United States Department of Agriculture Kruzof Island

Forest Service Landscape Assessment Tongass National Forest

September 2006 Sitka Ranger District R10-MB-575 Sitka, Alaska

Team: Martin Becker Team Leader; Hydrology, Soils, Geology Melissa Dinsmore Lands J. Perry Edwards Wildlife Resources, Subsistence Patrick Heuer Silviculture, Vegetation Jeremy Karchut Heritage Resources Ginny Lutz GIS Robert Miller Fisheries Mary Beth Nelson Recreation, Special Uses Michelle Putz Writer-Editor Morgan Sandall Roads Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment Key Acronyms and Other Terms

ANILCA Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act BMPs Best Management Practices CEQ Council on Environmental Quality DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact Forest Plan Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan, 1997 GIS Geographic Information System IDT Interdisciplinary Team LTF Log Transfer Facility LUD Land Use Designation MBF Thousand Board Feet MIS Management Indicator Species MMBF Million Board Feet MM-HAZ Mass Movement Hazard (category) NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFMA National Forest Management Act NFS National Forest System OGR Old-growth Reserve POG Productive old-growth (forest) RCS Road Condition Survey RMAs Riparian Management Areas RMO Road Management Objective ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum SRI Sediment Risk Index SSLSA Sitka Sound Landscape Assessment TES Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive [species] TTRA Tongass Timber Reform Act VCU Value Comparison Unit VQO Visual Quality Objective WAA Wildlife Analysis Area

Printed on Recycled Paper Cover photo: view of Mount Edgecumbe on Kruzof Island

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Table of Contents

Chapter 1 – Introduction

Management Direction for Landscape Assessments ...... 1-1 The Purpose of the Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment ...... 1-1 The Assessment Area...... 1-2 Relationship to the Forest Plan ...... 1-5

Chapter 2 – Issues and Key Questions

Regarding the Biological Characteristics of the Assessment Area...... 2-1 Regarding the Human Dimensions of the Assessment Area ...... 2-2

Chapter 3 – Assessment Area Description, and Trends and Interpretation

Physical Characteristics ...... 3-1 Geographic Location...... 3-1 Climate...... 3-2 Landscape Processes...... 3-3 Ecological Classification ...... 3-4 Geology / Soils...... 3-7 Hydrology ...... 3-19 Biological Characteristics ...... 3-35 Forest Vegetation and Timber Resources...... 3-35 Fisheries ...... 3-45 Wildlife and Biological Diversity...... 3-61 Subsistence...... 3-86 Human Dimensions...... 3-91 Heritage Resources and Current Human Use ...... 3-91 Transportation and Facilities...... 3-99 Recreation Use and Facilities...... 3-112

Chapter 4 – Recommendations and Opportunities

Introduction...... 4-1 Soils...... 4-1 Hydrology and Fisheries...... 4-2 Forest Vegetation...... 4-3 Wildlife and Biological Diversity...... 4-3 Heritage Resources ...... 4-5 Roads...... 4-6 Recreation Use and Facilities...... 4-8 Summary Recommendations by VCU...... 4-11

i Chapter 5 – Glossary and References

Glossary ...... 5-1 References...... 5-11

Appendix A – Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment Public Involvement and Comments Received

ii List of Tables

Chapter 1 – Introduction Table 1-1. VCUs within the Assessment Area...... 1-3 Table 1-2. Land Ownership for the Assessment Area...... 1-3 Table 1-3. Land Use Designations for the Assessment Area...... 1-7

Chapter 3 – Assessment Area Description, and Trends and Interpretation Table 3-1. Distribution of High Hazard Soils (MM-HAZ 3 and 4) in the Development LUDs of the Assessment Area and the Extent of Management Activities on Such Soils by Watershed ...... 3-11 Table 3-2. Gage Station Data...... 3-20 Table 3-3. Assessment Area Watersheds - Key to Figure 3-11; Watershed Number and Name...... 3-22 Table 3-4. Stream Miles by Class and Process Group and Drainage Densities for Key Watersheds1 in Assessment Area...... 3-29 Table 3-5. Current SRI Ratings for Watersheds by LUD Type...... 3-32 Table 3-6. Management Activity Summaries by Watershed for the Assessment Area...... 3-33 Table 3-7: VCU Acres on National Forest System Lands in the Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment Area...... 3-35 Table 3-8: Acres by Volume Strata, Stand Structure and Forest Productivity on National Forest System Land within the Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment Area...... 3-38 Table 3-9: Harvest History within the Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment Area by Year and VCU ...... 3-39 Table 3-10: Gaps, Thickets, Travel Corridors by VCU and Stand Number within the Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment Area...... 3-41 Table 3-11: Precommercial Thinning History within the Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment Area by Year and VCU...... 3-42 Table 3-12. Fish Production Capability Model Results...... 3-50 Table 3-13. Projected adult coho coded-wire tag (CWT) contributions to fisheries from juvenile coho stocked at Lava Falls...... 3-51 Table 3-14. Management Impacts on Watersheds...... 3-53 Table 3-15. Riparian management areas previously harvested within Class 1, 2, and 3 stream buffers...... 3-53 Table 3-16. Red Pipe Locations...... 3-56 Table 3-17. Modular Bridges...... 3-56 Table 3-18. Log stringer Bridges*...... 3-57 Table 3-19. Watershed Restoration and Inventory Projects with the Assessment Area...... 3-58 Table 3-20. Adult fish observed upstream of Lava Falls Creek fishpass ...... 3-59 Table 3-21. Amount of Productive Old-growth Habitat (POG) in Old-growth Habitat Reserves (OGR) and Other Non-Development LUDs on National Forest System (NFS) Land in the Biodiversity Analysis Area...... 3-65 Table 3-22. Medium Old-growth Habitat Reserves (OGR), and Productive Old-growth Habitat (POG) and High Productivity Old-growth Habitat (HPOG)...... 3-66 Table 3-23. Acres of National Forest Land (NFS), Small Old-growth Habitat Reserves (OGR), and Productive Old-growth Habitat (POG) in Value Comparison Units (VCU) in the

iii Biodiversity Assessment Area ...... 3-67 Table 3-24. Proportion of Highly Productive Old-growth (HPOG) and Coarse Canopy Habitat (VC 5N and VC 6&7) within the Productive Old-growth (POG) in the Biodiversity Analysis Area...... 3-68 Table 3-25. Percentage of Productive Old-growth (POG), of High POG (HPOG), and Coarse Canopy (VC 5N and VC 6&7) of POG within National Forest System Lands (NFS) designated as Development and Non-development LUDs (Semi-remote Recreation, Special Interest Area and Old-growth Habitat Reserves) by the Forest Plan in the Biodiversity Analysis Area...... 3-69 Table 3-26. Miles of Class One Streams by Channel Type within the Biodiversity Analysis Area...... 3-70 Table 3-27. Deer Winter Habitat as a Proportion of Productive Old-growth Habitat (POG) Below 800 Feet in Elevation in the Biodiversity Analysis Area ...... 3-74 Table 3-28. POG and HPOG below 1,500 feet elevation on NFS land in the Biodiversity Analysis Area...... 3-75 Table 3-29. Goshawk Habitat POG and HPOG in the Biodiversity Analysis Area...... 3-76 Table 3-30. Number of Broadcast Goshawk Call Stations and Hours of Goshawk Surveys Completed in the Biodiversity Analysis Area ...... 3-77 Table 3-31. Cumulative Change in Productive Old-growth (POG) Forest in the Biodiversity Analysis Area...... 3-80 Table 3-32. Acres of Thinning in the Biodiversity Analysis Area ...... 3-81 Table 3-33. Acres of POG below 1000 feet elevation...... 3-81 Table 3-34. Stands with Potential to become High Quality Deer Winter Habitat...... 3-82 Table 3-35. Miles of Road and Road Densities in the Assessment Area ...... 3-85 Table 3-36. Subsistence Harvest and Use by Sitka Residents in 1996...... 3-87 Table 3-37. Cultural Chronology for Southeast Alaska (Moss 1994)...... 3-91 Table 3-38. Moieties and Clans within the Sitka Kwaan...... 3-94 Table 3-39. Known Cultural Sites in the Assessment Area...... 3-96 Table 3-40. Miles of Assessment Area Roads by Land Use Designation ...... 3-99 Table 3-41. Roads Closed to Public Traffic (OML-1) in the Assessment Area...... 3-102 Table 3-42. Roads open to High Clearance Vehicles (OML-2) in the Assessment Area....3-103 Table 3-43. Miles of Road and Road Densities in the Assessment Area ...... 3-109 Table 3-44. Forest Plan Direction for Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) by Land Use Designation (LUD) ...... 3-116 Table 3-45. Alaska Visitor Statistics Program, October 2000 through September 2001 ....3-119

Chapter 4 – Recommendations and Opportunities Table 4-1. Classified Roads in the Assessment Area Lacking RCS Data ...... 4-7

iv

List of Figures

Chapter 1 – Introduction

Figure 1-1. Vicinity Map ...... 1-3 Figure 1-2. Value Comparison Units (VCUs) and Land Use Designations (LUDs)...... 1-8

Chapter 3 – Assessment Area Description

Figure 3-1. Mount Edgecumbe and Crater Ridge on Kruzof Island...... 3-1 Figure 3-2. Climate Data for Sitka, AK...... 3-2 Figure 3-3. Ecological Subsections of the Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment Area ...... 3-6 Figure 3-4. High Hazard Soils within the Assessment Area ...... 3-10 Figure 3-5. Landslide Distribution by Slope Class with the Assessment Area...... 3-12 Figure 3-6. Landslide Distribution by MM-HAZ Category and Management Status for the Assessment Area...... 3-13 Figure 3-7. Landslide Frequency by MM-HAZ Category and Management Status within the Assessment Area...... 3-13 Figure 3-8. Landslide Distribution by Aspect within the Assessment Area...... 3-14 Figure 3-9. Landslide Distribution by Elevation within the Assessment Area...... 3-15 Figure 3-10. Landslides within the Assessment Area...... 3-16 Figure 3-11. Watersheds and Streams within the Assessment Area...... 3-21 Figure 3-12. Gage Summary for Kalinin Bay Tributary near Sitka ...... 3-23 Figure 3-13. Gage Summary for Nakwasina River near Sitka ...... 3-24 Figure 3-14. Gage Summary for Indian River near Sitka...... 3-25 Figure 3-15. Sediment Risk Index Ranking for Watersheds within or Partially within Development LUDs...... 3-31 Figure 3-16. Harvest History with the Assessment Area...... 3-33 Figure 3-17. Areas of Past Harvest within the Assessment Area ...... 3-40 Figure 3-18. Existing Bridges and Red Pipes (USDA Forest Service 2004a)...... 3-55 Figure 3-19. Lava Falls Fishpass ...... 3-59 Figure 3-20. Eagle Creek Fish Pass ...... 3-60 Figure 3-21. USFS escapement counts conducted on Eagle Creek since 1981...... 3-60 Figure 3-22. Wildlife Analysis Areas (WAAs) within the Biodiversity Analysis Area...... 3-64 Figure 3-23. Non-Development LUDs and OGR within Biodiversity Analysis Area ...... 3-65 Figure 3-24. Deer Winter Habitat ...... 3-73 Figure 3-25. Connectivity ...... 3-78 Figure 3-26. Areas with Potential to become High Quality Deer Winter Habitat...... 3-83 Figure 3-27. Average Deer Harvested Per Hunter Per WAA...... 3-88 Figure 3-28. Average Number of Days Hunted for Each Harvested Deer Per WAA ...... 3-89 Figure 3-29. Deer Pellet Density Trends...... 3-90 Figure 3-30. Documented Cultural Resources...... 3-97 Figure 3-31. National Forest System Roads in the Assessment Area...... 3-101 Figure 3-32. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum and Sites in the Assessment Area, including VCUs...... 3-117

v

Chapter 4 – Recommendations and Opportunities

Figure 4-1. VCU 3020 ...... 4-13 Figure 4-2. VCU 3030 ...... 4-16 Figure 4-3. VCU 3040 ...... 4-18 Figure 4-4. VCU 3050 ...... 4-20 Figure 4-5. VCU 3060 ...... 4-23 Figure 4-6. VCU 3070 ...... 4-26 Figure 4-7. VCU 3080 ...... 4-28 Figure 4-8. VCU 3090 ...... 4-31 Figure 4-9. VCU 3100 ...... 4-33

vi Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Chapter 1 - Introduction

Management Direction for Landscape Assessments

Comprehensive assessments over large geographic areas (such as landscapes) are one tool for implementing ecosystem management. A landscape assessment should describe physical, biological, and social conditions over broad spatial and temporal scales and recommend opportunities to implement Forest Plans. These assessments provide the foundation for determining trends toward desired future conditions. The principles behind and direction for conducting landscape assessments have developed over many years and come from several sources and emphasize the following: • assessing the function and condition of watersheds, • incorporating watershed condition factors into agency planning and programs, • restoring watersheds, and • expanding collaboration among agencies and stakeholders.

Direction for conducting landscape assessments, found within the fiscal year program direction for the Forest Service, states that assessments should be conducted at landscape scales equivalent to the 5th level Hydrologic Units (approximately 200,000 acres) and carried out according to the guidelines set forth in Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale (USDA FS 1995). Core topics to be assessed include: erosion processes, hydrology, stream channel conditions, vegetation condition, water quality, riparian and aquatic species and habitats, and human uses. In addition, Appendix J of the Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA FS 1997), hereafter referred to as the Forest Plan, provides direction for the content and data needs associated with landscape assessments. Appendix J specifies that landscape assessments should be designed to help set the stage for project planning and to strengthen project-level National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis. Interdisciplinary discussion about key specific geographic resources, habitat relationships and management issues should be the focal point of assessments.

The Purpose of the Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

The purpose of the Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment is three-fold. First, the assessment is intended to provide a description of the existing condition of the Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment Area (hereafter referred to as the Assessment Area). This description will be used in the Affected Environment section of future NEPA documents. It is a precursor to NEPA analysis, not a decision document itself, and should be

Chapter 1 - Page 1 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

considered a working document. As with previous landscape level assessments, when new information is obtained, it will be incorporated. An additional benefit of this landscape assessment is that all the information for a contiguous area is compiled for future reference. Second, the assessment will increase our knowledge and understanding of the ecological systems and past and present human use within the Assessment Area. Finally, the assessment will include recommendations and suggestions based on the analysis of available information for achieving the desired future condition for the area as described in the Forest Plan. This assessment utilizes a systematic, interdisciplinary approach for gathering information and evaluating the condition of key ecosystem structures and functions. The information compiled in this assessment can assist in identifying management concerns. Subsequent analyses and project planning will strengthen our understanding of the Assessment Area watersheds and our ability to apply ecosystem management to the Tongass National Forest.

The Assessment Area

The Assessment Area, which includes Kruzof, Krestof, Partofshikof and the surrounding Islands of Krestof Sound, encompasses nearly 124,578 acres (Figure 1-1) and is made up of a combination of two of 83 5th level Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watershed associations on the Tongass (Sitka Sound and Kruzof Island). During completion of the Sitka Sound Landscape Assessment (SSLSA) in 2004, the assessment team decided to not analyze the portion of the SSLSA area west of Olga and Neva straights and include it later with the Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment (USDA Forest Service 2004b). The justification for this decision was that activities occurring in Krestof Sound (recreation, subsistence, management, etc) were more closely associated to Kruzof Island than they were to Sitka Sound. These watersheds (Sitka Sound and Kruzof Island) are two of the 25 Watershed Associations of Concern identified by a Forest Service Regional Interdisciplinary Team in October 2000. Key factors in determining these Watershed Associations of Concern or Priority Watersheds were disturbance indices (harvest on steep slopes, riparian harvest level, road and stream crossing density) along with aquatic value ratings (high fish habitat capability, water and hydro power supplies, recreation uses) (USDA FS 2000). The Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment includes drainages that flow into Sitka, Krestof and Salisbury Sounds and the Pacific Ocean. Table 1-1 lists the nine Value Comparison Units (VCUs) located within the Assessment Area. VCUs are parcels of land that generally encompass a drainage basin or watershed containing one or more large stream systems. VCU boundaries usually follow easily recognizable watershed divides. These units delineate areas for resource inventory and interpretation. For analytical purposes related to specific resources, the nine VCUs are analyzed as a whole even though they extend outside the Assessment Area boundaries. The type of VCU analysis for each resource will denote the scale of analysis used. VCUs in the Assessment Area are delineated in Figure 1-2.

Chapter 1 - Page 2

Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Table 1-1. VCUs within the Assessment Area

VCU Number VCU Name 3020 Neva Strait 3030 Sukoi Strait 3040 Sinitsin Bay 3050 Sealion Cove 3060 Gilmer Bay 3070 Curaca Cove 3080 Mount Edgecumbe 3090 Krestof Sound 3100 Gavanski Island

Federal and National Forest Lands Land ownership within the Assessment Area is varied, but not complex (Table 1-2). Most of the land (approximately 122,056 acres) is federal land managed by the Forest Service. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service manages the remainder of federally owned land in the Assessment Area (approximately 65 acres).

Table 1-2. Land Ownership for the Assessment Area

Ownership Status Acres Federal 122,121 Forest Service Managed 122,056 United States Fish and Wildlife Service Managed 65 Non-Federal 2,457 State of Alaska 2,251 Privately Held (including Native Allotments) 166 Native Corporation (Haida Village Corp. and Sealaska 40 Corp.) Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment Area 124,578

Non-National Forest Lands The State of Alaska, private landowners and regional Native Corporations own approximately 2,457 acres. Several small islands in the Siginaka Islands (VCU 3100) owned by the Haida Corporation are currently for sale on the real estate market.

State Selections The Alaska Statehood Act authorized the State of Alaska to select National Forest System lands. Two areas within the project boundary have been selected by the State.

Chapter 1 - Page 4 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

The Tentative Approval document “confirms that all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the lands described...is deemed to have [been] vested in the State of Alaska...”.

• Tentative Approval, Application AA-18068, approximately 828 acres, Kalinin Bay. • Tentative Approval, Application AA-71692, approximately 1,068 acres, Magoun Islands.

Native Allotment Certificate of Allotment, Application AA-8005, Patent 50-2003-0477, USS 12521, 159.97 acres, Sinitsin Cove (T. 52 S., R. 60 E., portions of Secs. 26 and 35).

Native Selections The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 provided for conveyance of certain lands to Native Corporations.

• One area has been patented to Sealaska Corporation under ANSCA 14(h)(1) and 14 (h)(7), Application AA-10498, Patent 50-99-0164, USS 10053, 26.16 acres, Sealion Cove Village. • One area has been selected and conveyance is pending, Interim Conveyance 1878, Application AA-6981-D, approximately 46 acres, twelve of the islands in the Siginaka Island group. Forest Service policy (R-10 Supplement 5509.11-2003-1, 42.03, 3a) states: “Upon issuance of interim conveyance, all Forest Service authority to manage the land ceases, except as related to outstanding contracts, permits, easements, and right-of-ways.”

Relationship to the Forest Plan

The Forest Plan guides the management of National Forest System (NFS) lands within Assessment Area. National forest planning takes place at several levels: national, regional, forest, and project levels. The Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment is an ecosystem analysis conducted at the landscape scale. It does not attempt to address decisions made at higher levels. It does, however, identify opportunities to implement direction provided at those higher levels. The Forest Plan embodies the provisions of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), its implementing regulations, and other guiding documents. It sets forth in detail the direction for managing the land and resources of the Tongass National Forest and is the result of extensive analysis, which is presented in the Forest Plan FEIS (USDA FS 1997). A Forest Plan Record of Decision (ROD) was signed in 1997 (USDA FS 1997). A subsequent Forest Plan ROD issued in 1999 superseded the 1997 ROD. In AFA v. USDA, the U.S. District Court, District of Alaska, vacated the 1999 Forest Plan ROD and

Chapter 1 - Page 5 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment upheld the 1997 Forest Plan ROD. Where appropriate, the Sitka Sound Landscape Assessment tiers to the 1997 Forest Plan, as encouraged by 40 CFR 1502.20. The Forest Plan assigns one or several of 19 specific Land Use Designations (LUDs) to each VCU. LUDs are used to guide management of the NFS lands within the Tongass National Forest. Each designation provides for a unique combination of activities, practices, and uses. The five LUDs that are found within the Assessment Area are listed in Table 1-3 (see also Figure 1-2).

Table 1-3. Land Use Designations for the Assessment Area Percent of LUD Development Status Acres Assessment Area1 Timber Production Intensive Development 18,266 15 Modified Landscape Moderate Development 20,388 16 Semi-remote Recreation Mostly Natural 22,847 18 Old-growth Habitat Reserve Mostly Natural 11,970 10 Special Interest Area Mostly Natural 49,016 39 Source: SRD GIS Coverage 2006 1 Approximately 2% of the Assessment Area is designated as Non-National Forest.

Land Use Designations are categorized into two broad categories: development and non- development LUDs. Development LUDs are those that “permit commercial timber harvest (Timber Production and Modified Landscape) and convert some of the old- growth forest to early-to-mid –successional, regulated forests” (USDA FS 1997, p. 7-9). Non-development LUDs are “land use designations that do not permit commercial timber harvest and generally maintain the integrity of the existing old-growth ecosystem” (USDA FS 1997, p. 7-25). The Assessment Area contains land allocated to two development LUDs (Timber Production and Modified Landscape) and land allocated to three non-development LUDs (Semi-remote Recreation, Old-growth Habitat Reserve, and Special Interest Area). The goals of each of the LUDs present in the Assessment Area are included below. Chapter 3 of the Forest Plan contains a detailed description of each land use designation (USDA FS 1997).

Timber Production The goals of this designation are: 1) to maintain and promote industrial wood production from suitable timber lands, providing a continuous supply of wood to meet society’s needs; 2) to manage these lands for sustained long-term timber yields; and 3) to seek to provide a supply of timber from the Tongass National Forest which meets the annual and planning-cycle market demand, consistent with the standards and guidelines of this land use designation.

Chapter 1 - Page 6 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Modified Landscape The goals of this designation repeat goals 1) and 3) listed under Timber Production and include two others: 1) to provide a sustained yield of timber and a mix of resource activities while minimizing the visibility of developments in the foreground distance zone; and 2) to recognize the scenic values of suitable timber lands viewed from identified popular roads, trails, marine travel routes, recreation sites, bays, and anchorages, and …to modify timber harvest practices accordingly.

Semi-remote Recreation The goals of this designation are: 1) to provide predominantly natural or natural- appearing settings for semi-primitive types of recreation and tourism; and 2) to provide opportunities for a moderate degree of independence, closeness to nature, and self- reliance in environments requiring challenging motorized or non-motorized forms of transportation.

Old-growth Habitat Reserve The goals of this designation are: 1) to maintain areas of old-growth forests and their associated natural ecological processes to provide habitats for old-growth associated resources; and 2) to manage early seral conifer stands to achieve old-growth forest characteristic structure and composition based upon site capability.

Special Interest Area The goal of this designation is to provide for the inventory, maintenance, interpretation and protection of the existing characteristics and attributes of areas with unique cultural, geological, botanical, zoological, recreational, scenic or other special features.

Chapter 1 - Page 7

Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Chapter 2 - Issues and Key Questions

This chapter includes a list of issues and key questions the Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment is intended to address. These issues and questions were developed by an Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) of resource specialists working on the Sitka Ranger District and were intended to be used to guide the analysis. The list consists of issues and questions about the Assessment Area identified by resource specialists. Public comments received on the project during the open comment period have also been incorporated into this list. This landscape assessment is not a decision document, and some comments were outside the scope of the assessment. Most of the issues, questions, and comments are addressed in chapters 3 and 4 of this assessment. Some of the comments received provided valuable information that was used by the resource specialists as they analyzed the data. Appendix A includes all of the comments received on this project.

Regarding the Biological Characteristics of the Assessment Area

Forest Vegetation/Timber/Silviculture

ISSUE: Timber resources, including traditional and special uses of forest products will need to be provided to meet market demand.

KEY QUESTIONS: 1) What are the land management and resource objectives with regards to timber/ silviculture for the Assessment Area? 2) What future forest conditions can be anticipated based upon management activities? 3) Are young forest areas available in the Assessment Area for thinning or pre- commercial thinning opportunities? 4) What opportunities exist for enhancement of fisheries/hydrology, visual and wildlife objectives and recreational opportunities by using timber/silvicultural prescriptions? 5) What are the traditional uses and special uses of forest products in the Assessment Area and can silvicultural prescriptions enhance these?

Fisheries

ISSUE: Human use of salmon and other aquatic species associated with fresh water is one of the primary uses of the Kruzof Island area. Salmonid fisheries and other

Chapter 2 - Page 1 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

aquatic species depend on healthy watersheds and high water quality for their life cycle. Land management activities, past and present, may affect water quality.

KEY QUESTIONS: 1) What is the condition of important fish streams in the area? 2) Where are important recreation/subsistence/commercial fish streams? What and where are the subsistence uses (plants, fish, wildlife) related to water? 3) What amount of harvest/roads has occurred in riparian areas? 4) What type of recreation related to water is from salt-water access vs. road access? 5) What restoration opportunities exist in these important fish streams/riparian areas? 6) Where are the existing fish/wildlife restoration/enhancement work projects, including previous stream restoration and existing fish passes?

Wildlife/Subsistence

ISSUE: Wildlife in the assessment area provide a variety of benefits and are important to the people living in and visiting the assessment area. Land management activities, past and present, may affect wildlife and wildlife habitat.

KEY QUESTIONS: 1) What is the condition of wildlife habitat within the Assessment Area? 2) Where are wildlife habitat improvement projects located to meet wildlife habitat and population objectives of the area? 3) What silvicultural practices could be used to accomplish wildlife habitat objectives? 4) What are the subsistence, sport, and non-consumptive wildlife uses in the area? 5) How has fragmentation from roading and past harvest affected wildlife? 6) What are the potential impacts to wildlife from future land management activities?

Regarding the Human Dimensions of the Assessment Area

Subsistence harvest of wildlife and fish species is discussed under Fisheries and Wildlife sections.

Roads

ISSUE: National Forest Service System and Non System roads in the area are mostly associated with 1970 – 1980 timber harvests. Roads in this area have received little or no maintenance and may be contributing to water resource degradation.

Chapter 2 - Page 2 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

KEY QUESTIONS: 1) Road assessment process- how can roads be managed to reduce long term impacts on aquatic habitat and water quality while maintaining recreation and land management use? 2) What are the general patterns or trends of land management activities (such as future timber harvest and roading) for the area? 3) Where/what is the current recreation/subsistence use associated with roads? 4) What is the current condition of the roads? Where are the key resource problems/concerns?

Recreation Use and Facilities

ISSUE: Development of the recreational resource by the Forest Service occurred in the past, but has remained stationary for over a decade. Commercial use and public recreation use is increasing and expanding every year in the Assessment Area. Current visual quality objective levels may not be adequate for current or anticipated future recreational uses.

KEY QUESTIONS: 1) Access and Travel Management – what opportunities are available to expand and/or convert roads to approved OHV, bicycle or hiking trails? 2) What opportunities exist to create new OHV, bicycle or hiking trails or OHV play areas? 3) What opportunities exist to improve visual quality objectives through forest thinning? 4) Do current Forest Service recreational cabin facilities meet current and anticipated future demand? If not, what opportunities exist for additional sites?

Chapter 2 - Page 3 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Chapter 3 - Assessment Area Description, and Trends and Interpretation

This chapter includes a description of the physical and biological characteristics as well as the human dimensions of the Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment Area. This chapter also assesses resource conditions and trends based on past and ongoing activities and effects, and interprets those trends by resource. The assessments are framed by the issues and key questions described in Chapter 2.

Physical Characteristics

Geographic Location

The Assessment Area consists of nearly 124,578 acres (195 miles2) and is located in Southeast Alaska on the western side of Sitka Sound. It encompasses, and its boundaries are defined by, Salisbury Sound to the north, Neva and Olga Straits and Sitka Sound to the east, Sitka Sound to the south, and the Pacific Ocean to the west (see Figures 1-1, Chapter 1 and Figure 3-1).

Figure 3-1. Mount Edgecumbe and Crater Ridge on Kruzof Island

Chapter 3 - Page 1 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Climate

The Assessment Area has a maritime climate that has affected the physical and biological characteristics and the human uses of the area. Temperatures are moderated by the Alaska Current, which circulates counterclockwise up the coast (Johnson and Hartman 1969). Data from the nearest climatic station in Sitka indicate there is only 22.6ºF difference between the mean average temperatures of the warmest (August, 56.7ºF) and coldest (January, 34.1ºF) months (Figure 3-2). The climate is predominantly cloudy, cool, and wet throughout the year. This station also indicates that the average yearly precipitation at Sitka is 96 inches. Precipitation occurs throughout the year, with June being the driest month (3.71 inches) and October the wettest (14.51 inches). This station in Sitka is located near saltwater, at less than 50 feet in elevation, on Japonski Island. The actual climate data within the various Assessment Area watersheds is likely to be much colder and wetter at higher elevations and further from saltwater.

Figure 3-2. Climate Data for Sitka, AK

Climate Data For Sitka Alaska

T 60 16 e 14 m 50 p 12 I 40 e 10 n r c a 30 8 h t 6 e u 20 s r 4 10 e Mean (F) 2 Avg. Precip. Inches * 0 0

l t r r r r ry ry h ri ay ne ly s e e e e a a rc p u u u b b b b u r a M J J g m to m m n bu A u e c e e Ja e M A t v c F ep O o e S N D Month

Source: www.weather.com

* Source: Sitka Airport Records 1842-1996

Chapter 3 - Page 2 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Landscape Processes

A complete characterization of a landscape or landform must contain three components: a description of the feature, the processes involved in its formation, and its development through time (Chorley and others 1984). There are six primary processes that have influenced the landscape of the Assessment Area: tectonism (geological plate movement), glaciation, volcanism, hill slope processes (landslides and surface erosion), fluvial processes (stream flow and sediment transfer), and wind. Tectonic and glacial processes operate on a geologic time scale. Landforms within the Assessment Area are generally less than 12,000 years old. Hill slope and fluvial processes have the greatest potential to affect resource conditions on a time scale of years to decades. The Interdisciplinary Team has attempted to treat the Assessment Area holistically, discussing the development of the landscape, soils, and vegetative types in relation to the major disturbance factors in these watersheds. Tectonic Processes Tectonic activity affects the Assessment Area on different temporal and spatial scales. On the geologic time scale, the movement of large terranes has resulted in the many different assemblages of bedrock in Southeast Alaska (Brew 1990). A geologic fault runs along Silver Bay, through Sitka Sound, and up along Partofshikof Island and the outer coast of Chichagof Island. On a time scale of thousands of years, some movement has probably occurred along this fault. Glacial Processes Glaciation has exerted the most profound effect on the soils and plants of the northern Assessment Area. The Wisconsin glaciation, which ended 12,000 to 13,000 years ago (Miller 1973), along with earlier glaciations, has resulted in U-shaped valleys and higher elevation cirque basins. The glaciers scoured some areas down to the bedrock and deposited basal till and ablation till elsewhere. The Wisconsin deglaciation resulted in a sea level that was much higher than it is today. This accounts for the presence of marine silts and sands in many of the low-lying valleys of northern Southeast Alaska. Miller (1973) mapped extensive deposits of the Gastineau Channel Formation in the Juneau area. It is likely that these marine silts and sands now underlie many wetlands in the low-lying areas the Assessment Area. The Little Ice Age was a period of worldwide cooling and glacial advance from the middle of the 13th through the late 19th century (Porter 1986). During this period, glaciers completely covered Glacier Bay. Deep winter snow pack and severe avalanching likely influenced northern Kruzof’s upper tree line and forest composition. Volcanic Processes The Pleistocene-to-Holocene Mount Edgecumbe volcanic field covers about 100 sq. miles of Kruzof Island west of Sitka. The basaltic-to-dacitic field is dominated by the large composite cones of Mount Edgecumbe, Crater Ridge, and Shell Mountain and has an unusual tectonic setting only 10 miles east of the Queen Charlotte-Fairweather transform fault separating the North American and Pacific plates. Mount Edgecumbe, a 3,201-foot-high stratovolcano with a well-defined crater, is the largest volcano of the Edgecumbe field and was named by Captain James Cook in 1778. Crater Ridge is truncated by a 1.0-mile-wide, 787-foot-deep caldera. These and other vents of the volcanic field are oriented along a SW-NE line. Volcanic activity originated about 600,000 years ago along fissures cutting Kruzof Island. A

Chapter 3 - Page 3 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment series of major silicic explosive eruptions took place about 9000-13,000 radiocarbon years ago, just after glaciers had retreated for the region. Ash deposits resulting form these eruptions can be seen today in streambanks and roadcuts in Sitka and as far as Cape Fairweather, 150 miles to the north (USDA Forest Service, 1996). The latest dated eruptions were phreatomagmatic explosions during the mid-Holocene, and all postglacial activity has been pyroclastic. Reports of historical eruptions of Mount Edgecumbe are unsubstantiated (www.volcano.si.edu /2006). Hill Slope Processes Erosion has had a large effect on local topography since the Wisconsin glaciation. Many colluvial and alluvial fans (i.e., landforms partially formed by debris torrents) were deposited on the valley floors during this time in mainly the northern portions of the Assessment Area. Recent landslides in these types of deposits, as well as ash deposits in the central and southern areas suggest that this process is continuing within the Assessment Area. Initiation of landslides in an undisturbed environment is linked to temporary water table development during high-intensity storms (Swanston 1969). Landslides in timber harvest areas are generally on gentler slopes and are significantly smaller than those in undisturbed environments (Swanston and Marion 1991). The Forest Service has completed a landslide inventory for the Assessment Area. Fluvial Processes Fluvial processes, or moving water processes, created the flood plains and alluvial fans in the Assessment Area. Fluvial processes have varying effects depending on water and sediment volumes; however, materials carried by the water are always sorted and deposited according to size and weight. Today, with the probable exception of isolated stream reaches, the streams in the Assessment Area are believed not to be overloaded with material. Most area streams generally have one channel with fluvial deposits such as point bars (on the inside of meanders) and levees (fine sands on the upper stream banks) (Davis 1983). Wind Processes Southeast Alaska’s temperate rainforests are susceptible to wind damage because of the combination of shallow root systems, poorly drained soils, and high winds, which often occur during peak rain events (Alaback 1990). Most commonly, single trees or small groups of trees are blown down (Harris 1989); however, entire tree stands sometimes blow down. Currently no inventories of stands that have regenerated after a large blowdown event exist for the Assessment Area.

Ecological Classification

The Assessment Area is comprised of two ecological subsections according to Nowacki and others (2001) (Figure 3-3). These ecological subsections, which help to define the ecosystems of Southeast Alaska, are based upon physiography, lithology, and surficial geology due to their interactions in processing water. The largest ecological subsection in the Assessment Area is the Mount Edgecumbe Volcanics which is defined by the past activities of Mt. Edgecumbe. Nowacki and others (2001) describe it as: …a striking landscape of scoria cones and lava fields. This relatively rare type of

Chapter 3 - Page 4 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

volcanic field occurs along a transform fault that allows the Pacific and North American plates to slide past each other. Mount Edgecumbe, a beautifully symmetric cone rising 3,200 feet on the southwestern side of the island, is the most impressive landmark. Smaller scoria cones aligned to the northeast of Mount Edgecumbe effectively bisect the island along its center. The changes of lava viscosity (stiffness) during the volcanic eruption sequence help explain the present-day landforms of the island (Riehle 1996). The volcanic field began to form 600,00 years ago as basalt, the most fluid of lavas, welled through cracks on the island. Basaltic eruptions continued for 500,000 years, essentially forming a low-relief platform on which later flows lie. Sequential eruptions over the last 37,000 years have built volcanic cones by ejecting increasingly viscous lavas of andesite, dactite and rhyolite. Violent explosions generated pyroclastic flows over the center of the island and spread pumice and ash across the entire island. Prevailing winds blew sizeable quantities of ash onto Chichagof Island and north Baranof Island (Riehle et al. 1992). Up to 100 feet of ash was deposited near vents, whereas up to 3 feet of ash fell on Sitka 15 miles to the east.

A radial pattern of high and moderate gradient stream channels occurs consistent with the conical topography. This is the only place in Southeast Alaska where this stream pattern is found. This island is exposed to strong Pacific storms and receives from 100 to 200 inches of precipitation. On cinder-mantled slopes and along deeply incised streams are better-drained soils that support highly productive, hemlock-spruce forests. Surrounding lowlands have wet organic soils and forest cover that grades from lower productive hemlock-cedar to open lodgepole pine-cedar peatlands on wide interfluves. Mammal species are limited by the island’s geographic isolation and distance from the mainland (MacDonald and Cook 1996). Common mammals include brown bear, Sitka black-tailed deer, marten (introduced), ermine, mink, river otter, common shrew, red squirrel (introduced), and Keen’s mouse.

The second subsection in the Assessment Area is the Sitka Sound Complex, which is also defined by the past activities of Mt. Edgecumbe. Nowacki and others (2001) describe it as: … highlands encircling Sitka Sound include the mountains on northwest Baranof Island, Halleck, Krestof, and Partofshikof Island, and the northern third of Kruzof Island. This area was blanketed by 2 to 6 feet of ash about 9-12,000 years ago (Riehle et al. 1992). Over time, portions of these volcanic deposits have washed downslope exposing the underlying Sitka graywake, granite, and low-grade metamorphic rocks such as phyllites. Much of this area is considerably lower in elevation than surrounding subsections, particularly Halleck, Krestof, and Partofshikof Island. This subsection has no glaciers, although it does contain a few permanent snowfields. Volcanic ash and cinders are the principal parent materials, covering over 50 percent of the subsection. Landslides are common on the ash-coated surfaces, particularly in areas roaded during the 1960-70s. Hemlock-spruce and hemlock forest dominate shorelines and low elevations. Forested wetlands of lodgepole pine and mixed conifers are relatively abundant compared to bordering subsections to the east. The alpine and coastal forest habitats support brown bear, Sitka black-tailed deer, mountain goat (introduced), marten (introduced), common shrew, Keen’s mouse, and tundra vole (p. 106).

Chapter 3 - Page 5

Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Geology / Soils

Plate tectonics and bedrock geology have shaped this region of the State. Southeast Alaska is composed of several bands of rock called terranes, which originated far from North America in the Pacific Ocean (Brew 1990). Each band is composed of different materials and measures hundreds of kilometers in length and tens of kilometers in width. The two primary terranes of the Assessment Area are the Chugach (which comprises most of Baranof Island and the west coast of Chichagof Island) and the Wrangellia (which comprises Northwest Baranof Island and a thin piece of Chichagof Island inland along the west coast) (Brew 1990). These terranes, which are separated by faults, have moved both vertically and horizontally, adding geologic complexity to the region (Brew 1990). The topography of the Assessment Area has been shaped by the folding and faulting of thick sequences of sediments and the upwelling of magma, which formed granite when it cooled. Soils on mountain and hill slopes are formed primarily of decomposed bedrock and colluvial material (deposited by gravity). Soils formed over bedrock are generally shallow, while colluvial soils are deeper and better drained. In addition, soils formed of volcanic ash occur throughout much of the Assessment Area. Glacial till soils, mainly in the northern end of Kruzof Island and much of Krestof and Partofshikof Islands, occur in patches plastered along mountain and hill slopes to elevations of about 1,000 feet, while ash deposit layers can be found at varying elevations and thicknesses. In the valley bottoms, soils have formed of river deposits, colluvial material, and marine sediments. The cool, wet climate characteristic of the area causes organic matter to decompose slowly, creating soils characterized by thick organic surface layers. Peatlands composed of very deep organic matter are common in areas where drainage is restricted by topography or where an impermeable layer such as bedrock or glacial till exists. In coarse alluvium (gravels and cobbles) the soils are well drained and support forests. Where the alluvium is finer and restricts drainage, nonforested vegetation communities such as fens and bogs form. Tree root depth is shallow, primarily limited to the nutrient-rich organic layers and the first few inches of the mineral layers. This root zone consists typically of moist, acidic organic horizons, and contains most of the nutrients available for plant growth (Heilman and Gass 1972). Soil Types Soils are the foundation of terrestrial ecosystems. Soil absorbs nutrient-rich water and releases it to microorganisms and plants, which become food and habitat for larger animals and people. Soils are a non-renewable resource because of the time it takes for them to form. There are many types of soils, and their specific properties determine the type of ecosystem they support and their resiliency to land management (USDA FS 2002). Soils in the Assessment Area have developed from a variety of unconsolidated and weathered mineral or organic parent materials and volcanic ash. Mineral soils develop from weathered rock, and organic soils develop from decomposed plant materials. Topography, climate, and vegetation play important roles in soil development. Mineral soil originates from bedrock that either weathered in place or was transported and deposited away from its place of origin. Mineral soils are typically covered with an organic layer that ranges from a few inches to several feet in thickness. Several classes of mineral

Chapter 3 - Page 7 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment soils exist in the Assessment Area, including volcanic ash, glacial till and alluvial, colluvial, and residual soils. Because of the high amount of precipitation and low temperatures in the Assessment Area, organic materials accumulate more quickly than they decompose, resulting in the creation of thick organic layers. Organic deposits range from about an inch to more than 40 feet in depth. Organic soil development is greatest on level terrain but is also found on rolling hills and moderately steep to steep slopes. Organic soils are often found covering glacial deposits on relatively flat valley bottoms. Most areas with organic soils in the Assessment Area are classified as wetlands (USDA FS 2002).

Soil Productivity Soil productivity is the inherent capacity of a soil to support the growth of specific plants or plant communities. It is critical to the forest because it affects the productivity of most other forest resources. Soil productivity is dependent on soil quality and can be affected by on-site disturbances such as natural erosion; landslides; to human-related disturbances; timber harvest activities; and use of roads, boat ramps, recreation trails, and picnic areas. Tree growth, wildlife and fish habitat, and recreation opportunities are all influenced by soil quality. Soil productivity varies between soil types. In mineral soils, most nutrients are produced and stored in the upper organic layers. Soil productivity is determined by soil drainage, texture, depth, and site characteristics (including elevation, slope, and aspect). The most productive soils, which generally support coniferous forest stands, range from well drained to moderately well drained and are moderately deep. They are found on floodplain terraces, moderately stable alluvial fans, hill slopes, mountain slopes, and uplifted beaches. Most organic soils are found in non-forested and forested wetlands that support low-volume forest, scrub-shrub, peatlands, and alpine meadow plant communities. Organic soils are not considered highly productive in terms of timber stand volume, but they are productive in terms of species richness and biomass. Organic soils that drain poorly support a wide variety of plant communities with high biomass and species diversity, and they are home to many species of fish and wildlife (USDA FS 2002). Soil Stability Swanston (1969) counted more than 3,800 landslides, which occurred in the last 150 years in Southeast Alaska. Most slides occur on steep slopes and when heavy rainfall has saturated the soil. In addition, wind associated with these storms can blow down trees, which may help trigger slope failure. Vegetation masks older slides on aerial photos making them difficult to identify; however, they can be discerned from soil profiles and shallow linear depressions on slopes. Landslides typically begin on open slopes and are a mixture of rock, soil, and vegetation. Swanston and Marion (1991), in their study of landslides within Southeast Alaska, observed that only about 3 percent of all landslides reached fish streams. In most of these cases, only a relatively small amount of fine sediment reaches the stream. However, if this mixture reaches a headwater channel where enough water has concentrated, it can become a fast-moving debris torrent, which can scour the channel and move a large amount of sediment and woody debris. If this debris torrent reaches a main stream channel, it can create local accumulations of sediment and large woody debris and can cause the bedload to shift.

Chapter 3 - Page 8 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Soil type also influences landslide occurrence. The soils in the Assessment Area are mapped and described in the Chatham Area Integrated Resource Inventory (USDA 1986). In order to describe their relative instability, soils are grouped into mass movement hazard categories: MM-HAZ 1 (low hazard), MM-HAZ 2 (moderate hazard), MM-HAZ 3 (high hazard), and MM-HAZ 4 (extreme hazard). These categories are based on a number of factors that influence landslides, including slope, landform, parent material, and drainage. Fifty-nine percent of the Assessment Area is rated as either MM-HAZ 3 or 4. Figure 3-4 shows the distribution of MM-HAZ 3 and 4 soils throughout the Assessment Area. Table 3-1 lists selected watersheds with MM-HAZ 3 and 4 soils and the extent of management activities that has occurred in them. For the watersheds within or partially within development LUDs, the East Point Mary, East Shell Mountain, West Shell Mountain and Fred’s Creek watersheds have the highest percentages of high hazard soils, which suggest that relatively large portions of these watersheds have the potential to produce and transport sediment to streams.

Chapter 3 - Page 9

Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Table 3-1. Distribution of High Hazard Soils (MM-HAZ 3 and 4) in the Development LUDs of the Assessment Area and the Extent of Management Activities on Such Soils by Watershed

Acres RMA2 in MM-HAZ 3 & 4 Acres Miles of Acres of by LUD Harvested Stream Miles Watershed Number of MM-HAZ in Road in in MM-HAZ Number1 Landslides Non- MM-HAZ 3 & 4 Develop- MM-HAZ 3 & 4 Develop- 3 & 4 ment Total 3 & 4 LUDs3 ment LUDs3 24 98 8,728 418 29 468 843 6.2 40.7 25 24 6,453 121 77 207 69 0.4 17.9 26 8 2,260 0 62 62 72 0 4.2 28 12 1,514 141 0 141 119 0.3 15.1 29 21 1,463 98 0 98 526 3.5 8.6 30 13 1,954 94 194 288 194 1.9 14.6 31 65 3,654 486 45 531 1,183 9.4 36.8 32 0 127 0 0 0 6 0.03 0 33 2 1,332 97 152 249 0 0 14.2 34 8 3,809 218 518 748 154 1.4 33.7 37 7 2,253 0 31 31 298 0 1.7 40 1 2,082 278 84 362 0 0 26.9 43 2 6,906 47 1,517 1,565 0 0 54.7 59 1 5,839 0 668 668 0 2.2 25.6 Total 262 48,373 1,999 3,377 5,417 3,463 25.3 294.8

Source: USFS Sitka RD – GIS 2006

Note: This table only includes watersheds with a significant number of acres (>50) of MM-HAZ 3 or 4 soils, are within or partially within development LUDs or have had some management activities within them. Bold type indicates watersheds that have been assigned a High Watershed Concern ranking, a High/Medium Fish Capability ranking and are within a development LUD.

1 See Figure 3-11 for watershed location.

2 RMA refers to a Riparian Management Area.

3 Refer to Chapter 1 for a description of development and non-development Land Use Designations.

Landslides. An inventory of landslides for the Sitka Ranger District was conducted in 2004 with a target of 300,000 acres. The priorities for areas were chosen because of present or future needs by the district. The areas included were: Kruzof Island, Catherine Island, False Island project area and most of Northwest Baranof project area. All inventories were done remotely from aerial photos. The years used were 2003, 1984-1989 and 1976. An additional inventory was conducted in 2006 to cover the areas of Partofshikof and Krestof Islands within

Chapter 3 - Page 11 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

the Assessment Area not included in the initial inventory. All landslides included in this inventory are those that are most certainly landslides. Some were identified that were likely slides, but enough doubt existed to not include them in the coverage. Because of the remote inventory and the absence of field verification, edits should be made in the future if other slides are identified. These inventories identified a total of 275 total slides (733 acres) within the Assessment Area (Figures 3-6 and 3-10). Of these slides, the analysis found that 43 % (118 slides) were related to management activities (95 directly related to timber harvest and 23 along roads). 117 of these management related slides occurred within clearcut boundaries and one occurred along a road segment outside harvest boundaries. Approximately 21% of all slides reached stream channels. Landslide rates for managed lands within the Assessment Area are approximately 15 slides per thousand acres for slides initiated from strictly timber harvest and 18 slides per thousand acres when slides generated from roads within those same harvest units is factored in. Landslide rates for road construction is 0.3 slides per mile or one slide for every 3.3 miles of road for the entire 76 miles of road within the Assessment Area. Slope, soil type, elevation and aspect also influence the location of landslides: • Slope, which controls the amount of gravitational force, typically is the strongest factor influencing slides with greater amounts of slides occurring in areas with slopes exceeding 50%. However, for this Assessment Area, landslide numbers followed a typical bell curve distribution (Figure 3-5) with the majority of landslides (62%) occurring under 50%.

Figure 3-5. Landslide Distribution by Slope Class with the Assessment Area.

100 90 80 70 60 # of Slides 50 % of Slides 40 30 20 10 0 0 - 15 15 - 35 35 - 55 55 - 75 75 + Slope Class

Source: USFS Sitka RD – GIS 2006

• Of the 275 landslides that were identified, 19 percent occurred in MM-HAZ 4 areas, 55 percent in MM-HAZ 3 areas, and 26 percent in MM-HAZ 1 and 2 areas (Figures

Chapter 3 - Page 12 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

3-6, 3-4, and 3-10). Of the total 733 acres of mapped landslides within the Assessment Area, managed stands showed a higher frequency in slide area over unmanaged stands. Managed stands showed a nine-fold increase in slide area; with individual MM-HAZ categories ranging from 3 to 18 times higher (Figure 3-7).

Figure 3-6. Landslide Distribution by MM-HAZ Category and Management Status for the Assessment Area.

160

140

120 s e d

i 100 l Total S f

o 80 Managed Stands r e

b Unmanaged Stands m 60 Nu 40

20

0 MM-HAZ 1 MM-HAZ 2 MM-HAZ 3 MM-HAZ 4

Source: USFS Sitka RD – GIS 2006

Figure 3-7. Landslide Frequency by MM-HAZ Category and Management Status within the Assessment Area.

6.00

5.00

4.00

t Total cen

r 3.00 Managed Stands e

P Unmanaged Stands 2.00

1.00

0.00 MM- MM- MM- MM- All HAZ HAZ 1 HAZ 2 HAZ 3 HAZ 4 Groups

Source: USFS Sitka RD – GIS 2006

Chapter 3 - Page 13 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

• Eighty percent of the slides occur on west, southwest south, southeast, and east aspects. These aspects tend to be most exposed to large Pacific storms and, therefore, may receive more rainfall and wind than other aspects, which could help to trigger slides (Figure 3-8).

Figure 3-8. Landslide Distribution by Aspect within the Assessment Area.

Nor th

NW NE

12 23 22 8 4 8 41 15 # Slides West Eas t 15 40 Percent 16 15 19

43

SW 52 SE 42

South

Source: USFS Sitka RD – GIS 2006 Note: Red font constitutes number of slides; black numbers are percentages.

• Seventy-five percent of the slides occur in the elevation band between 200 and 700 feet (Figure 3-9). This higher distribution at lower elevations differs from other areas on the Forest where the highest number of landslides occur on slopes at or above 1,000 feet. This higher distribution at lower elevations corresponds with the landscape of the Assessment Area, where the majority of the land base is below 500 feet.

Chapter 3 - Page 14 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Figure 3-9. Landslide Distribution by Elevation within the Assessment Area.

50

40

30

20

10

0

0 0 0 0 0 00 00 00 00 100 200 300 40 5 600 700 80 9 200 600 100 11 1 1300 140 15 1 1700 180 Elevation (feet)

Source: USFS Sitka RD – GIS 2006

Chapter 3 - Page 15

Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Management Influences and Implications on Soils Road construction and timber harvest are the two most significant human disturbances that have occurred in these watersheds. Five percent of the Assessment Area has been harvested, and 76 miles of permanent road have been constructed. As shown in Tables 3-1 (above) and 3-5 (Hydrology section), 13 of the 61 watersheds have had at least some road construction or timber harvest. However, only five have had a significant amount of activity (>10% overall harvest). Two watersheds have the most disturbance: Alpha-Iris Meadows (24%) and Beta Iris Meadows (28%). Four watersheds have had significant riparian harvest (>225 acres) and riparian road construction (>3 miles). These management activities can increase surface erosion by removing the vegetation cover, disturbing the surface soil layers, and creating new erosional surfaces such as roads and road banks. Increases in fine sediment delivered to streams from these sources can reduce viability of eggs and emerging fry in spawning gravels (Hicks et al. 1991). However, it is difficult to show effects of temporary increases in sedimentation on salmonids. While localized effects of road construction on sediment delivery can be quantified, it is difficult to detect changes from low intensity disturbances in large watersheds (Paustian 1987). Logging activities can increase sedimentation to streams by increasing landslide rates and causing accelerated surface erosion. Both roading and yarding can increase the risk of landslides. Road cuts can destabilize slopes above, while road fill adds weight to the slope below (Furniss et al. 1991). Though most of the existing road systems in the Assessment Area are concentrated in the valley bottoms on gentle slopes, where one would typically assume they are unlikely to trigger slides or cause accelerated surface erosion, to date, 23 slides have been triggered by road construction. Yarding trees can tear roots, which reduces their strength and, after timber harvest, tree roots decay and no longer help stabilize the soil (Chamberlin et al. 1991). Five to seven years after harvest, root strength is at its lowest point; roots from the young growth have not made up for the decayed root systems of the harvested trees. The level of soil disturbance varies with the type of activity or management practice and site characteristics. Soil Quality Standards (FSM 2554) address the potential for affecting soils through compaction, puddling, displacement, surface erosion, altered wetness, and severe burning. Soil Quality Standards are national standards that set limits on the amount of soil in an activity area allowed to be in a disturbed condition. Minor soil disturbance, erosion, and the associated loss of productivity resulting from a project or activities could occur if the activities involve ground disturbance or compaction. Most effects resulting from recreational and small-scale management activities are typically relatively short term, lasting until disturbed sites recover with indigenous species sufficient to protect the soil surface and maintain soil productivity. The level of disturbance at any given site dictates the level of revegetation needed. Popular dispersed campsites along shorelines and streams, as well as those areas adjacent to developed campsites, roads and trails are known to have isolated instances of minor soil compaction, puddling, and erosion. The extent and duration of these disturbances is believed to be minor and short-term. OHV use, an activity that has the capacity to disturb soils, has been increasing in recent years (both in the Assessment Area and beyond it). OHV use on forest road systems within the Assessment Area occurs year-round, with heavier use occurring

Chapter 3 - Page 17 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment during the summer and fall months. Soil disturbances related to this activity have been evident in areas such as the Mud Bay cinder cone, Iris Meadows, North Beach and Twin Lakes areas. At present, the full extent of soil disturbance due to this type of activity is unknown. To date there has been no in-depth analysis of soil disturbance, beyond the landslide inventory, within the Assessment Area. Cursory interpretation of this data shows that for the Assessment Area as a whole, there has been a higher dispensation for landslide area in managed stands over unmanaged stands, with the most notable increase in the high mass movement index soils (MM-HAZ 3). Furthermore, the moderate hazard group (MM-HAZ 2) and low hazard group (MM-HAZ 1) have also shown this increase, even surpassing those of the extreme hazard group (MM-HAZ 4) (Figure 3-7). Additionally, the Assessment Area has also experienced high rates of landslides along roads (0.3 slides / mile) and those reaching stream channels (21%). Though no Forest-wide landslide information could be analyzed and compared to the landslide data for this assessment due to time and funding constraints, it is believed that both the rates of landslides within managed stands, those associated with the roads system and the number reaching stream channels are well above average as compared to other areas on the Forest. It is highly likely that these slides have impacted or are impacting resources, but due to this lack of comparative information and the lack of on-the-ground verification of slide influence on soil productivity, sedimentation effects and related water quality impacts, the true scope and scale of effects of landslides within the Assessment Area is unknown at this time. A further discussion of soils, soil stability and sedimentation is included later in this chapter within the Hydrology and Fisheries sections.

Chapter 3 - Page 18 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Hydrology

The Kruzof Island area can be divided into a number of watersheds (Figure 3-11 and Table 3- 3). Watershed delineations enable land managers to evaluate the effects of various management activities on fish habitat and an aquatic system’s capability to produce fish. One of the key questions developed for this assessment was: What is the condition of important fish streams in the area? The following section provides information on hydrologic functions, watershed conditions and vulnerability, and aquatic species and their habitat to help answer this question. In all, there are 61 HUC 6 watersheds in the Assessment Area (Figure 3-11 and Table 3-3). Some of these represent islands in Sitka, Krestof and Salisbury Sounds; others are small areas containing small streams that discharge directly to the ocean. Some watersheds in the central and northern portions of Kruzof Island have well-developed flood plains that support, or prior to timber harvest activities, supported stands of large Sitka Spruce. Streams and watersheds originating from Mt. Edgecumbe, as well as those on Krestof and Partofshikof Islands, have generally steeper gradients than those in the central portion and have relatively small floodplains. Stream Flow Shallow soils and high drainage densities characterize watersheds in the Assessment Area. Most watersheds in the area respond rapidly to rainstorms, which can cause large daily fluctuations in stream flow. Stream flow is highly variable during the year (see detailed gage data on the following pages). River discharge generally peaks in September or October and gradually declines throughout winter and early spring. Snowmelt at high elevations results in a smaller peak in late spring during snow melt. Gage Data There are no current gauging stations within this Assessment Area, however the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) has operated one historic gage station in Kalinin Bay on the north end of Kruzof Island. Additionally, the USGS operates or has operated eight stream gauging stations within the Sitka Sound Landscape Assessment Area (USDA Forest Service 2004b) east of this Assessment Area. Table 3-2 details general information for the Kalinin Bay gage, as well as, two other gages closest to this Assessment Area.

Chapter 3 - Page 19 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Table 3-2. Gage Station Data.

Drainage Mean Site Gage Area Date of Peak Flow Site Name Annual Flow Number Record (cfs) Datum (sq. (cfs1) miles) Kalinin Bay 25 ft. 21 (a 4 year 945 15101200 Trib. near above sea 2.28 1976-1980 average) (10/09/79) Sitka level 20 ft. Nakwasina 6,300 15087610 above sea 31.9 1976-1982 287 (1981) R. near Sitka (10/9/79) level 125 ft. 106 (a 13 Indian R. 6,460 15087690 above sea 10.1 1980-2004 year near Sitka (11/19/93) level average) Source: USGS web site http://water.usgs.gov/nwis/

1 cfs is cubic feet per second.

Chapter 3 - Page 20

Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Table 3-3. Assessment Area Watersheds - Key to Figure 3-11; Watershed Number and Name.

1 Salisbury Sound Island 1 32 Kruzof Island-Pacific Ocean Frontage 8 2 Salisbury Sound Island 2 33 East Port Mary 3 Sealion Cove Island 3 34 East Shell Mountain 4 Sealion Cove Island 1 35 West Magoun Island 5 Sealion Cove Island 2 36 East Magoun Island 6 Shelikof Bay Island 37 Krestof Island 7 West St. Lazaria Island 38 Kruzof Island-Pacific Ocean Frontage 8 8 East St. Lazaria Island 39 North Crater Ridge 2 9 Sitka Sound Island 2 40 West Shell Mountain 10 Sitka Sound Island 1 41 West Escape Cape 11 Siginaka Island 1 42 Inner Point 12 Siginaka Island 4 43 Freds Creek 13 Siginaka Island 3 44 North Crater Ridge 1 14 Siginaka Island 2 45 Kruzof Island-Pacific Ocean Frontage 6 15 Siginaka Island 6 46 West Crater Ridge 16 Siginaka Island 5 47 Kruzof Island-Pacific Ocean Frontage 5 17 Krestof Sound Island 7 48 South Crater Ridge 18 Krestof Sound Island 6 49 Crater Ridge 19 Krestof Sound Island 5 50 Kruzof Island-Pacific Ocean Frontage 4 20 Krestof Sound Island 4 51 Gamma-Kruzof Island-Pacific Ocean 21 Krestof Sound Island 3 52 West Edgecumbe 22 Krestof Sound Island 2 53 Kruzof Island-Pacific Ocean Frontage 3 23 Krestof Sound Island 1 54 Kruzof Island-Pacific Ocean Frontage 2 24 Kruzof Island-Pacific Ocean Frontage 9 55 Kruzof Island-Pacific Ocean Frontage 1 25 Kruzof Island-Salisbury Sound 56 Southwest Edgecumbe 26 Partofshikof Island 57 South Edgecumbe 27 Kruzof Sound Frontage 2 58 Sitka Point 28 Alpha-Kruzof Island-Kruzof Sound 59 Army Camp 1 29 Alpha-Iris Meadows 60 East Edgecumbe 30 Kruzof Sound Frontage 1 61 Army Camp 2 31 Beta-Iris Meadows

During the periods of record for these gages, mean monthly runoff in October averaged 21 cubic feet per second per square mile (cfs/mi2) at Kalinin Bay and 19.2 cfs/mi2 at both Indian River and Nakwasina River. In August, mean monthly runoff averaged 4.6 cfs/mi2 at Kalinin Bay, 6.1 cfs/mi2 at Indian River and 9.2 cfs/mi2 at Nakwasina River. Figures 3-12, 3-13 and 3-14 display detailed information on these stream gauging stations.

Chapter 3 - Page 22 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Figure 3-12. Gage Summary for Kalinin Bay Tributary near Sitka

Watershed Statistics

Watershed Size: 1,459 acres

Stream Miles: Class I 1.95 miles Class II 0.89 miles Class III 1.94 miles Class IV N/A miles

Road Miles: 0 miles

Harvest: 0 acres

USGS Gage Data Peak Flow 945 cfs (10/9/79) Mean Annual Flow 21 cfs

Kalinin Bay Tributary near Sitka Average Monthly Flow (1976-1980)

60.00

50.00

40.00

30.00

20.00

10.00

0.00 r r r l r e e ry y h i y e ly t e e b b a r c r a n u s b b u a r p u J u to m m n ru a A M J g m c e e a b M u te O v c J e A p o e F e N D S

Chapter 3 - Page 23 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Figure 3-13. Gage Summary for Nakwasina River near Sitka

Watershed Statistics

Watershed Size: 21,067 acres

Stream Miles: Class I 10.20 miles Class II 23.97 miles Class III 30.84 miles Class IV N/A miles

Road Miles: 8.50 miles

Harvest: 1,365 acres

USGS Gage Data Peak Flow 6,300 cfs (10/9/79) Mean Annual Flow 287 cfs

Nakwasina Average Monthly Flow (1976-1982)

700

600

500

c

e 400 s /

ft3 300

200

100

0 r r l r er e e ry ry h i y e ly st e b a rc pr a n u u b o mb mb ua ru A M Ju J g m ct e e Ma e v c an eb Au t O J F p No De Se

Chapter 3 - Page 24 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Figure 3-14. Gage Summary for Indian River near Sitka.

Watershed Statistics

Watershed Size: 7,828.2 acres

Stream Miles: Class I 12.3 miles Class II 3.4 miles Class III 18.4 miles Class IV N/A miles

Road Miles: 0 miles (USDA Land)

Harvest: 0 acres (USDA Land)

USGS Gage Data

Peak Flow 6,460 cfs (11/19/93) Mean Annual Flow 106 cfs

Note: A percentage of Indian River Watershed is private property.

Indian River near Sitka Average Monthly Flow (1980-2000)

250.00 200.00

150.00

ft3/sec 100.00

50.00

0.00

l r ry h e st r e er er ary c uly e u May un J tob mb mb Apri J ugu an Mar Oc ve ce J A o e Februa eptemb N D S Month

Chapter 3 - Page 25 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

The larger (> 20 mi2) watersheds in the Assessment Area are predominantly U-shaped valleys, with broad flat alluvial bottoms, one or more steep V-shaped sub-basins, at least one long main stem with substantial floodplain channels, and substantial wetlands. Transport and transitional channels drain the moderate to higher gradient reaches of the watershed and transport sediment and organic debris downstream to the valley bottom depositional streams. In addition to providing much of the available fish habitat, these flood plain stream channels provide short- and long-term storage for sediment and are sensitive depositional reaches.

The moderate-sized (10 mi2 to 20 mi2) watersheds have characteristics similar to the larger watersheds, except the moderate-sized watersheds tend to be more variable in watershed shape and have shorter and smaller valley bottom main stem channels. The smaller (< 10 mi2) watersheds tend to have steep V-shaped valley profiles, short main stem channels, quick response to storm runoff, and are efficient in routing runoff to the main stem channel and out of the watershed. Management Effects on Streamflow. In large basins where timber harvest activities are dispersed in space and over time, relatively small changes in streamflow can be expected (Duncan 1986). Studies in Oregon showed increased magnitude of small and moderate peak flows associated with logging (Harr 1986). Salmon have adapted to average flow regimes for all stages of their freshwater life history. Seasonal low flows and peak flows can affect migration, channel conditions, water quality and egg survival (Hicks et al. 1991). Reduced low flows in watersheds that have been converted from old-growth forest to young forest is a relatively new issue. This reduction in summer and winter flows is from increased canopy interception of precipitation and increased evapotranspiration rates. Myren and Ellis (1984) speculated that converting old-growth watersheds to young forests may significantly reduce summer low flows in Southeast Alaska streams and impair summer rearing and spawning for salmonids. This decrease would be evident in the intermediate stages of forest succession. However, streamflow analysis for Staney Creek, a large watershed on Prince of Wales Island near Ketchikan, indicated an increase in summer low flows after 35% of the watershed was harvested. Low flow changes are most likely to occur where a significant portion of the stream riparian area has been harvested (Hicks et al. 1991). Peak flow increases from timber harvesting in rain-dominated runoff regimes will be minor, assuming minimal soil compaction and low road density in a watershed. However, clearcut harvest practices have the potential to increase the magnitude of peak flows under a rain-on- snow runoff regime (Harr 1986, MacDonald and Hoffman 1995). The sustained baseflow and thermal cover found in palustrine channel types are important to winter survival of juvenile fish. Low streamflow during extreme cold weather may freeze gravel riffles and incubating eggs. Low flows in the summer and winter can adversely affect adult spawners, rearing juveniles, and egg incubation. Low summer flows may shrink and occasionally dry up rearing pools used by juveniles; this most often affects young-of-the-year coho, steelhead, cutthroat and Dolly Varden and occurs in the smaller tributaries and side channels of the main stem stream. Changes in the magnitude and duration of winter peak flow can adversely effect rearing salmonids and the integrity of spawning beds. Flooding reshapes and redistributes gravel bars and large woody debris, causing eggs to be washed away, buried, or crushed. Annual peak

Chapter 3 - Page 26 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

streamflows and rain-on-snow storm flows consistently occur during egg incubation. Debris flows, landslides, alluvial fan and flood plain channel migration and stream crossing failures usually occur during peak streamflows. All of these processes have the potential to dramatically affect egg survival and alter habitat features. Transpiration by trees during the growing season removes water from the soil horizons. Extensive reductions in plant transpiration rates by vegetation removal can increase annual water yield as well as peak flows in small streams, particularly during the driest part of the growing season (Harr et al., 1975, Jones and Grant, 1996). Peak flow increases have been demonstrated in small watersheds where as little as 25% of vegetation has been completely removed in a single entry (Jones and Grant, 1996), however, increases may be undetectable when harvest levels are below 25% (Jones and Grant, 1996; Beschta et al., 2000). Hydrologic recovery due to regrowth of vegetation in harvested areas offsets changes to peak flow increases over time. Full hydrologic recovery in the absence of roads is dependent upon regrowth following harvest, and is expected to require between 10 and 30 years in the Pacific Northwest (Hicks et al., 1991; Jones 2000). Increased drainage density in road networks and subsurface flow interception in road cuts can also potentially increase peak flows, including large flow events with recurrence intervals of 1 year or greater, and change the timing of runoff (Harr et al., 1975, Jones 2000). The effects of subsurface flow interception by roads increase as the percentage of area in roads and road density within the watershed, particularly on mid-slopes, increases (Harr et al., 1975, Jones 2000). A study conducted in the Oregon Coast Range indicates that increases in peak flows occur when at least 12% of the watershed area is cleared for roads (Harr et al., 1975). Hydrologic changes caused by roads may require several decades to recover (Jones 2000). Within the Assessment Area, road densities are relatively low, with only three watershed having densities greater than 1 mile per square mile (Table 3-6). Two of these watersheds, Alpha Iris Meadows and Beta Iris Meadows, have the highest percent area roaded with 1.3% and 1.7% respectfully. All other watersheds that contain roads have percentages less than 1%. Lack of adequate long-term stream gauging information for most of the Assessment Area streams precluded us from doing a quantitative analysis of streamflow condition and trends in these watersheds. Streams like Alpha Iris Meadows and Beta Iris Meadows, with substantial overall watershed harvest (24 to 28%) and Kruzof Island-Pacific Ocean Frontage 9 and Alpha Kruzof Island-Kruzof Sound which have extensive riparian area harvest (>200 acres), would be most likely to show or have shown changes in streamflow trends (Table 3-6). However, all harvested stands within the Assessment Area watersheds are at least 33 years old and according to most studies, should have recovered in regards to effects timber harvest on streamflow. Assessment Area Streams All significant stream segments in the Assessment Area were mapped and classified using the Alaska Region Channel Type Classification System (USDA FS 1992). The area contains 680 miles of significant streams. For this assessment, stream class (a measure of fish habitat) and channel type (a measure of sediment transport) were analyzed. Table 3-4 displays stream miles by class and process group and includes the drainage density of streams in key watersheds within the Assessment Area.

Chapter 3 - Page 27 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Stream Channel Types Stream channel types are determined by their size, location in the watershed, adjacent landforms, gradient, hydraulic control, and riparian vegetation. Channel type and stream class are influenced by geology, landform, climate, and vegetation. Stream channels are classified into three main types: transport, transitional, and depositional channels. Transport channels have low sediment retention and include high gradient contained (HC), moderate-gradient contained (MC), and low gradient contained (LC) channels. HC channels are located on steep headwater slopes and are the primary sediment conduit to the low-gradient valley bottom and footslope streams. Transitional channels, in contrast, have moderate sediment retention and include moderate-gradient mixed control (MM), estuarine (ES3), glacial (GO5), and some alluvial fan (AF2) channels. Finally, depositional channels have high sediment retention and include the valley bottom flood plain (FP), palustrine (PA), estuarine (ES2 and ES4), and some alluvial fan (AF1) channels. As mentioned above, the Assessment Area contains 683 miles of significant streams: 554 miles (82 percent) are transport channels, 31 miles (5 percent) are transitional channels, and 85 miles (13 percent) are depositional channels. Valley bottom flood plain and palustrine streams generally have the most anadromous (Class I) fish spawning and rearing habitat. Generally, larger watersheds contain a higher percentage of depositional valley bottom channels. This holds true for the large watersheds of Kruzof Island-POF 9, Kruzof Island-Salisbury Sound, Beta Iris Meadows and Fred’s Creek. Between 42 and 70 percent of the stream miles in these watersheds are classified as depositional channels. Stream Classes Four stream designations are used on the Tongass National Forest to classify stream channels (Forest Plan 1997). • Class I streams and lakes have anadromous or adfluvial (resident migration) fish habitat. • Class II streams and lakes have only resident fish populations. • Class III streams do not have fish populations but have the potential to influence the water quality of downstream aquatic habitat. • Class IV streams are small, intermittent and/or perennial channels with insufficient flow or transport capabilities to have an immediate influence on the water quality of downstream fish habitat. They have a bankfull width of at least 1 foot. • Non-streams or Rills and other watercourses, generally intermittent and less than 1 foot in bankfull width, little or no incision, and with little or no evidence of scour. Class IV and non-streams have not been analyzed for this assessment because of a lack of data. However, Class IV streams are analyzed during project-level planning and implementation. The watersheds in the Assessment Area contain a total of 202 miles of Class I streams (28 percent of all stream miles), 216 miles of Class II streams (32 percent of all stream miles), and 263 miles of Class III streams (40 percent of all stream miles) (Figure 3-11).

Chapter 3 - Page 28 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Drainage Density Stream density, also referred to as drainage density, is a measure of stream length per square mile of watershed. This measurement is useful in determining a stream’s potential for runoff and sediment transport. The same factors that influence channel type, geology, landform, climate, and vegetation also influence drainage density. Drainage density within the Assessment Area averages 2.3 miles per square mile (mi/mi2) and ranges from 0.8 mi/mi2 to 7.5 mi/mi2.

Table 3-4. Stream Miles by Class and Process Group and Drainage Densities for Key Watersheds1 in Assessment Area.

Drainage Stream Miles By Class Stream Miles by Process Group Watershed Area Density Number (mi2) (mi/mi2) I II III Transport Transitional Depositional

24 24.3 3.6 9.4 18.3 59.4 70.5 7.5 7.7 25 24.5 2.3 11.7 9.6 35.5 46.7 2.7 6.8 26 13.1 1.2 4.7 5.1 5.3 12.6 0.2 2.3 28 7.0 6.1 10.0 10.2 22.3 32.1 3.2 6.8 29 5.9 4.2 7.4 2.5 15.4 16.0 2.3 6.6 30 8.6 4.4 7.7 14.1 16.2 33.7 3.5 0.8 31 11.5 5.9 15.8 12.1 40.6 54.9 6.6 9.4 32 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33 2.1 6.8 0.8 5.5 7.9 12.1 0.3 1.8 34 6.9 5.0 14.1 10.4 9.8 31.4 0.2 2.7 37 10.9 0.7 1.9 3.4 2.7 7.3 0.4 0.3 40 3.7 7.5 0.9 7.0 19.4 25.3 1.7 0.3 43 13.6 4.2 34.8 17.0 4.8 42.6 1.2 12.9 59 9.9 2.6 12.6 7.9 5.1 20.2 0.0 5.4 Total 294.2 2.3 201.6 215.7 263.0 405.4 29.7 63.9

Source: USFS Sitka RD – GIS 2006

1 Key watersheds are those that have been assigned a High Watershed Concern ranking, had previous management activities, are entirely or partially within a development LUD and/or have a High/Medium Fish Capability ranking.

Water Quality The regulation of water quality is the responsibility of the State of Alaska’s Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). DEC can set specific water quality standards for a waterbody if it determines that there is a specific water quality issue associated with the waterbody. DEC has not set specific water quality standards for the streams and lakes in the Assessment Area; the most stringent general water quality standard (i.e., Water Supply) is typically applied to these water bodies. Currently, there are no water bodies within the Assessment Area on the State of Alaska’s 303(d) impaired water bodies list.

Chapter 3 - Page 29 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Overall water quality within the Assessment Area is presumed to be good, with a few exceptions. The beneficial uses of some watersheds have been affected by previous management activities such as timber harvest and road construction. Stream bank destabilization caused by the complete removal of riparian trees and associated yarding techniques is responsible for much of the decline in water quality. Road construction and location immediately adjacent to streams and lakes has also contributed to the decline. Landslides on unstable slopes caused by management activities have also contributed to water quality declines following management activities. Some landslides may still be contributing to water quality reductions. Despite some reductions to water quality in previously managed watersheds, tree stands have largely recovered since the time of timber harvest. Most stands along higher elevation first and second order stream channels have reached the stem exclusion stage. In addition, most riparian stands near lower elevation floodplain stream channels, including those with fish habitat, have also reached the stem exclusion stage. However, the species composition in many of these stands is currently red alder. Red alder now dominates some areas once characterized by conifer species, and will continue to dominate until conifers begin to overtop the alder. Due to this conversion, some reaches along the larger stream channels (FP4) are now more susceptible to bank erosion because red alders have a lower root depth and are not as strong as conifers. Some riparian thinning prescriptions have been implemented in the Shelikof and Iris Meadows watersheds to speed the natural process of succession back to conifer dominated stands (see the Fisheries and Vegetation sections for additional information), however more thinning is needed to speed recovery of these systems. Assessment Area road systems have been the source of sedimentation and the cause of flow alterations. They have also blocked fish passage. Many of these problems, however, have been eliminated through the proper closure of roads upon completion of timber harvest activities or through naturally occurring road closure (i.e., the natural revegetation of disturbed sites). Despite such closure, problems still exist. The Roads section later in this chapter contains a description of the number and type of resource problems associated with Assessment Area roads.

Impacts to Watersheds

The funding, timeline and scope of this landscape assessment does not allow for an in-depth sampling and analysis of specific stream reaches. Instead, we used an analysis model called the Sediment Risk Analysis (SRA), as well as cumulative information on management activities, including timber harvest and road construction activities in stream riparian areas, to provide a general summary of conditions and vulnerability of each watershed. Because most prior and existing impacts to water quantity and quality within the Assessment Area are so interrelated with fisheries and aquatic habitats, they are also discussed within the Fisheries section later on in this chapter. Watershed Risk Assessment For this assessment, we used a model developed by Geier (1996) to identify watersheds with high potential for transporting sediment to sensitive fish habitat. The process ranks

Chapter 3 - Page 30 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment watersheds based on fish habitat and geomorphic characteristics. Steep watersheds with sensitive fish habitat would receive a higher ranking than a less steep watershed with little sensitive fish habitat. Sensitive habitat is defined as depositional and mixed channel types, since these types retain and can be altered by sediment. Geomorphic characteristics are defined by overall steepness of the watershed and the amount of high and extreme mass movement hazard soils within it. The final sediment risk index (SRI) is the product of the fish habitat index and geomorphic indices and is scaled to a unitless number between 0 and 10. The watershed with the highest rating is given a value of 10, and all others are scaled to this maximum. Table 3-5 and Figure 3-15 show the SRI scores for the development LUD watersheds. Watersheds with a high SRI have a relatively large amount of high and extreme mass movement hazard soils and a substantial amount of channel types susceptible to damage from sediment. Of the 61 watersheds, four have a SRI greater than 7, indicating a relatively high risk of damage from sediment. Two watersheds have the highest risk, with WRI values greater than 8. It is important to note that the SRI ranking is a relative comparison of sediment risk rather than an absolute ranking. That is, the reported risk level is only relevant when compared to other watersheds within the Assessment Area.

Figure 3-15. Sediment Risk Index Ranking for Watersheds within or Partially within Development LUDs.

10 9 8 7 6 I 5 SR 4 3 2 1 0 24 25 28 29 30 31 33 34 40 43 Watershed Num ber

Chapter 3 - Page 31 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Table 3-5. Current SRI Ratings for Watersheds by LUD Type.

Number of Watersheds Number of Watersheds Completely within Non- Completely or Partially SRI Ranking Development LUDs within Development LUDs (51 watersheds) (10 watersheds) Very High 0 1 High 0 1 Moderate 2 4 Low 4 2 Very Low 45 2

Note: SRI Ranking Interpretation; Very High = >9.0, High = 7.5-9.0, Moderate = 5.0-7.4, Low = 2.5-4.9 and Very Low = <2.5

Harvest and Road History and Watersheds Of the 61 watersheds within the Assessment Area, 13 have had some type of management activities occurring within their boundaries. Of these 13 watersheds, 12 have had timber harvest and 9 have had roads construction. Additionally, 7 of these watersheds currently are entirely within or have portions of their boundaries within development LUDs, while 6 are entirely within non-development LUDs. Total harvest on Forest Service System Lands (6,390 acres) constitutes approximately 5 percent of the total Assessment Area. Table 3-6 displays the summaries of management activities for these impacted watersheds. Figure 3-16 displays the harvest and cumulative harvest history by year for the Assessment Area.

Chapter 3 - Page 32 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Table 3-6. Management Activity Summaries by Watershed for the Assessment Area.

Sum of Harvest Sum of Roads Watershed Total Watershed Area Stream Total Number % RMA Road in Road (acres) Miles Total Total Road- Harvest RMA Density (acres) WS (miles) Stream (acres) (miles) 2 Harvest Crossings (mi/mi ) 24 15,536 87.0 1,920 12 459 23.4 7.0 72 1.0 25 15,680 57.2 200 1 41 3.9 1.6 14 0.2 26 8,400 15.2 107 1 30 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 28 4,478 42.4 372 8 242 5.4 3.7 31 0.8 29 3,799 25.5 900 24 225 10.0 3.3 21 1.7 30 5,512 37.9 240 4 15 2.8 1.0 10 0.3 31 7,367 70.9 2,041 28 369 25.6 6.6 88 2.2 32 151 0.0 6 4 0 0.03 0.0 0 0.1 34 4,415 34.4 155 4 2 1.5 0.1 0 0.2 35 112 0.0 22 20 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 36 477 0.0 49 10 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 37 6,967 8.0 377 5 2 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 59 6,327 25.7 0 0 0 3.6 0.1 2 0.4 Total 79,220 404 6,390 N/A 1,385 76 23 238 N/A

Source: USFS Sitka RD – GIS 2006 Note: Bold indicates watersheds entirely or partially within development LUDs.

Figure 3-16. Harvest History with the Assessment Area

Harvest Cumulative Harvest

7000 6000 5000

s 4000 e r

Ac 3000 2000 1000 0 1959 1960 1963 1964 1967 1968 1969 1970 1972 1973 Year

Source: USFS Sitka RD – GIS 2006

Chapter 3 - Page 33 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Watersheds within Non-Development LUDs Within the Assessment Area 51 watersheds are entirely within nondevelopment Land Use Designations (LUDs). LUDs contained within these watersheds include Old Growth Habitat (OG), Semi-Remote Recreation (SM), Special Interest Area (SA) and Non-National Forest (NNF). Sediment Risk Index (SRI) ranking for these watersheds ranges from very low to moderate (Table 3-5). Natural processes, including flooding, landslides and windthrow influence watersheds in these non-development LUDs. Commercial timber harvest does not occur under the direction of the current Forest Plan. Past timber harvest, mostly in the form of beach logging, as well as some minor road construction, occurred in six watersheds within non-development LUDs before the current land use designations were determined. Overall, past management activities to these watersheds has been relatively minor and are likely to be not having any measurable impacts to resources outside of a site specific location (e.g.: stream reach segment, landslide, road point feature). Due to their nondevelopment LUD status any future resource degradation would likely only come from natural disturbance events and would not warrant any concerns, unless the scope and scale of such an event were critically impacting desirable or beneficial resources. Watersheds in Development LUDs Within the Assessment Area, 10 of the 61 watersheds are completely or partially within LUDs which allow for commercial timber harvest. These LUDs include Timber Production (TM) and Modified Landscape (ML). Timber harvest and road construction has occurred in 7 of these watersheds within the Assessment Area. SRI ranking for these watersheds ranges from very low to very high (Table 3-5). Timber sale planning on Kruzof Island is currently deferred, but future sales, both large and small scale, are possible within development LUD areas in the future. Though hydrologic recovery in regards to streamflow has likely taken place since the last timber harvests 33 years ago, the effects of riparian harvest, road building and landslides persists. Any future management activities should take into account past impacts and the inherent sediment risk index for the watersheds in which activities are to occur. Future risks and impacts to watersheds will depend on these factors, as well as the rate, scale and location of such activities; specifically, timber harvest and road construction.

Chapter 3 - Page 34 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Biological Characteristics

Forest Vegetation and Timber Resources

The following discussion describes existing Forest vegetation and timber resources including past harvest within the Assessment Area. Table 3-7 displays forested acres by VCU for Forest Service administered lands within the Assessment Area. Forested acres as displayed in Table 3-7 include all forest types and both productive and non-productive lands. VCU’s 3020 and 3100 were analyzed in Sitka Sound Landscape Assessment and are not included in this analysis

Table 3-7: VCU Acres on National Forest System Lands in the Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment Area

Value Comparison Acres Acres Percent Unit National Forested Forested Forest System Lands (includes fresh water) 3030 18,372 15,782 86% 3040 3,225 2,622 81% 3050 9,476 7,761 82% 3060 7,229 6,201 86% 3070 15,695 14,138 90% 3080 52,983 39,230 74% 3090 8,020 7,587 95% Total 115,000 93,321 81% Source: Tongass GIS 2006

Forest Vegetation

The Assessment Area is a diverse and dynamic landscape with considerable topographic relief containing a mosaic of young and old forests, muskegs, forested muskegs, and alpine. Forest vegetation structure, composition and distribution is largely determined by site productivity and soil drainage, as well as natural and human-caused disturbance. Western hemlock is the dominant tree species with varying amounts of Sitka spruce, mountain hemlock, Alaska yellow cedar and lodgepole pine. The most productive forests are associated with deep well- drained soils. Sitka spruce favors these more nutrient-rich and well-drained sites and is often the dominant species. On these more productive sites, yellow cedar does not compete well with the faster growing spruce and hemlock and therefore is usually absent or in scattered pockets. However, yellow cedar is relatively common in the numerous open or forested

Chapter 3 - Page 35 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment muskeg areas found in the analysis area. Yellow cedar decline is an ongoing concern on the Sitka Ranger District and within the Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment Area. More detailed information on this is provided below. Mixed conifer stands, dominated by small to medium-sized mountain and western hemlock, yellow cedar and lodgepole pine, are typical of the numerous, wet, poorly drained, and sparsely forested muskeg areas found within the analysis area. The majority of these areas are classified as non-productive forest and comprise approximately 47 percent of the forested landscape. Alder dominates the most exposed and disturbed sites such as old roads and rock pits. The distribution and abundance of understory plants is highly variable and dependent on soil drainage, the distribution of large organic debris as a rooting substrate, the amount of light reaching the forest floor, and the type and amount of natural or human-caused disturbance. Vaccinium tends to be the most prevalent understory shrub and occurs inter mixed with Menziesia, copperbush and devils club. Salmonberry is common on more disturbed sites while skunk cabbage occurs throughout the area in wet micro-sites. Dominant forbs are typically five-leaf bramble and bunchberry. Various species of ferns, lichens and moss are also numerous. The dominant plant associations are western hemlock/blueberry and western hemlock blueberry-devil’s club. The plants in estuaries and along the beach fringe include red and Sitka alders, crabapple, sedges and grasses. Muskeg vegetation is a mixture of sedges, deer cabbage, sphagnum mosses, and low growing herbs such as Labrador tea and bog laurel. Very small ponds dapple most muskegs while stunted slow-growing shore pine grow on less saturated areas. Yellow Cedar Decline Yellow-cedar has experienced a dramatic mortality known as cedar decline since the 1880s, and covers more than 500,000 acres in Southeast Alaska including the Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment Area. The extensive tree death occurs in and around open-canopy forests occupying wet, poorly drained soils (Hennon et al. 1990). Early research indicated that the primary cause of this problem was not associated with organisms such as fungi, insects, nematodes, viruses, and phytoplasmas (Hennon and Shaw 1997). Current research is focusing on abiotic factors such as freezing injury, related site factors, and the role of climate for instigating the cedar mortality (Hennon and Shaw 1994, D’Amore and Hennon 2006). The onset of cedar decline was initiated as the climate warmed coming out of the Little Ice Age. One effect of this warming was to reduce the depth and duration of snowpack. The distribution of dead and dying yellow-cedar in southeast Alaska is tightly associated with areas of low snowpack (Snyder et al. 2006). This relationship includes local areas where cedar decline is restricted to lower elevations, and the occurrence of cedar decline higher on warmer south and southwest facing slopes. Patches of cedar decline occur at higher elevations in the southern part of the Tongass National Forest and in adjacent British Columbia (Hennon and D’Amore 2005), again following patterns of snow deposition. Ongoing research and circumstantial evidence favor freezing injury as the casual process in yellow-cedar decline. Reduced snow pack at lower elevations allows solar-radiation to penetrate and warm soils in the open-canopy forests where cedars die. Warming triggers

Chapter 3 - Page 36 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment rapid dehardening of yellow-cedar in spring, which is the time of year when yellow-cedar trees are most susceptible to freezing (Schaberg et al. 2005). Snow pack during March and April, when freezing injury is likely to occur, could slow the dehardening process and also provide insulating protection to shallow fine roots. Yellow-cedar appears healthy on many productive sites with better drainage where roots can grow deeper and where closed-canopy forests provide shade to slow dehardening in spring. The relatively low elevation and abundance of wet, poorly drained forested wetland or muskeg stands has resulted in considerable mortality of this species within the Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment Area. The primary ecological effects of yellow-cedar decline are to stand structure with inputs of large concentrations of dead standing wood and changes in tree species composition. This succession favors western hemlock and mountain hemlock north, and, within its range, western redcedar (Snyder 2006). Throughout most of its range, yellow-cedar occurs at higher elevations where snow persists through much of spring. In today’s climate, yellow-cedar appears to be better adapted to the colder areas of southeast Alaska. Protection of roots in spring, in the form of snow on colder sites or shade and deeper rooting on productive sites, offers the best opportunities for managing this valuable species. Forest Vegetation Structure Forest stand structures in the Assessment Area vary from single-storied even-aged to complex multi-layered uneven aged forests.

Even-Aged Even-aged stands are the result of stand replacing disturbances such as clearcutting and windthrow and are generally classified as young-growth. The young-growth stands within the Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment are classified as productive forest land and the result of clearcut harvest between 1959 and 1973 (Table 3-9). These stands follow a clearly defined pattern of development beginning with rapid establishment of conifer seedlings, shrubs and herbaceous plants (stand initiation) followed by canopy closure at about age 25-35. These developing young forests are extremely dense (thousands of trees per acre), and have relatively uniform tree height and diameter distributions that result in intense competition preventing new tree regeneration (stem exclusion). During the stem exclusion stage the absence of light reaching the forest floor also results in elimination of most understory shrubs and herbs. The stem exclusion stage can persist for 50-100 years before the reestablishment of understory vegetation and new tree cohorts occurs as wind disturbance, insects and disease create canopy gaps (understory reinititation) ( Deal 2001 p. 2). Intermediate silvicultural treatments such as thinning can reduce the length of time in the stem exclusion stage, concentrate growth on fewer trees and maintain or enhance understory vegetation. The majority of harvest-generated young-growth in the Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment Area is located between Mud and Shelikof Bay in VCU 307 and is currently in the late stages of stand initiation or early stem exclusion (30-45 years old). These stands tend to be comprised more heavily of Sitka spruce resulting from past precommercial thinning that typically favored this species.

Chapter 3 - Page 37 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Uneven-aged Multi-aged stands producing 8 MBF per acre or more are classified as productive old-growth forest and characterized by a patchy, multi-layer canopy; trees that represent many age classes, larger trees that dominate the overstory; large standing dead trees (snags) or decadent trees; and higher accumulations of large down woody material (Forest Plan p.7-31). The availability and distribution of old-growth habitat is assessed using volume strata classification from the timber type data GIS layer (TIMTYPE). Volume strata are derived from timber volume, soil and slope information and are an indicator of productive forest habitat. Productive old growth forest is defined as low, medium, and high volume strata and represents 38 percent of on National Forest System (NFS) Lands within the Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment Area (Table 3-8). Approximately 37 percent of productive old growth forest is in development land use designations (LUDs) and 63 percent in non-development LUDs (commercial timber harvest not allowed). The remaining forested acres not classified as productive old growth or young-growth forest are considered non-productive forest and represent 47 percent of the forested landscape. Non- productive forest is associated with muskeg land types including lowlands, fens, riparian areas, broken mountain slopes, plateaus, glacial outwash zones and other unproductive land types associated with areas other than muskegs. Timber volume is very low, species are mixed, trees are old and defective and growth is stunted. Table 3-8 below provides a summary of both productive and non-productive forested acres within the Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment Area.

Table 3-8: Acres by Volume Strata, Stand Structure and Forest Productivity on National Forest System Land within the Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment Area

Percent of Percent Percent Volume Productive of of Total Acres Vegetative Structure Acres Strata Old Growth Forested Area Forest Land Land High Productive Old Growth 43265 46 38 11393 26 Strata Forest Medium Young growth Forest 6305 7 6 24324 56 Strata Low Strata 7548 18 Non Productive Forest 43751 47 38

Total 43265 100 Total Forested 93321 100 82

Non Forested 21102 N/A 18 Total 114423 100 Source: Tongass GIS 2006

Harvest History and Regeneration Approximately 6,305 acres have been clearcut harvested from NFS lands within the Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment Area and approximately 95 acres have been harvested on non

Chapter 3 - Page 38 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

National Forest lands (see Figure 3-17). This represents approximately 7 percent of the NFS land area and 6 percent of the forested land area. Table 3-9 below provides a harvest summary for the Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment Area. There is no record of historic logging within the analysis area. Timber harvest on Kruzof Island occurred from 1959 thru 1973 following establishment of the Alaska Pulp Company (APC) in Sitka.

Table 3-9: Harvest History within the Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment Area by Year and VCU

Harvest % Harvest Acres Summary Acres Year Total Harvest NFS by VCU 1959 262 3030 718 11 1960 293 3060 590 9 1963 68 3070 4342 67 1964 54 3080 102 2 1967 758 3090 582 9 1968 200 Non NFS 95 2 1969 1245 Total 6429 100 1970 The clearcut method was used for all 1548 past harvest 1972 1286 1973 715 Total 6429 Source: Tongass FACTS

Regeneration The National Forest Management act (NFMA) regulations state that “when trees are cut to achieve timber production objectives, the cuttings shall be made in a way as to assure that the technology and knowledge exists to adequately restock the lands within five years after final harvest” [(36 CFR 219.27c (3)]. The minimum-stocking requirement following regeneration harvest in Region 10 is 300 trees per acre 4 inches in height. Regeneration within the Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment Area has been successful with all previous harvest being certified as meeting this requirement within the 5-year time frame.

Chapter 3 - Page 39

Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Young-Growth Management The management of young-growth stands is a responsibility that comes with timber harvest and is an important element of overall timber and resource management. The majority of harvest generated young-growth stands within the Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment Area have been precommercially thinned to improve diameter and height growth and long-term stability of residual trees. The thinning is also designed to promote greater structural diversity, help move the stand through the stem exclusion stage faster, promote maintenance of understory vegetation and accelerate old growth characteristics. Approximately 89 percent (5,595 acres) of the harvest-generated young forest on national forest system lands within the Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment Area has been thinned since 1977. This includes 338 acres that are currently under contract and in the process of being thinned. Additionally, 911 acres of gaps, thickets and wildlife travel corridors have been created within the thinned stands to promote greater wildlife habitat value (Tables 3-10 and 3-11).

Table 3-10: Gaps, Thickets, Travel Corridors by VCU and Stand Number within the Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment Area

VCU 3060 VCU 3070 VCU 3090 Stand Numbers Stand Numbers Stand Numbers 8 65 131 120 134 136 224 455 459 460 464 465 467 470 471 711

Some of the first precommercial thinning (PCT) on the Sitka Ranger District occurred on Kruzof Island in the late 1970’s. The spacing at this time varied from eight (8x8) to twelve feet (12x12) between leave trees. Subsequent monitoring revealed that a wider spacing was necessary to increase the length of time before canopy closure reoccurred. For this reason, later thinning during the 1980’s and 1990’s was conducted mostly using 14x14 foot spacing. On the more productive sites or in older stands (over 25 years old), 16x16 or wider spacing is warranted. Thinning to achieve wildlife objectives typically warrant the widest spacing 18x18 to 25x25 foot spacing. To date no stands have been treated with wider than 18x18 foot spacing within the Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment Area. The 338 acres currently under contract are 34-39 years old and being thinned to 16x16 foot spacing. Stand 463 in VCU 3070 was initially thinned to 12x12 in 1991 at age 24 years old

Chapter 3 - Page 41 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Table 3-11: Precommercial Thinning History within the Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment Area by Year and VCU

Acres Precommercial % Year Thinning Acres young-growth thinned Thinned Summary by VCU 1977 73 3030 598 83 1978 161 3060 533 90 1979 452 3070 3958 92 1980 10 3080 24 24 1981 1042 3090 482 71 1982 23 Total 5595 87 1985 90 1986 367 1987 138 1989 206 1990 161 1991 625 1992 413 1993 1388 1994 22 1995 25 1996 36 1997 25 2005- 338 2006 Total 5595

Upon completion of the 338 acres currently under contract, there will be no outstanding precommercial thinning needs within the Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment. However, previously thinned stands should be evaluated over the next 5-10 years for additional thinning needs or to monitor the effectiveness of past thinning. Stand density in the 710 acres that have never been thinned tends to be patchy and clumpy making these stands a low priority for thinning. Small Sales Over the past several years there have been a greater number of request for small timber sales and an increased interest in red alder logs by local timber operators and mill owners. Currently there are several small timber operators in the Sitka area and an equal number of small portable sawmills. A small blowdown salvage sale and red alder sale were sold near False Island in 2004. In April of 2006 the Last Call Small Sale located on the Corner Bay road system was advertised.This sale received 4 bids and was tentatively awarded to the high bidder. The sale was not awarded since the high bidder did not respond to contract award letters following the bid opening. This sale will be re-adverised in fiscal year 2007. Assuming the re-advertised sale sells, it will be the first non–salvage sale sold on the district in the past 11 years. Although this sale is outside the Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment Area it demonstrates the increased interest in this type of small sale.

Chapter 3 - Page 42 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

High logging costs, low timber values, undeveloped markets, and a currently lacking infrastructure for producing value added wood products (e.g. dry kilns, planers etc…) currently is limiting opportunities for developing this type of small-scale industry in southeast Alaska. However, recent testing of Alaska hemlock, yellow cedar and Sitka spruce by the Ketchikan Wood Technology Center resulted in these Alaska species getting their own grade stamp. The grade stamps enable the wood to be sold as dimensional lumber where building codes are required and it also allows purchasers to market the timber’s unique qualities. In the past Alaska species were lumped in with Canadian and lower 48 species, but through strength testing and other research, the Ketchikan center was able to show that Alaska spruce, hemlock and cedar are their own distinct species with stronger and superior properties. As new markets are developed based on the Alaska grade stamps, substantially higher timber values for Alaska species should be possible. Additional work by the Forest Service Alaska Wood Utilization Research and Development Center, could substantially improve the opportunity for an economically viable, value-added wood products industry in southeast Alaska. Special Forest Products Special forest products (SFP) are defined as products derived from non-timber biological resources that are used for subsistence, personal, spiritual, educational, commercial, and scientific use. SFP resources include, but are not limited to: mushrooms, boughs, Christmas trees, bark, ferns, moss, burls, berries, cones, conks, herbs, roots, and wildflowers. Also included are cuttings (such as of willow used for restoration) and transplants (as for landscaping purposes). SFP resources exclude saw-timber, pulpwood, cull logs, small round- wood, house logs, utility poles, minerals, animals, animal parts, rocks, water and soil (except for research samples where soil microorganisms are the target product). At this time permits are not required for personal or subsistence use of special forest products. Commercial harvest of SFP requires a permit and involves a fee. Current demand for special forest products is low within the Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment Area but could potentially increase with increased motorized use on Kruzof Island. Free Use Alaska residents, may take free of charge green or dead timber from the National Forests in Alaska for their own personal use but not for sale. Permits are required for green or dead saw timber. The amount of material granted to any one person in one year shall not exceed 10,000 board feet of saw timber and 25 cords of wood, or an equivalent volume in other forms. No portion of the material can be sold, traded, bartered, exported or used in a commercial business or venture. Free use within the Assessment Area has been minimal over the past several years. Recently 5 areas in Krestof Sound were premarked for free-use harvest. These trees are available by free-use harvest upon request and completion of the required permit application.

Chapter 3 - Page 43 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Proposed or Active Timber Harvest Presently there is no commercial timber harvest occurring or on the five-year Timber Sale Plan within the Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment Area. The opportunity for individually tree marked small sales (75-300 MBF) along the Mud Bay road will be pursued over the next several years. Commercial Thinning There is currently no commercial thinning planned for young-growth stands within Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment Area. The majority of trees in these stands are too small to be considered for commercial thinning opportunities under current market conditions. However, as new markets develop and technology advances this could change. The Forest Service Alaska Wood Utilization Research and Development Center based in Sitka is conducting research in primary and secondary wood processing in an effort to enhance economic opportunities for the Alaska timber industry. Commercial thinning or other harvest of young-growth timber is limited to date in southeast Alaska due to the small size of the trees, lack of market for small logs, and high logging costs. The Tongass is currently working to develop commercial thinning projects. The Winter Harbor commercial thinning project on Prince of Wales Island is being designed as stewardship contract. The Sitka Ranger District is working on developing a wildlife habitat improvement /wood utilization project. This would likely be a service contract to thin a 40- year-old stand and use the thinned trees to build a accessible recreation use cabin at the Starrigavan Recreation Area in Sitka. The objective of these projects is to begin to determine the feasibility of thinning these older stands, as well as determine the value of the thinned trees as house logs or other wood products.

Chapter 3 - Page 44 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Fisheries

The Assessment Area contains 37 fish streams catalogued by Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) as anadromous. Within the Assessment Area, there are 202 miles of Class I streams, 216 miles of Class II streams, and 263 miles of Class III streams. Class I streams have anadromous fish populations or habitat above migration barriers known to provide reasonable enhancement opportunities for anadromous fish. Class II streams have resident fish populations; and Class III streams have no fish populations. Class IV channels are not included in this Assessment because of their small size and the need to verify them in the field, but will be assessed in more detailed project-level planning and implementation. Most of the moderate to larger streams in the Assessment Area contain native runs of pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha), chum salmon (O. keta), coho salmon (O. kisutch), and anadromous Dolly Varden char (Salvelinus malma). Cutthroat trout (O. clarki) (resident and anadromous), Coastal sculpin (Cottus aleuticus), and steelhead trout (O. mykiss) also occur in many of the streams in the Assessment Area. Several drainages in the Assessment Area have waterfalls on their main channels that either exclude all anadromous fish or substantially limit fish habitat accessible to anadromous fish. Resident Dolly Varden char, cutthroat and rainbow trout are the most common fish species present in available fish habitat upstream of waterfalls, which are barriers to anadromous fish. In 2002, commercial fishers harvested over 56 million fish valued at $38 million from Southeast Alaska waters. Sport fishing in the Assessment Area is also big business. According to the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) web site, there are 149 saltwater fishing guides registered in the Sitka area (ADF&G, 2004). In 2004, there were over 22,000 salmon harvested by recreational fishers in the saltwater surrounding the Assessment Area (ADF&G, 2002). Aquatic Species and Habitat The estuary (ES4), flood plain (FP3, FP4, FP5), and low gradient contained channels (LC1 and LC2) comprise most of the critical stream habitat for pink, chum, and coho salmon, steelhead trout, Dolly Varden char, and sculpin. Where accessible, these low gradient channels provide much of the available spawning habitat for all fish species present. These channels, along with associated secondary channels and smaller flood-plain channels, provide abundant rearing habitat for juvenile coho salmon, steelhead and cutthroat trout, and Dolly Varden char. Very low gradient, palustrine channels (PA0, PA1, and PA2) and sloughs and associated beaver ponds occur within some of the Assessment Area watersheds. Primarily associated with fens, PA channels and beaver pond areas are characterized by organic sediments, abundant deep pool and glide areas with cover, and spring-fed tributaries. The PA channels and beaver ponds provide high quality rearing and limited spawning habitat for coho salmon, Dolly Varden char, and cutthroat trout. The highly productive estuary channels (ES) provide high quality spawning habitat for pink and chum salmon and provide important rearing habitat for many salmonids during at least part of their life cycle. In addition, all fish species use the accessible habitat in the moderate gradient channels (MM1, MM2, MC1, MC2, AF1, and AF2). These channels contain low to

Chapter 3 - Page 45 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

moderate amounts of spawning and rearing habitat. The stronger swimming coho salmon, cutthroat trout, and char make most use of the habitat in these channels. For more detail on stream classes, refer to the Forest Service Aquatic Habitat Management Hand-book (USDA FS 1986). Channel types are extensively defined in the Region 10 Channel Type User Guide (USDA FS 1992). Salmon Life Histories and Characteristics within the Assessment Area Indigenous fish species known to utilize the rivers, streams and lakes within the Assessment Area include coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), pink salmon (O. gorbuscha), chum salmon (O. keta, Dolly Varden Char (Salvelinus malma), rainbow trout (O. mykiss), coastal cutthroat trout (O. clarki) and steelhead trout (O. mykiss), certain sculpin species (Cottus spp.) and three-spine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus). No fish species within the Assessment Area are federally listed as threatened, sensitive or endangered. Although different populations of the same fish species can vary slightly within their respective systems in terms of run timings and run characteristics in the Assessment Area, we assume that the area salmon follow similar patterns to other salmon runs in the Southeast Alaska. A general description of these life history characteristics and timings for the more abundant species follows: Coho (Silver) Coho salmon typically spend 2 to 3 years at sea before returning to spawn from late August into December. Coho are strong swimmers able to swim up steep, fast flowing portions of streams. Coho can therefore spawn much higher in watersheds than pink or chum salmon. Fry typically emerge in May. Coho spend 1 or 2 full years rearing in streams and rivers, utilizing pool habitat or slow water areas along stream margins while avoiding riffles, before beginning their migration to sea (Ade 1989). Because of their larger size when entering salt water, coho are generally considered less dependent on estuarine rearing than are pink or chum salmon (Simenstad et al. 1982). Coho tend to move through estuaries more rapidly, using deeper waters along shorelines. Feeding is primarily on planktonic or small nektonic organisms, including decapod larvae, larval and juvenile fish, and euphausiids (Miller et al. 1976, Simenstad et al. 1982). Coho also eat drift insects and epibenthic gammarid amphipods, especially in turbid estuaries (Sandercock 1991). Coho are one of the more numerous species in area streams.

Pink (Humpback or Humpy) Pink salmon spend only 2 years in the ocean before returning to their natal streams to spawn. Pink salmon are less likely to migrate great distances once in fresh water and are more likely to start mating behavior lower in a drainage (even in intertidal zones) than the other salmon species (Ade 1989). Often the upstream limit for spawning is a waterfall or rapids that other Pacific salmon can surmount (Heard 1991). Some Pinks will even spawn in the estuary. After a 5 to 8 month incubation the emergent fry migrate within days to sea, often not feeding while in fresh water. Feeding is primarily on planktonic or small nektonic organisms, including chironomid pupae, dipateral larvae, and drift insects (Heard 1991). Pink salmon are the most numerous species inhabiting area streams.

Chum (Dog)

Chapter 3 - Page 46 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Chum salmon spend 2 to 5 years in the ocean before returning to their natal streams to spawn. Like pink salmon, chum salmon are less likely to migrate great distances once in fresh water and are more likely to start mating behavior lower in a drainage than the other salmon species. Often the upstream limit for spawning is a waterfall or rapids that other Pacific salmon can surmount (Salo 1991). After a 5 to 8 month incubation the emergent fry migrate within 30 days to sea. Feeding is primarily on planktonic or small nektonic organisms, including chironomid larvae, dipateral larvae, and drift insects (Salo 1991). Chum salmon are less numerous than pink salmon in area streams.

Trout and Char Life Histories and Characteristics within the Assessment Area Rainbow Rainbow trout may exist above impassible migration barriers. Rainbow trout spawn in early spring and exhibit similar spawning behavior as other salmon, although most rainbow trout do not die after spawning. Rainbow trout utilize smaller, headwater streams with lower flows and can be found in pools and riffles (Ade, 1989). After a 2-month incubation, the fry emerge. Rainbow trout primarily feed on creatures associated with the substrate such as diptera, mayflies, stoneflies, amphipods, and aquatic worms and eggs. Sukoi Lake and Twin Lakes in the northwestern portion of the Assessment Area are known to have healthy populations of rainbow trout. Rainbows have both resident populations and immigrating spawning populations from other river systems. Resident rainbows likely remain stunted in growth due to the limited food supply and habitat. Rainbow trout change life histories and become steelhead, an anadromous life form. Non-spawning rainbows may also follow spawning salmon into streams later in the summer to prey on salmon eggs. Several hundred rainbow trout are removed every year from Sukoi Lake on Kruzof Island and put in Swan Lake in Sitka for the Kids Fishing Day held as part of National Fishing Week. Steelhead The steelhead trout is a rainbow trout that has spent part of its life in the sea. There are no major physical differences between rainbow and steelhead trout; in fact they are both the same species. However, the nature of their differing lifestyles has resulted in subtle differences in color, shape and general appearance, with steelhead trout being considerably larger than rainbow trout. Steelhead can utilize streams that are fast flowing and rocky with deep pools. Within a 1 to 3 year period, Alaska steelhead will have moved hundreds of miles from their parent stream. Some populations return to the home stream as early in the year as July and are known as “summer steelhead”, which are relatively rare in Alaska and found in only a few Southeast Alaska streams. “Fall” run steelhead are much more common in northern Southeast Alaska. These fish enter the freshwater systems as adults in August, September, October, and into the winter. Many of the Southeast Alaska systems have “spring” run steelhead. These fish end their ocean journeys in mid April, May and June. The Assessment Area contains small populations of both fall and spring run steelhead (ADF&G 1994). Regardless of when they enter the stream, spawning commences about mid-April and usually occurs throughout May and early June. Unlike salmon, steelhead commonly spawn more than once, and fish over 28 inches are almost always repeat spawners. A male may spawn with

Chapter 3 - Page 47 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

several females, and more males than females die during the spawning period. The ragged and spent spawners move slowly downstream to the sea, where lost fats are restored and adults again visit the feeding regions of the ocean. On rare occasions a fish will return to the stream within a few months, but most repeat spawners spend at least one winter in the sea between spawning migrations (ADF&G 1994). By mid summer fry emerge from the gravel and seek refuge along stream margins and in protected areas. Generally, the juvenile steelhead will remain in the parent stream for about three years before outmigrating to salt water (ADF&G 1994).

Cutthroat Trout Cutthroats have several life history forms including stream resident, stream spawning/lake resident, and anadromous populations. Within the Assessment Area watersheds, cutthroat trout are typically landlocked by impassible barriers within lakes. This species prefers slow moving water which commonly separates it from rainbow trout (Ade, 1989). Some anadromous runs may be present, however there is little information on their populations and distribution within the Assessment Area watersheds. Resident and sea-run coastal cutthroat trout have similar early life histories. Adults spawn in small, isolated headwater streams from late April to early June, and young cutthroat emerge from the gravel in June. Selection of isolated spawning areas is thought to reduce interaction of young cutthroat with more aggressive juvenile steelhead and coho salmon. Later, the young occupy beaver ponds, sloughs, or lakes. Sea-run cutthroat rear for three to four years in fresh water and migrate to sea during May when they are about 8 inches long. Time at sea varies form few days to over a hundred days before they return to their natal stream. During their migration, they follow the shoreline and seldom venture farther than 30 to 45 miles from their home stream. In the fall they return to their home stream where they mature during the winter months. Fish mature at 5 to 7 years and live to be 9 to 10 years old (ADF&G 1994). Dolly Varden Char (Dollies) Dolly Varden have several life history forms including stream resident, stream spawning/lake resident, and anadromous populations. Within the Assessment Area watersheds, Dolly Varden are typically anadromous unless landlocked by impassible barriers. Dolly Varden, like other char, are fall spawners, utilizing streams with gravel bottoms. After an approximately 4-month incubation, the fry emerge usually in April or May. Dolly Varden are opportunistic feeders, eating larval and adult aquatic insects, snails, leaches, and small fish. Anadromous populations generally spend 3 to 4 years in fresh water before their first migration to sea in the spring. Dolly Varden spend only a few weeks to several months at sea before returning to fresh water for spawning and/or overwintering (Wydoski and Whitney 1979). Dolly Varden are becoming important to anglers when salmon are not available. The sport fishery for Dolly Varden appears to be increasing popular over recent years. Some of the larger systems within the Assessment Area, such as Eagle River, Sukoi River, Iris River and Shelikof River are thought to have very healthy populations. Dolly Varden have both resident and anadromous populations. Resident Dolly Varden likely remained stunted in growth due to the limited food supply and habitat in area streams. Anadromous Dolly Varden spawners enter streams from mid-August to early October, and then outmigrate mostly in October. Anadromous Dolly spawners are typically large and are

Chapter 3 - Page 48 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment an obvious target for sport anglers. Non-spawning Dolly Varden also are known to follow spawning salmon into streams later in the summer to prey on salmon eggs, as well as prey upon outmigrating salmon fry at river mouths.

Fish Escapement Conditions and Trends Escapement is defined as the number of fish that return to the spawning grounds of a stream or lake during any given year. Escapement numbers are collected by aerial estimates, stream/lakeside counts, and at weirs where fish are counted as they pass. Weir counts are the most accurate means of estimating escapement, but are costly and are used only occasionally on key fish streams. For this reason, aerial and foot escapement estimates are primarily used. Though not as accurate as weir data, these methods do provide escapement data that can be used to compare the year-to-year variability in salmon escapement numbers.

Biological Diversity (Fish) The highest natural diversity of salmonid species occurs in the lower reaches of Assessment Area streams. During at least part of the year, the lower reaches of many of the larger streams contain juvenile or adult pink, chum, and coho salmon, steelhead and cutthroat trout, Dolly Varden char (resident and anadromous), and coastal sculpin. Several salt-tolerant species may use the estuary channels. Straying adult and juvenile fish from nearby streams and from resident upstream populations also provide genetic diversity within species.

Key Fish Populations Due to lack of escapement data for Assessment Area streams, a potential fish production model was used to determine and compare potential fish production between key watersheds. Pink and coho salmon productivity numbers were compared between key watersheds by estimating annual production capabilities, which depend upon stream channel type capabilities. Past stream and channel type studies based on the available habitat in each type of channel have been conducted on the Tongass National Forest to determine the number of pink and coho smolts that streams can produce. First, GIS data is used to calculate the length of channel types that provide fish habitat. This number is then multiplied by a smolt production value assigned to given channel types. Finally, the total number of smolts is then multiplied by a survival rate to determine the watershed’s potential fish production capabilities. Table 3-12 details the results of this model. Though fish production capability estimates are not accurate for predicting fish populations, they do allow us to compare the potential productivity between watersheds. For this analysis, the assumption was made that fish could access all of the channel types where fish production is possible. Estimates of the number of fish produced in lakes were not included in this calculation. Lakes contain only resident fish (class II habitat) in the Assessment Area. The model does not take into account the natural and management-related factors that influence fish populations.

Chapter 3 - Page 49 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Table 3-12. Fish Production Capability Model Results

ADF&G Watershed Watershed ADF&G Stream Cataloged Adult Pink Adult Coho Number Name Number Species Capability2 Capability2 Present1 113-45-10010 CO, P, CH Kruzof Island- 113-45-10011 CO, P, CH 24 Pacific Ocean 21,161 908 Frontage 9 113-61-10060 CO, P, CH, DV 113-61-10050 CO, P, CH Kruzof Island 113-62-10080 CO, P, CH 27,395 1,057 25 Salsibury Sound 113-62-10090 CO, P, CH Alpha-Kruzof Island-Kruzof 113-62-10050 CO, P, CH 39,452 952 28 Sound Alpha-Iris 29 113-45-10050 CO, P, CH 20,851 1,185 Meadows Beta-Iris 113-45-10060 CO, P, CH 50,520 1,410 31 Meadows East Shell 113-41-10120 CO 13,543 595 34 Mountain CO, P, CH, SH, Freds Creek 113-41-10090 85,569 2,483 43 CT Source: http://gis.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/AWC_IMS/viewer.htm

1P=Pink Salmon; CH=Chum Salmon; CO=Coho Salmon; SH=Steelhead Trout; CT=Cutthroat Trout; DV=Dolly Varden Char

2Survival rate from smolt to adult estimated at 0.024 for pinks and 0.10 for coho

Sport Fisheries Most of the larger Assessment Area streams that produce salmon and larger trout or char receive at least light sport fishing use. Much of this use is concentrated in estuary areas and bays near the mouths of streams or where existing roads provide access to streams and lakes. Installation of a fish pass at Lava Falls Creek and stocking of juvenile coho from Eagle River may improve sport fishing opportunities (Table 3-13).

Chapter 3 - Page 50 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Table 3-13. Projected adult coho coded-wire tag (CWT) contributions to fisheries from juvenile coho stocked at Lava Falls.

Year (# fish sampled) Estimated Contribution to fisheries Commercial Sport 1995 (8) 45 0 1996 (36) 146 0 1997 (19) 100 0 1998 (20) 161 40 1999 (0) 0 0 2000 (4) 25 8 Total (87) 477 48

In addition to these fish species, steelhead are present in most of the larger streams within the Assessment Area. Steelhead run strength varies widely depending on stream size, habitat, and harvest pressure. Although there are few good estimates of escapement, spawning surveys indicate that the number of returning steelhead in area streams is inherently low.

Impacts to Fish Habitat and Populations

Natural Impacts

In-Stream Predation The more common bird species that are potential predators on either young or adult fish include the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), American dipper (Cinclus mexicanus), common merganser (Mergus merganser), belted kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon), and great blue heron (Ardea herodias). Brown bear feed heavily on returning adult salmon, especially where they congregate in shallow riffle areas.

Flooding High flow events change channel morphology by redistributing large woody debris, scouring pool areas, undercutting stream banks, mobilizing larger substrates, and transporting sediments. These changes can be both beneficial and negative. Without adequate in-stream large woody debris and stable banks, the pool habitat and associated cover necessary for rearing juvenile salmonids can decrease substantially during major flood events. Also, spawning gravel can be scoured and transported downstream.

Windthrow A natural process called windthrow (or blowdown) along stream riparian areas is a primary source for in-stream large woody debris and for maintaining and creating fish habitat. Though windthrow is typically a natural process, management activities such as clearcut timber harvest and road use next to streamside riparian areas can greatly increase the rate of blowdown along a stream and can negatively impact future stream habitat conditions.

Landslides Whether natural or management induced, most slides occur on steep slopes and when heavy

Chapter 3 - Page 51 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment rainfall has saturated the soil. Landslides typically begin on open slopes and are a mixture of rock, soil, and vegetation. In most inventoried landslides within Southeast Alaska, only a relatively small amount of fine sediment reaches the stream (Swanston and Marion 1991). However, if this mixture reaches a headwater channel (Class III and IV streams) where enough water has concentrated, it can become a fast-moving debris torrent, which can scour the channel and move a large amount of sediment and woody debris. If this debris torrent reaches a main stream channel, it can create local accumulations of sediment and large woody debris and cause the bedload to shift, which can be detrimental to fish habitats.

Management Impacts

Fish Harvest (commercial, sport, subsistence) Directed fisheries for chum, pink, and coho salmon can substantially reduce the number of spawning adult salmon returning to Assessment Area streams in a given year.

Roads and Timber Harvest Most roads and timber harvests in the Assessment Area are associated with pre-1980 land management direction. In key watersheds (i.e., watersheds managed by the Forest Service with a high Watershed Concern ranking and a high/medium Fish Capability ranking), 1014 acres or 16 percent of the Riparian Management Areas (RMAs) have been harvested and roaded (Table 3-14).

Chapter 3 - Page 52 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Table 3-14. Management Impacts on Watersheds

Number Watershe Total Percent Miles of Miles of Watershed of Road - 1 Name d Size Harvest RMA Road in Road in Number Stream (acres) (acres)2 Harvested Watershed RMA Crossings Kruzof Island- Pacific Ocean 15,536 1,919.92 24 Frontage 9 25 23.4 7.0 72 Kruzof Island Salisbury 15,680 200.42 25 sound 0.03 3.9 1.6 14 Alpha-Kruzof Island-Kruzof 4,478 371.76 28 Sound 15 5.4 3.7 31 Alpha-Iris 3,799 900.11 29 Meadows 3.3 10 3.3 21 Kruzof Sound 5,512 240.25 30 Frontage 1 0.02 2.8 1.0 10 Beta-Iris 7,367 2,041.2 31 Meadows 3.6 25.6 6.6 88 East Shell 4,415 155.14 34 Mountain 0.02 1.5 0.1 0 59 Army Camp 1 6,327 0 3.6 0.1 2 1Watersheds with a high Watershed Concern ranking and a high/medium Fish Capability ranking that are managed by the Forest Service.

Table 3-15. Riparian management areas previously harvested within Class 1, 2, and 3 stream buffers. KRUZOF LSA - Acres of Stream RMA Harvested Acres Acres Acres Total Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Stream Watershed RMA RMA RMA RMA ID Watershed Name Harvested Harvested Harvested Harvested 24 Kruzof Island-Pacific Ocean Frontage 9 135.70 100.91 115.11 351.73 25 Kruzof Island-Salisbury Sound 9.66 23.72 5.01 38.39 26 Partofshikof Island 5.00 0.14 0.00 5.14 28 Alpha-Kruzof Island-Kruzof Sound 94.07 7.80 15.96 117.83 29 Alpha-Iris Meadows 109.61 8.94 23.45 141.99 30 Kruzof Sound Frontage 1 11.27 0.00 3.66 14.92 31 Beta-Iris Meadows 161.02 67.55 111.62 340.19 34 East Shell Mountain 0.00 2.16 0.00 2.16 37 Krestof Island 0.00 1.56 0.57 2.13 526.32 212.78 275.39 1,014.50

Chapter 3 - Page 53 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Impacts from timber harvest and roads in the Assessment Area along streams include reduction in bank stability, temperature moderation, loss of overhanging bank cover, input of organic matter, reduction of in-stream large woody debris (LWD), and reduction in terrestrial insects to the channel. These changes in RMAs can lead to increased sediment inputs and may reduce the amount of fish spawning and rearing habitat. Loss of riparian vegetation associated with blowdown along timber harvest units and roads may provide high levels of LWD in the short term but can have long-term effects such as the elimination of future sources of LWD and destabilization of stream banks. Roads can have various impacts on watersheds. Road construction involves ground disturbance that can create increased erosion and change hydrologic systems (USDA Forest Service 2004a). Cut and fill slopes associated with road construction can be sources of erosion and, in some cases, landslides. Road surfaces concentrate runoff, producing fine sediment, which, when discharged to a stream channel, can have negative effects on stream habitat (USDA Forest Service 2004a). Factors such as soil type and hill slope gradient influence road erosion. Other impacts can include surface compaction, interception of surface and subsurface flows, increased peak flows, and channel alteration due to road runoff. Most Forest Roads in the Assessment Area are 20 to 30 years old, have received little or no maintenance since initial road closure, and are covered with vegetation. Forest roads can impact fish during every stage of their life cycle. Upstream and downstream migration to spawning and rearing habitat can be blocked by improperly installed drainage structures (USDA Forest Service 2004a). Stream crossings can also be a source of fine and course sediment from roads (USDA Forest Service 2004a). Salmon require specific stream gravel sizes for reproduction (USDA Forest Service 2004a). Sediment from roads can cement gravels together or cover them so that salmon are unable to dig their spawning redds (USDA Forest Service 2004). Sediment decreases the habitat available to the aquatic macro invertebrates on which young fish feed and can also reduce the flow of water to salmon eggs laid in the substrate, causing eggs to suffocate (USDA Forest Service 2004a). Increased flows and sedimentation from roads can cause channel aggradations that can reduce the amount of stream habitat available for rearing juvenile salmon in a river (USDA Forest Service 2004a). When roads are designed over fish bearing streams, fish passage through the drainage structures is a key element in design. Culverts in smaller streams can impede fish passage if they constrict the channel width and subsequently increase stream flow velocity; are installed on too steep of a gradient; are blocked at either end with debris; or create a waterfall at the outlet of a perched or “shotgun” pipe. Data from Road Condition Surveys (RCS) were reviewed in the office as well as in the field to verify potential fish passage problems. Problems associated with fish passage ranged from steep culvert gradients to perched pipe outlets. Culverts blocking fish passage are labeled as “Red Pipes.” There are presently 8 locations at which insufficient fish passage is present within the analysis area. Three of these are located on Class 1 streams and the remaining five are on Class 2 streams. A listing of each site is contained in Table 3-16 - Red Pipe Locations. Figure 3-18 – Bridges and Red Pipes displays their locations. Barriers were found to be more prevalent in smaller diameter pipes. Previously, blockage of smaller pipes was not considered problematic because very small streams were thought not to provide fish habitat. However, field sampling for fish identified fish in these small streams.

Chapter 3 - Page 54

Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

The district is very active in correcting previously identified “red pipe” occurrences. Construction projects will be planned in the future to rectify fish passage barriers. These projects may include removing the drainage structure, replacing smaller pipes with larger ones, or reinstalling and flattening the gradients of existing culverts.

Table 3-16. Red Pipe Locations

Road # Mile Structure Type Height Width Length Stream Class Post 7590 0.099 Corrugated Pipe 18 18 42’ 2 7590 0.444 Corrugated Pipe 24 24 46’ 2 7591 0.914 Corrugated Pipe 24 24 20’ 1 7591 1.945 Corrugated Pipe 36 36 25’ 2 7591 6.499 Corrugated Pipe 18 18 30’ 1 7591 6.557 Corrugated Pipe 18 18 30’ 2 7592 0.714 Corrugated Pipe 36 36 40’ 2 7595 1.225 Corrugated Pipe 24 24 25’ 1

Bridges Generally, bridges are the best structures to build when crossing over fish-bearing streams. Bridges are less likely to constrain the stream channel, and more likely to maintain the natural stream channel profile, and allow larger debris to pass through the crossing structure. Steel bridges are preferred because they can last up to 50 years if maintained well. The RCS revealed 5 existing modular bridges (MB) in the analysis area. The lengths and location of the identified modular bridges are also displayed in Table 3-17 - Modular Bridges and on Figure 3-18.

Table 3-17. Modular Bridges

Road # Mile Structure Type Length Stream Class Notes Post 7590 3.473 Metal Bridge 50 1 7590 3.915 Metal Bridge 50 1 7590 4.101 Metal Bridge 70 1 7590 4.118 Metal Bridge 50 1 OFF CHANNEL 7591 0.467 Metal Bridge 140 1 BED WID = 110FT * As noted in the most recent RCS data. There are 12 log stringer bridges located in the analysis area (Table 3-18). Bridge inspection reports indicate that these bridges are deteriorating and in some instances portions have failed.

Chapter 3 - Page 56 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Table 3-18. Log stringer Bridges*

Road # Mile Structure Length Stream Class Notes Post Type 7595 0.353 Log Bridge 16 1 7595 0.735 Log Bridge 47 1 7595 1.093 Log Bridge 74 1 60% collapsed, two stringers left 7595 1.563 Log Bridge 40 1 Abutment washout due to debris 7595 2.704 Log Bridge 45 1 Trees growing on bridge 7595 5.634 Log Bridge 61 1 7595 5.890 Log Bridge 8 1 Clean out above bridge 7595 5.464 Log Bridge 7 1 7590 4.759 Log Bridge 57 1 7591 0.323 Log Bridge 15 1 75952 0.90 Log Bridge 39 1 (From INFRA) 75951 0.138 Log Bridge Data Gap 1 Couple small holes in bridge * As noted in the most recent RCS data.

Cumulative Impacts on Watersheds and Aquatic Habitat The scope of this landscape assessment does not allow us to complete in-depth sampling and analysis of specific stream reaches. Instead, we used analysis models such as the Watershed Risk Index (WRI) and fish capability model as well as cumulative information on management activities, including timber harvest activities in stream riparian areas, to provide a general summary of the condition and vulnerability of each key watershed. This summary of condition and vulnerability, including fish capability, was used to determine the level of concern for each watershed in the Assessment Area. These models identified 6 watersheds for which there is medium to high concern due to past management, fisheries production, and watershed condition (see Watershed Section). Watersheds with a medium risk ranking generally had less fisheries capability but still had a high risk of sedimentation because of their soil types, the amount of harvest within Riparian Management Areas (RMAs), and their road densities. All of these medium to high risk watershed streams are important fisheries streams.

Watershed Rehabilitation About 7 of the 68 watersheds within the Assessment Area have experienced significant impacts from human activities (Table 3-12). Some of these impacts have harmed fish habitat or other aspects of aquatic health.

To address these concerns we try to determine which factors most limit watershed function and health and then design projects to address them. The Forest Plan provides direction for planning and implementing watershed rehabilitation projects. After inventorying the streams, riparian vegetation, road system, and landslides, we plan and complete projects to help remedy identified problems. Watershed rehabilitation work intended to restore, stabilize, and improve water quality and fish habitat includes the following activities:

Chapter 3 - Page 57 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

• stabilizing landslides, roads, and cut banks along streams; • repairing or removing drainage structures along existing roads; • placing large wood (LWD) into streams currently devoid of large wood; • connecting borrow ponds (fish rearing habitat) to streams; and • thinning riparian young growth stands to increase understory diversity and promote faster growth of large trees, specifically conifers, for future sources of in-stream LWD and channel stability.

To date, inventory work includes: • stream habitat surveys at Lava Falls and Shelikof creeks; • road condition surveys of the Eagle River and Mud Bay road systems.

Table 3-19 lists the watershed rehabilitation work completed within the Assessment Area.

Table 3-19. Watershed Restoration and Inventory Projects with the Assessment Area.

Type of Restoration or Inventory Completed

Stream Riparian In-Stream Borrow Surveys Thinning LWD Ponds Watershed (miles) (acres) (# or miles) Connected Road Repairs Other Beta Iris Meadows #31 1 25 30 structures Fish Passage Alpha Kruzof Island Sound #28 1 fishpass East Shell Mountain #34 2 fishpasses Alpha Iris Meadows # 29 1 Kruzof Island- Pacific Ocean 6 Drivable Frontage #24 Fords Landslides 100 acres Kruzoff Island seeded

Fishpass Structures The Tongass Forest Plan (1997) gives guidelines for habitat enhancement opportunities and removal of migration barriers for anadromous fish. Construction of steep passes, fish ladders or blasting to remove waterfalls are ways to remove migration barriers that allow anadromous fish access to upstream spawning and rearing habitat.

Chapter 3 - Page 58 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Lava Falls Creek (ADF&G Cat. No. 113-41-12) flows into the southwest corner of Port Krestof in watershed 34. Lava Falls Creek does not have a native coho salmon population. A waterfall at tidewater blocked access to about five miles of coho spawning and rearing habitat. A fishpass was constructed at this site to allow fish access to Lava Falls Creek. The fishpass consists of two aluminum steeppass ladders with concrete turning pool between followed by a concrete raceway upstream at the 16 ft tidal falls Figure 3-19 Lava Falls Fishpass, Constructed in located just above the tidally 1996-97 influenced water. The following year a set of blasted jump pools were created at a six-foot falls located 1500 ft upstream of lower fishpass. Based on a basin-wide stream survey completed in 1991, Lava Falls Creek, when seeded to capacity, should provide sport, commercial and subsistence fishermen with up to 500 harvestable coho salmon per year, primarily in the Port Krestof and Sitka Sound area. Both fishpass sites are working as designed. Monitoring is difficult in this stream due to extensive undercut banks and tannic stained water throughout stream. Access to the upper watershed is difficult. Stream walks for adult coho verify that coho are accessing upstream habitat and snorkel counts verify that successful spawning is occurring. Increasing numbers of both adults and juveniles have been observed since fishpass completion (see Table 3-20).

In 1993-1995, 1997 and 1998, coho salmon fry from nearby Eagle River were planted above the barrier with assistance from the Northern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association (NSRAA) and numerous volunteers; between 5,000 and 7,500 juvenile coho were coded-wire- tagged each year. In 1996, returns from transplants contributed (based on tag recovery data) 141 adult coho to the commercial and sport fisheries of Sitka, Hoonah, Pelican, Juneau and Craig.

Table 3-20. Adult fish observed upstream of Lava Falls Creek fishpass

Number of Coho Above Year Fishpass

1999 38 2000 6 2001 70 2002 17 2003 138

Chapter 3 - Page 59 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Eagle Creek (ADF&G Cat. No. 113-62-10050) The Eagle Creek fishpass is located on the north end of Kruzof Island in watershed 28. In 1985 an aluminum fish pass was constructed to provide passage for pink and chum over a waterfall. Coho and steelhead already had access to the 3.5 miles of upstream habitat. Repairs were made in 1993 and 2000.

Pink and chum from the downstream population volunteered through the fish Figure 3-20 Eagle Creek Fishpass Constructed in 1985 pass and have successfully established in the upper watershed at the approximate level originally anticipated. An escapement count of pink above the fish pass yielded over 22,000 in 1997.

Eagle Creek Index Counts

50000 44000 38410 40000 37440

30000 24968 22446

20000 17328 12714 10864 8975 8867 8779 7215 7135 6739

10000 6237 5589 4965 4581 4406 3654 2668 2124 1812 1784 1369 755 446 362 179 139 36 0 0 Number of Pink & Chum 1981 1985 1987 1989 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Year

Below fishpass Above fishpass

Figure 3-21. USFS escapement counts conducted on Eagle Creek since 1981.

Chapter 3 - Page 60 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Wildlife and Biological Diversity

Characterization

National Forest Management Act (NFMA) regulations define diversity as the distribution and abundance of different plant and animal communities and species (36 CFR 219). In managing forest ecosystems, biological diversity (or biodiversity) is defined as the variety of life forms and processes, including the complexity of species, communities, gene pools, and ecological functions, within an area covered by a land management plan (Bourgeron et al. 1994). It is defined and understood in terms of the natural and historical numbers and distributions of plants and animals, habitats, and communities (USDA FS [Forest Plan FEIS] 1997). The underlying assumption is that biodiversity can be maintained through the maintenance of functioning ecosystems. By protecting large, interconnected blocks of habitat, the species associated with these ecosystems will be conserved. Furthermore, habitat must be well distributed over large geographical areas to allow interactions between individuals within and among populations and to provide the amounts, types, and needs of reproductive individuals. For these reasons, biodiversity is evaluated at the landscape scale. Maintaining population viability is another important component in maintaining biodiversity. A fish or wildlife population is said to be viable if it is distributed in such a way and is comprised of the estimated number of reproductive individuals needed to insure its continued existence (36 CFR 219 and the Forest Plan). NFMA regulations require that fish and wildlife habitats in National Forests be managed to maintain viable populations of species. The Forest Plan contains a comprehensive conservation strategy to maintain viable populations of native and desired non-native fish and wildlife species and subspecies that may be associated with old-growth forests (USDA FS 1997, p. 3-76). It does so by maintaining Old-growth Habitat Reserves (OGR) and riparian, beach, estuary, and other species-specific key habitats and by maintaining connectivity (i.e., connective corridors) between OGR and non-development LUDs. The Forest Plan also identifies 13 management indicator species (MIS) that are closely associated with the old-growth forests of the Tongass National Forest (USDA FS 1997, p. 3- 352). 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.

Old-growth Forests

Old-growth forests provide structural and biological environments that are important for maintaining biological diversity across the landscape. The Forest Plan defines old-growth forests as:

Ecosystems distinguished by the later stages of forest stand development that differ significantly from younger forests in structure, ecological function, and species composition. Old-growth forest is characterized by a patchy, multi-layer canopy; trees

Chapter 3 - Page 61 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

that represent many age classes; large trees that dominate the overstory, large standing dead (snags) or decadent trees; and higher accumulations of large down woody material. The structure and function of an old-growth ecosystem will be influenced by its stand size and landscape position and context (USDA FS 1997, p. 7-27).

In Southeast Alaska, old-growth forests are primarily comprised of western hemlock and Sitka spruce (Schoen, Kirchoff and Hughes 1988, p. 1) that are subjected to high frequency, low magnitude disturbances (usually wind) (Brady and Hanley 1984 from Deal 2001, p. 1). These natural disturbances result in gap-phase replacement (Alaback and Juday 1989; Lertzman et al. 1996 from Deal 2001, p 1). Large trees that fall create openings or “gaps” in the forest that allow light to reach the forest floor and release understory vegetation that is used as forage. In addition, the dense canopy characteristic of old-growth forests is comprised of large limbs that provide thermal insulation and intercept enough snowfall to allow wildlife access to forage during the winter. Old-growth forests are valuable as wildlife habitat and as a source of high quality timber. Large dead or defective trees provide nesting sites for martens, goshawks, and bald eagles, and feeding sites for woodpeckers, sapsuckers, brown creepers, and others. Woody debris provides habitat for wildlife and acts as a micro-site on which seedlings may grow. The habitat needs of the wildlife species in the Assessment Area, the majority of which are associated with old-growth forests, must be integrated with the management of other resources. Balancing these important but conflicting values is critical. The Forest Plan includes a strategy for maintaining a Forest-wide system of OGR intended to preserve the integrity of the old-growth ecosystem and the species dependent on that ecosystem. In addition to OGR, lands designated as non-development LUDs in the Forest Plan (e.g., the Wilderness, National Monument, LUD II, Remote Recreation, Semi-remote Recreation, Wild River, and Enacted Municipal Watershed LUDs) also contribute to this strategy (USDA FS 1997, p. K-1). Forest Plan objectives for OGR include limiting roads, facilities, and permitted uses to those that are compatible with old-growth forest habitat management. While OGR and other non-development LUDs are classified as unsuitable for timber production, the salvage of dead or down trees is permitted along roadsides or if trees are considered a hazard (USDA FS 1997 [Forest Plan], p. 3-80). A system of large, medium, and small OGR has been designated to maintain contiguous blocks of old-growth forest habitat to support viable and well-distributed populations of old- growth associated species and subspecies (USDA FS 1997 [Forest Plan], p. 3-81). OGR are required to contain productive old-growth habitat (POG), which is defined as having a timber volume of greater than 8,000 board feet per acre and classified as low, medium, high, or very high volume strata in the GIS database (USDA FS 1997 [Forest Plan], p. 7-31). The dense canopy that is characteristic of POG provides important cover and forage habitat for wildlife. The canopy reduces snow accumulations in the understory during the winter but is open enough to provide understory vegetation during the spring, summer, and fall. The Forest Plan also requires that a percentage of the POG in medium and large OGR consist of high volume POG (HPOG). HPOG includes the largest volume of trees and is classified as high volume strata in the GIS database (USDA FS 1997 [Forest Plan], p. K-1). The Assessment Area encompasses 7 complete Value Comparison Units (VCUs) (Figure 1-1,

Chapter 3 - Page 62 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Chapter 1) and two partial VCUs as defined by the Forest Plan (USDA FS 1997). The partial VCUs, 3020 and 3100, were analyzed as part of the Sitka Sound Landscape Assessment and will not be analyzed in this document. The Assessment Area also includes portions of 4 Wildlife Analysis Areas (WAAs) as defined by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) (Figure 3-22). WAA boundaries are used by ADF&G to assess specific geographic areas from which communities obtain deer for subsistence uses. Only 2 WAAs (3104 and 3105) are analyzed in this document because WAA 3001 and 3002 were analyzed as part of the Sitka Sound Landscape Assessment and encompass a very small fraction of the area inside the Kruzof Landscape Assessment boundary. The area used in this analysis to assess the status of biodiversity in the Kruzof area will be based on whole VCUs and will be referred to as the Biodiversity Analysis Area. WAA and VCU boundaries used to assess biodiversity for this analysis encompass 117,564 acres, 115,440 acres of which are NFS lands. The majority of the NFS land within the Biodiversity Analysis Area (66 percent or 76,593 acres) is located in non-development LUDs and is considered unsuitable for timber production. Sixty-six percent (40,719 acres) of the NFS land in non-development LUDs is considered POG habitat (Figure 3-23 and Table 3-21). Approximately 10 percent (11,756 acres) of the Biodiversity Analysis Area is designated as OGR, and 48 percent (5,648 acres) of the OGR is designated as POG.

Chapter 3 - Page 63 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Figure 3-22. Wildlife Analysis Areas (WAAs) within the Biodiversity Analysis Area

Chapter 3 - Page 64 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Table 3-21. Amount of Productive Old-growth Habitat (POG) in Old-growth Habitat Reserves (OGR) and Other Non-Development LUDs on National Forest System (NFS) Land in the Biodiversity Analysis Area

Non-Development LUDs1 VCU NFS Land Acres POG % 3030 18414 7301 4143 40 3040 3245 2735 1261 84 3050 9524 7256 4202 76 3060 7234 928 516 13 3070 15930 2127 760 13 3080 53011 49042 26616 93 3090 8082 7203 3221 89 Total 115440 76592 40719 66 Source: Edwards 2006

1 Non-development LUDs include LUDs designated Semi-remote Recreation, Special Interest Area and Old-growth Habitat Reserves.

There are two designated Old Growth Habitat Reserves (OGR) LUDs in the Biodiversity Analysis Area (see Figure 3-23). There is a Medium OGR, as Figure 3-23. Non-Development LUDs and defined by the Tongass LMP, on OGR within Biodiversity Analysis Area the northern end of Kruzof Island that encompasses approximately 10,793 acres in VCUs 3030, 3040, 3050 in the Biodiversity Analysis Area (and a small portion in VCU 3020 outside the Biodiversity Analysis Area Table 3-22). There is a Small OGR, as defined by the Forest Plan, of approximately 926 acres located completely within VCU 3060 (Table 3-23).

The objective of medium OGRs is to provide habitat for small, local populations that may be more susceptible to frequent local extinctions as well as to provide units of habitat for movement and recolonization of

Chapter 3 - Page 65 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment adjacent reserves (USDA Forest Service 1996). The Tongass Forest Plan states that a medium OGR to be a contiguous landscape of approximately 10,000 acres of which at least 5,000 acres must contain productive old-growth (POG) forest (USDA 1997, Appendix K). Furthermore, there should be at least 2,500 acres of the POG must be in the high volume class strata (HPOG). There is state land which intersects the medium OGR on northern Kruzof Island into 2 portions, one is approximately 8,007 acres and the other is approximately 2,847 acres. There is also an island north of Kruzof which is classified as OGR LUD and is approximately 41 acres for a total of 10,895 acres.

Table 3-22. Medium Old-growth Habitat Reserves (OGR), and Productive Old- growth Habitat (POG) and High Productivity Old-growth Habitat (HPOG)

Medium OGR Location Medium OGR Acres POG in the OGR HPOG in the OGR Description OGR block 8007 4341 1606 Disconnected OGR 2847 937 119 Island 41 41 0 Total 10895 5319 1725

This medium OGR is not contiguous because there is state land that bisects to portions of OGR LUD and an island of OGR LUD. The OGR LUDs meet the size criteria for medium OGR when all three portions of OGR are combined. There are no ongoing or foreseeable future plans by the state to develop the portion of land—it is undisturbed except for a foot trail open to the public. There is adequate POG (over 5000 acres) within the combined portions of OGR but there is insufficient HPOG located within the OGR LUD. An additional 775 acres of HPOG is necessary to meet minimum requirements for medium OGR. It is likely that the amount of HPOG has changed in this OGR LUD because hydric and soils information has been updated in the GIS for the Tongass since the mapping was completed for the Tongass Forest Plan (USDA 1997), not because of changed conditions on the ground. Iverson (1996) stated that meeting minimum size criteria of the LUD and amount of POG are of highest priority for determining OGR. The highly productive component, or HPOG, is often not possible to achieve given the natural character and composition of temperate rainforest in southeast Alaska. This OGR is at potential for HPOG. The objective of small OGR is to provide functional productive old growth habitat for animals dispersing between large and medium reserves and to ensure a reasonable high likelihood that species may occur within each watershed to ensure well-distributed and interacting populations (USDA Forest Service 1996). The Forest Plan requires that a small OGR be maintained in each VCU where larger reserves are not present and specifies habitat criteria to be followed in locating these reserves (USDA 1997, p. 4-120 and Appendix K). Small OGRs must equal at least 16 percent of the acres in the VCU and must be located either within the VCU or within adjacent watersheds or ecological boundaries. Furthermore, at least fifty percent of the acres in a small OGR must contain productive old-growth habitat (POG). The Small OGR does not meet the minimum size of 16%, or in this case 1157 acres, of the VCU area on NFS land. An additional 231 acres would be necessary to meet criteria for this

Chapter 3 - Page 66 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

small OGR. This OGR does not meet the minimum POG requirement of 579 acres. An additional 63 acres of POG would be necessary to meet criteria for this small OGR.

Table 3-23. Acres of National Forest Land (NFS), Small Old-growth Habitat Reserves (OGR), and Productive Old-growth Habitat (POG) in Value Comparison Units (VCU) in the Biodiversity Assessment Area

VCU NFS Minimum Small Difference from POG in the Minimum Difference Acres Small OGR required Small Small OGR POG from required OGR Required OGR required POG 3060 7234 1157 926 231 516 579 63

Source: Edwards 2006

The Tongass Forest Plan states that no Small OGRs are required in VCUs that already contain sufficient acres (half of 16% of total NFS land in VCU minimum) of POG forest in a non- development LUD or in VCUs with less than 800 acres of productive old-growth forest. Table 3-21 shows that VCU 3070 does not contain adequate POG (1274 acres) or non- development LUD area (2549 acres) to meet Tongass LMP Standards. This VCU is not adjacent to another VCU containing Medium or Large Old Growth Reserves. To meet Forest Plan Standards, an additional 422 acres of non-development LUD should be designated, and 514 acres of POG incorporated. This would necessitate increasing and/or moving the existing non-development LUD location.

Habitat Connectivity

The Forest Plan states that habitat connectivity should be addressed to assess whether blocks of contiguous old-growth forest habitat between large and medium OGR and other non- development LUDs are maintained. Maintenance of habitat corridors is important to minimize the isolation and decline of wildlife species associated with blocks of old-growth (Harris 1984). The connectivity, or corridors, between old-growth habitats in a landscape may be as important to maintaining diversity as the size of the old-growth habitat (Noss 1983). The extent and distribution of productive old-growth forested habitat, or POG, are important factors to consider when assessing habitat connectivity. Using the division of old-growth timber volume derived from the interpreted timber type data GIS layer (TIMTYPE) as a predictor of large diameter trees, the availability and distribution of productive old-growth habitat can be assessed in two ways. First, volume strata, which are based on timber volume, soil, and slope information, may be used as an indicator of productive old-growth (POG) habitat and highly productive old-growth habitat (HPOG). Second, structure mapping, which considers volume class (VC) and stand density, may be used as an indicator of canopy texture. HPOG is defined as volume classes 5, 6, and 7 on non-hydric soils and on hydric soils with slopes of greater than 55 percent. Coarse canopy textured stands are associated with tall, large diameter trees on highly productive sites (e.g., alluvial fans) with low to moderate canopy

Chapter 3 - Page 67 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment closures. They are defined as volume class 5 on north facing slopes (VC 5N) and all volume class 6 and 7 (VC 6&7) stands (Caouette et al. 2000). There is no volume class 7 in the Biodiversity Analysis Area. There are approximately 43,460 acres of POG on NFS and state or private land in the Biodiversity Analysis Area. The VCUs that encompass the Biodiversity Analysis Area total 115,440 acres on NFS lands. Approximately 37 percent of this area (42,508) is POG (Table 3-24). Of the POG, an estimated 24 percent (10,281 acres) is classified as HPOG, and 7 percent (2,879 acres) is classified as coarse canopy habitat.

Table 3-24. Proportion of Highly Productive Old-growth (HPOG) and Coarse Canopy Habitat (VC 5N and VC 6&7) within the Productive Old-growth (POG) in the Biodiversity Analysis Area

Acres of Percentage of Acres of Coarse Canopy in VCU Acres of POG1 HPOG2 in the HPOG2 in the the POG POG POG VC 5N3 VC 6&74 3030 7951 1859 23 274 63 3040 1633 441 27 96 15 3050 3755 1345 36 422 83 3060 2888 617 21 208 16 3070 6657 1967 30 299 217 3080 15677 2895 18 706 122 3090 3947 1157 29 197 57 Total 42508 10281 24 2306 573 Source: Edwards 2006

1 POG is equivalent to low, medium, high, and very high volume strata.

2 HPOG is equivalent to high and very high volume strata.

3 VC 5N stands contain medium to large diameter trees and are characterized by coarse and fine canopy textures.

4 VC 6&7 stands contain tall, large diameter trees on highly productive sites (e.g., alluvial fans) and have a low to moderate canopy closures and a coarse canopy texture. There is no VC 7 in the analysis area.

Of the 26,793 acres of POG in non-development LUDs, 23 percent (6,034 acres) is classified as HPOG and 6 percent (1,496 acres) is coarse canopy habitat. Of the 1,715 acres of POG in the development LUDs, 27 percent (4,247 acres) is HPOG and 8 percent (1,280 acres) is coarse canopy habitat (Table 3-25).

Chapter 3 - Page 68 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Table 3-25. Percentage of Productive Old-growth (POG), of High POG (HPOG), and Coarse Canopy (VC 5N and VC 6&7) of POG within National Forest System Lands (NFS) designated as Development and Non-development LUDs (Semi- remote Recreation, Special Interest Area and Old-growth Habitat Reserves) by the Forest Plan in the Biodiversity Analysis Area

Non-Development LUDs Development LUDs VCU Acres of % % % Acres of % % % POG1 on HPOG2 VC 5N3 VC POG1 on HPOG2 VC 5N3 VC NFS 6&74 NFS 6&74 3030 3345 28 2 1 4606 20 5 1 3040 1548 28 5 1 85 12 15 0 3050 3108 37 1 3 647 30 8 0 3060 582 33 5 0 2306 19 8 1 3070 1123 28 5 8 5534 30 4 2 3080 13548 15 3 0 2129 40 11 5 3090 3539 28 5 2 408 41 3 0 Total 26793 23 4 1 15715 27 6 2

Source: Edwards 2006

1 POG is equivalent to low, medium, and high volume strata.

2 HPOG is equivalent to high and very high volume strata.

3 VC 5N are stands that contain medium to large diameter trees and are characterized by coarse and fine canopy textures.

4 VC 6&7 are stands that contain tall, large diameter trees on highly productive sites (e.g., alluvial fans) and are characterized by low to moderate canopy closures and a coarse canopy texture. There is no VC 7 in the analysis area.

Management Indicator and Other Old-growth Dependent Wildlife Species

The Assessment Area supports a wide variety of wildlife species, including Sitka black-tailed deer, brown bear, and American marten. The wildlife of the area contributes to the economic, recreational, and subsistence needs of both local residents and visitors to the area. Demand continues to grow for opportunities to both hunt and view wildlife. The Forest Plan identifies 13 vertebrate and invertebrate species as management indicator species (MIS) (USDA FS 1997, p. 3-352). These species, whose response to land management activities can be used to predict the likely response of other species with similar habitat requirements, are closely associated with the productive old-growth forests of the Tongass National Forest. Species listed as MIS include the brown bear, bald eagle, river otter, Vancouver Canada goose, red-breasted sapsucker, brown creeper, hairy woodpecker, mountain goat, red squirrel, Sitka black-tailed deer, American marten, black bear, and gray wolf. The black bear and gray wolf were not considered in this analysis because they do not occur in the Assessment Area. Although the northern goshawk is not listed as a MIS, it is addressed in this document because it is also closely associated with old-growth habitat.

Chapter 3 - Page 69 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Brown Bear Kruzof Island is one of several islands in Southeast Alaska classified by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game as Game Management Unit 4 (GMU 4). GMU 4 supports a large and stable population of brown bears (Ursus arctos). The high density of bears in this area is partially due to the presence of riparian areas that support salmon (Unit 4 Brown Bear Management Team 2000). Brown bears occupy a variety of habitats ranging from sea level to alpine. Although they use a number of habitats, the habitats they occupy during late summer are, perhaps, the most important. Late summer has been identified as the most critical or limiting period for brown bear. During this time, bears are concentrated along low-elevation streams and estuaries to feed on salmon. Foraging on salmon provides a readily accessible and efficient way for bears to build fat reserves that sustain them throughout the winter. Research has demonstrated that bear use of salmon streams is concentrated within an estimated 500 feet of streams during the peak period of salmon runs (Unit 4 Brown bear Management Team 2000). Potential bear foraging sites include class one anadromous fish streams within the moderate gradient, mixed control, and flood plain process groups. Important foraging sites may also include waterfalls and other stream structures at which fish congregate and are easily accessible to brown bears. The GIS streams database indicates that the Biodiversity Analysis Area contains approximately 209 miles of anadromous fish (salmon, steelhead, sea-run Dolly Varden and cutthroat) or class one streams. Of these, approximately 142 miles are located within the moderate gradient, mixed control, and floodplain process groups (Table 3-26).

Table 3-26. Miles of Class One Streams by Channel Type within the Biodiversity Analysis Area

Channel Type (miles) Miles of VCU Class One Moderate Mixed Control Flood Plain Streams Gradient (MC1/MC2) (FP1/FP2/FP3) (MM1/MM2) 3030 27.2 4.0 5.6 2.3 3040 4.0 0.2 1.8 0 3050 9.2 0.3 1.5 1.0 3060 7.7 1.5 0.9 1.2 3070 32.2 6.5 0.3 9.3 3080 113.7 0.6 68.9 32.8 3090 14.5 0.8 2.5 0.2 Total 208.5 13.9 81.5 46.8 Source: Edwards 2006

Bald Eagle The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) represents a species that depends on beach fringe forest habitat. Southeast Alaska has the highest density of bald eagles in North America. The most recent population estimate (1992) suggested that there are over 13,000 adult birds and

Chapter 3 - Page 70 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment approximately 8,000 nest sites in Southeast Alaska. As of 1999, surveys documented 14 bald eagle nests in the Biodiversity Analysis Area. Bald eagles nest near areas that provide the best opportunities to search for food, such as tide flats, open water, and rivers. They feed primarily on fish, but are known to feed on water birds, marine invertebrates, and carrion. Bald eagles nest primarily in old-growth trees along the coast and within riparian areas. All known nests in the Biodiversity Analysis Area are located within 500 feet of a saltwater beach. River Otter River otters (Lontra Canadensis) are found throughout the Assessment Area and are associated with coastal and fresh water aquatic environments and the immediately adjacent (within 100-500 feet) upland habitats (USDA FS 1997 [Forest Plan FEIS], p. 3-353). Beach characteristics affect the availability of food and cover. Adjacent upland vegetation is also important in providing cover. Old-growth forests with canopy cover and large-diameter trees and snags provide habitat for burrows and den sites. River otters are present on Kruzof and Krestof Islands in the Biodiversity Analysis Area (MacDonald and Cook 1999).

Vancouver Canada Goose The Vancouver Canada goose (Branta Canadensis fulva) is a game species that makes use of old-growth and riparian habitats. Unlike other subspecies of Canada geese, the Vancouver Canada goose uses forested habitats for nesting, brood rearing, and molting. They use trees for nest sites and perches during incubation and rely primarily on forest understory plant species for food. They are primarily non-migratory (Ratti and Timm 1979) and are found almost exclusively in Southeast Alaska. Although nest sites or high use areas have not been documented, Vancouver Canada geese have been observed in the Assessment Area.

Cavity Dependent MIS Many species, including woodpeckers, owls, hawks, waterfowl, bats, squirrels, martens, and otters, nest or den in tree cavities in Southeast Alaska. Several of these species depend exclusively on cavities in the large-diameter snags that are commonly found in old-growth stands. The hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus), brown creeper (Certhia Americana), and red- breasted sapsucker (Sphyrapicus rubber) are MIS that rely on old-growth forest habitat for nesting and foraging. The hairy woodpecker and red-breasted sapsucker are primary cavity excavators that nest and forage in snags and partially dead trees. The availability of suitable winter habitat for roosting and foraging is an important constraint on the habitat suitability for these species. The brown creeper is associated with high-volume stands that include large- diameter, old trees and that provide abundant prey. Red squirrels (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus) were transplanted to Baranof Island in 1930 and 1931 as a potential prey species for marten. This MIS requires forests with cone-producing trees and cavities in trees and snags. Spruce trees and mature to old-growth forest have the highest value for red squirrel habitat. MacDonald and Cook (1999) list red squirrel as present on Kruzof and Partofshikof Islands in the Biodiversity Analysis Area.

Chapter 3 - Page 71 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Habitat for cavity dependent MIS is best represented by snag and stand structure management that uses volume class as an indicator of coarse canopy forest and stands associated with highly productive sites (e.g., alluvial fans). Mountain Goat Mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus) were introduced to Baranof Island in 1923. They occupy steep mountain ranges where cliffs, alpine, and sub-alpine habitats prevail. Mountain goats normally summer in high alpine meadows where they graze on grasses, herbs, and low- growing shrubs. During the winter, goats may migrate from alpine and sub-alpine areas to forested habitats. Forested areas containing old-growth trees with large, dense crowns comprise the highest value mountain goat habitat because they contain understory forage plants and trees that intercept snow. Mac Donald and Cook (1999) list this species as absent from all islands in the Biodiversity Analysis Area.

Sitka Black-tailed Deer The Sitka black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus) is an important game and subsistence species in Southeast Alaska. Although deer utilize a wide range of habitats (e.g., from shoreline to alpine), they are seasonally associated with old-growth forests. Research conducted in Southeast Alaska indicates that low-elevation, high volume productive old- growth habitats are particularly important to deer, especially during severe winters (Schoen et al. 1985; Hanley and Rose 1987; Yeo and Peek 1992). These mature old-growth stands intercept snow, provide thermal cover, and support the largest biomass of herb and shrub forage for deer (Alaback 1982, Schoen et al. 1984). Low-elevation, high-volume old-growth stands with southern aspects and in areas that receive little snow are assumed to provide the best quality deer winter habitat. These areas are considered the most important habitat component controlling carrying capacity for deer populations on the Tongass National Forest. Although areas above 1,500 feet in elevation provide summer habitat for deer, these areas are assumed to have no value as deer winter habitat. Approximately 80 percent (91,055 acres) of NFS land in the Biodiversity Analysis Area is below 800 feet in elevation. Of the land in non-development LUDs, approximately 82 percent is at or below 800 feet in elevation. Approximately 7 percent of the Biodiversity Analysis Area meets the criteria for deer winter habitat. Table 3-27 lists deer winter habitat by VCU in the analysis area and Figure 3-24 shows the spatial distribution. The largest contiguous blocks of deer winter habitat occur primarily along the southern tip of Kruzof Island (Cape Edgecomb and Sitka Point) and Point Mary on the west side of Kruzof Island in the beach fringe. There are numerous small tracts of deer winter habitat throughout Kruzof Island.

Chapter 3 - Page 72

Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Table 3-27. Deer Winter Habitat as a Proportion of Productive Old-growth Habitat (POG) Below 800 Feet in Elevation in the Biodiversity Analysis Area

VCU Acres of POG Below 800 Deer Winter Habitat2 feet in Elevation1 Acres Percent 3030 5903 1105 19 3040 1344 57 4 3050 3263 342 10 3060 1918 324 17 3070 5711 1577 28 3080 14352 3781 26 3090 4201 680 16 Total 36692 7866 21 Source: Edwards 2006

1 These figures include land in all ownerships.

2 Deer winter habitat is equivalent to POG at elevations below 800 feet, in areas of low snow accumulation, and on southern aspects.

American Marten The American marten (referred to as marten) (Martes americana) was chosen as an MIS because it represents a species requiring old-growth habitat and because it is a harvested furbearer. Marten historically occurred on the mainland of Southeast Alaska and on some islands. However, this species was introduced to Baranof Island between 1930 and 1950 to provide a species for fur trapping. MacDonald and Cook (1999) list this species as present on Kruzof Island and Partofshikof Island in the Biodiversity Analysis Area. Marten were not “planted” on Kruzof but rather migrated over by swimming from Baranof and adjacent islands. It is very likely that marten are present on Krestof and other islands in the Biodiversity Analysis Area due to the close proximity to known populations and the ability of this animal to swim moderate distances. Marten are generalist predators that vary their diet seasonally. On Chichagof Island, marten were recorded to utilize winter-killed deer carcasses during the spring; squirrels, birds, and berries during the summer; and salmon carcasses and small rodents during the fall (Ben-David et al. 1997, pp. 288-289). Like deer, marten are dependent on high-quality winter habitat that includes low-elevation, high-volume productive old-growth forest especially in coastal and riparian areas. These habitats intercept snow, provide cover and denning sites, and provide habitat for prey species. All but 97 acres (42,411 acres) of the POG on NFS lands in the Biodiversity Analysis Area is below 1,500 feet in elevation, and approximately 24 percent of this is HPOG.

Chapter 3 - Page 74 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Table 3-28. POG and HPOG below 1,500 feet elevation on NFS land in the Biodiversity Analysis Area

VCU POG below 1,500 feet HPOG below 1,500 feet

3030 7925 1842 3040 1628 441 3050 3732 1345 3060 2863 616 3070 6649 1968 3080 15668 2895 3090 3946 1157 Total 42411 10264

Source: Edwards 2006

The Forest Plan identifies twenty-one ecological subdivisions in the Tongass National Forest. These biogeographic provinces are characterized by species composition, patterns in the distribution of organisms, naturally occurring historical events, and climatic conditions. The Biodiversity Analysis Area is in the East Baranof Island biogeographic province (USDA FS 1997 [Forest Plan FEIS], p. 3-14). The Forest Plan also identifies higher risk biogeographic provinces for marten, where a significant amount of past timber harvest has established a large component of forest stand structure in young conifer stands (i.e., stands harvested since 1956) with little or no residual forest structure within the stands. The Biodiversity Analysis Area is not classified as a high-risk biogeographic province (USDA FS 1997 [Forest Plan], p. 4-114).

Northern Goshawk The northern goshawk (Accipiter gentiles) is a wide-ranging forest raptor that occupies old- growth forest habitat in Southeast Alaska. The Alaska Region identifies the northern goshawk as a sensitive species. Sensitive species are those wildlife, fish, and plant species identified by a Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern. In an effort to evaluate the status, population, and habitat ecology of the northern goshawk on the Tongass National Forest, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the Forest Service conducted a goshawk study from 1991 to 1999. A total of 65 nesting areas were documented in Southeast Alaska (Titus et al. 2001, p. 2), and 16 nest sites occurred on the North Zone of the forest (i.e., the Hoonah, Juneau, Sitka, and Yakutat Ranger Districts) (Flatten et a. 2001, p. 6). Of 661 radio relocations of goshawks in Southeast Alaska, over 90 percent were in habitat classified as volume class 4 or greater, and 68 percent were in habitats classified as volume class 5 or greater (Titus et al. 1994, p. 4). Suitable nest site habitat is commonly between 12 and 37 acres in size and consists of large trees with a dense canopy and a generally open understory (Flatten et al. 2001). Of 18 nest trees, 83 percent were located in old-growth stands, and 17 percent were in young (second-growth) trees greater than 90 years of age (Titus et al. 1994, p. 4). Goshawk nest sites generally occur far from forest openings, in stands more than 600 feet wide, on slopes of less than 60 percent, and near the toe of a slope or on a bench. Nest trees average 423 feet in elevation and generally do not exceed 1,000 feet (USDA FS 1998, p. A-3 to A-4; Titus et al. 1994, p. 5).

Chapter 3 - Page 75 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Foraging areas comprise the largest proportion of goshawk breeding season home range. Foraging habitat is characterized by a greater diversity of age classes and structural characteristics (e.g., snags, woody debris) than nesting areas (Reynolds et al. 1992, p. 16). Breeding season home range size is strongly dependent upon the quality of foraging habitat and prey availability. In Southeast Alaska, prey remains identified in goshawk breeding areas included Steller’s jays (Cyanocetti stelleri), grouse (Dendragapus spp.), varied thrush (Izoreus naevius), red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), and woodpeckers (Picidae) (Titus et al. 1994, p. 6). The median size of the adult goshawk home range during the breeding season in Southeast Alaska is 9,469 acres for females and 11,425 acres for males (Iverson et al. 1996, p. 30). Potential goshawk nesting habitat is defined as stands with high volume strata (HPOG) that are below 1,000 feet in elevation, on slopes of less than 60 percent, and in contiguous habitat outside of beach fringe and riparian buffers (USDA FS 1998, p. A-3). An estimated 93% (39,600 acres) of the POG on the NFS land in the Biodiversity Analysis Area occurs at less than 1,000 feet in elevation and has a slope of 75% or less. Approximately 27% of this POG is HPOG (10,571 acres). Approximately 62% (26,224 acres) of the POG in the Biodiversity Analysis Area has a slope of 30% or less, and 23% of this is HPOG 6,079 acres). Table 3-29 displays acreage of POG and HPOG on slopes of 75% or less and 30% or less in the project area by VCU.

Table 3-29. Goshawk Habitat POG and HPOG in the Biodiversity Analysis Area

VCU POG below 1,000 feet HPOG below 1,000 feet

75% slope or 75% slope or 30% or less 30% or less less less 3030 6922 3347 1497 461 3040 1412 333 342 49 3050 3336 1101 1243 322 3060 2210 781 447 130 3070 6230 4398 1906 1328 3080 15131 13412 3668 2922 3090 4359 2852 1468 867 Total 39600 26224 10571 6079

Source: Sitka Ranger District GIS data 2006

*includes state and private land acres of POG and HPOG

Goshawk broadcast call surveys have been completed for 6 of the 7 VCUs in the Biodiversity Analysis Area (Table 3-30). Between 1994 and 2004, over 14 hours (with additional time likely but unknown due to data gaps) of surveys and 26 broadcast call stations were completed. No goshawks were detected. No goshawk nest sites have been documented in the Biodiversity Analysis Area. The nearest documented nest site lies approximately 19 miles

Chapter 3 - Page 76 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment northeast of the Biodiversity Analysis Area. Although no goshawk nesting sites have been confirmed, goshawks are difficult to locate. It is possible that the Biodiversity Analysis Area includes goshawk breeding territories.

Table 3-30. Number of Broadcast Goshawk Call Stations and Hours of Goshawk Surveys Completed in the Biodiversity Analysis Area

VCU Hours of Observations Number of Call Stations

3030 6.5 & Data Gap 10 3040 Data Gap 1 3050 0 0 3060 Data Gap 1 3070 8 & Data Gap 6 3080 Data Gap 7 3090 Data Gap 1 Total 14.5 & Data Gap 26

Source: Sitka Ranger District GIS data 2005

Trends & Interpretation

The availability and spatial arrangement of OGR, non-development LUDs, POG, and riparian, estuary and beach buffers are important in reducing fragmentation of wildlife habitat, maintaining habitat connectivity, and providing habitat for Management Indicator Species (MIS) within the Assessment Area. Timber harvest, road construction, or other activities that significantly alter forest vegetation cover could fragment habitat and affect habitat connectivity within the Biodiversity Analysis Area. The Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management Plant Implementation Policy Clarification (referred to as TPIT) states that although there is no requirement to ensure connectivity between all small reserves or between small reserves and non- development LUDS, opportunities to maintain connectivity should be assessed (USDA FS 1998a, p. 14). The TPIT identifies areas in which the old-growth strategy may not be fully functional due to past harvest activities, private lands, or other factors within areas expected to function as corridors (USDA FS 1998a, p. 14). None of the areas identified in TPIT lie within the Biodiversity Analysis Area. Corridors in VCU 3070 adjacent to previous timber harvest units between the small OGR and the Semi-Remote Recreation (SM) LUD should be further assessed because of the large scope and scale as well as the spatial relationship of harvest that has occurred. POG habitat and travel corridors between non-development LUDs in VCU 3030 and 3060 south of the medium OGR have been reduced by timber management activities. At the landscape scale, it appears that the current availability and distribution of POG and riparian, estuary and beach buffers provides habitat connectivity between OGR and other non- development LUDs (Figure 3-25). An estimated 37% of the NFS lands in the Biodiversity

Chapter 3 - Page 77

Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Analysis Area is POG habitat (Table 3-24). Approximately 24% of this is classified as HPOG, and 7% is classified as coarse canopy habitat (Table 3-24). Timber Harvest POG habitat has been reduced in the Assessment Area as a result of timber harvest activities. Harvest activities, particularly clearcut harvests that occur in POG habitat, have the potential to alter stand structure and diversity. Although the initial loss of vegetative biodiversity following clearcutting is well documented, there are also long-term changes to treated stands. Following the clearcut harvest of trees, canopy cover is reduced or eliminated. This results in an increase in sunlight and the regeneration and rapid establishment of conifers, shrubs, and herbaceous plants. This stand initiation stage results in an understory biomass peak after about 15 to 20 years. Although this flush of vegetation provides summer and fall forage for some species, this habitat is generally not available during the winter due to the increased snow accumulation resulting from the reduced canopy cover. From 20-30 years post-clearcut, most of the understory plants have been shaded out by the closing canopy, which is known as the stem exclusion stage (Hanley et al. 1989, Harris 1974). During this period, stands are extremely dense with conifers that are typically uniform in diameter and height. These stands lack the multi-layered, diverse structure and shrub-herb component that is found in old-growth stands (Deal 2001). The stem exclusion stage can persist for 50 to 100 years in Southeast Alaska (Alaback 1980) and can have implications for wildlife that depend on understory plants as forage. Once the stand reaches the stem exclusion stage, the stands are not likely to provide foraging habitat or nesting habitat for many species during any season. Harvest activities (totaling approximately 6501 acres) have occurred in VCUs 3030, 3060, 3070, 3080 and 3090 with approximately 67% of harvest in 3070. Harvest activities occurred from 1959 to 1973 with approximately 63% (4102 acres) of the harvest completed between 1969 and 1972. Table 3-31 displays the cumulative change in POG forest as a percentage of that which existed in 1958. As of 2006, an estimated 87 percent of the POG that was available in 1958 remains.

Chapter 3 - Page 79 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Table 3-31. Cumulative Change in Productive Old-growth (POG) Forest in the Biodiversity Analysis Area

VCU Acres of NFS Percent of VCU Acres of POG in Acres of POG in Percentage of POG Land Harvested1 Harvested 19582 2006 Remaining in 2006 3030 735 4 8686 7951 92 3040 0 0 1633 1633 100 3050 0 0 3755 3755 100 3060 577 8 3465 2888 83 3070 4360 27 11017 6657 60 3080 102 0 15779 15677 99 3090 727 9 4674 3947 84 Total 6501 6 49009 42508 87

Source: Edwards 2006

1 All figures for timber harvest in this table are for harvests occurring between 1956 and 1973.

2 Assumes all harvest to be clearcut and all in productive old-growth habitat

Thinning of harvested stands that have reached the stem exclusion stage may increase forage availability for deer and other species. Thinning increases the amount of light emitted into a stand which reaches the forest floor and improves the shrub-herb component. Studies have found that silvicultural treatments such as precommercial or commercial thinning of clearcuts 26-40 years of age support considerable understory deer forage (Doerr et al. 2005, Doerr and Sandburg 1986, DellaSalla et al. 1994). Doerr et al. 2005 suggest that silvicultural treatments to prolong understory forage in young growth stands may have some value to deer during deep snow winters. Additional advantages to treating young growth stands includes accelerating development of old-growth stand characteristics by promoting a multi-layered canopy, faster tree diameter and lateral limb growth, increased snow interception (Kirchhoff and Schoen 1985, Hanley 1984). Silviculturally treated young growth stands could potentially develop old-growth characteristics in 40-100 years (Nyberg et al. 1986, USDA Forest Service 1981) as compared to the 150-300 years needed to develop old-growth characteristics if not silviculturally treated (Wallmo and Schoen 1980, Robuck 1975, Harris and Farr 1974). Thinning treatments may cause short term (approximately 10 years) decreases in deer habitat value by lowering accessibility to deer due to slash and decreasing snow interception (Hanley 1984). Approximately 87 percent of the harvest generated young forest within the Biodiversity Analysis Area has been thinned (see Table 3-32) as of 2005. Depending on the stand composition, location, productivity and initial spacing, thinning may need to be completed more than once. Some canopy gaps (911 acres—FACTS database) were specifically created for wildlife emphasis as part of the thinning activities. Precommercial thinning activities are ongoing in VCU 3070 in four timber stands that had not previously been thinned and one stand which had been previously thinned.

Chapter 3 - Page 80 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Table 3-32. Acres of Thinning in the Biodiversity Analysis Area

VCU 3030 3040 3050 3060 3070 3080 3090 TOTAL Acres of NFS Land 561 0 0 574 2591 24 104 3854 Thinned up to 20 Years Ago1 Acres of NFS Land 94 0 0 0 1321 0 394 1809 Thinned more than 20 Years Ago1 Total Acres of NFS 655 0 0 574 3912 24 498 5663 Land Thinned1 1Thinning acres up to year 2005

The availability and distribution of POG in lower elevation habitats is important to some species. Goshawks, bald eagles and other raptors prefer to nest in POG habitat below 1000 feet in elevation. Sitka black-tailed deer appear to prefer high-volume old-growth stands with southern aspects that receive little snowfall and are located in areas below 800 feet in elevation for winter habitat use. Available winter habitat is key for carrying capacity of deer populations in southeast Alaska.

Table 3-33. Acres of POG below 1000 feet elevation.

VCU Total Acres NFS Acres of POG Total Acres in Acres of POG below Lands in below 1000 Feet Non- 1000 Feet Elevation Biodiversity Elevation in the Development in Non- Analysis Area Biodiversity LUDs1 Development LUDs1 Analysis Area 3030 18414 7057 7301 3201 3040 3245 1539 2735 1429 3050 9524 3792 7256 2980 3060 7234 2436 928 482 3070 15930 6329 2127 1151 3080 53011 15180 49042 13238 3090 8082 4449 7203 3437 Total 115440 40782 76592 25918 Source: Tongass GIS 2006

1 Non-development LUDs include LUDs designated Semi-remote Recreation, Special Interest Area and Old-growth Reserves.

Figure 3-25 shows that non-development LUDs in the Biodiversity Analysis Area contain POG, riparian, and beach habitat at lower elevations that provide connectivity for wildlife. Approximately 35 percent of the land in the Biodiversity Analysis Area consists of lower elevation POG habitat (below 1000). Approximately 34 percent of the land in non- development LUDs in the Biodiversity Analysis Area consists of lower elevation POG habitat (below 1000 feet). All harvest activities on NFS lands in the Biodiversity Analysis Area have taken place in stands that are below 1,000 feet in elevation, altering lower elevation habitat in

Chapter 3 - Page 81 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment approximately 6 percent of the Biodiversity Analysis Area. VCU 3070 had 29 percent of the area below 1000 feet elevation harvested.

The Tongass deer model was utilized to determine high quality deer winter habitat. This information was combined with harvest and thinning data to develop the document Sitka Ranger District Wildlife Habitat in Young Growth: A Strategy for Prioritizing Stands for Treatment (USDA 2005). Harvested stands were categorized based on aspect, elevation, and location in or outside beach fringe. A ranking systems was developed with Tier 1 stands having the greatest potential to become high quality deer winter habitat and Tier 4 stands having the lowest potential of areas below 800 feet in elevation. See Table 3-34 for stand ranking of potential for high quality deer winter habitat and Figure 3-26 for spatial locations.

Table 3-34. Stands with Potential to become High Quality Deer Winter Habitat

VCU Tier Acres 3030 2 128 3 417 4 190 3060 1 288 3 166 4 123 3070 1 303 2 1610 3 318 4 2021 3080 3 78 4 24 3090 2 492 4 181

Stands were also categorized on the need for additional treatments based on time since original harvest and any subsequent thinning activities. In VCU 3030, stands 3030001274, 303000476, 303000477, 303000373, 303000334 are adjacent to high quality deer winter deer habitat and were thinned approximately 13 years ago. In VCU 3060, Stand 306000008 is adjacent to high quality deer winter habitat and was identified as a high priority for treatment of young growth stands. In VCU 3070, the broadscale clearcut harvesting and single-age regeneration has limited connectivity for wildlife and POG habitat in some areas. Specifically, only small corridors remain between harvested stands 307000455 and 3070000, 307000467 and 307000181 and 307000208, 307000180 and 307000274, 307000453 and the shoreline, 307000136 and the shoreline, 307000459 and the shoreline. These stands are adjacent to high quality deer winter habitat. In VCU 3090, previously harvested stands along the shore of Kruzof Island and Krestof Island were never thinned or thinned over 21 years ago and are adjacent to high quality deer winter deer habitat.

Chapter 3 - Page 82

Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Riparian Habitat Riparian timber harvest, road construction, and recreation activities have the capacity to impact riparian habitats. Forest-wide standards and guidelines for managing riparian areas, beaches, and estuaries were specifically designed to protect habitat for species that rely on these habitats. Such species include bald eagles, river otters, and Vancouver Canada geese. Additional levels of protection for bald eagles, waterfowl, shorebirds, seabirds, and marine mammals are specified in the Forest Plan (USDA FS 1997 [Forest Plan], p. 4-117 to 4-118). Approximately 1070 acres of harvest occurred within stream Riparian Management Areas (RMAs) in the analysis area. Some of these areas have had precommercial thinning in the RMA completed when the unit was treated. Other stands were not thinned inside RMAs. This is especially true of areas that were thinned prior to 1996. This means that the timber stands within RMAs likely has more trees per acre, slower growth rates, less understory vegetation and a slower rate of progression towards POG habitat than the portion of the treated stand outside of the RMA. Although brown bears will utilize a wide range of habitats throughout the year, they depend on fish in riparian areas during the summer. Therefore, the Forest Plan requires that important bear foraging sites be identified and assessed at the project level to determine whether additional riparian buffers should be implemented (USDA FS 1997 [Forest Plan], p. 4-114). As indicated in Chapter 3, the Biodiversity Analysis Area contains an estimated 209 miles of class one streams and approximately 142 miles are located within the moderate gradient, mixed control, and floodplain process groups (Table 3-4). Although riparian standards and guidelines in the Forest Plan protect a majority of bear foraging habitat, these streams have not been surveyed to determine whether they contain important bear foraging habitat. Road Access Roads provide motorized and non-motorized access to recreation, subsistence, hunting, and trapping use areas. Because roads increase human access to these areas, they are capable of affecting the wildlife in the area. For example, where roads are connected to communities and road densities exceed 0.2 miles of road per square mile (mi/mi2), marten densities decrease due to their susceptibility to over-trapping (Suring, Flynn and DeGayner 1992). Motorized access also leads to increased opportunities for human-induced bear mortality through legal hunting, defense of life or property incidents, and illegal mortality (Unit 4 Brown Bear Management Team 2000, p. 20). Roads are classified as Maintenance Level (ML) 1 or ML 2 or as unauthorized roads. ML 1 is a road that has been put into a self maintaining status and is closed to standard passenger and high-clearance vehicle traffic by a combination of physical blockage at the entrance, bypassing or removal of drainage structures along the road to restore natural drainage patterns, and/or adding water bars as needed to control runoff, revegetating the roadway in places to stabilize the surface. Stored roads are monitored for resource protection to ensure availability when needed in the future. (These roads are designated as Maintenance Level (ML)-1 based on FSH 7709.58-92-1.) ML 2 is a road that is open and maintained for use by high-clearance vehicles and monitored for resource protection. High-clearance vehicles have a minimum of 5 inches of clearance

Chapter 3 - Page 84 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

such as a sport utility vehicle (SUV) or truck-type vehicle with large tire rims and possibly four-wheel drive capability. Traffic is minor and serves primarily administrative purposes. (These roads are designated as ML-2 based on FSH 7709.58-92-1.)

An unauthorized road on National Forest System lands is not managed as part of the forest transportation system and is closed to all vehicular traffic. Unauthorized roads are typically roads that were originally temporary access roads for timber harvest or mining. The Biodiversity Analysis Area contains approximately 76 miles of road, all of which are on NFS lands (Table 3-35). Approximately 35 miles are ML2 roads which are open to motorized vehicles, while 41.2 miles are ML1 or unauthorized roads.

Table 3-35. Miles of Road and Road Densities in the Assessment Area

National Forest System Lands VCU ML1, ML2 & Unauthorized Roads ML2 Roads NFS VCU Square VCU Acres Miles Miles Density Miles Density 3030 18414 28.8 9.6 0.3 7.0 0.2 3040 3245 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3050 9524 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3060 7234 11.3 6.9 0.6 4.0 0.4 3070 15930 24.9 52 2.1 22.4 0.9 3080 53011 82.8 4.5 0.1 0.3 0.0 3090 8082 12.6 3.0 0.2 1.1 0.1 Total 115440 180.4 76 0.4 34.8 0.2 Source: Tongass NF GIS 2006 The total road density average for the Biodiversity Analysis Area is 0.4 miles of roads per square mile (Table 3-35). Of the approximately 180 square miles of NFS land in the Biodiversity Analysis Area, open road (ML2) density is 0.2 miles per square mile. Higher road densities in VCUs 3030, 3060 and most importantly 3070 increase the potential for human/bear incidents. Higher road densities also have the potential to increase trapping pressure on marten and hunting pressure on deer. However, these road systems are only accessible by boat. OHVs are the main type of motorized vehicle used; this use is minimized due to limited access. The Sitka Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment is currently an ongoing NEPA project that will incorporate recommendations from the Kruzof Road Access Plan (K- RAP) There are approximately 9 miles of roads in Semi-remote Recreation and Special Emphasis Area LUDs.

Chapter 3 - Page 85 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Subsistence

According to the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), subsistence is defined, in part, as “the customary and traditional uses by rural Alaska residents of wild, renewable resources for direct personal or family consumption as food, shelter, fuel, clothing, tools, or transportation” (ANILCA, Sec. 803). ANILCA provides for the continuation of these uses “consistent with sound management principles, and the conservation of healthy populations of fish and wildlife” (ANILCA, Sec. 802). For many rural Alaskans subsistence is a way of life; and also carries cultural and religious meaning. The act of gathering subsistence resources is an important practice that reflects deeply held attitudes, values, and beliefs. Some traditional foods are not available through any means other than subsistence and, the occasions for gathering wild foods and edible plants are often social events. Historical patterns of movement, such as the annual cycle of dispersal into small family groups at summer fishing camps and then to larger groups at protected winter villages, are also linked to the tradition of subsistence gathering. In addition, sharing subsistence resources is important not only with other household members, but also with extended families and friends (including those households unable to harvest resources) and with other communities. Fish and game are widely preferred sources of food among Southeast Alaska households, regardless of household income. Average per capita income may not indicate the importance of subsistence to a community. While members of low-income households may have a greater dependence on subsistence gathering, those with higher incomes may simply be in a position to have a more comfortable lifestyle because they combine their subsistence activities with their ability to purchase goods. Higher incomes do not deter individuals from gathering resources and sharing those with friends and family (Kruse and Muth 1990). Subsistence resources include deer, bear, marine mammals, birds, clams, fish, shellfish, marine invertebrates, furbearers, firewood, herring eggs, berries, and edible plants. Subsistence goods may be eaten, traded, given away, or made into useful or decorative items. For example, the skins from brown bear or fur from the marten or sea otter may be used for regalia costumes used in ceremonies and dances (Kruse and Muth 1990). Table 3-36 summarizes some of the subsistence harvest data for the Sitka area.

Chapter 3 - Page 86 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Table 3-36. Subsistence Harvest and Use by Sitka Residents in 1996

Percent of Households Estimated Harvest Pounds Resource Receivin Ave. Using Trying Harvesting Giving Number Pounds g Pounds Per Capita

All Resources 97 85 83 93 74 1,749,772 573 205

Fish 95 67 65 82 67 953,207 312 112 Salmon 89 60 58 64 51 83,114 493,542 162 58 Non-Salmon Fish 92 60 57 67 47 459,665 151 54 Land Mammals 64 44 36 41 24 7,269 434,971 142 51 Large Land Mammals 64 44 35 41 23 5,001 434,225 142 51 Small Land Mammals 4 3 3 2 1 2,268 746 0 0 Marine Mammals 17 8 8 12 10 1,081 62,358 20 7 Birds and Eggs 8 9 8 1 5 5,761 5068 2 1 Marine Invertebrates 72 45 44 61 32 234,496 77 27

Vegetation 70 61 60 29 28 59,671 20 7 Source: ADF&G, Division of Subsistence (2002)

Deer Hunting

Deer meat is an important component in the diet of Sitka residents. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) found that 62% of Sitka households used deer meat and Sitka residents harvested 378,669 lbs (44 lbs per person) of deer meat in 1996. Eighty-one percent of native american households used deer meat, harvesting 127,305 lbs (61 lbs per person) in 1996. Bag limits have remained constant at 6 deer per year since 1990. While the population has remained constant since 1996, use of OHVs to access NFS lands has increased. That total harvest amount has likely increased since 1996

A hunter harvest of approximately 10 percent of the deer population at carrying capacity based on habitat capability should be sustainable and should provide a reasonably high level of hunter success (USDA FS 1997 [Forest Plan FEIS], p. 3-648). Hunter success can be expected to decline in areas where demand represents 20 % of the deer population based on habitat capability. If demand exceeds 20 percent of the population based on habitat capability, harvest of deer by hunters may be directly or indirectly restricted (USDA FS 1997 [Forest Plan FEIS], p. 3-537). The Forest Plan states that the average deer hunter harvest was 4.6% and 6.8% of the deer population based on habitat capability for WAA 3104 and 3105

Chapter 3 - Page 87 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment respectively in the Assessment Area in 1995 and was projected to be 6.0% in WAA 3104 and 8.1% in WAA 3105 by 2005 (USDA FS 1997 [Forest Plan FEIS], Appendix H).

As mentioned in Chapter 3, management objectives for Game Management Unit 4 include maintaining a deer population capable of sustaining a mean reported harvest of at least 1.5 deer per hunter and a minimum reported success rate of 1 deer killed per 4 days hunting effort. ADF&G data from 1997-2004 show 1.9-3.2 days per deer for GMU 4 as a whole. A hunter survey for 2003 (ADF&G) for Kruzof Island indicated 1.2 deer were harvested per hunter for all hunters and 1.5 deer were harvested per hunter by Sitka residents. Success rates for all hunters and Sitka residents were 1 deer per 1.6 and 1 deer per 1.5 days respectively. 1996 ADF&G data indicate 14% of deer population based on habitat capability was harvested in WAA 3104 and 11% of deer population based on habitat capability was harvested in WAA 3105.

Figure 3-27 shows that, for the years where data is available, an average of 1.3 deer was harvested per hunter for WAA 3104 and 3105 in the Assessment Area. Figure 3-28 shows that, for the years where data is available, for each deer harvested an average of 2.0 days in WAA 3104 and 1.7 days in WAA 3105 were expended hunting. The data suggest that the objectives for the number of deer harvested per hunter are not being met but that the objectives for the number of hunting days per deer are being met.

Figure 3-27. Average Deer Harvested Per Hunter Per WAA

Deer per Hunter in WAAs of the Analysis Area

1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2

r 1.0 WAA 3104 e 0.8 De WAA 3105 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 1995- 1996- 1997- 1998- 2000- 1996 1997 1998 1999 2001 Year

Source: ADF&G-DWC, Deer Hunter Survey Summary Statistics 1995-2002

Chapter 3 - Page 88 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Figure 3-28. Average Number of Days Hunted for Each Harvested Deer Per WAA

Days Hunted Per Deer in the Analysis Area

s 3.0 y 2.5 Da f 2.0 WAA 3104 o

r 1.5

e WAA 3105

b 1.0

m 0.5 0.0 Nu 1995- 1996- 1997- 1998- 2000- 1996 1997 1998 1999 2001 Harvest Year

Source: ADF&G-DWC, Deer Hunter Survey Summary Statistics 1995-2002.

Under ANILCA, a priority for use is to be granted to rural subsistence users if restrictions on use of a resource are necessary. Although these data indicate that the present supply of deer may not be adequate for meeting all hunter harvest and demand, providing a quality experience for hunters, and maintaining deer populations in a particular year, there are several other factors to consider. Deer harvest rates and deer populations can vary from year to year and are influenced by numerous dynamic factors. Harvest rates can fluctuate due to variables such as changes in the deer population, hunting regulations, road access, and weather conditions during the hunting season. Hard winters with low temperatures and heavy snows can cause deer to concentrate in lower elevation habitat making deer easier to hunt.

Changes in deer abundance can result from harsh winters, timber harvests, increased hunting access, and increases in rural and non-rural hunter demand for deer. Winters with low temperatures and heavy snows can increase mortality of deer and reduce the number of deer available for hunters to harvest. Clearcut harvests reduce cover and result in a rapid establishment and regeneration of conifers, shrubs, and herbaceous plants. This flush of vegetation provides forage for deer for up to 35 years. However, this understory vegetation will not likely be available during the winter due to snow accumulation. Once stands reach the stem exclusion stage, they are not likely to provide foraging habitat for deer during any season. Thinning such stands increases forage availability in the short-term. New roads constructed in association with timber sales increase hunter access to areas. In some cases, because harvest activities may increase the number of people in an area or community, the demand for deer harvest may also increase.

Deer pellet transects demonstrate that deer populations are likely being maintained in the Assessment Area. Deer pellet counts are conducted annually to assess trends in habitat use

Chapter 3 - Page 89 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment areas and population trends of deer in specific areas. Deer pellet surveys were conducted 18 times between 1984 and 2003 in WAA 3104 (VCU 3050) and pellet densities ranged from 1.3-3.3. There were 13 years with moderate density (1-2 pellet groups per plot), 4 years with high density (1-2 pellet groups per plot and 1 year with extremely high density (2-3 pellet groups per plot). Deer pellet surveys were conducted 3 times in WAA 3105 (VCU 3080) between 1993 and 1999. Deer pellet densities were rated as moderate ranging from 1.4-1.7. Figure 3-29 shows deer pellet density trends for each WAA in the Biological Diversity Analysis Area.

Figure 3-29. Deer Pellet Density Trends.

Deer Pellet Transect Data by WAA

3.5

3

2.5 ot l P r

pe 2

ups 3104 o r 3105 G t e

ll 1.5 e P r e e D 1

0.5

0 1981 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Year

Chapter 3 - Page 90 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Human Dimensions

Heritage Resources and Current Human Use

Through examining human history, our understanding of the current landscape is enhanced. Conversely, landscape studies can help us understand cultural developments and historic events. For example, the extent of glaciation, isostatic rebound rates, rising ocean levels, and salmon colonization have all affected the development of local cultural patterns. Knowledge about human use of the region encompassing the Assessment Area is largely based on three types of information: 1) the archaeological record of the distant past, 2) ethnographic information about the cultures in the region and their society, and 3) written records for the historic period (i.e., the period that begins with the availability of written records). These are discussed briefly below. Archaeological Information Archaeological investigations are commonly used to reconstruct basic prehistoric settlement patterns.. Site locations, artifact assemblages, and oral histories all indicate that prehistoric occupation and subsistence in the area was nonhorticultural; oriented rather toward the marine resources of this biologically rich region. Permanent winter villages were a standard settlement pattern, and are known to exist within the Assessment Area. Salmon and halibut fishing, sea mammal hunting, combined with shellfish, plant, and berry procurement, and surpluses of such, all contributed to the development of a complex sociocultural system. One of the trademarks of this particular system was an elaborate and distinctive art style. Material cultural was distinctive in its highly developed and elaborate woodworking technology that produced plank houses, canoes, monuments, bentwood boxes, fish hooks, and many other tools and utensils. A highly developed twined basketry was also notable, as were vegetable fiber textiles.

Although maritime resources have been consistently important to the people of Southeast Alaska, major changes in lifestyle and subsistence have taken place over time. The cultural chronology displayed in the following table illustrates these changes.

Table 3-37. Cultural Chronology for Southeast Alaska (Moss 1994).

Period Age BP* Characteristics Early 10000 to 5000 microblade lithic tradition Middle 5000 to 1500 shell middens, ground stone, fish weirs, mass salmon harvest Late 1500 to 210 continuity with Middle period, forts * years before present. BP represents “years before present.” “Present” refers to 1950. 1950 is year 0 BP by convention in radiocarbon dating and is deemed to be the 'present'. 1950 was chosen for no particular reason other than to honor the publication of the first radiocarbon dates calculated in December 1949 (Taylor 1987: 97). Archaeological investigations indicate that people have inhabited the Assessment Area for at

Chapter 3 - Page 91 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

least 3000 years and, based on evidence from the surrounding area, likely much longer. It is unclear whether human habitation in the area has been continuous because archaeological investigations are ongoing.

The Early period in this chronology is characterized by flaked stone technology and a subsistence strategy based on marine mammals rather than fish. In contrast, ground stone tools and fish harvest (especially salmon) characterize the Middle and Late periods. This shift in technology and subsistence may mark the beginning of a new culture pattern in the Assessment Area. An increase in the number of sites (based on radiocarbon dating) suggests that about 1500 years before present the population began to grow. Further, an increase in the number of sites identified as forts suggests more inter-group conflict.

The archaeological record of Southeast Alaska is far from complete, with the vast majority of current data resulting from a handful of excavations. These include excavations conducted by de Laguna (1960), Ackerman (1968), Davis (1984), and Dixon et al. (1997). These projects have made significant contributions to what is currently defined as the Northern Northwest Coast zone culture area.

Most archaeological investigations on the Tongass National Forest are conducted in compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act. This legislation mandates that federal agencies identify and avoid effects to cultural resources. Cultural resources can be broadly defined as the the fragile and nonrenewable remains of human activity that are found in, archaeological sites, historic districts, buildings, records, manuscripts, historical sites, and that are important in past and present human events. These may include isolated artifacts, features, traditional cultural properties, historical resources, and historic properties, regardless of significance. Eleven sites containing prehistoric components have been identified in the Assessment Area. These sites are primarily summer camps and small permanent winter villages. Few of these types of sites have been identified and recorded in the Assessment Area by archaeologists, but it is certain that more exist. For example, there is at least one known prehistoric village site on the north end of Kruzof Island. This site is documented by several sources as an abandoned winter village. This and other winter villages were most likely abandoned by the mid to late 19th century, with modern settlement patterns established by the 1920’s (Arndt et al. 1987). Another type of cultural resource that is little understood and occurs in the Assessment Area is rock art, usually in the form of petroglyphs. These occur in areas associated with abandoned villages and as isolated occurrences.

Other types of cultural resource that have received relatively little recognition on the Tongass National Forest are traditional cultural properties (TCPs) and Native American sacred sites. A traditional cultural property can be generally defined as one that is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places because of its association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that (a) are rooted in that community’s history, and (b) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community (National Register n.d.). Potential effects to sacred sites must be considered under Executive Order 13007. This Executive Order also attempts to define “sacred site” as “any specific, discrete…location on Federal land that is identified by an Indian tribe, or Indian individual…as sacred by virtue of

Chapter 3 - Page 92 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

its established religious significance to, or ceremonial use by, an Indian religion; provided that the tribe…has informed the agency of the existence of such a site”(ACHP 1996). There is at least one traditional cultural property/ sacred site within the Assessment Area. Traditional cultural properties may be eligible to the national Register of Historic Places; hence effects to these types of cultural resources must also be taken into consideration during the planning process of any Federal undertaking.

A great deal more data need to be accumulated in order to address questions concerning changes in resource utilization strategies, population, and the distribution of people across the landscape. Such investigations could contribute greatly to our understanding of the Assessment Area.

Ethnographic Information North America contained several culture areas at the time of European contact. These culture areas are defined by similarities in culture, language, and subsistence strategies. One of these culture areas, the Northwest Coast, extends from the Gulf of Alaska to northern California and encompasses the Assessment Area. Common elements of this culture area include an economy based on marine resources, settled villages, stratified social structures, sophisticated wood working, and highly developed art (Suttles 1990). The Assessment Area is located near the northern limits of this culture area.

The Tlingit peoples occupied this region when European explorers arrived. The Tlingit have a common language, customs, traditions, and religious beliefs that distinguish them from their surrounding neighbors, the Eyak and Athabascan to the north and east, and the Haida and Tsimshean to the south. The large Tlingit nation was divided into territories, or “kwaan,” each of which had defined geographic boundaries and contained one or more permanent winter villages. The Assessment Area is located within the traditional Sitka Kwaan (Goldschmidt and Haas 2000). No political structure or leadership existed at the kwaan level for common activities such as public works or warfare. Each territory was further subdivided into moieties, clans, and households. Common activities were performed at these levels.

Tlingit society is divided into two moieties: the Raven and Eagle. Each person is born into one or the other. Both moieties are matrilineal; lineages are traced through the female parent. The moieties are also exogamous; members are required to marry a member of the opposite moiety. Every Tlingit community contains members of both moieties. Moieties are further subdivided into independent bodies called “clans.” Each clan has a designated chief. Clans have been described as “the active principle of life, the law, and the religion of the Tlingit…[they take] precedence over every other organization”(Emmons 1991, p. 23). Further, de Laguna states that clans “held primary territorial rights” (1990, p. 204). The following table displays the moieties and clans identified for the Sitka Kwaan.

Chapter 3 - Page 93 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Table 3-38. Moieties and Clans within the Sitka Kwaan

Moiety Clan Eagle Kar-qwan-ton Ko-kee-ton Kat-oh-qwot-tee Chu-con-na-tee Ki-yatse-hit-ton Raven Kake-sat-tee Thluke-nar-hut-tee Kut-kow-ee Kuse-ka-dee Tuck-tane-ton Arn-kark-hit-ton Source: Emmons 1991

Within each clan are households governed by a house chief whose influence is comparable to the clan chief. Land use was guided by this social structure. For example, waterways were free for all to use, but land was divided among clans and subdivided by household and family. Each household had rights to designated salmon streams and areas for fishing, hunting, and berry collection (Emmons 1991, p. 27). Authors who write about Tlingit social structure disagree on the number of Tlingit clans and households and the correct spelling of them. The most commonly used reference is Possessory Rights of the Natives of Southeast Alaska (Goldschmidt and Haas 1946 and 2000). This work suggests that the Chookaneidi, Luknax.adi, Kaagwaantaan, and Kiks.adi clans have territories in the Assessment Area (2000, Chart 9). The Chookaneidi territory extends from Deadmans Reach south to Neva Point. Luknax.adi territory includes the southern half of Halleck Island. Kaagwaantaan territory begins at Neva Point, extends to Cedar Cove (in Katlian Bay), and includes the northern half of Halleck Island. Kiks.adi territory extends from Cedar Cove south past Redoubt Bay. It is important to note that any such analysis of Tlingit territories represents a moment in time and that territorial boundaries are not static.

Historical Information The history of Euro-American exploration and occupation of Southeast Alaska can be divided into four major periods (Arndt and others 1987):

• 1741-1799: exploration and the maritime fur trade • 1799-1867: Russian-American Company management • 1867-1884: American military rule • 1884-1958: development of the modern landscape

Each period is summarized below. Seven sites in the Assessment Area have historic components.

Chapter 3 - Page 94 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Exploration and the Maritime Fur Trade (1741-1799) The historic period began when the Kamchatka Expedition reached Southeast Alaska in 1741. The voyage had profound consequences for Southeast Alaska. The impetus behind this Russian-led expedition was fur: the Chinese were willing to pay high prices for sea otter pelts, and stories of otter abundance in Southeast Alaska attracted the Russians. During this period Spain, Britain, France, and the United States also sent expeditions to the area for a variety of reasons including the following: to claim possession of land, to search for the Northwest Passage, and to assess the potential economic significance of the region.

Russian-American Company Management (1799-1867) Continuing expansion eastward brought Russians to Alaska. Russia’s primary interest was fur trade, and the principal facilitator of this trade was the Russian-American Company. This company was granted an Imperial monopoly over trade in Alaska and established several settlements for that reason. In 1799, the company established St. Archangel Michael near Starrigavan Creek; however, the Tlingit attacked the settlement in 1802, driving out the Russians and Aleuts. The Russians returned in 1804, and until 1867 Sitka served as the center of Russian trade and commerce in the Americas. However, declining profits from the fur trade, increased expenses of maintaining a presence in the Americas, and the expense of the Crimean War prompted Russia to sell Alaska to the United States.

American Military Rule (1867-1884) After Alaska was purchased from Russia by the United States, the American Military ruled the territory. Nominally, the Army governed from 1867 to 1877, and the Navy ruled from 1879 to 1884. Sitka, east of the Assessment Area, continued to serve as the center of government during this period. Several commercial endeavors that would later become important began during this period: fishing, mining, timber, and tourism.

Development of the Modern Landscape (1884-1955) Southeast Alaska’s economy expanded throughout this period. Fishing, mining, and the timber industry became the mainstays of the region. Small communities associated with these industries came and went, and the cultural landscape gradually took on its present character.

Of the four historic periods delineated by Arndt and others (1987), the most recent has had the greatest impact upon the landscape. Timber harvest, military development associated with World War II, mining, fur farming, commercial fishing, and homesteading activities have all left evidence on the land.

Known Heritage Sites Investigations have identified 14 known cultural resource sites in the Assessment Area. Four of these sites have been determined not eligible to the National Register, and thus receive no further management consideration. One site is a possible traditional cultural property/ sacred site and thus its location is omitted from Figure 3-30. Table 3-39 summarizes the type and National Register of Historic Places status.

Chapter 3 - Page 95 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Table 3-39. Known Cultural Sites in the Assessment Area.

FS Site Island Site Type Culture NRHP Status Number 49 SIT 037 Kruzof Prehistoric Tlingit undetermined 49 SIT 060 Siginaka Prehistoric Tlingit undetermined 49 SIT 061 Kruzof Prehistoric/ Historic Tlingit eligible 49 SIT 062 Kruzof Prehistoric unknown eligible 49 SIT 240 Kruzof Prehist. unknown eligible 49 SIT 337 Partofshikof Prehistoric/Historic Tlingit eligible 49 SIT 457 Kruzof Hist. EuroAm/ WWII undetermined 49 SIT 499 Kruzof Hist. EuroAm/ Tlingit eligible 49 SIT 507 Kruzof Prehist./ Hist. Euroam/ Tlingit not eligible 49 SIT 508 Kruzof Prehist. Tlingit undetermined 49 SIT 640 Kruzof Prehist./Hist Tlingit undetermined 49 SIT 641 Kruzof modern unknown not eligible 49 SIT 667 Kruzof Hist. EuroAmerican not eligible 49 SIT 669 Kruzof Hist. Russian/ Tlingit not eligible

Nine of the fourteen known cultural resource sites have been evaluated for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places. Of these, five have been determined as eligible to the National Register, and four have been determined not eligible. Prior to any ground-disturbing project activities, the remaining five sites will have to be revisited, formally recorded, and a formal eligibility recommendation will need to be made, if they are within the Area of Potential Effect (APE).

Two sites (49 SIT 062 and 49 SIT 508) are on Alaska State land along the coast, and are included in this analysis because these sites may be within the Area of Potential Effect of a future Forest Service undertaking.

Recent and Current Human Use The Assessment Area, particularly Kruzof Island, contains a number of historic sites that have, to date, received little if any archaeological attention. These sites include World War II (ca. 1940’s) installations on the south end of the island, and several structural remains associated with cattle ranching activities (Ca. 1950’s-1960’s) located in Iris Meadows near Shelikof Bay. A single Adirondack-style shelter is located along the Mt. Edgecumbe trail on Kruzof Island. This shelter was originally constructed by the Civilian Conservation Corps between 1933 and 1942. This shelter was stabilized in 1995. The Assessment Area also contains a number of sites that illustrate the importance of the timber industry in shaping the area. Timber sales were conducted on Kruzof Island from the 1960’s through the 1980’s. A logging camp was once located at Mud Bay, but it is unknown at this time whether any physical remains still exist. These settlements, along with the resources extracted from them, have shaped the Assessment Area and the people who live there. Timber harvest from the area provided jobs and helped support the economy of the region, and the lumber and pulpwood produced by the industry has been distributed throughout the world. Logging roads on Kruzof Island are currently used by recreationalists for hiking, OHV travel, mountain biking, and hiking.

Chapter 3 - Page 96

Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

The anadromous fish streams in the area produce salmon that are important to the commercial, sport, and subsistence fisheries in Southeast Alaska. Commercial salmon fishing provides significant income for area residents. Important fisheries include the seine fisheries for chum and pink salmon and herring, and the troll fisheries for coho and Chinook salmon. Although Chinook salmon are not produced in any Assessment Area streams, local Chinook stocks are produced by the Northern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association (NSRAA) Medvejie hatchery and the Sheldon Jackson College hatchery. The Assessment Area is extremely important to Sitka residents for subsistence hunting, fishing, and gathering. Important subsistence fishing species include coho, pink, chum, sockeye, and Chinook salmon; steelhead and cutthroat trout; Dolly Varden char; and herring. Sockeye salmon from Salmon Lake Creek is an especially important subsistence resource.

Human Use Trends and Interpretation

The Assessment Area has played an important role in regional history. This importance is reflected in the number and type of prehistoric and historic sites in the Assessment Area.

The lives of all inhabitants of the area have been integrally tied to the marine and terrestrial resources of the region. While the Tlingit lifestyle depended on marine resources (especially salmon, shellfish, seaweed, and marine mammals), terrestrial resources were also essential for their culture. Wood may have been the most important of these, since almost all utilitarian and artistic items were made from spruce, cedar, hemlock, or alder. For example, houses, canoes, weirs, baskets, hats, mats, nets, bows, arrows, spears, utensils, boxes, and clothing were all made from wood, bark, or roots. Regional resources such as timber, fish, minerals, fur, and resources important to tourism have been important to inhabitants of the Assessment Area throughout all historic periods. Evidence of each of these periods and types of use are present in the Assessment Area.

Increasing population, ease of access, and growing numbers of tourists may increase the likelihood that historic sites will be damaged. Furthermore, increasing numbers of visitors may increase the demand for interpretation of regional history.

Chapter 3 - Page 98 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Transportation and Facilities

All roads, with few exceptions, in the Assessment Area were originally constructed as part of past timber sales. When timber sales occur, each associated road has a life expectancy associated with it in the timber sale contract. Some roads are designed to remain as a permanent part of the road system whereas others are only designed to last the life of the contract. The life expectancy of roads is typically assigned according to the demands of the associated timber sale. Frequently upon completion of or during the sale, plans are changed and road longevity is reevaluated and/or reassigned. In the past, many roads were abandoned upon completion of the harvest and left for natural processes (such as tree growth, water movement, etc.) to reclaim them. After a number of years without road maintenance, natural processes affect all roads; resource conditions may improve or deteriorate. Pre-planning of road decommissioning can greatly reduce environmental impacts associated with this process.

Roads in the Assessment Area The Assessment Area covers approximately 192 square miles (122,852 acres) and contains 76.8 miles of road. Of the 76.8 miles of road, 30.6 miles are unauthorized. Currently there are approximately 46.2 miles of National Forest System Roads (Figure 3-31) in the Assessment Area. Of these, 34.8 miles are classified as open for high-clearance traffic and were planned to be maintained at an Objective Maintenance Level (OML) of 2. The remaining 11.4 miles of classified road are closed to public vehicular traffic and are maintained at an OML of 1. For a definition of “unauthorized road” and other road-related terminology, please refer to the Glossary (Chapter 5 of this Assessment). There are no cities located in within the Assessment Area. The Assessment Area can be reached by boat or float plane. An integrated analysis of transportation planning (the roads analysis process or RAPs) was completed and documented for the Assessment Area in 2004 (USDA Forest Service 2004a). Table 3-40 below displays the miles of forest roads in each of the seven land use designations (LUDs) within the Assessment Area and on Non-National Forest land.

Table 3-40. Miles of Assessment Area Roads by Land Use Designation

Land Use Designation Acres Miles of roads within the LUD Semi-Remote Recreation 20,844 3.50 Modified Landscape 20,577 57.03 Old Growth Habitat Reserves 12,174 0.00 Timber Production 18,270 12.65 Special Interest Area 49,085 3.62 Non-National Forest Land 1,902 0.00 Total = 122,852 76.80

Chapter 3 - Page 99 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Road Construction Roads in Southeast Alaska are generally constructed by laying organic material (e.g., tree tops, limbs, stumps) on the leveled ground surface and then covering this organic mat with two to three feet of shot rock. Rock on classified roads is normally grid rolled to produce a smoother surface. Running surfaces on classified roads are generally 14 to 16 feet wide with turnouts, while temporary roads range from 12 to 14 feet wide. Culverts or bridges are placed at all natural channels. Cross drains, which are small culverts intended to transport runoff along the road underneath the road, are commonly installed. Most cut banks and fill slopes are seeded. Status and Maintenance Levels of Forest Roads An objective maintenance level is assigned to each forest road. The objective maintenance level represents the level at which a road is to be managed. It is based on the maintenance level considering future road management objectives, including traffic needs, budget constraints, and environmental concerns. Roads also have an operational maintenance level, which is the actual current level of road maintenance. The operational maintenance level assigned to a road takes into consideration current needs, road conditions, budget constraints, and environmental considerations. Thus, roads may be currently maintained at one level but are planned for maintenance at a different level at some future date. The objective maintenance level may be the same as, higher than, or lower than the operational maintenance level. Each of the road maintenance levels is described in the following paragraphs. Note that the description of each applies to both operational maintenance levels and objective maintenance levels. Maintenance levels referred to in this report will be the current assigned objective maintenance level. Closed Roads Forest Roads that are closed to vehicular traffic are managed according to Objective Maintenance Level 1 (OML). For a road to be assigned to this maintenance level, the period of its closure must exceed 1 year. Closed roads may provide intermittent service. Such roads receive custodial maintenance to keep damage to adjacent resources at an acceptable level and to perpetuate the road to facilitate future management activities. Maintenance emphasis is normally given to maintaining drainage facilities and runoff patterns. Planned road deterioration may occur at this level. Appropriate traffic management strategies include "prohibiting" and "eliminating” motorized traffic. OML 1 roads may be managed at any other maintenance level during the time they are open for traffic. Though these roads are generally closed to vehicular traffic, they may be open for Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) use and for non-motorized uses. While OHV traffic is typically discouraged, foot traffic is welcome.

Chapter 3 - Page 100

Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Closed roads in the Assessment Area have been physically closed with a barrier or have been overgrown with alder. Some closed roads contain log bridges that are unsafe for vehicles. The original drainage structures remain in place on some closed roads but have been removed on others. Table 3-41 displays the length and location of closed roads in the Assessment Area.

Table 3-41. Roads Closed to Public Traffic (OML-1) in the Assessment Area

Road # Road Name Lengths 75902 7590 West 1.75 75903 1.55 75914 1.38 75921 West Cone 0.37 75922 2.09 75951 Gilmer Bay Spur 1.35 75952 Gilmer Bay Spur 2 0.79 7596 Mud Bay Spur 1 1.01 75961 Mud Bay Spur 2 1.12 Total miles= 11.41

Open Roads (Maintenance Levels 2 through 5) Forest Roads that are open to vehicular traffic are managed according to one of four OMLs. Roads assigned to maintenance levels 2 through 5 are open and maintained to provide constant service to motorized vehicles. All open roads should receive periodic roadside brushing and annual drainage structure maintenance. OML 2 OML 2 is assigned to roads open for use by high clearance vehicles such as 4-wheel drive pickup trucks. Passenger car traffic is not a consideration. Traffic on these roads is normally minor, usually consisting of one or a combination of administrative, permitted, dispersed recreation, or other specialized uses. Roads may be used for log haul. Appropriate traffic management strategies include discouraging or prohibiting passenger cars and accepting or discouraging high clearance vehicles. Road surface conditions on these roads are in a self-maintained condition. Drivable waterbars, which are similar to speed bumps, may be added to the road to channel storm waters off the roadway. Existing drainage structures are to be left in place and supplemented with waterbars. Vehicle speed is expected to be slow in comparison to roads open to standard passenger vehicles. This is likely to slow the formation of potholes and minimize impacts to forest wildlife. Table 3-42 displays the miles of road in the Assessment Area that are maintained at OMLs 2.

Chapter 3 - Page 102 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Table 3-42. Roads open to High Clearance Vehicles (OML-2) in the Assessment Area

Road # Road Name Length 7590 Iris Meadows 8.87 75901 7590 East 1.03 7591 Twin Lakes 8.17 75911 Cuvacan Cove 1.37 75912 Cuvacan Spur 1.39 75913 Twin Lake Spur 2.17 7592 The Cone 3.46 7595 Gilmer Bay 8.31 Total miles = 34.77

OML 3 OML 3 roads are open and maintained for standard passenger car use. User comfort and convenience are not considered priorities. These roads typically consist of a single lane with turnouts and spot surfacing; however, some roads may be fully surfaced with either native or processed material. They are intended for use at low speeds. Traffic management strategies include either encouraging or accepting traffic. However, use by certain classes of vehicles or users may be discouraged or prohibited depending on the volume of commercial use, ATV use, etc. OML 4 OML 4 roads provide a moderate degree of user comfort and convenience at moderate travel speeds. At a minimum, these roads have one lane and a crushed aggregate surface. In addition, some roads may have two lanes, dust control, or may be paved. The most appropriate traffic management strategy is to encourage use. However, specific classes of vehicles or users may be prohibited at certain times. OML 5 OML 5 roads provide a high degree of user comfort and convenience. These roads normally have two lanes and are paved. Some may be aggregate surfaced and dust abated. The appropriate traffic management strategy is to encourage use. No Level 5 roads are located within the Assessment Area. Temporary, Decommissioned, and Unauthorized Roads Temporary roads are authorized by contract, permit, lease, or other written authorization, or by emergency operation. They are not intended to be a part of the forest transportation system and are not necessary for long-term resource management. Temporary roads may be up to a mile in length, but are generally less than ½ mile long. A common example of a temporary road would be a road leading to a log landing where equipment has been placed to harvest timber. Decommissioned roads are unneeded roads that have been stabilized and restored to a more

Chapter 3 - Page 103 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment natural state. Decommissioning includes reestablishing former drainage patterns, stabilizing slopes, and restoring vegetation. Culverts and bridges are removed, water bars are added, and the road entrance is generally blocked to motorized traffic. The temporary road mentioned above would normally be decommissioned after the timber was removed from the harvest unit and the log trucks were finished hauling the timber to a mill site. Unauthorized roads are roads not managed as part of the forest transportation system, such as unplanned roads, abandoned travelways, and off-road vehicle tracks that have not been designated and managed as a trail; and those roads that were once under permit or other authorization and were not decommissioned upon the termination of the authorization. An example of an unauthorized road is the temporary road mentioned above that was not decommissioned after it was no longer needed. Once the road was not decommissioned after it’s authorized use terminated (the timber sale), it became an unauthorized road. Management Decisions Pertaining to Roads The distinction between maintenance levels is not always sharply defined. Maintenance levels are selected based on the best overall fit for the needs of those who use the road. In those situations where roads have multiple uses, the road may overlap two different maintenance levels. Forest Plan standards and guidelines for transportation require a managed road system based on road management objectives using the criteria listed below: 1. National Forest System Roads are to be kept open for public motorized use unless:

• use conflicts with Land Use Designation objectives, such as the need to protect fish or wildlife habitat or to retain a non-motorized recreation experience; • financing is not available to maintain the road or manage the associated use of adjacent lands; • use causes unacceptable damage to roadway or adjacent soil and water resources; • use results in unsafe conditions; or • there is little or no public need for the road.

2. Manage road use by seasonal closure if any of the following conditions are anticipated:

• seasonal conflicts with Land Use Designation objectives, such as the need to provide security for wildlife during critical times of the year; or • traffic hazards of unacceptable damage to roadway or adjacent soil and water resources due to weather or seasonal conditions.

3. Restrict public use by temporary closure if:

• concurrent use between commercial and other traffic is unsafe; or • the potential for damage to equipment from vandalism is high.

Chapter 3 - Page 104 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

4. Allow administrative use of closed or restricted roads when needed for emergency use or uses otherwise deemed appropriate by the Forest Service officer with delegated authority.

Road Condition Surveys Road condition surveys (RCS) are conducted to gather information on the general condition of roads and to identify problem areas where roads have failed or where there is erosion, undersized or collapsed cross drains, or inadequate ditches. The data from the RCS was reviewed to verify potential fish passage problems. See the Fisheries section in this chapter (pages 55-58) for a discussion on fish passage and removal of fish passage barriers. Bridges Bridges are the best structures to build when crossing over fish streams. Steel bridges are preferred because they can last up to 50 years if maintained well. The RCS revealed 5 existing modular bridges (MB) in the analysis area. The lengths and location of the identified modular bridges are also displayed in Table 3-17 - Modular Bridges and on Figure 3-18 - Bridges and Red Pipes. There are 12 log stringer bridges located in the Assessment Area (Table 3-18 – Log Stringer Bridges). Bridge inspection reports indicate that these bridges are continuing to deteriorate and in some instances portions have failed. There is one former log stringer bridge on road #7590 at mp. 4.759 that failed in the fall of 2003. The structure is scheduled for replacement in 2004. The log stringer bridge at mp. 1.093 on road #7595 was scheduled for replacement in 2002, but replacement was deferred until management decides what the future plans are for the area accessed by this road. Description of Assessment Area Roads A description of Assessment Area roads and information from the Road Condition Surveys follows.

Road 7590 Road 7590 is an operational and objective maintenance level 2 road, which runs predominantly through the Alpha-Iris and Beta-Iris Watersheds with a small portion crossing through the Kruzof Sound Frontage Watershed. It is currently receiving OHV traffic. Road condition surveys identified 12 locations along this road where erosion is present or there is a high potential for erosion. The majority of the locations were associated with surface and cut- slope erosion. Sixteen culverts were recorded during the 2001 RCS. Two were found to be impeding fish migration and identified as red pipes. All of road 7590 falls within the Modified Landscape LUD. Roading is consistent with the Modified Landscape LUD, provided road management emphasizes multiple uses and fish and wildlife habitat values. Road 7591 Road 7591 provides access to two lakes in the Kruzof Island-Pacific Ocean Frontage 9 watershed. It is an operational and objective maintenance level 2 road. It is currently receiving OHV traffic. Road condition surveys identified 13 locations along this road where

Chapter 3 - Page 105 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment erosion is present or there is a high potential for erosion. The majority of the locations were associated with cut-slope erosion. Twenty-five culverts were recorded during the 2001 RCS. Four were found to be impeding fish migration and identified as red pipes. All of road 7591 falls within the Modified Landscape. Roading is consistent with the Modified Landscape LUD, provided road management emphasizes multiple uses and fish and wildlife habitat values. Road 7592 Road 7592 is an operational and objective maintenance level 2 road in the Beta-Iris Meadows Watershed. It is currently receiving OHV traffic. Road condition surveys identified 8 locations along this road where erosion is present or there is a high potential for erosion. These 8 locations were split evenly between surface erosion and cutslope erosion. Four culverts were recorded during the 2001 RCS. One was found to be impeding fish migration and labeled as a red pipe. All of road 7592 falls within the Modified Landscape. Road 7595 Road 7595 is currently listed as an operational level 2 road but it will be changed to Operational level 1 road in the upcoming ATM due to fish stream crossing deficiencies. It is an objective Maintenance Level 2 road. It crosses three watersheds and connects Gilmer Bay to Suloi Inlet on the other side of the island. It has several stream crossings not in compliance with the State of Alaska’s anadromous fish stream regulations. This road will remain closed until the crossings can be repaired or mitigated to an acceptable level. Road condition surveys identified 15 locations along this road where erosion is present or there is a high potential for erosion. Twelve of the 15 location were associated with surface erosion. Thirty-six culverts were recorded during the 2001 RCS. One was found to be impeding fish migration and labeled as a red pipe. However, as stated above, there are several sites where log stringer bridges have collapsed or are otherwise causing water quality and fish habitat problems. All of road 7595 falls within the Timber Production LUD. Roading is consistent within this LUD. Road 7596 Road 7596 is a short operational and objective maintenance level 1 road in the Beta-Iris Meadows watershed. It has minimal erosion and no red pipes. It is located in a modified landscape LUD. Road 75901 Road 75901 is an operational and objective maintenance level 2 road beginning in the Alpha- Iris Meadows Watershed and ending in the Beta-Iris Meadows Watershed. It is currently receiving OHV traffic. Road condition surveys show little erosion and no red pipes. It is located in a modified landscape LUD.

Chapter 3 - Page 106 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Road 75902 Road 75902 is an operational and objective maintenance level 1 road in the Alpha-Iris Meadows Watershed. Road condition surveys show little erosion and no red pipes. It is located in a modified landscape LUD. Road 75911 Road 75911 is an operational and objective maintenance level 2 road in the Kruzof Island- Pacific Ocean Frontage 9 watershed. Road condition surveys show eleven erosion sites predominantly caused by cut-slope erosion. There are no red pipes located on this road. It is located in a modified landscape LUD. Road 75912 Road 75912 is an operational and objective maintenance level 2 road in the Kruzof Island- Pacific Ocean Frontage 9 watershed. Road condition surveys show little erosion and no red pipes. It is located in a modified landscape LUD. Road 75913 Road 75913 is an operational and objective maintenance level 2 road residing predominantly in the Kruzof Island-Pacific Ocean Frontage 9 watershed. Road condition surveys show five locations of cut-slope erosion areas and no red pipes. It is located in a modified landscape LUD. Road 75921 Road 75921 is an operational and objective maintenance level 1 road in the East Shell Mountain watershed. Road condition surveys found only one location for erosion area and no red pipes. It is located in a modified landscape LUD. Road 75951 Road 75951 is an operational and objective maintenance level 1 road in the Kruzof Island – Salisbury Sound watershed. Road condition surveys found only one location erosion site and it was caused by the cut-slope. There are five recorded pipes on the road and none of them are classified as red pipes. It is located in a timber production LUD. Road 75952 Road 75952 is an operational and objective maintenance level 1 road in the Kruzof Island- Pacific Ocean Frontage 9 watershed. Road condition surveys have not been completed on this section of road and little information has been confirmed. There is one bridge along this road that is currently in failure status which could create fisheries and or water quality issues in the future. It is located in a timber production LUD. Road 75961 Road 75961 is an operational and objective maintenance level 1 road in the Beta-Iris Meadows watershed. There is one source of erosion recorded coming from the road surface. There are no fish passage issues due to the fact there are no culverts on the road. Road 75961 is located in a modified landscape LUD. Several non system roads have been recommended to be included as classified system roads in the upcoming ATM. Marine Access Facilities The Assessment Area contains two former Marine Access Facilities (MAFs) (previously

Chapter 3 - Page 107 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

referred to as Log Transfer Facilities [LTFs]). Marine access facilities were constructed for the transfer of equipment and harvested timber from roads to salt water. These facilities are an integral part of the Assessment Area’s transportation system because most of the road systems are only accessible by water. These MAFs still provide access to road systems for administrative and recreational use.

Physical Trends and Interpretation

Road Access Roads provide motorized and non-motorized access to recreation, subsistence, hunting, and trapping use areas. Because roads increase human access to these areas, they are capable of affecting the wildlife in the area. For example, where roads are connected to communities (Sitka Sound LA) and road densities exceed 0.2 miles of road per square mile (mi/mi2), marten may densities decrease due to their susceptibility to over-trapping (Sitka Sound LA). Motorized access also leads to increased opportunities for human-induced bear mortality through legal hunting, defense of life or property incidents, and illegal mortality (Sitka Sound LA). The Assessment Area contains approximately 76.8 miles of road. 46.2 miles are National Forest System Roads (Appendix C), and 30.6 miles are non-system roads. While the Assessment Area contains 46.2 miles of system road, only 34.8 miles are open to motorized vehicles. All of these miles are restricted to high clearance vehicles. Many of the system roads are single-track trails that are overgrown with alder. Non-system roads are generally closed to motor vehicles but may be used by other methods. The total road density average for the Assessment Area is 0.026 miles of roads per square mile (Table 3-43). Of the approximately 400 square miles of NFS lands in the Biodiversity Analysis Area, the system and non-system road density is approximately 0.22 miles per square mile. The system roads alone average an estimated 0.15 miles of road per square mile. Higher road densities have the potential to increase trapping pressure on marten and hunting pressure on deer. However, these road systems are not interconnected and are isolated from any community road systems.

Chapter 3 - Page 108 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Table 3-43. Miles of Road and Road Densities in the Assessment Area

Density Total of Open Total roaded Open roaded Total Classified Unauthorized road Density roaded miles/sq. VCU Acres Sq. Mi. (Miles) (Miles) miles miles/sq.mi miles mi. 3020 5,288 8.3 0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0 0.00 3030 18,414 28.8 8.16 1.70 9.85 0.34 6.81 0.24 3040 3,406 5.3 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3050 10,342 16.2 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3060 7,234 11.3 4.83 2.48 7.30 0.65 4.04 0.36 3070 15,930 24.9 30.59 21.66 52.23 2.10 23.19 0.93 3080 53,134 83.0 0.81 3.68 4.49 0.05 0.31 0.00 3090 9,105 14.2 1.8 1.13 2.93 0.21 1.07 0.08 Total 122,853 192.0 46.19 30.65 76.80 0.40 35.42 0.18

Kruzof/North Chichagof Island Road History Because Southeast Alaska is compromised of many islands, its road systems are isolated. There are no established communities or active logging camps located in the analysis area and it is only accessible by boat or float-plane. Road construction in the analysis area began in the mid-1960’s with the construction of the first portion of road #7590, beginning at the LTF site in Mud Bay. The road system was then expanded into the interior of the island as logging activities continued into the early 1970’s. The road system was eventually extended as far north as the area called Twin Lakes and into the upper reaches of the Iris Meadows area. Road construction and timber harvest began in 1970 at the Eagle River LTF and progressed across Kruzof Island as new areas were entered for timber harvest. The #7595 road system begins on the west side of Krestof Sound and ends short of Gilmer Bay on the west side of Kruzof Island. Road Management Objectives The data compiled from the road condition surveys (RCS) conducted in this area could be used to rank individual roads by totaling the number of problems recorded in the RCSs, but doing so may not truly reflect the importance of certain features. Based on examination of the RCS data, the number of key resource problems and concerns does not seem to be completely dependent on the current maintenance level assigned to the road. Rather, the number of problems and concerns is based on multiple factors, including the quality of the terrain, the number and types of streams the road crosses, and construction techniques used to build the road. All of the miles of road in the Assessment Area are managed at OML 1 or 2. The RCS data has shown that roads that are properly maintained or closed and put in storage produce the fewest resource problems. The disinvestments (or discontinuance of maintenance) of roads that have not been properly stored is leading to increased resource damage within the

Chapter 3 - Page 109 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Assessment Area. Therefore, if the objective maintenance criteria are not being met, then either road maintenance should increase or the road maintenance level should be reduced and the road should be put into storage correctly. Road management decisions often depend on future plans for the area and road maintenance funding. In some instances, low road maintenance funding has led to the reduction in annual maintenance. Subsequently, the amount of deferred maintenance has increased. Deferred maintenance results in a backlog of maintenance tasks that need to be performed. With the continued low funding for road maintenance, the agency will have to determine which roads are necessary and which roads are not. There is a possibility that some roads or entire road systems will have to be closed completely so that maintenance funds can be focused on roads that are essential for administration, commercial activities, and public use. The Sitka Ranger District is currently completing an Access and Travel Management (ATM) Plan. This plan is likely to recommend changing the maintenance levels for some roads including changing some OML 2 roads (open) to OML 1 (closed). Roads deemed unnecessary may be decommissioned and removed from the National Forest Road System. There are several non system roads which will be recommended to be re-included in the classified system. Road management also takes into account changes in usage trends. Changes in use, such as increasing or decreasing recreational or administrative traffic, can be used to plan for changes in the maintenance or structure of a road. Provided funding is available, trends can be properly analyzed and programs can be implemented to accommodate for change in the use or necessity of a road. Public Road Use Those who wish to use the forest roads in the Assessment Area must boat to them. Use of these roads has been estimated through public comments, outfitter/guide surveys, and RCS results. RCS data include signs of vehicle traffic at waterbars and the presence of blocking structures. In the Assessment Area, use has been solely OHV related. The Forest Plan and the Forest Travel Plan state that all forest roads in the Assessment Area are open to the public and may be used in accordance with the appropriate maintenance level. Public use of motorized vehicles may temporarily be prohibited for safety reasons during maintenance or commercial activities. However, all forest roads in the Assessment Area are continuously open to non-motorized and foot traffic, although most OML 1 roads have earthen barriers and heavy brush which can make walking challenging. Public use of road systems within the Assessment Area is expected to remain predominantly OHV. Public comment regarding road access indicates a desire for more roads open to all types of use. The use of OHVs on the National Forest System Roads in the Assessment Area is expected to remain high if not increase in the coming years. As more roads become impassable due to brush growth and washouts, OHV use is likely to become concentrated on the roads that are more accessible. Concentrated use, like that currently occurring in the Shelikof Bay area can lead to resource damage. As the RCS database is updated and more public comments are compiled it will become more apparent which roads are becoming impassable and which roads are receiving the greatest

Chapter 3 - Page 110 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

amount of use. Administrative Road Use Various Federal, state, and local agencies use the existing road system for utilities maintenance, research, inventories, and field monitoring for projects involving fish, wildlife, and forest vegetation. The existing transportation structure helps reduce the costs and time associated with field observations. Law enforcement activities in the area are relatively infrequent, but when they do occur, the road system is utilized. If timber harvests are planned within the Assessment Area’s Timber Production LUDs, then some additional roads may be needed to facilitate harvest activities. Administrative use of the road systems in the Assessment Area is expected to remain consistent with current levels. If public use continues to increase, then administrative traffic might also increase to respond to an increased need for monitoring and law enforcement. The level of administrative use of forest roads will also depend on the number of special use permitees and the size, number, and location of timber and public works contracts. Commercial Road Use Forest roads in the Assessment Area have many commercial users, including tour operators. Commercial use of the Assessment Area road system by small operators (primarily in the tourism industry) is expected to increase. Some road systems are used for commercial purposes to carry out thinning contracts and other forest stand improvement activities in areas where timber harvests have taken place. The remote road systems in the Assessment Area also see some use by commercial outfitters and guides, particularly OHV tours. Marine Access Facilities (MAF) With the decline of timber sale activities, the Assessment Area MAFs have become popular with recreationists who use them to access remote forest roads. MAFs (formerly LTFs) were constructed for the commercial transfer of machinery and timber. Because they were not designed to accommodate the loading and unloading of small craft, those who attempt to use them for recreation or administrative purposes may find them difficult to use. Since forest roads in the Assessment Area will continue to be used for administrative purposes and may experience increased public and commercial use, it is likely that use of MAFs will increase.

Chapter 3 - Page 111 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Recreation Use and Facilities

The Assessment Area possesses a remarkable and unique combination of natural features. These features include inland waterways with cobbled shorelines, large white and black sand beaches on the exposed western coastline, rugged mountain terrain, as well as a number of volcanic features (a large symmetrical volcanic cone, a number of smaller volcanic ridges and lava fields) and unusual viewing of saltwater and freshwater fish and wildlife populations. Outdoor recreation opportunities available in the Tongass National Forest play an important role in the quality of life for the majority of Southeast Alaska residents. Many residents have favorite places where they go to fish, hunt, beachcomb, hike, or just to get away. Many non- residents visit the Tongass to participate in these same activities (USDA FS 1997 [Forest Plan FEIS], p. 1-4). The Forest Service’s authority for management of National Forest System (NFS) lands extends from the uplands to the mean high tide mark along the beaches. The State of Alaska has management authority from mean high tide into the saltwater. Though the Forest Service has no authority to manage activities that take place below the mean high tide mark, the agency cannot ignore such activities because they are intricately related to the recreation experiences that take place on NFS lands. Thus, a holistic approach that includes recreational activities occurring in or near saltwater is called for when assessing the recreation resource. For this reason, this section will address both saltwater and land based recreation activities. Recreation Facilities, Sites, and Use The following narrative describes recreation use in the Assessment Area by Value Comparison Unit (VCU). Unless otherwise noted, all access to the forest is by boat, plane or in the case of old logging roads by OHVs or bicycles. The most common recreation activities that occur in the area are power boating, ATV riding on the old logging roads and beaches, hunting, camping in Forest Service cabins and shelters, saltwater fishing, sightseeing, biking, and hiking. In addition, areas identified in the Revised Sitka District Coastal Management Program: Public Use Management Plan (CBS PD 1993) as offering outstanding recreation and subsistence opportunities are noted in the text that follows. VCU 3050 Kalinin Bay is the largest bay in this VCU and the most protected anchorage. It is used year round by commercial and recreational boaters, as well as 100-foot fish buying barge in the summer. Besides buying fish, this barge has the capacity to refuel and restock commercial fishing boats. Boat generator noise and electric lights are often observed within this bay, especially during the late spring, summer and early fall. The bay is large enough to accommodate an average of fifteen boats at anchor per night. The immediate shoreline within the bay is used by the boaters for walking and campfires. A large section of this VCU was selected by the State of Alaska and includes the Sealion Cove Trail. This whole selection area has been identified as a Special Management Area in the Sitka District Coastal Public Use Management Plan (1993). This trail is 2.5 miles long and starts at Kalinin Bay, winding uphill to a small pass, which includes views of rock cliffs and an unnamed lake, then downhill, traveling next to a muskeg, through an old growth forest to the north end of Sealion Cove beach. The people of northern Southeast treasure this spot because a white sand beach is rare, it is accessible by land, and it is large (two miles in

Chapter 3 - Page 112 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment length). This trail is not only used by the independent traveler but many outfitters include the trail in their tours. Because this is a state owned trail, the guides are under state permits. The northern coast of this VCU is fished heavily by commercial boats, and guided and unguided sports operators. Sinitsin Island located north and east of the Kalinin Bay, entrance has been identified by as a Special Management Area because of its importance to subsistence harvesting of black seaweed. VCU 3040 Boats can anchor in Sinitsin Bay but rarely do because they are vulnerable to northernly storms. This bay is most often used for daily deer hunting excursions in the fall. This area is generally used by the saltwater charter boat operators for fishing. VCU 3030 Sukoi Straits VCU includes the saltwater passage between Partofshikof and Kruzof Islands, and the Drypass Area. This passage area is used by deer and duck hunters extensively during late summer through early winter. Just south of the Drypass area is the Eagle River outflow. A road system (7595) extends west along the Eagle River drainage to Twin Lakes and continues to Gilmer Bay in VCU 3060. The Road Management Objective (RMO) (1993) for this road system is to encourage ATV, pedestrian and non-motorized vehicle use and discourage use of motor vehicles with a width of over 50 inches. At this time, this road system is unavailable for OHV use because there is inadequate passage across fish streams caused by bridge failures. A third of this VCU has been harvested and roaded. Both the Drypass Area and the Eagle River road system have been identified as a Special Management Area by the Sitka Coastal Zone Management Plan (1993). VCU 3060 Gilmer Bay has an identified anchorage but is rarely used because of its vulnerability to southeastern storms. The Eagle River road system ends at the estuary of this bay and is accessed by ATV users for the purpose of hunting and sightseeing. The RMO (1993) for this road system is to encourage ATV, pedestrian and non-motorized vehicle use and to discourage use of motor vehicles with a width of over 50 inches. Sitka Coastal Zone Management Plan identified the Gilmer Bay section of the Eagle River Road as part of the Special Management Area in VCU 3030. There is another section of road (7591) from the Mud Bay road system that was built into this VCU 3060. The RMO (1993) for this road system is to encourage ATV, pedestrian and non- motorized vehicle use. Prohibit use by motorized vehicles with Gross Vehicle Weight in excess of 1000 pounds. A closure order has been issued for this prohibited use. At this time, this road system is unavailable for OHV use because there is inadequate passage across fish streams caused by bridge failures. Fifty percent of this VCU has been roaded and harvested. VCU 3090 Krestof Sound VCU encompasses half of Krestof Island, the Magoun State Marine Park, and the Mud Bay area on Kruzof Island. On the eastern side of the VCU is DeGroff Bay, a large secluded bay that can only be entered by large boats during high tide. A number of overnight anchorages can be safely used within this bay. This area is used for crabbing, hunting and

Chapter 3 - Page 113 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

exploring by boaters. Magoun State Marine Park is a group of islands at the base of the VCU. This area is one of the few spots that are used for sport fishing and camping by people who own skiffs. These types of activities are possible because of the natural protection of the islands’ coves and the easy access from Sitka. Sitka Coastal Zone Management Plan identifies the Magoun Islands/Port Krestof State Marine Park as a Special Management Area. Mud Bay is the access point for the Forest Road 7590. It is .75 miles from the saltwater to VCU 3070 boundary, where the road system extents into VCU 3070 for 3.5 miles to Shelikof Bay and 2.5 air miles north and south from 7590 into the island’s interior. There is a Forest Service 3-sided shelter (no records of use) at Mud Bay and a gravel ramp for offloading OHVs, bicycles and camping equipment. People either ride or hike the road to access the two Forest Service cabins, Iris Meadows or North Beach. The RMO (1993) for this road system is to encourage ATV, pedestrian and non-motorized vehicle use. Prohibit use by motorized vehicles with Gross Vehicle Weight in excess of 1000 pounds. A closure order has been issued for this prohibited useA Forest Service administrative storage shed is also located in this area. Sitka Coastal Zone Management Plan identifies this area as a Special Management Area. In 2005, one outfitter and guide used this road system for giving tours on ATVs to a total of 200 people. The guide uses VCU 3070 and 3060 also. A simular use permit was issued in 2006. VCU 3070 Seventy five percent of this VCU has been roaded and harvested. Forest Road 7590 starts in VCU 3090 at Mud Bay and extents into VCU 3070. This road turns into 7591 and continues into VCU 3060. The RMO (1993) for these road systems is to encourage ATV, pedestrian and non-motorized vehicle use and prohibit use by motorized vehicles with Gross Vehicle Weight in excess of 1000 pounds. A closure order has been issued for this prohibited use. Two Forest Service cabins have been built on the shores of Shelikof Bay. They both have extensive black sand beaches in front of them. North Beach cabin (2005-233 people stayed at the cabin) can be accessed by Forest Service road 7591 and the Shelikof cabin (2005-120 people stayed at the cabin) is accessible using Forest Service Road 7590 and walking the last mile from the road to the cabin. A small plane could access both cabins by landing on their respective beaches during low tide. There is no boat access to these cabins because the coast saltwater and shoreline is to rough. All of Forest Service road 7590 and 7591, the Iris Meadow area and the cabins and beach areas (8 square miles) have all been identified in the Sitka Coastal Zone Management Plan as a Special Management Area. VCU 3080 This VCU has no road system and is accessed by boat or small planes landing on beaches. This area is very scenic because of the old volcanic landforms. Mount Edgecumbe is the largest of the four intact volcanic cones. Crater Ridge is the reminisce of the largest cone on the island after it’s top was blown off during a volcanic episode. There are two cabins within this VCU, Brent’s Beach and Fred’s Creek. Both cabins are located on the eastern shore of Kruzof Island. Brent’s Beach has a large sand beach just south of the cabin and accommodated 280 people in 2005. Fred’s Creek cabin (2005-427 people stayed at the cabin) was replaced two years ago and

Chapter 3 - Page 114 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment within a 150 yards from the cabin the Mount Edgecumbe Trail begins. This National Recreation Trail is a seven miles hike with a 3000’ elevation change to the Mount Edgecumbe ridge top. The Mount Edgecumbe 3-sided Trail Shelter (no records of use) is located four miles from the cabin. Fred’s Creek cabin,the Mount Edgecumbe Trail, and 1.5 miles of northern shoreline are identified in the Sitka Coastal Zone Management Plan as a Special Management Area. Three outfitters and guides are permitted on into this VCU and 700 service days were recorded in 2005. Saint Lazaria Island is due south of this VCU and is a part of the Alaska Maritime Wildlife Refuge and managed by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This island is a Special Management Area in the Sitka Coastal Zone Management Plan. Management Direction The integrated management of all resources in the Assessment Area, including recreation resources, is directed by the goals, objectives, and desired conditions stated in the Forest Plan. Forest management is accomplished by following the standards and guidelines set forth for each resource as well as for each land use designation (LUD). Recreational Opportunity Spectrum (ROS): Trends The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) is a Forest Service classification system used to map the types of recreation experiences available on forests (USDA FS 1982). There are seven ROS classifications: Primitive, Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized, Semi-Primitive Motorized, Roaded Natural, Roaded Modified, Rural, and Urban. Indicators that provide the parameters for the type of recreation experience to expect have been identified for each ROS classification. These indicators are visual quality, access, remoteness, visitor management, on-site recreation development, social encounters, and visitor impacts (see Appendix F). ROS mapping reflects the actual condition of the recreation resource (i.e., what kind of recreation experience the resource currently provides). The Forest Plan specifies the goals, objectives, and desired conditions for each ROS classification. It also associates a specific ROS classification with each LUD and provides guidance for managing the LUDs to achieve a particular type of recreation experience. Table 3-44 lists the Forest Plan direction for the VCUs within the Assessment Area. Figure 3-32 displays the ROS classifications associated with the LUDs in the Assessment Area.

Chapter 3 - Page 115 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Table 3-44. Forest Plan Direction for Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) by Land Use Designation (LUD)

VCU Name LUD ROS Direction 3050 Sealion Cove Old-growth Habitat Reserve Semi-Primitive 3040 Sinitsin Bay Old-growth Habitat Reserve Semi-Primitive

3030 Sukoi Strait Semi-Remote Recreation Semi-Primitive Old-growth Habitat Reserve Semi-Primitive

Timber Production Primitive to Urban

3060 Gilmer Bay Old-growth Habitat Reserve Semi-Primitive

Modified Landscape Semi-Primitive to Roaded Modified

Timber Production Primitive to Urban

3070 Curaca Cove (Shelikof) Modified Landscape Semi-Primitive to Roaded Modified Semi-Remote Recreation Semi-Primitive (Doesn’t meet) 3080 Mount Edgecumbe Special Interest Area Primitive to Semi- Primitive Modified Landscape Semi-Primitive to Roaded Modified Source: USDA FS [Forest Plan] 1997

Chapter 3 - Page 116

Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

The trend for recreation opportunities on 75% of Kruzof Landscape Analysis area will continue into the future until a large human disturbance such as timber harvest occurs. This type of disturbance is only allowed in Timber Production, Modified Landscape, and Scenic Viewshed LUDs, which account for a third of the project area. Twenty five percent of the project area has been harvested and roaded. The trend in these areas from the 1950s through the 1990s, had been ground-disturbing activities associated with timber harvest. These disturbed areas created a more developed types of recreation experiences. With the decline of timber harvest activities, these areas are reverting to a more undeveloped recreation experience. The transformation of the landscape and associated move from a developed to an undeveloped recreation experience can be hastened by silvicultural enhancement techniques. There has been a gradual shift in preference for a particular type of recreation experience. More and more people are seeking undeveloped types of recreation experiences, using the forest for spiritual, physical, and mental rest and renewal (USDA FS 1998b; Hammitt 1987). One indicator of social preferences regarding recreation is the survey administered to members of the Alaska Recreation Tourism Group between October 2000 and September 2001. A 24 percent response rate was obtained for this survey (Fay 2003 using 2002 data from the Alaska Department of Community and Economic Development). The average respondent was 54 years old and lived in a household of 2.4 people. The majority of the respondents were female (56 percent), and 49 percent were employed full-time. Table 3-45 summarizes the respondents’ attitudes toward land management and congestion. One of the limitations of this study identified by the researchers is that it fails to assess the opinions and preferences of local residents. The Fay study recommends that the State consider local preferences when making any decisions regarding recreation and tourism. This research suggests that a greater number of undeveloped areas are needed in order for visiting tourists to continue to be satisfied with their recreation experience. However, at this time, visitors’ expectations are being met; they did not feel that there were too many people or motorized vehicles in the areas that they were using.

Chapter 3 - Page 118 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Table 3-45. Alaska Visitor Statistics Program, October 2000 through September 2001

Statements Measuring Percentage Statements Measuring Percentage Attitudes Toward Neutral or in Attitudes Toward Neutral or in Management Agreement with Congestion Agreement with Statement Statement More importance should be 82% The areas where I visited 44% places on keeping public lands in Alaska were more healthy than on helping people developed than I would use them as they want. have liked.

There should be more area 77% Generally speaking, I did 86% where hunting is not allowed not encounter more people so people can watch wildlife. than I would have liked in remote areas of Alaska.

There should be areas of 85% There was too much water 34% public lands where traffic (boats, large ships, commercially guided tours are barges, jet skis, etc.) in not allowed. places I visited in Alaska. There should be no limit on the 24% The noise level of air traffic 93% number of commercial tours (planes, helicopters) did that use public lands. not detract from the enjoyment of my visit to Alaska. Too much tourism will spoil 66% Alaska communities and culture.

I am not concerned about too 41% much tourism hurting public lands, waters and wildlife.

I get less satisfaction from 58% recreational activities on public lands if I have to pay a fee to use the area. Source: Fay 2003 presenting 2002 data from the Alaska Department of Community and Economic Development.

An emerging recreation trend on the Sitka Ranger District is an increase in the use of Off Highway Vehicles (OHV). This type of use is motorized and must be managed in accordance with Forest Plan standards and guidelines set forth for all resources. This motorized activity is permitted in all LUDs except for Wilderness and Remote Recreation, and any area to which a Primitive or Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized ROS classification has been assigned (existing or goal). The wet weather typical of Southeast Alaska renders some lands particularly vulnerable to resource damage. Hardened trails or road prisms are required to prevent ecological damage resulting from OHV use. Forest Plan LUD direction recommends that Tongass National Forest resources be managed to compliment private recreation facilities. Some people are exploring the possibility of

Chapter 3 - Page 119 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment constructing lodges on private lands within the Assessment Area (e.g., at the Siginaka Islands, St. John Baptist Bay, and Katlian Bay). Both guided and unguided recreation and tourism levels for the area are high and continue to increase. In 2001, 81 percent of people who visited Alaska traveled to Southeast Alaska and the Tongass National Forest. Recreation use on the forest has grown 70 percent in the last decade. Most people visit the forest to view scenery and wildlife (Pendleton 2003). Between 1988 and 2000 there was a 390 percent increase in the number of Recreation Special Use Permits issued in the Alaska Region (Marshall, 2003). These increases need to be absorbed into the management of the recreation resource program while still preserving the forest management direction. Forest Plan direction for tourism development in the Assessment Area is integrally tied to the residents’ recreation use of the forest. The Plan allows up to half of the recreation carrying capacity of the forest to be allotted to commercial uses. A recreation carrying capacity is the estimated maximum number of groups of people who could recreate in an area and still have a specified type of recreation experience. It is used to make informed decisions about the amount and type of recreation use that will be allowed in a given area. A social carrying capacity was established along of the coastline (i.e., from mean high tide to half a mile inland) of the Sitka District in 1998 to inform managers of the maximum number of people that could be present in an area at one time (one day span) while maintaining an acceptable recreation experience (USDA FS 1998b). This information was used to develop the Shoreline Outfitter/Guide Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (USDA FS 2002). The Shoreline Outfitter/Guide Final EIS was completed in 2004. This document determined the outfitter carry capacity allotment and the non-guided carrying capacity along the coastline of Kruzof Island.. A trend in the Forest Service’s management of recreation resources is the integration of recreation information with other groups such as the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Sitka Trails, and the City and Borough of Sitka. When the Northern Southeast Area Plan (Alaska Department of Natural Resources 2002) and the Shoreline Outfitter/Guide DEIS (USDA FS 2002) were being prepared, the Alaska Department Natural Resources and Forest Service shared inventoried information and management strategies so that the projects would compliment each other. Information from the Revised Sitka Coastal Zone Management Program, Public Use Management Plan (CBS PD 1993) was also incorporated into Shoreline project. The Forest Service’s recreation staff will continue this type of interagency cooperation.

Chapter 3 - Page 120 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Chapter 4 – Recommendations and Opportunities

Introduction This chapter includes recommendations for future management activities and projects within the Assessment Area. These recommendations were developed collaboratively by ID Team members through discussion of the results of the analyses performed for this landscape assessment. The chapter begins with a discussion of general recommendations for the Assessment Area that is organized by each resource area. The chapter concludes with specific recommendations and opportunities for activities in the Value Comparison Units (VCU) within the Assessment Area.

Though the opportunities and recommendations within this chapter are laid out by individual resources, most restoration recommendations provide benefits to multiple resources. Two notable recommendations include thinning and road maintenance. Thinning both upland and riparian stands will improve stand structure and understory development, thereby improving wildlife habitat. The resultant increased size of trees and improved look of the forest improves people’s recreation experience. Thinning can also increase the size of riparian trees for future recruitment to stream channels, improving fish habitat. Road maintenance, restoration, and improvements can improve fish and wildlife habitats by reducing or eliminating migration barriers, reduce sedimentation improving water quality, and provide safer and increased recreational use opportunities.

General Opportunities and Recommendations

Soils Continued updates to the CLU layers or other soil resource inventory are valuable. During any project within the Assessment Area, soil mapping should be looked at and problems, if they exist, fixed. Landslide rehabilitation should be conducted when slides are in managed areas or affect other resources. A more in-depth and detailed analysis of landslide data should be completed to assess the feasibility and stability of any new road construction or large-scale timber harvest activities. Additionally, due to the high rates of landslides within the Assessment Area, all new roads and timber harvest should be inventoried by a soil scientist during the planning process to assess and/or mitigate their risk or potential for producing landslides.

Chapter 4 - Page 1 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Hydrology and Fisheries

Watershed Rehabilitation

Riparian Thinning Treatment Areas Within the Assessment Area, many of the previously harvested stands associated with riparian areas are approaching or have reached the age and size at which canopy closure begins to occur, and where height and diameter growth slows down. Silviculturists and other resource specialists, including those from fisheries, wildlife, hydrology, and soils, should collectively produce prescriptions for these areas and implement thinning activities within the next ten years. Potential silvicultural treatments should address the desirable species mix, understory biodiversity, and site conditions. General suggestions for implementing riparian regeneration treatments are listed in Appendix G of the Forest Plan.

In-stream Large Woody Debris Future watershed rehabilitation should continue the placement of large wood (LW) into streams currently lacking large wood. Where available, stream survey information should be used to assess the current condition and trends of key stream habitats and to determine the locations at which additional in-stream LW is needed. Additional stream surveys should be completed in areas impacted by past management activities for which data are lacking.

Road Maintenance and Restoration Restoration work should involve placing or removing drainage structures and/or ditching at existing washout sites, cleaning, replacing or removing partially plugged culverts, stabilizing or removing unstable road fills and cutbanks, and removing artificial barriers to fish passage (as determined from road condition surveys and inventories, as well as the Sitka Ranger District Roads Analysis and OHV Plan when completed).

Future Watershed Work During project level planning, we recommend that the following work be completed: 1) Assess the major sub-basins and reaches within each watershed, and determine the site-specific potential for management-induced sediment production, transport, and deposition. 2) Complete inventories of existing system and non-system roads to assess sediment source areas and potential fish barriers, and recommend road rehabilitation work, closure, or removal. 3) Complete additional stream riparian transects by channel types to verify and improve the existing stream riparian width information. 4) Update the existing stream, fen, and stream riparian GIS layers using field verification, digital orthophoto overlays, and aerial photo interpretation. Use this to update the information presented in this landscape assessment. 5) Use available stream survey information or complete additional stream surveys for representative channel reaches to assess the current condition and trends of key stream habitat within planning area watersheds. As directed in

Chapter 4 - Page 2 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

the 1997 Forest Plan, compare stream survey information (by channel type) to Regional Fish Habitat Objectives (Width to Depth Ratio, Percent Pool Area, Percent Pool Length, amount and distribution of Large Woody Debris, etc.).

Forest Vegetation

Timber Harvest Present market conditions, in conjunction with high logging and transportation costs, make timber sales on the Sitka Ranger district currently less attractive to existing purchasers in Wrangell and Hoonah. A Gate 1 project plan was completed for the suitable timber base on Kruzof Island in September 2005 and determined that further investment of resources and capital to prepare a timber sale is not warranted at this time. Although currently non-existent, a small-scale value added industry producing dried and planed finished lumber/wood products has potential in Sitka and surrounding area, particularly with the recently acquired Alaska grade stamps. Currently Sitka is lacking the infrastructure for producing value added wood products (e.g. dry kilns, planers etc…). A limited usable road system is also a limiting factor. These factors make this a risky undertaking, although there is potential for an ambitious entrepreneur with the ability to invest or pursue grant opportunities to build a viable small-scale industry. Consequently, in the short term within the Assessment Area, economically viable timber sale opportunities are quite limited although there is interest as evidenced by four bids received for the recent advertisement of the Last Call small timber sale. Given the current situation, viable opportunities for timber harvest in support of the Tongass Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ) will be primarily limited to small sales along the existing Mud Bay road system in VCU 307. When market conditions improve larger timber sale opportunities will be re-evaluated that are consistent with forest plan within the development land use designations

Commercial Thinning Commercial thinning of young-growth has potential as new markets are developed for small diameter wood, and/or technology improves to allow for economically viable selective harvest that does not damage residual crop trees. Most young-growth stands within the analysis area are approximately 60-70 years from meeting the minimum 100- year rotation age for regeneration harvest (even-aged management such as clear cutting). Young-growth stands in VCU 3070 closest to Mud Bay are the oldest stands in the Assessment Area that are within a development LUD. These stands should be the first to be evaluated for commercial thinning opportunities.

Silvicultural treatments have potential to enhance or maintain wildlife and fisheries habitat values. Specific objectives should be determined so that funding can be pursued and prescriptions can be developed (see also Hydrology and Wildlife recommendations). The remaining unthinned young-growth stands within the suitable timber base should be reevaluated for thinning needs as most stands have reached or are nearing the end of the precommercial thinning window of opportunity.

Chapter 4 - Page 3 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Wildlife and Biological Diversity

The Forest Plan contains a comprehensive conservation strategy to maintain viable populations of native and desired non-native fish and wildlife species and subspecies that may be associated with old-growth forests (Forest Plan 1997, p. 3-76). This strategy involves the maintenance of a system of old-growth reserves (OGR) designed to provide old-growth habitats in combination with other non-development Land Use Designations (LUD). This strategy also includes the maintenance of riparian, beach, estuary and other species-specific key habitats as well as connectivity between OGR and non-development LUDs. The OGR and non-development LUDs within the Assessment Area appear to be functioning to maintain biodiversity. As stated in the Forest Plan, the habitat quality and location of small OGRs should be assessed during any project level analysis.

Timber harvest activities have reduced the availability of low elevation habitat for wildlife. However, less than 6 percent of the NFS Land in the area has been harvested, so the effects of timber harvests on connectivity have been limited. Although the location of non-development LUDs and the availability of productive old-growth (POG) and riparian, beach and estuary buffers appear to provide connectivity for most of the analysis area, VCU 3070 should be carefully assessed in the future due to intensive harvest activities.

General Opportunities and Recommendations

Habitat Connectivity • Work with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to identify key connectivity routes between non- development LUDs. • Maintain habitat connections by utilizing innovative timber harvest techniques to replicate natural disturbances (reduce opening size, selective harvest). • Determine if thinning activities in Riparian Management Areas (RMAs) would benefit habitat connectivity and move areas toward POG. This would require review of thinning contracts and field work to determine where thinning had been completed and where thinning could improve habitat. • Update the GIS databases to reflect private land harvest activities. • Update the GIS databases so that they contain the location and use status of public and private trails and roads.

Brown Bears • Identify criteria to characterize critical brown bear riparian foraging habitat. • Assess whether there are opportunities to thin previously harvested stands (and previously thinned stands) to enhance riparian habitat.

Deer and Marten • Continue to identify and evaluate deer winter use habitat. Compile GIS data and acquire information on deer winter use from ADF&G. • Conduct field surveys for deer winter habitat.

Chapter 4 - Page 4 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

• Run the deer model to determine habitat capability and carrying capacity in all VCUs. Use outputs to identify key connectivity areas for future habitat improvement projects. • Validate the Habitat Capability Model for deer and marten. Work to improve the output of these models. • Inventory all Tier I and II stands (SRD 2005) for development of wildlife habitat enhancement prescriptions. Utilize wood quantity and quality information to evaluate potential for stewardship contracts and small sales. • Determine whether opportunities exist to thin previously harvested stands and previously thinned stands to enhance forage for black-tail deer, especially in deer winter habitat. Evaluate opportunities for potential to accomplish habitat enhancement objectives using stewardship contracts and/or small sales. • Identify a method to assess the population size of Sitka black-tailed deer and the location of winter deer habitat.

Heritage Resources

The Forest Plan specifies several management activities related to Heritage Resources, including project clearance, project implementation, mitigation measures, enhancement measures, and site inspections. The National Historic Preservation Act also governs the ways in which land management activities are carried out. This Act mandates that Federal agencies evaluate the potential effects of undertakings to historic properties. Section 106 of the Act encompasses this process, and includes clearance, implementation, and mitigation procedures. Most archeological investigations conducted by land managing agencies are performed to comply with this legislation. Perhaps the most important investigations are those performed to identify, document, and evaluate the significance of historic and prehistoric sites. Site inspection and enhancement can also be conducted in conjunction with other project activities or as Heritage projects.

The Assessment Area was a place of great significance in the history of Southeast Alaska. Within the analysis area there are heritage sites that represent the Tlingit, Russian, and early American eras as well as more recent events such as fur farming, World War II, and timber harvesting. Heritage projects in the analysis area could include monitoring, surveying, excavating, and interpretation activities. Other opportunities relating to heritage resources within the analysis area are listed below.

The prehistory and history of the analysis area is poorly understood, and there are many opportunities for cultural resource investigations throughout the analysis area.

Recommendations common to all VCUs: • The vast majority of the analysis area has received few cultural resource surveys to identify sites. The northeast section of the Kruzof Island coast has received relatively more cultural resource surveys than any other section of the analysis area. However, undocumented cultural resources are known to exist along much of the coastline in the analysis area. Several areas, including Krestof and

Chapter 4 - Page 5 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Partofshikof Islands have received very little archaeological attention. • Documented sites should be examined periodically to assess the current condition and verify the accuracy of site documentation. • Investigations could greatly increase our understanding of local and regional prehistoric land use, settlement patterns, and historic events. The results of these investigations could be used for future land management decisions, and for public presentations that could enhance public understanding of historic patterns. • Passport In Time (PIT) projects may be used to conduct future cultural resource investigations.

Roads

Summary Roads within the Assessment Area are, for the most part, deteriorating. Most OML 1 roads have had the majority of their drainage structures removed and are being allowed to “brush in” in accordance with the Road Management Objectives. However, some continue to have drainage and erosion problems that are contributing to resource damage. The OML 2 roads have neither been brushed nor maintained as outlined in the Forest Service Manual and in some locations drainage and erosion problems are developing. There are no OML 3 and 4 roads in the analysis area

Analysis of Road Condition Survey (RCS) data shows that portions of the existing road system may be contributing to resource damage. Motorized vehicle use on OML 1 and 2 roads and unauthorized roads are causing resource damage within the Assessment Area. The deteriorating road system is becoming inadequate for the current level of public, commercial, and administrative use. The public has expressed a desire for more designated routes and better quality routes to be used for OHV recreation and subsistence purposes.

Road Maintenance and Restoration Restoration work should involve placing or removing drainage structures and/or ditching at existing washout sites, cleaning partially plugged culverts, stabilizing or removing unstable road fills and cut-banks, and removing artificial barriers to fish passage (as determined from completed and planned road inventories).

Road Condition Surveys All roads in the Assessment Area should be periodically reviewed so that the RCS database may be kept current. This database is used as a tool in decision-making, and an informed decision is predicated on current data. The Assessment Area contains approximately 46 miles of classified National Forest System Road and 35 miles of unclassified road for which no RCS data have been collected. Continuation of surveys on these roads will provide the data needed to address access management and usage issues as well as maintenance needs now and in the future. The surveys will also identify locations along roads at which resources damage is currently occurring or is likely to occur. Opportunities to repair these roads and damaged resources will arise with the collection and analysis of RCS data.

Chapter 4 - Page 6 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Table 4-1. Classified Roads in the Assessment Area Lacking RCS Data

Road Number Road Name/Location 75952 Unknown / west end of rd. 7595

Road condition survey data collection on unclassified roads will be primarily focused on locations with high road densities.

Finishing the RCSs in the Assessment Area will further the effort to obtain a complete database of National Forest System Roads on the Sitka Ranger District.

Roads Analysis Process (RAP) and Access and Travel Management Plan (ATM) The Roads Analysis Process (RAP) is an integrated approach to transportation planning that takes into account the ecological, social, and economical impacts of existing and planned roads. The RAP for Kruzof Island was built from the Sitka Sound Landscape Assessment and included technical recommendations for roads. The Access and Travel Management Plan (ATM) for the Sitka Ranger District is a comprehensive plan that will utilize the recommendations from the multiple RAPs that have been completed for the district to formulate a transportation and access strategy for the future.

Signage All road users would benefit from proper signing along roads. Signs providing information on the types of access allowed, road numbers, hazards, and directions should be placed on the forest roads that are to remain part of the National Forest Road System.

Marine Access Facilities (MAF) An opportunity exists for the Forest Service to work cooperatively with multiple agencies and landowners to improve the MAFs that provide access to road systems that are needed for commercial, administrative, or public access. A number of users would benefit from enhancing access to existing road and trail systems and providing safe loading and unloading areas at salt water. Improvement of the MAFs will be considered in the RAP and ATM.

Opportunities for Roads Because roads often cross VCU boundaries, recommendations for roads are listed in this section by road and summarized in the VCU recommendation section.

Roads 7590, 7591, and adjoining roads The Mud Bay Road System, which is currently in a modified landscape LUD, is in poor condition. Road condition surveys should be completed for the roads that have not been surveyed, and repairs should be completed on road portions that are contributing to resource damage. If decommissioned, these roads could be maintained as hiking trails. There are several unauthorized roads on this system that are recommended to be added to the system roads when the ATM is finalized.

Chapter 4 - Page 7 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Roads 7595 and adjoining roads The Gilmer Bay road system is an Operational Maintenance Level 1 road system, and will remain as such until all the failing fish stream crossings are repaired and or brought into accordance with Alaska State regulations. All branching roads are also closed due to no access from the main road. This system is located in a Timber production LUD. It could be improved for both recreation and timber uses. By maintaining the road and repairing or replacing existing structures, access for motorized recreation and fish passage would both be improved. Small timber sale opportunities may exist in this area; these sales could be combined with road maintenance activities in stewardship contracts. The remaining classified and non classified roads that are in this LUD should be scrutinized in the RAP and ATM and should be considered for storage and closure. Road storage and closure may or may not accommodate OHV use. In the meantime, these roads could be enhanced for foot traffic.

Transportation Recommendations for Further Work

• Conduct field visits to evaluate existing Road Condition Survey data and propose alternatives for correcting recorded deficiencies to allow for an open route designation. • Evaluate safety concerns, failure and problem mechanisms, erosion features, site conditions, and fish blockages associated with specific roads, and set priorities for corrective measures. • Evaluate current and planned road usage as well as usage trends through further public comment, trail counters, etc. • Finalize and implement the new Access and Travel Management designations for the Assessment Area. Include in this measure the revised Road Management Objectives that reflect the new traffic management strategies for various administrative, commercial, recreational, and subsistence uses of the road system. • Evaluate Marine Access Facilities for possible improvements or replacement.

Recreation Use and Facilities

Inventory, Monitoring, and Recreation Planning Opportunities The Forest Plan requires monitoring for recreation and tourism (USDA FS 1997, pp. 6-8). Monitoring is performed to determine whether the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) direction in the Forest Plan is being followed and whether Off Highway Vehicles (OHVs) are adversely affecting other resources. This information is incorporated and printed in the Tongass National Forest Annual Monitoring and Evaluation Report. This type of reporting will continue until Forest Plan direction is changed.

There is an opportunity to monitor forest areas for recreation use and compliance with the Forest Plan, and to use this data to update the Infrastructure database. Doing so could help secure more comprehensive funding for recreation management.

Chapter 4 - Page 8 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Specific opportunities for trail improvements, the construction of recreational facilities, and other activities are listed later in this chapter for each VCU.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum The Forest Plan specifies the type of recreation experience appropriate for each Land Use Designation (LUD). However, the actual conditions within LUDs do not always provide for the appropriate type of recreation experience. A Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) inventory was completed in 1985, and areas inventoried have been monitored annually for vegetation disturbance. This monitoring has revealed locations at which changes in vegetation have changed the type of recreation experience available.

Most of the changes in the types of recreation experiences available in the Assessment Area have been from an undeveloped experience to a more developed experience. The majority of these changes are the result of ground disturbing activities associated with timber harvest. Silvicultural regeneration techniques intended to hasten the regeneration of forest vegetation could be applied in those LUDs that do not comply with Forest Plan ROS direction. This would reduce the amount of time that it would take for the forest to convert to a more undeveloped looking state.

Timber harvest is not the only reason some LUDs do not comply with Forest Plan ROS direction. Some LUDs are out of compliance not because they have been physically altered but because the definitions from the 1985 ROS guidelines were changed in the 1997 Forest Plan. The recreation experiences available in these LUDs need to be inventoried again and evaluated against current Forest Plan standards and guidelines. Conditions may convert naturally over time to bring the areas in compliance with Forest Plan ROS direction. Alternatively, a Forest Plan amendment may be needed to change the LUD designation to reflect the existing recreation experience provided by the area.

The Assessment Area LUDs that currently offer a type of recreation experience that is inappropriate for the LUD are identified in the section of this chapter titled Recommendations by VCU. Activities that could help bring these LUDs into compliance with the Forest Plan are also listed in that section.

Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Use Many opportunities exist to develop more areas for Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) use without causing further resource damage. The Forest Service manages many old roads that could be maintained for this purpose. The Sitka Ranger District is currently working on an access and travel management environmental assessment for OHV use. This document will outline what is open for OHV use and implements the new OHV regulation for the Forest Service. There is a high demand for public and guided OHV use within the project area.

Assessment Area roads that are best suited for providing OHV opportunities are listed in the section of this chapter that describes specific recommendations for each VCU. These roads were considered in the context of all of the other resources and how they would be affected by allowing OHV use on the roads.

Chapter 4 - Page 9 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Special Use Permits (SUP) for Recreation Opportunities exist for recreation special uses permits throughout the Assessment Area. A carrying capacity allotment for outfitters and guides was implemented in 2004 along the shoreline in this area. This allotment only extends .5 miles into the interior of the island. A comprehensive outfitter and guide carrying capacity allotment for the interior areas will not be considered until the ROS experience can no longer be achieved by the permitted guides.

Interpretation Program Opportunities exist to develop interpretive programs for the public that allow the Forest Service to sustain the recreation experience and opportunities. These programs should include school programs, cruise ship programs, interpretive walks, seasonal programs, Natural History programs, displays, and programs to make use of the environmental education publications the agency has produced. Many such programs already exist such as the Leave No Trace, Watchable Wildlife, and Limits of Acceptable Change programs.

Government, Agency, and Organization Relations The Sitka Ranger District’s Recreation Staff consistently interacts with a variety of tribes, federal and state agencies and local organizations (e.g., the City of Sitka, Alaska Mental Health, the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Sitka Tribe of Alaska, Sitka Trails, the National Park Service, and Sheldon Jackson College) to share ideas, information, and monies. The opportunity to maintain and further develop these collaborative relationships remains. Doing so would benefit all parties involved and would help insure the production of works that compliment one another.

Chapter 4 - Page 10 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Summary Recommendations by VCU

The following pages list the opportunities within and recommendations for each VCU within the Assessment Area. These recommendations were developed collaboratively by ID Team members through discussion of the results of the analyses performed for this landscape assessment.

Note that in the following lists, there is a difference between opportunities and recommendations. Recommendations are proposals the team considered and suggest for future projects. Opportunities means that the proposal has been brought forward to the team through various public involvement processes and should be considered in developing future projects, but the team feels that further analysis should be conducted prior to the proposal being recommended as a future project. Most opportunities begin with “Consider…” or use the verb “…could…”.

Maps of each VCU are provided for the reader’s convenience. No recommendations are listed for: VCU 3100 (Gavanski Island) because this VCU is comprised of Non-National Forest Land or for VCU 3020 (Neva Strait) as this VCU was included in the Sitka Sound Landscape Assessment.

Chapter 4 - Page 11 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Recommendations For and Opportunities Within VCU 3020: Neva Strait

Recommendations and opportunities were identified for this VCU within the Sitka Sound Landscape Assessment (USDA Forest Service 2004b).

Chapter 4 - Page 12

Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Recommendations For and Opportunities Within VCU 3030: Sukoi Strait

Soil/Hydrology/Fisheries • Remove existing drainage structures and repair other problem areas identified within the RCS. • Evaluate thinning opportunities in previously harvested RMAs for Fisheries and Watershed improvements. • Evaluate thinning opportunities for wildlife, fisheries, and riparian objectives in beach fringe, riparian management areas. • Conduct stream and habitat surveys to evaluate further opportunities and/or need for LW projects. • Conduct field surveys to verify and determine the impacts from restoration potential for landslide that have reached stream channels. • Evaluate stream crossings for OHV access on roads.

Forest Vegetation • Over the next 5 years reevaluate previously thinned stands in VCU 3030 for additional thinning needs. Conduct aerial reconnaissance and follow up with field recon as needed. Update FACTS database with revised thinning needs.

Wildlife and Biological Diversity • Stands 3030001274, 303000476, 303000477,303000373, 303000334 are adjacent to high quality deer winter deer habitat and were thinned approximately 13 years ago. Additional field surveys should be conducted to determine if additional thinning would improve wildlife habitat, increase access/connectivity and accelerate stand characteristics toward POG habitat. Silvicultural prescriptions would likely be composed of precommercial/commercial thinning or creation/maintenance of canopy gaps. • There is a medium OGR that is located in portions of VCU 3030, 3040 and 3050. It does not meet all basic criteria for allocating reserves as stated in the Tongass Forest Plan (USDA 1998) because it is not contiguous, separated by state of Alaska land in VCU 3050, and contains less than 2,500 acres of HPOG total. Relocating the medium OGR would likely increase the amount of early seral habitat within the LUD. Keep this medium OGR in its present location because of the amount of POG, its mostly unmodified characteristics and the state of Alaska has no current plans to harvest or otherwise develop their land. Should the state of Alaska decide to develop or modify the property this OGR LUD should be reviewed for consistency with the Tongass Forest Plan.

Roads • The Gilmer Bay road system (Road 7595 and adjoining roads) could be improved for both recreation and timber uses. By maintaining the road and repairing or replacing existing structures, access for motorized recreation and fish passage would both be improved. Small timber sale opportunities may exist in this area; these sales could be combined with road maintenance activities in stewardship

Chapter 4 - Page 14 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

contracts. The remaining classified and non-classified roads that are in this LUD should be scrutinized in the RAP and ATM and should be considered for storage and closure. Road storage and closure may or may not accommodate OHV use. In the meantime, these roads could be enhanced for foot traffic (see also Opportunities for Roads in the Roads section above).

Recreation Use and Facilities • Draft ATM (1/06) recommendation is to allow recreation vehicles use once repairs have been made to the Eagle Creek road system. Continue to develop a road plan for the area and monitor the road system for compliance. Develop OHV bridge crossings that are economical, effective and could possibly be built on site for areas that need crossings. • Monitor previously and continuing tree thinned acres for recreation ROS conversion from a developed to undeveloped opportunities. This monitoring needs to be completed for compliance in reporting acres of ROS recreation experiences changes for Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan. • This VCU’s ROS in the Semi-Remote LUD is out of compliance with the Forest Plan LUD ROS guidelines. Semi-Remote LUD direction only allows Semi- Primitive opportunity within it. This LUD has an existing Roaded Modified area, the Eagle River road and harvest area. The area should be managed for conversion from a Roaded Modified area to a Semi-Primitive ROS experience. • Develop a carrying capacity allotment for all recreation uses, public and guided on this road system. • Field inventory of dispersed recreation sites needs to be completed in this VCU. • Consider setting aside some of the roads for single track mountain bike use. • Monitor illegal ATV use on beaches, muskegs and crossing streams

Chapter 4 - Page 15

Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Recommendations For and Opportunities Within VCU 3040: Sinitsin Bay

Wildlife • See medium OGR recommendation listed in VCU 3030.

Recreation Use and Facilities • Field inventory and monitor dispersed recreation sites • Consider building more trails to access other beaches • Consider a trail around the island

Chapter 4 - Page 17

Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Recommendations For and Opportunities Within VCU 3050: Sealion Cove

Wildlife • See medium OGR recommendation listed in VCU 3030.

Recreation Use and Facilities • Continue to monitor use of the shoreline of the cove and its compliance with the Forest Plan LUD ROS Semi-Primitive guidelines. • Field inventory and monitor dispersed recreation sites • Consider building more trails to access other beaches • Consider a trail around the island

Chapter 4 - Page 19

Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Recommendations For and Opportunities Within VCU 3060: Gilmer Bay

Soil/Hydrology/Fisheries • Evaluate thinning opportunities in previously harvested RMAs for Fisheries and Watershed improvements. • Evaluate thinning opportunities for wildlife, fisheries, and riparian objectives in beach fringe, riparian management areas. • Conduct stream and habitat surveys to evaluate further opportunities and/or need for LW projects. • Conduct field surveys to verify and determine the impacts from restoration potential for landslide that have reached stream channels. • Evaluate stream crossings for OHV access on roads.

Forest Vegetation • Over the next 5 years reevaluate previously thinned stands in VCU 3060 for additional thinning needs. Conduct aerial reconnaissance and follow up with field reconnaissance as needed. Update FACTS database with revised thinning needs.

Wildlife • Stand 306000008 is adjacent to high quality deer winter habitat and was identified as a high priority for treatment of young growth stands. Conduct a field review of this unit to determine if additional thinning (precommercial or commercial) would benefit wildlife. • The Small OGR does not meet the minimum size of 16%, or in this case 1157 acres, of the VCU area on NFS land. An additional 231 acres (of which 63 acres must be POG) would be necessary to meet criteria for this Small OGR. The boundary should follow recognizable features. The OGR should maintain southwest facing slopes and low elevation deer habitat.

Roads • Mud Bay Road System (Roads 7590, 7591, and adjoining roads) - Road condition surveys should be completed for the roads that have not been surveyed, and repairs should be completed on road portions that are contributing to resource damage. If decommissioned, these roads could be maintained as hiking trails. There are several unauthorized roads on this system that are recommended to be added to the system roads when the ATM is finalized. • See VCU 3030-Gilmer Bay Road System (see also Opportunities for Roads in the Roads section above).

Recreation Use and Facilities • Draft ATM (1/06) recommendation is to allow recreation vehicles use once repairs have been made to the Eagle Creek road system. Recreation vehicles will be allowed on the section of Forest Road 7591 (Mud Bay), which is also in this VCU. Continue to develop a road plan for the area and monitor the road system for compliance. • Develop a carrying capacity allotment for all recreation uses, public and guided

Chapter 4 - Page 21 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

on the Eagle Creek and Mud Bay road systems. • This VCU’s ROS in the Semi-Remote LUD is out of compliance with the Forest Plan LUD ROS guidelines. A Semi-Remote LUD can only provide a Semi- Primitive opportunity. This LUD has an existing Roaded Modified area, the Mud Bay road and harvest area. The area should be managed for conversion from a Roaded Modified area to a Semi-Primitive ROS experience. • Monitor previously and continuing tree thinned acres for recreation ROS conversion from developed to undeveloped recreation opportunities for TLRMP yearly reporting. • Field inventory and monitoring of the dispersed recreation sites needs to be completed in this VCU. • Consider setting aside some of the roads for single track mountain bike use. • Monitor illegal ATV use on beaches, muskegs and crossing streams • Consider building more trails to access other beaches • Consider a cabin at Twin Lakes beach • Consider a trail around the island • Consider developing a Jet Ski plan for Twin Lakes

Chapter 4 - Page 22

Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Recommendations For and Opportunities Within VCU 3070: Curaca Cove

Soil/Hydrology/Fisheries • Evaluate thinning opportunities in previously harvested RMAs for Fisheries and Watershed improvements. • Evaluate thinning opportunities for wildlife, fisheries, and riparian objectives in beach fringe, riparian management areas. • Conduct stream and habitat surveys to evaluate further opportunities and/or need for LW projects. • Conduct field surveys to verify and determine the impacts from restoration potential for landslide that have reached stream channels. • Evaluate stream crossings for OHV access on roads.

Forest Vegetation • Evaluate areas within the development LUD’s along the existing Mud Bay road system for small timber sale opportunities. Consider opening and /or maintaining selected portions of this road system through small-scale timber harvest or stewardship contracts. • Evaluate thinning opportunities for wildlife, fisheries/riparian objectives in VCU 3007 between Mud Bay and North Beach near Shelikof Bay. • Over the next 5 years reevaluate previously thinned stands in VCU 3070 for additional thinning needs. Conduct aerial reconnaissance and follow up with field reconnaissance as needed. Update FACTS database with revised thinning needs. • Pursue opportunities to improve or maintain existing roads for a future small- scale timber industry as well as recreational opportunities. • When market conditions improve, update the September 2005 Kruzof Timber Sale Project Plan in order to Re-evaluate opportunities for economical larger timber sales within the development land use designations that could contribute towards the Tongass Allowable Sale Quantity.

Wildlife • The broadscale clearcut harvesting and single-age regeneration in this VCU has limited connectivity for wildlife and POG habitat in some areas. Specifically, only small corridors remain between harvested stands 307000455 and 3070000, 307000467 and 307000181 and 307000208, 307000180 and 307000274, 307000453 and the shoreline, 307000136 and the shoreline, 307000459 and the shoreline. These stands are adjacent to high quality deer winter habitat. Recommendations are twofold for these areas: 1) Conduct additional field surveys of previously harvested units, particularly along the edges to determine if additional thinning would improve wildlife habitat, increase access/connectivity and accelerate stand characteristics toward POG habitat. Silvicultural prescriptions would likely be composed of precommercial/commercial thinning or creation/maintenance of canopy gaps. 2) Before proposing any harvest in the areas between existing units analyze potential effects on connectivity and POG. • There are approximately 9 miles of roads in Semi-remote Recreation and Special

Chapter 4 - Page 24 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Emphasis Area LUDs. These roads should be reviewed to determine whether they meet LUD objectives. • VCU 3070 does not meet Tongass LMP Standards for non-development LUD size and POG habitat. To meet Forest Plan Standards, an additional 422 acres of non-development LUD should be designated and 514 acres of POG. This would necessitate increasing/moving the existing non-development LUD location. Forest Service personnel should work with ADF&G to determine the best location to add these acres from other LUDs. Either add to the SA LUD or create a small OGR adjoining the SA LUD or the small OGR in VCU 3060.

Roads • See VCU 3060-Mud Bay Road System (see also Opportunities for Roads in the Roads section above).

Recreation Use and Facilities • This VCU’s ROS in the Semi-Remote LUD is out of compliance with the Forest Plan LUD ROS guidelines. A Semi-Remote LUD can only provide a Semi- Primitive opportunity. This LUD has an existing Roaded Modified area, the Mud Bay road and harvest area. The area should be managed for conversion from a Roaded Modified area to a Semi-Primitive ROS experience. • Draft ATM (1/06) recommendation is to allow recreation vehicles on the Mud Bay road system. Continue to develop a final road plan for the area and monitor the road system for compliance. • Monitor previously and continuing tree thinned acres for recreation ROS conversion from developed to undeveloped recreation opportunities. • Develop a carrying capacity allotment for all recreation uses, public and guided. • Field inventory and monitoring of the dispersed recreation sites needs to be completed in this VCU. • Consider the opportunity for a bear viewing platform and outhouse near Iris Meadow’s bridge area. Consider the need for a dispersed camping plan on North Beach, which would include outhouses. • Consider setting aside some of the roads for single track Mountain bike use • Consider opportunity for developing ATV play areas near and around the cinder pits. • Consider opportunity for developed viewing site, rest area and picnic at cinder pit. • Monitor illegal ATV use on beaches, muskegs and crossing streams • Consider building more trails to access other beaches • Consider a trail around the island

Chapter 4 - Page 25

Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Recommendations For and Opportunities Within VCU 3080: Mount Edgecumbe

Only recreation recommendations or opportunities were identified in this VCU.

Recreation Use and Facilities • Draft ATM (1/06) recommendation is to allow Recreation vehicles on the Mud Bay road system. Continue to develop a final road plan for the area and monitor the road system for compliance. • Monitor previously and continuing tree thinned acres for recreation ROS conversion from a developed to an undeveloped opportunities. • Develop a carrying capacity allotment for all recreation uses, public and guided. • Field inventory and monitoring of dispersed recreation sites needs to be completed in this VCU. • Build a trail from Mount Edgecumbe to the west coast and connect with the North Beach Cabin. • Consider opportunity for developing ATV play areas near and around the cinder pits. • Consider opportunity for developed viewing site, rest area and picnic at cinder pit. • Consider setting aside some of the roads for single track Mountain bike use • Monitor illegal ATV use on beaches, muskegs and crossing streams • Consider building more trails to access other beaches • Consider building another trail route to the top of Mount Edgecumbe or other volcanic features. • Consider a cabin at Shoals Point • Consider a trail around the island • Replacement of the Brent’s Beach Cabin

Chapter 4 - Page 27

Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Recommendations For and Opportunities Within VCU 3090: Krestof Island

Soil/Hydrology/Fisheries • Evaluate thinning opportunities in previously harvested RMAs for Fisheries and Watershed improvements. • Evaluate thinning opportunities for wildlife, fisheries, and riparian objectives in beach fringe, riparian management areas. • Conduct field surveys to verify and determine the impacts from restoration potential for landslide that have reached stream channels. • Evaluate stream crossings for OHV access on roads.

Forest Vegetation • Evaluate low elevation stands in VCU 3090 on Krestof Island for wildlife thinning opportunities as identified in the 2005 Sitka Ranger District Wildlife Habitat in Young Growth: A Strategy for Prioritizing Stands for Treatment document. Conduct interdisciplinary field and/or aerial reconnaissance and prioritize treatment needs. • Over the next 5 years reevaluate previously thinned stands in VCU 3090 for additional thinning needs. Conduct aerial reconnaissance and follow up with field reconnaissance as needed. Update FACTS database with revised thinning needs.

Wildlife • Previously harvested stands along the shore of Kruzof Island and Krestof Island were never thinned or thinned over 21 years ago and are adjacent to high quality deer winter deer habitat. Additional field surveys should be conducted to determine if thinning would improve wildlife habitat, increase access/connectivity and accelerate stand characteristics toward POG habitat. Silvicultural prescriptions would likely be composed of precommercial/commercial thinning or creation/maintenance of canopy gaps.

Roads • See VCU 3060-Mud Bay Road System (see also Opportunities for Roads in the Roads section above).

Recreation Use and Facilities • Draft ATM (1/06) recommendation is to allow recreation vehicles on the Mud Bay road system. Continue to develop a final road plan for the area and monitor the road system for compliance. • Monitor previously and continuing tree thinned acres for recreation ROS conversion from developed to undeveloped recreation opportunities. • Develop a carrying capacity allotment for all recreation uses, public and guided. • Field inventory of the dispersed recreation sites needs to be completed in this VCU. • Consider building a dock for loading and unloading recreation equipment at Mud Bay. • Consider setting aside some of the roads for single track mountain bike use

Chapter 4 - Page 29 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

• Consider opportunity for developing ATV play areas near and around the cinder pits. • Consider opportunity for developed viewing site, rest area and picnic at cinder pit. • Monitor illegal ATV use on beaches, muskegs and crossing streams • Consider building more trails to access other beaches • Consider a trail around the island

Chapter 4 - Page 30

Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Recommendations For and Opportunities Within VCU 3100: Gavanski Island

No recommendations or opportunities were identified for this VCU.

Chapter 4 - Page 32

Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Chapter 5 – Glossary and References

Glossary

Alluvial Fan A cone shaped deposit of organic and mineral material made by a stream where it runs out from a narrow valley (or V-notch) onto a plain or meets a slower stream.

Anadromous Fish Fish that spend part of their lives in fresh water and part of their lives in salt water. Anadromous fish include pink, chum, coho, sockeye, and king salmon, and steelhead trout. There are also anadromous Dolly Varden char.

Angle of Repose The maximum slope or angle at which soil or loose rock material remains stable.

Beach Fringe The area inland from salt-water shorelines, which is typically forested.

Bedload Sediment moving on or near the stream bed and frequently in contact with it.

Biodiversity (Also referred to as Biological Diversity.) The variety of life forms and processes, including the complexity of species, communities, gene pools, and ecological functions, within the area covered by a land management plan.

Biomass The total quantity, in a given time, of living organisms of one or more species per unit area or all of the species in a community.

Bog Wetlands where sphagnum moss growth has separated the peat surface from ground water (e.g., domed bog). They receive their mineral supply solely from rain and snow.

Classified Roads See National Forest System Road

Colluvial / Colluvium A general term for loose deposits of soil and rock moved by gravity; e.g. talus.

Chapter 5 - Page 1

Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Cutslope The surface exposed, usually of undisturbed soil, above a road or excavation.

Decommissioned Roads Roads that are no longer needed and that have been stabilized and restored to a more natural state. These roads are not managed as part of the National Forest Road System and no maintenance is performed after decommissioning. The process of decommissioning a road includes reestablishing former drainage patterns, stabilizing slopes, and restoring vegetation. Culverts and bridges are removed, water bars are added, and the road entrance is generally blocked to motorized traffic. Temporary roads are typically decommissioned upon completion of timber sale activities.

Ecosystem A complete, interacting system of organisms considered together with their environment (e.g., a marsh, a watershed, or a lake).

Ecosystem Management Using an ecological approach to land management to sustain diverse, healthy and productive ecosystems. Ecosystem management is applied at various scales to blend long-term societal and environmental values in a dynamic manner that may be modified through adaptive management.

Erosion The wearing away of the land surface by running water, wind, ice, gravity, or other geologic activity.

Estuary An ecological system at the mouth of a stream where fresh and salt water mix and where salt marshes and intertidal mudflats are present. The landward extent of an estuary is the limit of salt-intolerant vegetation, and the seaward extent is a stream’s delta at mean low water.

Even-Aged Management The application of a combination of actions that result in the creation of stands in which trees of essentially the same age grow together. Clearcutting is an example of this type of management.

Fen A tract of low, wet ground containing sedge peat that is relatively rich in mineral salts, alkaline in reaction, and characterized by slowly flowing water. Vegetation is generally sedges and greases, often with low shrubs and sometimes a sparse cover of trees. Sphagnum mosses are absent or of low cover. Unlike peatlands (commonly referred to as bogs or muskegs), fens contribute to stable stream flows, provide nutrient input to streams and often contribute to fish rearing habitat.

Chapter 5 - Page 2 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Fill Slope Surface formed, often of loose soil at the angle or repose, on the downslope side of a road, trail, or landing as a result of earthmoving in construction.

Fish Habitat The combined aquatic and surrounding terrestrial environments that afford the necessary physical and biological support systems required by fish species during various life stages.

Floodplain That portion of a river valley, adjacent to the river channel, which is covered with water when the river overflows its banks at flood stages in response to a 100-year storm event.

Fluvial Processes Processes driven by moving water, such as formation of floodplains, alluvial fans or deltas, and stream channel scour.

Forbs A grouping/category of herbaceous plants, which are not included in the grass, shrub, or tree groupings/categories; generally smaller flowering plants.

Forest Plan See the entry for Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan.

Geographic Information System (GIS) A system of computer maps with corresponding site-specific information that can be electronically combined to provide reports and maps to support the decision-making process.

Glacial Processes (Glaciation) Processes related to moving ice or glaciers. These processes include the scraping away of soils and substrates, deposition of materials held in the ice (e.g., till or moraines), and formation of kettle lakes where ice chunks break off, are buried, and later melt.

Glacial Till Deposit Non-sorted, non-stratified sediment laid down by a glacier.

Glide A slow moving , relatively shallow type of run. See Run. Calm water flowing smoothly and gently, with moderately low velocities (10-20cm/sec), and little or no surface turbulance.

Habitat Capability The estimated maximum number of fish or wildlife that can be supported by the amount and distribution of suitable habitat in an area.

Chapter 5 - Page 3

Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Heritage Resources The physical remains of districts, sites, structures, buildings, networks, events, or objects used by humans in the past. They may be historic, prehistoric, architectural, or archival in nature. Heritage resources are non-renewable aspects of our national heritage.

Land Use Designation (LUD) A defined area of land to which specific management direction is applied.

Large Woody Debris (LWD) Any large piece of relatively stable woody material having a diameter of greater than 10 centimeters and a length greater than one meter that intrudes into the stream channel.

Muskeg A wetland developed over thousands of years in depressions or flat areas on gentle to steep slopes. These bogs have poorly drained, acidic, organic soils that support vegetation that can be sphagnum moss; herbaceous plants; sedges, rushes, and forbs; or may be a combination of sphagnum moss and herbaceous plants. These vegetation types may have a few shrubs and stunted trees.

National Forest System Road A road wholly or partly within or adjacent ot and serving the National Forest System that the Forest Service determines is necessary for the protection, administration, and utilization of the National Forest System and the use and development of its resources.

Nonforest Land Land having less than ten percent tree cover. Land that has never supported forests and lands formerly forested but now developed for such nonforest uses as crops, improved pasture, etc.

Non-productive Forest Land Forest land that does not produce or is incapable of producing more than twenty cubic feet per acre per year of industrial wood.

Old-Growth Forest Ecosystems distinguished by old trees and related structural attributes. Old-growth includes the later stages of forest stand development that typically differ from earlier stages in a variety of characteristics. These characteristics may include larger tree size, higher accumulations of large dead woody material, multiple canopy layers, different species composition, and different ecosystem function. The structure and function of an old-growth ecosystem will be influenced by its stand size, landscape position, and context. Also defined as timber stands over 150 years in age with an average volume of at least 8,000 board feet per acre.

Old-growth Habitat Reserve (OGR) A contiguous unit of old-growth forest habitat managed to maintain the integrity of the old-growth forest ecosystem.

Chapter 5 - Page 4 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Old-growth Habitat Reserve Strategy A system of large, medium, and small habitat reserves that are part of a landscape conservation strategy used to address National Forest Management Act requirements to maintain habitat to support viable wildlife populations well distributed across the Tongass National Forest. Also known as Habitat Conservation Areas (HCAs).

• Large Reserves: A landscape of at least 20,000 acres of productive old growth forest, within a landscape of at least 40,000 acres. To address habitat quality, at least 50 percent (10,000 acres) of the old growth must be highly productive. To ensure interaction of species and dispersal between large reserves, they must be no more than 20 miles apart. • Medium Reserves: A landscape of at least 5,000 acres of productive old growth of which at least 2,500 acres must be the highly productive component. Old growth must occur within a landscape of at least 10,000 acres. Medium reserves should be no less than 8 miles apart to facilitate dispersal and re-colonization. • Small Reserves: Provide at least one 800 acres block of productive old-growth forest within an area of at least 1600 acres within each 10,000 acres landscape (e.g., 16 percent of each VCU).

Overstory In a stand with several vegetative layers, the overstory is the uppermost layer usually formed by the tallest trees.

Palustrine Nontidal wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent mosses or lichens, and all such wetlands that occur in tidal areas where salinity due to ocean- derived salts is below 0.50 percent.

Plant Association Climax forest plant community type representing the endpoint of succession.

Plant Community An assemblage of plants that, in general, occur together on similar site conditions.

Precommercial Thinning The practice of removing some of the trees of less than marketable size from a stand in order to achieve various management objectives.

Productive Forest Land Forest land that produces or is capable of producing more than twenty cubic feet per acre per year of industrial wood.

Productive Old-growth (POG) POG is forest land having a timber volume of greater than eight thousand board feet per acre and is categorized as volume strata low, medium, and high in the GIS database.

Chapter 5 - Page 5

Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

POG generally provides important cover and forage habitat for wildlife as a result of the dense canopy, which reduces snow accumulations in the understory during the winter but is open enough to provide understory vegetation during the spring, summer, and fall.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) A system for planning and managing recreation resources that categorizes recreation opportunities into seven classes. Each class is defined in terms of the degree to which it satisfies certain recreation experience needs based on the extent to which the natural environment has been modified, the type of facilities provided, the degree of outdoor skills needed to enjoy the area and the relative density of recreation use. The ROS classes are: Primitive. An unmodified environment generally greater than 5,000 acres in size and located generally at least 3 miles from all roads and other motorized travel routes. A very low interaction between users (generally less than 3 group encounters per day) results in a very high probability of experiencing solitude, freedom, closeness to nature, tranquility, self-reliance, challenge, and risk. Evidence of other users is low. Restrictions and controls are not evident after entering the land unit. Motorized use is rare. Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized. A natural or natural-appearing environment generally greater than 2,500 acres in size and generally located at least 1/2 mile but not further than 3 miles from all roads and other motorized travel routes. Concentration of users is low (generally less than 10 group encounters per day), but there is often evidence of other users. There is a high probability of experiencing solitude, freedom, closeness to nature, tranquility, self-reliance, challenge, and risk. There is a minimum of subtle on-site controls. No roads are present in the area. Semi-Primitive Motorized. A natural or natural-appearing environment generally greater than 2,500 acres in size and located within 1/2 mile of primitive roads and other motorized travel routes used by motor vehicles; but not closer than 1/2 mile from better-than-primitive roads and other motorized travel routes. Concentration of users is low (generally less than 10 group encounters per day), but there is often evidence of other users. Moderate probability of experiencing solitude, closeness to nature, and tranquility, with a high degree of self-reliance, challenge and risk in using motorized equipment. Local roads may be present; along saltwater shorelines there may be extensive boat traffic. Roaded Natural. Resource modification and utilization are evident, in a predominantly natural-appearing environment generally occurring within 1/2 mile from better-than-primitive roads and other motorized travel routes. Interactions between users may be moderate to high (generally less than 20 group encounters per day), with evidence of other users prevalent. There is an opportunity to affiliate with other users in developed sites but with some chance for privacy. Self-reliance on outdoor skills is only of moderate importance with little opportunity for challenge and risk. Motorized use is allowed. Roaded Modified. Vegetative and landform alterations typically dominate the landscape. There is little on-site control of users except for gated roads. There is moderate evidence of other users on roads (generally less than 20 group encounters per day), and little evidence of others or interactions at campsites. There is

Chapter 5 - Page 6 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

opportunity to get away from others but with easy access. Some self-reliance is required in building campsites and use of motorized equipment. A feeling of independence and freedom exists with little challenge and risk. Recreation users will likely encounter timber management activities. Rural. The natural environment is substantially modified by land use activities. Opportunity to observe and affiliate with other users is important, as is convenience of facilities. There is little opportunity for challenge or risk, and self-reliance on outdoor skills is of little importance. Recreation facilities designed for group use are compatible. Users may have more than 20 group encounters per day. Urban. Urbanized environment with dominant structures, traffic lights, and paved streets. May have natural appearing backdrop. Recreation places may be city parks and large resorts. Opportunity to observe and affiliate with other users is very important, as is convenience of facilities and recreation opportunities. Interaction between large numbers of users is high. Outdoor skills, risk, and challenge are unimportant except for competitive sports. Intensive on-site controls are numerous.

Resident Fish Fish that reside in fresh water on a permanent basis. Resident fish include non- anadromous Dolly Varden char and cutthroat trout.

Riparian Management Area (RMA) Land areas delineated in the Forest Plan (1997 TLRMP) to provide for the management of riparian resources. Specific standards and guidelines, by stream process group, are associated with riparian management areas. Riparian management areas may be modified by watershed analysis.

Road A motor vehicle travelway over 50 inches wide, unless designated and managed as a trail. A road may be classified, unauthorized, or temporary.

Run An area of swiftly flowing water, without surface agitation or waves, which approximates uniform flow and in which the slope of the water surface is roughly parallel to the overall gradient of the stream reach.

Sediment Source Area (SSA) Steep, highly dissected uplands that are primary source areas for sediment delivery to stream systems. Snow avalanching, mass wasting, V-notch sideslopes, and rill erosion are the dominant erosion processes.

Seedling/Sapling Stage The stage following timber harvest when most colonizing tree and shrub seedlings become established (usually 1 to 25 years). Also referred to as the understory colonization stage.

Chapter 5 - Page 7

Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Silviculture Forest management practices that deal with the establishment, development, reproduction, and care of forest trees to meet certain objectives.

Slash Debris left over after a logging operation, such as limbs, bark, and broken pieces of logs.

Slough (a) Low, swampy ground or overflow channels where water flows sluggishly for considerable distances. (b) Side channel slough formed by channelization. (c) A sluggish channel of water, such as a side channel of a stream, in which water flows slowly through low, swampy ground, or a section of an abandoned stream channel containing water most or all of the year, but with flow only at high water, and occurring in a flood plain or delta. (d) A marsh tract lying in a shallow, undrained depression on a piece of dry ground. (e) A term used for a creek or sluggish body of water in a bottomland.

Smolt A young salmon residing in an estuary area or stream system preparing to outmigrate to the ocean.

Stand A contiguous group of trees sufficiently uniform in age class distribution, composition, and structure, and growing on a site of sufficiently uniform quality, to be a distinguishable unit.

Stand Structure The horizontal and vertical distribution of forest stand components, including the height, diameter, crown layers and stems of trees, shrubs, herbaceous understory, snags, and down woody debris.

Stream Class A means to categorize stream channels based on their fish production values. There are four stream classes on the Tongass National Forest:

• Class I. Streams and lakes with anadromous or adfluvial fish habitat; or high quality resident fish waters listed in Appendix 68.1, Region 10 Aquatic Habitat Management Handbook (FSH 2609.24), June 1986; or habitat above fish migration barriers known to be reasonable enhancement opportunities for anadromous fish. • Class II. Streams and lakes with resident fish populations and generally steep (6-15 percent) gradient (can also include streams from 0-5 percent gradient), where no anadromous fish occur, and otherwise not meeting Class I criteria. These populations have limited fisheries values and generally occur upstream of migration barriers or have other habitat features that preclude anadromous fish use. • Class III. Perennial and intermittent streams with no fish populations but which have sufficient flow or transport sufficient sediment and debris to have an immediate influence on downstream water quality or fish habitat capability. These streams

Chapter 5 - Page 8 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

generally have bank full widths greater than 5 feet and are highly incised into the surrounding hillslope. • Class IV. Intermittent, ephemeral, and small perennial channels with insufficient flow or sediment transport capabilities to have an immediate influence on downstream water quality or fish habitat capability. These streams generally are shallowly incised into the surrounding hillslope. • Non-streams. Rills and other watercourses, generally intermittent and less than one foot in bank full width, little or no incisement into the surrounding hillslope, and with little or no evidence of scour.

Successional Stage One stage in a series of changes affecting the development of a biotic community. On its path to a climax stage, the community will pass through several stages of adaptation to environmental changes.

Temporary Roads Roads authorized by contract, permit, lease, other written authorization, or emergency operation not intended to be a part of the forest transportation system and not necessary for long-term resource management.

Timtyp A source of data contained in the Forest Service Geographic Information System (GIS) database. The forest is mapped into areas/stands/polygons based on vegetation composition, stocking, and productivity characteristics that comprise a GIS data layer referred to as Timtyp.

Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan (1997 TLRMP or the Forest Plan) The ten-year land allocation plan for the Tongass National Forest that directs and coordinates planning and the daily uses and activities carried out within the Forest. See also Land Use Designation.

Unauthorized Roads Roads on National Forest System Lands that are not managed as part of the forest transportation system, such as unplanned roads, abandoned travelways, and off-road vehicle tracks that have not been designated and managed as a trail; and those roads that were once under permit or other authorization and were not decommissioned upon the termination of the authorization.

Understory Anything growing in a stratum definitely below the main crown canopy in a forest.

Value Comparison Unit (VCU) First developed for the 1979 Tongass Land Management Plan as distinct geographic areas that generally encompass a drainage basin containing one or more large stream systems. Boundaries usually follow easily recognizable watershed divides. There are 926 units established to provide a common set of areas for which resource inventories could be

Chapter 5 - Page 9

Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment conducted and resource value interpretations made.

Volume Amount of wood in a stand of timber based on standing net board feet per acre by Scribner Rule.

Volume Strata Divisions of old-growth timber volume derived from the interpreted timber type data layer (TIMTYP) and the common land unit data layer (CLU). Three volume strata (low, medium, and high) are recognized in the Forest Plan (1997 TLRMP) for each Administrative Area.

Watershed The area that contributes water to a drainage or stream. Portion of the forest in which all surface water drains to a common point. Watersheds can range from tens of acres that drain a single small intermittent stream to many thousands of acres for a stream that drains hundreds of connected intermittent and perennial streams.

Watershed Analysis A systematic procedure for characterizing and evaluating ecological processes within a watershed for use in ecosystem management and project planning. A procedure for assessing important geomorphic processes and functions and for describing key riparian, wetland, and aquatic habitat conditions and trends. Focuses interdisciplinary discussion on key watershed-level management issues and provides a basis for integrating project designs. (See Appendix J in the Forest Plan for watershed analysis from an aquatic perspective.)

Wetlands Areas that are inundated by surface or ground water with a frequency sufficient, under normal circumstances, to support a prevalence of vegetative or aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction. Wetlands generally include peatlands, muskegs, marshes, bogs, sloughs, potholes, river overflows, mud flats, wet meadows, seeps, and springs.

Wildlife Analysis Area (WAA) Alaska Department of Fish and Game administrative designation of an area that includes one or several Value Comparison Units (VCUs) for the purpose of wildlife analysis.

Wildlife Habitat The locality where a species may be found and where the essentials for its development and sustained existence are obtained.

Windthrow Areas where trees are uprooted, blown down, or broken off by storm winds.

Chapter 5 - Page 10 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

References

ACHP (Advisory Council on Historic Preservation) 1996. Executive Order No. 13007 Indian Sacred Sites. Ackerman, R.E.1968. Archaeology of the Glacier Bay National Monument, Southeastern Alaska (Part II). Laboratory of Anthropology Report of Investigations No. 44. Washington State University, Pullman. Ade, Robin. 1989. The trout and salmon handbook. Facts on file. New York, New York. Alaback, P. B. 1980. Biomass and production of understory vegetation in seral Sitka spruce-western hemlock forest of southeast Alaska. Dissertation. Oregon State University. Corvallis, Oregon. 79 pp. Alaback, P.B. 1982. Dynamics of understory biomass in Sitka spruce-western hemlock forests of southeast Alaska. Ecology. 63: 1932-1948. Alaback, P.B. 1990. Dynamics of Old-Growth Temperate Rainforest in Southeast Alaska. In Proceedings of the Second Glacier Bay Science Symposium, A.M. Milner and J.D. Wood, Jr., editors, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Alaska Regional Office, Anchorage, Alaska, 150-153 p. Arndt, K.L., Sackett, R.H., and J.A. Ketz. 1987. A Cultural Resource Overview of the Tongass National Forest, Alaska, Part I: Overview. GDM, Inc., Juneau, AK. Ben-David, M.; Flynn, R.W.; and Schell, D.M. 1997. Annual and seasonal changes in diets of martens: evidence from stable isotope analysis. Oecologia. 111: 280-291. Beschta, R.L., M.R. Pyles, A.E. Skaugset, and C.G. Surfleet. 2000. Peakflow response to forest practices in the western Cascades of Oregon, USA. Journal of Hydrology 233:102-120. Bourgeron, P.S., Humphreys, H.C.; DeVelice, R.L., and Jenson, M.E. 1994. Ecological theory in relation to landscape and ecosystem characteristics. In, Volume II Ecosystem management: Principles and Applications, USDA Forest Service PNW-STR-318. 59-72 pp. Brew, D.A. 1990. Plate-tectonics Setting of Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve and of Admiralty Island National Monument, Southeast Alaska. In A.M. Milner and J.D. Wood, Jr., eds., Proceedings of the Second Glacier Bay Science Symposium, pp 1-5. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Alaska Regional Office, Anchorage, Alaska. Caouette, J.P., M.G. Kramer and G>J. Nowacki. 2000. Deconstructing the timber volume paradigm in management of the Tongass National Forest. Pacific Northwest Research Station. General Technicial Report PNW-GTR-482. March. 20 pp. Chamberlin, T.W.; Harr, R.D.; and Everest, F. H. 1991. Timber Harvesting, Silviculture

Chapter 5 - Page 11

Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

and Watershed Processes. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19:181-204. Chorley, R.J., Schumm, S.T., and Sugden, D.E. 1984. Geomorphology. Methuen and Co., New York, 605p. D’Amore, D.V.; Hennon, P.E. 2005. Evaluation of soil saturation, soil chemistry, and early spring soil and air temperatures as risk factors in yellow-cedar decline. Global Change Biology. In press. Davis, S.D. 1989. The Hidden Falls Site, Baranof Island, Alaska. Alaska Anthropological Monograph Series. Davis, R.A. 1983. Depositional Systems: A Genetic Approach to Sedimentary Geology. Prentice –Hall, Inc. NY, 669p. Deal, R.L. 2001. The effects of partial cutting on forest plant communities of western hemlock-Sitka spruce stands in Southeast Alaska. Canadian Journal of Forestry Resources. 31: 2067-2079. De Laguna, F. 1960. The Story of A Tlingit Community: A Problem in the Relationship Between Archaeological, Ethnological, and Historical Methods. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington. Dellasalla, D.A., K.A. Engel, D.P. Volsen, R.L. Fairbanks, J.C. Hagar, and K.J. Raedeke. 1994. Final report – effectiveness of silvicultural modifications of young growth forest for enhancing wildlife habitat on the Tongass National Forest, southeast Alaska. Bellevue, WA.87 pp. Dixon, E. J., Heaton, T. H., Fifield, T. E., Hamilton, T. D., Putnam, D. E., Grady, F. 1997. Late Quaternary Regional Geoarchaeology of Southeast Alaska Karst: a progress report. Geoarchaeology, vol.12, no.6, pp.689-712. Doerr, J.G., and N.L. Sandburg. 1986. Effects of precommercial thinning on understory vegetation and deer habitat utilization on Big Level Island in southeast Alaska. Forest Science 32(4):1092-1095. Doerr, J.G., E.J. DeGayner, and G. Ith. 2005. Winter habitat selection by Sitka black- tailed deer. Journal of Wildlife Management 69(1):322-331. Duncan, S.H. 1986. Peak Stream Discharge During Thirty Years of Sustained Yield Timber Management in Two Fifth Order Watersheds in Washington State. Northwest Science 60:258-264. Flatten, C.; Titus, K.; and Lowell, R. 2001. Annual Monitoring Report 1 April 1991 to 30 September 2001: Northern goshawk monitoring, population, ecology and diet on the Tongass National Forest. Juneau, AK: Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Furniss, M.J.; Roelofs, T.D.; and Yee, C.S. 1991. Road Constructions and Maintenance. American Fisheries Society Special Publication, 19:297-323. Geier, T.W. 1996. A proposal for a landscape-level risk assessment of potential fish habitat impacts from forest managment in Southeast Alaska, USDA Forest

Chapter 5 - Page 12 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Service, Ketchikan Area office, unpublished report. Hanley, T.A. 1984. Relationships between Sitka black-tailed deer and their habitat. General Technical Report PNW-168. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 21 pp. Hanley, T.A. and Rose, C.L. 1987. Influence of overstory on snow depth and density in hemlock-spruce stands: implications for management of deer habitat in Southeast Alaska. Research Note PNW-RN-459. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Hanley, T.A., C.T. Robbins, and D.E. Spalinger. 1989. Forest habitats and the nutritional ecology of Sitka black-tailed deer: a research synthesis with implications for forest management. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report PNW-GTR- 230. 52 pp. Harr, R.D. 1986. Effects of Clearcutting on Rain-On-Snow Runoff in Western Oregon: A New Look at Old Studies. Water Resources Research, 22:1095-1100. Harr, R.D., W.C. Harper, J.T. Krygier, and F.S. Hsieh. 1975. Changes in storm hydrographs after road building and clearcutting in the Oregon Coast Range. Water Resources Research 11(3):436-444. Harris, A.S. 1974. Clearcutting, reforestation and stand development on Alaska’s Tongass National Forest. Journal of Forestry. 72:330-337. Harris, A.S., and W.A. Farr. 1974. The forest ecosystem of southeast Alaska. 7: forest ecology and timber management. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-25. 109 pp. Harris, L.D. 1984. The fragmented forest: Island biogeography theory and the preservation of biotic diversity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Heilman, P.E. and Gass, C.R. 1974. Parent Materials and Chemical Properties of Mineral Soils in Southeast Alaska. In Soil Science: Vol. 117, No. 1, p21-27. Hennon, P.E., Shaw, C.G., III. 1997. What is killing these long-lived, defensive trees? Journal of Forestry. 95(12): 4-10. Hennon, P.E.; D’Amore, D.D.; Zeglen. S.; Grainger, M. 2005. Yellow-cedar decline in the North Coast District of British Columbia. Res. Note PNW-RN-549. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 16p. Hennon, P.E.; Shaw, C.G. III 1994. Did climatic warming trigger the onset and development of yellow-cedar decline in southeast Alaska? European Journal of Forest Pathology 24: 399-418. Hicks, B.J.; Beschta, R.L.; and Harr, R.D. 1991. Long-term Changes in Streamflow Following Logging in Western Oregon and Associated Fisheries Implications. In Water Resources Bulletin, Vol. 27, No. 2, p217-226. Hicks, B.J.; Hall, J.D.; Bisson, P.A.; and Sedell, J.R. 1991. Responses of Salmonids to

Chapter 5 - Page 13

Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Habitat Changes. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19, p483-517. Iverson, G.C.; Hayward, G.D.; Titus, K.; DeGayner, E.; Lowell, R.E.; Crocker-Bedford, D.C.; Schempf, P.F.; and Lindell, J. 1996. Conservation assessment for the northern goshawk in southeast Alaska. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-387. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Johnson, P.R. and Hartman, C.W. 1969. Environmental Atlas of Alaska. Inst. Arct. Environ. Eng. and Inst. Water Resour., Univ. Alaska, College. Jones, J. A. 2000. Hydrologic processes and peak discharge response to forest removal, regrowth, and roads in 10 small experimental basins, western Cascades, Oregon. Water Resources Research, Vol. 36, No. 9, pages 2621-2642, September 2000. Jones, J. A., and G. E. Grant. 1996. Peak flow responses to clear-cutting and roads in small and large basins, western Cascades, Oregon. Water Resources Research, Vol. 32, No. 4, pages 959-974. Kirchhoff, , and J.W. Schoen. 1985. Seasonal distribution and habitat use by Sitka black- tailed deer in southeastern Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Progress Report, Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration, Project W-22-3, Job 2.6R. 23 pp. MacDonald, L. H. and J. A. Hoffman. 1995. Causes of peak flows in northwestern Montana and northeastern Idaho. Water Resources Bulletin , 31(1):7995. MacDonald, S.O. and Cook, Joseph A. 1999. The Mammal Fauna of Southeast Alaska. University of Alaska Museum. Fairbanks, Alaska. 145 pp. Miller, R.D. 1973. Gastineau Channel Formation, a Composite Glaciomarine Deposit Near Juneau, Alaska. Geological Survey Bulletin 1394-C, 20 p. Myren, R.T., and Ellis, R.J. 1984. Evapotranspiration in Forest Succession and Longterm Effects Upon Fishery Resources: A Consideration for Management of Old-growth Forests. In Meehan et al (1984) p183-186. National Register Bulletin 38 n.d., Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties. National Park Service, Washington D.C. Noss, R.F. 1983. A regional landscape approach to maintain diversity. BioScience. 33: 700-702. Nowacki, G.; Krosse, P.; Fisher, G.; Brew, D.; Brock, T.; Shephard, M.; Pawuk, W.; Baichtal, J.; and Kissinger, E. 2001. Ecological Subsections of Southeast Alaska and Neighboring Areas of Canada. USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region. Technical Publication No. R10-TP-75. Nyberg, J.B., F.L. Bunnell, D.W. Janz, and R.M. Ellis. 1986. Managing young forests as black-tailed deer winter ranges. BC Ministry of Forests Land Management Report Number 37.Victoria, B.C. 49 pp. Paustian, S.J. 1987. Monitoring Nonpoint Source Discharge of Sediment from Timber Harvesting Activities in Two Southeast Alaska Watersheds. In Huntsinger, R.G.

Chapter 5 - Page 14 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

1987. Water Quality in the Great Land, Alaska’s Challenge, Report IWR-109, p153-169. American Water Resources Association, Water Research Center, Institute of Northern Engineering, Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks. Porter, S.C. 1986. Pattern and Forcing of Northern Hemisphere Glacier Variations During the Last Millennium. Quaternary Research 26, p27-48. Ratti, J. T., and D. E. Timm. 1979. Migratory behavior of Vancouver Canada geese: recovery rate bias. Pages 208-212 in R. L. Jarvis and J. C. Bartonek, editors. Biology and management of Pacific Flyway geese. Oregon State University Bookstores, Incorporated, Corvallis. Reynolds, R. T., Graham, R.T.; Reiser, M.H.; Bassett, R.L.; Kennedy, P.L.; Boyce, D.A.; Goodwin, G.; Smith R.; and Fisher, E.L. 1992. Management recommendations for the northern goshawk in the southwestern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM- 217. Ft Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experimental Station. Robuck, W. 1975. First progress report on the cooperative administrative study, understory vegetation in thinned and unthinned hemlock-spruce stands in Alaska. USDA Forest Service, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Juneau, Alaska. 23 pp. Schaberg P.G.; Hennon P.E.; D'Amore, D.V.; Hawley, G.J; Borer, C.H.. 2005. Seasonal differences in freezing tolerance of yellow-cedar and western hemlock trees at a site affected by yellow-cedar decline. Can. J. For. Res. 35: 2065-2070. Schoen, J.W.; Kirchoff, M.D.; and Hughes, J.H. 1988. Wildlife and old-growth forests in Southeast Alaska. Natural Areas Journal. 8: 138-145. Schoen, J.W.; Kirchoff, M.D.; and Thomas, M.H. 1985. Seasonal distribution and habitat use by Sitka black-tailed deer in Southeastern Alaska. Final Report Project W-17- 11, W-21-1, 2, 3, and 4, Job 2.6R. Douglas, AK: Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Schoen, J.W.; Kirchoff, M.D.; and Wallmo, O.C. 1984. Sitka black-tailed deer/old- growth relationships in Southeast Alaska: implications for management. In: Meehan, W.R.; Merrell, Jr., T.R.; Hanley, T.A., eds. Proceedings of the symposium on fish and wildlife relationships in old-growth forests; 1982; Juneau, AK. American Institute of Fisheries Research Biologists. Snyder, C. 2006. 2006, Forest Health Conditions in Alaska- 2005, USDA Forest Service, Anchorage, AK. Forest Health Protection Report. Suring, L.H, R.W. Flynn and E.J. DeGayner 1992. Habitat capability model for marten in southeast Alaska: Winter habitat. Version 5.034 pp. Swanston, D.N. 1969. Mass Wasting in Coastal Alaska. USDA Forest Service, Research Paper PNW-84, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, Oregon. Swanston, D.N. and D.A. Marion. 1991. Landslide Responses to Timber Harvest in Southeast Alaska. In Proceedings of the Fifth Federal Interagency Sedimentation

Chapter 5 - Page 15

Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Conference, March 18-21, 1991, Lan, S.S. and Huang Kuo, Y. (editors), Las Vegas, NV, p 10-49 to 10-56. Taylor, R.E. 1987. Radiocarbon Dating. An archaeological perspective. Academic Press, Orlando, USA. Titus, K., Flatten, C.J.; and Lowell, R.E. 1994. Northern Goshawk Ecology Habitat Relationships on the Tongass National Forest (goshawk nest sites, food habits, morphology, home range and habitat data). Final Annual Project Report. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Contract No. 43-0109-0272 and Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation. Unit 4 Brown Bear Management Team. 2000. Southeast Alaska Unit 4 brown bear management strategy: recommendations of a citizens and agency brown bear management advisory team. Douglas, AK: Alaska Department of Fish and Game. USDA Forest Service. 1981. Treatment of 5 clear-cut areas of historical deer winter range on N. Baranof and Chichagof Islands, S.E. Alaska. Final Environmental Assessment. Sitka, Alaska. 12 pp. USDA Forest Service. 1986. Chatham Area integrated resource inventory handbook. Unpublished Handbook. United States, Forest Service. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tongass National Forest, Sitka Ranger District, Sitka, AK. USDA Forest Service. 1992. Channel Type Users Guide, Tongass National Forest. R10 tech. paper 26, S. J. Paustian (editor), Juneau, AK, 179 p. USDA Forest Service. 1996. The Mount Edgecumbe Volcanic Field: A Geologic History (R10-RG-114). November 1996. USDA Forest Service. 1996. Large, medium and small old growth habitat reserve analsysis. Tongass National Forest. January 17. 5 pp. USDA Forest Service. 1997. Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (R10-MB-338dd, 1997), Land Management Plan Revision, Final Environmental Impact Statement (R10-MB-338b, 338c, 338 e through 338h, and 338n, January 1997, and Errata, May 1997, and Record of Decision, May 1997). United States, Forest Service. USDA. Forest Service. 1997. Tongass Land Management Plan Revision, Final Environmental Impact Statement. Forest Service, R10-MB-338b. USDA Forest Service. 1998. Tongass National Forest land and resource management plan implementation policy clarification Papers. United States, Forest Service. USDA Forest Service. 1998. Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management Plant Implementation Policy Clarification. Ketchikan, Alaska. 17 pp. USDA Forest Service. 2002. Shoreline Outfitter/Guide Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). United States, Forest Service. USDA Forest Service. 2004a. Kruzof Island Roads Analysis (K-RAP). Sitka Ranger

Chapter 5 - Page 16 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

District, United States, Forest Service. USDA Forest Service. 2004b. Sitka Sound Landscape Assessment. United States Forest Service. On file at the Sitka Ranger District, Sitka, AK. USDA Forest Service. 2005. Sitka ranger district wildlife habitat in young growth: A strategy for prioritizing stands for treatment. July. 11 pp. Wallmo, O.C., and J.W. Schoen. 1980. Response of deer to secondary forest succession in southeast Alaska. Forest Science, 26(3): 448-462. Yeo, J.J.; Peek, J.M. 1992. Habitat selection of female Sitka black-tailed deer in logged forests of Southeast Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Management. 56(2): 253-261.

Chapter 5 - Page 17

Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Appendix A – Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment Public Involvement and Comments Received

Appendix A Page 1 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Appendix A Page 2 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Appendix A Page 3 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Appendix A Page 4

United States Forest Alaska Region Sitka Ranger District Department of Service Tongass National Forest 204 Siginaka Way Sitka, Alaska 99835 Agriculture Fax (907) 747-4253 Phone (907) 747-6671

September 19, 2006

This letter is in response to comments presented to the Kruzof Landscape Assessment team by Mr. Perensavich of Sitka, Alaska on February 14, 2006. Mr. Perensavich commented that previous timber sales on Kruzof Island were halted around 1979-1980 due to ‘problems galore associated with soil erosion on a mass scale. Direction via memos from the Regional Office stipulated all logging to be ceased…’ Investigation of these comments included the interviews with several current Forest Service employees at the Sitka Ranger District; (Robert Smith, James Russell, Rick Abt, and Dennis Rogers) regarding the existence of this direction memo from the Regional Office. Additionally, the old planning records and the NEPA appeals database were also searched. Both inquiries resulted in no such memo or recollection of similar information.

Robert Smith, the only employee who was actively working on the District at the time of the original Kruzof Sale stated that, to his knowledge, the only reason the original Kruzof Sale was halted was that logging operations were completed. He did note that some minor landslides within harvest units and along forest roads did occur during harvest activities, but that was incidental to management activities at the time and not a cause of ceasing harvest operations.

The Kruzof Landscape Assessment team does acknowledge that previous harvesting and roading on unstable soils on Kruzof Island has induced landslides and erosion in some locations (see Soils section of this report). However, extensive measures to avoid or minimize environmental harm have been adopted since this past harvest within the current Forest Plan. These measures include forest-wide standards and guidelines which at a minimum meet all requirements of applicable laws, regulations, State standards, and additional standards and guidelines for each land use designation. Mitigations measures included in these standards and guidelines, singularly and collectively avoid, rectify, reduce or eliminate potential adverse environmental impacts of current or future forest management activities (USDA Forest Service, 1997). Any future management activities within the Kruzof Landscape Assessment area such as timber harvest and road building, as well as those elsewhere on the Forest, will be required to follow these current standards and guidelines to avoid, reduce or eliminate adverse environmental impacts. In those areas identified through future project level analysis where standards and guidelines cannot be met, management activities will be curtailed or eliminated from management activities.

Sincerely,

/s/ Martin Becker

Martin Becker Watershed Program Coordinator – Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment Team Leader Sitka Ranger District

Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Appendix A Page 5 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Appendix A Page 6 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Appendix A Page 7 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Appendix A Page 8 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Appendix A Page 9 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Appendix A Page 10 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Appendix A Page 11 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Appendix A Page 12 Kruzof Island Landscape Assessment

Appendix A Page 13