Tongass National Forest Sustainable Cabin Managementa123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai... · Tongass National Forest Sustainable Cabin Management

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Tongass National Forest R10-MB-764, November 2013

Environmental Assessment Tongass National Forest Sustainable Cabin Management Tongass National Forest

Maksoutof Lake Cabin – Exterior and Interior

ii

Table of Contents

Chapter 1, Introduction ................................................................................................ 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 Purpose and Need for Action ...................................................................................................... 1 Proposed Action .......................................................................................................................... 6 Decision Framework ................................................................................................................... 7 Public Involvement ..................................................................................................................... 7 Issues ........................................................................................................................................... 8

CHAPTER 2, Alternatives, including the Proposed Action ...................................... 11 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis ............................................. 11 Alternatives Considered in Detail ............................................................................................. 15 Project Design Elements, Best Management Practices, and Mitigation Common to All Action Alternatives ............................................................................................................................... 17 Permits ...................................................................................................................................... 21 Comparison of Alternatives ...................................................................................................... 22 Maps of Alternatives ................................................................................................................. 22

Chapter 3, Environmental Consequences ................................................................ 39 Recreation ................................................................................................................................. 39 Socioeconomics ........................................................................................................................ 47 Heritage ..................................................................................................................................... 52 Other Resources ........................................................................................................................ 56 Plants, Including Rare Plants and Invasive Plants .................................................................... 57 Roadless .................................................................................................................................... 60 Safety ........................................................................................................................................ 60 Scenery ...................................................................................................................................... 61 Soils and Wetlands .................................................................................................................... 62 Subsistence ................................................................................................................................ 62 Water and Fisheries ................................................................................................................... 63 Wilderness ................................................................................................................................. 65 Wildlife ..................................................................................................................................... 68

Chapter 4, Consultation and Coordination ............................................................... 75 Appendix A – Cabin Cards Appendix B – Public Involvement and Recent Activity on Tongass Cabin Projects Appendix C – Health and Safety Analysis Please note: To provide visual examples of cabins and their conditions while saving paper and printing costs, photos of cabin conditions are located throughout this document in places where extra space allowed for their inclusion

Environmental Assessment Tongass Natonal Forest Sustainable Cabin Management

1

CHAPTER 1, INTRODUCTION Introduction _____________________________________ The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Assessment in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. This Environmental Assessment discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, may be found in the project planning record located at the Tongass National Forest Office in Sitka, Alaska.

Purpose and Need for Action ______________________ The Tongass National Forest wants to provide a sustainable network of cabins and shelters in a variety of niches and recreations settings for recreational, safety, and community economic benefits1. A sustainable cabin program is one which, in part, maintains cabins to Agency standards, minimizes the backlog of maintenance, and maximizes the life of public investments.

This project is needed to help move the Forest toward meeting the goal of a sustainable cabin program – it will save money by not spending funds to assess, operate, and maintain a selected group of cabins which get very low use (see Tables 1 and 2) and allow those savings to be spent on cabins that are more heavily used.

This project is being proposed because there is a need for:

• Reduced Tongass National Forest cabin program - operation and maintenance - costs, with savings achieved in a way that affects the least number of visitors;

• Focused funding and employee time that is used to operate and maintain more heavily used Tongass National Forest cabins;

• A reduced maintenance backlog at Tongass National Forest cabins; and • Facilities that fit the needs of the public for recreation and that meet health and

safety standards. At Distin Lake, this project is being proposed because there is a need for:

• A locally significant historic structure whose integrity of association with the Civilian Conservation Corp and recreation in Southeast Alaska is preserved.

1 There are four niches - 1. mountains and ice fields, 2. inside passage, 3. outside coastal, 4. Forelands. Recreation setting relates to the number of expected visitors and the associated experience expected in those locations – the goal is to provide cabins in various location/regions as well as in some very remote locations such as Wilderness and in more urban locations such as rural and roaded areas.


2

Why here? The cabins in this proposal receive little use, most are difficult to access, and most have high maintenance needs or are beyond repair (see Tables 1 and 2, Photos 1-8 throughout EA, and Appendix A). The combination of cabin conditions identified in Tables 1 and 2 form the basis for why these cabins are proposed for removal or for conversion to a shelter (through reconstruction or replacement). When compared to the use-levels, accessibility, and conditions of all cabins and shelters across the Tongass National Forest, these cabins appear to be less desirable than most other cabins on the Forest.

Proposals to remove, replace, close, and/or convert cabins to shelters have been considered in various locations throughout the Tongass National Forest since 2005. Many past analyses, reports, and plans were considered in coming up with this proposal. Among the documents used were the 2005 Recreation Site Facility Analysis and 5-Year Action Plan, the 2007 Cabin Summit, the draft and final Capital Hotel Management (CHM) cabin financial sustainability strategy report (2012), and Recreation Sites-Facilities Master Planning – now called the Recreation Facility Analysis (RFA) worksheets.

The RFA process includes the creation and periodic update of an RFA worksheet. That RFA worksheet is updated every few years as changes in facilities, on-the-ground conditions, or budgets change. Recreation facilities can move up or down the list (i.e., cabins can change from maintain or vice versa) as a result of changed conditions. Some high cost proposals have been dropped and some have been added. Since the first RFA worksheet was prepared in 2005 some cabins have been removed or destroyed and a few new cabins have been built. We have replaced several cabins and completed major reconstruction and renovation on others that had heavy deferred maintenance (see Appendix B).

While RFA planning and other input informed this proposal, it is the combination of cabin conditions in Tables 1 and 2 and the lack of use and the lack of interest in use that are the main reasons these specific cabins were included in this proposal. These cabins are among the least used cabins on the Tongass. While a few individuals have used these cabins in the past or expressed interest in their use, use records show little or no recent use of these cabins and comments mostly show either a lack of interest in their use or show support for their removal. Lack of use and a lack of interest in using these particular cabins is suspected to have occurred for multiple reasons, potentially including: the availability of a nearby cabin that is preferred by visitors (see Tables 1 and 2 and Appendix A), the high cost of flying in to theses cabins, the poor conditions of the cabins, the difficulty of accessing these locations, or the lack of a substantial “draw” to these areas (whether due to limited resources, location, etc.). A summary of the cabins conditions are shown in Tables 1 and 2.


3

Table 1: Summary of Conditions of Cabins Proposed for Removal1

District2 Cabin Access Method3

Use Level4

Is a nearby cabin preferred?

Safety Concerns5 Condition

KMRD Beaver Camp

Fly-in No to Very Low

Yes-Manzanita

None noted* Poor – Heat stove, deck, woodshed, skiff need repairs or replacement

WRD Binkley Slough

Boat and hike3

No to Very Low

Yes-several private cabins w/ easy access6

None noted Good condition, but river movement diminished accessibility.

KMRD Checats Lake

Fly-in Very Low

No None noted Fair - needs roof repair or replacement and minimal amounts of repair on deck and skirting

PRD DeBoer Lake


No Location makes fly-in unpredictable

Very poor - the heat stove, foundation, roof, windows, and flooring all need replacement or repairs.

SRD Maksoutof Lake


No Cabin condition presents health and safety hazard; difficult location for fly-in

Very poor - walls falling apart, vegetation growing inside, flooring buckled, rot throughout, roof panels rotting, heat stove dislodged, no pipe, outhouse collapsed

TBRD McGilvery Fly-in No to Very Low

Yes-Salmon Lake

Cabin condition presents health and safety hazard; area floods regularly

Very poor - falling apart, broken skylight, extensive mold & mildew growth; remote from trail, poor structural integrity

KMRD Red Alders Fly-in No to Very Low

Yes-Ella Narrows

Cabin destroyed; area floods regularly

Unusable, cabin was crushed by a tree in 2012.

SRD Rezanof Lake


No Cabin condition presents health and safety hazard

Very poor - water damage, rot, parts of wall are missing, no windows in openings

YRD Square Lake

Helicopter

No to Very Low

No No longer accessible by floatplane due to lake drying up

Fair - roofing, foundation supports, stovepipe, windows, stairs in poor condition

1 Additional, specific information about each cabin is located in Appendix A 2 Districts – ANM=Admiralty National Monument, KMRD=Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District, PRD=Petersburg R.D., SRD=Sitka R.D., TBRD=Thorne Bay R.D., WRD=Wrangell R.D., YRD=Yakutat R.D. 3 Access Method – While any of the fly-in cabins can be hiked to, all fly-in cabins would require cross-country hiking; at Binkley Slough, the hike in from a boat varies from a few hundred yards at high tides to several miles across tide flats at very low tides.


4

4 Use level – No to Very Low=an average of 0-3 nights reserved/year between 2009-2011 and an average of less than 10 nights reserved/year between 2007-2011; Very Low= an average of 10-16 nights reserved/year between 2009-2011 and 2007-2011 5 Safety Concerns – In SE Alaska, all fly-in locations may be inaccessible at some times by plane due to winds or lack of visibility; DeBoer and Maksoutof are especially noted for their difficult access by floatplane due to site-specific weather conditions and on-the-ground conditions of rocks and current. * = None noted, but cabin likely does not meet engineering standards for health and safety. 6 The Forest Service does not manage these private cabins; they are not available for public use.

Table 2: Summary of Conditions of Cabins Proposed for Replacement with or Conversion to a Shelter1

District2 Cabin Access Method3

Use Level4

Nearby cabin preferred?

Safety Concerns5 Condition

KMRD Big Goat Fly-in No to Very Low

No Pilots avoid going to this lake if the weather is not good beforehand

Very poor - leaking roof, cracked doors and windows, rotting floor, non-working heat stove, hazardous boardwalk

ANM Distin Lake Fly-in or hike/canoe

No to Very Low

Yes-Sportsmen Cabin

None noted* Poor - sill logs, some purlins, rafters are deteriorated; additions do not contribute to the historical significance of this structure

PRD Harvey Lake

Boat and hike3

Very Low

Yes-Beecher Lake

None noted* Poor - roof is patched and needs replacement, foundation is in poor condition, interior was slightly damaged by a fire, rot in eaves, outhouse needs to be replaced

1 Additional, specific information about each cabin is located in Appendix A 2 Districts – ANM=Admiralty National Monument, KMRD=Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District, PRD=Petersburg R.D. 3 Access Method – While any of the fly-in cabins can be hiked to, all fly-in cabins would require cross-country hiking; at Harvey Lake, the length of the trail makes it difficult for a majority of people to bring camping gear/supplies to the cabin. 4 Use level – No to Very Low=an average of 0-3 nights reserved/year between 2009-2011 and an average of less than 10 nights reserved/year between 2007-2011; Very Low= an average of 10-16 nights reserved/year between 2009-2011 and 2007-2011 5 Safety Concerns – In SE Alaska, all fly-in locations may be inaccessible at some times by plane due to winds or lack of visibility; Big Goat Lake is especially noted for difficult access by floatplane due to site-specific weather conditions related to its high-elevation location. * = None noted, but cabin likely does not meet engineering standards for health and safety.

Reasons for Considering Replacement with (or Conversion to) Shelters:

Big Goat Lake • On days when the weather is very favorable, this lake location gets regular visits

for very short periods of time during the day by floatplane outfitter and guide tours out of Ketchikan.


5

• This cabin was previously very rarely used for hunting or fishing; the disturbance created by floatplanes has made this site undesirable by cabin-users so there is very little or no use of this cabin for overnight visits.

• The District has an interest in providing some facility/ies for users at this site because of the level of day use.

Distin Lake • The cabin is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The additions and

improvements made in the 1960’s by the Territorial Sportsmen turned it from a 3-sided shelter into a cabin. These additions detract from the historical significance of this structure.

• This structure was originally designed as a three-sided shelter. It can easily be converted back to a shelter. Most of its main structural components are in good condition.

• Reconstruction/rehabilitation to resemble its original configuration (removing the wall that was added) and completing needed structural repair work would return this cabin to its historic structure. The intent is to have a historic structure whose integrity of association with the Civilian Conservation Corp and recreation in Southeast Alaska is preserved.

Harvey Lake • Cabin is close to Petersburg (~25 miles through protected waters) and is easily

accessed by small boat followed by a 0.7 mile hike on a trail; the length of the trail makes it difficult for a majority of people to bring camping gear/supplies to the cabin.

• The cabin receives very little overnight use, yet this area has been a day use area for people from Petersburg dating back to the 1930s. The site is known for berry picking, and has a lakeshore with picnic tables and fire pits near the cabin. The lake is also a destination for swimming.

• The District has an interest in providing some facility/ies for users at this site because of the level of day use. A shelter would provide comfort, protection from the weather, and a dry location for people who use the area during the day.

• A developed trail from saltwater to the cabin site was reconstructed in 2000.

Why now? The actions being considered in this proposal are, in many ways, past due. Many of these cabins were already in poor condition when removal or replacement was first considered years ago. With lack of funding for maintenance and advancement of time, the cabins have continued to deteriorate. As time goes on, most of these facilities are becoming more unsafe and most are beyond repair (see Tables 1 and 2, and Appendix A).

Efforts to increase use and revenue by allowing outfitters and guides to use cabins and efforts to decrease maintenance costs through use of volunteers to help maintain cabins have helped with the overall maintenance costs at some of the less remote cabins. However, the increased revenue and decreased maintenance expense has not been enough


6

to offset the reduction in the overall budget allocated for cabin maintenance and the increasing costs of operation and maintenance for the cabin program as a whole.

Funding for the Tongass National Forest cabin operation and maintenance program has varied considerably since 2008. The Tongass developed recreation facilities budget (which pays for cabin operations and maintenance as well as new cabins and some campgrounds) was $2.3 million in 2008. This budget has dropped over the past five years to $1.35 million in Fiscal Year (FY) 20132. The FY11 and FY12 budgets were substantially supported by unspent funds that carried over from previous years. Those funds are depleted. Significant budget declines are anticipated for future funding. The projected FY 2014 national budget continues the downward trend with additional funding reduction anticipated at the national level in program areas from which cabin maintenance derives its funding.

With shrinking budgets and cabin fees that cover less than 50% of the average cabin operation and maintenance costs, the Tongass National Forest is unable to cover costs to operate and adequately maintain all of its cabins. The Forest Service estimated its cabin operation and maintenance program costs at about $1.16 million annually based on 2011 data. The operating cost for those same cabins was estimated to be $1.8 million annually (CHM 2012). In FY 2012, the Forest cabin operation and maintenance budget was left with a shortage of nearly $367,000. In FY 2013, that shortage grew to about $600,000.

At the same time, the costs to operate and maintain the cabin program continue to increase. Many of these cabins are “fly-in” cabins. A typical end-of-season maintenance trip to clean up garbage, pull skiffs, check maintenance needs, and sometimes cut firewood, costs $6,000 to $15,000 at fly-in cabins. Flight costs to drop-off and pick-up work crews at these cabins are estimated at $1,000 to $2,600 per trip. These operation/maintenance costs are additional to the costs estimated to repair or replace cabins. Thus, both costs, those for repair/replacement and those for maintenance/operation, are increasing annually.

Proposed Action _________________________________ The scoping letter sent in August, 2012 included a preliminary description of the cabins and the proposed actions for this project. The actions in that scoping letter were refined and form the basis for the Proposed Actions described briefly here and described in more detail under Alternative 2 of this EA. The Proposed Action includes all Design Elements and Mitigation Measures described in Chapter 2.

The action proposed by the Forest Service to meet the purpose and need is to change the cabin configuration at twelve locations on seven districts. We would convert one cabin back into a shelter, remove and replace two cabins with 3-sided shelters, and remove nine additional cabins (see Table 3 in Chapter 2). Distin Lake Cabin, a historic structure that

2 Budget figures published in an earlier news release were averaged, rounded and extracted from different budget documents and through different methods. Budgets are constantly updated throughout the year, until a final budget is set (often at the end of the fiscal year). The current figures are from annual Tongass Allocation Spreadsheets.


7

was formerly a 3-sided shelter, would be converted back to a 3-sided shelter as originally constructed by the Civilian Conservation Corps.

Cabins to be removed would be disassembled or dismantled and burned. The two cabins that are in relatively good condition, Binkley Slough and Square Lake, could be disassembled and then removed or moved to another location if an acceptable agreement can be reached with interested parties.

The Proposed Action is described further under Alternative 2 in Chapter 2 of this EA

Decision Framework ______________________________ The responsible official for this decision is the Forest Supervisor for the Tongass National Forest. Given the purpose and need, the responsible official reviews the proposed action, alternatives, the analysis of effects, and the public comments in order to make the following decisions:

Will Forest Service cabins be removed or replaced by shelters on the Tongass National Forest? If so, which cabins will be affected, how will they be removed or replaced, and when will the action occur? Additionally, he will consider what design elements and mitigations will be used to protect the resources if an action alternative is chosen?

Public Involvement _______________________________ There is a substantial history of planning and public involvement related to cabins and cabin management on the Tongass National Forest. Most recently, this proposal was listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) on October 1, 2012 as the Tongass National Forest Sustainable Cabin Management Project. This proposal was provided to the public and other agencies in a scoping letter requesting comments from August 2012 through November 12, 2012. In September 2012 we sent notice of this project to our congressional delegation and the house and senate committees in accordance with ANILCA. Additional notification will occur before a decision is made.

As part of the initial scoping, a legal notice announcing a 30-day comment period was published in the Ketchikan Daily News on October 13, 2012.

Prior to this most recent proposal, various combinations of cabin management options and cabin removal proposals have been presented and discussed across the Tongass since 2005. A summary of present and past scoping and outreach efforts is included in Appendix B of this EA.

We received sixteen individual responses and 108 duplicate (form letter) responses to the 2012 scoping effort. Comments were from individuals, businesses, state agencies and organizations, and non-government groups. Another 28 responses were received from past scoping on cabin projects. The Forest Service interdisciplinary team (IDT) and the Districts also had internal scoping discussions. For this EA, all current and past comments received about these particular cabins were used to determine issues, alternatives, and what information to discuss in the EA or specialist reports. A brief summary of these comments is included in the Issues section of this EA; the full comments are available in the project record for this project. Alternatives proposed in the


8

comments are discussed in Chapter 2 of this EA under Alternatives Considered in Detail and Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis.

In addition to the scoping above, Government-to-Government consultation was initiated with all affected tribes by sending them a formal government-to-government consultation offer (pre-scoping letter) on August 15, 2012. Tribes are also offered ongoing, informal opportunities to discuss and consult on this project during tribal updates. No consultation has been requested and no tribal comments have been provided to this point.

Tribal corporations in and around these areas received the scoping letter. No comments have been raised to date by Tribes or ANCSA corporations.

One comment received during scoping was a request to have a 30-day comment period after the EA is completed and made available to the public. The Forest Supervisor will provide a 30-day comment period after the EA is released to give the public the opportunity to learn more about the cabins and comment on the proposals. Additionally, new administrative review regulations (36 CFR 218 – Project-Level Predecisional Administrative Review Process) now change the decision/appeals process to an objection process. As a result of this change, comments received during either 30-day comment period will provide the public a chance to gain standing to participate in the predecisional review and objection process.

Additional discussions and/or consultation with agencies, groups, and individuals have occurred for this project. Chapter 4 of this EA lists those individuals and groups consulted.

Issues __________________________________________ The Forest Service separated the concerns brought forward on this project into two groups. Issues were concerns that were used to design the alternatives in the second chapter of this EA. Issues are concerns that are directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action. Several external and internal concerns and suggestions were considered as issues but were determined not to be issues used to develop different alternatives. Where possible, suggestions about the project were incorporated into the design of the Proposed Action or into the project design of all the action alternatives (see Chapter 2). The remaining concerns were identified as those: 1) outside the scope of the proposed action; 2) already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; 3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; or 4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. In many cases, suggestions for alternatives fell into these categories of concerns.

The Forest Service identified two issues during scoping that were used to design Alternative 3:

Issue 1 People who commented on this project were particularly concerned about the removal of Checats Lake Cabin. Removing the Checats Lake Cabin will affect more people than many other cabins in this proposal and seems unnecessary at this time given the cabin’s relatively good condition. This cabin may have mistakenly been identified as in very poor condition when this proposal was first developed. It is in better condition than first


9

thought and has less of a maintenance backlog than the other cabins in this proposal. It also receives more use than most of the other cabins in this proposal.

Issue 2 Some people felt that replacing Big Goat Lake and Harvey Lake Cabins with shelters will provide little benefit to the public at a substantial cost. Both Big Goat Lake and Harvey Lake sites receive active day use, but no or little overnight use. Big Goat Lake Cabin, in particular, is not used as a safety shelter because pilots use this location for such short periods of time and avoid this area altogether when weather is not good. If we replace cabins with shelters, we would reasonably want and expect moderate to high use of the replacement facilities to make the expenditure worthwhile.

Other Comments and Concerns Whenever possible, we used the comments on this project to improve the project or the analysis. Several comments asked for more information. Please see the various sections of this EA, including the appendices, for detailed information about these cabins and their past use levels, why these specific cabins were included in this proposal and information and analysis on health and safety, costs, and more. Corrections and adjustments to the Proposed Action description and clarification of the Purpose and Need were made based on some comments. Several comments suggested additional alternatives to the Proposed Action; these are discussed in Chapter 2 under Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis. Some of the comments and concerns relate to past decisions which will not be changed by this project or its decision. Other comments and requests related to the design of the project or the alternatives. In many cases, these design requests were included as part of both action alternatives.

Additionally, various comments supported cabins remaining open, being replaced, or being removed. One or more people wanted every cabin to be, stay, or re-open. The individuals who spoke to specific cabins did not request that they stay open for safety reasons. Generally people stated they want some cabins in wilderness to provide for health and safety. A few people named specific cabins that are not included in this project. No one suggested keeping any of these particular cabins for health or safety nor did they say they use these cabins for health or safety (see Appendix C for more information on health and safety). Conversely, many people agreed with the proposals to remove cabins.


10

Photo 1: McGilvery Cabin roof has been missing roof panels for a few years

Photo 2: The walls on Rezanof Lake Cabin are in very poor condition


11

CHAPTER 2, ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Tongass National Forest Sustainable Cabin Management project. It includes a description and map of each alternative considered at the end of the chapter. Alternatives are presented in comparative form, sharply defining the differences between each alternative and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision maker and the public. This chapter also introduces several alternatives that were initially considered but subsequently eliminated from detailed analysis and the reason they were eliminated from further analysis.

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis _______________________________________ Members of the public provided many comments including several suggestions for alternatives to the proposed action. In some cases, those suggestions were used to adjust the Proposed Action or to design Alternative 3. In other cases, suggested alternatives were considered during the planning process, but were not analyzed in detail in this EA. These alternatives are described briefly below, along with the reasons for not considering them further.

Alternative A: Consider new or additional cabins and shelters or sites for cabins and shelters.

These proposals were eliminated from detailed analysis in this project because they are outside the scope of this analysis and do not meet the purpose and need for this project. As part of long-range planning and in future NEPA analysis, new or additional cabins or sites for cabins may be considered if it is determined that they are needed (see also the response to Alternative B).

Alternative B: Conduct long-term planning for cabins and shelters to determine what locations would be included in a long-range plan and maintain the ability to replace cabins in these or other locations in the future.

These proposals were eliminated from detailed analysis in this project mainly because they can be done through administrative processes and are outside the scope of this analysis. Nonetheless, the Tongass National Forest is working on a strategic plan. The strategic plan is an attempt to create a sustainable cabin program, where highly productive and revenue generating cabins can be maintained by the Forest Service with the aid of partner groups. This plan may be somewhat narrow in its focus, but it does attempt to maintain cabins throughout the Tongass, representing as many different niches as possible (representing mountains and ice fields, the Inside Passage, outside coastal, the Yakutat Forelands) as well as representing different levels of development (such as Wilderness and rural areas). For the cabins in this EA, our experience shows that the sites in this proposal are not highly sought after by recreation users. It is very unlikely that these locations would rate highly in a future cabin planning effort for new, replacement, or additional cabins. However, if funding and public demand for cabins in


12

these locations increased sufficiently in the future, a new safety analysis and new NEPA analysis could be done that might allow cabins to be constructed in these locations. Additionally, because ANILCA provisions allow for cabins in Wilderness, there is no regulatory or management reason why cabins could not be considered for construction in these or other wilderness locations in the future if they are needed for health and safety.

Alternative C: Rehabilitate and repair or replace all or some of these cabins with cabins or with shelters because they may be used in the future.

This alternative was eliminated from detailed analysis, in part, because Alternative 2 and 3 include portions of this proposal, and taken as a whole, this alternative does not meet the purpose and need for this project. The funding we save by not rehabilitating, repairing, or replacing these cabins can be used on cabins in locations that visitors have more interest in using. While we would like to have the had the funding to repair or replace these cabins, we do not have enough funding to repair, maintain and/or replace these very low use cabins in very remote locations.

Alternative D: Leave all or some of the cabins in place with some low level of maintenance or with no continuing maintenance, and no plan for future removal (for some, this was to provide safety shelters for as long as possible; for others, this was a way to save money by allowing them to decay over time until they fell to the ground); maintain the total cabin numbers at existing numbers.

This alternative was eliminated because it did not meet the purpose and need for the project. If we are providing facilities like cabins, we are required to provide safe facilities (FSM 7309.11.42.04). Leaving cabins in place without maintenance and monitoring to assure safety would not meet this requirement. Forest Service policy directs the agency to maintain structures to standard or close and remove them from the landscape (more information on Forest Service policy is available in the project record). See also the response to Alternative C, above.

Alternative E: Use funds intended for cabin removal to maintain, repair, or replace these cabins or to build new cabins in high demand areas.

This alternative was eliminated because it did not meet the purpose and need for the project. Retaining cabins at these very low use and mostly difficult to access locations would not reduce the overall costs of the cabin program or fit the overall needs of the public. Additionally, the funds proposed for decommissioning would be inadequate to bring these cabins up to health and safety standards (see Chapter 3, Socioeconomics). Decommissioning of a cabin requires a small, one-time investment and less skill, while rehabilitation, roof work, window and door improvements, or foundation work all require specific skills, tools, knowledge. Costs for repair or replacement and long-term maintenance of these cabins are substantially greater than costs for decommission, thus the funds proposed to implement decommissioning would not cover this proposal. Since the Forest Service is obligated to maintain structures to standard, the funds allocated to this proposal would not help to keep these cabins maintained over time (see response above). The costs and benefits of the alternatives are located in Chapter 3, Socioeconomics, of this Environmental Assessment.


13

Alternative F: Remove the cabins, but turn the existing woodsheds into shelters at these sites.

This alternative was eliminated because it did not meet the purpose and need for the project. While providing a woodshed for shelter would likely temporarily protect individuals from inclement weather, this type of structure does not meet other regulations that also guide Forest Service operations. For example, a woodshed would not meet standards for use by individuals with disabilities (ADA). It would not meet engineering standards for health and safety concerns (such as snow load) for overnight or even temporary use. And it would not meet recreation standards for providing high quality recreation experiences.

Alternative G: Use volunteers to maintain these and other cabins so that you may keep these cabins open.

While we hope to cooperate with more volunteer and user groups in the future to maintain Tongass cabins and are actively pursuing this possibility (J. Parrish, pers. comm.), this proposal would not meet the purpose and need for this project and would not help these cabins. Public groups like the Friends of the Tongass Cabins have done great work with the Forest Service to improve the cabin program. Yet much of this work has focused on nearby, easier to access cabins because these groups, like the Forest Service, are affected by rising gas prices and increases in the costs of flights--making it more difficult to maintain some of the more remote cabins. Additionally, other difficulties related to volunteering for the Forest Service (such as meeting OSHA and Forest training requirements, liability, supervision, etc.) have also deterred volunteer efforts (J. Parrish, pers. comm.). Furthermore, these cabins truly are our very low use cabins and do not inspire the interest of the volunteering public. The cabins in this proposal have been identified for potential removal since 2005 in various scoping letters and announcements. When Wrangell Ranger District did scope for persons to maintain Binkley Slough Cabin, only one response was received from a person who wanted free private use of the cabin. The Forest Service intends to continue pursuing opportunities for volunteer assistance. Based on comments received on this project, the Proposed Action and Alternative 3 would allow for potential volunteer opportunities, such as private groups, to disassemble and move the Binkley Slough and Square Lake Cabins, if we can come to an acceptable agreement with volunteers or contractors. As described under Alternative B, the long-term strategic plan is to attempt to create a sustainable cabin program, where highly productive and revenue generating cabins can be maintained by the Forest Service with the aid of partner groups.

Alternative H: Change cabin fees and change operation and maintenance strategies (such as do less maintenance or allow first-come-first-serve use of cabins) as ways to increase revenue and reduce costs to make the overall cabin program more sustainable instead of removing cabins.

This alternative was eliminated from detailed analysis for multiple reasons. First, these proposals do not need to be included in this or other NEPA analysis because they can be implemented through administrative decisions. These suggestions are being considered at remaining cabins, and likely will be implemented over time. Second, the CHM study (2012) showed that these strategies alone will not produce enough revenue or savings to


14

support maintenance and operation of the entire cabin program. While the future of all the Tongass cabins is currently unknown, it is likely that additional low-use cabins will be proposed for removal in the future as conditions change and budgets drop. Finally, proposals to change fees and maintenance/operation would do little to help the cabins in this proposal due to their lack of use and desirability, their current limited maintenance/operation visit schedule, and the large amount of money that would be needed to maintain these cabins. Access to the cabins for operations and maintenance is the greatest cost and biggest challenge for many of these more remote cabin sites. Patterns of use are showing that visitors are not using these remote sites as much as in previous years, likely because of the costs to access these sites. Although some operations and maintenance methods could become more efficient, the biggest costs--those to access the site--cannot be eliminated without allowing the facility to go without maintenance. The scenario of a shrinking cabin program is discussed further under Recreation and Socioeconomics sections in Chapter 3.

Alternative I: Increase advertising for these cabins, particularly on the internet, to increase use enough to keep these cabins funded.

This alternative was eliminated because, despite additional advertising, the cabins’ current conditions (difficult and expensive to access, generally very poor conditions with a large backlog of deferred maintenance, some in unsafe condition) would remain unchanged. Yet, we do believe that additional information, outreach, and advertising could benefit the overall cabin program. Cabin information is available on the internet though not in a personal manner as was suggested. Cabins are described on the national recreation reservation service at www.recreation.gov and also on the Tongass National Forest recreation page. Additional advertising may be implemented through administrative decisions; it is being considered at remaining cabins to make the overall program more sustainable.

Alternative J: Sell more timber on the Tongass National Forest to increase the population and, thus, the number of potential cabin users and to make up for reduced budgets.

This alternative was eliminated from detailed analysis because it was outside the scope of this project and its results are conjectural.

Alternative K: Allow exceptions to the restrictions on motorized equipment for maintenance of public cabins in designated wilderness to be safer and more efficient, reduce costs, to shorten the time needed for maintenance or firewood cutting, and to increase the likelihood of cooperative agreements with groups interested in helping with the Tongass cabin program.

This alternative was eliminated from detailed analysis on this project for several reasons. While this alternative could benefit other cabins, this alternative would not meet the purpose and need for this project because these cabins need far more than general maintenance and firewood cutting. The cabins’ current conditions (difficult and expensive to access, generally very poor conditions with a large backlog of deferred maintenance, some in unsafe condition) would remain unchanged whether or not motorized equipment was allowed at this time. Additionally, a decision on the use of motorized equipment was already made on June 24, 2008 in a letter from the Tongass

http://www.recreation.gov/


15

Forest Supervisor to Tongass District Rangers. The decision in the letter “…no longer allows for the use of chainsaws for administrative use within the wilderness,” except in cases of emergencies and when the work cannot be accomplished by other means. Finally, while this proposal might make some work a bit easier, as stated in Alternative G, there are multiple difficulties that help to explain why volunteers are not doing more work on Forest Service cabins.

Alternatives Considered in Detail ___________________ The Forest Service interdisciplinary team (IDT) used information from public scoping in conjunction with resource information to formulate the significant issues (Chapter 1) and an alternative to the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action and Alternative 3 provide different responses to the significant issues. Each action alternative is also designed to meet the stated Purpose and Need for the Sustainable Cabin Management project and the project-specific desired conditions. When making a decision, the decision maker can consider various combinations of the following alternatives in determining the Selected Alternative. Maps of each of these alternatives are at the end of this chapter.

Alternative 1 No Action In the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), the Forest Service would continue the current management of these 12 cabins (Table 3). This means that the cabins would remain on the INFRA database – a database for tracking facilities, costs, maintenance needs, etc. Most of these cabins would continue to be unavailable for reservation through NRRS. We would continue to do very little or no maintenance on these cabins, in an effort to use the available funds on cabins that get more use. We would use cabin funding, periodically, to visit and assess these cabins to meet our condition assessment requirements. Figures 1a through 1e at the end of this chapter show the location of these 12 cabins in relationship to remaining Forest Service cabin and shelter locations.

Alternative 2

The scoping letter sent in August, 2012 included a preliminary description of the cabins and the proposed actions for this project; that letter provided the basis for the actions described here. The Proposed Action has been refined to incorporate some of the suggestions and recommendations made by the public during scoping and to correct or further explain the proposal. Changes include allowing Binkley Slough to be disassembled and moved if an acceptable agreement can be reached and explaining that Distin Lake will be returned to historic conditions. Though mainly clarifications of the proposal, these changes are important to understanding and explaining the project. The Proposed Action includes all Design Elements and Mitigation Measures described below.

The Proposed Action The Forest Service proposes to change the cabin configuration at twelve locations on seven districts. We would convert one cabin back into a shelter, remove and replace two cabins with 3-sided shelters, and remove nine additional cabins (see Table 3).


16

Distin Lake Cabin, a historic structure that was formerly a 3-sided shelter, would be converted back to a 3-sided shelter. We would rehabilitate this historic property by removing the added on exterior wall and other additions that were built-on later, and by repairing or replacing deteriorated elements of the original structure. The intent is to rehabilitate it by taking it from a cabin back to a three-sided open shelter, as originally constructed by the Civilian Conservation Corps.

The remaining cabins were not designed in a way that allows them to be converted to 3-sided shelters. Thus, at Big Goat Lake and Harvey Lake, the cabins would be removed and then replaced by constructing new 3-sided shelters. At Big Goat Lake, the shelter would be located within the footprint of the removed cabin; its dimensions would be no larger than the 16’ x 16’ dimensions of the existing cabin and the design would be rustic to be in character with its wilderness location. At Harvey Lake, the shelter would avoid the current cabin location because of moist, muddy soils, but would be placed within 100 feet of the existing cabin footprint. A Tongass soil scientist would field review Harvey Lake Cabin for wetlands and assist in finding a drier location for a 3-sided shelter if Alternative 2 is selected. The shelter dimensions are expected to be smaller than the 16’ x 16’ dimensions of the existing cabin. Potential shelter design drawings are located in the project record for this project (also see the Scenery section in Chapter 3). A helicopter may be needed to deliver materials for the new structures. Because Big Goat Lake is in Wilderness (see Table 3), completion of a Minimum Requirements Decision Guide (MRDG) analysis is necessary to implement this action.

Cabins to be removed would be disassembled or dismantled. Teams of two to four people would camp at the site locations and remove the structures at each site over the course of about three or four days per location. The cabins would be dismantled by removing non-burnable and hazardous material, and then burning the cabin either in place or on-site in fire pits. The two cabins that are in relatively good condition, Binkley Slough and Square Lake, could be disassembled and removed or moved to another location if an acceptable agreement can be reached with interested parties.

Table 3 lists the cabins and the actions proposed at each location. Activities are expected to occur between 2014 and 2017. Figures 2a through 2e at the end of this chapter show the location of the cabins proposed for conversion, replacement or removal.

Photo 3: Beaver Camp Cabin stove no longer works and is an old model that would need to be replaced. Stove replacements are part of the costs of cabin maintenance and operation


17

Alternative 3

In Alternative 3, the Forest Service would change the cabin configuration at eleven locations on seven districts. In Alternative 3, Checats Lake Cabin would be left on site and would remain available for reservations through NRRS. Minor maintenance would continue on this cabin. We would convert Distin Lake Cabin back into a shelter as described in Alternative 2. We would remove the remaining ten cabins as described in Alternative 2. While the cabins would be removed, shelters would not be constructed at Harvey Lake or Big Goat Lake to replace those cabins (see Table 3).

Figures 3a through 3e at the end of this chapter show the location of the cabins proposed for conversion, replacement or removal.

Except for those actions related to shelter replacements, all BMPS, Design Elements, and mitigation measures described in Alternative 2 would apply to Alternative 3. No MRDG would be needed because helicopter transport would not be needed at Big Goat Lake.

Project Design Elements, Best Management Practices, and Mitigation Common to All Action Alternatives _____ In response to public comments and IDT input on the proposal, project design elements and mitigation measures were developed to ease some of the potential resource impacts the various alternatives may cause. The design elements and mitigation measures apply to all of the action alternatives unless described otherwise. Best Management Practices apply to all of the action alternatives.

Project Design Elements and Best Management Practices Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be implemented to meet Clean Water Act. If an action alternative is selected, the following BMPs will be implemented as needed (from USFS 2006): BMPs 12.5 (Wetlands Protection), 12.8 (Oil Pollution Prevention), 12.16 (Solid Waste Disposal) 12.17 (Revegetation of Disturbed Areas), and 16.1 (Recreation Facilities Planning) and National Core BMPs Aq-Eco-2-Operations in Aquatic Ecosystems, Fac-2-Facility Construction and Stormwater Control, Fac-5 (Solid Waste Management), Fac-6-Hazardous Material, Rec-2-Developed Recreation Sites, FAC-10-Facility Site Reclamation, Veg-2-Erosion Prevention & Control (USFS 2012 - http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/resources/pubs/watershed/FS_National_Core_BMPs_April2012.pdf).

Wilderness-related Design Elements These apply to Beaver Camp, Big Goat, Binkley Slough, Checats Lake, Distin Lake, Maksoutof Lake, McGilvery, Red Alders, and Rezanof Lake:

• Personnel and materials to be removed will be transported by floatplane and/or boat at all wilderness locations except for Big Goat Lake.

• Because Big Goat Lake is in Wilderness, completion of a Minimum Requirements Decision Guide (MRDG) analysis would be necessary to use a helicopter for materials delivery or removal at this location.

http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/resources/pubs/watershed/FS_National_Core_BMPs_April2012.pdf

http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/resources/pubs/watershed/FS_National_Core_BMPs_April2012.pdf


18

• Activities occurring at Wilderness cabins will be conducted with only non-motorized equipment, such as sledge hammers, pry bars, and crosscut saws, to follow Wilderness guidelines.

Design Elements for All Cabins • Outside of wilderness, personnel and materials will be transported by floatplane,

boat, or helicopter.

• Cabins will be burned by agency-qualified incident responders after removing non-burnable elements and protecting the surrounding area from potential fire damage. To reduce disturbance to soils and the potential to start duff or forest fires, burning would only occur during low fire danger. When burning, personnel would strive to burn on mineral soils or they will use a barrier between dry organic soils/duff and the fire.

• To provide information and awareness about burning and smoke in these areas, the State and other agencies will be notified of upcoming burning.

• Nails and other manmade materials will be removed from the burn pile after burning is completed (BMP 12.16). Sites will be naturalized with nearby logs, rock, and/or vegetation as part of a final cleanup prior to departure. Use of locally available rotten logs or branches, litter and duff or moss is recommended to cover bare ground (BMP Veg-2).

• When and wherever possible and practical, non-burnable cabin materials (e.g., some roofing material or windows) will be removed and re-used during maintenance of other Forest Service cabins and shelters (BMP 12.16)

• Camps would adhere to minimum-impact guidelines, consisting of two-person tents, plastic tarps for a separate covered cooking area and portable camp stoves for food preparation. Sanitation would adhere to standard Leave No Trace guidelines (BMP 12.16).

• Each site would be briefly surveyed for erosion control needs after burning the cabin. Erosion control, where necessary, would emphasize measures that limit bare ground and exposed mineral soils, especially adjacent to surface waters, and encourage establishment of native vegetation. Consult National Core BMP Fac-10 for suitable practices. Potential practices include spreading fertilizer, seeding with an approved weed free seed or locally available live native vegetation, and using locally available rotten logs or branches, litter and duff or moss to cover bare ground (BMP 12.17).

• Prior to burning, each site would be evaluated for hazardous materials. If necessary, a plan would be developed to properly dispose of hazardous materials in accordance with state and federal regulations. In addition, up to 5 gallons of diesel may be used as an accelerant to assist in burning each cabin, following good house-keeping procedures for transporting and handling diesel fuel (BMP 12.8). Consult Tongass National Forest Emergency Action Guide and BMPs Fac-5 and Fac-6 for more information related to handling hazardous materials.


19

• During project implementation, ground disturbance will be kept to a minimum and will be confined to the current cabin footprints. No subsurface digging or trenching will occur.

• In the event that heritage resources (other than the cabins and associated facilities) are discovered during construction, operations must cease and the Forest Service archeologist must be notified so that mitigation can be developed and implemented.

• Avoid disturbing and filling wetlands and streams. A Tongass Soil Scientist may be needed for site rehabilitation on sloping wetlands and burnt areas (BMP 12.5, Aq-Eco 2).

• Forest Service personnel or contractors will be made aware of the risks that these activities cause for introduction and spread of invasive plants.

Design Elements for Specific Cabins These design elements are proposed to alleviate specific concerns related to the following cabins. The following design elements will be implemented in addition to those described above.

• Big Goat: Consult a Tongass Soil Scientist about site rehabilitation related to wetlands.

• DeBoer Lake: Consult a Tongass Soil Scientist about site rehabilitation related to wetlands.

• DeBoer Lake: To avoid effects to spawning fish, cabin removal should occur between July 18 and August 15.

• Distin Lake: Rehabilitation of the shelter will follow steps outlined in Appendix E of our Programmatic Agreement (2010), including adhering to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation, and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings.

• Harvey Lake: A Tongass soil scientist should field review Harvey Lake Cabin for wetlands and assist in finding a drier location for a 3-sided shelter if Alternative 2 is selected. Consult a Tongass Soil Scientist about site rehabilitation.

• Maksoutof Lake: Consult a Tongass Soil Scientist about site rehabilitation related to wetlands.

• McGilvery: At McGilvery Cabin, there is a substantial population of reed canary-grass. More information is needed to determine if control of reed canary grass, an invasive species, is practical at this site. If feasible, prior to dismantling cabin, a botanist will evaluate this cabin site and the Salmon Lake shoreline to see if any control measures would be practical. The population of reed canary grass around the cabin could be cut early in the summer to prevent seed production and reduce the chances of the cabin removal crew spreading seeds. Or the cabin removal could be timed so that mature seeds of reed canary-grass aren’t spread by the removal process. Mature seeds from this species scatter readily. The invasive


20

species coordinator for Thorne Bay Ranger District should be consulted for this cabin removal to determine the best prevention measures for this invasive species population.

• McGilvery Creek: Consult a Tongass Soil Scientist about site rehabilitation related to wetlands.

• Red Alders: At Red Alders, workers will try to stay out of the stream when removing material; pull material out and away from channel; and burn away from the stream (perhaps down on lake shore). If cutting of natural logs is needed to remove cabin material, they will cut minimal size pieces needed to remove cabin material and leave the natural logs in the stream. Resident fish spawning season for trout is in spring with fry hatching in early summer; spawning season for Char is in the fall. Removal should occur at Red Alders between July 18 and August 15.

• Red Alders: There is a documented rare plant population near the Red Alders cabin. Cabin removal/burning activities should avoid that population. A botanist or designated plant person capable of identifying Lycopus uniflorus, or northern bugleweed, should accompany the demolition crew to locate and protect this population from the demolition project and potentially to search for a second rare plant species in the shallow water near the cabin – Lobelia dortmanna.

Mitigation Measures To mitigate the adverse effect of the Sustainable Cabin project to historic properties, the Forest Service proposes several measures. First, we will share historic cabin information in a public venue by creating a publicly accessible internet site with a searchable version of the historic context document entitled Everyone’s Cabin in the Woods: Historic Context for Public Recreation Cabins in the Alaska Region – 1960 – 1971 (Lantz 2012). We will also include copies of our reports submitted to the SHPO documenting in detail the ten historic period cabin sites associated with the project (Esposito 2013 and Gilliam 2013).

Additionally, in consultation with the Alaska SHPO, the Forest Service – Alaska Region has implemented a documentation and preservation strategy regarding public recreation cabins detailed in Appendix H of our Programmatic Agreement (USDA-FS 2010). Due to decreasing budgets and increasing deferred maintenance backlogs, we have discovered the need to make revisions to Appendix H as we are faced with the difficult decision to eliminate some of the cabins from the forest. We have consulted with the SHPO and they concurred that reevaluating Appendix H’s terms will be an additional item in our mitigation for this project. We have executed a Memorandum of Agreement with the SHPO outlining the mitigation measures described above. These measures will mitigate the adverse effect for this project.

If inadvertent discoveries are made during project implementation, the Forest Service shall fulfill its consultation requirements in accordance with 36 CFR 800.13. Mitigation measures would be agreed upon and implemented before project activities may continue.


21

Permits _________________________________________ The Forest Service intends to remove all hazardous and unburnable materials prior to burning cabins. The Forest Service will notify the State, Coast Guard, and other agencies of planned burning. At this time, the Forest Service does not expect to acquire burn permits for burning cabins, but will reconsider if changes or further discussions show a need for them.

In Alternative 2, 3-sided shelter construction is proposed at the current Big Goat Lake Cabin site and near the Harvey Lake Cabin site. Big Goat Lake cabin is located within a subalpine wetland. Harvey Lake cabin appears to possibly be within a wetland. If Alternative 2 is selected, an Army Corps of Engineers permit may be necessary for shelter construction.

Photo 4: A tree fell on and crushed Red Alders Cabin in 2012

Photo 5: Distin Lake Cabin – the wall to be removed to convert this back to a historic 3-sided shelter is the wall with the door and window. This wall faces the camera.


22

Comparison of Alternatives ________________________ This section provides a summary of the actions in each alternative and the effects of implementing each alternative. Information in Tables 3 and 4 is focused on activities and effects where different levels of effects or outputs can be distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively among alternatives.

Table 3: TNF Sustainable Cabin Management Activity Comparison

Cabin Alternative 1 No Action

Alternative 2 Proposed Action

Alternative 3

Beaver Camp Cabin continues to deteriorate

Remove cabin Remove cabin

Big Goat Cabin continues to deteriorate

Replace cabin with 3-sided shelter

Remove cabin

Binkley Slough Cabin continues to deteriorate

Remove cabin (consider reuse)


Checats Lake Cabin continues to deteriorate

Remove cabin Continue to rent cabin; perform minor maintenance

DeBoer Lake Cabin continues to deteriorate


Distin Lake Cabin continues to deteriorate

Convert back to 3-sided shelter

Convert back to 3-sided shelter

Harvey Lake Cabin continues to deteriorate

Replace cabin with 3-sided shelter

Remove cabin

Maksoutof Lake Cabin continues to deteriorate


McGilvery Cabin continues to deteriorate


Red Alders Crushed cabin remains Remove cabin Remove cabin Rezanof Lake Cabin continues to

deteriorate Remove cabin Remove cabin

Square Lake Cabin continues to deteriorate



*The trail from saltwater to Harvey Lake would not be removed through or because of this project; In Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 the trail would remain available for public use.


23

Table 4: TNF Sustainable Cabin Management Summary of Effects*

Resource Effects of Alternative 1 No Action

Effects of Alternative 2 Proposed Action

Effects of Alternative 3

Recreation Negligible effects on visitor use and ROS; minor effects on developed recreation sites and recreation areas

Negligible effects on visitor use; minor effects on developed recreation sites and recreation areas and ROS

Negligible effects on visitor use; minor effects on developed recreation sites and recreation areas and ROS

Socioeconomics Negligible Minor Minor Socioeconomics-Estimated Total Cost

$24,600/every~2 years $154,100 $62,050

Heritage Adverse effect on 3 cabins Benefit 1 site; Mitigated adverse effect on 5 cabins

Benefit 1 site; Mitigated adverse effect on 4 cabins

Other Resources (Wildfire, Air Quality, Climate Change)

Negligible or minor Negligible or minor Negligible or minor

Plants Negligible Negligible or minor Negligible or minor Roadless Negligible Negligible Negligible Safety Minor (with potential for

major effects) Negligible (with some beneficial effect)

Negligible (with some beneficial effect)

Scenery Negligible Negligible Negligible Soils and Wetlands

Negligible Negligible Negligible

Subsistence Shall not result in a significant restriction of subsistence uses

Shall not result in a significant restriction of subsistence uses

Shall not result in a significant restriction of subsistence uses

Water and Fisheries

Negligible effect Negligible effect Negligible effect

Wilderness Minor negative and positive effects to opportunity for solitude; negligible to moderate negative effect to undeveloped

Negligible negative effects to opportunity for solitude; minor beneficial effect to undeveloped

Negligible negative effects to opportunity for solitude; minor beneficial effect to undeveloped

Wildlife Negligible impact Negligible impact to all, but minor impact to Queen Charlotte goshawk and Vancouver Canada Goose

Negligible impact to all, but minor impact to Queen Charlotte goshawk and Vancouver Canada Goose

* The IDT used and defined a level of effects to display the amount and direction of effects upon resources. Impacts increase from negligible (which includes no effect) to minor to moderate to major. Definitions of level of effect are displayed by resource in the next chapter. There were no major effects on any resource in any alternative, thus definitions of major effects are found in the specialist reports in the project record.

C a n a d a

O c e a nSquareLake

Y a k u t a tR a n g e rD i s t r i c tYakutat

Figure 1a

Map Page 1 of 5Map Sheet Index

Maps 1-5

Path: T:\FS\NFS\Tongass\Project\SO\SustainableCabin\GIS\MapProducts\FEA\SitesAlt1.mxd

Date: 9/26/2013

Key to Existing SituationTown Sites

Cabins of Interest

Existing Cabin

Existing Shelter

District Boundaries

Wilderness Areas

Canada

Ocean

Tongass National Forest Sustainable Cabin - Alternative 1 - No Action1 inch equals 20 miles

0 10 205 Miles

Environmental Assessment____________________________________________________________________________________Tongass National Forest Sustainable Cabin Management

____________________________________________________________________________________ 24

O c e a n

De BoerLake

DistinLake

HarveyLakeMaksoutof

LakeRezanofLake

J u n e a uR a n g e rD i s t r i c t

H o o n a hR a n g e rD i s t r i c t

A d m i r a l i t yN a t i o n a l

M o n u m e n t

S i t k aR a n g e rD i s t r i c t

P e t e r s b u r gR a n g e rD i s t r i c t

W r a n g e l lR a n g e rD i s t r i c t

T h o r n eB a y

R a n g e rD i s t r i c t

Angoon

Gustavus

ElfinCove

EchoCove

Auke Bay

DouglasJuneau

Baranof

Petersburg

Sitka

Kake

Todd

TenakeeSprings

Hoonah

Tyee

Pelican

Figure 1b


Maps 1-5


Date: 9/26/2013

Key to Existing SituationTown SitesCabins of Interest

Existing CabinExisting Shelter

District BoundariesWilderness Areas

CanadaOcean


0 10 205 Miles


____________________________________________________________________________________ 25

C a n a d a

De BoerLake

BinkleySlough

DistinLake

HarveyLake

ChecatsLakeMcGilvery

BeaverCamp

J u n e a uR a n g e rD i s t r i c tA d m i r a l i t y

N a t i o n a lM o n u m e n t

SitkaRangerDistrict



K e t c h i k a n - M i s t yF i o r d sR a n g e rD i s t r i c t

T h o r n eB a y


C r a i gR a n g e rD i s t r i c t

Wrangell

ThomsPlace

CoffmanCove

Edna Bay

PortAlice

ThorneBay

Klawock Kasaan

Point BakerPort ProtectionLab

Bay

Petersburg

WhalePass

Kake

Naukati

Tyee

MeyersChuck

Figure 1c


Maps 1-5


Date: 9/26/2013




CanadaOcean


0 10 205 Miles


____________________________________________________________________________________ 26

O c e a n

O c e a n

C a n a d a

De BoerLake

BinkleySloughHarvey

Lake

McGilvery

MaksoutofLake

RezanofLake



M o n u m e n t




Ketchikan-MistyFio rdsRangerDis t r i c t

T h o r n eB a y



Wrangell

ThomsPlace

CoffmanCove

Edna Bay

PortAlice

ThorneBay

Klawock Kasaan

Craig

Hydaburg

Ketchikan

Baranof

Point BakerPort ProtectionLab

Bay

Petersburg

WhalePass

PortAlexander

Sitka

Kake

Naukati

Tyee

Hollis

MeyersChuck

Figure 1d


Maps 1-5


Date: 9/26/2013




CanadaOcean


0 10 205 Miles


____________________________________________________________________________________ 27

Canada

O c e a n

C a n a d aBinkleySlough

HarveyLake

Big GoatLake

ChecatsLake

McGilvery BeaverCampRed

Alders




T h o r n eB a y



Wrangell

ThomsPlace

CoffmanCove

ThorneBay

Klawock Kasaan

Craig

Hydaburg

Ketchikan

WhalePass

Hyder

Metlakatla

Naukati

Hollis

MeyersChuck

Figure 1e


Maps 1-5


Date: 9/26/2013




CanadaOcean


0 10 205 Miles


____________________________________________________________________________________ 28

C a n a d a

O c e a n

Y a k u t a tR a n g e rD i s t r i c t

Yakutat

SquareLake

Figure 2a


Maps 1-5

Path: \\ds.fs.fed.us\EFS\FS\NFS\Tongass\Project\SO\SustainableCabin\GIS\MapProducts\FEA\SitesAlt2.mxd

Date: 6/10/2013

Tongass National Forest Sustainable Cabin - Alternative 2

Key to Alternative 2Remove Cabin

Convert Back to 3-Sided Shelter

Replace Cabin With 3-Sided Shelter

Town Sites

District Boundaries

Wilderness Areas

Canada

Ocean

1 inch equals 20 miles

0 10 205Miles


_____________________________________________________________________________________ 29

O c e a n







M o n u m e n t

T h o r n eB a y


Gustavus

EchoCove

Auke Bay

Douglas

Angoon

Tyee

ElfinCove

Hoonah

Pelican

TenakeeSprings

Todd

Baranof

Sitka

Kake

Petersburg

De BoerLake

DistinLake

HarveyLake

MaksoutofLake

RezanofLake

Figure 2b


Maps 1-5


Date: 6/10/2013





Town Sites

District Boundaries

Wilderness Areas

Canada

Ocean


0 10 205Miles


_____________________________________________________________________________________ 30

C a n a d a

SitkaRangerDistrict







M o n u m e n t

T h o r n eB a y


TyeeKake

Petersburg

Wrangell

ThomsPlace

MeyersChuck

Point BakerPort Protection

Lab Bay

WhalePass

CoffmanCove

Edna Bay

NaukatiPortAlice

Thorne Bay

Klawock Kasaan

De BoerLake

BinkleySlough

DistinLake

HarveyLake

ChecatsLake

McGilvery BeaverCamp

Figure 2c


Maps 1-5


Date: 6/10/2013





Town Sites

District Boundaries

Wilderness Areas

Canada

Ocean


0 10 205Miles


_____________________________________________________________________________________ 31

O c e a n

O c e a n

C a n a d aS i t k a








M o n u m e n t

T h o r n eB a y


Tyee

Baranof

Sitka

PortAlexander

Kake

Petersburg

Wrangell

ThomsPlace

MeyersChuck


Lab Bay

WhalePass

CoffmanCove

Edna Bay

NaukatiPortAlice

Thorne Bay

Klawock KasaanHollisCraig

Hydaburg

Ketchikan

De BoerLake

BinkleySloughHarvey

Lake

McGilvery

MaksoutofLake

RezanofLake

Figure 2d


Maps 1-5


Date: 6/10/2013





Town Sites

District Boundaries

Wilderness Areas

Canada

Ocean


0 10 205Miles


_____________________________________________________________________________________ 32

Canada

O c e a n





T h o r n eB a y


Wrangell

ThomsPlace

Hyder

MeyersChuck

WhalePass

CoffmanCove

Naukati

Thorne Bay


Hydaburg

Ketchikan

Metlakatla

BinkleySlough

HarveyLake

Big GoatLakeChecats

LakeMcGilvery Beaver

CampRed

Alders

Figure 2e


Maps 1-5


Date: 6/10/2013





Town Sites

District Boundaries

Wilderness Areas

Canada

Ocean


0 10 205Miles


_____________________________________________________________________________________ 33

C a n a d a

O c e a n

Y a k u t a tR a n g e rD i s t r i c t

Yakutat

SquareLake

Figure 3a


Maps 1-5


Date: 6/10/2013



Convert to Shelter

Continue to Rent Cabin

Town Sites

District Boundaries

Wilderness Areas

Canada

Ocean

0 10 205Miles



____________________________________________________________________________________ 34

O c e a n







M o n u m e n t

T h o r n eB a y


Gustavus

EchoCove

Auke Bay

Douglas

Angoon

Tyee

ElfinCove

Hoonah

Pelican

TenakeeSprings

Todd

Baranof

Sitka

Kake

Petersburg

De BoerLake

DistinLake

HarveyLake

MaksoutofLake

RezanofLake

Figure 3b


Maps 1-5


Date: 6/10/2013



Convert to Shelter


Town Sites

District Boundaries

Wilderness Areas

Canada

Ocean

0 10 205Miles



____________________________________________________________________________________ 35

C a n a d a

SitkaRangerDistrict







M o n u m e n t

T h o r n eB a y


TyeeKake

Petersburg

Wrangell

ThomsPlace

MeyersChuck


Lab Bay

WhalePass

CoffmanCove

Edna Bay

NaukatiPortAlice

Thorne Bay

Klawock Kasaan

De BoerLake

BinkleySlough

DistinLake

HarveyLake

ChecatsLake

McGilvery BeaverCamp

Figure 3c


Maps 1-5


Date: 6/10/2013



Convert to Shelter


Town Sites

District Boundaries

Wilderness Areas

Canada

Ocean

0 10 205Miles



____________________________________________________________________________________ 36

O c e a n

O c e a n

C a n a d aS i t k a








M o n u m e n t

T h o r n eB a y


Tyee

Baranof

Sitka

PortAlexander

Kake

Petersburg

Wrangell

ThomsPlace

MeyersChuck


Lab Bay

WhalePass

CoffmanCove

Edna Bay

NaukatiPortAlice

Thorne Bay


Hydaburg

Ketchikan

De BoerLake

BinkleySloughHarvey

Lake

McGilvery

MaksoutofLake

RezanofLake

Figure 3d


Maps 1-5


Date: 6/10/2013



Convert to Shelter


Town Sites

District Boundaries

Wilderness Areas

Canada

Ocean

0 10 205Miles



____________________________________________________________________________________ 37

Canada

O c e a n





T h o r n eB a y


Wrangell

ThomsPlace

Hyder

MeyersChuck

WhalePass

CoffmanCove

Naukati

Thorne Bay


Hydaburg

Ketchikan

Metlakatla

BinkleySlough

HarveyLake

Big GoatLakeChecats

LakeMcGilvery Beaver

CampRed

Alders

Figure 3e


Maps 1-5


Date: 6/10/2013



Convert to Shelter


Town Sites

District Boundaries

Wilderness Areas

Canada

Ocean

0 10 205Miles



____________________________________________________________________________________ 38


39

CHAPTER 3, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES This section summarizes the physical, biological, social and economic environments of the affected project area and the potential changes to those environments due to implementation of the alternatives. It also presents the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of alternatives presented in the chart above.

Recreation and the social and economic environment are discussed first since most of the concerns about this project were related to those topics. The remaining resources are organized alphabetically. The Safety analysis is included in Appendix C, Health and Safety Analysis, of this EA.

Project Record The resource sections below are summaries of the specialist reports found in the project record for this project. Additional information, including definitions for level of effects, is included in the specialist reports. The project record is available to the public by contacting the Tongass National Forest (Supervisor’s Office) in Sitka, Alaska.

Analysis Area Affects to resources as a result of this project were generally assessed across the Tongass National Forest and at each specific cabin location. Additional information on analysis area by resource is described in the specialist reports in the project record.

Level of Effects In many cases, the IDT used and defined a level of effects to display the amount and direction of effects upon resources. Impacts increase from negligible (which includes no effect) to minor to moderate to major. Definitions of level of effect are displayed by resource in this chapter. There were no major effects on any resource in any alternative. Definitions of major effects are found in the specialist reports in the project record.

Recreation ______________________________________

Affected Environment - Recreation Cabins Forest-wide The Tongass National Forest is a vast expanse of forests, mountains, coastline, rivers and ice fields. It is some of the only temperate rainforest in the United States and represents a unique resource for all users. Recreation opportunities from cruise boat tours to remote Wilderness adventures are available to Forest users. Including the cabins in this proposal there are 152 public use recreation cabins across the Tongass National Forest. Of these cabins, 142 are available for rent. The rental cabins represent various recreation opportunities and scenic values. For example, some of these cabins are highly accessible, only a short drive from town, while others may only be reached by float plane or a long hike to an alpine lake. These cabins have strong recreation value to local residents of Southeast Alaska and visitors to the area alike. The system of public cabins, some of which were constructed decades before Alaska became a state, represents part of the


40

Southeast Alaskan history and continues to enhance users’ experiences on the Forest today.

Cabins are situated in remote alpines, lake shores, along the coast, near popular fishing streams, and even in heavily used campgrounds near population centers. Most cabins are open for reservation throughout the year, yet the majority of use is concentrated between May and September, due to summer travel schedules, weather conditions for accessing cabins, fish run timing windows, and hunting seasons. Cabins located in more accessible locations like the Twelvemile Cabin on Prince of Wales Island, which is accessible from the road system, receives heavy use nearly all year round. Other cabins like the Jim’s Lake Cabin on Admiralty Island show recorded use only between June and November, likely because the cabin is too hard to access with snow and frozen lakes during the winter and spring months. Cabin use is heavily affected by weather and access because these facilities are remote and often require a chartered flight or boat trip to reach them.

Forest Service recreation cabins have been used by visitors to the Tongass National Forest since the 1930s (Forest Service 2012), with cyclic periods of growth and decline, reflective of the overall global economy. The popularity of individual cabins within the Tongass cabin system, however, has changed over this seventy-five year period. Areas become popular or go out of vogue in response to many variables, such as accessibility to hunting and fishing grounds, transportation costs, proximity to a town or camp, and cabin condition and the condition of the surrounding environment. Based on use records and discussions with cabin users, as the cost of fuel and flights increase, fewer people are able to pay to visit the more remote and inaccessible cabins. Likewise, fuel and flight costs affect the Forest Service personnel’s ability to access cabins to maintain them. An unmaintained cabin may become less desirable over time, further reducing its use. In contrast, a road may be built to a cabin site, greatly increasing the cabin use, or a cabin location is written up in a sporting magazine and the cabin receives a boom in visitation following the article. In general, however, the system of recreation cabins on the Tongass National Forest has sustained the interest and enthusiasm of tourists and local users alike for three quarters of a century.

The existing condition of the overall Tongass Cabin system is one of fluctuation. New cabins are added to the system, while human and natural events remove cabins from the system. Typically, as a cabin ages and reaches the extent of its lifespan, a substantial investment in deferred maintenance (large scale maintenance such as a roof or foundation replacement) or a total replacement is required. Since 2008, about ten cabins have been replaced, three new cabins were added, one cabin that was being used administratively has been opened to the public for reservations, and five cabins were removed or destroyed, due to low use or natural causes such as landslides or windstorms (see Appendix B).

Tongass cabins as a whole have seen steady visitor use for the past 75 years. The highest use cabin is Windfall Lake Cabin in Juneau with an average of 251 reserved nights per year (2008-2012). Very low use cabins receive between zero and 12 nights of use per year. On average Tongass cabins receive about 63 nights of use per year. Approximately 96 of the 152 cabins reported less than the average 63 reserved nights per year. The majority of the high use cabins are located near road systems and communities. Cabins near the City of Juneau report high numbers because they have a 32,000 citizen


41

population to draw from, while the other communities of Southeast Alaska are 11,000 people or less. The high use cabins near Sitka (Allan Point, Fred’s Creek and Starrigavan) are either within a few miles of town or on popular boat routes from town. The Twelvemile Cabin is an accessible cabin built on the Prince of Wales Island road system with excellent access to fishing and hunting grounds.

Low use cabins are located in remote areas, often in Wilderness areas and far from communities or road systems. Many are located on high alpine lakes like Josephine and Black Bear Lakes. These cabins are completely inaccessible for much of the year due to heavy snow fall and frozen lake conditions. Float planes cannot land in these areas and a hike in during the winter would be treacherous. Reduced use of remote cabins are relatively recent trends, probably resulting from difficult access combined with higher flight costs to access remote locations.

Cabins in this Project As described in Tables 1 and 2 in Chapter 1, in general, the 12 cabin sites in this project are located in remote locations, near other more popular cabins, and/or are in a location where effects of nature have caused significant damage to the structure. Expensive flights and difficult to access locations limit use at most if not all of these cabins. Big Goat Lake is in a highly sought-after Misty Fiords Wilderness location which receives substantial use by floatplane tour operators/guides. However, because their tours are generally set up as very short term visits (usually no more than 20 minutes on the ground) with many visits occurring on any day, the Big Goat Lake Cabin is not used or even entered by most visitors because the floatplane time is too limited to go into the cabin. Other users do not wish to stay at a remote cabin that has multiple floatplane landings occurring on a regular basis. A detailed description of each cabin is located in Appendix A of this EA. This document shows information about each Tongass cabin by district and also provides information about visitor use for the past five years.

In the past decade, few visitors have been to the 12 cabins proposed for removal in this project. Because they receive very low, incidental use and are expensive and difficult to access, these cabins have not been prioritized for cabin maintenance. Hence, the conditions of these 12 cabins are poor, with problems like leaking roofs, black mold problems inside, and extensive rot in the walls, and/or rafters and foundations that need replacement(for details regarding cabin conditions see the project file). Most of them have been removed from the national recreation reservation service (NRRS) — www.recreation.gov — for many years and no information about these sites has been posted on the Forest Service Website. Two of the twelve cabins, Checats Lake and Harvey Lake remain on the reservation system. The other ten cabins have been removed from the reservation system because of their poor conditions and very low use. The poor conditions may present a safety concern to potential users (see Appendix C of this EA).

Recreation Use: The twelve cabins assessed in this document have very low or no visitor use as displayed in the tables in Appendix A. It is believed from observations, communications with district staff and trend data that the reasons that these cabins have not been used are one or all of the following: they are very remote, they are located within the proximity of a more popular cabin, they are in very poor condition, or local use pattern have changed in the area. For example, at Big Goat Lake, a float seeing company as begun to take cruise tourists to Big Goat Lake. These tours only land for a few

http://www.recreation.gov/


42

minutes so the area sees many visitors but very few overnight users and cabin users. Those few visitors who may have used the cabin in the past have stopped using it due to the noise and disturbance of the flights and tourists.

Developed Recreation: These cabins are designated as developed recreation sites because of the presence of the cabin. These cabins are generally in a condition where they are safety hazards that should not be used; as such, they are not acting as developed sites where we would encourage use. Five of the twelve cabins have developed recreation sites within two miles of the cabin. All five of these cabins have another cabin located within two miles, several on the same lake. In most of these cases, the other cabin is in better shape and accounts for the majority of the visitor use in the area. Given the choice, most visitors choose to visit the cabin that is in better condition, especially when they must make a substantial investment to access these remote cabin locations.

ROS: Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) help the Forest Service identify, quantify, and describe the variety of recreation settings available on National Forest System lands. The ROS settings for the eleven cabins are generally in the less developed ROS settings. Typically cabins are located in undeveloped areas to aid visitors in accessing relatively primitive areas for recreation purposes. Recreation Areas - Inventoried and Dispersed Recreation: Inventoried recreation places and undeveloped/dispersed recreation sites are important to recreation users because they are generally sites that create intrigue and draw visitors to a location. Great fishing streams and waterfalls are popular visitor locations. The cabins in this project are generally not associated with popular inventoried recreation places or with more-used undeveloped/dispersed recreation sites. Only six of the twelve cabins are associated with inventoried recreation areas and seven of the cabins are within two miles of recorded undeveloped/dispersed recreation sites. Often the recreation area or dispersed site is the lake or bay or stream access point where the cabin is located. For the cabins near Inventoried recreation places, in every case except Checats Cabin there is another cabin or shelter offering access to this inventoried recreation area. Where cabins were near dispersed sites, in most of these cases there are other developed recreation sites in the vicinity that facilitate the use and enjoyment of these undeveloped/dispersed sites. For example, Distin Lake has the more popular Sportsmen cabin on it to enhance visitor use and enjoyment of the lake. Likewise, Anderson Creek can be accessed by the Salmon Lake Cabin, which shares Salmon Lake with McGilvery Cabin.

Direct and Indirect Environmental Effects on Recreation The effects on visitor safety are included in Appendix C of this EA.

Negligible Effects: There are no effects on recreation indicators or they are small enough as to be undetectable.

Minor Effects: The effect is a temporary change to the type of use, or one that does not alter the way the site is used. In terms of the level of use, effect would be temporary or one that does not greatly alter the general trend of use level at the site. Additionally, change does not reach a level that it no longer meets the ROS/ LUD specification for recreation resources (Forest Plan 3-7 to 3-128)


43

Alternative 1

Effects on Recreation Visitor Use, Developed Recreation, ROS, and Recreation Areas: Continued deterioration of the cabins on the landscape would not change visitor use. Currently, very few users visit these cabins. This trend is not likely to change as cabins continue to deteriorate.

With no action, the cabins will continue to deteriorate. Continued deterioration of these cabins is negative effect on these developed sites. Minor effects are likely to continue to other developed, inventoried, and dispersed recreation sites if the no action alternative is selected. Visitors to nearby cabins or recreation sites may see deteriorating cabins on the same lake system, but this is not likely to change the recreation use pattern. Cabins left on the landscape are not likely to change the way visitors fish, hike, hunt or relax at these recreation sites. These areas and sites will continue to provide the recreation resources for which they were identified. Dispersed/undeveloped recreation sites may receive less use if cabins continue to deteriorate on the landscape, yet most of the dispersed/undeveloped sites associated with the cabin sites would be accessed and used from other nearby cabins sites or alternative access points.

Negligible effects to ROS are likely to occur as a result of Alternative 1, the no action alternative. The development level of the area would remain the same. No or very low use may continue at the cabin sites, and is likely to decrease as the condition of the twelve cabins decline.

Alternative 2 Effects on Recreation Visitor Use (see also Socioeconomics section): The removal of nine cabins would not affect the visitor trends of recreation use at these sites. These cabins have either been closed for several years or receive very little use at this time. Since the majority of these cabins have already been removed from the reservation system, and those that have not been removed receive very little use, only minor changes in use are anticipated. The existing use may shift to a nearby facility. No major change in use pattern is expected.

The construction of three-sided shelters at Big Goat, Harvey and Distin are also unlikely to change visitor use. Flight seeing is likely to continue at Big Goat Lake. Visitors at this lake are not likely to use the shelter because of limited time. The Harvey Lake Shelter would be a convenience to visitors but is not likely to greatly expand the use that the site currently sees with a cabin. Distin Lake was historically a shelter and a cabin; the use of this site is likely to follow historic use patterns.

Effects on Developed Recreation: Each of the sites in this assessment is designated as a developed recreation site. However, these cabins are generally in a condition where they are safety hazards that should not be used; as such, they are not acting as developed sites where we would encourage use.

Still, by removing any one of them, a minor effect would take place. Changing them to shelters also causes a minor effect. These changes are not considered major effects in terms of recreation resources, because they would not cause a major change in recreation use patterns across the districts or Tongass in general. Major changes are not anticipated


44

because there are still many other cabin opportunities available nearby to these sites and the conversion to shelters at some sites would adequately address existing use patterns.

At Harvey Lake, replacement of the cabin by a three-sided shelter could provide shelter to day users and a place to sleep for some overnight users. The Harvey Lake Shelter is a convenience to visitors who swim or pick berries in the area. It is unlikely that many Harvey Lake users would choose to travel and hike to Harvey Lake in poor weather conditions thus the shelter is not likely to provide safety shelter for users. In contrast, the Big Goat shelter, according to local managers, is not likely to be used by the day use visitors because the flight-seeing tours that bring visitors to Big Lake do not stay long enough (no more than 20 minutes) in the location for visitors to use the shelter. Flight-seeing operators are reported to avoid this area in poor weather, so this shelter would not be expected to provide for safety. Again this shelter would be designed for user convenience and would not affect the use patterns of the area. In the case of Distin Lake, the three-sided shelter would adequately provide shelter for current use in the area. The less developed three-sided shelter design at Distin Lake also fits the more primitive Wilderness experience. The Distin Lake Shelter would allow for the continued use of the area at established use levels. The shelters provide convenience to users. They are not a necessity for safety. They may be utilized but would not change the exiting use patterns at the sites.

In addition to the effects on the cabins themselves, minor effects to other developed recreation sites may take place with the removal of these twelve cabins. During cabin removal, users of nearby developed recreation sites like cabins, shelters and trails may see the removal process take place. This action will be temporary and limited to the cabin site and affiliated facilities (toilet and woodshed).

Effects on ROS: Minor effects to ROS are anticipated as a result of Alternative 2. The removal of cabins and the transition of cabins to shelters would reduce the site development level. Yet these cabins tend to be in remote, undeveloped areas with primitive to primitive non-motorized ROS descriptions. The proposed cabin removal would not change the ROS description, because the ROS descriptions for these sites are already undeveloped with limited use levels. Generally changes to ROS occur on a landscape scale. The removal of cabins is a small-scale event in terms of the overall ROS description of the landscape.

Alternative 3 Effects on Recreation Visitor Use: Alternative 3, much like Alternative 2, would not affect visitor use at the 10 removed cabins. Checats would remain in place and likely continue to receive a minimal amount of visitation annually. The Distin Lake cabin would transition back to a shelter and current use patterns are anticipated to continue at the site.

Effects on Developed Recreation: Like Alternative 2, only minor effects to developed recreation sites are anticipated with Alternative 3. In Alternative 3, Checats Lake Cabin would remain as a reservation cabin and Distin Lake Cabin would convert back to a three-sided shelter. Checats Lake received an average of 14 use days per year from 2007-2011, about three times more than the other cabins in this assessment. Since it is in relatively good shape and receives a small but steady amount of use, leaving it open


45

would allow visitors to continue to use it. This relatively small amount of use would not cause a major change in developed recreation use.

By not providing three-sided shelters at Big Goat and Harvey Lake, the developed recreation opportunities enjoyed in these areas would see minor effects. Visitors would likely continue to use these areas. For example, the flight-seeing tours to Big Goat Lake are likely to continue without any change to the pattern established. The addition of a shelter at Big Goat Lake may be used by occasional visitors but the flight-seeing tours do not stop long enough at the lake to allow for shelter use at this time. At Harvey Lake, most visitors use the site during nice weather, not requiring shelter. If a shelter is constructed at Harvey Lake, day use visitors may use it, but they would use the site regardless of the presence or absence of a shelter.

Effects on ROS: Minor effects to ROS are anticipated for Alternative 3 with effects similar to Alternative 2.

Alternatives 2 and 3 Effects on Recreation Areas: Minor effects to Inventoried Recreation Areas and undeveloped/dispersed recreation sites are anticipated as a result of Alternatives 2 and 3. In all of the Inventoried Recreation Areas associated with the proposed removal cabins, the values for which the area was identified would remain. They would continue to be used for the purposes that they were identified--fishing, hunting and boating locations. It is apparent from cabin use reports that visitors are not utilizing cabin facilities in these areas or they can use nearby facilities that meet their needs better.

By removing cabins from the landscape, some dispersed/undeveloped recreation sites may receive less use, but the majority of these sites are accessed by alternative routes and other nearby developed recreation sites. The proposed three-sided shelters in Alternative 2 and remaining cabin in Alternative 3 would help provide facilities to users of some dispersed/undeveloped sites. Yet, identified dispersed/undeveloped sites are likely to draw users regardless of the presence of cabins/shelters. The presence of cabins in an area typically enhances the recreation opportunities associated with dispersed/undeveloped sites. Since the cabins in this assessment have shown very little use or no use in the past many years, it is unlikely that these cabins have been enhancing the opportunities associated with the dispersed/undeveloped sites. Visitors are able to access and enjoy the lakes, bays and streams identified within proximity of the twelve cabins independently of the cabins. Therefore, if the cabins are removed, it is unlikely that there will be an effect on how people use the dispersed/undeveloped sites.

Cumulative Environmental Effects on Recreation Alternative 1: Under this alternative, ongoing negative effects would continue. Over time, cumulative effects would be similar to those described under Alternatives 2 and 3.

Alternatives 2 and 3: Ten of the twelve cabins are located in wilderness or land use designations which do not permit development. Hence no planned development projects are scheduled in these areas. Activities that could occur in these areas are expected to be low impact such as guided nature tours and hunting/fishing. When considering the area nearby the individual cabins, no cumulative effects are expected in these areas. Mineral


46

exploration is occurring in the same Land Use Designation (LUD) area as DeBoer Lake Cabin. Projects proposed in Thomas Bay (same LUD as Harvey Lake Cabin) include timber harvest, young-growth treatments, restoration activities, and trail rehabilitation. The LUDs are quite large and these activities are not occurring near these two cabins. Additionally, the limited impact of this project on recreation at or near these cabin sites is not expected to cause cumulative effects on recreation when combined with these upcoming non-recreation activities.

In terms of the forest-wide recreation program, the removal of these cabins reflects a minor cumulative effect because cumulatively visitors will not change the way that they are using Tongass Cabins. The system of cabins will not be greatly altered. The pattern of cabin use over the past century has seen many fluctuations. These fluctuations reflect changes in national and international economies. The cabin removals are not likely to change fluctuations in cabin visitor use.

The Forest has not yet determined which other cabins will be removed or converted to shelters. Still, we know that several more cabins are at risk and that if no other funding is found, people do not use them more, and we do not come up with other ways to “fix” the financial problems, more cabins will be removed some day. The number of additional cabins, their locations, and the timing of their removal is unknown at this time. It is also likely that some cabins may be added to the Forest’s cabin program, though the locations and timing are unknown at this time, and the number of additions is not expected be as high as or higher than the number removed.

The cumulative effect is an overall future reduction in recreational cabins available to be rented by the public, but the specific amount, location, and timing is unknown. Despite these reductions, strategic planning should help to retain cabins in representative niches, in higher use locations, in good condition, and in locations where safety is a concern. Because of the condition and no or very low use of these cabins combined with planning for a future, sustainable cabin program, cumulative effects on recreation are expected to be minor.

The paragraphs below help to describe the strategic planning that is occurring in an effort to reach a sustainable cabin level. This planning effort will direct the recreation program in the foreseeable future. The outcome of this planning will be analyzed as part of future environmental analysis.

Although natural fluctuations in use patterns occur driven by global economic factors, the Tongass National Forest is attempting to create a sustainable cabin program that may prove successful despite economic changes. As budgets shrink, the Tongass is learning to be better at investing limited funds in existing and new cabin projects that demonstrate successful use patterns. Likewise, the Tongass is seeking ways to reduce funding on cabins that are not successful. This project is a first step in this process. At this time, the Tongass does not have plans to remove other specific cabins from the cabin system. Yet, reductions in budget and increasing costs to access cabin sites, both by recreation users and maintenance crews, has removed the luxury of maintaining failing cabins. As cabins receive less use, they also fall in the priority for maintenance. Hence with reduced maintenance funds, these cabins also tend to fall into disrepair, thereby becoming less favored by the public. The overall goal of the Tongass Cabins program is to avoid this


47

downward spiral pattern with the cabin system and to achieve equilibrium with successful cabins that people use frequently, adding financial resources, and ultimately keeping the cabins maintained and enjoyable.

Although philosophically, most local residents and cabin users do not want to see cabins closed or removed from the cabin system, when these cabins are looked at carefully, records and public comments show that these are not the cabins that most individuals are visiting and enjoying. The Tongass National Forest endeavors to create a sustainable cabin system, where the cabins that represent identified niches (snow fields, marine coastlines, Wilderness, alpine, for example) and demonstrated use are maintained for the use and enjoyment of the public for many generations to come.

There are cabins on the system that do not receive a moderate amount of use, struggle to pay for maintenance because they are remote, but represent an important niche. For example, some cabins are the only facilities available in a given region developed to enhance recreation opportunities. Alaska Wilderness cabins fit this description well. Alaska offers some of the most remote, challenging and extraordinary Wilderness areas in the country and it is also one of the only areas where cabins are allowed and protected (under ANILCA Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act 1980). Removal of all cabins in a Wilderness or even all cabins in one of the Tongass Wilderness Areas would cause a loss in available facilities in this niche.

Moving into the foreseeable future, it is likely that the Tongass Cabin Program will continue to see changes with the addition of a few new cabins (see Appendix B), carefully placed in locations that are very likely to receive a high amount of use, and the removal of other cabins that have not been used for many years. In the process of seeking equilibrium, which is anticipated to be an ongoing goal because it is linked to national and international socio-economic fluctuations, the Tongass cabin program will continue to provide a spectrum of opportunities from extremely remote Wilderness sites to roadside locations within ten miles of communities. A representative number of cabins in various niches will be maintained in order to provide access to these different opportunities across the Tongass. The most successful cabins will help to support cabins that represent important niches but receive lower use levels.

Socioeconomics _________________________________

Affected Environment - Socioeconomics Demographic Characteristics and Trends Southeast Alaska had an estimated population of 71,664 in 2010, with slightly more than two-thirds (67 percent) of that total concentrated in three cities: Juneau, Ketchikan, and Sitka (Alaska Department of Labor 2011). The remaining population is distributed throughout the region in more than 30 small communities, most with populations of less than 1,000 residents. Population projections developed by the State of Alaska anticipate continued population growth statewide, but expect population to continue to decline in the small communities in Southeast Alaska (Mercer 2010).


48

The majority of the population in Alaska, almost two-thirds, identified as White in the 2010 Census. Alaska Natives were the largest minority group, accounting for 14 percent of the total population.

Tourism These cabins have strong recreation value to local residents of Southeast Alaska and visitors to the area alike. Recreation opportunities in Southeast Alaska have grown with increased tourism to the area. An estimated 1,064,000 out-of-state visitors came to Southeast Alaska between May 2011 and April 2012, with 48percent traveling by cruise boat and 47percent traveling by air (McDowell Group 2013).

Cruise ship visitors tend to spend little time in the area and generally follow preplanned and regimented itineraries (USDA Forest Service 2008b). Visitors not arriving by cruise ship tend to spend more time in local communities and on the Forest, and may secure services such as outfitters and guides, motels, and floatplanes. Approximately 89 percent of non-cruise ship visitors to Southeast Alaska in 2006 purchased some type of multi-day package (McDowell Group et al. 2007). These visitors and residents tend to use the Tongass Cabin System. These types of visitors compete more directly with residents for recreation opportunities on the Forest. No specific research has been done to determine the effect of recreation cabin use on the local or regional economy. Cabin System Income and Costs There are 152 cabins on the Tongass National Forest. Of these cabins, 142 are available for rent. Tongass cabins receive between less than 10 and 270 reserved nights of use per year. Average cabin use, measured in reserved nights per year, for the 152 Tongass cabins is 61 reserved nights per year (project record). Revenue from cabin use is also recorded. The cost to rent a Tongass Cabin is between $25 and $60 per night. The highest use cabin collects approximately $10,000 annually while some of the least used cabins receive less than $100 per year. The average revenue received from Tongass Cabins is about $2,000 annually. The combined revenue returned from the 152 Tongass cabins is approximately $308,000 annually. About 95% of the funds from cabin use are returned to the Tongass to be used for recreation facility maintenance.

Although the revenue received from the cabin reservations is extremely useful, it only scratches the surface of overall cabin costs. For example, like all constructed facilities, cabins have a calculated lifespan based on the materials, design and location of the cabin. The structural lifespan is different for each facility. Based on local staff comments, if cabins are planned, built and maintained well, they can last 50 years. As cabins age, major repairs or replacement is required to meet engineering standards for health and safety of the facility. A cabin replacement is likely to cost between $180,000 and $260,000 depending on the complexity of the design, cost of materials and cost of mobilizing materials to the site (capital improvement project [CIP] design cost estimate). One cabin replacement would use up nearly all of the cabin maintenance funds returned for a 1-year period.

If the Forest Service were to keep cabins in these locations, the cost would be high. Since nine of the cabins in this project would need replacement due to their poor conditions, costs for cabin replacements alone would be about $1.8 million for these


49

cabins. Replacement costs are high mostly because the cost of mobilization to these locations is very high. Furthermore, many of these cabins are in Wilderness areas and construction methods would be done with hand tools, which would extend the time to construct considerably. Additionally, most of these cabins would need new toilets or outhouses, woodsheds, and decks.

Cabin maintenance costs include salary, time, access costs, and number of visits. A cabin crew is typically made up of a staff person and one to three technicians. Most cabin maintenance trips take one to five days, depending on whether there is wood to cut, toilets to address, and major cleaning or fixing to take place. Access also has a relatively wide range, because some cabins are on the road system and within ten miles of a community, while others are three hour, roundtrip plane ride. Cabin maintenance costs (including labor and travel) for one trip are estimated between about $450/cabin visit (for nearby cabins on roads) to $6,150/cabin visit

Most maintenance trips probably fall somewhere in the middle at an average cost of $3,300/visit. If this average cost is used to calculate total maintenance costs across the 152 cabins on the Tongass, then a single-visit annual maintenance cost for the cabin system is about $501,600. This estimate is greater than the revenue generated by cabin reservations ($501,600>$308,000). Although these costs are only an estimate and do not take into account the actual maintenance costs of each cabin, they are based on cabin use figures and actual budget figures and demonstrate that presently, cabin revenue does not cover cabin maintenance costs.

Higher use cabins require more visits because firewood runs out and toilets get full. Twelvemile Cabin, for instance, is a high use cabin and needs to be visited about six to eight times per year for maintenance. It is also a road side cabin where access is relatively easy. Annual maintenance for Twelvemile cabin is calculated at $4,800/yr. Twelvemile Cabin, however, is a high use cabin and has an average annual revenue of about $6,000. This cabin’s visitor use pays for its maintenance. Twelvemile Cabin is an example of a cabin that strategically is functioning and meeting the goals for recreation cabins on the Tongass. It represents one of the Tongass niches as a marine coast cabin, provides excellent access to fishing, hunting and recreation opportunities and is located on the road system, relatively close to local communities.

Tongass National Forest Recreation Facilities Budget The Tongass budget for recreation facilities including cabins was $1,355,000 in 2013. This is a decline from $2,311,000 in 2008 and $2,014,000 in 2012. The federal budget for maintaining and replacing recreation facilities has declined by 59% in the last five years. The majority of federal funds are allocated to salaries for permanent and permanent-seasonal employees. Few districts employed temporary workers with these funds in 2013. The effects of this decline in federal funding are a reduction in flights to remote cabins; a reduction in temporary crews to perform maintenance; and a reduction in larger-scale, deferred maintenance projects such as roof replacements. Another result of this budget decline is a stronger dependence on partner groups and volunteers to help maintain and care for cabins.

Partners and volunteers are a valued resource for recreation work. Partners have successfully helped maintain numerous cabins on the Tongass including Troller’s Cove


50

and Twelvemile Cabins. Yet these volunteers are affected by the same high costs for flights and access as the Forest Service and the visiting public. Increased fuel costs have limited many volunteers and volunteer group’s abilities to access remote cabins to perform maintenance. Also, in order for volunteers to work on cabins, they must go through the time-consuming Forest Service Trainings (e.g. bear awareness, chainsaw certification, boat and aviation training if flying with Forest Service planes, etc.). And they must work through the cumbersome grants and agreements process with the federal government. Both of these commitments have reduced the numbers of volunteers and their enthusiasm to work on cabin projects. Moreover, many of the cabins needing maintenance are in designated Wilderness, where the maintenance must be accomplished without motorized or mechanized means (power tools, generators, helicopters, vehicles etc.) unless it is determined to be the minimum tool. These restrictions make Wilderness work difficult, time consuming and often frustrating for some volunteers. Ultimately, these challenges have reduced the willingness and ability of many volunteers to work on public use cabins.

Direct and Indirect Effects on Socioeconomics Negligible Effects: There are no effects on socioeconomic indicators or they are small enough as to be undetectable.

Minor Effects: Effects on socioeconomics, such as tourism trends, are temporary or limited in scope. They would not represent a change in cultural or economic trends across the project area

Table 5: Estimated Costs of Activities at Cabins

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Activity Biennial survey 2 shelters, Distin, 11

cabin removals Distin, 10 cabin removals, one biennial survey for Checats

Estimated Total Cost

$24,600/every~2 years $154,100 $62,050

*Estimates of costs are provided as a way to compare relative costs of alternatives. They are based on past project costs combined with professional knowledge. These costs do not reflect project-specific, engineering, or contracting estimates. Costs of cabin maintenance and alternatives was estimated under the assumption that: Cost of replacing one cabin ≈ $200,000; Cost of survey≈ $2,050 ($1600 flight + $450 two employees); Cost of one cabin removal ≈ $4,100 ($1600 flight +$2500 removal); Cost of constructing one shelter ≈ $45,000 (cost of Bohemia shelter constructed in 2003); Cost of reconstructing Distin Lake into a shelter ≈ $19,000 ($10,000+$6,000 [crew of 3 for 10 days] +$3000 Flight)

Alternative 1: Minor direct and indirect effects are anticipated to Tongass-wide socioeconomics as a result of the no action alternative. Cabins would continue to deteriorate in place. These facilities would not offer high quality recreation opportunities to the public and potentially may drain limited resources from recreation budgets for maintenance trips to these sites. Approximately $25,000 would be needed approximately every two years to continue to monitor these sites (Table 5). An estimated 1.8 million dollars (for 9 cabin replacements and not including repair costs at the three better condition cabins) and $100,000/year would be needed if cabins were to be replaced and


51

maintained. As shown in Table 5, direct costs of Alternative 1 would be low. However, liability would be high for the Forest Service as unsafe conditions remain and worsen.

In terms of socioeconomics of local communities, Alternative 1 is not likely to have any effect. Communities are not economically dependent on these no and very low use cabins. The tourism industry is also not dependent on these facilities. The Tongass offers several other cabin opportunities that support the tourism industry of Southeast Alaska. No major socioeconomic trends are likely to change due to this alternative.

Alternative 2: Alternative 2 is likely to have minor effects to socioeconomics. Table 5 shows the direct costs of this alternative. In addition, ongoing maintenance and survey of three shelters would require additional funds to be spent. The twelve cabins in this assessment have had no or very low use for the past several years. Very little revenue is recuperated through these cabins. Attempting to keep them open would be a drain on the overall cabin system. Removal of these cabins saves limited resources and helps to sustain the Tongass Cabin system by allowing cabin funding to be used on more desirable cabins.

The construction or reconstruction of three cabins into shelters would retain facilities at these sites, thereby providing facilities to potential visitors. It is likely that these new facilities will not greatly enhance socioeconomic opportunities at these former cabin sites, because these sites are not heavily used at this time and reports from local staff state that flight-seeing visitors do not stay long enough at Big Goat Lake to utilize a three-sided shelter.

The action alternatives would have minor effects to local communities, because the established use patterns would remain the same. Use figures demonstrate that local users are not using these sites as overnight sites and haven’t done so for several years. Local users also tend to use other facilities or use these sites as day use sites. Alternative 2 would not affect these use patterns and trends.

Likewise, Alternative 2 would not affect Southeast Alaska tourism. Removal of the selected cabins and a change to three-sided shelters would not change how tourism occurs in the region. Visitors to Southeast Alaska continue to have a wide distribution of cabins to choose from. Furthermore, although the cabin use numbers for these 12 cabins has been consistently nothing or very low, cabin use numbers for the overall Tongass Cabin system have increased. Visitor use of cabins is up approximately 7% on the Tongass National Forest from 2008-2012 (Cabin Use Figures, project record). Hence the removal of the selected cabins would not cause a change in the trend of visitor use to the cabin system. The removal of these cabins would have a negligible effect to the economics of the region.

Alternative 3: Effects for Alternative 3 are similar to Alternative 2, though with substantially reduced construction and maintenance costs (Table 5). In Alternative 3 Checats Cabin remains and Distin is transitioned to a three-sided shelter, while Harvey Lake and Big Goat cabins are removed. These proposed changes are not likely to affect the visitor revenue generated by any of these sites. Furthermore, local tourism and recreation opportunities are not likely to shift due to this alternative. Checats is likely to continue to see very low use, and the three-sided shelter and Distin would likely maintain historic use levels. The lack of three-sided shelters at Big Goat and Harvey are not likely


52

to have a great effect on the visiting users because in the case of Big Goat they do not have time to use it and at Harvey Lake, it would be a convenience but not really necessary because visitors tend to use the site regardless of whether a facility is available or not.

Cumulative Environmental Effects on Socioeconomics Alternative 1: Under this alternative, ongoing negative effects would continue. Over time, cumulative effects would be similar to those described under Alternatives 2 and 3.

Alternatives 2 and 3:

Although philosophically, most local residents and cabin users do not want to see cabins closed or removed from the cabin system, when these cabins are looked at carefully, records and public comments show that these are not the cabins that most individuals are visiting and enjoying. The Tongass National Forest endeavors to create a sustainable cabin system, where the cabins that represent identified niches (snow fields, marine coastlines, Wilderness, alpine, for example) and demonstrated use are maintained for the use and enjoyment of the public for many generations to come.

As described under Cumulative Environmental Effects on Recreation, the Forest has not yet determined which other cabins will be removed, added, or converted to shelters. The cumulative effect is an overall future reduction in recreational cabins available to be rented by the public, but the specific amount, location, and timing is unknown. Despite these reductions, strategic planning should help to retain cabins in representative niches, in higher use locations, in good condition, and in locations where safety is a concern. Due to the fact that so few people are using these sites at this time, little change in revenue and use would occur even when combined with future cabin projects. Because of the condition and no or very low use of these cabins combined with planning for sustainable cabin program, cumulative effects on socioeconomics are expected to be negligible. Furthermore, since these cabins seem to make sense to remove in terms of the Tongass cabin strategy, limited resources may be allocated to other cabins that better benefit local communities and the Southeast Alaskan tourism industry which may benefit socioeconomics.

Heritage ________________________________________ For this project, the Area of Potential Effect (APE) encompasses the twelve individual cabin sites located across seven districts of the Tongass National Forest, southeast Alaska. All of the individual locations are less than one acre in size and are on the shores of remote inland lakes or riverbanks. Forest Service archaeologists conducted a cultural resource investigation of the twelve cabin sites.

Affected Environment - Heritage The cultural resource investigation concluded that ten of the twelve cabins associated with this project are historic period Alaska Heritage Resource Survey (AHRS) sites).


53

One was originally constructed as an Adirondack shelter by the CCC in the 1930’s; nine others were built between 1950 and 1965, and consist of Dingell-Johnson, A-Frame, and Pan Abode styles. The two remaining cabins, Square Lake and Binkley Slough, were built in 1974 and 1979 respectively, and are not historic. Some of these cabins have been affected or damaged by natural causes such as tree fall and flooding. Most are experiencing some sort of rot, broken windows, broken skylights, deteriorating roofing, and/or collapsing foundations. Aside from the recreation cabins, no other cultural sites were identified.

After consulting with the Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), we have concluded that six of the recreation cabins meet National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) criteria and are historic properties.

The Distin Lake Shelter cabin was originally constructed by the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) in the 1930’s as an Adirondack style three-sided shelter. Over the years a fourth wall was added to the shelter to enclose it. In 1995, it was listed on the NRHP due to its association with the CCC and the Admiralty Island CCC Canoe Route (Gilliam 2013). The general structure of the cabin is in good condition; however, some of the structural elements are deteriorating.

The Harvey Lake cabin is an historic A-frame cabin built in 1964. It is in poor condition, but still retains enough of the characteristics to make it eligible to the NRHP.

The DeBoer Lake cabin is an historic period A-frame cabin built in 1962. Due to changes made to the entrance and window configurations, the cabin lacks integrity of materials and design. The SHPO has determined this cabin is not eligible to the NRHP.

The Beaver Camp, Big Goat, Checats Lake, and McGilvery Creek cabins are all historic Pan Abode styles built between 1964 and 1965. Their conditions range from very poor to fair; all retain enough of the features that make them eligible to the NRHP.

The Red Alders cabin was a Pan Abode style building built in 1962. It was demolished by a tree falling on it in 2012, resulting in a loss of historic integrity. The combination of elements that created the Pan Abode style such as the lock joint corner system, pitched roof, and window and door pattern have become fundamentally changed: the original form, scale, and design of the cabin has been lost. It no longer retains the features that make it eligible to the NRHP.

The Rezanof and Maksoutof Lake Cabins were originally constructed by the Forest Service in the early 1950s. The cabins were formerly managed as public recreation cabins; however they have not been on the reservation system for more than 25 years. Having not been consistently maintained, they are deteriorating and are no longer safe. The poor state of the cabins has resulted in a loss of historic integrity, diminishing their capacity to visually convey any significance they may have had. They no longer retain any sort of feeling associated with the early development of recreation facilities and are therefore not eligible to the NRHP.

The Square Lake and Binkley Slough cabins are Hunter style cabins built in 1974 and 1979, respectively. Their design and age place them outside the historic period of significance for recreation cabins (Lantz 2012).


54

Direct and Indirect Environmental Effects on Heritage For those cabins that are not considered historic (Binkley Slough, DeBoer Lake, Maksoutof Lake, Red Alders, Rezanof Lake, Square Lake), there would be no effect to historic properties from any of the alternatives. During project implementation, ground disturbance will be kept to a minimum and will be confined to the current cabin footprints. No subsurface digging or trenching will occur.

Table 6: Information and Effects of Alternatives on Cabins Eligible for Listing on the National Register of Historic Places

Cabin Name

Year of Construction

NRHP Eligibility

Status Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Beaver Camp 1965 Eligible Adverse

Effect Adverse

Effect Adverse

Effect Big

Goat 1964 Eligible Adverse Effect

Adverse Effect

Adverse Effect

Checats Lake 1964 Eligible No Effect Adverse

Effect No Effect

Distin Lake Shelter 1930’s Eligible –

Listed 1995 No Effect No Adverse Effect

No Adverse Effect

Harvey Lake 1964 Eligible No Effect Adverse

Effect Adverse

Effect McGilvery

Creek 1964 Eligible Adverse Effect

Adverse Effect

Adverse Effect

Alternative 1: Under the No Action alternative, direct effects could occur to historic properties through neglecting to maintain those cabins eligible to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) that have been decommissioned from the Tongass Recreation program. The cabins at Big Goat Lake, Beaver Lake, and McGilvery Creek are deteriorating and showing signs of neglect having not been maintained by the Forest Service for many years. According to 36 CFR 800.5(a)(2)(vi) of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), neglecting to maintain these three cabins results in an Adverse Effect to historic properties (Table 6).

Alternatives 2 and 3: Under Alternative 2, direct effects will occur with project implementation. This alternative proposes to remove five cabins that are eligible to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) from the Tongass National Forest, resulting in an Adverse Effect to the historic properties (Table 6). Removal of the existing cabins represents an irreversible commitment in that the eligible structures would be destroyed.

Converting the Distin Lake Shelter cabin from its current condition as a cabin back into a three-sided shelter will have No Adverse Effect upon the historic property (Table 6). The undertaking will not directly or indirectly affect the characteristics that qualify the property for inclusion into the NRHP. This project proposes to return the structure to its original configuration as a three-sided shelter while improving the structural elements in need of repair. Its historical integrity associated with the CCC will be preserved.


55

Construction of three-sided shelters at Harvey Lake and Big Goat Lake in the footprint or within 100 ft. of the current cabin footprint will have no effect to historic properties.

Alternative 3 would have similar effects on historic properties as Alternative 2 except one less cabin would be adversely affected (Checats Lake) because it would not be removed.

In a letter dated May 21, 2013, SHPO agreed that cabin removal will result in an adverse effect to historic property. In that letter SHPO suggested the possibility of retaining Harvey Lake Cabin based on its condition and the categories discussed in Appendix H of the Programmatic Agreement between the Alaska Region of the Forest Service, the Alaska SHPO, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (USDA-FS 2010). Those suggestions were discussed in further consultation with SHPO. Upon further discussion, SHPO concurred with the Forest’s strategy to reevaluate and revise Appendix H of the Programmatic Agreement and write a Memorandum of Agreement outlining the mitigation measures described in Chapter 2. Based on consultation, it is expected that mitigation actions taken at the Forest level will mitigate the adverse effect of this project.

In the event that additional cultural resources are discovered during construction, operations must cease and the Forest Service archeologist must be notified so that mitigation can be developed and implemented.

Cumulative Environmental Effects on Heritage Alternative 1: Under this alternative, ongoing negative effects could occur if future projects do not address neglect to historic properties.

Alternatives 2 and 3: Under these alternatives, no cumulative effects will occur to historic properties associated with this project. However, cumulative effects to cultural resources could result if future projects continue to propose the removal of historic recreation cabins of similar design and age from the Tongass National Forest. As of August 2013, a total of 142 recreation cabins are available for rent on the Tongass through an online cabin rental program, a third of which are historic period A-Frames and Pan Abodes that are potentially eligible to the NRHP (USDA-FS 2013). After implementation of these alternatives, the number of cabins available for rent would be reduced to 140. As the historic period cabins age and deteriorate, there is a need to replace them with updated buildings. The new cabins that have been constructed on the Tongass in recent years follow new design specifications that generally do not retain the same features and design elements associated with the historic period of significance for recreation cabins (Lantz 2012). These foreseeable actions are subject to implementing regulations of the National Historic Preservation Act.


56

Other Resources _________________________________

Affected Environment – Wildfire Risk, Air Quality, and Climate Change Wildfire and Wildfire Risk: Wildfires are uncommon on the Tongass, but still pose a risk. The Tongass National Forest is located in a temperate rainforest. As such, fire is rarely used as a management tool and wildfires, whether human or nature-caused, are very uncommon. The Tongass averaged 16 wildfires per year in 2011 and 2012, with most started by campfires and suppressed at 0.1 acre or less in size (Wickett, J. pers. com.). The canopy is wet enough that fires rarely get large or reach the forest canopy. However, with the thick layer of flammable duff (needles, sticks, and other natural debris), fires can and have occurred within the duff layer. These can be difficult to detect and difficult to suppress. While wildfires are rare, recreational use of fire at recreations sites is common. Fire pits at cabins are usually small to moderately sized (from 3-6 foot in diameter), but can be larger. Most fire pits are used for several hours during a typical recreation visit.

Air Quality: Air quality on the Tongass National Forest is generally good with some areas of elevated pollutants (Tongass National Forest 2013 – TNF Land Management Plan Monitoring Report 2012). Air quality at these 12 cabin sites is likely similar to most monitored locations on the Forest.

Climate Change: No comprehensive greenhouse gas or climate change analysis has been done for the existing condition. Yet, we recognize greenhouse gases are created by traveling to cabins to survey conditions, by maintaining these cabins and through use of these cabins (by travel and burning of fuel). We also recognize that carbon is stored in these small wood buildings.

Direct and Indirect Environmental Effects on Wildfire Risk, Air Quality, and Climate Change Alternative 1: Because no changes would occur, fire risk and effects to air quality would remain the same as it is currently, likely negligible to low. A few visitors per year may still visit the cabins and use the fire rings. Based on past experience, the risk of starting a wildfire is negligible to low and air quality would be negligibly affected Greenhouse gas emissions would continue at negligible levels through ongoing surveys and minimal use.

Alternatives 2 and 3: Under these alternatives, 11 or 12 cabins or parts of up to 12 cabins may be burned on site. The risk of starting a wildfire increases because of the amount of burnable material being burned in a small space at any one time. Design elements that require burning by red-carded/trained fire fighters, burning during low fire danger, and using measures to protect the surrounding area and the duff from fire will help to reduce the risk of fires getting out of control and becoming a safety hazard. With design elements implemented, the risk of wildfire is expected to remain low (see also the Soil analysis). After implementation, wildfire risk would likely drop below the current level of risk at the nine locations without a shelter because there would be no cabin present to attract visitors. The cabins are almost wholly wood structures, which should burn cleanly, and materials like tar paper will be removed when possible and obvious;


57

nonetheless, the Forest will acquire burn permits from the State in case some black smoke is released. The effect on air quality is expected to be low because effects from burning cabin materials will be very short term (2-3 days per cabin), limited in scope, and designed to avoid improper disposal of hazardous waste. Greenhouse gas emissions would occur from accessing and burning the structures; long-term, the reduced number of remote cabins might encourage cabin use closer to communities, which could reduce future emissions. The emissions will be minor and the contribution towards climate change would be negligible given the small scale.

Cumulative Environmental Effects on Wildfire Risk, Air Quality, and Climate Change Alternative 1: There would be no change in the existing conditions, thus no cumulative effect from this project.

Alternatives 2 and 3: Given the dispersed nature of these cabins and the minimal level and scope of effects from these actions, cumulative effects to wildfire risk and air quality from other activities in addition to these alternatives will be negligible. Given the minimal contribution or future reduction of greenhouse gases, the cumulative effect to climate change is negligible.

Plants, Including Rare Plants and Invasive Plants _____ The following section summarizes the TNF Sustainable Cabin Management project Biological Evaluation for Sensitive Plants, Risk Assessment for Invasive Plants, and Resource Report for Rare Plants (Krieckhaus 2013). All are available in the project record for this project.

Plant surveys – some for rare plants, others for weeds – have occurred at or near seven of the affected cabins. Photos of cabins were reviewed and botanists or invasive species coordinators representing each district were also consulted.

Affected Environment – Plants Multiple habitats are represented by the 12 cabin sites in this EA: coniferous forest, forest edge, tall shrublands, low shrublands, rocky areas, rock outcrops, gravel, seeps, wet areas, riparian areas, streambanks, lake margins, shallow freshwater, marshes, fens, heath, subalpine meadows, and moist-wet meadows. Some of these cabins are surrounded by forest. Some are surrounded by more open forest and shrubland, or subalpine meadows. Many of the cabins are close to lakeshore habitat.

Sensitive Plants While there are seventeen vascular plants and one lichen designated as sensitive in the Alaska Region, only three species and their associated habitats are suspected to occur near the cabins. No Sensitive plant species are known to occur from the immediate area of the cabins in this proposal (Krieckhaus 2013). One sensitive species was recorded within a 1/2 mile of McGilvery cabin and it was also recorded from several other


58

locations in the general area. This species, Platanthera orbiculata, is typically found in stands of mature forest that have a component of cedar. It is not likely to occur in the hemlock-spruce forest edge and lakeshore habitat found at the McGilvery cabin.

Rare Plants Rare plants are those tracked by the Alaska Natural Heritage Program (ANHP) that are known or suspected to occur on the Tongass National Forest. Only one rare plant species is known to be near any of the cabins. A population of Lycopus uniflorus, or northern bugleweed, was recorded on the lakeshore near the Red Alders cabin on Ella Lake. The size and exact location of this population in relation to the cabin is unclear from the existing data. A second rare plant population, Lobelia dortmanna, was found in shallow water over a mile from the same cabin.

Invasive Plants An invasive species is one whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health. In deciding what plants qualify as “invasive”, the Alaska Natural Heritage Program’s (ANHP 2013) Weed Ranking Project results were used. Four cabins are known or suspected to have nearby invasive plant infestations.

Phalaris arundinacea, or reed canarygrass, is well established at the McGilvery cabin. It has a high invasiveness ranking of 83 and it is a potential threat to riparian, wetland and meadow plant communities since it can out-compete native vegetation forming homogeneous stands of this grass. In the past, this species was planted for erosion control and is well established in many areas on Prince of Wales Island and other area of the Tongass, including some wilderness areas. It may have been planted at the McGilvery Cabin after construction. Eradication of this population would be a challenging long term project. However, other treatment strategies such as containment, within the bounds of the existing area of impact, may be beneficial for avoiding any further impacts to the native plant populations surrounding the cabin site. Plantago major, or common plantain, was reported from Harvey Lake cabin. This species has a low invasiveness ranking of 44. It is a very common weed species associated with disturbed gravelly areas associated with roads, trails or cabins. Lupinus polyphyllus, or bigleaf lupine, was reported from near Square Lake cabin. This species has an invasiveness ranking of 55, and is known to be common in the Yakutat area. Bigleaf lupine is native to British Columbia, and could possibly be native in parts of southeastern Alaska. The Binkley Slough cabin is near the Stikine River, with flood disturbance and known invasive species populations such as white sweetclover along the river corridor and associated wetlands. The population of sweetclover near Binkley Slough Cabin seems to be river-floodplain related and controlled.

Direct and Indirect Environmental Effects on Plants There are no threatened, endangered, or candidate plant species present on the Tongass National Forest; thus no threatened, endangered, or candidate plants will be affected by any alternative.


59

Findings for effects to botanical resources for this project are summarized here. Definitions for the findings follow below. General Vegetation Rare Plants Sensitive Plants Invasive Plants

Minor Minor Negligible Minor to Moderate Level of Effects Negligible: effects may or may not cause observable changes to natural conditions; regardless, they do not reduce the integrity of a resource.

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

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

Major effects cause observable and long-term changes to natural conditions, and they reduce the integrity of a resource. Alternative 1: Direct and indirect effects to all sensitive and rare plants under Alternative 1 are expected to be negligible because existing conditions will continue and no actions would occur. Use of these sites may continue at their very low levels. Reed canarygrass and associated effects would continue near McGilvery Cabin.

Alternatives 2 and 3: The small footprint of the cabins and associated area needed to demolish the cabins and associated structures and burn the burnable materials is unlikely to impact more than a few individuals of any sensitive species suspected of occuring in these sites. For the following sensitive species, Cirsium edule var. macounii, Piperia unalascensis and Platanthera orbiculata, the biological determination is: “May impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing.”

Due to the small scale of this project, no effects or minor effects are expected to rare plant species. Only one rare plant species is known to be near one of the cabins. This population at Red Alders Cabin could be trampled by people or crushed by demolition material or burned by the burn pile. Design elements will help to protect this species (see Appendix A, Cabin Card design element for rare plants).

Removal or replacement of these cabins is expected to have a minor risk of spreading or introducing new invasive species. The native vegetation at most of these sites should re-occupy the cabin sites within a few years. Using locally available mulch or vegetation for groundcover or transplanting will help restore the cabin sites to a natural condition. Using native materials and vegetation at these sites will also minimize the risk of introducing invasive species. Most of the cabins appear to have very few or no invasive species present so the risk of spreading invasive species by this project is low.

At the McGilvery cabin there is a high risk that the reed canary grass will spread along the lakeshore and the outlet stream. It is possible this population has already spread. This risk exists independently of the cabin removal project. If the mitigation measures are followed, the risk of the cabin removal project spreading this species off site is


60

reduced in the short term. However, the population of reed canary-grass will likely spread into the cabin footprint and the long term risk of this species spreading will remain. Design elements will help control the spread of reed canarygrass to the surrounding habitats at the McGilvery Cabin site (see Appendix A, Cabin Card design element for invasive plants).

Cumulative Effects on Plants All Alternatives: While mineral exploration, timber harvest, and restoration projects will occur in the same LUDs as DeBoer and Harvey Lake Cabins, no other actions are associated with these cabin sites and direct and indirect effects from this action are minor. Thus cumulative effects to rare plants are expected to be negligible to minor. The risk of invasive species introduction from this or other actions in these areas are expected to be minor.

Roadless _______________________________________

Affected Environment - Roadless All of the cabins in this proposal are in inventoried roadless areas or in wilderness. The cabins in wilderness are discussed in the Wilderness analysis. The three cabins in inventoried roadless areas are DeBoer Lake, Harvey Lake, and Square Lake (Inventoried Roadless Area #202, 218, and 339, respectively). While the areas adjacent to the Harvey Lake and DeBoer Cabins have seen human development such as timber sales and active mineral claims, the three inventoried roadless areas provide clean soil, water, and air, a diversity of plant and animal communities and other roadless characteristics.

Direct and Indirect Environmental Effects on Roadless All Alternatives: None of the alternatives in this EA will affect any of the roadless characteristics in these roadless areas. No roads will be built for access; no timber will be harvested. These areas would continue to remain undeveloped. The effects to roadless would be negligible.

Cumulative Environmental Effects on Roadless All Alternatives: There would be no change in the roadless characteristics, thus no cumulative effect from this project.

Safety __________________________________________ Safety is analyzed in Appendix C of this EA, the Health and Safety Analysis.


61

Scenery ________________________________________

Affected Environment – Scenery Forest recreation cabins and 3-sided shelters are beloved, iconic features on the Tongass Forest landscape designed using materials and colors that harmonize with the natural characteristic landscape of the adjacent forest area. Existing scenic conditions at all the cabin sites are presently in compliance with Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs) for the subject areas because of the legislated exception allowed in ANILCA. ANILCA allows for cabins and shelters in wilderness, even though their existence would not meet the High SIO prescribed for all Wilderness areas.

Direct and Indirect Environmental Effects on Scenery Alternative 1: The no action alternative continues the existing condition of remaining in compliance with SIO through the legislated exception allowed in ANILCA. There are no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to scenery with the no-action alternative.

Alternatives 2 and 3: While ANILCA allows for cabins and shelters in wilderness, the absence of the cabins or other structures is more representative of the High SIO that is prescribed in all wilderness areas. The process of removing the cabins as described for each alternative will have no lasting effect on scenery in the cabin area. Burning the cabins as described will mimic an uncommon but not unheard of phenomenon on the Tongass (wildfire or structural fires due to a variety of causes) in a very restricted area that will leave little discernible evidence following a season of vegetative growth. Mitigation of the sites as described in Design Elements will diminish remaining evidence of the management activity sufficient to meet Scenery Integrity Objectives for the cabin sites. This is an especially important aspect for removal of cabins in Wilderness areas since the High SIO for Wilderness requires that management activities (in this case the removal of the cabin) will not be apparent to the casual observer immediately following the activity. Adherence to guidelines from the Built Environment Image Guide (BEIG) will assure that shelters and cabin structures that are converted to 3-sided shelters will remain compatible with the architectural vernacular defined in the BEIG for southeast Alaska. This will be accomplished by adhering to architectural guidelines from the BEIG which require structures to blend with the natural characteristic landscape of the adjacent area through selective use of compatible materials and colors.

Cumulative Environmental Effects on Scenery All Alternatives: No other actions are planned near these areas that would affect scenery. Since there are no other reasonably foreseeable actions, there are no cumulative effects to scenery.


62

Soils and Wetlands _______________________________

Affected Environment – Soils and Wetlands Each cabin in this project was reviewed by a soil scientist using photography and GIS as well as information provided by other specialists. Based on indicators such as potential wetland plants, five cabins (Big Goat, Harvey Lake, DeBoer, Maksoutof Lake, and McGilvery Creek) are or may be within wetlands. Big Goat Lake Cabin is located within a subalpine wetland. Harvey Lake Cabin appears to possibly be within a wetland. There appears to be hydric soils and the hydrology of wetland, but the vegetation may not key out to be classified as a wetland according to the Army Corps of Engineers. A Tongass Soil Scientist should review the area if Alternative 2 is chosen

The remaining seven cabins are on upland soils, alluvial fan, or within a floodplain. The majority of these cabins were built prior to the Clean Water Act. Only two were constructed after the Clean Water Act, Square Lake (1974) and Binkley Slough (1979). Each site is less than a tenth of an acre.

Direct and Indirect Environmental Effects on Soils and Wetlands Alternative 1: There are no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to soils and wetlands with the no-action alternative. All twelve cabins would remain on the Tongass National Forest in their current condition.

Alternatives 2 and 3: The proposed removals would be completed with the least ground disturbance as possible. Region 10 BMPs and National Core BMPs will be implemented at all sites. The direct and indirect effects to soils and wetlands are negligible and temporary. Minimal ground disturbance is anticipated and will be within R10 Soil Quality Standards. In Alternative 2, a permit may be necessary from the Army Corps of Engineers for the Big Goat and Harvey Lake 3-sided shelter construction. A Tongass Soil Scientist may be needed to assist with site rehabilitation on sloping wetlands and burned areas in either alternative.

Cumulative Environmental Effects on Soils and Wetlands All Alternatives: Since the direct and indirect effects are negligible and temporary there are no cumulative effects.

Subsistence _____________________________________ This analysis tiers directly to the Forest Plan standards and guidelines for subsistence (USDA FS 2008a, pp. 4-68 to 4-69), the Forest Plan FEIS (pp. 3-419 to 3-436, 3-571 to 3-712) and complies with the requirements in FSH 2090.23 (Subsistence management).

An ANILCA 810 analysis addresses three factors related to subsistence uses: 1) resources distribution and abundance; 2) access to resources; and 3) competition for the use of resources. The evaluation determines whether subsistence uses within the project


63

area or portions thereof may be significantly restricted, as defined by the Alaska Land Use Council, by any of the proposed alternatives.

Affected Environment - Subsistence None of the cabins occur within Wildlife Analysis Areas (WAA) from which residents of any rural community obtained approximately 75% of their average annual deer harvest (Chester 2013 Wildlife Review for TNF Sustainable Cabin Project). Information on deer and deer habitat is in the Wildlife section of this EA.

Direct and Indirect Environmental Effects on Subsistence All Alternatives: Based on the MIS analysis for deer, no significant change in deer distribution or abundance is expected to result from any alternative.

Under all alternatives, access to the sites will remain unchanged but under the action alternatives, since the cabins will either no longer be there or will be three-sided shelters, the lack of shelter may decrease the desirability of the sites as a hunting destination. This is not expected to be a substantial impact based on the lack of documented use at these cabins (in terms of both overnight use and nearby deer harvest).

None of the alternatives are expected to increase competition for subsistence resources or cause an increase in harvest of deer by non-rural residents over rural residents.

Determination and Cumulative Environmental Effects on Subsistence All Alternatives: Because no changes or no significant changes are expected to resources distribution and abundance, access to resources, and competition for the use of resources, this evaluation concludes that all alternatives shall not result in a significant restriction of subsistence uses.

Water and Fisheries ______________________________ The following section summarizes the Biological Evaluation and Fisheries/Hydrology Project Level Analysis for the TNF Sustainable Cabin Management project. The full document is available in the project record for this project.

Affected Environment – Water and Fisheries All 12 of the cabins listed in this proposal are near lakes or streams. Nearly all of these water bodies have fish in them. Only four cabins, Harvey Lake, McGilvery, Binkley Slough, and Square Lake are near anadromous water bodies. The cabins lie 50 to 2,000 feet or more from these water bodies. One cabin, Red Alders, is in or directly abutting a non-anadromous, fish-bearing stream. DeBoer Lake Cabin is within 20 feet of a non-anadromous, fish-bearing stream.


64

The Red Alders cabin is currently collapsed. A portion of the debris from the collapsed cabin lies within the wetted edge of a stream channel. This may allow non-biodegradable materials or harmful chemicals, if present, to be transported to the stream and nearby lake environment. However, due to the frequent flooding of the area and the timeframe since the cabin has collapsed any effects to the stream channel at this site are expected to be negligible at this time. It is likely that any chemicals present would have dissipated by now. The majority of the cabin debris lies outside the wetted channel. The debris does not block the channel.

It is possible that sites with streams or aquatic ecosystems in close proximity could have some minor displacement of soils (erosion) and sediment disturbance due to foot traffic on trails associated with the cabins. Outhouses or potentially contaminated soils (from leaking oil stoves or other sources) are also likely or possible to be encountered. The existing effects to water are likely very limited by the very low use of and accessibility at these sites.

No threatened or endangered or candidate for listing as threatened or endangered fish species or sensitive fish species are present in the analysis area, but habitat for these species is present. Several fish species and habitat are present in the project area including management indicator species: pink and coho salmon, Dolly Varden char, and cutthroat trout.

Direct and Indirect Environmental Effects on Water and Fisheries Alternative 1: Debris from the collapse of the Red Alders Cabin would remain in the channel. However, due to the frequent flooding of the area and the timeframe since the cabin has collapsed any effects to the stream channel at this site are expected to be negligible with the No Action alternative. Direct and indirect effects to water and fish habitat and fish populations with implementation of Alternative 1 are expected to be negligible because existing conditions will continue and no actions would occur. There would be “no adverse effect” on Essential Fish Habitat because no actions would occur.

Alternatives 2 and 3: Because Forest and National Core Best Management Practices (BMPs) (see Appendix A, and Biological Evaluation & Fisheries/Hydrology Project level Analysis in project record) will be applied, there will be no direct or indirect effects to fish habitat or fish populations, nor will there be any effects to managed fish species with the removal or replacement of the listed cabins or connected actions such as access to the area. These alternatives would not reduce or alter streams, wetlands or riparian areas and would not increase marine disturbance or alter habitat that could affect streams or the marine environment.

Furthermore, the proposed action is too small in scope and scale to have any measurable effects because it will be implemented by hand with small teams of individuals within a small footprint. Only the Red Alders cabin site has a stream channel within the confines of the cabin’s footprint. The cabin is currently collapsed, and the pieces on the ground can easily be pulled or removed from the stream by hand. Native wood will be left in the stream for stream complexity and fish habitat. If possible the tree which fell on the cabin


65

will be left in the general area in which it fell (stream bank or instream). Although no effects are expected with removing DeBoer Lake or Red Alders cabins, removing these cabins during periods of low flow will reduce the likelihood of sediment entering the nearby stream channel and associated lake systems. Unneeded trails will be decommissioned. Forest Plan direction and BMPs were developed through interagency negotiation and provide state-of-the-art protection of fish habitat. Occasionally, Forest Plan direction and BMPs are not fully implemented or are not fully effective. Thus, there is always some risk to EFH when management actions are taken. The risk of this project is minimal. There will be “no effect” on threatened, endangered, or candidate fish species, “no impact” on sensitive species, and negligible effect on water and management indicator species of fish.

Cumulative Environmental Effects on Water and Fisheries All Alternatives: Since none of the alternatives have any direct or indirect effects to water, fish or fish habitat there would be no cumulative effects.

Essential Fish Habitat The activities proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3 would have “no adverse effect” on Essential Fish Habitat because Forest and National Core BMPs would be followed during this project to minimize the chance of erosion or sedimentation or introduction of hazardous materials, which could reduce quality or quantity of fish habitat in the freshwater or marine environment adjacent to the analysis area. No machinery will be used to disassemble or pile cabin materials. Cabins will be burned on site or disassembled by hand and burned in nearby in fire pits. Non-burnable material will be removed from the site. It is possible that sites with streams, or aquatic ecosystems, in close proximity could have some minor displacement of soils and sediment disturbance due to foot traffic by hand crews working on and around the site, however this will be small in scale and very short in duration. Sediment input if any, is expected to dissipate quickly.

Wilderness ______________________________________ The Forest Service is responsible for preserving the wilderness character of the area. Tongass National Forest Wilderness is managed under both the Wilderness Act of 1964 and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA). In the 1964 Wilderness Act, Wilderness is defined as without permanent improvements or human habitation.

ANILCA Section 707 states that except as otherwise expressly provided for in ANILCA wilderness shall be administered in accordance with applicable provisions of the Wilderness Act. ANILCA 1315(a) provides specific exceptions to some of the prohibitions of the Wilderness Act in recognition of the unique conditions in Alaska. ANILCA 1303(c) states that previously existing public use cabins may continue and be


66

maintained or replaced subject to restrictions to preserve the Wilderness character of the area. The challenge for managers of ANILCA wilderness is to preserve wilderness character as it was at time of designation while also managing for uses allowed under ANILCA. Forest Service Alaska Regional Policy (2323.13b) states for Alaska Cabins and Shelters:

1. Existing Cabins. Existing (as of December 2, 1980) public use cabins and shelters may remain and may be maintained or replaced as provided by Section 1315(c) of ANILCA.

2. New Cabins. Section 1315(d) of ANILCA provides that a limited number of new public use cabins and shelters may be built and maintained in wilderness where necessary for public health and safety.

Section 1315(d) of ANILCA requires that the Secretary of Agriculture inform the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, and the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the intent to remove an existing, or to construct a new public use cabin or shelter. The expected timeline of activities has been adjusted to help accommodate this notification.

Affected Environment - Wilderness Nine of the twelve cabins in this proposal are within designated Wilderness on the Tongass National Forest (Table 7). Each Wilderness Area contains multiple Forest Service recreation cabins including many that are not part of this proposal. In all cases, the cabins in this proposal make up no more than 40 percent of the cabins in that specific Wilderness Area (Table 7).

Table 7: Wilderness Cabin Summary

Wilderness Name Total Number FS Public Recreation Cabins

Cabins Proposed for Removal or Shelter

Percent of Total Cabins

Karta 4 McGilvery 25% Kootznoowoo 14 Distin Lake 7% Misty Fiords 14 Beaver Camp, Big Goat

Lake, Checats Lake, Red Alders

29%

South Baranof 5 Maksoutof, Rezanof 40% Stikine-LeConte 12 Binkley Slough 8%

It has been demonstrated that these cabins receive little use. The McGilvery, Distin Lake, Big Goat Lake, Maksoutof, and Rezanof Cabins are not currently reservable and have had no use from 2007 to 2012. The Beaver Camp and Binkley Slough Cabins are currently not reservable and have had no or very low use from 2007 to 2012. The Checats Lake Cabin is currently reservable but has had very low use from 2007 to 2012. The Red Alders Cabin was destroyed and is currently not reservable. It had no to very


67

low use from 2007 to 2012. The data for the use of these cabins is in the Cabin Cards, Appendix A.

Agencies that manage designated Wilderness, including the Forest Service, manage those areas for the preservation of their wilderness character. While the cabins do affect Wilderness character, cabins and their associated effects are allowed in Tongass wilderness areas under ANILCA, and are part of the recreation information for the Forest. The existing cabins affect the overall components of Wilderness character as follows (see level of effects definitions under Direct and Indirect Environmental Effects):

Untrammeled: The management of the cabins is a negligible to minor amount of human control at their sites in the individual Wilderness.

Undeveloped: Cabins are semi-permanent improvements within the Wilderness and a negligible to moderate negative effect on the undeveloped nature of that Wilderness.

Natural: Cabins have a negligible effect on ecological and evolutionary systems in the individual Wilderness. Natural systems are affected by use of the cabin, and often non-native/invasive plants can be present at the site.

Opportunities for Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation: Cabins provide a less primitive and more developed recreation experience which has minor negative effect on this character. At the same time, without the cabins, less visitors would likely experience the Wilderness and solitude. The sights and sounds of cabin visitors could affect the opportunity for solitude by other visitors to that Wilderness. Current cabins have a minor effect on this character, both positive and negative.

Direct and Indirect Environmental Effects on Wilderness Level of Effects for Wilderness Negligible: The component or components of Wilderness character is/are not affected, or the effect is so limited as to be undetectable. Minor: A component of Wilderness character is affected, but the effect is temporary or limited. While the number of cabins is reduced, the number of remaining cabins is more than half of the initial number. Moderate: The components of Wilderness character are affected. The effect is longer term but not permanent, or occurs over a significant area or number of sites in each Wilderness.

Alternative 1: In Alternative 1, leaving cabins in place would continue the current effects on wilderness as described in the existing condition. If cabins are not removed, there will likely be evidence of them in Wilderness while they decay with no recreational benefit. The decaying structures would be a safety hazards.

Alternatives 2 and 3: There would be a short term minor negative effect to opportunities for solitude due to disturbance by removal crews. We expect negligible long-term negative effect to opportunities for solitude due to the lack of cabins in wilderness because they currently receive very little use and their absence would affect very few visitors (see Appendix A). Additionally, in most cases, recreation use and opportunities can be accommodated at nearby remaining recreation cabins. Four of the nine cabins are located less than two miles from a remaining recreation cabin. Two more of the nine


68

cabin sites are located within three miles of a remaining recreation cabin. Of these nearby remaining cabins, six are used less than 25 days per year, while two are used 70-83 nights per year (Wilderness Specialist Report).

The removal of eight cabins from Wilderness on the Tongass National Forest would have a long-term minor positive affect toward less development in each Wilderness. It would not constitute a major change in the level of development for any individual Wilderness because sixty to ninety-three percent of the cabins in each wilderness would remain available for use.

The replacement of a structure in designated wilderness with another structure would be determined by a minimum requirements analysis documented in a minimum requirements decision guide (MRDG). The MRDG found that there is not currently a need for a shelter at Big Goat Lake. Most visitors to the lake are from guided flightseeing; they mostly do not go ashore and do not have enough time to use a shelter. However, if a helicopter was used in Alternative 2 to construct a shelter, it would temporarily negatively affect the opportunity for solitude because of the noise and disturbance and, similar to the existing condition, the wilderness characters at this site would continue to be affected by the continuing existence of a structure at this site.

In Alternative 3, leaving Checats Lake Cabin in place would continue the current effects on wilderness as described in the existing condition. No irreversible or irretrievable commitments of wilderness resource would be affected by the removal of cabins.

Cumulative Environmental Effects on Wilderness All Alternatives: There are no other actions planned in wilderness at this time. Because there are no additional actions or removals currently planned in Wilderness, these alternatives have no cumulative effects on wilderness. If additional cabin removals, additions, or conversions are proposed in wilderness in the future, the cumulative effects of those actions will be considered in future NEPA analyses.

Wildlife _________________________________________ The following section summarizes the TNF Sustainable Cabin Management project Wildlife Review (Wildlife Specialist Report) by Dennis Chester (2013). This review incorporates the analyses required by law or Forest Service (USFS) policy, including: a Biological Evaluation for threatened, endangered, proposed, and sensitive (TEPS) species; a Management Indicator Species (MIS) analysis; a migratory bird analysis; and an Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) section 810 Subsistence analysis. The full document is available in the project record for this project.

Affected Environment – Wildlife Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species Except for humpback whale and Steller sea lion, the other threatened and endangered species listed by US Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service are


69

not expected to occur in the analysis area or their presence is highly unlikely and their habitat will not be affected by the project. Therefore no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects are expected and they will not be addressed further.

Humpback whale and Steller sea lion are the only threatened, endangered, or candidate for listing as threatened or endangered wildlife species present in the analysis area. Both species have habitat in the marine waters adjacent to the analysis area. No terrestrial Steller sea lion habitat lies near the cabin sites.

Sensitive Species Six wildlife species identified as sensitive by the Forest Service may be present in the analysis area (see Table 8). The areas near and surrounding the cabins provide little or no habitat for sensitive species except for the Queen Charlotte goshawk.

The Queen Charlotte goshawk is a wide-ranging forest raptor that occupies old-growth forest habitat in Southeast Alaska. Productive old-growth (POG) forest is an important component of goshawk habitat use patterns in Southeast Alaska and at all scales (nest tree, nest site, post-fledging areas) goshawks select POG forest types. Based on GIS analysis, eight of the cabins have more than 25% suitable goshawk nesting and foraging habitat within the ¼ mile. Three have greater than 50%. There are no known active nests in the analysis area. No current project level surveys have been completed. The nearest known nest to a cabin site, Distin Lake cabin, is about ¾ mile from a nest that was active when last checked in 2005. There is a pair of goshawk nests on the southeast side of Woewodski Island approximately three miles southeast of the Harvey Lake cabin. The last known active nest was in 2004 and a single goshawk was seen in the area in 2005. Surveys were conducted on the south side of Harvey Lake and on the south end of Woewodski Island in May 2008, including the nest area, but no goshawks were detected.

Management Indicator Species Management indicator species (MIS) are vertebrate or invertebrate species whose response to land management activities can be used to predict the likely response of other species with similar habitat requirements. Thirteen wildlife MIS have been identified for the Tongass NF (see Table 8; USDA FS 2008a, pp. 3-230 to 3-241). All wildlife MIS are associated with spruce and hemlock forests of Southeast Alaska. Six of the MIS also specifically use stream (riparian) habitats and five of the species use estuarine habitats.

The wildlife resource analysis area for this project is the cabin sites buffered by ¼ mile for disturbance effects. Animals are very likely present and using habitat around these cabins; these areas likely provide habitat for nearly all of the management indicator species on the Tongass. Except for the Vancouver Canada goose, it is not expected that the area around these cabins provides critical habitat such as nesting or denning habitat. In the case of Vancouver Canada geese, several cabins are located near suitable nesting habitat.

Sitka black-tailed deer are an important game and subsistence species in Southeast Alaska. Although deer will utilize a wide range of habitat from shoreline to alpine, they are associated with old-growth forests. This species represents those that use lower elevation (below 800 feet elevation) POG forest habitats during the winter. Research conducted in Southeast Alaska indicates that low-elevation, high volume old-growth


70

habitats are particularly important to deer, especially during severe winters (Schoen and Kirchhoff 1990; Hanley and Rose 1987; Yeo and Peek 1992). The quantity, quality, distribution, and arrangement of winter habitat are considered the most important limiting factors for Sitka black-tailed deer in Southeast Alaska (USDA FS 2008a, p. 3-230). Therefore changes in POG forest especially below 800 feet in elevation provides a general measure of effects. Sitka black-tailed deer occur throughout the Tongass and are present near these cabins. The low documented use of the cabins indicates that they are not important for deer hunting.

Migratory Bird and Bird Species of Concern The Wildlife Review document lists 37 migratory birds and bird species of conservation concern, including a summary of habitat requirements. Several of these bird species likely use, feed, or breed in the habitats near the cabins.

Photo 6: Harvey Lake Cabin – this foundation pier has nearly tipped over. This cabin’s foundation is in poor condition.


71

Direct and Indirect Environmental Effects on Wildlife

Table 8. Summary of direct and indirect effects and determinations for sensitive and management indicator species for the Tongass National Forest Sustainable Cabins Management project.

Species Status

Determination1 or Effect2 Alternative 1

No Action Alternative 2

Proposed Action Alternative 3

Aleutian tern Sensitive No impacts No impacts No impacts Black oystercatcher Sensitive No impacts No impacts No impacts

Dusky Canada goose Sensitive No impacts No impacts No impacts Kittlitz’s murrelet Sensitive No impacts No impacts No impacts

Queen Charlotte goshawk

Sensitive

No impacts

May adversely impact individuals, but not

likely to cause a trend toward listing

May adversely impact individuals, but not likely to

cause a trend toward listing

Yellow-billed loon Sensitive No impacts No impacts No impacts Alexander

Archipelago Wolf MIS Negligible Negligible Negligible

Bald Eagle MIS Negligible Negligible Negligible Black Bear MIS Negligible Negligible Negligible Brown Bear MIS Negligible Negligible Negligible

Brown Creeper MIS Negligible Negligible Negligible Hairy Woodpecker MIS Negligible Negligible Negligible

Marten MIS Negligible Negligible Negligible Mountain Goat MIS Negligible Negligible Negligible Red-breasted

Sapsucker MIS Negligible Negligible Negligible

Red Squirrel MIS Negligible Negligible Negligible River Otter MIS Negligible Negligible Negligible

Sitka black-tailed Deer

MIS Negligible Negligible Negligible

Vancouver Canada Geese

MIS Negligible Minor Minor 1 Potential determinations for Sensitive Species: "no impacts", "beneficial impacts", "may adversely impact individuals but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing", or "likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, or in a trend toward federal listing". 2 Definitions of level of effect: Negligible: No individuals of the species would be affected or the alternative would affect an individual but the change would be so small that it would not be of any measurable or perceptible consequence to the protected individual or its population. In addition, the probability of any effect may be so small as to be extremely unlikely to occur (e.g., species is extremely rare in the location). Negligible effect would equate with a "no effect" determination for threatened and endangered species and the “no impact” determination for sensitive species. Minor: The alternative would be expected to affect an individual(s) or its habitat, but the change would be small. Impacts would be detectable, but they would not be expected to have any long-term effects on species or their habitats, or the natural processes sustaining them. Occasional responses to disturbance by some individuals could be expected, but without interference to feeding, reproduction, or other factors affecting population levels. Sufficient habitat would remain functional to maintain viability of the species. Minor effect would equate with a “not likely to adversely affect" determination for threatened and endangered species and the "may impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability" determination for sensitive species.


72

Alternative 1: Under the no action alternative, no project related activities would occur. Therefore, no wildlife habitat would be affected and no project related disturbance would occur. Current, documented use of the cabins is minimal and unlikely to cause disturbance to most wildlife species. No direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts are expected from this alternative on any wildlife species including threatened, endangered, or candidate species, sensitive species, management indicator species, or bird species.

Alternatives 2 and 3: Under the action alternatives, there is no marine component to the project work, but access to the site requires boat or aircraft access. Forest Service flights and boats are required to follow Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and NMFS guidelines pertaining to marine mammals. The frequency, duration, and intensity of any potential disturbances to humpback whales and sea lions related to this project are expected to be so low as to be inconsequential. No direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts are expected.

All alternatives for the Tongass National Forest Sustainable Cabin Management Project will have “no effect” on the humpback whale, western or eastern populations of Steller sea lions or their critical habitat. No effects to the marine environment are expected and disturbance is considered unlikely.

Effects on sensitive species and management indicator species are generally expected to be negligible or no impact (see Table 8). The activities proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3 will not affect habitat for any wildlife species since habitat will not be lost through removal of the cabins. Some disturbances could occur to individuals of any of the wildlife species in Table 8 under the action alternatives. Disturbances would be unlikely for some species or would be temporary and localized. Design elements will help to minimize disturbance and effects on wildlife.

In terms of Sitka black-tailed deer, none of the alternatives will impact deer habitat quality. The low documented use of the cabins indicates that they are not important for deer hunting so there is little to no beneficial effect for deer from removing the cabins. Some deer may be temporarily displaced during project activities if one of the action alternatives is implemented, but the disturbance would be temporary and localized. This project would have negligible short-term effects on deer.

Project activities are consistent with the Forest Plan standards and guidelines for sensitive species and management indicator species, and thus, the conservation strategy, so no effects to species viability are expected.

For species with potential nesting habitat near these cabins (Queen Charlotte goshawk and Vancouver Canada goose), effects are potentially greater but still minor. Under the action alternatives (Alternatives 2 and 3), some project activities would occur in suitable goshawk habitat, but no structural changes to habitat suitability are expected. Some disturbance could occur if goshawks are nesting or foraging in adjacent suitable habitat. These disturbances would be short-term (generally less than a week) and highly localized. Some minor level of disturbance seems likely based on the amount of suitable habitat surrounding the cabins and known nests near two of the cabins. Over the long-term (3+ years) this project is expected to slightly improve habitat conditions by removing potential sources of disturbance. However, the very low levels of use of these cabins suggests this will not be a substantial effect. Alternatives 2 and 3 of the Tongass


73

National Forest Sustainable Cabin Management Project may adversely impact individuals, but are not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing for the Queen Charlotte goshawk. None of the alternatives would affect suitable goose habitat in the analysis area. However, several cabins are located near suitable nesting habitat. Thus, some geese could be disturbed or displaced by project activities under the action alternatives. This project could have minor effects on geese. Project activities are consistent with the Forest Plan standards and guidelines for Vancouver Canada geese, and thus, the conservation strategy, so no effects to goose viability are expected

Under either action alternative some minor vegetation disturbance is expected. It is possible, but unlikely, that this could disturb or destroy a nest, particularly of a hemlock/spruce forest or shrub thicket-using species. Some disturbance of foraging birds is likely during project activities. The magnitude of the effects would vary, depending on the season. The greatest effects would occur during May and June but by September, the young birds have fledged and they would not be directly affected by any of the proposed activities. This project would have negligible to minor effects on migratory birds and bird species of concern.

Cumulative Environmental Effects on Wildlife Alternatives 1, 2, and 3: Ten of the twelve cabins are located in wilderness or LUD II land use designations (LUD) which do not permit development. Activities that could occur in these areas are expected to be low impact such as guided nature tours and hunting/fishing. No cumulative effects are expected in these areas.

The DeBoer and Harvey Lake cabins are located in LUD which allow development. The Harvey Lake cabin is located on Woewodski Island which has some private land and an active mineral exploration project. Mineral exploration activities include drilling and surface exploration and would likely have similar effects as this project, i.e., temporary localized disturbance with little to no habitat alteration. This project could have minor disturbance impacts on several MIS. The DeBoer cabin is located in Thomas Bay. There are no projects in the vicinity of the cabin but there have been a number of timber sales in Thomas Bay, primarily on the south side, away from the cabin location. Current projects proposed in Thomas Bay include timber harvest, young-growth treatments, restoration activities, and trail rehabilitation. These projects are all located on the south side of Thomas Bay. The environmental analyses for these projects have not been completed, but they are likely to have some level of impacts on a number of wildlife species. However, since the Tongass National Forest Sustainable Cabins Management project will have negligible impacts to nearly all wildlife species, no cumulative impacts are expected.

Cumulative effects to goshawk and other birds could occur based on mineral exploration activities on private and Forest Service managed lands on Woewodski Island. Mineral exploration activities include drilling and surface exploration and would likely have similar effects as this project, i.e., temporary localized disturbance with little to no habitat alteration. Cumulative effects to goshawk and other birds are expected to be minor.


74

Photo 7: DeBoer Lake Cabin – the boards that support the floor of this cabin are rotting and becoming hazards.

Photo 8: DeBoer Lake Cabin – this foundation pier is crumbling. This cabin’s foundation is in poor condition.


75

CHAPTER 4, CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, and local agencies, tribes and non-Forest Service persons during the development of this environmental assessment. Scoping materials were sent to many additional individuals, groups, businesses, agencies and others.

ID TEAM MEMBERS: IDT Leader/Writer-Editor/Fire/Air Quality/Roadless

Michelle Putz (SO)

Recreation/Special Uses/Socio-economics

Tory Houser (CRD)

Fisheries John Hyde (HRD) GIS Vel Diemert (SO) Heritage Mark McCallum and Gina Esposito

(SO) Karst/Caves/Geology Jim Baichtal (SO) Plants/Botany Brad Krieckhaus (SRD) Scenery Jim Beard (SO) Soils/Wetlands Becki Reynolds (CRD) Watershed Julianne Thompson (SO) Wilderness Dave Rak (WRD) Wildlife/Subsistence Dennis Chester (JRD)

EXTENDED TEAM MEMBERS: Resource specialists representing each resource and each district affected were consulted in gathering information for this EA and the effects analysis. Seth Ross assisted with fire information.

FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES: Karrie Improte and Stan Leaphart, Citizens Advisory Commission on Federal Areas (CACFA)

Jim Plosay, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Summer Rickman, Alaska State Historic Preservation Office

TRIBES AND TRIBAL ENTITIES: Central Council Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska

Central Council Tlingit and Haida Tribes of Alaska

Chilkat Indian Village


76

Chilkoot Indian Association

Craig Tribal Association

Douglas Indian Association

Hoonah Indian Association

Hydaburg Cooperative Association

Ketchikan Indian Community

Ketchikan Indian Corporation

Klawock Cooperative Association

Klawock Cooperative Association

Klawock Tribal Government

Metlakatla Indian Community

Organized Village of Kake

Organized Village of Kasaan - IRA Council

Organized Village of Saxman

Organized Village of Saxman

Petersburg Indian Association

Petersburg Indian Association

Sitka Tribe of Alaska

Skagway Traditional Council

Tongass Tribe

Wrangell Cooperative Association

Wrangell Cooperative Association

Yak-Tat Kwaan, Inc.

Yakutat Tlingit Tribe

Yakutat Tlingit Tribe

OTHERS: Joe Parrish, Friends of the Tongass Cabins

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, employees, and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program, or protected genetic information in employment or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.) To File an Employment Complaint: If you wish to file an employment complaint, you must contact your agency's EEO Counselor (PDF) within 45 days of the date of the alleged discriminatory act, event, or in the case of a personnel action. Additional information can be found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_file.html. To File a Program Complaint: If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form (PDF), found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html, or at any USDA office, or call (866) 632-9992 to request the form. You may also write a letter containing all of the information requested in the form. Send your completed complaint form or letter to us by mail at U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, by fax (202) 690-7442 or email at [email protected]. Persons with Disabilities: Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities and who wish to file either an EEO or program complaint, please contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 or (800) 845-6136 (in Spanish). Persons with disabilities, who wish to file a program complaint, please see information above on how to contact us by mail directly or by email. If you require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_file.html

http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html

mailto:[email protected]

Documents

Tongass National Forest Sustainable Cabin Managementa123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai... · Tongass National Forest Sustainable Cabin Management