Table Of Content

Historic, Archive Document Do not assume content reflects current scientific knowledge, policies, or practices. k i ] \ s i \ 1 I I 1 I Upper Carroll Forest Service Timber Sale Tongass National Forest R10 - MB-332 October 1996 Final Environmental Impact Statement Volume Appendix L III: s ame it Act onservation Act y fl976 pment TiIS “Environmental IifipactStatement EPA EnvironmentalProtection Agency EVC Existing/ExpectedVisual Condition FEIS FinalEnvironmentalImpactStatement FSH Forest ServiceHandbook FSM Forest ServiceManual GIS Geographic Information System IDT InterdisciplinaryTeam KPC Ketchikan Pulp Company KV Knutsen-VandenbergAct LTF Log TransferFacility LUD LandUseDesignation LWD LargeWoody Debris (same asLOD) MBF OneThousandBoardFeet MELP Multi-EntryLayoutProcess MIS ManagementIndicatorSpecies MM MaximumModification MMBF OneMilUon BoardFeet NEPA NationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct NFMA NationalForestManagementAct NMFS NationalMarineFisheries Service NOI Notice ofIntent P Primitive PR Partial Retention R Retention RM RoadedModified RN RoadedNatural ROD Record ofDecision ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum SHPO StateHistoricPreservation Officer SPM Semi-PrimitiveMotorized SPNM Semi-PrimitiveNonmotorized TLMP TongassLandManagementPlan TRUCS TongassResourceUseCooperativeSurvey TTRA TongassTimberReformAct USDA UnitedStatesDepartment ofAgriculture USDI UnitedStatesDepartment oftheInterior USFWS UnitedStatesFish andWildlife Service VCU ValueComparison Unit VQO Visual QualityObjective WAA WildlifeAnalysisArea Acknowledgments Frontcover:ByCindyRossBarber, 1992. ThedesignillustratestherangeofinterconnectedissuesaddressedintheEIS. 11 Response Comments to Public Table of Contents Introduction Commenters List of Response to Public Comments ii 1 . Cost Effectiveness of Timber Harvest Operations ii Facets: A. Units shouldbe larger or smaller 1 B. Windthrow analysis shouldbemore site specific 1 C. Harvestwithin estuarybuffers shouldbe dropped 12 D. Construction costs are excessive (roads, bridges, & LTFs) forthe volumeharvested 12 E. Alternatives to clearcutting 13 F. Insect epidemicswill increase duetotimberharvest 13 G. Regeneration concerns onwetlands/lowvolume stands 14 H. Economic models (IPASSvs IMPLAN) 15 I. Proportionality/Inaccurate TIMTYPmaps 15 J. Falldown analysis is inadequate 16 K. Don’tharvesthighvalue habitat areas 16 L. Helicopterloggingshouldbe limitedtothatwhich is economically feasible and where conventional cableyarding systems will notwork 17 M. Display operable Commercial Forest Land (CFL) in EIS 17 N. Definition ofForest Landis inappropriate 18 O. Timber sale economics 18 P. Value addedprocessing 19 Q. Suitable versus operable lands 19 R. TSPIRS analysis 19 S. Unit change and expansion 20 T. Second-growthmanagement inadequatelyaddressed 21 U. Specific comments onthe Upper Carroll DEIS 21 2. Fish Habitat and Water Quality 24 Facets: A. Water quality and fishhabitat inthewest forkofCarroll Creek 24 B.,D. Roadconstructionand streamcrossingswill negativelyaffectwaterquality 24 C. Timberharvest androadconstruction on high and veryhighMMI soils 25 E. Mitigation practicesfor streamcrossings 27 AFHA F. Utilize findings 28 G. Watershedmap forthird orderand largerwatersheds shouldbe included in EIS 29 H. Riskratings in watershed analysis 29 I. Neets Creekshouldbe classified as anadromoushabitat 30 J.,R. The Southern Southeast Regional AquacultureAssociation (SSRAA) fishhatchery atNeets Bay couldbenegatively impacted by proposedtimberharvest 31 K. Fishhabitatrestoration and improvement opportunities shouldbe addressed 31 L. Fishhabitat capability will decrease 32 M. MonitoringofBest Management Practices (BMPs) isneededto conclude they are effective 33 — UpperCarroll Final EIS Table ofContents Appendix L Appendix N. Antidegradation policy 34 O. Water quality baseline information is needed 35 P. Protect SSRAA brood stock - Chum salmon in Carroll Creek 35 Q. Kingsalmon run in Carroll Creek should be listed as threatened or endangered 36 S. Streambaseflow discussion and effectsneed tobe improved 36 T. Effectsupon wetlands 37 U; " Specific comments on the Upper Carroll DEIS 37 3. Recreation and Scenic Quality 42 Facets: A. Timber harvest activities affect recreational experiences/opportunities 42 B. Timberharvest will effect the scenic quality alongNeets Bay and Carroll Inlet 42 4. Wildlife 44 Facets: A. Long-termviability ofspecies 44 B. Goshawk guidelines 45 C. Public Law 104-19 is no longer valid 45 D. Incorporate HCAs and travel corridors intofinal decision 46 E. Species ofconcern shouldbe addressed 46 F.,M. Fragmentation ofthe old-growth forest and connectivity ofthe remainingpatches 47 G,K,N Marbled murrelet, spotted frog, and waterfowl surveys 48 H. Effects ofblowdown on marbledmurrelet nests - scientific basis of30 acre nestbuffer 48 I. Effects ofroad density and access on wildlife needmore analysis 49 J. Wildlife models are inaccurate 49 L. Impacts oftimberharvest on neotropical migratory birds 50 O. Martin habitat capability figures in DEIS are wrong 51 P Donotharvest in travel corridors 51 . Q. Identifyretention areas forthe FEIS 52 R. Cumulative effects ofpast and current timberharvest on wildlifeneedtobe addressed 52 S. Wildlife field inventories andmethodology shouldbe published inthe FEIS 53 T. Incorporate Kiester and Echart (1994) review ofviablepopulation strategyinto FEIS 53 V. Add mountain goat asa Management Indicator Species (MIS) and define winterrange within Project Area 54 W. Harvest ofpreviously designatedretention and extendedrotationareas 55 X. Patch size analysis should incorporate edge effects 55 Y. Brown bear andmoose should beaddressed 56 Z. Timberharvest, road location, and construction should incorporatebeartiming 56 AA. Threatened and endangered species (TES) plant surveys 57 BB. Protect estuary andbeachhabitat 57 CC. Is the ban on encroachment onmarinemammals enforceable? 58 DD. Effect ofwater pollution on TESmarinemammals and other species 58 EE. Monitoring/surveys oftrumpeter swans 58 FF. Trumpeter swan death at Ward Lake 59 GG. Specific comments onthe Upper Carroll DEIS 59 5. Subsistence 63 Facets: A. TRUCS data isnotaccurate. Inadequate information on subsistence use ofthe area 63 AFHA B. Subsistence finding/ report 63 C. Maintain huntable populations 64 D. ANILCA wordingiswrong 65 E. Minimumadverse impact isrequiredunderANILCA 65 — Appendix L ^Table of Contents UpperCarroll Final EIS Appendix F. Effectsofroad connections on subsistence use 66 H. Cumulative effects analysis for subsistence 66 I. No subsistence alternative 67 J. All action alternativeswill negatively affectmy subsistence lifestyle 67 GG. Specific comments on the Upper Carroll DEIS 68 6. Social and Economic Effects 69 Facets: A. Supply the volume neededto sustainthe local mills andmeetthe long-term sale obligations 69 B. Timberindustry isakey component ofthe economic stability ofSoutheastAlaska 69 C. Need a supply ofold growth forvalue added products 70 D. Implementation ofthisprojectwill providejobs 70 E. Economic Analysisneeds tobe improved 71 7. Roads, LTFs, and Marine Environment 72 Facets: A.,J. Road maintenance/Road closure effectiveness 72 B. Road cards in DEIS should be changed orimproved 72 C. Road locationswithin classI & II streambuffers (Units 6,8,18,21,68,72, and 138) 73 D. Waterdepths for raftingand flushingareas atthe Carroll Inlet LTF #7 73 E.,M. Rationale for LTF selection 74 F,G,H. Barkaccumulation,toxicity,andmonitoringassociated with LTF locations 74 I. Navigational hazards tocommercial fisherman fromLTFs and lografts 75 K. Drainage structure condition/functionality on existingroads 75 L,N,P Utilitycorridor/Intertie road construction. Opportunities,multipurpose roads CWA require permit, androad density 76 O. Effectiveness ofLTF sitingBMPsto minimize adverse impacts ofLTFs. Divereports 76 Q. Road connections to Ketchikan, Shelter Cove, Shrimp Bay, and Fire Cove 77 R. Garbage disposal at camplocations 78 S. Road clearingwidths and potential impactstowetlands 78 8. Range of Alternatives 79 9. Monitoring Levels and Funding 80 10. Purpose and Need (70 MMBF) 80 Purpose andNeedtoonarrow 81 Purpose andNeed decisionwasmade outside NEPA 81 Incorrect interpretationofTTRA and as aresult AppendixA is flawed 81 1 1 . Effects on Air and Water Quality Outside the Project Area 8i 12. Multiple Use and Sustained Yield 83 13. Unit and Road Cards 85 14. Avoid Subsistence Impacts 86 15. Scope of the Project - Project Boundaries 86 — UpperCarrol! Final EIS Table ofContents Appendix L Appendix 16. Economic Analysis Should be Improved 87 1 7. Better Maps 87 18. Alternative and Unit Specific Recommendations 88 19. Cumulative Effects Of Powerline Intertie 92 20. Wild & Scenic River Designation for Carroll Creek 92 21. Define Cumulative Effects Periods 93 22. Prepare a New Analysis 93 A. Write a new EIS or prepare a supplementto the DEIS 93 B. Write a Programmatic EIS for Revilla Island 94 23. Tiering and Referencing 95 24. Landscape Management Zones and Maps 95 25. Determine Timber Supply and Demand 96 References for Appendix L 97 Copies of Letters and Comments Received on the Upper Carroll DEIS — Appendix L Table of Contents Upper Carroll Final EIS Appendix Response To Public Comments Introduction The USDA Forest Service, TongassNational Forest, KetchikanArea,receiveda total of382 written and oral comments on theUpper Carroll Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The Interdisciplinary Teamthoroughly and objectivelyread and analyzed every response and categorized each expressed issue or concern. The identified issueswere then sub-divided or groupedasappropriate to 1) facilitate response and 2) facilitatereview ofthe full range ofissues and responses bythe Deciding Officer,other Federal and State Agencies, andthe general public. Due tothe exceptionallyvoluminous comments received,the commentshave been summarized, ratherthan included intheir entirety, in compliance with40 CFR 1503.4(5)(b). Copiesofall letters andacertifiedtranscript ofsubsistence testimonies are included inthe Upper Carroll Planning Record. Use ofpublic comments is not avote countingprocess; all commentswere carefully considered in thepreparation ofthe Final EIS (FEIS). All issues and document-specific commentsarerespondedto inthis appendix. Alternativeshave been modifiedbased onthe issuesand concernsderived fromthe public comments; andadditional discussion and expanded analyses has been done inthe FEIStoaddress public concerns. The format for discussingthe Forest Service Responseto Public comments inthis appendixis as follows: 1. Statement ofthemain issue orcomment,with abriefsummaryofthe range ofcomments; 2. Statementofrelevant sub-issue or sub-topic; 3. List oforganizations orindividuals who addressedthe issue by codenumber; 4. Examples ofspecific statements fromthe writtenresponsesor subsistencehearingsthat reflectthe full range ofpublic input onthe issue; 5. Forest Serviceresponse. The Forest Serviceresponseprovides an overview ofForest Servicepolicy ordirectionregardingthe issue,discusses howthe issue has beenaddressed, and directsthereadertothe appropriate section ofthe FEIS foramore complete discussion. — UpperCarroll Final EIS Listof Commenters ^Appendix L 1 Appendix Commenters List of The followinglist includes all individuals, organizations, and agenciesthat the U.S. Forest Service received comments from duringthe 45 day comment period followingthe publication ofthe Upper Carroll Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Each comment received was given an individual letternumberwhich is listed inthe followingtable next tothe name ofthe commenter. Comments were grouped by issues addressed. This document includes the U.S. Forest Serviceresponse to the issues addressed in public comment. Above each response is a list ofletters and comments received on that particularissue. A copy ofeach letter is included at the end ofthis appendix. Letters Received from Individuals, Organizations, and Agencies Letter# Last Name FirstName City State Organization 12 Amundson Diana Ketchikan AK A-KTug& Barge Inc. 50 Amundson Peter Ketchikan AK A-K Tug& Barge Inc. 43 Ballard Ernesta Ketchikan AK Ketchikan Chamber ofCommerce AK 58 Basket! Antone Ketchikan 11 Bennett Jill L. Ward Cove AK AK 5 Canterbury Jackie Ketchikan 9 Carlton Mayor Jim Ketchikan AK Ketchikan Gateway Borough AK 30 Clabby Margaret Ketchikan AK 31 Clabby Margaret Ketchikan 53 Cleman Mike Ketchikan AK Campbell Towing Company 15 Cook H.R. Ketchikan AK 49 Craig Tom Ketchikan AK 17 Freitag Gary Ketchikan AK SSRAA 24 Garza Corrine Ketchikan AK Ketchikan Indian Corporation (letterreceived 1/18/95 aspart ofgov’ttogov’t coordination) 2 Gates Paul Anchorage AK U.S. Dept, ofthe Interior 14 Gossman Lloyd Ketchikan AK Ty-Matt Inc. andAK Ship& Dry Dock 16 Gravel Deborah Ketchikan AK 10 Gustafson Jack Ketchikan AK Alaska Dept, ofFish and Game 18 Gutleber Richard J. Anchorage AK U.S. Army Engineer District 1 Hanley Kevin Juneau AK Alaska Dept, ofEnvironmental Conservation 8 Hays Hank Bainbridge Is. WA 44 Hendricks Bill and Joanna Ketchikan AK 61 Hendricks Ray, III 27 LaPerriere Marcel & Connie Ketchikan AK Glacier Grotto 19 Lewis Cecelia L. Ketchikan AK 4 Lindekugel Buck Juneau AK SEACC 56 Lisac Jennifer L. Ketchikan AK 42 Magyar John A. Ketchikan AK Ketchikan Public Utilities 59 Meek Jacqueline R. Ketchikan AK 48 Meske Sandra Ward Cove AK 51 Meske Sandra Ketchikan AK AmericanAgri-Women 52 Meske Sandra Ketchikan AK AlaskaWomen in Timber 47 Miller Kathy Ketchikan AK MillerInc. 60 Montgomery Katie Ketchikan AK 32 Myren Richard Juneau AK 45 Nicholson Kent P. Ketchikan AK Ketchikan Pulp Company 46 Olivadoti Troy Ketchikan AK WA 3 Parkin Richard B. Seattle Environmental Protection Agency -Region 10 28 Pitcher Gerald, Cheri, & Kim Thome Bay AK Alaska Families in Timber — 2 Appendix L Listof Commenters UpperCarroll Final EIS