags where possible to maintain habitat structure and snag density. Also, if harvested wildlife will need to survey the area 
prior to harvest. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Uneven-aeed Memt: for reaeneration and structure retention. Diameter limit - helicopter system, leave all 
species less than 26" DBH. 


Chasino Study Areo 


Interim Layout NOI Unit 679-505 

Mopscole 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 


D , E F C 


i « , I , J , 


L U , N 


o 1 n 1 d 1 r 1 t 1 .. 1 u 1 1 u I „ I , 1 


r « I " l 


R , S ; T 


I u I ' I " I 


w , x , Y , z 



52 

3 I 
30 
29 
20 
2 7 
26 
25 
24 
23 
22 

2 t 
20 
t 9 
I 8 
I 7 
t 6 
I 5 
I 4 
t 3 
I 2 
I I 

1 0 
9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 
I 


: I I ! I 1 I I I ! I ! 

C : 0 ; E I F I G I H I I I J I K I L : M I N I 0 


Q i R i S i 1 


U 


i i i i 

I V I W I X I 


Z I 


° e Class I Stream 
11111 Class 2 Stream 
WOOO Class 3 Streom 
==•= Exisling Roods 
‘ 1 ' 1 Proposed Roods 
' Unit Boundary 


& 


> Soil Water 


Fresh Water Lakes !"'Q 


Estuory Buffers 


500' Beech Butter 


No Cut Streom Butlers by Chonlyp 
Partial Cut Streom Bulfers by Chonlyp 



Created by Solly Uerleld on November 01, I 9 9 & 


CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCI J-IJNIT#: 679-506 ACRES:_6 VOL: JJ5 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 3.4.S.6 

PHOTO YR/#: ’91-390-145 1/4 QUAD: CRGA-1 LOGGING SYSTEMS: HE 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: high windthrow risk. Retain stand structure for wildlife where feasible. Productivity of site is 
moderate. Helicopter yarding method above cable reach of lower unit, adjust bdry accordingly. Due to equipment limitations 
(679-467). Uneconomic, low volume area near top of stand. Field checking alternative regeneration methods. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

Field 

D. J .Landwehr 
8/23/95 

E1S R .Johnson 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Portion above cliff in 679-467 made into helicopter unit to obtain full suspension recommended for lands 
above cliff, where slopes exceed 75% (BMP 13.9). 

K.. Buckley 7/96 

FISHERIES: Stream 3 is a class III green/ white that requires directional falling, and split yarding (where practical) or partial sus- 
pension. Clean stream of introduced debris by the end of the operating period or before the yarder leaves the area (BMP 13.16). 


WILDLIFE: 

D. Parker, 
J.Wrate, 

M. Pacheco 
6/21/95 

M.Dillman 7/96 

679-506 is the helicopter portion of 679-467. Deer sign seen in unit. This unit identified as an important wildlife travel corridor. 
Partial harvest is recommended to maintain forest structure and lessen the impact on wildlife migration and dispersal. Recommend 
leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat structure and snag density. Wildlife did not survey this unit 
during 1996. Unit 679-467 was surveyed in 1996 but not the portion that is to be helicoptered due to steepness. The steepness of 
this unit was over that called for in the current goshawk protocols. 


GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 


LANDS: 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

CULTURAL: This unit was surveyed in 1996. No cultural resources were noted. There are no concerns with the unit as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Uneven-aaed Mamt: for reeeneration and structure retention. GrouD selection - helicopter eroun selections. 3 
groups of 1 acre each in size groups. 


Chasino Study Area 


Interim Layout NOI Unit 679-506 

Mopscole 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 



A ! B I C 
G © — 


I I I I i 

ooooo 



D I E ! F i C 
Closs I Stream 
Closs 2 Stream 
Closs 3 Streom 
Existing Roads 
Proposed Roods 
Unit Boundary 


i 

i H 



l i i i i i 

l i i i l i 

0 i Pi Or R i Si 

No Cut Stream Butters 

Partial Cut Stream Bu 

Estuory Butters 
500' Beach Butter 


I i J i K i Li Mi N 
Salt Water 


Fresh Water Lakes 


i i i 

r i i 

I i U i V i W 


by Chontyp 


ters by Chontyp 



Z 


i 

i 

! 


Created by Solly U e r f e 1 d on November 01, ISOS 



CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


vriJ-UNIT#: 679-507 ACRES: 55 VOL: 1000 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 4,5,6 

PHOTO YR/#: '91-490-136 1/4 QUAD: CRGA-1 LOGGING SYSTEMS: HE 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: High windthrow risk, mod. elev. Productivity of site is low / moderate. Helicopter yarding 

method above cable reach of lower unit, adjust bdry accordingly. Due to resource protection 1679-4751. Mav be reduced greatly 
dew to instability. Suspension requirements (see soils or fish). 


ROADS: 

R. Johnson. 
10/19/95 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Unit 679-475 converted to helicopter yarding. Below 500’ soils are primarily Tolstoi and colluvial 
McGilvery, with Remedios and lithic Shakan. Slopes generally less than 75%, although still inclusions rock faces, rock outcrops, 
and slopes much as 1 10% particularly on N end. Partial suspension for MM13, McGilvery, and inclusions (BMP 13.9; TLMP 
1991). Zone 500 to 1000’ still Tolstoi and colluvial McGilvery with lithic Shakan, but slopes averaging 75 - 90% with rock out- 
crops and rock faces, rock slides and sluice outs, seeps, blowdown, MMI4, younger second growth. Marginal area to log but 
partial cut with harvest excluding rock faces and outcrops an option with helicopter, if not delete this zone (BMPs 13.5, 13.9, 
TLMP 1991). Deleted above 900 to 1000’ where rock faces nearly continuous with McGilvery and lithic Shakan MMI4 (BMP 
13.5; TLMP 1991). Drainage near S end O&W; three G&W in unit, and G&W on N boundary (BMP 13.16). 

K. Buckley, 
M. Solomon, 
6/21/96 

FISHERIES: Stream 1 is a class III orange/ white that requires a slope break plus 25’ buffer (BMP 13.16). Stream 2 is a class IV 
green/ white. Stream 3 is a class IV green/ white. Stream 4 is a class III orange/ white. The class III orange/ white require direc- 
tional falling, and split yarding or full suspension (BMP 13.16). The class IV green/ white streams require directional falling, and 
split yarding (where practical) or partial suspension. Clean stream of introduced debris by the end of the operating period or be- 
fore the yarder leaves the area (BMP 13.16). 

M.Dillman, 
J.Wrate 7/11/95 
C.Tighe, 

B. Johnston, A. 

Mueller 

6/27/96 

WILDLIFE: 

This unit is the helicopter portion of unit 679-475. Wildlife recommends leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to 
maintain habitat structure and snag density. Rocky unstable ground, landslides, blowdown. Alders scattered throughout unit. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Uneven-aged Mamt: for regeneration and structure retention. Diameter limit - helicopter system, leave all 
species less than 24" DBH. O&W streams require DF. full over or SY and cleaning of introduced debris immediately . G&W 
streams reauires DF. and SY (where practical! or partial over, and cleaning the stream of introduced debris before the end of the 
operating period or before the yarder leaves the area. 


Chosino Study Area Interim Loyout NOI Unit 679-507 

Mopscole 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 


A , 


| n | 1,0! 


> | U , V , " | 



32 
3 I 
30 
29 
28 

27 

28 
25 
24 
23 
22 
2 I 
20 
I 9 
1 8 
I 7 
t 6 
I 5 
I 4 
I 3 
1 2 
I I 
1 0 


ooooo 


D ! 

E 

i F 

' 

C 1 o s s 

1 

S t r 

earn 

C 1 o s s 

2 

S t r 

e orn 

Class 

3 

S t r 

eon 

Exist 

i n g 

Ro 

ads 

P r o p o : 

; e 8 

Ro 

o d s 

Unit f 

! o u 

n d o 

' y 


I I I I 


I I I I 


V/,. 


Hi liJiKiLiMiNiOlPiQiRiSi TiUiViW 
> Salt (Voter 


X i Y i 2 i 


Fresh Water lakes 


No Cot Stream Butlers by Chontyp 
Portiol Cut Stream Buffers by Chontyp 


\ Estuory Buffers 


500' Beoch Buffer 



Creoted by Solly Werfold h November 01. 1996 



CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


vriJ-I JNTT#: 679-508 ACRES:_9 VOL: J60 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 3.4.S.6 

PROTO YR/#: 91-490-137 1/4 QUAD: CRGA-1 LOGGING SYSTEMS: HE 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: High windthrow risk. Productivity of site is high. Helicopter yarding method above cable reach of 
lower unit, adjust bdry accordingly. Due to resource protection (679-477). Suspension requirements (see soils or fish). Buffers 
(see fisheries). Option: helicopter whole unit. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

R. Johnson. 
8/02/95 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Upper portion of unit 679-477 converted to helicopter unit. Soils primarily McGilvery and rock faces, 
with Tolstoi, Traitors, Helm, and disturbances below rock faces. Slopes generally greater than 75%, but flatter on benches be- 
tween rock faces. Marginal unit, but partial cut around rock faces option with helicopter, if not deleted (BMP 1 3.9). Upper 
boundary may be low volume forested wetland, although this above elevation shown on unit card. O&W class III on S boundary 
(BMP 13.16). Most other drainages off rock faces in unit and are non-streams. 

K. Buckley 7/96 

FISHERIES: South boundary stream is a class III orange/ white that requires directional falling, and split yarding or full suspen- 
sion. Clean stream of introduced debris immediately (BMP 13.16). 

D. Parker, 

M. Pacheco 
6/16/95 

M.Dillman 7/96 

WILDLIFE: 

This unit is the helicopter portion of 679-477. Game trails seen in unit. Alder seen in unit as well. This unit was not visited in 
1996. Unit 679-477 was surveyed in 1996 see that unit card for more information. The 679-508 portion of this unit was not sur- 
veyed because it was above the steepness requirements called for in the current goshawk protocols. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: This unit was surveyed in 1996. No cultural resources were noted. There are no concerns with the unit as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

R Johnson, 
8/02/95 

PRESCRIPTION: Partial cut around rock faces. Dron for uneconomical timber and extremelv steep slones. 


5 0 8 


Chasino Study Area Interim Layout N 0 I Unit 679- 

Mopscole 1:15840 (4 inch lo Mile) 


c o ; E 


s ; i 


W X 



ooooo 


Class I Stream 
Class 2 Stream ^ 


C I o s s 5 Streom 
Existing Roads 
Proposed Roods 
Unit Boundary 




>• Soil Water 


Fresh Woler takes 


No Cut Slreom Bullers by Chontyp 
Portial Cut Slreom Buffers by Chonlyp 


^ Estuory Butlers 


500' Beoch Buffer 



Created by Solly M e r f e I d on November 01, 1995 




CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCIJ-IJNIT#: 680-310 ACRES:_27 VOL: 353 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 3.5.6 

. PHOTO YR/#: VI -390-225 1/4 QUAD: KTN B-6 SE 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: RS/HE 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 68002-78, low windthrow risk, portion downhill yarded. Productivity of site is low. Uneco- 
nomic, low volume area between and surrounding portions of unit. If road continues south will need to spur to southern section of 
unit. Anticipate planting 14 acres of Alaska yellow cedar to maintain composition. Partial cut buffer. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

R. Johnson 6/96 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils mapped 550C (StNicholas - Kaikli 5-35%) with 86 CD (Kaikli - Grindall 5-60%). Partial suspen- 
sion for forested wetlands (BMPs 12.5, 13.9). Fisheries reported and deleted area S end cliffs and McGilvery (TLMP 1991). Par- 
tial suspension for any remaining McGilvery. Silviculture deleted and added to avoid low volume (BMP 12.5). Concern whether 
adequate tail holds and anchors for suspension. Fisheries buffers for streams and lakes (BMPs 12.6, 12.6a, 13.16). Defer harvest 
on Kaikli soils (TLMP 1996). 

K. Buckley, M. 
Becker, 8/29/95 

FISHERIES: Lake near unit need 100’ no cut/ 400’ nartialcut buffers (BMP 12.61. Stream 1 is a class III oran eel white. Stream 
2 is a class II blue/ white that will require a 120’ TTRA buffer (BMP 12.6). Stream 3 is a class II blue/ white that requires a 120’ 
TTRA buffer (BMP 12.6). Stream 4 is a class III orange/ white. The class III orange/ white streams require directional falling, 
and split yarding or full suspension. Clean streams of introduced debris immediately (BMP 1 3. 1 6). Stream road crossings will 
reauire fish passage and timing (BMP 14. 14). McGilverv soils and Distol butted trees noted in unit. 

A. Mueller, 

B. Johnston 
7/19/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Deer pellets and beds, game trails, and bear scat seen throughout area. Wildlife recommends leaving live reserve trees and snags 
where possible to maintain habitat structure and snag density. This unit did not rate as a high priority area for goshawks and so 
was not surveyed during 1995. The habitat did not meet the habitat requirements in the current goshawk protocols. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cuttine unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumps or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type B clear-cut, leave cedar seed 
trees. Helicopter south piece, partial cut east 1/2 of north piece, partial cut NE part of center piece. Partial suspension required 
for soils protection. Not sure there are adequate tail holds and anchors to achieve suspension. 


Chasino Study Area 


Interim Layout NOI Unit 680-310 

Mapscole 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 



Created by Solly Uerfeld on November 01. I 9 9 & 



CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


vriJ-UNIT#: 680-317 ACRES: 25 VOL: 423 MBF ALTERNATIVES :_6 

PHOTO YR/#: ’91-390-224 1/4 QUAD: CRG A-l NE 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: RS. SH 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 68002- low windthrow risk. Productivity of site is moderate. Dropped uneconomic, low volume 
area surrounding, to the south and east of creek. Maintain setting width between units. Shovel yard 1/3 of unit. 

J.Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

R. Johnson, 6/96 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils mapped 3 1C (Wadleigh 5-35%) with 550C (StNicholas - Kaikli 5-35%). Partial suspension for 
forested wetlands (BMPs 12.5, 13.9). Silviculture deleted S end for low volume (BMP 12.5). Stream protection per 
fisheries(BMP 13.16). Third order watershed (BMP 12.1). Maintain standards for slope, topography, walk on waste wood, cross- 
ing drainages, spur roads, and turns for shovel yarding per BMP 13.9 . 

K. McCartney, 
K.Kitchel, S.Deck 
6/18/96 

FISHERIES: Stream 1 is a class 11 blue/white TTRA that requires a 200’ buffer (BMP 12.6). The upper reach of this stream be- 
comes a class III orange/white system. Stream 2 is a class IV green/white system. Stream 3 is a class III orange/white that flows 
directly into stream 1 . Stream 4 is a class IV green/white tributary to stream 1 . During timber harvest, the class III orange/white 
streams require directional falling, split yarding or full suspension, and the immediate removal of introduced debris (BMP 13.16). 
The green/white streams require directional falling, split yarding (where practical) or partial suspension, and the removal of intro- 
duced debris before the yarder leaves the area or by the end of the operating season (BMP 13.1 6). 

C.Tighe, 

B. Johnston, A. 
Mueller 6/14/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Deer sign (beds, pellets) seen. Game trails and bear scat seen in unit as well. One dead deer found in close proximity to unit. 
Fisheries crew reported seeing a mouse-like mammal along creek. Wildlife recommends leaving live reserve trees and snags where 
possible to maintain habitat structure and snag density. This unit was not surveyed during 1995 due to the fact that the habitat did 
not meet the volume class requirements in the current goshawk protocols. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cutting unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumps or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type B clear-cut. Partial suspen- 
sion required, and shovel yarding. 


Chasino Study Area Interim Layout NOI Unit 680-317 

Mapscole 1:15840 (4 inch lo Mile) 



A 


i i 

0 i C 
g — e — 


ooooo 


D ! E 
C I o s s 1 
Class 2 
Class 1 


I F ! G 

Stream 
S t r e om 
Stream 


! H 



I I 

I I 

I i J i K 
Salt Water 


Fresh Water 



i i i i i i i i i i 

i i i i i i i i i i 

iDiPiQiRiS.TiUiViWi 
No Cut Stream Sutters by Chonlyp 

Port i o I Cut Streom Butlers by Chonlyp 


i 

i 

i 


Existing Roods 
Proposed Roods 
Unit Boundory 



Estuary Butters 



500' Beoch Butter 



Creoted by Solly U e r f e I d on November 01, 1996 



CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCIJ-IJNIT#: 680-330 ACRES:_68 VOL: 1020 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 3.5.6 

PHOTO YR/#: ’ 72(53 1-1 872-33 1/4 QUAD: KTN A-6 NW 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: RS 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 68002- , low windthrow risk, mod. mistletoe present. Productivity of site is low. Par- 

tial cut buffer. Adjacent to private harvesting. Maintain setting width between units surrounding. Anticipate planting 20 acres of 
Alaska yellow cedar to maintain composition. Very scrubby at north end. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

R. Johnson 6/96 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils mapped 24AC and 24D (Kaikli 0-60%), with 62 (Karheen - McGilvery 0-70%). Partial suspension 
for forested wetlands and McGilvery (BMPs 12.5, 13.9; TLMP 1991). Appears steeper and better trees to S, center and NW of 
Sem unit. Potential MMI3 and more McGilvery; should be protected by partial suspension. N boundary of N unit above riparian 
(which largely already cut) (BMPs 12.6, 12.6a). Protection of streams per fisheries (BMPs 12.6, 12.6a, 13.16). Part in third order 
watershed (BMP 12.1). Defer harvest on Kaikli and Karheen soils (TLMP 1996). 

D. Kuntzsch, 
K. Buckley 
8/95 

FISHERIES: Stream 1 is a class I blue/ white that requires a 200’ TTRA buffer (BMP 12.6). Stream 2 is a class I blue/ white that 
requires a 120' TTRA buffer (BMP 12.6). Stream 3 is a class I blue/ white that requires a 120’ TTRA buffer (BMP 12.6). Stream 
3 becomes a class II blue/ white above the confluence with stream 7, it will require a 100’ TTRA buffer up to this point (BMP 
12.6). Above the confluence with stream 8, stream 3 is a class III orange/ white. Stream 5 is a class II blue/ white that will require 
a 120’ TTRA buffer (BMP 12.6). Stream 6 is a class III green/ white. Stream 7 is a class III green/ white. Stream 8 is a class III 
orange/ white. Stream 9 is a class III green/ white. Stream 1 1 is a class 111 green/ white. Stream 12 is a class II blue/ white (mis- 
takenly flagged orange/ white at road crossing) that will require a 120’ TTRA buffer (BMP 12.6). The class III orange/ white 
streams require directional falling, and split yarding or full suspension. Clean streams of introduced debris immediately (BMP 
13.16). The class III green/ white streams require directional falling, and split yarding (where practical) or partial suspension. 
Clean streams of introduced debris by the end of the operating season or before the yarder leaves the area (BMP 13.16). There is 
potential trespass logging in this unit. 

C.Tighe, 

B. Johnston 
7/10/96 

WILDLIFE: 

This unit is within one -half mile of a known bald eagle nest. Road construction must be accomplished in accordance with the Bald 
Eagle Protection Act and must also comply with the MOU between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Forest Service. 
Written coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must be documented. To provide for adequate snag density and dis- 
tribution within the VCU, recommend leaving a 0.1 acre or larger snag patch for each 10 acres of unit. Wildlife recommends leav- 
ing live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat structure and snag density. There is an area of approximately 
30 harvested trees, in NE comer of unit. This unit was not surveyed during 1 995 due to the fact that the habitat did not meet the 
requirements called for in the current goshawk protocols. Maintain 1000 foot estuary buffer. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cuttine unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumns or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type A clear-cut. Partial suspen- 
sion required. 


32 

3 I 

30 

29 

28 

27 

26 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 I 

20 

1 9 

I 8 

1 7 

I 6 

1 5 

I 4 

t 3 

1 2 

I 1 

1 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

I 

o I I 


32 

3 I 

30 

29 

28 

27 

26 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 1 

20 

I 9 

I 6 

1 7 

1 6 

1 5 

I 4 

1 3 

I 2 

I I 

1 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 


Chosina Study Area 


330 


Interim Layout NOI Unit 680- 


Mopscolo 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 



A i 0 i C i D : E i F t 

G 0 Class I Stream 

11111 Closs 2 Stream 

OOOOO Class 3 Stream 

'=^= z - Existing Roods 

' ' Proposed Roods 

' Unit Boundary 


i i i i i i i i i i r l i i i i i i i j 

I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I i 

G I H I li I J I K I L ! M I N I 0 1 P ! Q I R I S I I I U I V I W I X I Y I Z 1 


& 


> S o I t Water 


Fresh Water Lakes 


^ Estuary Butters 


500' Beach Buffer 


No Cut Stream Butlers by Chontyp 
Partial Cut Stream Bulfers by Chontyp 



Uerfeld on November 01, 1994 



CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


vriJ-UNIT#: 680-333 ACRES:J3 VOL: 1091 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 3.6 

PHOTO YR/#: 1 72( 53 V32-1872/ , 9 1-390-2 18. 219 1/4 QUAD: KTN A-6 NW 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: SL 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 68002- High windthrow risk, portion downhill yarded. Partial cut buffer. Productivity of site is 
moderate. Adjacent to native cuts. Uneconomic, low volume area northeast & southwest. Maintain setting width between units. 
Difficult terrain - potential blind leads in upper slope. Verify feasibility and modify unit bdry as required. Profiles needed. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: Evaluate road location to determine which side of creek is best for logging. 

field 

D.J.Landwehr, 
8/9& 15/95 
EIS R. Johnson 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils Kitkun, StNicholas, Tolstoi. Slopes 30-1 10%. Deleted portion southeast due very steep, MMI 4, 
McGilvery, blowdown (BMP 13.5; TLMP 1991). Remaining unit: Forested wetlands near streams, low areas, gentler slopes. 

High MMI soils in the unit. A small area of very high MMI soil at the head of several small streams in the southwest portion of 
the unit. This area is near the backline of the proposed unit. At a minimum the area at the head of the small stream needs good 
partial suspension or full suspension. If this area is inoperable with good suspension, then it should be deleted. Areas between the 
creeks in the north part of the unit may be suitable for shovel yarding (BMP 13.9). The remainder of the unit requires partial sus- 
pension. The two streams in the north part of the unit should be identified O&W with DF, SY or full suspension, and cleaning of 
introduced debris immediately (BMP 13.16). Five smaller streams joining main stream in flood plain require G&W protection. 
These streams require directional felling and split yarding where possible. Cleaning of introduced debris should occur by the end 
of the operating season or before the yarder leaves the area. Minimum good partial suspension, full preferred (BMP 12.6). Blow- 
down may be a consideration. Suggested addition deleted south end of unit. Road access feasible from N, if not as planned (BMP 
14.2). 

D. Kuntzsch, 
K. Buckley, 
8/10/95 
K.. Kitchel, 

K. McCartney, 
M. Solomon, 
7/10/96 

FISHERIES: Stream 1 is a class III orange/ white that requires directional falling, and split yarding or full suspension. Clean 
stream or introduced debris immediately (BMP 13.16). Stream 13 is a class III green/ white that requires directional falling, and 
split yarding (where practical) or partial suspension. Clean green/white streams of introduced debris before the yarder leaves the 
area or by the end of the operating season (BMP 13.16). The NW comer of the unit has steep slopes that have many class III 
green/white streams flowing through it. The unit contains wet soils, blowdown, 85% slopes, & pistol butted trees. The additional 
acres that were added to the southern boundary of the unit are extremely steep (70-120% slopes) and there is a considerable 
amount of exposed rock faces and karst. 

C.Tighe, 

B. Johnston 
7/12/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Unit contains some excellent goshawk habitat. Wildlife recommends leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to main- 
tain habitat structure and snag density. This unit was not surveyed during 1995. Apparently within the unit is an isolated patch of 
good habitat but overall the area did not meet the habitat requirements called for in the current goshawk protocols. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cutting unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumps or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use tvrie A clear-cut. O&W streams 
reauire DF. SY or full over, and cleaning of introduced debris immediatelv. G&W streams reauires DF. and SY (where nracti- 
cal) or partial over, and cleaning the stream of introduced debris within 24 hours. Partial suspension required. Full suspension 
heads of small streams southwest portion of unit. Dropped 29 acres due to scrub and steep slopes. Helicopter overstory removal > 
25"- all species. Option clearcut downhill. 


32 

3 I 

30 

29 

28 

27 

2 6 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 I 

20 

I 9 

1 8 

1 7 

I 8 

I 5 

1 4 

1 3 

I 2 

I I 

I 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

I 

Soil 


/ \» 


Chosino Study Area 


Interim Layout NOI Unit 680-333 

M o p s c □ I e 1:15840 (4 inch lo Mile) 



i i 

A i fl I C 

0 e — 

1 it i- i 

ooooo 


I 1 I 

D i E I E ! G 
Closs I Stream 
Class 2 Stream 
Closs 3 Stream 
Existing Roods 
Proposed Roods 
Unit Boundory 


i 

i H 



i i i i 

i i i i 

I i J i K i L i 

Salt 7/ o t e r 

Fresh Water lakes 

Estuary Buffers 

500' Beach Buffer 



i i i i i i 

i i i i i i 

i 0 i Pi 0 i R i Si 


No Cut Stream Butlers 


Partial Cut Stream Bu 


i i i i 

i i i i 

T i U i V i W i 

by Chanlyp 

ffers by Chanlyp 



Y 


i 


U e r I e I d on November 01, 1994 



CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCTJ-IJNIT#: 680-335 ACRES: 11 VOL: _I65 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 3.5.6 

PHOTO YR/#: 1 72(53)-1872-31/ , 91-390-2I8 1/4 QUAD: KTN A-6 NW 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: RS 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 68002- low windthrow risk. Productivity of site is low. Addition to the east may have to be 
dropped for estuary buffer (partial cut option). Portions of unit to west and south dropped for low volume. Adjacent to second 
growth. Anticipate planting 5 acres of Alaska yellow cedar to maintain composition. 

J, Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

field 

D.J.Landwehr 

8/10/95 

E1S R. Johnson 

SOILS/WATERSJJED: Soils StNicholas and Tolstoi. Slopes 50-70%. Deleted west half with blowdown, second growth, 
muskeg. Added to east and northwest. Moderate to high MMI soils throughout the unit. A minimum of partial suspension is 
required (BMP 13.9). One small stream for G&W protection, don’t use this stream as a yarding corridor (BMP 13.16). Small 
areas of forested wetland in the unit (BMP 12.5). Design unit boundaries for windfirmness, i.e. below topographical breaks. The 
2160-856 road will cross bogs and forested wetlands to access unit (BMPs 12.5, 14.2). Road into unit appears feasible, and can 
apparently access top of knob. 

D. Kuntzsch, K.. 
Buckley, B. 
Freedman, 
8/8/95 

K. McCartney, 
K..K.itchel, 

M. Solomon, 
7/10/96 

FISHERIES: Stream 1 is a class I blue/ white that requires a 120' TTRA buffer (BMP 12.6). Additional acres surveyed in 1996 
and no new streams found. 

B. Johnston, 
A. Mueller 

7/26/96 

WILDLIFE: 

This unit is within one-half mile of a known bald eagle nest. Road construction must be done in accordance with the Bald Eagle 
Protection Act and must also comply with the MOU between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Forest Service. Written 
coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must be documented. Unit may lose entire eastern 1/2 depending on final 
estuary buffer definition. Wildlife recommends leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat structure 
and snag density. This unit was not surveyed by wildlife during 1995 due to the fact that the habitat did not meet the requirements 
called for in the current goshawk protocols. Unit may lose eastern portion depending on the final definition of an estuary buffer. 
Maintain 1 000 foot estuary buffer. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cutting unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumns or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snaes. Use tvDe A clear-cut. G&W streams 
requires DF, SY (where practical) or partial over, and cleaning the stream of introduced debris before the end of the operating 
period or before the yarder leaves the area. Eastern 1/2 of unit may be dropped depending on definition of estuary buffer. Mini- 
mum of partial suspension. 


32 

3 I 

30 

29 

28 

2 7 

2 6 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 I 

20 

I 9 

I 8 

I 7 

I 6 

I 5 

1 4 

1 3 

I 2 

I I 

I 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

Soil 


32 

3 1 

30 

29 

28 

2 7 

2 6 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 I 

20 

I 9 

I 8 

I 7 

I 6 

I 5 

1 4 

I 3 

1 2 

I I 

I 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

I 


Chosino Study Area Interim Layout NOI Unit 680-335 

M o p s c □ I e 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 



A I B ! C 

0 e — 

1 i — i — i — i 

ooooo 


I D i E ! F ! G 
Closs I Streom 
Closs 2 Streom 
Closs 3 Streom 
Enisling Roods 
Proposed Roods 
Unit Boundary 



i i 

i i 

I i J i K 
Soil Wo t e r 

Fresh Water 

E s t u o r y But 

500' Beach 



utter 


i i i i i 

i i i i i 

i O i P i 0 i R i S 

No Cut Streom Butler 

Portiol Cut Streom B 


i i i i 

i i i i 

T i U i V i W i 

by Chontyp 


fers by Chontyp 



i 

i Y 


Z 


M e r Feld on November 01. I 9 9 & 



CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VC1 J-IJNIT#: 681-304 ACRES: 64 VOL: 1111 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 3.5,6 

PHOTO YR /#: ’72(53)-1872-3ir91(L46)-390-218 1/4 QUAD: KTN A-6 NW 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: RS. SL 


REViEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILV1CULTUREATIMBER: , high windthrow risk. Productivity of site is low. Partial cut buffer. Ad- 

jacent to private selections. Difficult terrain - potential blind leads in several areas. Verify feasibility and modify unit bdry as re- 
quired. Profiles needed. Road connections need work. High mistletoe infection. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

field 

D.J.Landwehr 
8/1 1/95 

EIS R. Johnson 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils StNicholas, McGilvery, Tolstoi, Kitkun. Slopes 30-120%. Deleted very steep, MMI 4 southwest 
comer (BMP 13.5); 1000 foot estuary buffer (BMPs 12.5, 12.6). A minimum of partial suspension is required throughout the unit 
due to high MMI soils, McGilvery soils, and forested wetlands (BMPs 12.5, 13.9). A small area of full suspension helicopter 
yarding is needed along the north boundary to protect young regeneration. The backline in the northeast and central portion of the 
unit should be located at the base of the first cliffs south of old landslide to avoid MMI 4 and cliffs (BMP 13.5). Two potential 
fish streams in the northeast comer of the unit and one O&W stream in the west end of the unit. Three smaller streams for G&W 
protection (BMP 13.16). Add on west of big cliff helicopter selective harvest to protect regen following blowdown. Potential for 
blowdown. Road appears feasible, except climb to top of SW knob up slope from estuary (BMP 14.2). Knob steep and big fill 
needed to make grade. 

K. Buckley, D. 
Kuntzsch, B. 
Freedman, 

M. Greentree, 
8/9/95 

FISHERIES: Stream 4 is a class I blue/ white that requires a 120’ TTRA buffer, and road timing (BMP 12.6, 14.14). Above the 
road crossing stream 4 is a class III orange/ white. Stream 5 is a class I blue/ white to a point just inside the unit boundary that 
requires a 100’ TTRA buffer and fish passage/ timing (BMP 12.6, 14.14); the remainder of stream 5 is a class III orange/ white. 
Stream 10 is a class I blue/ white that requires a 120’ TTRA buffer from the slope break (BMP 12.6). Stream 1 1 is a class III or- 
ange/ white. Stream 12 is a class III orange/ white. The class III orange/ white streams require directional falling, and split yard- 
ing or full suspension. Clean streams of introduced debris immediately ( BMP 13.16). The large water body south of the unit is an 
estuary that requires a 1000’ buffer. 

B. Johnston, 
A. Mueller 

7/26/96 

WILDLIFE: 

This unit is within one-half mile of a known bald eagle nest. Road construction must be accomplished in accordance with the Bald 
Eagle Protection Act and must comply with the MOU between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Forest Service. Written 
coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must be documented. Wildlife recommends leaving live reserve trees and 
snags where possible to maintain habitat structure and snag density. This was not a high priority unit for wildlife following the 
current goshawk protocol, due to habitat requirements, and as a result was not surveyed in 1995. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cuttina unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clurntts or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain laree live trees and hard snaas. Use tvoe D clear-cut. O&W streams 
reauire DF. full over or SY. and cleanine of introduced debris immediatelv. G&W streams reauires DF. SY (where Dractical) or 
partial over, and cleaning the stream of introduced debris before the end of the operating period or before the yarder leaves the 
area. Minimum of partial suspension, Full suspension helicopter yarding along north boundry. Backline northeast and center 
base of first cliffs south of all landslide. Selective harvest by helicopter for add on west of big cliff. Dropped acreage due to steep 
cliffs and scrub timber. 


32 

3 I 

30 

29 

26 

27 

26 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 I 

20 

1 9 

I 8 

I 7 

I 6 

I 5 

I 4 

I 3 

I 2 

1 I 

I 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

Soil 


Chosino Study Area 


Interim Layout NOI Unit 681-304 

M a p s c o I e 1:15840 (4 inch In Mile) 



OOOOO 


32 

3 I 
30 
29 
28 
2 7 
2 6 
25 
2 4 
23 
22 

2 I 
20 
1 9 
1 8 
i 7 
I 6 
I 5 
I 4 
1 3 
1 2 
t I 

1 0 
9 

8 

7 

E 

5 

4 

3 

2 
I 


Exist i n g Roods 
Proposed Roods 
Unit Boundary 



Estuory Buffers 



500' Bench Buffer 



Merfeld on November 01, 1995 



CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


vriJ-IJNIT#: 681-308 ACRES:_5 VOL: JO MBF ALTERNATIVES: 3,5.6 

PHOTO YR/#: •72LS3)-1872-31/ , 91(L46E390-218 1/4 QUAD: KTN A-6 NW 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: RS 


REV1EWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 68002- , low windthrow risk. Productivity of site is low. Partial cut buffer. Uneco- 

nomic, low volume area surrounding. Adjacent to estuary buffer. Dropped low volume area to the west and north. May not be 
economical if unit is at the end of a road. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

R. Johnson 6/96 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils mapped 82D (McGilvery - Kitkun 35-60%) and 62 (Karheen - McGilvery 0-70%). Partial suspen- 
sion for forested wetlands and McGilvery (BMPs 12.5, 13.9; TLMP 1991). Silviculture deleted W portion of unit, and moved east 
portion to S because low volume wetlands (BMP 12.5). McGilvery and steep slopes reported in E portion. Protection of stream 
between two parts of unit by fisheries (BMPs 12.6, 12.6a, 13.16). Defer harvest on Kitkun and Karheen soils (TLMP 1996). 

K. Buckley, D. 
Kuntzsch, B. 
Freedman, M. 
Greentree, 8/9/95 

FISHERIES: Stream 1 is a class I blue/ white stream that requires a 120’ TTRA buffer (BMP 12.6). 

C.Tighe 8/96 

WILDLIFE: 

This unit is within one-half mile of a known bald eagle nest. Road construction must be accomplished in accordance with the Bald 
Eagle Protection Act and must also comply with the MOU between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Forest Service. 
Written coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must be documented. Wildlife recommends leaving live reserve trees 
and snags where possible to maintain habitat strucutre and snag density. This was not a priority unit for wildlife due to habitat 
requirements according to current goshawk protocol and as a result it was not surveyed in 1995 or 1996. Maintain 1000 foot estu- 
ary buffer. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cutting unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumps or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type A clear-cut. Partial suspen- 
sion required. 


Chasino Study Area Interim Layout NOI Unit 681-308 

Mopscole 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 



Existing Roods 
Proposed Roods 
Unit Boundor y 



Estuory Butlers 



500' Beach Buffer 



Created by Solly Uerfeld on November 01, 1996 


CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCU-UNIT#: 681-316 ACRES:_36 VOL: 720 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 3.4.6 

PHOTO YR/#: '91-390-144 1/4 QUAD: CRG A-l NE 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: HE 


REV1EWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 68101-111, high windthrow risk, portion downhill yarded. Unit changed to provide proportional- 
ity of volume classes. Uneconomic, low volume area surrounding. Productivity of site is low / moderate. Partial cut buffer. 
Suspension reauirements (see soils or fish). Maintain settina width between units. Keep unit below cliffs Scrub buffer at the 
bottom. Option to road units 316 and 322 (private road connection). Road source at great distance. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns - needs soils input. 

field 

D.J.Landwehr 

9/20/95 

EIS R. Johnson 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils Tolstoi, StNicholas, Shakan, with Kitkun and McGilvery. Slopes 25-1 10%. Partial and full suspen- 
sion required throughout the unit due to high MMI soils and many streams (BMPs 13.9, 13.16) About 15% forested wetlands. 
About 5 acres for helicopter yarding on the flat area above the cliff. The cable yarding backline should be placed at the base of the 
cliffs and very steep slopes on the west side of the unit. Approximately 4 acres on slopes greater than 75% gradient. Fourteen 
streams documented. Seven streams for O&W protection, and three for G&W protection (BMP 13.16). The close proximity of 
streams in the southwest portion of the unit may preclude directional felling and split yarding. This area may need to be deleted. 
Karst per geology. Potential add NW and W not feasible MMI 4. Third order watershed (BMP 12.1). Road into unit appears 
feasible pretty much as planned (BMP 14.2). Unit converted to helicopter yarding, should provide full suspension (BMP 13.9). 

K. McCartney, J. 
Wrate, K. Buck- 
ley, 8/15/95 

FISHERIES: Stream 1 is a class III orange/ white. Stream 2 is a class III orange/ white. Stream 3 is a class III green/ white. 
Stream 4 is a class III green/ white. Stream 5 is a class III green/ white. Stream 6 is a class III orange/ white. Stream 7 is a class 
III orange/ white (mistakenly flagged class 11 o/w). Stream 8 is a class III orange/ white. Stream 9 is a class III orange/ white. 
Stream 10 is a class III orange/ white. Stream 13 is a class III green/ white. Stream 14 is a class III orange/ white. The class III 
orange/ white streams require directional falling, and split yarding or full suspension. Clean streams of introduced debris im- 
mediately (BMP 13.16). The class III green/ white streams require directional falling, and split yarding (where practical) or partial 
suspension. Clean streams of introduced debris by the end of the operating period or before the yarder leaves the area (BMP 
13.16). 


WILDLIFE: 

C.Tighe 8/96 

Wildlife recommends leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat structure and snag density. This unit 
did not rate out as a high priority unit for wildlife according to the current goshawk protocol for steepness and elevation and as a 
result it was not surveyed in 1995 or 1996. 

J.Baichtal 

5/15/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: No minerals concerns, access for harvest will improve mineral exploration access. Lower half of unit is 
moderate vulnerabilitv karst. Partial suspension reauired within karst portion of unit as a minimum. 


LANDS: 

T. Fifield 
10/28/96 

CULTURAL: The unit was surveyed in 1996 due to its proximity to a high sensitivity zone for the occurrence of cultural re- 
sources. No cultural resources were noted in the unit. There are no concerns with the unit as planned. 


VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cutting unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumps or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snass. Use tvpe C clear-cut. O&W streams 
require DF. full over or SY. and cleaning of introduced debris immediatelv. G&W streams reauires DF, SY (where practical) or 
partial over, and cleaning the stream of introduced debris before the end of the operating period or before the yarder leaves the 
area. Yard to private road system. "Unit added from preferred alternative due to proportionality based on acres." 


Chosino Study Area Interim Layout NOI Unit 681-316 

Mopscole 1 : 15 8 4 0 (4 inch to Mile) 




0 1 

E 

i F i 

C 1 

OSS 

1 

S t r e om 

C 1 

OSS 

2 

S t r e om 

C 1 

ass 

3 

Stream 

Ex 

i s t 

i n g 

Roods 

P r 

o p 0 

s e d 

Roods 

Un 

i t 

Boundary 


Soil Water HS No Cut Stream Butlers by Chontyp 

n 

Fresh Water Lakes Partial Cut Stream Butters by Chontyp 


Creoted by Solly Uerfeld on November 01. 1 9 9 & 


CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCU-UNTT#: 681-322 ACRES:^8 VOL: 1440 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 3.4.6 

PHOTO YR/#: ’91-390-143 1/4 QUAD: CRG A-l NE 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: HE 


REV1EWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 68101-107, low windthrow risk, portion downhill yarded. Unit changed to provide proportionality 
of volume classes. Productivity of site is moderate. Suspension reauirements (see soils or fish'). Maintain setting width hetween 
units. Option to road units 316 and 322 (private road connection). Rock source at a great distance. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

field 

D.J.Landwehr 

9/20/95 

EIS R. Johnson 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils Mitkof, Kupreanof, McGilvery, Ulloa, Sarkar. Slopes less than 40%. Partial suspension required to 
protect thin soils over karst in the east part of the unit (BMP 13.9). About 25% forested wetlands. About 40% karst. Several ar- 
eas in the unit may be suitable for shovel yarding depending on the final road location. One stream should be designated O&W 
(DF, SY or full over, and clean of introduced debris immediately) (BMP 13.16). One stream along the north boundary for G&W 
protection (DF, SY or partial over, and clean before the end of the operating season). Three smaller streams do not warrant protec- 
tion. Third order watershed (BMP 12.1). Road appears feasible (BMP 14.2). Unit converted to helicopter yarding, which should 
provide full suspension (BMP 13.9). 

K. McCartney, D. 
Kuntzsch, J. Ba- 
ichtal, K.. Buck- 
ley, 7/27/95 
K. Buckley, 

M. Solomon, 
6/15/96 

FISHERIES: Stream 1 is a class IV green/ white. Steam 2 is a class III orange/ white. Stream 3 is a class III orange/ white. 

Stream 4 is a class III orange/ white. Stream 5 is a class III orange/ white. Stream 6 is a class IV green/ white. Streams 2, 3, and 4 
flow into a karst sink hole. The class III orange/ white streams require directional falling, and split yarding or full suspension. 
Clean streams of introduced debris immediately (BMP 13.16). The green/ white streams require directional falling, and split yard- 
ing (where practical) or partial suspension. Clean streams of introduced debris by the end of the operating period or before the 
yarder leaves the area (BMP 13.16). 

C.Tighe 8/96 

WILDLIFE: 

To provide for adequate snag density and distribution within the VCU, recommend leaving a 0.1 acre or larger snag patch for each 
10 acres of unit. Wildlife recommends leaving live researve trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat structure and snag 
density. This unit did not rate out as a high priority unit for wildlife following the current goshawk protocol for steepness and 
elevation and as a result it was not surveyed during 1995 or 1996. 

J.Baichtal 

5/15/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: No minerals concerns, access for harvest will improve mineral exploration access. About 40% of unit 
is underlain bv moderate vulnerability karst. In the east end of the unit a 10’ deep karst channel and sinkhole were located. A 100 
foot no harvest buffer is reauired around the discrete features as per the standards and guidelines outlined in the RSDEIS for the 
TLMP. Partial suspension reauired on the remainder of unit underlain bv karst. 

LANDS: 

T. Fifield 
10/28/96 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cutting unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumps or 
patches buffers or hlind-leads. dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snaes. Use tvpe C clear-cut. O&W streams 
require DF SY nr Gill over, and cleaning of introduced debris immediately. G&W streams reauires DF. SY (where practical) or 
partial over, and cleaning the stream of introduced debris before the end of the operating period or before the yarder leaves the 
area. "Unit added from the preferred alternative due to proportionality based on acres." Dropped 4 acres of scrub timber - option 
to road through private road system. 


n 

3 I 

30 

29 

28 

27 

26 

25 

2 4 

23 

22 

2 I 

20 

I 9 

I 8 

I 7 

I 6 

1 5 

I 4 

I 3 

I 2 

I I 

I 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

I 

loll 


32 

3 1 

30 

29 

28 

27 

26 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 I 

20 

I 9 

I 8 

I 7 

1 6 

t 5 

I 4 

I 3 

I 2 

I I 

I 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 


Chasino Study Area Interim Layout NOI Unit 681-322 

Mopscale 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 







1 © 



tL CI o r 



• 



A 0 i C 

0 e — 

1 i i i i 

ooooo 



I D I E I F I G 
Class 1 Streom 
Closs 2 Streom 
Class 3 Stream 
Existing Roods 
Proposed Roods 
Unit Boundary 


i 

i H 



i i i i 

III! 

I i J i K i L i 
Salt W o t e r 

Fresh Water lakes 

Estuary Buffers 

500' Beach Butter 



I ! i i i i 

I ! ! I I ! 

0 : P ! Q I R I S ! 

No Cut Stream Buffers 

Portiol Cut Stream Bu 


i i i i 

i i i i 

T i U i V i W i 

by Chanlyp 

fers by Chanlyp 



I ! 

Y i Z ; 


U e r f e I d on November 01, 1996 



CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


vriMJNIT#: 681-323 ACRES:^J VOL: 315 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 6 

PHOTO YR/#: ’91-490-135 1/4 QUAD: CRGA-1 LOGGING SYSTEMS: HE 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 68102-80, low windthrow risk. Productivity of site is low. Field checking alternative regenera- 
tion methods. Uneconomic, low volume area surrounding. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

R. Johnson 6/96 

SOILS/WATERSFIED: Soils mapped primarily 29EF (McGilvery 60-100%), with 90D (Grindall - Kitkun 35-60%) and 4D (Helm 
35-60%). Probable deletion for McGilvery (TLMP 1991). Possible low volume timber W half unit, mav not be harvestable. Pos- 
sible headwater stream E half unit needing protection (BMP 13.16). Probable stream center of unit, not needing protection. Only 
minor expansion to N possible, but nowhere else to move unit as top of ridee and edge of tree line. Probablv not viable unit even 
with helicopter logging. Third order watershed (BMP 12.1). 

K. Buckley, 7/96 

FISHERIES: Office review identified no fisheries concerns in the unit. 

C.Tighe 8/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Wildlife did not survey this unit in 1995 or 1996. This unit is above the elevation criteria called for in the current goshawk proto- 
col. Recommend leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat structure and snag density. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cutting unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumps or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type C clear-cut. 


C h a s i n a 


Study Area Interim Layout NOI Unit 681-323 

M a p s c o I e 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 



C i D i E i F i G i H 


J i K i L i M i N i 0 ! P i 0 i R i S i T i U i V i W i X i 


ooooo 


Class I Streom 
Closs 2 Stream 
Class 3 Streom 
Existing Roods 
Proposed Roods 
Unit Boundary 


V/,. 


> S o I t IV o t e r 


No Cut Streom Butlers by Chontyp 
Fresh Water Lakes Partial Cut Stream Butters by Chontyp 


^ Esluory Butlers 


500' Bench Buffer 



C r e o t e d by Sally Ueifeld on November 01. I 9 9 & 


CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCU-IJNIT#: 681-330 ACRES: 79 VOL: 2370 MBF ALTERNATIVES :_6 

PHOTO YR7#: '91-490-134 1/4 QUAD: CRG A-l NE 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: RS/HE 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 68102-85, high windthrow risk, portion downhill yarded. Within designated old growth reserve. 
Partial cut buffer. Maintain setting width between units. Productivity of site is moderate. Low value and cliff areas dropped for 
resource protection and economic feasibility. Difficult terrain - potential blind leads in western. Verify feasibility and modify unit 
bdry as required. Profiles needed. Road connection from north or south depending on alternative selected. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

field 

D.J.Landwehr 

10/26/95 

EIS R. Johnson 

SOILS/WATERSHED. Soils Kupreanof, Mitkof, Shakan, McGIlvery, StNicholas, Tolstoi, Kaikli, Kitkun. Slopes 30-130%. De- 
leting N, W, S for cliffs, class III streams, MMI 4, very steep, fish buffers, very steep McGilvery (BMPs 12.6a, 13.5, 13.16; TLMP 
1991). Remaining unit: may still need to delete 5 A very steep McGilvery middle N. 20 to 25 A suitable. High MMI soils 
throughout the unit. About 4 acres on slopes greater than 75 percent. About 5 A forested wetlands. A minimum of partial suspen- 
sion required throughout unit (BMP 13.9). Twenty five streams were identified in the unit reconnaissance. Eighteen streams were 
identified for O&W protection (BMP 13.16). In two areas the streams are too close together to allow directional felling and split 
yarding. These areas should be deleted. Seven streams for G&W protection. Fish habitat is present in the lower reaches of many 
streams just outside the unit boundary. See fisheries section for appropriate buffer widths. Helicopter yarding may improve the 
feasibility of logging some of the suitable timber in the north and northeast end of the unit. Road location needs review, recom- 
mend from top. Third order watershed (BMP 12. 1). Road location may be possible just outside fish buffer, but cliffs and convex 
slopes limit yarding distance less than 200’ from road (BMPs 12.6a, 14.2). Road numerous crossings of streams on 60 to 75% 
slopes (BMPs 13.16, 14.14, 14.17). Access to SW portion unit possible from road for 681-338, but route needs to be investigated. 
Any road into unit needs review (BMP 14.2). Two western portions converted to helicopter yarding, which should provide full 
suspension (BMP 13.9). 


FISHERIES: 

M.Dillman, 
B. Johnston 
8/29/95 

WILDLIFE: 

Rock bluffs throughout unit. Karst near Paul Lake. Deer sign seen in unit; bear sign seen near Paul Lake; three sandhill cranes 
seen/heard around lake. This unit is within a designated old growth reserve so was not surveyed in 1996. If cun-ent policy changes 
and this unit is harvested, recommend leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat structure and snag 
density. Also, if unit is harvested wildlife will need to survey the area prior to harvest. 

T. Fifteld 
10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 5/96 
D.J.L. & R.J. 
10/95 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cuttine unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumns or 
catches, buffers or blind-leads, disnersed. and should contain laree live trees and hard snass. Use tvoe A clear-cut. O&W streams 
reauire DF. full over or SY and cleanine of introduced debris immediately. G&W streams reauires DF. SY (where practical) or 
partial over, and cleaning the stream of introduced debris before the end of the operating period or before the yarder leaves the 
area. Minimum partial suspension. Delete 5 acres very steep McGilvery middle north. Delete area two streams too close to allow 
directional felling and split yarding. Helicopter yard north and northeast end. Portions to the west to be helicoptered. 



ooooo 


Existing Roods 
Proposed Roods 
Unit Boundory 



Estuory Buffers 



500 


Beoch Bulfer 



Creoted by Solly Uerfeld on November 01, 1996 


CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCIJ-IJNIT#: 681-332 ACRES:_34 VOL: 970 MBF ALTERNATIVES :_6_ 

PHOTO YR/#: ’91-390-142 1/4 QUAD: CRG A-l NE 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: RS 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 68102-110, high windthrow risk, portion downhill yarded. Productivity of site is moderate. Par- 
tial cut buffer. Maintain setting width between units. Dropped top of unit (slides, etc.). Road connection could be from the pri- 
vate land to the east or Forest Service land from the south. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

field 

D.J.Landwehr 

9/21/95 

EIS R. Johnson 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soil Sarkar, Tolstoi, McGilvery. Slopes 40-140%. Deleted above 500 feet due very steep, cliffs, land- 
slides, MM1 4 (BMP 13.5). Remaining unit: A minimum of partial log suspension is required due to the presence of high MMI 
soils (BMP 13.9). Two streams should be designated O&W (DF, SY and clean of introduced debris immediately) (BMP 13.16). 
Two streams should be designated G&W (DF, SY, and clean before the end of the operating season). See fisheries section for a 
buffer prescription for Paul Lake (BMPs 12.6, 12.6a). Most of unit mixed karst. Third order watershed (BMP 12.1). Road ap- 
pears feasible, but substantial portion outside unit not reviewed (BMP 14.2). 

K. McCartney, J. 
Wrate, 8/16/95 

FISHERIES: Paul Lake will require a 150’ no cut/ 350' partial cut TTRA buffer (BMP 12.6). Stream 1 is a class 1 blue/ white 
that requires a 120’ TTRA buffer (BMP 12.6). At 260’ of elevation stream 1 changes to a class III orange/ white. Stream 2 is a 
class 1 blue/ white that requires a 120’ TTRA buffer (BMP 12.6). At 320’ of elevation the stream changes to a class 111 orange/ 
white. Stream 3 is a class I blue/ white that requires a 120’ TTRA buffer (BMP 12.6). Stream 4 is a class III orange/ white. The 
class III orange/ white require directional falling, and split yarding or full suspension. Clean streams of introduced debris im- 
mediately (BMP 13.16). 

A. Mueller, 

B. Johnston 
7/18/96 

WILDLIFE: 

This unit did not rank as a high priority unit for wildlife. The steepness of the unit is above that which is called for in the current 
goshawk protocol. It was not surveyed by wildlife in 1995 . Deer sign was noted in the unit. Down woody debris seen through- 
out unit. Wildlife recommends leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat structure and snag density. 

J.Baichtal 

5/15/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: No minerals concerns, access for harvest will improve mineral exploration access. Unit on interbedded 
marble and schist. Extremely steep slopes above approx. 500’ elevation. Resurgences appear at about this elevation as well. 
Sinkhole in northeast comer of unit. High vulnerability karst above the 500 ’ elevation and should be excluded from the unit as 
per the standards and guidelines outlined in the RSDEIS for the TLMP. Moderate vulnerability karst below 500’ elevation, partial 
suspension required. 

LANDS: 

T. Fifteld 
10/28/96 

CULTURAL: This unit was surveyed in 1996 due to its proximity to a high sensitivity zone for the occurrence of cultural re- 
sources. Spring board stumps were noted in the unit. However, no significant cultural resources were encountered. There are no 
concerns with the unit as planned. 

VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cutting unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumps or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use tvoe A clear-cut. O&W streams 
reauire DF. SY or full over, and cleaning of introduced debris immediately. G&W streams reauires DF. SY (where practical) or 
partial over, and cleaning the stream of introduced debris before the end of the operating period or before the yarder leaves the 
area. Minimum partial suspension. 


32 

3 1 

30 

29 

28 

27 

26 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 I 

20 

I 9 

1 8 

I 7 

I 6 

I 5 

I 4 

I 3 

I 2 

I I 

1 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

o I I 


32 

3 1 

30 

29 

28 

27 

26 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 I 

20 

I 9 

I 8 

1 7 

1 6 

1 5 

1 4 

I 3 

I 2 

I 1 

I 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 


Chosino Study Areo 


Interim Layout NOI Unit 681-332 

Mapscole 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 



s 1 • 


1 1 1 o > >1. 


i : 

A ! B I C 
o e — 


OOOOO 


D I £ ! F i G 
Closs I Stream 
Closs 2 Stream 
Closs 3 Streom 
Existing Roods 
Proposed Roods 
Unit Boundary 


t 

i H 



I I I ! I 

I I I I I 

I I J i K i L i M i N 

Soil Water 

Fresh Water Lakes 

Estuory Buffers 

500' Beoch Buffer 



I I ! I I ! i i i i 

! I I I I I i i i i 

iO P.OiRiSiTiUiViWi 
No Cut Streom Buffers by Chontyp 


Portiol Cut Streom Buffers by Chonlyp 



i i 

Y i Z I 


Ueifeld on November 01, 1996 



CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCU-UNIT#: 681-337 ACRES:_34 VOL: 1700 MBF ALTERNATIVES:_6 

PHOTO YR/#: '91-490-134 1/4 QUAD: C'RG A-l NE 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS:_SL 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 68102-85, high windthrow risk, portion downhill yarded. Within designated old growth reserve. 
Productivity of site is high. Road connection could be north or south depending on alternative chosen. Maintain setting width 
between units. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

R.Johnson, 6/96 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils mapped 48C (Helm - Kitkun 5-35%) and ID (Vixen 35-60%). Partial suspension for portion for- 
ested wetlands. Appears better timber than typical wetlands. Appears steeper than mapped, possibly MM 13. Topography and 
cliffs, probable deletion on E. Probable cliffs and McGilvery; additional deletion on SW boundary. Probable partial suspension 
throughout unit forested wetlands, MMI3, McGilvery (BMPs 12.5, 13.9; TLMP 1991). Lower boundary above riparian on stream 
flowing into Paul Lake (BMPs 12.6, 12.6a, 13.16). Probable other stream(s) in unit needing protection (BMPs 12.6a, 13.16). 
Third order watershed (BMP 12.1). Defer harvest on Kitkun (TLMP 1996). 

D.Kuntzsch, 7/96 

FISHERIES: Protect water quality streams per soils instructions. Office review determined streams north and east of the unit as 
possible fish habitat, but the current unit boundaries should not impact buffers on these streams. 


WILDLIFE: 

M.Dillman 

7/96 

This unit is within an old growth reserve and was not surveyed by wildlife in 1995 or 1996. If current policy changes and this unit 
is harvested, recommend leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat structure and snag density. Also, 
if unit is harvested wildlife will need to survey the area prior to harvest. 


GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 


LANDS: 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

CULTURAL: This low sensitivity unit was surveyed in 1996. No cultural resources were recorded. There are no concerns with 
the unit as planned. 


VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w / reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cutting unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumps or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type A clear-cut. Partial suspen- 
sion required. 


C h a s i no Study Area Interim Layout NOI Unit 681-337 

M a p s c o I e 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 



i i 

A i 0 I C 

0 e — 

1 i i i - 1 

COCO© 


0 i E i f i G 
Closs I Stream 
Class 2 Stream 
Closs 3 Stream 


i 

i H 



III! 

III! 

I I J I K I L I 
Salt Water 

fresh Water Lakes 


i 

M i N 



l 0 i Pi 0 i 

No Cut Stream 
P o r t i a I Cut S 


i i i i i i 

i i i i i i 

RiSiTiUiViWi 
Butlers by Chonlyp 

ream Butlers by Chonlyp 


Y 


i 

i 


Existing Roods 
Proposed Roods 
Unit Boundary 



Estuory Buffers 



500' Beach Buffer 



Creeled by Solly Merfeld on November 01, 1996 



CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VC! J-IJNIT#: 681-338 ACRES:_28 VOL: 1120 MBF ALTERNATIVES:^. 

PHOTO YR/#: ’91-490-134 1/4 QUAD: CRG A-l NE 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: SL 


REVIEVVER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 68102-124, high windthrow risk, portion downhill yarded. Within designated old growth reserve. 
Productivity of site is high. Maintain setting width between units. Uneconomic, low volume area to the west. Drop top due to 
cliffs. Roading N. or S. is an option. Helicopter may increase size of unit to the east. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

field 

D.J.Landwehr 

10/27/95 

E1S R Johnson 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils Tolstoi. McGilvery, Shakan, Wadleigh, Karta, Kaikli. Slopes 45-100%. Deleted cliffs and MM1 4 
below them at 1000-1200 feet (BMP 13.5); NW comer for cliffs, low volume wetland and McGilvery (BMP 12.5; TLMP 1991). 
Remaining unit: Partial suspension is required throughout the unit due to the presence of high MM1 soils and forested wetland 
bottom boundary (BMPs 12.5, 13.9). The backline for cable yarding should be located at the base of the cliffs and bottom of the 
small brushftelds. Four streams for O&W protection (DF, SY, and immediate removal of introduced debris) (BMP 13.16). Three 
streams for G&W protection (DF, SY, and clean before the end of the operating season or before the yarder leaves the area). The 
density of water quality streams in the northwest portion of the unit may limit operability in that area. Third order watershed 
(BMP 12.1). Road in timber cross 40 to 70% slopes underlain by till and bedrock. Preliminary road line needs review because 
potential landslides (BMPs 13.5, 14.2, 14.3, 14.6, 14.7, 14.12). 

D.Kuntzsch, 7/96 

FISHERIES: Protect water quality streams per soils instructions. Office review identified no additional fisheries concerns. 

M.Dillman 

7/96 

WILDLIFE: 

This unit is within an old growth reserve and as a result was not surveyeded by wildlife in either 1995 or 1996. If current policy 
changes and this unit is harvested, recommend leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat structure and 
snag density. Also, if unit is harvested wildlife will need to survey the area prior to harvest. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cuttina unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumDS or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type A clear-cut. O&W protec- 
tion (DF, SY or full over, and clean introduced debris immediately) (BMP 13.16). G&W protection (DF, SY or partial over, and 
clean before the end of the operating season). Partial suspension required. Backline base of cliffs and bottom of brushfields. 


32 

3 1 

30 

29 

28 

27 

26 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 1 

20 

t 9 

1 8 

I 7 

I 6 

1 5 

1 4 

1 3 

I 2 

I I 

1 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

Soli 


Chasino Study Area Interim Layout NOI Unit 681-338 


Mopscole 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 



i i i i i 

ooooo 


I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 

I ! I I I I I I I I I 1 


D : 

E 

i F 

1 G 

i H 

Class 

1 

S t r 

e am 


Class 

2 

S t r 

e o m 

nX\ 

Class 

3 

S t r 

eom 


Exist 

i n g 

Ro 

o d s 


P r o p o 

s e d 

Roods 

& 

Unit 

B o u 

n d a 

< y 



I I ! I I I I 

I I I I I I I 

Oi Ri Si T. Ui Vi Wi 


> S o I t Water 


Fresh Water Lakes 


500' Beoch Butter 


g§ 


No Cut Stream Buffers by Chontyp 
Partial Cut Stream Butters by Chontyp 



U e r I e I d on November 01, 19 9 6 


CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCIJ-UNIT#: 681-347 ACRES:53 VOL: 2014 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 4.6 

PHOTO YR/#: VI -390- 140 1/4 QUAD: CRG A-l SE 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: SL 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 68102- High windthrow risk, portion downhill yarded. Within designated old growth reserve. 
Retain stand structure for wildlife where feasible. Partial cut buffer. Productivity of site is high. Option to drop off top of unit 
for visual sensitivity. Unit design calls for clear-cut regeneration method. Verify roads and/or landing locations. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: Temporary road may need to be specified - needs soils input. 

R. Johnson, 6/96 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils mapped 2D (Traitors 35-60%), with 29EF (McGilvery 60-100%), 33D (StNicholas - McGilvery 35- 
60%). Probably need to shift unit and roads to S and SE to avoid very steep, McGilvery rock, and disturbances on N and W; in- 
cludes slide on NE. Partial suspension believed small areas forested wetlands, McGilvery, MM13 on slopes over 60% if unit 
shifted (BMPs 12.5, 13.9; TLMP 1991). Expect streams in unit needing protection (BMPs 12.6a, 13.16). 

D.Kuntzsch, 7/96 

FISHERIES: GIS identifies a class I blue/white TTRA stream as the southern boundary of the unit. As such, it requires a 100’ 
minimum no-cut buffer. There are additional water quality streams (class III and IV) in the unit that will need protection and will 
need to be identified during layout (BMP 13.16). 


WILDLIFE: 

M.Di liman 
7/96 

This unit is within an old growth reserve and as a result was not surveyed by wildife in 1995 or 1996. If current policy changes 
and this unit is harvested, recommend partial harvest because this unit has been identified as an important wildlife travel corridor. 
This will help maintain forest structure and lessen the impact on wildlife migration and dispersal. Recommend leaving live reserve 
trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat structure and snag density. Also, if unit is harvested, wildlife will need to sur- 
vey the area prior to harvest. Maintain 1000 foot estuary buffer. 

J. Short 
5/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 


LANDS: 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 


VISUALS: Retain at least (2) approximately 3 acre peninsulas extending from backline of unit. 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cutting unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumps or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type B clear-cut if uphill yarding 
is the majority. Partial suspension required. 


I 


V 


X 


Y 


l 



Created by Solly Ueffeld on November 01. 1996 



CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCU-IJNIT#: 681-352 ACRES:^4 VOL: 689 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 4.6 

PHOTO YRy '#: ' 9 1-390- 140 1/4 QUAD: CRG A-l SE 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: RS. SL 


REV1EWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 68102-52, low windthrow risk, portion downhill yarded. Within designated old growth reserve. 
Productivity of site is moderate. Split-yarding required on stream. Dropped eastern setting due to visual. Option: helicopter 
yarding. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

R. Johnson, 6/96 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils mapped 442D (Ulloa - Sarkar 35-60%), with 442E (Ulloa - Sarkar 60-75%) and not mapped. Prob- 
able deletions and shift to make viable unit. Delete W end past stream for disturbed, slide, low volume. Delete about E half for 
disturbed, slides, steep, questionable volume, possibly rock, McGilvery and MMI4. This deletion greater than proposed for visu- 
als. Remaining center of unit potential slight expansion uphill to N, but main expansion down hill to S. Partial suspension for 
moderate vulnerability karst, and possibly other concerns (BMP 13.9). Protection of streams needed, may include unit buffer on 
V-notch on W end of redesigned unit (BMPs 12.6a, 13.16). 

D.Kuntzsch, 7/96 

FISHERIES: GIS delineates three class III streams within this unit. The stream located in the west half of the unit may need a 
slope break buffer due to the size of the V-notch. Stream protection will need to be identified during layout (BMP 1 3.16). 

M.Dillman 

7/96 

WILDLIFE: 

This unit is within an old growth reserve and as a result was not surveyed by wildlife in 1995 or 1996. If current policy changes 
and this unit is harvested, wildlife recommends leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat structure 
and snag density. Also, if unit is harvested, wildlife will need to survey the area prior to harvest. Maintain 1000 foot estuary 
buffer. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cutting unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumps or 

patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type B clear-cut (use stream buff- 
ers). Partial suspension required. 


Chosino Study Areo Interim Layout NOI Unit 681-352 

Mopscole 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 



A i B i C 
o — e — 

i i i i i 

ooooo 


32 

3 I 
30 
29 
28 
27 
26 
25 
24 
23 
22 

2 I 
20 
I 9 
1 8 
1 7 
1 6 
I 5 
1 4 
t 3 
1 2 

1 I 
1 0 
9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 
I 


Created by Solly Uerfeld on November 01, 199b 




CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCTJ-UNIT#: 681-361 ACRES: 51 VOL: 1515 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 4.6 

PHOTO YR /#: ’91-390-140 1/4 QUAD: CRG A-l SE 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: HE 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 68102-36, high windthrow risk. Productivity of site is moderate. Within designated old growth 
reserve. Retain stand structure for wildlife where feasible. Partial cut buffer. Keep out of estuary buffer. Drop out steep / 
McGILVERY SOILS. Difficult terrain - potential blind leads in center of unit. Verify feasibility and modify may effect size of 
unit. Unit bdry as required. Profiles needed. Option: helicopter yarding. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: Evaluate for cable logging due to being roaded anyway. 

R. Johnson, 
10/10/95 

SOILS/WATERSHED: W end and along top of ridge forested wetland primarily on wet McGilvery, with Kitkun. Slopes gener- 
ally less than 70%, but steeper on numerous rock faces as proceed up ridge to top of unit. Slopes on N side range from 45 to 50% 
off top of ridge, 70-90% on the side plus predominance of rock faces and rock walls which steeper, to 60 to 65% on colluvial rock 
below rock faces and walls on bottom. Soils on N side predominantly wet McGilvery and Kitkun, with inclusions StNicholas and 
Petrel on flatter benches. Unit converted to helicopter logging. Still should delete unit because predominantly McGilvery, pre- 
dominance rock faces and rock walls on side slopes, and predominance of lower volume wetland forests in unit (BMPs 12.5, 13.9; 
TLMP 1991). Better timber NE comer of unit on rock faces until bottom where on colluvial rock, but this may be in 500 foot 
beach buffer. Could be concern visuals with exposed rock following harvest. Monitor McGilvery if harvest (BMP 11.6). Streams 
in and adjacent to unit needing protection (BMPs 12.6a, 13.16). Unit card shows unit predominantly on ridge top and slopes to N, 
but ridge actually more to N than shown on card. Potential to move unit to S side of ridge, but expect conditions similar and not 
acceptable unit either. Potential concerns blasting and full bench flagged route 2160-630 road (BMPs 14.6, 14.7, 14.12). Defer 
harvest on Kitkun ( 1 996). 

D.Kuntzsch, 7/96 

FISHERIES: GIS has a class 1 blue/white TTRA stream with a minimum 100’ no-cut buffer as the north boundary of the unit. 
Water quality streams within and adjacent to the unit will need protection and will be identified during layout (BMP 13.16, 12.6a). 


WILDLIFE: 

M.Dillman 

7/96 

The final definition of an estuary buffer may affect the acerage of this unit. If estuaries are determined to be where class I streams 
run into salt water, then the the northern 1/3 of this unit will be in an estuary buffer and will have to be dropped. This unit is 
within an old growth reserve and as a result was not surveyed by wildlife in 1995 or 1996. However, this unit has been identified 
as an important wildlife travel corridor. If current policy changes and this unit is harvested, partial harvest is recommended to 
maintain forest structure and lessen the impact on wildlife migration and dispersal. Recommend leaving live reserve trees and 
snags where possible to maintain habitat structure and snag density. Also, if this unit is harvested wildlife will need to survey the 
area prior to harvest. 


GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 


LANDS: 

T. Fifield 
10/28/96 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cutting unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumps or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type B clear-cut, use leave areas 
as retention. Should delete unit due to predominance of McGilvery soils. 


32 

3 t 

30 

29 

28 

27 

2 6 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 t 

20 

I 9 

1 B 

I 7 

I 6 

1 5 

1 4 

I 3 

1 2 

I I 

I 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

I 

0 I I 


32 

3 1 

30 

29 

28 

27 

26 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 I 

20 

I 9 

I 8 

1 7 

t 6 

I 5 

I 4 

1 3 

1 2 

I I 

I 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 


Chosino Study Area 


Interim Layout NOI Unit 

Mopscole 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 


681-361 



A ! B i C 
0 © — 


ooooo 


0 ! E ! F i C 
Closs 1 Streom 
Closs 2 Streom 
Closs 3 Streom 
Existing Roods 
Proposed Roods 
Unit Boundary 


i i 

i i 

i H i 



i i i i 

i i i i 

I i J i K i L i 

Soil Hi o t e r 

Fresh Water Lokes 

Estuary Butlers 

500' Beoch Buffer 



: i i i 

i 0 i P i Q i 
No Cut Streom 

P o r t i o I Cut S 


i i i i i i 

i i i i i i 

Ri Si Ti Ui Vi Wi 

8uflers by Chontyp 

reom Butlers by Chontyp 



X 


Y 


i 


U e r f e I d on November 01 , 1995 


CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


vn J-IJNIT#: 681-363 ACRES:JJ VOL: 1558 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 3.6 

PHOTO YR/#: ’91-390-170 1/4 OUAD: CRGA-l SE 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS:_SL 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5' 96 

S1LV1CULTURE/TIMBER: 68102-33, high windthrow risk, portion downhill yarded, high mistletoe present. Retain stand 
structure for wildlife where feasible. Productivity of site is high. Partial cut buffer. Uneconomic, low volume area east & west 
ends. Drop cliffs on top. Cliffs in center of unit may force 2/3 of unit into helicopter yarding. Maintain setting width between 
units. Option: helicopter. Not an estuary buffer. 

.1. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

field 

D.J.Landwehr 
8 22/95 
EIS R. Johnson 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils McGilvery, St. Nicholas, Tolstoi, with Kitkun. Slopes 30-140%. Deleted above 800’, very steep, 
cliffs, MMI 4, McGilvery (BMP 13.5, TLMP 1991). Remaining unit: A minimum of partial suspension in the areas that can be 
cable logged (BMP 13.9). Helicopter yarding of the upper reaches of the unit may be necessary due to the presence of small cliffs, 
steep slopes, and McGilvery. About 10 acres on slopes greater than 75%. Clear-cut should be excluded very steep, cliffs and 
McGilvery below 800 feet. Four streams for protection, see fisheries section of this card (BMP 13.16). Road feasible lower por- 
tion unit, but access only 200 to 400’ corridor due to cliffs upslope and beach buffer down slope (BMP 14.2). Upper reaches 
largely inaccessible from proposed road. Proposed option to helicopter yard is desirable protect watershed resources (BMP 13.9). 

J. Hannon. M. 
Becker, 6/28/95 

FISHERIES: Stream 1 is a class II blue/ white that requires a 100’ TTRA buffer of below the road crossing and a 25’ buffer 
above the road crossing where stream becomes a class III orange/white (BMP 12.6). This road crossing will require fish passage 
and timing, unless it’s located below 260’ elevation (BMP 14.14). Stream 2 is a class III green/ white. Stream 3 is a class III 
green/ white. The class III orange/ white streams will require directional falling, and split yarding or full suspension. Clean 
streams of introduced debris immediately (BMP 13.16). 

M.Dillman, 

J.Wrate 

6/28/95 

WILDLIFE: 

Deer and bear sign seen in unit. Unit occurs in an important wildlife travel corridor. Therefore, wildlife recommens partial har- 
vest to maintain forest structure to lessen impact on wildlife migration and dispersal. Unit is within one-quarter mile of a bald 
eagle nest. Therefore road construction activity may be restricted in accordance with the Bald Eagle Protection Act and coordina- 
tion with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must be documented. Also the MOU between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 
the U.S. Forest Service concerning bald eagle nests must be followed. The unit is also being considered for helicopter harvest and 
the nest location may impact fly/drop zones. Recommend leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat 
structure and snag density if unit is not partial cut. This unit was not surveyed in 1996. The unit is over the steepness criteria 
called for in the current goshawk protocols. The final definition of an estuary and the buffer requirements on them may affect the 
acreage of this unit. As it is currently mapped in GIS the northwest comer, about 1/5 of the unit is in an estuary buffer. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cutting unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumps or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type B clear-cut, use estuary 
buffer as retention. Minimum partial suspension. Exclude very steep cliffs, McGilvery soils. Unit added to the preferred alterna- 
tive due to proportional lity based on acres. 


32 

3 1 

30 

29 

28 

27 

26 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 I 

20 

I 9 

I 8 

1 7 

1 6 

I 5 

I 4 

1 3 

1 2 

1 I 

1 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

o I I 


C h o s i n o 


Study Area 


Interim Layout NOI Un 


681-363 


Mopscole 1:15840 (4 inch io Mile) 



ooooo 


Uerfeld on November 01, 1996 



CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


vriJ-UNIT#: 681-365 ACRES:J4 VOL: 257 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 3,4,6 

PHOTO YR7#: '91-390-170 1/4 OUAD: CRGA-l SE 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: HE 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 68102-33, high windthrow risk. Maintain setting width between units. Stav out of estuarv buffer. 
Partial cut buffer. Productivity of site is moderate. Portion of unit dropped due to lake. If road comes from the east from above, 
visually try to keep strip slightly NW. Option: helicopter yarding. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: Difficult reading - no concerns. 

field 

D.J.Landwehr 

8/25/95 

EIS R. Johnson 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils McGilvery with Kitkun, Kaikli, Tolstoi. Slopes 30-130%. Deleted low volume wetland SE comer 
(BMP 12.5), karst cliff NW comer, major cliff middle. Remaining unit: McGil very-like soils in most of the unit. Three acres of 
slopes over 75%. Full suspension is required if harvested, but unit should be deleted because of very thin McGilvery (TLMP 
1991). Monitor McGilvery if logged. Place west unit boundary on an O&W water quality stream. Leave a variable width buffer 
on the lake to incorporate fish habitat in small streams flowing into the lake (BMP 12.6a). See fisheries section. Road may be 
possible to access one of landings on ridge along E bounday (BMP 14.2). Prefer helicopter logging to salt water (BMP 13.9). 
Road planned from W does not appear feasible. Potential conversion to helicopter yarding recommended (BMP 1 3.9). 

J. Hannon, M. 
Becker, 6/28/95 

FISHERIES: Lake is a class I blue/ white adfluvial that requires a 200’ TTRA buffer (BMP 12.6). Stream 1 is a class III orange/ 
white that requires directional falling, and split yarding or full suspension. Clean stream of introduced debris immediately (BMP 
13.16). Recommend that the unit boundary be above the slope break of this stream. Stream 2 is a class I blue/ white that requires 
a 120’ TTRA buffer (BMP 12.6). Stream 3 is a class I blue/ white that requires a 120’ TTRA buffer (BMP 12.6). Stream 4 is a 
class I blue/ white that requires a 120’ TTRA buffer ( BMP 12.6). Stream 5 is a class I blue/ white that requires a 120’ TTRA 
buffer (BMP 12.6). Stream 7 is a class I blue/ white that requires a 120’ TTRA buffer (BMP 12.6). Move unit boundary to ex- 
clude estuary buffer. 


WILDLIFE: 

M.Dillman, 
J.Wrate, M. 
Pacheco 
6/29/95 
M.Dillman 
7/96 T.Belfield, 
C.Tighe 7/27/96 

Game trails/deer sign seen in unit. Lake found in unit. Karst in unit/cave located. Bald eagle nest found. Road construction ac- 
tivities may be restricted in accordance with the Bald Eagle Protection Act and all coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service must be documented. The MOU between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Forest Service concerning eagle 
nests must also be followed. If this unit is harvested by helicopter the eagle nest location may impact drop zones. The acreage 
may be affected depending on the final definition of an esuary buffer. As it is currently mapped in GIS the northeast comer of the 
unit would have to be dropped to meet the estuary buffer requirements. Sharp-shinned hawks were found in this unit. There were 
two birds seen, both voung. and two birds heard. Sensitive olant surveys were conducted in this unit. Platanthera chorisia. the 
choris bog orchid, a species on the sensitive plant list, was found in the vicinity of this unit. 

J.Baichtal 

5/15/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: No minerals concerns, access for harvest will improve mineral exploration access. A low elevation 
karst ridge runs along the north shore of the lake and into the northeast end of the unit. A small cave inside lake buffer. Outlet 
stream of lake flows into sinkhole and resurges a short distance later. Epikarst is well developed atop the ridge in the unit (Soils 
Report). Karst ridge should be excluded from the unit based on epikarst development as per the standards and guidelines outlined 
in the RSDEISforthe TLMP. 


LANDS: 

T. Fifield 
10/28/96 

CULTURAL: Although scheduled for survey in 1996, field inspection indicated this unit was very unlikely to contain cultural 
resources. No survey was conducted. There are no concerns with this unit as planned. 


VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Full suspension required;recommend unit deletion due to presence of very thin McGilvery soils. Clearcut with 
reserves: retain 10-20% of cutting unit, where safe and feasible. Use type C clearcut. 


32 

3 I 

30 

29 

28 

27 

26 

25 

24 

23 

22 

2 I 

20 

I 9 

I 8 

1 7 

t 6 

I 5 

I 4 

I 3 

I 2 

1 I 

I 0 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

I 

Soil 


Chosino Study Area Interim Layout NOI Unit 681-365 


Mopscole 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 



OOOOO 


^ Estuary Butlers 
500' Beach Butter 


32 

3 I 
30 
29 
28 
2 7 
26 
25 
24 
23 
22 

2 I 
20 
I 9 
I 8 
I 7 
I 6 
1 5 
I 4 
I 3 
t 2 
1 I 

1 0 
9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 
t 


llerfeld on November 01, 1996 


CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VC! J-UNIT#: 681-367 ACRES:_25 VOL: 281 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 3,4.6 


PHOTO YR/#: ^9 1-390- 170 1/4 QUAD: CRG A-l SE 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: HE 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 68102-26, high windthrow risk. Productivity of site is low. 1/2 of unit is within estuary buffer. 
Partial cut buffer. Maintain setting width between units. If road comes from above, could use strip corridors. Uneconomic, low 
volume area surrounding. Option: helicopter. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: Difficult access - some concerns. 

field 

D.J.L.andwehr 

8/28/95 

EIS R. Johnson 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils StNicholas, with Tolstoi like, McGilvery, Kaikli. Slopes 30-90%. Deleted 6 acres low volume 
wetland center (BMP 12.5); stream buffer and MMI 4 below cliff and slope break W and SW (BMPs 12.6a, 13.5); and NE 1 A 
below cliff and 3 A wetland low volume and muskeg (BMP 12.5). Partial suspension required throughout the unit due to high 
MMI soils and thin soils (BMP 13.9). Establish a 100 to 150 foot wide buffer on the west boundary stream per the fisheries report 
(BMP 1 2.6a). Road access to top of unit appears feasible (BMP 14.2). Lower road may be required for slope breaks. Both roads 
may have slight adverse haul. Potential for conversion to helicopter yarding (BMP 1 3.9). 

J. Hannon, M. 
Becker 6/24/95 

FISHERIES: Stream 1 is a class II blue/white that requires a 100’ TTRA buffer up to 80’ of elevation, above this the stream is 
class 111 orange/ white that requires a 150’ buffer (BMP 12.6). Lower road crossing will be difficult. Fish passage and timing will 
be required on both roads (BMP 14.14). Proposed road will be within 500’ of beach fringe. 

M.Dillman, 
J.Wrate, M. 
Pacheco 6/29/95 
C.Tighe, 

B. Johnston 
5/31/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Game trails and bear sign in unit. Wolf scat seen in muskeg above unit. Recommend leaving live reserve trees and snags where 
possible to maintain habitat structure and snag density. The acreage of this unit may be affected depending on the final definition 
of an estuary buffer. As the unit is currently mapped in G1S, and with the current estuary buffer definition, the western half of the 
unit needs to be dropped. 


GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 


LANDS: 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

CULTURAL: Although scheduled for survey in 1996, field inspection indicated that this unit was unlikely to contain cultural re- 
sources (very steep). No survey was conducted. There are no concerns with the unit as planned. 

VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Uneven-aaed Mamt: for reaeneration and structure retention. Strip corridors selection by cable yarding uphill. 
Overstory removal with 16" DBH limit. A lot of scrub (12 acres dropped). Partial suspension required throughout unit for soils 
protection. 


Chasina Study Area Interim Layout NOI Unit 681-367 

Mopscole 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 

e i c o t ; r ; c | h | i | j ; k | l : m | n | o ; p | o ; r ; S | T | U | V | W | X | 



32 
3 I 
30 
29 
28 
2 7 
2 6 
25 
24 
23 
22 
2 1 
20 
t 9 
I 8 
1 7 
I 6 
I 5 
1 4 
t 3 
1 2 
1 I 
I 0 


A i 0 i C 
g — e — 


0 I E i F I G I H I I ! J I K I L ! M i N ! 0 


P i 0 ! R I S ! T , U 
No Cut St ream Buffers by Chontyp 

Portiol Cut Stream Butters by Chontyp 


i i 

V i W i 


Closs I Stream 
11111 Closs 2 Stream 
Class 3 Stream 
1 Existing Roods 

' Proposed Roods 

' Unit Boundary 




> S o I t Water 


Fresh Water Lakes 


X i Y . Z i 


\ Estuory Buffers 
500' Beach Buffer 



Created by Solly M e r f e I d on November 01, 1996 



CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


vriJ-UNIT#: 681-368 ACRES: 110 VOL: 2864 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 3.4.6 

PHOTO YR7#: J9E39M70___ 1/4 QUAD: CRG A-l SE 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS:J5L 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 68102-122, high windthrow risk. Productivity of site is moderate. Split-yarding required on 
stream. Partial cut buffer. Maintain setting width between units. Center portion dropped for stream braiding. Reach as high as 
possible upslope for downhill yarding. Lower may not be feasible with extensive road building. Option: helicopter yarding. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: minimal timber - Recommend helicopter logging for these units. 

field 

D.J.Landwehr 

8/24/95 

EIS R. Johnson 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils McGilvery, with Tolstoi, StNicholas, Kitkun, Kupreanof, Kaikli. Deleted 4A low volume wetland 
N center and center (BMP 12.5); 5A S of main creek very steep and slope into creek; 10A large cliff and very steep. Remaining 
unit: A minimum of partial suspension is required throughout the unit due to presence of high MMI soils, McGilvery soils and 
steep slopes (BMP 13.9). About 10 acres on slopes over 75%. Forested wetland N of main stream. A 150 foot wide buffer is 
prescribed for the west boundary creek (BMP 12.6a). Ten streams for protection in the unit (BMP 13.16). See fisheries section. 
Slope break buffers two main creeks above fish habitat, portions two tributaries, for MMI 4 (BMPs 12.6a, 13.5). Addition below 
large cliff NE needs full or good partial to mitigate landslides and protect soil productivity. McGilverv predominate upper portion 
unit. Should be deleted for compliance standards TLMP (1991). Monitor if log McGilverv. Road access appears feasible (RMP 
14.2). Two or three roads may be needed for partial suspension (BMP 13.9). Access from SW could avoid extremely steep slopes, 
and road in beach buffer. Possible conversion to helicopter yarding desirable for protection of watershed resources (BMP 13.9). 

J. Elannon, M. 
Becker, 6/29/95 

FISF1ERIES: Stream 1 is a class 11 orange/ white that will require a 150’ TTRA buffer (BMP 13.16). Stream 2 is a class III green/ 
white. Stream 3 is a class III orange/ white (mistakenly flagged green/ white). Stream 4 has two forks, the east fork is a class 111 
green/ white, the west fork is a class III orange/ white. Stream 6 is a class I blue/ white that requires a 120’ TTRA buffer (BMP 
13.16). Above 180’ of elevation stream 6 is a class III orange/ white that requires a 100’ buffer (BMP 13.16). Above the road 
stream 6 is a class III green/ white. Stream 7 is a class III orange/ white. Stream 8 is a class ill orange/ white. Stream 10 is a class 
I blue/ white that requires a 120’ TTRA buffer (BMP 12.6). Above 130’ of elevation stream 10 is a class III orange/ white. The 
class III orange/ white streams require directional falling, and split yarding or full suspension. Clean stream of introduced debris 
immediately (BMP 13.16). The class III green/ white streams require directional falling, and split yarding ( where practical) or 
partial suspension. Clean streams of introduced debris by the end of the operating season or before the yarder leaves the area 
(BMP 13.16). 

D. Parker, 

J.Wrate, 

C.Crocker- 

Bedford, 

M. Pacheco 

7/5/95 

C.Tighe, 

A. Mueller 
6/21/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Recommend leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat structure and snag density. 

6/21/96 Pygmy owl heard in unit at goshawk calling station #2. Good wildlife snags in southern part of unit. Deer sign, beds, 
pellets seen in unit. Game trails throughout unit. Rocky ridge on south side of unit. Wolf heard in area of muskeg to the south- 
west of the unit. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cutting unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumps or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type B clear-cut, use buffers as 
retention. Soils to look at. Minimum of partial suspention. Full suspention addition below cliff northeast. Should delete upper 
portion of unit due to McGilvery soils (compliance with TLMP 1991). 


Chosino Study Area 


Interim Layout NOI Unit 681-368 


M o p s c o I e 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 



OOOOO 


Created by Sally Merfeld on November 01, 1996 



CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCU-UNIT#: 681-372 ACRES: 23 VOL: 732 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 3.6 

PHOTO YR #: '91-390-213 1/4 QUAD: CRG A- 1 SE 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: HE. SL 


REV1EWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILV1CULTURE/TIMBER: 68101-12, high windthrow risk. Unit changed to provide proportionality of volume classes. Pro- 
ductivity of site is moderate. Stay out of estuary buffer. Helicopter yarding method above cable reach of lower unit, adjust bdry 
accordingly. Due to helicopter at lower end below cliffs (681-383). Keep off of cliffs. Uneconomic, low volume area east tip. 
Suspension requirements (see soils or fish). Visual concerns could be lowered by retaining trees in area above cliffs. Spruce pro- 
moted by exposed soils. Option: helicopter, strip corridors. Several acres dropped due to estuary buffer. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns - road costs high for last 1/2 mile of road access. 

field 

D.J.Landwehr 
9/ 1 5/95 
EIS R. Johnson 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils McGilvery, Tolstoi, with StNicholas, Kitkun. Slopes 65 to 120%. Deleted middle of unit very 
steep, large cliffs, MMI 4 soils (BMP 13.5). Remaining unit: NE comer now 68 1 -383 for helicopter logging. About 25 acres on 
slopes over 75%. McGilvery soils are common in the upper section of the unit and above the cliff. A minimum of partial suspen- 
sion is required throughout the unit including forested wetlands on a small bench near top of unit where slopes are less than 30% 
(BMPs 12.5, 13.9). Depending on final road location a 10 acre area above the cliff may require helicopter yarding. Keep slash out 
of dry V-notch W boundary (BMP 13.16). Should delete almost all unit above cliff for compliance with protection McGilvery in 
TLMP (1991). Monitor McGilvery if not deleted. Road top of unit feasible (BMP 14.2). Lower road not appear feasible due 
beach buffer and steep slopes. Possible conversion to helicopter unit desirable for protection watershed resources. 

J. Hannon, J. 
Wrate, 6/30/95 

FISHERIES: Stream 1 is a class III orange/ white that requires directional falling, and split yarding or full suspension. Clean 
stream of introduced debris immediately (BMP 13.16). Stream 2 is a class III green/ white that requires directional falling, and 
split yarding (where practical) or partial suspension. Clean stream of introduced debris by the end of the operating season or be- 
fore the yarder leaves the area (BMP 13.16). There is a 500’ beach buffer adjacent to this unit. 

J.Wrate, 

J. Hannon 

6/30/95 

C.Tighe, 

A. Mueller, 

B. Johnston 
7/25/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Game trails, deer sign, and bear sign seen in unit. Recommend leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain 
habitat structure and snag density. The acreage of this unit may be slightly effected depending on the final definition of an estuary 
and its buffer requirements. As this unit is maped in G1S and using the current estuary buffer definition the unit will lose the 
northwestern tip. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cutting unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumps or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type D clear-cut. Soils to look 
at. Minimum partial suspension. Helicopter yard 10 acres above cliff. Keep slash out of dry V-notch W boundary. Should delete 
almost all of the unit above the cliff for compliance with McGilvery soils protection (TLMP 1991). 


Chosino Study Area 


Interim Layout NOI 


Unit 681 


3 7 2 



A i B ! C 
e — © — 

i i i i i 

ooooo 


D I E ! F i G 
Closs t Stream 
Class 2 Stream 
Class 3 Stream 
Existing Roads 
Proposed Roods 
Unit Boundory 


i 

H 



iiii 

i i i i 

I i J i K i L i 
Salt W o t e r 

fresh Water lakes 

Estuory Buffers 

500' Beoch Buffer 



0 i P i 0 ! R i S 
No Cut St ream Butler 

Partial Cut Stream B 


i i i i 

iiii 
T i U i V i W i 

by Chontyp 
fers by Chontyp 



i 

i 

Y i 


Z 


Created by Sally Uerleld on November 01. 1990 




CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


vriMJNIT#: 681-373 (Actually 682-373) ACRES: 25 VOL: 750 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 3.4.6 
PHOTO YR/#: '91-390-212 1/4 OUAD: CRGA-l SE 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: RS 


REV1EWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 68101-6, high windthrow risk, portion downhill yarded. Productivity of site is moderate. Road 
should be adjusted to come into northern section. Uneconomic, low volume area central portion of unit. Partial cut buffer. An- 
ticipate planting 20 acres of Alaska yellow cedar to maintain composition. Option: helicopter yarding. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

R. Johnson, 6/96 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils mapped 33E (StNicholas - McGilvery 60-75%), with 33F (StNicholas - McGilvery 75-100%), not 
mapped, 75D (Kupreanof- McGilvery 35-60%), 48C (Helm - Kitkun 5-35%). Partial suspension for MMI3, forested wetland, and 
McGilvery (BMPs 12.5, 13.9; TLMP 1991). Probable deletion for MMI4 N end, included in deletion by silviculture (BMP 13.5). 
Silviculture deleted low volume wetlands in all but area SE comer and W center (BMP 12.5). Partial suspension for reasons 
above. Protection of streams per fisheries (BMPs 12.6a, 13.16). Possible stream(s) bordering W center piece require protection 
also (BMP 13.16). Possible option to convert to helicopter yarding (BMP 13.9). 

M. Becker, 

J Hannon, 7/6/95 
D.Kuntzsch, 7/96 

FISHERIES: New unit boundaries should exclude most fisheries concerns. Stream 7 branches just within the east boundary of the 
south unit section. From the east unit boundary to approximately the road line, stream 7 is a class II blue/white TTRA stream; this 
reach requires 120’ no-cut buffer. Above the proposed road line both branches of stream 7 become class III orange/white. The 
two branches require directional falling, split yarding or full suspension over, and immediate removal of logging debris (BMP 
12.6a, 13.16). 

D. Parker, 
C.Crocker- 
Bedt'ord, 

N. Matson, 

E. Campbell 
7/6/95 
M.Dillman 
B. Johnston 
6/20/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Marbled murrelet eggshell fragments found in southwest comer of unit (goshawk calling station 8). Deer sign seen throughout the 
unit. Several patches of grass in unit. Snag patches in unit also. Recommend leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible 
to maintain habitat structure and snag density. 6/20/96 Found both red and Sitka alder in area as well as Pacific yew trees. Spent 
some time looking for more marbled murrelet eggshells. Strange gray bedrock in streams. 

T.Fifield 
i 0/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cuttine unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumps or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type A clear-cut. Partial suspen- 
tion required. 


C h a s i n a 


Study Area Interim Layout N 0 I Unit 681-373 

Mopscole 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 



Existing Roods 
Proposed Roods 
Unit Boundary 



Estuory Buffers 



500' Beoch Buffer 



Created by Solly Uerfeld an November 01. 1996 



CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCIJ-IJNIT#: 681-376 ACRES:_i9 VOL:_380 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 3.4.6 

PHOTO YR/#: '91-390-213 1/4 QUAD: CRGA-1 LOGGING SYSTEMS:_RS 


REV1EWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 68101-7, low windthrow risk, portion downhill yarded, high mistletoe present. Unit changed to 
provide proportionality of volume classes. Productivity of site is low. Maintain setting width between units. Drop NW comer - 
low volume. Keep road out from toe slope for deflection. Narrow unit to mitigate visual concerns and YC seed dispersal. Lake 
buffer. Anticipate planting 10 acres of Alaska yellow cedar to maintain composition. Road may be realigned. Option: helicopter 
but low volume. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

field 

D.J.Landwehr 

9/15/95 

EIS R. Johnson 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils McGilvery and Tolstoi. Slopes 40-90%. Deleted NW third due to: slopes, cliffs, and low volume. 
Remaining unit: Full suspension is required in the middle of the unit due to presence of shallow McGilvery soils on convex slopes 
and rock outcrops. Partial suspension is required in the remainder of the unit (BMP 13.9). Compliance with McGilvery require- 
ments in TLMP (1991) requires deleting middle third of unit. Monitor if not deleted. Road location base of slope appears feasible 
(BMP 14.2). NW third of unit not feasible from lower road. Conversion to helicopter yarding desirable for protection of water- 
shed resources (BMP 13.9). 

J. Hannon, M. 
Becker, N. Mat- 
son, 7/5/95 

FISHERIES: The Class 1 adfluvial lake on the northeast boundary requires a 100’ no cut/ 400’ partial cut buffer (BMP 12.6). 
Stream 2 is a Class 1 blue/ white that requires a 120’ TTRA buffer (BMP 12.6) Stream 3 is a class 1 blue/ white stream that requires 
a 100’ TTRA buffer (BMP 12.6). This stream becomes Class III green/ white part way into the unit. Class 111 green/ white 
streams require directional falling, and split yarding (where practical) or partial suspension. Clean stream of introduced debris by 
the end of the operating season or before the yarder leaves the area (BMP 13. 1 6). 

M.Dillman, 
M. Pacheco 
6/30/95 
M.Dillman, 
B. Johnston 
6/20/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Moss/hemlock understory. Karst and blowdown in unit. Recommend leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to main- 
tain habitat structure and snag density. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cutting unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumps or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type A clear-cut. Full suspension 
middle of unit; this section should be deleted from the unit based on percent of McGilvery present (TLMP 1991 ). Partial suspen- 
sion remainder. "Unit added from the preferred alternative due to proportionality based on acres." 


C h a s i n a 


Study Area 



D 

E 

1 F : C 

Class 

1 

Stream 

Class 

2 

Stream 

Class 

5 

Stream 

E x i s 1 

i n g 

Roods 

P r o p o 

s e d 

Roods 

Unit 

B a u 

n d o r y 


500' Bench Buffer 


coooo 




CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCU-UNIT#: 681-377 ACRES:_7 VOL: Unit deleted ALTERNATIVES: 3,4.6 

PHOTO YR/#: '91-390-213 1/4 QUAD: CRGA-1 LOGGING SYSTEMS: HE 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: 68102-1, low windthrow risk, high mistletoe present. Unit changed to provide proportionality of 
volume classes. Productivity of site is low. Unit is 90% in estuary buffer. Only center portion is merchantable. Narrow to miti- 
gate visual concerns and seed dispersal. Anticipate planting 3 acres of Alaska yellow cedar to maintain composition. Option: 
helicopter yarding. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: Delete - Unit is in estuary buffer. 

R. Johnson 6/96 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils mapped 75D (Kupreanof - McGilvery 35-60%), with 48C (Helm - Kitkun 5-35%), 51C (Kitkun 0- 
40%), 90D (Gnndall - Kitkun 35-60%). Silviculture deleted low volume wetlands (BMP 12.5). Partial suspension remaining for 
forested wetlands and McGilvery (BMPs 12.5, 13.9; TLMP 1991). Streams designated for protection by fisheries (BMPs 12.6a, 
13.16), now out of unit. Potential still stream(s) in unit needing protection (BMP 13.16). 

J. Hannon, 

M. Becker, 

N. Matson, 
7/5/95 

FISHERIES: Need a 500’ beach buffer. Streams identified are outside of unit boundary. 1000’ estuary buffer would delete entire 
unit, and proposed road would be within estuary buffer. 

M.Dillman, 

P. Pacheco 
6/30/95 

M.Dillman 7/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Moss/hemlock understory. Blowdown in unit. Recommend leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat 
structure and snag density. This unit was dropped due to estuary buffer so was not surveyed in 1996. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w / reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cutting unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumDS or 
natches. buffers or blind-leads, disnersed. and should contain laree live trees and hard snass. Use tvne A clear-cut. Unit droDDed 
due to estuarv buffer. "Unit added thorn the Dreferred alternative due to DroDortionalitv based on acres." 


3 s i n o 


Study 


A r e c 


Interim Layout N 0 I 


Unit 681-377 


1 9 


25 
2 7 
2 : 
2 : 
2 1 
23 
2 2 


2 C 
■ 9 


' 7 


' £ 


' 2 


9 


7 


£ 



g 








A 



E 




Closs 1 Streom 

i — *— t — i — i 

Closs 2 Streom 

ocooo 

Closs 3 Streom 


Existing Hoods 


Proposed Roods 

■ - " m!T " 

Unit Boundory 



1 i 

Salt 

J < l 

W a : e r 

M N 0 1 P 

5 0 0 ' 

Beech Buffer 


E s t u 

r a r y duffers 


No C 

u t Stream Bui 

fers by Chanlyp 


0 


I I ! I I I 

1 I I I I I 

Ri Si Ti til Vi Wi X 

fresh Water lakes 



.25 05 Miles 


r 


2 


C u ‘ Stream E a ' : e r s by C h a n t y p Uapscale 1:15840 


P o r t : o 


CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VH 1-lJNIT#: 681-383 ACRES:_6 VOL: J_65 MM ALTERNATIVES: 3.6 

PHOTO YR/#: 91-390-213 1/4 QUAD: CRGA-I LOGGING SYSTEMS:_HE 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5 96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: High windthrow risk. Unit changed to provide proportionality of volume classes. Productivity of 
site is high. Helicopter yarding method above cable reach of lower unit, adjust bdry accordingly. Due to resource protection 
(681-372). Stay out of estuary buffer. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

field 

D.J.Landwehr 
9 15/95 
EIS R. Johnson 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Portion of 681-372 isolated because lower road not feasible. Soils McGilvery and Tolstoi. Slopes 65 to 
85%. Partial suspension recommended. Helicopter prescribed, should result full suspension (BMP 13.9). 

J. Hannon, 
J. Wrate. 
6/30/95 

FISHERIES: Stream 1 is a class III orange/ white. Stream 2 is a class III orange/ white. The class III orange/ white streams re- 
quire directional falling, and split yarding or full suspension. Clean streams of introduced debris immediately (BMP 13.16). 

J. Wrate, 

J. Hannon 

6/30/95 

C.Tighe, 

A. Mueller. 

B. Johnston 
7/25/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Game trails; deer sign and bear sign seen in unit. 7/25/96 The acreage of this unit could change depending on the final definition 
of an estuary and its required buffer. Currently the way the unit is mapped in GIS, its western half is within an estuary buffer and 
would need to be dropped. Wildlife recommends leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat structure 
and snag density. 

T.Fifteld 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cutting unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumps or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type C clear-cut. 2 acres will be 
dropped due to estuary buffer. 


C h a s i no 


383 



32 

3 I 
30 
29 

23 
27 
26 
25 

24 
23 
22 
2 1 
20 
I 9 
1 8 
I 7 
1 6 
1 5 
1 4 
t 3 
1 2 
i : 

1 o 
9 
8 
7 
6 
5 

4 
3 

2 
1 

A 0 ! C 
e e — 

i > i i— i 

ooooo 


D . 

E 

i F i 

C ! o s s 

t 

Stream 

C 1 o s s 

2 

Stream 

Class 

3 

Stream 

E x i s 1 

i n g 

Roods 

P r o p o 

s e d 

Roods 

Unit 

0 o u 

n d a r y 


CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


vriJ-UNTT#: 682-301 ACRES:_57 VOL: 1827 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 3.4.6 

PHOTO YR/#: '91-390-171 1/4 OUAD: CRGA-l SE 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS:_SL 


REV1EWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: , high windthrow risk. Productivity of site is high. Visually sensitive. Uneco- 

nomic, low volume area east and south. Adjacent to old growth reserve. Estuary buffer at bottom probably coincides with steep 
drop-off blind-lead area which parallels shoreline at about 55’. 

Option: helicopter yarding / strip corridors. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

field 

D.J.Landwehr 

9/12/95 

EIS R. Johnson. 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils Tolstoi, StNicholas, McGilvery, with Kaikli. Slopes 40-1 10%; 20A greater than 75%. Deleted 5A 
NW MM14; W side below cliff due to yarding limitations (BMPs 13.9, 13.5). Remaining unit: A minimum of partial suspension is 
required throughout the unit due to high MM1 soils (BMP 13.9). Locate the west unit boundary on top of the nearly continuous 40 
foot cliff. Delete 5 acres of low volume timber along the northeast side of the unit. O&W protection (DF, SY and clean of intro- 
duced debris) on the south boundary stream and "middle" stream (BMP 13.16). One stream on each side of the middle stream 
need G&W protection (DF, SY or partial over , and clean of introduced debris before the end of the operating season). Ap- 
proximately 2 to 3 A above cliff/slope break and adjacent these three streams may be unsuitable for harvest. May need to helicop- 
ter because of concerns roads. Road NW portion unit crosses MMI4 soils at heads incipient drainages on 70% slopes, is not suit- 
able location (BMPs 13.5, 14.2, 14.3, 14.5, 14.6, 14.7, 14.8, 14.9, 14.12, 14.14, 14.17). Cliffs and convex slopes limit cable yard- 
ing to 400 to 600’ corridor along road. Remainder unit requires additional roading or helicopter yarding. New location for road 
needs review (BMP 14.2). Proposed conversion to helicopter yarding desirable for protection of watershed resources (BMP 13.9). 

K.. McCartney,' 
K. Buckley, 
5/28/96 

FISHERIES: Stream 4 is a class IV green/ white. Stream 5 is a class IV green/ white. Stream 6 is a class IV green/ white. The 
class IV green/ white streams require directional falling, and split yarding (where practical) or partial suspension. Clean stream of 
introduced debris by the end of the operating period or before the yarder leaves the area (BMP 13.16). 

D. Parker, 
J.Wrate, 

M. Pacheco 

7/18/95 

C.Tighe, 

B. Johnston 
5/28/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Wolves heard howling and snarling from goshawk calling station 6 (middle of the unit). Deer browse, pellets, and game trails seen 
throughout unit. No bear sign seen. Recommend leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat structure 
and snag density. 5/28/96 Unit has snags throughout area. Sapsucker holes in trees and snags. Survey was not actually in the 
unit but just below it. Unit exceeds the steepness criteria in the current goshawk protocol. Maintain 1000 foot estuary. 

J. Short 5/96 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 

VISUALS: Retain about 3 acres in each of the upper comers of this unit - in effect angling the boundaries at these comers. About 
1/3 the distance from the north comer (where the backline makes a pronounced jog) retain a 5-10 acre peninsula extending from 
the backline. 

G. Lawton 5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cutting unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumps or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type D clear-cut. O&W protec- 
tion, DF, SY or full over, and clean of introduced debris immediately. G&W protection, DF, and SY (where possible), or partial 
over, and clean of introduced debris before the end of the operating season. Minimum partial suspension. West boundary top of 
cliff. Delete 5 acres low volume northeast. 


C h a s i n a 


Study Area Interim Layout NOI Unit 682-301 


Mopscole 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 



III! 

Ill' 

I i J i K i Li 
Soil W o I e r 

fresh Water Lakes 

Estuory Butlers 

500' Beoch Buffer 


ooooo 


Created by Solly Uerfeld on November 01, I 9 9 & 


CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCIJ-IJNIT#: 682-302 ACRES:_50 VOL: 1375 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 4.6 


PHOTO YR/#: ’91-390-172 1/4 QUAD: CRG A-I SE 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: RS /HE 


REV1EWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: high windthrow risk, portion downhill yarded, high mistletoe present. Pro- 

ductivity of site is high / moderate. Uneconomic, low volume area surrounding. Maintain setting width between units. Steep 
slopes may limit yarding. Helicopter yarding method above cable reach of lower unit, adjust bdry accordingly. Due to resource 
protection (682-307). Option: running skyline. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

field 

D.J.Landwehr. 

9/13/95 

EIS R. Johnson. 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils Tolstoi, Traitors, McGilvery, with StNicholas. Slopes 40-90%; about 6A greater than 75%. A 
minimum of partial suspension required over most of unit due to high MM1 soils (BMP 13.9). Full suspension should be achieved 
on slopes over 75% (about 2 acres) below cliff middle of unit. Delete 3 acres of low volume timber west of the G&W stream in 
the west end of the unit. O&W protection is needed on the north boundary stream and a short reach of a tributary to that stream 
within the unit (BMP 13.16). G&W protection on a short reach within unit. A spur road may be needed to access timber between 
the two O&W streams. Very high blowdown potential top of ridge. Proposed road not appear feasible due sustained steep slopes 
and cliffs (BMP 14.2). Access from E may be feasible. Proposal to convert to helicopter yarding desirable for protection of water- 
shed resources (BMP 13.9). 

K. McCartney, 
K. Buckley, 

C. Tighe, 

B. Johnston, 
5/30/96 

FISHERIES: Stream 1 is a class I blue/ white TTRA; this stream is outside the unit. Stream 2 is a class I blue/ white that requires 
a 200’ TTRA buffer (BMP 12.6). Above the confluence with stream 5, stream 2 becomes a class 111 orange/ white. Stream 3 is a 
class III orange/ white. Stream 5 is a class III orange/ white. Above 380’ of elevation stream 5 becomes a class IV green/ white. 
Stream 6 is a class IV green/ white. The class III orange/ white streams require directional falling, and split yarding or full suspen- 
sion. Clean streams of introduced debris immediately (BMP 13.16). The class IV green/ white streams require directional falling, 
and split yarding (where practical) or partial suspension. Clean streams of introduced debris by the end of the operating period or 
before the yarder leaves the area (BMP 13.16). 

D. Parker, J.Wrate 
7/19/95 
C. Tighe, 

B. Johnston 
K.. Buckley , 

K.. McCartney 
5/30/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Deer sign throughout unit. No understory vegetation. Recommend leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain 
habitat structure and snag density. Good wildlife snags in unit. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cutting unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumps or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snaes. Use tvpe C clear-cut. O&W streams 
require DF. full over or SY. and cleaning of introduced debris immediately. G&W streams reauires DF, and SY (where practi- 
cal) or partial over, and cleaning the stream of introduced debris before the end of the operating period or before the yarder leaves 
the area. Minimum of partial suspension. Full suspension required for slopes over 75% below cliff middle of unit. Delete 3 acres 
low volume west of G & W stream west end of unit. 




E I F ■ C ! H 


G 6 — 

I I I I I 

OOOOO 


Closs I Streom 
Closs 2 Streom 
Closs 3 Streom 
Existing Roods 
Proposed Roods 
Unit Boundory 



i 

R i S 
Butler 

r e om B 

Estuary Butters 
500 ' Beach Butter 


li di Ki Li Mi N; 0 : Pi Qi 


Salt Water 


to Cut Streom 


Fresh Water Lokes Portiol Cut St 


! I ! i 

i i u i v ! w ! 

by Chontyp 
fers by Chontyp 



I ! 

Y i Z , 


Created by Salty Uerfeld on November 0 I . 1996 



CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCU-UNIT#: 682-303 ACRES: 48 VOL: _743 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 4.6 

PHOTO YR/#: ’91-390-172 1/4 QUAD: CRG A-l SE 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: RS 


\ 


REVIE WER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: High windthrow risk, portion downhill yarded. Productivity of site is moderate. Unit design calls 

for even-aged (clear-cut) regeneration method. Verify roads and/or landing locations. Difficult layout. Uneconomic, low vol- 
ume area south & north. Avoid estuary buffer. Avoid extremely steep areas. Suspension requirements (see soils or fish). Get 
road as high as possible. Several acres dropped for estuary buffer. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns - L.S. needed for final location. 

field 

D.J.Landwehr. 

9/14/95 

EIS R. Johnson 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils McGilvery, Tolstoi, StNicholas. Slopes 30-90%. A minimum of partial suspension required over 
the entire unit due to the presence of very thin McGilvery soils. Full suspension is required on about 4 acres of slopes greater than 
75% (BMP 13.9). Profiles needed verify suspension. Aminimumofa 100 foot buffer on the lake (BMPs 12.6, 12.6a). Portions 
of three streams for O&W protection (BMP 13.16). Four streams for G&W protection. Stocking after harvest is questionable due 
to thin, dry McGilvery soils on a south aspect. The harvest unit has greater than 41% McGilvery soils. Silviculturist should moni- 
tor stocking in this unit if harvested, and watershed monitor disturbance. Unit should be deleted for compliance with TLMP 
(1991) standards for McGilvery. Road bottom unit appears feasible, but topography makes locating landings difficult (BMP 14.2). 
May need road on top of slope due convex slopes and limitations for landings on the lower road. Proposal to convert to helicopter 
yarding desirable for protection of watershed resources (BMP 13.9). 

K.. McCartney, 
K.. Buckley, 
5/29/96 

FISHERIES: Stream 1 is a class III orange/ white. Stream 2 is a class III orange/ white. Stream 3 is a class III orange/ white. 
Stream 4 is a class III orange/ white; outside of unit stream 4 is a class II orange/ white (AHMU). Stream 5 is a class II orange/ 
white outside the unit, but within the unit it is a class IV green/ white. Stream 6 is a class IV green/ white. The lake requires a 
100’ no cut buffer (BMP 13.16). Estuary requires a 1000’ estuary buffer; this will cut out the south west corner of unit. The class 
III orange/ white streams require directional falling, and split yarding, or full suspension. Clean streams of introduced debris im- 
mediately ( BMP 13.16). The class IV green/ white streams require directional falling, and split yarding( where practical), or par- 
tial suspension. Clean streams of introduced debris before the end of the operating period or before the yarder leaves the area 
(BMP 13.16). 

D. Parker, J.Wrate 

7/7/95 

C.Tighe, 

B. Johnston 
5/29/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Recommend leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat structure and snag density. 5/29/96 Loon 
heard on lake. Wolf tracks seen along west end of lake. This unit may lose the western comer depending on the final definition of 
an estuary and its required buffer. As the unit is mapped in G1S, and following the current definition of an estuaiy, this corner will 
have to be dropped. 

J. Short 5/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 


LANDS: 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

CULTURAL: Although scheduled for survey in 1996, field inspection indicated the unit was unlikely to contain cultural re- 
sources. No survey was conducted. There are no concerns with this unit as planned. 


VISUALS: Retain about a 10 acre peninsula extending down from the middle of the backline - in effect almost breaking the unit 
visually into two sections. 

G. Lawton 5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cutting unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumps or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type D clear-cut, stream buffers 
for retention. O&W streams require DF. full over or SY and cleaning of introduced debris immediatelv. G&W streams requires 
DF, and SY (where practical) or partial over, and cleaning the stream of introduced debris before the end of the operating period 
or before the yarder leaves the area. Minimum partial suspension. Full suspension required on slopes over 75% (about 4 acres). 
Unit should be deleted for compliance with TLMP (1991) standards for McGilvery soil type. 


C h o s i n o 


Study Area 


Interim Layout N 0 I 


Unit 682-303 


Mopscole 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 



A ! B i C i 0 : E ! F I G 

° 0 Closs I Stream 

11111 Closs 2 Streom 
QOOOO Closs 3 Streom 
Existing Roods 
‘ 1 J— 1 Proposed Roods 
' Unit fioundory 


i 

i H 



iiii.ilii.il 

0 I P I 0 i R ! S 
No Cut Streom Butter 

Partial Cut Streom 0 

Estuory Buffers 
500' Beoch Buffer 






Salt Water 


Fresh Woter Lakes 


i i i i 

T I U ! V ! W I X 
by Chontyp 

fers by Chontyp 



Y 


Z 


Created by Soliy tlerteld or) November 01, 1995 


CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VC! J-IJNIT#: 682-304 ACRES:_26 VOL: ^50 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 3.4.6 

PHOTO YR'#: ’91-390-212 1/4 OUAD: CRGA-l SE 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS:_RS 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Law ton 
5 -'96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: low windthrow risk. Productivity of site is moderate. Uneconomic, low volume area surround- 

ing. Maintain setting width between units. Anticipate planting 5 acres of Alaska yellow cedar to maintain composition. Option: 
helicopter yarding. 

.1. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

field 

D.J.Landwehr 
8 30/95 

E1S R.Johnson. 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils Tolstoi, McGilvery. Kaikli. Slopes 40-130%. Deleted about 7A N end due to very steep, cliff, and 
some low volume; low volume wetland SE comer (BMP 12.5); second growth NW and N center. Remaining unit: Full suspension 
is required due to high MMI soils near and upslope of an existing landslide in the northeast portion of the unit (about 3A), slopes 
over 75% (breaks around cliffs), and talus slope area with thin McGilvery. Partial suspension is required in the remainder of the 
unit due to high MMI soils and areas of forested wetland (BMPs 13.9, 12.5). Place the backline at the base of the large cliff. 

Road appears feasible, but conventional cable yarding only reach to first cliff up slope, 800’ most of unit and 200 to 300’ west 
third of unit (BMPs 13.9, 14.2). Road at bottom unit needs review for potential landslides, especially E of proposed unit (BMPs 
13.5, 14.2, 14.3, 14.6, 14.7, 14.12). Proposal to convert to helicopter yarding desirable for protection of watershed resources 
(BMP 13.9). 

K.. McCartney, 
B. Johnston, 
5/30/96 

FISHERIES: No stream concerns in the unit. 

D. Parker, J.Wrate 
7/20/95 
B. Johnston, 

K.. McCartney 
5/30/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Deer browse seen in unit. Bear scat seen in unit. Recommend leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain 
habitat structure and snag density. If the current definition of an estuary is maintained then the class I stream to the south of this 
unit will require a 1 000 foot buffer. This may effect the acerage of this unit. 

T.Fifteld 

10/28/96 

J. Short 5/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: Retain at least 50% of the stand in the NW lobe of the unit to blend the backline to the shape of the landform. 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cutting unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumps or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type A clear-cut. Full suspen- 
sion required in the northeast section of the unit, slopes over 75%, and on the talus slope area. Partial suspension remainder of unit 
place backline at base of large cliff. Recommend converting to helicopter yarding for the protection of watershed resources. 


Chosino Study Area 


Interim Layout N 0 I Unit 682-304 

M a p s c o I e 1: 15840 (4 inch to Mile) 




OOOOO 


D E . F C 
Class I Stream 
Class 2 Stream 
Closs 5 Stream 
Existing Roods 
Proposed Roods 
Unit Boundary 




Hi I i J i K 
'■ Soil Water 


Fresh Water Lakes 


No Cut Stream Butlers by Chantyp 
Partial Cut Slreom Bulters by Chontyp 


\ Estuory Butlers 
500' Beoch Butter 



Crested by Solly Merfeld on November 01. 1996 



CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


vriMJNIT#: 682-305 ACRES:JH VOL: ^65 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 4,5,6 

PHOTO YR/#: ’91-490-87 1/4 QUAD: CRG A-l NE 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: RS /HE 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/T1MBER: 68201-10, high windthrow risk, portion downhill yarded. Within designated old growth reserve. 
Productivity of site is low. If road comes from the west the unit can be cable logged. Adjacent to old second growth. Anticipate 
planting 10 acres of Alaska yellow cedar to maintain composition. Difficult road building to the east. Option: helicopter yard. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

R. Johnson. 6/96 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils mapped 3D (Vixen - Traitors 35-60%) and 29D (McGilvery 35-60%). Addition on W soils mapped 
29D and 6 (McGilvery - Traitors 60-100%). Minimum partial suspension MMI3 and McGilvery (BMP 13.9; TLMP 1991). Doubt 
whether suspension feasible over cliffs east side of unit, and rock outcrops and concave slope SW side of ridge, may need helicop- 
ter yard top (BMP 13.9). Potential unit with addition exceeds standards for McGilvery; therefore addition should be deleted 
(TLMP 1991). Probable stream needing protection SW portion unit (BMP 13.16). Proposal to convert to helicopter yarding desir- 
able for protection of watershed resources (BMP 13.9). 

K. Buckley 7/96 

FISHERIES: Probable streams in unit needing protection. Stream protection measures will be identified during unit layout. 

M.Dillman 

7/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Wildlife recommends leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat structure and snag density. Due to 
the fact that this unit is within an old growth reserve it has not been surveyed by wildlife. If current policy changes and this unit is 
to be harvested, wildlife will need the opportunity to conduct surveys in the area, prior to harvest. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: Although scheduled for survey in 1996, field inspection indicated the unit was unlikely to contain cultural resources. 
No survey was conducted. There are no concerns with the unit as planned. 

VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cutting unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumps or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type A clear-cut. Minimum par- 
tial suspension. 


Chasino Study Area 


Interim Layout NOI Unit 682-305 

Mopscole 1:15840 (4 Inch to Mile) 



A i B : C 

e e — 

i i i i i 

ooooo 


D i E 
Class I 
C I o s s 2 
C I o s s 3 


i F ! 
Stream 
S t r e om 
Stream 


G I H 



I I J i K 
Salt Water 

Fresh Water 


L M : N 



a k e s 


s ! I I : ! I I I 

0 ; P ; 0 i R I S I 1 ! U ! V I W I 

No Cut Stream 8 u f f e r s by Chontyp 


Portiol Cut Stream Buffers by Chontyp 


i i 

i Y Z 


Existing Roods 
Proposed Roods 
Unit Boundary 


\ Estuary 8uflers 


500' Beach Buffer 



C r e o t e d by Solly Uerfeld on November 01, 1996 



CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCI J-IJNIT#: 682-306 ACRES:J3 VOL: 633 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 3,4.6 

PHOTO YR/#: '91-390-171 1/4 OUAD: CRGA-l SE 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS:_RS 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: High windthrow risk, portion downhill yarded. Productivity of site is low. Uneconomic, low vol- 
ume area surrounding and in center portion. More value available if road comes from above. Stay out of estuary buffer. Partial 
cut buffer. Option: helicopter yarding. Dropped 13 acres due to estuary buffer. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

Field 

D.J.Landwehr 

9/19/95 

E1S R. Johnson. 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils Tolstoi, McGilvery, Kaikli, StNicholas. Slopes 20-80%; 3A greater than 75%. Deleted NE comer 
cliffs; stream buffers center unit; about 13 A low volume; estuary buffer. Remaining unit: A minimum of partial suspension is 
required throughout the unit due to high MM1 soils and about 20A forested wetlands (BMPs 12.5, 13.9). See fisheries prescription 
of buffer requirements on stream complex in the valley bottom; includes floodplain riparian (BMPs 12.6, 12.6a). Two other 
streams for O&W protection, one stream for G&W protection. Two smaller streams need no protection (BMP 13.16). Potential 
add about 4A NE comer. Road into unit appears feasible (BMP 14.2). Additional reading required access E half due benches. 
Possible conversion to helicopter yarding would eliminate impacts of roads (BMP 14.1). 

J. Hannon 
7/10/95 

FISHERIES: Stream 1 is a class I blue/ white that requires a 100’ TTRA buffer (BMP 12.6). Stream 1 changes into a class III 
orange/ white above 340’ of elevation. Stream 1 will require timing for the road crossing (BMP14.14). Stream 2 is a class 111 
orange/ white. Stream 3 is a class III green/ white. Stream 4 is a class 11 orange/ white that requires a 120’ AHMU buffer (BMP 
12.6). Stream 4a is a class II orange/ white that requires a 120’ AHMU buffer (BMP 12.6). The class III orange/ white streams 
require directional falling, and split yarding or full suspension. Clean stream of introduced debris immediately (BMP 13.16). The 
class III green/ white stream require directional falling, and split yarding (where practical) or partial suspension. Clean stream of 
introduced debris by the end of the operating period or before the yarder leaves the area (BMP 13.16). 

M.Dillman, 
J.Wrate 7/10/95 
C.Tighe, 
B.Johnston 
5/30/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Blowdown and second growth present. Recommend leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat struc- 
ture and snag density. 5/30/96 Deer sign and pelllets seen in unit. Unit also has game trails throughout. Karst was found along 
the eastern portion of the unit. The southern portions of both parts of this unit may have to be dropped depending on the final defi- 
nition of an estuary and its required buffer. As the unit is now mapped in GIS the southern portions are both in estuary buffers 
and will need to be dropped. PacificYew trees were found in the unit. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The lower portions of this unit were surveyed in 1996. No cultural resources were noted. There are no concerns 
with this unit as planned. 

VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cutting unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumps or 
parches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain laree live trees and hard snass. Use tvpe D clear-cut. O&W streams 
require DF. full over or SY. and cleaning of introduced debris immediatelv. G&W streams reauires DF. SY (where practical) or 
partial over, and cleaning the stream of introduced debris before the end of the operating period or before the yarder leaves the 
area. Minimum partial suspension. Conversion to helicopter yarding would eliminate the impacts of reading this unit. "Unit 
added from the preferred alternative due to proportionality based on acres." 


C h a s i no 


Study 


Area Interim Layout NOI Unit 682-306 

Mopscole 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 



Existing Roods 
Proposed Roods 
Unit Boundary 



Estuary Buffers 



500' 8 e a c h Buffer 



Created by Sally Uerfeld on November 01, I 9 9 & 



CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCIJ-UNIT#: 682-307 ACRES:_10 VOL: 270 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 4.6 

PHOTO YR/#: '91-390-172 1/4 QUAD: CRGA-1 LOGGING SYSTEMS: HE 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: High windthrow risk, mod. mistletoe present. Productivity of site is moderate. Uneconomic, low 
volume area surrounding. Maintain setting width between units. Steep slope may limit yarding. Helicopter yarding method 
above cable reach of lower unit, adjust bdry accordingly. Due to resource protection (682-302). 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns - evaluate for cable log. 

Field D.J. Land- 

wehr 

9/13/95 

EIS R. Johnson 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Portion above cliff in 682-302 made into this helicopter unit. Soils McGilvery. Slopes less than 45%. 
Unit should not be harvested for compliance with TLMP (1991). Monitor McGilvery if harvested. Very high potential blowdown 
top of ridge. 

K. Buckley, 
C. Tighe, 
5/30/96 

FISHERIES: No streams found in unit. 

D. Parker, J.Wrate 

7/19/95 

C.Tighe, 

BJohnston 

5/29/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Deer sign throughout unit. No understory vegetation. Recommend leaving live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain 
habitat structure and snag density. Unit has good wildlife snags. Good goshawk habitat in unit. This unit is the helicopter portion 
of unit 682-302. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cutting unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumps or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type C clear-cut. If harvested, 
will not comply with TLMP (1991) standards and guidelines for McGilvery soils. 


Chosino Study Area Interim Layout NOI Unit 682-307 

Mopscole 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 


E F C , H . I , J . K , L M i N 0 


o r ; s t ; u 


D i E i F s G i H i I i J i K i L i M i N ^ 0 ; P : Q i R i S : T i U i V ; W i X 


ooooo 


Closs I Streom 
Class 2 Streom 
Closs 3 Streom 
Existing Roods 
Proposed Roods 
Unit 8 o u n d o r y 




Salt Water 


Fresh Woler Lakes 


No Cut Streom Butlers by Chontyp 
Pari i o I Cut Streom Buffers by Chontyp 


\ Estuory Buffers 


500' Beach Buffer 






Created by Sally lierfeld on November 01, 19 9 6 



CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


vriMJNIT#: 682-500 ACRES:J3 VOL: 1971 MM ALTERNATIVES: 4,5,6 

PHOTO YR #: 91-490-87 1/4 OUAD: CRGA-l NE 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS:_SL 


REVIEW ER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5 96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: High windthrow risk, portion downhill yarded. Within designated old growth reserve. Productivity 
of site is moderate. Partial cut buffer. Delete scrub volume surrounding. Road terminates at last landing. Get road as high as 
possible on bench. Split-yarding required on stream. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

R. Johnson 6/96 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils mapped 75D (Kupreanof - McGilvery 35-60%) and 33D (StNicholas - McGilvery 35-60%), with 
74E (Kupreanof 60-75%), 25 (Kaikli - Kina 0-40%), 32D (StNicholas 35-60%), 29D (McGilvery 35-60%), and cliffs. Agree with 
redesign by timber to avoid cliffs, steep, McGilvery on W, low volume wetlands on NE, and riparian and open wetlands on SE 
(BMPs 12.6, 12.5; TLMP 1991). Agree addition on SW. Proposal to connect with and include W portion of 682-501 with 628- 
500 now abandoned. See unit card 682-501 for additional information. Partial suspension for forested wetlands, MM13, McGil- 
very (BMPs 12.5, 13.9; TLMP 1991). Streams in unit needing protection (BMP 13.16). 

S. Deck. 

M. Solomon. 
K. Kitchel 
7/1 1/96 

FISHERIES: Stream 1 is a class III orange/ white until its confluence with stream 5; then it becomes a class 11 blue/ white that 
requires a 120' TTRA buffer (BMP 12.6). Stream 2 is a class IV green/ white. Stream 3 is a class IV green/ white. Stream 4 is a 
class III orange/ white. Stream 5 is a class IV green/ white. Stream 6 is a class III orange/ white. Stream 7 is a class IV green/ 
white. Stream 8 is a class IV green/ white. The class III orange/ white streams require directional falling, and split yarding or full 
suspension. Clean stream of introduced debris immediately (BMP 13.16). The class IV green/ white streams require directional 
falling, and split yarding (where practical) or partial suspension. Clean streams of introduced debris by the end of the operating 
period or before the yarder leaves the area (BMP 13.16). 

D. Parker. 

B. Johnston 
9/1 1/95 

M.Dillman 8/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Game trails, pellets, and browse in unit. Snags present. Unit is within an important wildlife travel corridor. Therefore, recom- 
mend partial harvest to maintain forest structure and lessen impact on wildlife migration and dispersal. Recommend leaving live 
reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat structure and snag density. This unit is within an old growth reserve and 
as a result was not surveyed by wildlife in 1996. If current policy changes and this unit is to be harvested, wildlife will need the 
opportunity to survey the area prior to harvest. 

J. Short 5/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 


LANDS: 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

CULTURAL: Although scheduled for survey in 1996, field inspection of this unit indicated it was unlikely to contain cultural 
resources. No survey was conducted. There are no concerns with the unit as planned. 

VISUALS: Leave (2) 5-acre peninsulas extending from a couple of points along southern half of backline. For about 400 feet in 
from SE boundary leave 1/2 of trees for structure and to soften edge of unit. 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cuttine unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumns or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type D clear-cut, use buffers as 
retention. Partial suspension required. 


Chasino Study Area 


Interim Layout NOI Unit 682-500 


Mapscole 1:15840 (4 inch lo Mile) 



A I 0 : C 

e © — 

I — I H I 

ooooo 


0 

? 3 3 i S T 

U i Vi 

W 

N o 

Cut Stream Buffers by 

C h o n 1 y p 


Par 

liol Cut Slreom Buffer 

■ s by Chon 

1 y p 


Existing Roods 
Proposed Roods 
Unit Boundary 



Estuary Buffers 



500' Beach Buffer 



Creoted by Solly Uerfsld on November 01. 1996 


CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCIJ-UNIT#: 682-501 ACRES:j4 VOL:_850 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 5.6 

PHOTO YR/#: Nl-490-134 1/4 QUAD: C'RG A-l NE 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: RS 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: , high windthrow risk, portion downhill yarded. Within designated old 

growth reserve. Retain stand structure for wildlife where feasible. Productivity of site is moderate. Road to come from north 
rather than west. Partial cut buffer. Stay out of swamps / beaver ponds. Drop SW portion across ponds. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

R. Johnson. 
10/20/95 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Remaining portion of unit is E of N to S flowing stream on bottom. Buffer out flat riparian on bottom 
above main stream (BMPs 12.6, 12.6a). Unit starts where slope breaks from flat to about 45%. Soils Tolstoi, Traitors, colluvial 
McGilvery, with forested wetlands on S end. Slopes 45-65%. Upper backline to E about 500’, below discontinuous rock walls 
and disturbance. Upper backline S end drops due disturbance. Still areas blowdown in unit. Deleted low volume S end unit 
(BMP 12.5). Numerous O&W and G&W streams needing protection not shown on unit card (BMP 13.16). Partial suspension for 
protection of G&W, non-streams, McGilvery, forested wetlands (BMPs 12.5, 13.9, 13.16; TLMP 1991). Keep roads above ripar- 
ian in bottom (BMPs 12.6, 12.6a, 14.2). W portion of unit deleted. Still feasible to log by connecting to 682-500 and 21 60-600 
road, but should delete: low volume wetland in center of unit and riparian W of main stream (BMPs 12.6, 12.5); and McGilvery 
knob SW comer, and hill to N with McGilvery and cliffs (TLMP 1991). Partial suspension for forested wetlands, MM13, McGil- 
very (BMPs 12.5, 13.9; TLMP 1991). Streams needing protection not yet designated on unit card (BMP 13. 16), especially for area 
added between units. 

D.Kuntzsch, 
J. Frank 
10/12/96 

FISHERIES: Only the mainstem was surveyed; numerous small streams will need to be identified and have protection measures 
applied during layout. The southern end of the unit lies within an estuary buffer and will need to be deleted. The mainstem is a 
class 11 blue/ white (TTRA) stream within the unit. The lower reach requires a 120’ TTRA buffer (BMP 12.6). Upstream of this 
reach is a beaver pond chain complex; it requires a 500’ TTRA buffer (BMP 12.6). The road requires fish passage and may also 
require timing (BMP 14.14, 14.6). 

M.Dillman. 

B. Johnston 
8/30/95 

M.Dillman 8/96 

WILDLIFE: 

Deer and bear sign throughout entire unit. Many game trails seen. Unit is within an important wildlife travel corridor. Therefore 
recommend partial harvest to maintain forest structure and lessen impact on wildlife migration and dispersal. Recommend leaving 
live reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat structure and snag density. The extreme southern tip of this unit is 
in an estuary buffer, as it is currently defined, and will have to be dropped. This unit is within an old growth reserve and so was 
not surveyed by wildlife in 1996. If current policy changes and this unit is to be harvested, wildlife will need the opportunity to 
survey this area prior to harvest. 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: Survey of this unit was conducted in 1996 in hopes of finding remnants of the historic town of Baldwin. No cul- 
tural resources were noted. There are no concerns with this unit as planned. 

VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cuttine unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumDS or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain laree live trees and hard snaes. Use tvoe A clear-cut. O&W streams 
require DF, full over or SY. and cleaning of introduced debris immediatelv. G&W streams reauires DF. SY (where practical) or 
partial over, and cleaning the stream of introduced debris before the end of the operating period or before the yarder leaves the 
area. Partial suspension required. 



A 0 ! C 

G 0 — 


ooooo 


0 : E 

C I o s s I 

C I o s s 2 

C I o s s 3 


i F i 
Stream 
Stream 
Stream 


G ! H 



i i 

I i J i K 
Salt Water 

fresh Water 


L I M ! N 



I I I I !! I I I 

0 : P: 0 : R ! S I I U ! V ! W ! 

No Cut Stream Butlers by Chontyp 

Partial Cut Stream Butlers by Chontyp 


Y 


Z 


Existing Roods 
Proposed Roods 
Unit Boundory 



Estuary Butlers 



5 0 0 


Beach Butter 











Created by Solly Merleld on November 01, 1996 


CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCTJ-TJNIT#: 682-502 ACRES:J$0 VOL: in MBF ALTERNATIVES: 4.6 

PHOTO YR/#: N 1-490- 133 1/4 QUAD: CRG A-l SE 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS: RS 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 

5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: High windthrow risk. Within designated old growth reserve. Productivity of site is moderate. 

Field checking alternative regeneration methods. Difficult terrain - potential blind leads in center of unit. Verify feasibility and 
modify unit bdry as required. Profiles needed. Suspension requirements (see soils or fish). 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

R. Johnson. 6/96 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils mapped 4D (Flelm 35-60%), 2D (Traitors 35-60%), with 3D (Vixen - Traitors 35-60%), 48C (Flelm 
- Kitkun 5-35%). Visuals deleted lower 3/5 of unit. Remaining appears steeper than mapped. Partial suspension for forested wet- 
lands, MMI3 on slopes over 60%, potential rock and McGilvery (BMPs 12.5, 13.9; TLMP 1991). 2160-620 road may not be prac- 
tical because of slope and probable full bench construction (BMPs 14.2, 14.3, 14.6, 14.7, 14.12). Probable need protection for 
stream on S boundary, and streams in unit (BMPs 12.6a, 13.16). 

K. Buckley 7/96 

FISHERIES: Office review determined possibility of stream concerns in south part of unit. If unit is selected for harvest field 
review will be necessary. 

M.Dillman 

7/96 

WILDLIFE: 

This unit is within an old growth reserve. If current policy is changed and this unit is to be harvested, recommend leaving live 
reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat structure and snag density. Also, if unit is harvested, wildlife will need 
to survey the area prior to harvest. Unit was not surveyed by wildlife in either 1995 or 1996 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 

LANDS: 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 
VISUALS: 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w / reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cutting unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumps or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type B clear-cut. Partial suspen- 
sion required. 


C h a s i no 


Study Area 


Interim Layout NOI Unit 

Mapscole 1:15840 (4 inch to Mile) 


682-502 



32 

3 1 
30 
29 
28 
27 
25 
25 
24 
23 
22 

2 I 
20 
I 9 
1 8 
I 7 
I 5 
I 5 
1 4 
I 3 
1 2 

1 I 
1 0 
9 
8 
7 
5 
5 

4 

3 

2 
1 

Y I 7 I 


ooooo 


Existing Roods 
Proposed Roods 
Unit Boundory 



Estuary Buffers 



500' Beoch Buffer 







Created by Sally Uerfeld on November 01. 1996 



CHASINA PROJECT HARVEST UNIT DESIGN CARD DRAFT 


VCU-UNIT#: 682-503 ACRES:_i9 VOL: .257 MBF ALTERNATIVES: 4,6 

PHOTO YR/#: ’91 -490- 133 1/4 QUAD: CRG A-l SE 1/4 LOGGING SYSTEMS:^ 


REVIEWER&DATE 

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

SILVICULTURE/TIMBER: Low windthrow risk . Retain stand structure for wildlife where feasible. Productivity of site is 

low. Decreased in size for visual sensitivity. Option: helicopter yarding. 

J. Oien 5/96 

ROADS: No concerns. 

R. Johnson. 6/96 

SOILS/WATERSHED: Soils mapped 2D (Traitors 35-60%), 33D (StNicholas - McGilvery 35-60%), with 4D (Helm 35-60%). W 
2/3 deleted for visuals. Partial suspension remaining primarily forested wetlands and McGilvery (BMPs 12.5, 13.9; TLMP 1991). 
Doubt upper 2160-620 road will meet grade as planned. Not appear suspension possible from lower 2160-600 road because to- 
pography and convex slope. Probable streams in unit needing protection, and adjacent E side depending on location of boundary 
(BMPs 12.6a, 13.16). 

K.. Buckley 7/96 

FISHERIES: Probable streams in unit needing protection. Stream protection measures will be identified during unit layout. 

M.Dillman 

7/96 

WILDLIFE: 

This unit is within an old growth reserve and so was not surveyed by wildlife in 1995 or 1996. If current policy changes and this 
unit is harvested, partial cut is recommended because this unit has been identified as an important wildlife travel corridor. This 
will help maintain forest structure and lessen the impact on wildlife migration and dispersal. Wildlife recommends leaving live 
reserve trees and snags where possible to maintain habitat structure and snag density. Also, if this unit is harvested, wildlife will 
need to survey the area prior to harvest. 

J. Short 5/96 

GEOLOGY/MINERALS: 


LANDS: 

T.Fifield 

10/28/96 

CULTURAL: The unit lies in a low sensitivity zone for cultural resources. There are no concerns with the unit, as planned. 

VISUALS: Entire unit harvested in a way that retains at least 50% of stand throughout every acre of unit or creates about (5) 1-2 
acre openings dispersed throughout unit. If harvest can be extended further to the NW along this slope a few additional 1 acre 
openings could be created. 

G. Lawton 
5/96 

PRESCRIPTION: Clear-cut w/ reserves: retain 10 - 20% of cutting unit, where feasible and safe. Areas should be in clumps or 
patches, buffers or blind-leads, dispersed, and should contain large live trees and hard snags. Use type D clear-cut. Partial suspen- 
sion is required. 


Chosino Study Areo Interim Layout NOI Unit 682-503 

Mopscole 1:15840 (4 inch I o Mile) 

A B i C 0 E F C i H i I \ J I K ! L M | N 0 P 0 ! R | S T | U | V J IV | X 



° ° Closs I Stream 

11111 Closs 2 Stream 

Closs 1 Stream 
' Existing Roods 

' Proposed Roods 

==== Unit Boundary 


V/,. 


y S o I t Water 


Fresh Water Lakes 


No Cul Slreom Buffers by Chontyp 
Partial Cut Slreom Bullers by Chontyp 


\ Estuory Butlers 


500' Beoch Buffer 



Creotea by Sally Uerfeld on November 01. 199b 


* U.s. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1996 - 790-124 / 41912 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 
for communication of program information (braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA Office of Communications at (-02 1 < - 0 -- - . ! • 

To file a complaint, write the Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250, or call 1(800) 245-6340 (voice) or 
(202) 720-1 127 (TDD). USDA is an equal employment opportunity employer. 


V 


Federal Recycling Program 
Printed on Recycled Paper 



v . ■