Rain Forest Aerial Tram

United States Department of Agriculture Environmental Assessment

Forest Service Tongass National Forest

Tongass Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District National Forest R10-MB-708 Ketchikan, Alaska

July 2010

Herring Cove

Rain Forest Aerial Tram EA

KEY ACRONYMS

AADT Annualized Average of Daily vehicle Trips ADOTPF State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities ARS Alaska Rainforest Sanctuary, LLC BMP Best Management Practice EA Environmental Assessment Forest Plan Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 2008 KMRD Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District LUD Land Use Designation NFS National Forest System RFATA Rain Forest Aerial Trams Alaska, Inc. ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum SIO Scenic Integrity Objective SSRAA Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association USFS United States Forest Service

Front Cover: View toward project area (Herring Cove and Fawn Mountain)

TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1, INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Document Structure ...... 1 Background ...... 1 Purpose and Need for Action ...... 2 Proposed Action ...... 4 Forest Plan Direction for the Project Area ...... 4 Decision Framework ...... 5 Public Involvement ...... 6 Project Concerns ...... 6 CHAPTER 2, ALTERNATIVES ...... 9 Alternatives Considered but Excluded from Detailed Analysis ...... 10 Alternatives ...... 13 CHAPTER 3, ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES ...... 20 Introduction ...... 20 Recreation ...... 21 Socioeconomics ...... 31 Transportation ...... 33 Soil Resources ...... 40 Scenery Resources ...... 44 Aquatic and Geologic Resources ...... 50 Wildlife and Subsistence Resources ...... 58 Heritage Resources ...... 64 Botany Resources...... 67 Timber Resources ...... 70 Roadless ...... 73 Federal, State and Local Permits, Licenses and Certifications ...... 84 Applicable Laws and Executive Orders ...... 84 CHAPTER 4, CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ...... 90 Preparers ...... 90 Consultation and Coordination ...... 90 References Cited ...... 91

i

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1. Rain Forest Aerial Tram Vicinity Map ...... 3 Figure 2-1. Alternative Sites ...... 12 Figure 2-2. Proposed Tower / Corridor Design ...... 13 Figure 2-3. Existing Condition ...... 14 Figure 2-4. Proposed Action ...... 15 Figure 2-5. Top Station and Observation Tower Schematic...... 16 Figure 2-6. Bottom Station and First Tower Schematic ...... 17 Figure 3-1. Primary Recreation Visitor Destinations ...... 27 Figure 3-2. Existing Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) ...... 28 Figure 3-3. Project Access and Seasonally Adjusted Average Annual Daily Traffic ..... 38 Figure 3-4. Mass Movement Index ...... 43 Figure 3-5. View of Proposed Location from Key Viewing Point ...... 46 Figure 3-6. Project Watershed ...... 53 Figure 3-7. Revilla Inventoried Roadless Area #524...... 74

LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1. Site Selection Criteria ...... 11 Table 2-2. Comparison of Effects ...... 19 Table 3-1. Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) 2003-2008 ...... 34 Table 3-2. Cruise Ship and Passenger Numbers 2003 – 2010 ...... 35 Table 3-3. Projected Tram Passengers 2012-2014 (Alternative 2) ...... 36 Table 3-4. Projected Seasonally Adjusted Daily Traffic 2012-2014 ...... 37 Table 3-5. Stream Classes in the Project Watershed ...... 51 Table 3-6. Direct Effects to Timber in Alternatives 1 and 2 ...... 71 Table 3-7. Land Use Designations in Revilla Roadless Area #524 ...... 73 Table 3-8. Direct Effects to Roadless Area Characteristics ...... 78 Table 3-9. Cumulative Effects to Roadless Area Characteristics ...... 81

ii

CHAPTER 1, INTRODUCTION

DOCUMENT STRUCTURE Hill & Associates, under contract with Rain Forest Aerial Trams Alaska, Inc (RFATA), prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Tongass National Forest in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations. This EA discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and no action alternatives. The document is organized into four parts:

Introduction: The section includes project background, the purpose of and need for the project, and an overview of the proposed action. This section also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal and how the public responded.

Alternatives: This section provides a description of the alternatives analyzed in detail and those that were dismissed from detailed analysis. This discussion also includes project design measures.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences : This section describes the environmental effects of implementing the action and no action alternatives. This analysis is organized by resource area. Within each resource area, the affected environment (existing condition) is described first, followed by the effects of each alternative.

Consultation and Coordination: This section provides a list of document preparers and agencies consulted during the development of the EA as well as a list of references used.

Additional documentation, including resource specific detailed descriptions of the project area and analyses of the project effects, may be found in the project planning record located at the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District office in Ketchikan, Alaska.

BACKGROUND The Rain Forest Aerial Tram project would be a private endeavor for commercial use of National Forest System (NFS) lands about 8.3 miles (20 minutes) southeast of downtown Ketchikan (Figure 1-1). The tram would operate under a special use authorization (permit) from the Tongass National Forest.

The major components of the proposed project are a base station, tower mounted gondola tram, observation tower, and maintenance trail. The project would be located on a combination of private and NFS lands; the tram would begin on the privately-owned Alaska Rainforest Sanctuary (ARS) property near Herring Cove (also known as Herring Bay) and end on NFS land on a ridge near the summit of Fawn Mountain (Figure 1-1).

According to the application materials submitted, RFATA’s parent company has been continuously operating rainforest canopy trams since 1994. At this time, they operate six tram projects.

1

Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment______

These are located in: • Guapiles, Costa Rica: 6 passenger open gondola (opened 1994) • Jaco Costa Rica: 8 passenger open gondola (opened 2003) • Laudat, Commonwealth of Dominica: 8 passenger open gondola (opened 2003) • Chassin, St. Lucia 8 passenger open gondola (opened 2006) • Ocho Rios, Jamaica, 4 passenger chairlift (opened 2008) • Roatan, Honduras - 4 passenger chairlift, (opened 2009)

Boston Capital Ventures, a Hong Kong registered holding company, owns the majority of shares in each of the tram projects. Tram projects are financed by a combination of RFATA investment, local investment, and commercial loans.

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION Rain Forest Aerial Trams Alaska, Inc. submitted a project proposal to the Ketchikan- Misty Fiords Ranger District (KMRD) dated November 28, 2006 and a revised project description dated July 18, 2007. The project met the initial and second-level screening criteria outlined in the Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR 251.54), including consistency with the Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) (USDA Forest Service 2008). The Forest Service accepted the application as complete on September 2, 2007. Upon accepting the application, additional analysis beyond the CFR screening criteria is needed to be responsive to the application and determine if a special use permit will be issued.

The purpose of this environmental analysis is to evaluate the request by RFATA to construct and operate a tram at a specified site on the Tongass National Forest. It also provides Federal, State, and local governments and the public adequate notice and opportunity to comment on the proposed use and occupancy of NFS lands. The authorizing officer will review the potential effects of the actions proposed in the application as disclosed in this EA, the supporting documentation in the project planning record, and public comment to determine if a special use permit will be issued to the applicant.

2 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment

Figure 1-1. Rain Forest Aerial Tram Vicinity Map

3 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment______

PROPOSED ACTION The proposed action (Alternative 2) would issue a 20-year term special use permit to RFATA to construct, operate, and maintain an aerial tram and associated facilities. The project would include a base station, tower-mounted gondola tram, observation tower, and maintenance trail that could be used as emergency egress if necessary. The primary operating season would be May through September.

Nineteen tram support towers, the top station with observation tower, and maintenance trail would be located on National Forest System (NFS) land in Section 35, Township 75 South, Range 91 East, Copper River Meridian. If the proposed action is selected, construction would begin in the fall of 2010 or spring of 2011. Approximately 1.5 acres of NFS land in the Revilla No. 524 Inventoried Roadless Area would be used and occupied.

The base (bottom) station and one additional tram support tower (for a total of 20 support towers) would be located on approximately five acres of private land known as USS 3385 Lot 111, and USS 2801 Lot 104 owned by Alaska Rainforest Sanctuary LLC (ARS) at the terminus of state-owned Wood Road. Also located on these Lots would be the motor room, main control room, passenger loading/unloading, parking lot, and general concession use. The maintenance trail would begin near the base station.

From the base station, the tram would proceed in a generally southwest direction to the top station through an approximately 17-foot wide corridor. The total slope length of the tram would be approximately 1,156 meters (3,793 feet) with a total vertical rise of approximately 433 meters (1,420 feet). The 35-foot-high observation tower would be located east of the summit of Fawn Mountain (Figure 1-1).

This alternative was used to initiate public comment on the project and was the focus of the scoping letter mailed to federal, state, and local agencies as well as to interested individuals on October 1, 2008. See Chapter 2 for a complete description of the Proposed Action.

FOREST PLAN DIRECTION FOR THE PROJECT AREA The Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) (USDA Forest Service 2008) provides the primary direction for management of the Forest by means of goals, objectives, management prescriptions, and standards and guidelines associated with a variety of land use designations (LUDs). The Rain Forest Aerial Tram project area is within a Semi-Remote Recreation (SM) LUD. Figure 2-3, in Chapter 2, displays the location of the Forest Plan land allocations near the project area.

The goals and objectives for the SM LUD (Forest Plan, page 3-63) include:

4 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment

Goals: • To provide predominantly natural or natural-appearing settings for semi- primitive types of recreation and tourism and for occasional enclaves of concentrated recreation and tourism facilities. • 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.

Objectives: • Manage recreation and tourism use and activities to meet the levels of social encounters, on-site developments, methods of access, and visitor impacts indicated for the Semi-primitive Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) classes. Enclaves of concentrated recreation and tourism developments within the LUD or management activities in adjacent LUDs may cause the ROS setting to become rural. • Permit small-scale, rustic recreation and tourism facilities, and occasional enclaves of concentrated recreation and tourism facilities. • Apply the Moderate Scenic Integrity Objective to any developments, facilities, or structures.

Desired Condition: Areas in the Semi-Remote Recreation LUD are characterized by generally unmodified natural environments. Ecological processes and natural conditions are only minimally affected by past or current human uses or activities. Users have the opportunity to experience a moderate degree of independence, closeness to nature, solitude and remoteness, with some areas offering motorized opportunities and others non-motorized opportunities (except for the traditional uses of boats, aircraft, and snow machines). Interactions between users are infrequent. Facilities and structures may be minimal or occasionally may be larger in scale, but would be rustic in appearance, or in harmony with the natural setting.

DECISION FRAMEWORK The Forest Supervisor of the Tongass National Forest is the Responsible Official for this proposal and will review the proposed action, public comments, and resource analyses.

The Responsible Official has authority to choose the no action alternative, the proposed action, or portions of the proposed action, and to implement the project according to the decision. Such decisions and the rationale for the decision will be documented in the project Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact. The decision may include construction modifications and conditions and how the project would be monitored over the life of the permit to ensure compliance with the terms of the decision.

The Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact would pertain only to NFS land. The portions of the project on non-NFS land are subject to all pertinent State and Ketchikan Gateway Borough laws and regulations.

5 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment______

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT The Rain Forest Aerial Tram project EA has been listed on the Tongass National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions since January 1, 2007.

The public has been invited to participate in the following ways:

Local News Media: • Ketchikan Daily News, Article, December 6, 2006 • Ketchikan Daily News, Display Ad, October 1, 2008 • Ketchikan Daily News, Article, October 4, 2008

Public Mailing: • Scoping Letter, Affected/Interested Tribes, September 8, 2008 • Scoping Letter, KMRD Mailing List, October 1, 2008

Meetings with Agencies, Communities, Native Groups, and Others: • Greater Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce, November 29, 2006 • Ketchikan Gateway Borough Assembly, November 19, 2007 • Ketchikan Indian Community, October 15, 2008 • Alaska Department of Transportation, Teleconference, December 18, 2008 • Organized Village of Saxman, August 3, 2009 • Quarterly newsletter to native groups since March 2008

PROJECT CONCERNS The District Ranger solicited public opinion and project involvement via a scoping letter sent to federal, state, and local agencies as well as to tribal organizations and other interested individuals. A display ad to seek public comments concerning the preparation of this EA was published October 1, 2008 in the Ketchikan Daily News, the newspaper of record. The District Ranger received 14 scoping letter responses. Based upon these responses and input from resource specialists, the responses were grouped into the following categories. Discussion of these concerns can be found in Chapters 2 and 3.

Recreation (see Chapter 3) • There were several concerns expressed regarding the project’s relationship to existing and future recreation resources in the area. Comments noted the desire to increase access to the NFS lands in this area; that public access to the tram’s maintenance trail would be restricted; and that the project would give the tram operator exclusive use of federal lands. • Concerns also included the further degradation of privacy and quietness in the neighborhood. The comments suggest that the tram would add to the excessive noise levels already present from the ARS zip line tour.

Transportation (see Chapter 3) • A number of comments expressed concerns regarding existing and possible future neighborhood traffic problems, congestion, and traffic infrastructure needs.

6 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment

Specifically, remarks addressed the lack of adequate parking and circulation for tour operators in the area; o the lack of sidewalks and shoulders causing pedestrians to walk in the travel lanes of the highway; o pedestrians and vehicles using Herring Cove Bridge as a wildlife viewing platform hazardously restricts traffic flow; o that Wood Road and its intersection with South Tongass Highway needs improvement to support additional traffic volume; and o that traffic congestion would only become worse as the neighborhood continues to develop.

Soils and Aquatics (see Chapter 3) • One public comment suggested that the project would negatively affect natural flow channels in the local watershed and promote erosion. In addition, the area is prone to landslides.

Timber (see Chapter 3) • A concern was raised about potential for tree windfall in the area due to shallow soils, high winds, and heavy rain and snowfall.

Scenery (see Chapter 3) • Concerns include the negative effect that the tram towers could have on views enjoyed by neighborhood residents and boaters.

Wildlife and Subsistence (see Chapter 3) • Concerns included possible negative impacts to the habitat of bears, birds, and other wildlife resources due to increased traffic, tram operations, and timber harvest (possible impact to old-growth forest and other vegetation). • Concerns included the project’s potential impact on the access to, and supply of, subsistence resources (deer and bear hunting and fishing) to Saxman residents.

Project Design / Facility Operation (see Chapter 2) • The ability to provide adequate emergency response to a tram accident or needed evacuation is another concern. In particular, the comment noted the need to ensure adequate training, equipment, and access to respond to an emergency rescue request. Other safety concerns include the potential for tree blow down and windfall due to shallow soils, high winds, and heavy rain and snowfall.

Alternatives Analysis (see Chapter 2) • One commenter suggested that it would be more appropriate to build the tram project on private lands rather than federal lands.

7 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment______

8 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment

CHAPTER 2, ALTERNATIVES

This chapter describes the Proposed Action and No Action alternatives for the Rain Forest Aerial Tram project. It also describes alternative sites considered for the tram location but not analyzed in detail based upon site evaluation criteria (Table 2-1, Figure 2-1). Figure 2-3 shows existing site conditions and Figure 2-4 shows how the project area would be modified by the Proposed Action.

Site Selection Process and Evaluation Criteria Rain Forest Aerial Trams Alaska, Inc. used six criteria to evaluate possible locations for the tram:

1. The need to locate the tram project in an area with a mature forest canopy and natural setting was a principal criterion for the project. This required not only a mature canopy for viewing close up from the gondola cars, but at different elevations. It also required an area where adjacent timber harvest activities and infrastructure were not visually apparent.

2. The desire that potential areas have some type of special panoramic attraction from the gondola cars and observation tower such as a deep gorge, cliffs, natural mountainous vistas, or views of fresh or salt water.

3. Road access to the project had to permit a four-hour tour turn-around. A general combination of road length and surface conditions were considered. The aim was to strike a balance between a comfortable ride and travel distance while allowing a leisurely pace at the tram facility consistent with project’s educational purpose.

4. Availability of sewer and electrical infrastructure was another consideration. The goal was to avoid the installation of new infrastructure when existing facilities could be utilized or easily extended.

5. Avoiding potential conflicts with other user groups (such as local recreation areas or municipal watersheds) was another consideration.

6. Consistency with land use regulations. Consideration was given to whether or not the tram project could be considered consistent with the Forest Plan LUD and local zoning.

9 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment______

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT EXCLUDED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS Figure 2-1 shows the general location of sites that were considered for this project and Table 2-1 summarizes the evaluation criteria for those sites. Below is a listing of reasons why sites not considered in detail were excluded from further analysis.

A. Ward Lake Recreation Area . The area has excellent access and recreation facilities. This alternative was eliminated due to possible conflicts with local user groups, project inconsistency with the Forest Plan Special Interest Area LUD, views of past timber harvest, and lack of sanitation infrastructure. This location would have required use of NFS land.

B. White River/Harriet Hunt Lake . This area was eliminated from further consideration due to extensive timber harvesting, extended rough road access, and lack of infrastructure. This location would have been on non-NFS land or possibly a combination of private and NFS land.

C. Mahoney Lake . This area was removed from detailed analysis due to poor boat access or an excessively long ride via logging roads. In addition, the area has undergone some timber harvesting which would detract from the tour quality. It also lacks access to electricity and sanitation facilities. This location would have required a combination of private and NFS land for the project.

D. Silvis Lakes . The area was found to have good landscape terrain and forest canopy. However, the view and noise of the extensive hydroelectric facilities reduced its ranking. Poor road conditions and lack of sanitation facilities also reduced this location’s desirability. This location would have required use of NFS land.

E. Ketchikan Lakes . This area has good access and landscape characteristics. However, its status as a municipal watershed makes this location inconsistent with the Forest Plan Municipal Watershed LUD. This location would have required use of NFS land.

10

Table 2-1. Site Selection Criteria

(B) Fawn Mtn. (A) (C) (D) (E) White River/ (Proposed Ward Lake Mahoney Silvis Ketchikan Harriet Hunt Action) Area Lake Lakes Lakes Alternative Evaluation Criteria Lake Area 1. Landscape Character

a. Natural appearing tree cover and landscape ● ● ● b. Mature canopy suitable for multi-level ● ● ● ● viewing 2. Special panoramic attractions and views a. Exceptional panoramic views from top ● ● ● station b. Deep gorge or tall cliffs ● ● ●

3. Road access permitting four hour tour ● ● ● ●

4. Infrastructure Nearby

a. Sewer ● ●

b. Electricity ● ● ● ●

5. Lack of user group conflicts ● ● ● ●

6. Tram consistent with LUD ● ● ● ●

11

Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment______

Figure 2-1. Alternative Sites

12 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment

ALTERNATIVES

Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 1 (No Action) serves as the baseline for evaluating the Proposed Action (Alternative 2). In Alternative 1, no tram construction would occur; this includes no construction of the bottom and top stations, support towers, observation tower, and maintenance trail. The existing forest and landscape condition would be maintained (Figure 2-3).

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) The Fawn Mountain location (Figures 2-1 and 2-4) was requested in RFATA’s application and is fully evaluated as the Proposed Action in order to be responsive to that application. As noted in Table 2-1, the project area contains mature temperate rainforest, affords generally clear panoramic views of mountainous landforms and prominent water bodies, has available infrastructure, and allows for the required tour times. Road access to the site would be via South Tongass Highway and Wood Road (state-owned routes). The project would share existing infrastructure for parking, traffic circulation, electricity and sanitary facilities with the existing Alaska Rainforest Sanctuary at the end of Wood Road.

The tram would include the Figure 2-2. Proposed Tower / Corridor Design construction of approximately twenty (20) steel support towers, roughly 70 feet high, in an “F” tower configuration (Figure 2-2). The purpose of the “F” tower configuration, instead of the traditional “T” tower design typically used at ski areas, is to minimize tree removal within the tram corridor, to provide two different elevation views of the canopy, and to minimize visual impacts of the lift line. The first support tower would be on ARS property and the remaining nineteen towers would be on NFS land. All support towers would be supported by concrete block foundations and formed columns extending approximately 8 inches above the ground. The project footprint is approximately 1.5 acres.

13 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment______

Figure 2-3. Existing Condition

14 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment

Figure 2-4. Proposed Action

15 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment______

The lift line would support a maximum of 48, eight-passenger gondola cars providing a 360-degree view of the forest. The gondola car windows would be removable depending on weather conditions. Maximum capacity of the equipment would be 375 people per hour. Initial passenger volume, however, is not expected to exceed 370 passengers daily by the end of the third year of operation (Table 3-3). Additional gondola cars could be added if customer demand increases. The normal tram operating speed would be 3.35 mph. The approximately 3,795-foot tram-line would be powered by an enclosed electric motor located on ARS property as part of the bottom station. A diesel generator would provide back-up power in the event of a power outage.

The footprint of the top station and observation tower would consist of a concrete platform approximately 40 feet by 30 feet and a structure approximately 35 feet tall (Figure 2-5). The ground floor would be occupied by the return station machinery and loading / unloading platforms. Composting toilets and a small hot drink concession would be located on the second level. The third level would have a roof over an open observation deck equipped with high-powered telescopes for wildlife and scenic viewing. Access to the observation deck would be via a ramp encircling the building.

Figure 2-5. Top Station and Observation Tower Schematic

16 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment

The bottom station and first tower would be located on non-NFS land. The size of the bottom station slab-foundation would be similar in size to the top station. However, there would be a motor room above the support column that is physically larger than the mechanical structure at the top station (Figure 2-6). There would also be a small control room located adjacent to the station for the electronic circuitry and control panel for the lift. There would also be a small structure housing toilets and a gift shop/coffee bar as part of the bottom station located on non-NFS land.

Figure 2-6. Bottom Station and First Tower Schematic

The design of all facilities including the lift towers, gondola cars, bottom and top stations, observation tower, and accessory buildings would minimize visual impacts. Design features would include use of materials and colors that blend with those found in the surrounding forest and landscape. In addition, timber and other vegetation removal would be kept at a minimum and within close proximity to the facilities.

A trail for lift line and support tower maintenance would be constructed from the bottom station on private land to the top station on NFS land. The trail would likely include native surfaces combined with materials such as crushed rock and elevated pressure treated wood walkways where necessary. It would contain numerous switchbacks to be routed near each support tower for construction and maintenance purposes. The trail would not be constructed to Forest Service standards for recreational use, but could be used as emergency egress in the unlikely event that both the primary and secondary power sources fail or there is unexpected damage to the tram, which makes it unsafe to operate.

Construction Schedule and Methods Final tram alignment would be determined after an in-depth accurate ground survey to identify elevation changes, rock outcrops, water locations, large trees, and any other special site considerations. Trail construction would be the first step to allow its use during the construction phase as well as the operation phase of the project. Facility construction from initial excavation to load testing and certification would take seven to nine months divided over two seasons. The first season would include construction of the maintenance trail, top station, and upper tower excavations during the summer months due to weather considerations. The second construction season would be during the fall, winter, and spring to complete the remaining construction aspects of the project.

17 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment______

Excavation on the hill would be primarily manual, using hand tools with some drilling and blasting anticipated; no heavy equipment would be used on the ground along the tram corridor. All excavated material would be removed from the site or placed on stable areas of the slope to minimize the risk of landslides; if pre-approved by the Forest Service, some materials may be replaced over the foundation blocks and blended into the surrounding terrain to minimize visual impacts.

Foundation formwork, reinforcing steel, anchor bolts, and compressors for drilling and blasting of rock would be transported as needed by a small external load helicopter. Transportation of concrete to the foundations would be accomplished by a heavy lift helicopter. After concrete hardening, the lift towers would be flown into place via helicopter. The observation tower could be constructed using one of two methods: 1) placement of prefabricated components by helicopter (including special design considerations) or 2) delivery by helicopter and placement using a gin pole or integral lifting crane. Final design of the observation tower would determine the construction method.

Timber harvest would be kept to a minimum by using the F-tower configuration (Figure 2-2) and is expected to be less than 50 merchantable trees along the tram corridor. Any timber removal would be accomplished during concrete work. Where there is a danger of damaging the surrounding forest by the falling of large trees, vertical (helicopter) logging techniques would be used. Dead or dangerous trees would be either removed or tied back to prevent possible contact with the machinery during operation. Timber removal would be pre-arranged using a timber settlement agreement (see the Timber section).

The project applicant (RFATA) must address during project design any stability or bearing capacity concerns identified through an on-site inspection by a construction engineer prior to design completion (Dalton 2008). The project engineer of record would sign the final design plans signifying that the design can withstand the critical load combinations found in the project area; the final design must meet the minimum guidelines established by industry standards for passenger tramways (pers. comm. Dell’Andrea, 2009). If there were any question as to the ability of the design to withstand the anticipated loads, a third party expert would perform site testing and provide recommendations as needed (Dalton 2008).

Forest Service Manual 7320.3 requires that all tramways comply with the current American National Standards Institute Safety Requirements for Passenger Tramways (ANSI B77.1) and that the Forest Service must receive a certificate of inspection attesting to the adequacy and safety of the installation and equipment prior to public operation of the tramway. In addition, the special use authorization would require tramway inspection by a qualified engineer or tramway specialist.

Preassembly and rigging of the lift towers and equipment staging would be accomplished on adjacent private or public (non-NFS) land.

18 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment

Operation The operating season for the tram would follow the cruise ship schedule similar to other tours in the area. Hours of operation would be up to seven days a week, 11 hours per day depending upon specific ship schedules. The projected season would be from May through September (about five months).

The tram operation would include a complement of 5-7 administrative staff and 10-15 seasonal staff for operations, maintenance, ticketing, and concessions.

All employees would receive training in rope evacuation procedures and first aid. Evacuation training and passenger rescue procedures would be coordinated with affected local and state emergency service providers.

COMPARISON TABLE ______The following comparison table is intended to give the reader a means to measure the scale and potential effects of the project. Resource effects are presented in more detail in Chapter 3.

Table 2-2 compares the effects of implementing the proposed action (Alt. 2) to taking no action (Alt. 1).

Table 2-2. Comparison of Effects Resource Indicator Alt 1 Alt 2 Recreation Local destinations offering interpretation and accessibility 4 5 Socioeconomics Visitor industry related jobs 1,150 1,172 Transportation Average daily vehicle trips on Wood Road 123 152 Average daily vehicle trips on South Tongass Highway 878 907 Aquatics Class IV streams potentially affected 0 2 Class III streams potentially affected 0 1 Timber Potential number of trees removed 0 57 Roadless Acres of plant and wildlife habitat affected by the tram 0 1.5 Acres of roadless area characteristics retained 30,941.0 30,939.5

19 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment______

CHAPTER 3, ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

INTRODUCTION This chapter describes the affected environment of the project area and the potential changes to the environment due to implementation of the proposed action. It also presents the scientific and analytical basis for the comparison of the alternatives presented in Chapter 2. Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects are disclosed. Effects are quantified where possible, but qualitative discussions are also included.

The following discussion of resources and potential effects associated with each of the alternatives takes advantage of existing information included in the Forest Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement; project-specific resource reports and related information; and other sources as indicated. Where applicable, such information is briefly summarized and referenced to minimize duplication.

This EA hereby incorporates, by reference, the project planning record and resource reports contained in the planning record (40 CFR 1502.21). The planning record for this project includes all project-specific information, including resource reports, field investigations, and other analysis used to support the conclusions in this EA. These reports and analyses include: Aquatic and Geologic, Heritage, Recreation, Roadless, Scenery, Socio-Economics, Soil, Timber, Transportation, Botany, Biological Evaluation for Sensitive Plant Species, Risk Assessment for Invasive Plants, Wildlife and Subsistence Analysis, Biological Evaluation for Wildlife Species, and Preliminary Jurisdictional Wetland Determination Report. Together, these reports contain the detailed data, methodologies, analyses, conclusions, maps, references, and technical documentation that the resource specialists relied upon to reach the conclusions in the individual resource sections.

Much of the Tongass National Forest resource data resides in an electronic database formatted for a geographic information system (GIS). The Forest uses GIS software to assist in the analyses of this data. GIS data are available in tabular (numerical) format and as plots displaying data in map format. For this EA, all maps and most of the numerical analyses are based on GIS resource data. GIS data are useful for comparing alternatives, but numbers displayed in this analysis are approximate and may differ from actual distances measure on the ground. All quantitative data for trails, towers, and other facilities would be subject as-built surveys once completed.

20 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment

RECREATION Summary The proposed aerial tram project would not significantly affect forest recreation resources on the Ketchikan road system. The project would expand the range of educational excursions available to visitors with limited physical mobility and increase recreational access to the forest canopy. The project would not affect any existing developed or dispersed recreation sites. The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) in the project area would not change. The project is consistent with Forest Plan standards and guidelines.

Forest Plan Direction The Forest Plan land use designation (LUD) for the project location is Semi-Remote Recreation as described on pages 3-63 through 3-68 of the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2008). Goals, objectives, and desired future condition for the LUD are discussed in the Recreation Resource Report.

Management Prescriptions Relevant management prescriptions for the Semi-Remote Recreation LUD include:

Recreation Use Administration: REC3 Recreation Management and Operations A. Generally, manage for Semi-Primitive ROS settings. Enclaves of concentrated recreation and tourism developments within the LUD or management activities in adjacent LUDs may cause the ROS setting to become Roaded Natural, Roaded Modified, or Rural. D. Permit small scale, rustic recreation and tourism facilities such as recreation cabins, shelters, docks, and enclaves of concentrated recreation and tourism development. 1. During all construction activity: a. Minimize site modification, b. Minimize vegetation clearing adjacent to the site, and c. Use colors found in the natural environment. Recreation Special Uses A. Major and minor developments are compatible with this LUD. Refer to the Recreation and Tourism Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines.

Recreation and Tourism Standards and Guidelines Relevant standards and guidelines for management of Recreation and Tourism resources are provided on pages 4-43 through 4-49 of the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2008). These include:

21 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment______

Recreation Resource Planning: REC2 I. Interagency Planning A. Accomplish outdoor recreation planning by providing opportunities and programs that are appropriate to the forest environment, dependent upon natural settings, and help participants experience and understand nature. 1. Determine the appropriate role of the National Forest System (NFS) lands in providing natural resource-based recreation opportunities, sites, facilities, and experiences. Within the context of national policy, cooperate and coordinate with national, state, and local agencies in providing a balance of outdoor recreation opportunities throughout Southeast Alaska. B. Provide recreation opportunities on NFS lands in concert with, and supplemental to, those opportunities that are located on other land ownerships and jurisdictions. Generally, recreation areas, sites, and facilities located on NFS lands should: 1. Complement commercial public services (i.e., resorts, marinas, stores, service stations) within communities or on private or other public land. 3. Provide other appropriate facilities to meet specific identified recreation needs on a case-by-case basis.

II. Integrated Resource Planning B. Identify opportunities to enhance existing, and provide additional, recreation activities, opportunities, and services where desirable to meet local or Forest-wide recreation demands. Give particular attention to opportunities that are in relatively short supply within the day-use travel distance of communities, are important to local users, are important to tourism and commercial service providers, provide a base for visitor use of Primitive and Semi-Primitive areas, compliment recreation programs of communities, the state, and private landowners, contribute to the supply of Semi-Primitive Motorized opportunities, and are related to the unique combination of marine, wildlife, and fish resources characteristic of Southeast Alaska.

III. Tourism A. Tourism is a major industry in Southeast Alaska. The Forest provides the backdrop as well as the land base for many tourism activities, including several of the state's leading attractions. The size and extent of the Forest has a profound influence on the amount and nature of opportunities for the tourism industry. 1. Work with the tourism industry and government agencies in assessing the value and contribution of the industry to the economy of Southeast Alaska. Identify the role and contribution made by the Tongass National Forest to the industry and the region. 4. Work with government agencies, organizations, and the private sector to identify, facilitate, and develop tourism opportunities. 5. Consider access, infrastructure, and other needs of the tourism industry at the project planning level. Incorporate these needs into the project design and implementation.

22 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment

Recreation Use Administration: REC3 II. Recreation Special Uses A. Commercial Recreation Opportunities 1. Work with recreation service partners and the tourism industry in identifying and developing services and opportunities. Recreation service partners provide services and opportunities that supplement the use and enjoyment of the national forests by a variety of people. b) Facilitate authorizing commercial recreation use, services, and developments by: (1) Authorizing commercial recreation developments and services where there is a public need and no private lands are available or suitable for development. Refer to each Land Use Designation (LUD) management prescription to determine its appropriateness for development. V. Recreation Construction and Rehabilitation A. Provide development facilities appropriate to the ROS setting after determining that the private sector is not able or willing to meet the demand. C. Provide barrier-free, accessible facilities appropriate to the site development level and area ROS setting.

Affected Environment The affected recreation environment includes those destinations in the Ketchikan Gateway Borough that are accessible from the road system and that provide educational and interpretative opportunities to visitors with a variety of mobility requirements.

Ketchikan is a principal destination for visitors to the Tongass National Forest. According to data provided by the Ketchikan Visitors Bureau (KVB), the community received 1,000,232 tourist visits in 2009, of which 937,419 were cruise ship passengers (pers. comm. London, 2009b). Cruise ship passengers are the principal users of the commercial tour excursions on National Forest System (NFS), State, and other public and private lands (pers. comm. London, 2009a). In addition to tourists arriving via cruise ships, 50,835 visitors arrived via airlines and 11,978 arrived via the Alaska Marine Highway system during the same period (pers. comm. London, 2009b).

Recreation Opportunities Existing access to the forest for visitors includes floatplane tours, jeep tours, zip lines, marine tours, walking tours, and interpretive exhibits. These activities do not provide a detailed view of the forest canopy, and few offer the opportunity to cater to large commercial groups. In addition, only some of these tours provide access to visitors with limited mobility. Recreational access to the forest is further limited by the amount of time that most cruise ships are in port, with excursion times typically limited to four hours round trip (pers. comm. London, 2009a).

Although the exact number of recreational excursions on public and private lands varies from year-to-year, there are several primary destinations available from the Ketchikan road system that emphasize natural history and provide access to visitors with a range of mobility requirements (Figure 3-1). These include the Southeast Alaska Discovery

23 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment______

Center (federal), Ward Creek Trail (federal), Totem Bight State Park (state), and the Alaska Rainforest Sanctuary (ARS) (private). In addition to these primary destinations, there are a number of other destinations that provide a range of forest recreation opportunities but do not have the same degree of interpretation and access as the destinations listed above (see the Recreation Resource Report).

The Southeast Alaska Discovery Center provides an educational experience for visitors and is accessible to those with limited mobility. The Discovery Center is capable of hosting large groups. However, visits are self-guided, and do not provide the full experience of the forest because the artificial displays are inside. In addition, the one- room display about the forest is a broad overview of plant and animal life.

Ward Creek Trail features guided commercial tours that provide access to the forest floor to visitors with a range of mobility requirements, including assisted wheelchair access. The tours emphasize forest ecology and natural history at ground level. Commercial user groups are limited to a maximum group size of 12 plus the guide.

Totem Bight State Park features guided tours that emphasize forest ecology and cultural history at ground level. The park is accessible to visitors with limited mobility, including a trail for unassisted wheelchair access, and can accommodate large groups.

ARS provides zip line tours and interpretive natural trail walks on approximately five acres of private land adjacent to the Tongass National Forest and an additional 14.42 acres along the Herring Cove tidelands. ARS also features exhibits of wildlife, local history, and totem pole carving. Although the zip lines traverse the tree canopy, the emphasis is on thrill rather than on canopy ecology and education. In addition to height and weight restrictions, the zip line tours cannot be used by visitors with any restrictions to physical mobility (pers. comm. Laurence, 2009). The nature trail and exhibits can be used by people with limited physical mobility, including assisted wheelchair access. The site can also accommodate large groups.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) Appendix I of the Forest Plan contains Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) standards and guidelines to help identify, quantify, and describe the types of recreation settings that the Tongass provides. The ROS system portrays the combination of activities, settings and experience expectations. The ROS inventory may be used to assess the potential effects of the alternatives on recreation settings.

Figure 3-2 illustrates the existing ROS for the project area. The current ROS classification indicates a Rural (R) designation for the non-NFS lands adjacent to the tram project area, and a Roaded Natural (RN) setting on the immediately adjacent, inland NFS lands where the project is located. Although no roads exist in this area on NFS lands, the RN designation fits with the descriptions provided in Appendix I of the Forest Plan in other setting indicators. Further inland of the tram, a setting of Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized (SPNM) is designated.

24 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment

Setting indicators for the Rural ROS designation are shown in Appendix I of the Forest Plan and include (page I-6):

• All forms of access and travel modes may occur, although access to and through the area is primarily by passenger vehicle. • Remoteness is of little importance, and moderate to high concentrations of people and sights and sounds of human activity are acceptable when not continuous. • Information and interpretive facilities may be complex and dominant on developed sites. • User may meet many (more than 20) other parties per day on trails, in dispersed areas, on roads, and in developed facilities.

Setting indicators for the Roaded Natural ROS designation are shown in Appendix I of the Forest Plan and include (page I-4):

• All forms of access and travel modes may occur. • Remoteness is of little importance, but low to moderate concentrations of human sights and sounds are preferred. Setting is located within 0.5 mile (greater or less depending on terrain and vegetation, but no less than 0.25 mile) of moderate- to heavily-travelled waterways and/or roads that are maintained to Levels 3, 4, and 5, and open for use by the public or those areas that receive heavy small aircraft travel. • User meets less than 20 other parties per day on trails and in dispersed areas during at least 80 percent of the primary use season. User may meet numerous other parties on roads and developed recreation sites. Developed sites are often at full capacity, but do not exceed over 80 percent of the design capacity over the season of operation. • Visitor caused impacts are noticeable, but not degrading to basic resource elements, nor do they exceed established Scenic Integrity Objectives.

Access to NFS lands Developed recreation sites in the analysis area include the campgrounds near Ward Lake (Signal Creek, 3 Cs, and Last Chance), but these are not open for commercial use and will not be discussed further in this analysis. No developed or dispersed recreation sites exist on NFS lands in the Herring Cove or Fawn Mountain area. Access to NFS lands in the immediate vicinity of the proposed tram is limited because the area is bordered by private land in many areas and therefore public access is restricted. During project scoping, several individuals expressed concerns regarding the lack of public access to NFS lands. Some comments suggested that development of the tram project should provide new improved trailhead access to NFS lands through use of the maintenance trail that would be constructed concurrently with the tram project.

25 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment______

Privacy and quietness in the neighborhood Some scoping comments expressed concern with the project’s impact upon the peace and quiet of the adjacent neighborhood. The Rural ROS designation accurately describes the non-NFS lands adjacent to the proposed tram. Increased traffic noise and human voices are present most days of the week for most of the day during the summer months because of existing tourism in the vicinity. These include groups of people gathering in the Herring Cove area to look for fish and wildlife and the Alaska Rainforest Sanctuary property accommodates large numbers of visitors each year to the zip line and nature trail. In addition, noise from the Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association (SSRAA) hatchery operations to the north of Herring Cove can be heard from the lower section of the proposed tram alignment (personal observation). The Transportation section of the EA addresses additional traffic, which could disrupt the peace and quiet of the neighborhood.

26 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment

Figure 3-1. Primary Recreation Visitor Destinations

27 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment______

Figure 3-2. Existing Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS)

28 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects Under the No Action (Alternative 1), there would be no foreseeable change in primary or other destinations that feature forest recreation or education. Existing interpretive and forest recreation opportunities are expected to continue and forest recreation by cruise passengers and other visitors is expected to continue at approximately the current rate. Access to NFS lands in the vicinity would remain difficult because of the surrounding private ownership. No further degradation of privacy and quietness in the neighborhood would occur.

Under the Proposed Action (Alternative 2), the number of primary destinations that feature forest recreation and education would increase by one. In addition, the Proposed Action would add a destination that features an up-close, multi-level view of the forest canopy and that would be accessible to visitors with a range of mobility limitations, including those in wheelchairs. This type of destination is not presently available in the recreation analysis area (forest recreation destinations on Ketchikan road system).

A concern was raised during scoping that authorizing this use would mean RFATA would have exclusive use of NFS land. The special use permit that would be issued to RFATA states that “use of the permit area is not exclusive” and that other uses may occur “provided, such use does not materially interfere with the holder’s authorized use” (USDA Forest Service 2006a).

Access to NFS lands The planned trail would be for facility maintenance and emergency egress only. Although it would be built to Forest Service standards for the protection of soils, wetlands, streams, it would not meet the standards necessary for a public access trail. The trailhead would be located on private land and no public access would be available at this location. Once on NFS land, public use of the trail cannot be prohibited. However, access to the trail on federal land would be difficult due to the landlocked and rugged nature of NFS lands in this vicinity.

Privacy and quietness in the neighborhood Any noise from the additional people and the operation of the tram would be consistent with those expected in a Rural ROS designation, and likely will be indistinguishable from the noise of already existing facilities and activities. In addition, the tram would use quiet electric motors during normal operations, with a generator used only for emergency operations. These are housed within a building at the base station thereby reducing their noise levels. The base station is approximately 600 feet from the nearest residence. The remaining tram towers diverge from residences to a distance of over a half mile away at the top observation tower from the nearest residences. People talking at normal levels in the woods can normally only be heard one to two hundred feet away (personal observation). As a result of these observations and information, noises from the tram operation and those persons riding on it are not likely to be heard from residences along Wood Road or South Tongass Highway. The non-NFS lands of the neighborhood are

29 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment______expected to remain in the Rural ROS designation. Therefore, possible disruptions to the peace and quiet of the neighborhood are not anticipated. The Transportation section of the EA addresses additional traffic, which could disrupt the peace and quiet of the neighborhood.

Cumulative Effects The cruise ship industry is expected to continue providing the vast majority of visitors to the Tongass National Forest and non-NFS lands. The volume of these visitors will drive demand for new primary and other visitor destinations that feature forest recreation and education. Although the number of cruise passengers is projected to decline in 2010 (Table 3-2 in Transportation), the cruise industry will continue to play a significant role in local tourism.

The proposed Oceans Alaska Marine Science Center would create a new primary destination emphasizing education and interpretation in marine ecology about one mile east of the tram. The facility would be accessible to visitors with limited mobility, but would not focus on forest education or provide a close encounter with the forest canopy. No other reasonably foreseeable forest education destinations are planned in the analysis area.

Access to NFS lands The Whitman Lake hydroelectric project may offer some type of access to NFS lands in the Herring Cove vicinity. This was a condition of the hydroelectric license issued to Ketchikan Public Utilities, but negotiations are still taking place, and at this time the type, location, and timeframe of the possible access are unknown. No other reasonably foreseeable projects would provide access to NFS lands in the vicinity of the tram.

Privacy and quietness in the neighborhood The reasonably foreseeable Whitman Lake hydroelectric project will be located adjacent to the SSRAA fish hatchery and across Herring Cove to the north of the tram. The two power generators from this facility will contribute more noise to that already existing or proposed noise to the neighborhood than the tram operations, making the tram noise less distinguishable. However, the Rural ROS designation allows for these types of development to occur and the proposed tram would still be consistent with Forest Plan direction for the LUD and ROS designations and the surrounding the project area.

Mitigation Measures 1. Upon termination of the special use authorization, the authorized officer has the discretion to require the holder to sell or remove all structures and improvements within a reasonable period of time and to restore the site to a condition acceptable to the authorized officer.

30 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment

SOCIOECONOMICS Background The project lies within the Ketchikan Gateway Borough (the Borough) near the southern end of the community’s limited road system. The current (2009 certified) population of the Borough is 12,984. This represents a 7.6 percent decrease from the 2000 census total of 14,059. Within the Borough are two cities: the City of Ketchikan (population 7,503) and the City of Saxman, a native village (population 434) (Alaska Division of Community and Regional Affairs 2009). Projections published by the Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce development indicate that the Borough will continue to lose population over the next twenty years reaching a projected population of 11,095 in 2030 (Alaska Department of Labor 2007, page 52).

Ketchikan is a major port of call for cruise ships; within the City of Ketchikan there are four cruise ship berths. Ketchikan Visitor’s Bureau (KVB) information shows that the number of cruise passengers grew from 565,005 in 1999 (KVB 2008) to 937,419 in 2009 (pers. comm. London, 2009b). In addition, summer visitor traffic is supported by ferry service via the Alaska Marine Highway system, the Inter-Island Ferry Authority, and air service by Alaska Airlines, private air taxis and charters. The number of cruise ship calls and passengers is expected to decline in 2010 (KVB 2009). Table 3-2 in the Transportation section shows the numbers for 2003 through 2010. Projections are not yet available beyond 2010 and numbers are assumed to remain constant for analysis purposes.

The visitor industry is an important economic sector in Ketchikan and drives a seasonal increase in population and employment to support retail activities and tour services.

• The visitor industry directly accounted for 1,150 jobs (11 percent of the Ketchikan jobs) and another 350 jobs were estimated to be indirectly provided. These 1,500 jobs resulting from summer, out-of-state visitors accounted for 14 percent of all employment in Ketchikan in 2006 (McDowell 2007). • Within the visitor industry, retail employment accounts for 550 jobs (37 percent) and tours and transportation account for 400 jobs (27 percent). Tours and transportation jobs include shore excursion employment as well as pilotage, barge, and other marine services employment (McDowell 2007). • Visitor industry jobs accounted for approximately 12 percent ($50 million) of all labor income (McDowell 2007). • Among the 7,486 workers employed in the local private sector, 33.5 percent (2,505) were filled by non-residents (Alaska Department of Labor 2007). The statewide non-resident worker proportion is 29.2 percent. • Cruise ship passengers spent $117 million, the majority of the $162 million in total visitor industry spending (McDowell 2007). • The visitor industry accounts for approximately 24 percent ($4 million) of the combined sales tax revenues collected by the City of Ketchikan and the Ketchikan Gateway Borough (McDowell 2007).

31 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment______

Affected Environment The project’s socio-economic effect on the community will be measured by the change in direct visitor industry employment. According to the latest report commissioned by the KVB, the visitor industry directly provides 1,150 jobs in the community (McDowell 2007).

The predicted number of 2010 cruise passengers is only one percent fewer than in 2006, the year the visitor bureau study was based on. Therefore, the assumption for this analysis is that the number of direct visitor industry jobs would remain constant at 1,150. There are currently no visitor projections beyond 2010 and numbers for the foreseeable future are assumed to remain constant for analysis purposes.

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects In the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) , there would be no change to the number of direct visitor industry jobs.

In the Proposed Action (Alternative 2), the tram would directly generate up to 22 jobs directly associated with the visitor industry. This would be a two percent increase in the number of direct visitor industry jobs.

Cumulative Effects In the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) , Ketchikan would continue to provide many different air, land and sea excursions to cruise passengers. Foreseeable projects such as the Ocean’s Alaska Marine Science Center would add to the number of visitor destinations and therefore create new visitor industry jobs. The Ocean’s Alaska project is expected to generate up to 52 direct visitor industry jobs, a four percent increase.

In the Proposed Action (Alternative 2), the project would provide a new forest canopy excursion destination not presently available. In addition, other projects such as the Ocean’s Alaska Marine Science Center would add to the number of visitor destinations. The cumulative effect of the proposed tram and the Oceans Alaska project could be to add up to 74 direct visitor industry jobs, a six percent increase.

During construction and initial start-up, these projects would also have the short-term effect of increasing the demand for a variety of goods and services from several industry sectors including construction, transportation, and retail; these temporary jobs cannot be quantified at this time.

32 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment

TRANSPORTATION Affected Environment The State of Alaska, City of Ketchikan, and the United States Forest Service (USFS) are the principal road owners and managers in the Ketchikan Gateway Borough (the Borough). The State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOTPF) is responsible for most roads outside of the City within the urbanized area. The State owns and maintains approximately 55 miles of roads. The USFS maintains approximately 12 miles of roads connected to the Ketchikan road system, of which about 8 miles are open to motorized vehicles to provide access to timber, recreation, subsistence, and other resources. There is limited public access to NFS lands in the project vicinity because adjacent lands are privately owned. The Borough does not manage roads outside the City of Ketchikan. The City of Ketchikan owns most roads within City limits.

State Route No. 291360 (Wood Road), which would provide access to the tram site, is 0.33 mile long and maintained by the State of Alaska. It has an average travel width of 20 feet, no curb, a limited shoulder, and is constructed of earth and gravel. It is in fair condition. Access to the tram base station would be via a privately-owned driveway at the terminus of Wood Road. State Route No. 7 (South Tongass Highway) intersects with Wood Road (Figure 3-3) and serves as the arterial providing access from the project area to the City of Ketchikan. It is in good condition due to recent widening, realignment, and repaving. Visitor traffic to the project area originates almost exclusively in downtown Ketchikan near the cruise ship docks.

ADOTPF calculates traffic volume on state roads based on an annualized average of daily vehicle trips (AADT) counted along the roadway. ADOTPF also seasonally adjusts the figures to provide a more accurate picture of traffic during the peak-summer-visitor months. The AADT is used for road management, planning, and evaluating the impacts of new projects on road capacity.

Tongass Highway had a 2008 AADT, which varied from 5,544 trips per day just outside the city, to 787 trips at the Wood Road Intersection (ADOTPF map 2008). Table 3-1 illustrates the AADT and seasonally adjusted numbers for South Tongass Highway and Wood Road during the peak May through September period between the years 2003 - 2008. South Tongass Highway at the intersection of Wood Road had a seasonally adjusted average of 878 trips per day in 2008, a steady increase from 658 trips per day in 2003. Wood Road had a seasonally adjusted average of 123 trips per day in 2008 (ADOTPF 2009). The first year of operation for the Alaska Rainforest Sanctuary (ARS) was 2004 with the first zip line opening in 2005; a seasonally adjusted 47 trips per day were added to Wood Road between 2003 and 2006, many of which are likely from the new zipline attraction. A slight decrease of 5 trips per day was recorded between 2007 and 2008.

33 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment______

Table 3-1. Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) 2003-2008 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) 2003 2004 2 2005 2006 2007 2008 Wood Road 73 74 75 115 115 110 S. Tongass Hwy 1 590 597 576 n/a 677 787

Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Seasonally Adjusted May-September 2003 2004 2 2005 2006 2007 2008 Wood Road 81 83 84 128 128 123 S. Tongass Hwy 1 658 666 643 n/a 755 878

Source: Alaska Department of Transportation 1. South Tongass Highway near Wood Road intersection 2. 2004 Alaska Rainforest Sanctuary opens; 2005 the first zip line opens, 2007 the second zip line opens

The Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association (SSRAA) fish hatchery is located across Herring Cove from the proposed tram and gains access from Powerhouse Road. Herring Cove bridge, between Wood Road and Powerhouse Road on South Tongass Highway, serves as an informal wildlife viewing area during the summer months. Bald eagles, returning salmon, bears, seals, and great blue herons are a few of the species that draw visitor interest to this area. In addition, Herring Cove is a popular sport and subsistence salmon fishing spot. Based on 2008 ADOTPF data, 555 seasonally adjusted daily trips occur in this short section of highway near the bridge between Wood Road and Powerhouse Road. Of the 878 seasonally adjusted daily trips just before (toward Ketchikan) Wood Road, 123 turn off at Wood Road, another 50 turn off after the bridge at Powerhouse Road, and 150 trips continue on the Highway as shown on Figure 3-3.

Ten single-family residential dwellings are estimated to take driveway access from Wood Road and together they generate an annual average of 95.7 daily trips when calculated using an average of 9.57 daily trips per unit Monday through Friday (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003). The balance of 26.3 daily trips (using the seasonally adjusted 2008 figure of 123 average daily trips) is attributed to other land uses on Wood Road including ARS business, which likely contributes a large portion of the daily trips.

The number of cruise ship passengers, which constitutes a source of traffic on Wood Road and South Tongass Highway, also increased during 2003-2008 (Table 3-2). Projections for 2010 anticipate a 12 percent decrease in cruise passengers from 2009 figures.

34 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment

Table 3-2. Cruise Ship and Passenger Numbers 2003 – 2010

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Cruise Ships 538 508 562 503 499 501 496 425 Passengers 777,663 848,969 921,429 838,880 899,638 941,910 937,419 826,903

Sources: Ketchikan Visitor’s Bureau

In correspondence dated December 5, 2008, ADOTPF Southeast Region Planning Division summarized several existing transportation deficiencies and concerns in the project area. These included:

• The impacts to the South Tongass road system from “extensive development” in the area, which includes visitor traffic for bear viewing, hatchery operations, fishing, a zip line tour, and other attractions. Of particular concern is unmanaged pedestrian traffic in the roadway from ad-hoc bus and van tour visits to the area. • Limited shoulders and pullouts compound the problem of un-regulated visitor traffic to the area. • Wood Road is unpaved and traffic can decrease air quality from dust and water quality from erosion. • The Wood Road/South Tongass intersection may provide less than adequate sight distance and vehicular maneuverability.

According to 17 AAC 10.060.(c), it is within the state’s discretion to require a formal traffic impact analysis to address these concerns if it determines that the

“…development is projected to generate more than 100 vehicle trips on a highway during any hour of the day, or the traffic generated is expected to detract from the safety of the highway.”

A traffic impact analysis has not been requested or initiated by the State at this time.

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects The area analyzed for direct effects includes South Tongass Highway to Wood Road and the length of Wood Road.

No new or existing national forest roads would be created or used under either alternative.

In the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), Wood Road and South Tongass Highway would continue to be used to provide access for residential and commercial land uses. The roads would continue to be managed and maintained by the State of Alaska. Due to the expected decline in the number of cruise ship passengers in 2010, it is possible that a correspondingly small decrease in the number of average daily vehicle trips on South Tongass Highway and Wood Road could occur during the peak season, May through

35 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment______

September, but this number is not quantifiable. Otherwise, no direct change in traffic is expected under this alternative.

The Proposed Action (Alternative 2) would increase the seasonally adjusted daily trips on South Tongass Highway and Wood Road. The increase would be in the form of traffic traveling from the downtown area to an established parking and turn-around area at the end of Wood Road. In addition, it is likely that there would be some increase in pedestrian and shuttle traffic along Wood Road.

It is assumed that the proposed land use would represent a destination largely visited by cruise ship passengers on organized tours. Visitor traffic would be managed on-site with guides and shuttle vehicles consistent with the tour package. Therefore, site visitors would not negatively affect adjacent roadways, such as South Tongass Highway or Herring Cove Bridge, with either additional unmanaged pedestrian or vehicular traffic.

There are no cruise visitor projections available beyond 2010. Therefore, the number of ships expected to stop in Ketchikan was held constant for analysis of future years. The proposed tram project is expected to annually host 20,400 visitors beginning in 2012, an average of 139 passengers daily during the May through September cruise season (147 days in 2010). This volume is projected to increase incrementally during the first three years of the project’s operation as shown on Table 3-3. The volume estimates are based on the applicant’s assumption that the tram would attract 48, 96, and 128 tram passengers per ship call during the first three years of operation respectively (pers. comm. Preschel, 2009).

Table 3-3. Projected Tram Passengers 2012-2014 (Alternative 2)

2012 2013 2014 Annual Visitors 20,400 40,800 54,400 Daily Average 139 278 370 Peak Day 240 480 640

Sources: Rain Forest Aerial Trams Alaska (applicant)

The proposed project would add an estimated 29 daily trips in 2012, 36 trips in 2013, and 41 trips in 2014 as shown on Table 3-4. These estimates are based on 40 passengers per bus and 1 trip per each of the 22 employees, which, under Borough zoning code, would require one-half parking spaces per employee. For comparison, the increase in traffic resulting from operation of the Alaska Rainforest Sanctuary (a use of similar intensity) resulted in a seasonally adjusted increase of 47 trips by the third year of operation as shown on Table 3-1 (compare years 2003 and 2006).

The Proposed Action would not add traffic volume to South Tongass Highway in excess of its capacity of 1,700 vehicles per hour according ADOTPF (pers. comm. Fagnant, 2009). There is no evidence that the Proposed Action would lead to more than 100 vehicle trips during any hour of the day on either South Tongass Highway or Wood Road.

36 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment

Additional review would be conducted by the State during review of the driveway permit for the proposed project at which time a formal traffic impact analysis could be required to address any outstanding State concerns.

Table 3-4. Projected Seasonally Adjusted Daily Traffic 2012-2014

2012 2013 2014 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 1 Alt 2 Wood Road 123 152 123 159 123 164 South Tongass Highway 878 907 878 914 878 919

Sources: Alternative 1 - Alaska Department of Transportation seasonally adjusted traffic count. Alternative 2 - Ketchikan Gateway Borough Zoning Code 60.10.085. Assumes 40 passengers per bus and one vehicle trip per employee (22 maximum) based on one-half parking spot per employee.

37 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment______

Figure 3-3. Project Access and Seasonally Adjusted Average Annual Daily Traffic

38 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment

Cumulative Effects There are two areas analyzed for cumulative effects. The larger area analyzed includes the roads shown on Figure 3-3. A smaller sub-area of cumulative impact analysis includes only Wood Road.

Common to All Alternatives: No National Forest System roads would be created or used under either alternative. The State would continue to manage road maintenance and monitor traffic patterns and concerns for Wood Road, South Tongass Highway, and the other State-maintained roads in the analysis area; any road upgrades are outside the scope of this project because they are not within Forest Service jurisdiction.

Wood Road, unlike the Powerhouse Road Area across the bay, does not offer particularly clear views of the bay, estuary, and wildlife due to thick roadside foliage and it is not expected to be a source of new traffic generated from ad-hoc wildlife viewing under either alternative.

The surrounding neighborhood area, as shown on Figure 3-3, would continue to experience residential and commercial growth consistent with local land-use regulations. Existing and proposed destinations such as the Alaska Rainforest Sanctuary, the fish hatchery, Hole-in-the-Wall Harbor, the proposed Oceans Alaska aquarium and research center (located approximately 3,500 feet east of Herring Cove Bridge on South Tongass Highway as shown on Figure 3-1), and the Whitman Lake hydroelectric facility would contribute to future traffic volume on the neighborhood’s roadways. Informal wildlife viewing tours, sport and subsistence fishing, and sightseeing will contribute pedestrian and vehicle traffic in the neighborhood and could drive the need for pavement, shoulder, and parking upgrades.

Under the No-Action Alternative (Alternative 1) the projected decrease in ship calls may lead to a small, short-term decrease in the overall road traffic volume for the Herring Cove bridge area, but this change is not quantifiable and expected to be minimal.

The Wood Road sub-area largely contains single-family homes and the existing ARS facility and would continue to generate traffic volumes consistent with those uses. It is unlikely that traffic generated by the ARS facility would increase in the short-term due to the expected decrease in cruise-ship-passenger volume at least through 2010.

The Proposed Action (Alternative 2) would generate additional traffic on South Tongass Highway and Wood Road consistent with the projections listed for Direct Effects. As discussed under “Common to All Alternatives,” the traffic associated with the proposed tram would not continue past Wood Road and therefore would not exacerbate the existing problems in the Herring Cove bridge vicinity. Short-term, a few extra trips could be generated on Wood Road from locals who want to see the new tram facility; however, this is not expected to generate large numbers of traffic and would be a short-term impact. This is not quantifiable and therefore any traffic for this reason has not been accounted for in Table 3-4.

39 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment______

SOIL RESOURCES Affected Environment This analysis reviews hazards for landslides and soil movement within the proposed corridor of the Rain Forest Tram. Other soil concerns, namely soil productivity and floodplain concerns do not exist for this project. The primary surface erosion concern is a secondary effect of potential landslides. Field measurements are presented for slope stability and the potential for landslides to affect streams. Forest-wide standards and guidelines for this resource are on page 4-64 to 4-67 of the Forest Plan. On-site field surveys determined slope stability of the proposed tram construction. GPS waypoints were taken at all locations for which field data was collected and site-specific notes can be found in the project planning record.

Mass wasting events, also called landslides, are the dominant process of erosion in steep watersheds in Southeast Alaska. Landslides can deliver soil, rock, and debris to the aquatic environment. They are most likely to occur on steep valley side slopes and within V-notches, steep, deeply incised streams (Swanston 1969).

Landslides typically occur during or immediately after periods of heavy rainfall when soils are saturated (Swanston 1970). Landslides usually occur on steep slopes that have soils with distinct subsurface layers such as compact glacial till or bedrock that slopes parallel to the ground surface. These parallel subsurface layers form a smooth slip-plane on which slides occur (Flaccus 1959, cited in Bishop and Stevens 1964). There are two small existing landslide scars between proposed towers E and G (Figure 3-4).

The Forest Service uses a Mass Movement Index (MMI) to identify potentially unstable sites in an analysis area. The MMI is based on landform as well as the physical properties of a soil and rates the relative stability of the soil into one of four classes of landslide potential: 1 (low), 2 (medium), 3 (high), and 4 (very high). Most mineral soils that occur on slopes greater than 72 percent gradient and some mineral soils with restricted drainage on slopes greater than 60 percent gradient are classified as MMI 4. MMIs were calculated from slope shape, slope length, slope gradient, drainage density, soil drainage, soil depth, parent material, and textural class (Swanston 1995).

Vegetation, particularly tree roots, stabilizes slopes. Maximum loss of rooting strength occurs 3 to 5 years after a tree is cut, resulting in a reduction in soil shear strength (Swanston and Walkotten 1969).

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects The area analyzed for direct effects includes the area shown on Figure 3-4.

In the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) , the tram would not be built and impacts would continue to be solely a function of natural processes unaffected by human activity. Two landslide scars exist in the immediate area. Any future landslides would also likely

40 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment be small, primarily because the topography is not conducive to large landslides. However, potential landslides from some locations could reach the Class III stream. Small landslides or soil slumps have occurred in the past and will occur in the future.

In the Proposed Action (Alternative 2), soil disturbances from construction of the towers would be small and would have minimal impacts on soil erosion, site productivity, and site stability if excavated materials are removed from the site or placed on a stable micro site within the tram corridor. Removal of a few trees also would have minimal site impacts and would mimic natural tree loss provided that stumps and roots are left intact. The construction of an access trail could accelerate soil erosion if paths are not covered suitably by aggregate, wood chip, dimensional lumber, or other suitable hard surface. Trail construction must also not impede water drainage. Properly done, a trail would have minimal site impacts.

The greatest concern for landslides is in the proximity of Towers E, H and I, where the Mass Movement Index is 4. At H and I, a potential landslide could reach the stream. The two existing landslide scars between proposed towers E and G are very small. Any future landslides would also likely be small, primarily because the topography is not conducive to large landslides. Construction disturbance and operational movements and loadings may increase the risk of soil movement especially if the tram were to be in operation during periods of exceptionally high precipitation or during a rain on snow event. The preponderance of risk however is from natural landslides. Small landslides or soil slumps have occurred in the past and would continue to occur in the future.

A properly designed trail would address soil erosion concerns; best management practices would be followed for design, construction, and maintenance of the trail. The trail would be completed before the opening of the facility. Best Management Practices (BMPs) 14.8 and 14.9 require proper drainage along the trail to minimize erosion and sediment transport. BMP 14.5 discusses erosion control plans, BMP 14.6 discusses timing of construction activities, and BMP 14.7 discusses blasting restrictions, drainage facilities, disposal of excess materials, and loading potentially unstable slopes. The BMPs can be found in Forest Service Handbook 2509.22 (USDA Forest Service 2006c).

Safety concerns associated with soil movement risks would be incorporated into tower engineering and design. Under Alternative 2, the project applicant (RFATA) must address during project design any stability or bearing capacity concerns identified through an on-site inspection by a construction engineer prior to design completion (Dalton 2008); a copy of the Soils Resource report would be provided to the construction engineer to include in the design analysis. The project engineer of record would sign the final design plans signifying that the design can withstand the critical load combinations found in the project area; the final design must meet the minimum guidelines established by industry standards for passenger trams (pers. comm. Dell’Andrea, 2009). If there were any question as to the ability of the design to withstand the anticipated loads, a third party expert would perform site testing and provide recommendations as needed (Dalton 2008).

41 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment______

Forest Service Manual 7320.3 requires that all trams comply with the current American National Standards Institute Safety Requirements for Passenger Tramways (ANSI B77.1) and that the Forest Service must receive a certificate of inspection attesting to the adequacy and safety of the installation and equipment prior to public operation of the tram. In addition, the special use authorization would require inspection by a qualified engineer or tram specialist.

Cumulative Effects No other projects within the corridor shown on Figure 3-4 have been proposed or are anticipated. Therefore, cumulative effects would be limited to effects from the proposed activities.

Mitigation Measures 1. Prior to construction, the applicant shall submit tower excavation plans for Forest Service review. The plans shall present methods that will minimize disturbances from tower construction. Excavated materials are to be removed from the site or placed on a stable micro site within the tram corridor. 2. Stumps and roots from cut trees shall remain in place.

42 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment

Figure 3-4. Mass Movement Index

NFS

Note: This figure used field collected GPS points that do not exactly match the proposed tower locations.

43 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment______

SCENERY RESOURCES Affected Environment This analysis reviews the potential scenic impacts related to the construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed tram.

Projects of particular concern to scenery resources include those where management activities exceed Scenery Integrity Objectives (SIO) for change as described in the 2008 Forest Plan and that occur within non-development Land Use Designations (LUDs). Key project-design-elements disclosed in this analysis that pose potential for change to scenery resources on National Forest System lands are:

• Visibility of the Observation Tower & Top Station • Visibility of the Proposed Tram Alignment, Tree removal & Tower Configuration

Visual resources within and adjacent to the project area were inventoried using the Forest Service’s Scenery Management System (USDA Forest Service 1995), The Region 10 Landscape Management Handbook (USDA Forest Service 1985), and the Forest Plan. Key indicators associated with this project are:

1. To what extent does the proposed action correspond to Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs)? 2. Cumulatively, are Forest Plan guidelines for change exceeded as a result of past and proposed management activities?

Methodology used to evaluate Scenic Integrity is described in the Forest Service Scenic Management System (SMS). SMS provides the framework for the inventory of visual resources and provides measurable standards for its management. SMS criteria for evaluating scenic resources are described in detail in the scenery resource report in the project planning record, and include the following:

• Landscape Character Types (LCT) • Visual Priority Travel Routes and Use Area (VPRs) • Key Viewing Points • Existing Scenic Integrity (ESI) • Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO)

Landscape Character Type - Inside Passage Fjordlands The quality of the scenic environment can be categorized in terms of Landscape Character. The project area is located within the Inside Passage Fjordlands, a complex unit consisting primarily of tall rounded mountains; long broad ridges, deep fiords, and long connected inland waterways. The landscape type contains many glacially modified landforms including hanging valleys with steep-sided slopes, broad U-shaped valleys, and coastal lowlands. Higher mountains generally occur on the mainland; the majority of the mountains are less than 3,000 feet, although some reach over 4,000 feet. Topography ranges from rolling to very rugged. The Inside Passage Fjordlands unit lies just west of

44 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment the Boundary Ranges Icefields unit, which provides a higher mountain and glacial backdrop to the Fjordlands unit on clear days.

Visual Priority Travel Routes and Use Areas The Forest Plan provides standards and guidelines that include the designation of Visual Priority Areas, such as Travel Routes and Use Areas. These areas were identified as locations where scenic quality is an integral part of the landscape experience. They include land areas viewed while traveling on roads, trails, or marine routes (Visual Priority Travel Routes) and areas viewed from campgrounds, visitor centers, or permanent communities (Use Areas). A complete index of Visual Priority Travel Routes and Use Areas is listed in the Forest Plan, Appendix F-22 and F23. There are eight Visual Priority Travel Routes and Use Areas within or adjacent to the project boundary.

• Tongass Highway (State Highway #7) • George Inlet • Carroll Inlet • Revillagigedo Channel • Deer Mountain Shelter • Deer Mountain Trail • Silvis Lake Trail • Ice House Cove

Key Viewing Points Key viewing points for a project are where that project would most likely be seen. For the proposed tram, the key viewing point is near the confluence of George Inlet, Carroll Inlet, and Revillagigedo Channel (Figure 3-5).

Existing Scenic Integrity (ESI) Existing visual condition describes the visual appearance of the landscape at the time the project-area-scenery-assessment is conducted. It excludes the context of whether the landscape is seen or not seen from Visual Priority Travel Routes and Use Areas and indicates the amount of change that has occurred in the past, and what level of change may be acceptable in the future. The relevance of existing visual condition for this analysis is to use the present visual condition of the project area as a baseline to evaluate the acceptable desired future condition and cumulative effects outlined in the Forest Plan management prescription criteria. Six levels are used to describe the landscapes existing visual condition, ranging from pristine to intensively modified:

Type I: Landscapes where only ecological change has occurred, except for trails needed for access. Landscapes appear to be untouched by human activities. Type II: Landscapes where change is not noticed by the average forest visitor unless pointed out. These landscapes have been altered but changes are not perceptible. Type III: Landscapes where changes are noticeable by the average forest visitor, but they do not attract attention. Changes appear to be minor disturbances.

45 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment______

Type IV: Landscapes where changes are easily noticed by the average forest visitor and may attract attention. Changes appear as disturbances but resemble natural patterns in the landscape. Type V: Landscapes where changes are very noticeable and would be obvious to the average forest visitor. Changes tend to stand out, dominating the view of the landscape, but are shaped to resemble natural patterns. Type VI: Landscapes where changes are in glaring contrast to the landscape’s natural appearance. Changes appear as dramatic, large-scale disturbances that strongly affect the average forest visitor.

Figure 3-5. View of Proposed Location from Key Viewing Point

Tram Top Station Fawn Mtn.

Herring Cove

View toward project area (Herring Cove and Fawn Mountain) from key viewing point near the intersection of George and Carroll Inlets The ESI of the project area on NFS lands is primarily in a Type II condition, as evidenced by the relatively small amount of disturbance (Figure 3-5). Management activities that have occurred in landscapes with Type II ESI are not perceptible to the casual eye. Little if any variation in form, line, color and texture is visibly evident in this portion of the

46 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment project area. This continuous vegetative cover with little or no pattern results in a landscape with minimal visual features.

The lower portion of the project area is in public and private ownership, and illustrates evidence of development and moderate visual disturbance. This area is zoned Low Density Residential according to the Ketchikan Gateway Borough Department of Planning and Community Development. A portion of a timber sale clearcut on Alcan Forest Products land in 2003 is clearly visible from Carroll and George Inlets. Residential and commercial structures are also visible from the water. In some cases, changes are noticeable but could resemble natural patterns and features. Due to the visibility of past timber harvest, residential buildings and commercial developments the lower portion of the project area is Type VI ESI.

Scenic Integrity Objectives Forest Plan standards and guidelines for scenery (pages 4-56 through 4-63) include Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIO). These objectives are measurable goals used for the management of visual resources. SIOs vary by land use designation and distance zone and apply to any activity that could affect the visual character of the landscape. The four SIO’s potentially associated with the project area are:

High SIO Management and design activities should not be visually evident to the casual observer. Activities may only repeat form, line, color and texture that are frequently found in the characteristic landscape. Changes in their qualities of size, amount, intensity, direction, pattern, etc. should not be evident. Moderate SIO Management and design activities will be subordinate to the landscape character of the area. Changes in the landscape may be evident to the casual observer but appear as natural occurrences when contrasted with the appearance of the surrounding landscape. Low SIO Management activities may visually dominate the characteristic landscape. Activities of vegetative and landform alteration must borrow from naturally established form, line, color, or texture so completely and at such a scale that visual characteristics are those of natural occurrences within the surrounding area or character type. Very Low SIO Land Management activities may dominate the characteristic landscape. Yet when viewed as background, should appear to be a natural occurrence.

The LUD for the project area is Semi-Remote Recreation with a corresponding SIO for Moderate for the project area. Management and design activities should remain visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape. This SIO should be met within 1 year of project completion. Activities may repeat form, line, color or texture common to the landscape. New form, line, color, or texture will be subordinate to the characteristic

47 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment______landscape. Visitor facilities and new construction must blend, to the extent feasible, with the natural setting.

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects In the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) , no scenery effects would occur. The NFS lands in the project area would remain in a Type II ESI.

Under the Proposed Action (Alternative 2) , it is concluded that the proposed development activities would be seen intermittently from certain corresponding VPRs. The observation tower and top station should be visible from certain locations on George and Carroll Inlets as determined during field reconnaissance. The structure should be evident but subordinate and diminutive in scale relative to the surrounding landscape due to a middle-ground distance zone of approximately 2 miles. Use of forest green color schemes on the towers, gondola cabins, and stations would reduce the visual impact of the tower and station.

The lift line along with 20 support towers would be seen intermittently from both George and Carroll Inlets and Revilla Channel from a distance of approximately 1 to 2 miles away, primarily from the intersection of these waters. Due to the configuration and height of the towers and narrow width of clearing (approximately 17 feet), the visual impact would be evident but only slightly discernable at the anticipated distance of view. It is anticipated that the visual impact caused by the lift line and towers would be very subordinate relative to the surrounding existing landscape character.

The development would not be seen from the following VPRs: Tongass Highway (State Highway #7), Deer Mountain shelter, Deer Mountain Trail, Silvis Lake Trail, and Ice House Cove. However, where the proposed action is seen, only slight to modest change should occur within the existing landscape character. Therefore, the direct effect of implementing the proposed action is within Forest Plan standard and guidelines for scenery in Semi-Remote Recreation LUD, a Moderate SIO would be met, and the ESI level will not change.

Cumulative Effects The lower portions of the project area on private and public lands have visual disturbances that are pronounced and are clearly visible. The remaining portion of the project area on NFS lands is in a more natural, unaltered visual condition. For Semi- Remote Recreation LUD development effects should remain visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape.

Reasonably foreseeable projects common to both alternatives include the Whitman Lake hydroelectric project improvements and the Oceans Alaska Marine Science Center. The Whitman Lake hydroelectric project is located within the Whitman Lake and Achilles Creek watersheds to the north of Herring Cove. The project proposes to construct new project facilities consisting of:

48 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment

• a new deep-water intake at the existing Whitman Dam; • a new surface water intake to supply a 15-foot-square valve house at Whitman Dam; • a 40-foot-square powerhouse located approximately ½ mile downstream of Whitman Dam; • an access road from Whitman Dam to the powerhouse; • two 2,450-foot-long penstocks from Whitman Dam to the powerhouse; • a tailrace channel (approximately 100 feet long) from the powerhouse to Herring Cove with a 30-foot-wide concrete barrier; • a 30-foot-diameter head tank connected to the hatchery via the primary hatchery supply line; • a pressurized supply line to pass water; • a switchyard adjacent to the powerhouse; and • a 1,500-foot-long transmission line. Much of the new development is on non-NFS and not visible from Visual Priority Routes.

The proposed Oceans Alaska Marine Science Center and parking lot is within the viewshed of the project area as seen from the confluence of George and Carroll Inlets. The proposed facilities would be no more noticeable or in conflict with the existing scenic condition than those of existing structures along the shoreline.

Under the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), development on adjacent private lands are anticipated to continue. The non-NFS lands in the project area are currently and would remain in a Type VI ESI, while the NFS would continue to remain in a Type II ESI.

Under the Proposed Action (Alternative 2) , the Whitman Lake hydroelectric project would face a different viewing point than the proposed tram and is likely to be obscured by topographic and vegetative features and therefore would not create a cumulative visual impact with the proposed tram. The new Oceans Alaska facilities would increase the visual impact of the already modified condition on non-NFS lands; however, it would not cause the project area to exceed SIO Moderate when considered cumulatively with respect to other visible impacts.

The proposed action along with future foreseeable actions would create a small increase in the cumulative visual change as seen from Carroll and George Inlets. However, due to this relatively minimal additional disturbance, the actions associated with this proposal would be within the guidelines for change and would meet Moderate SIO needed on NFS lands. Non-NFS lands are already in a Type VI ESI, the lowest scenic integrity, and changes to foreseeable projects on those lands would therefore not have an impact.

49 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment______

AQUATIC AND GEOLOGIC RESOURCES Information regarding the aquatic and geologic resources was obtained from the United States Forest Service (USFS) and the United States Geological Survey Geographical Information System (GIS) library, publications, and a multidisciplinary field reconnaissance / traverse in October 2008. The GIS stream data were compiled by USFS fish and watershed specialists who identified locations and classes of streams in the project area using a combination of aerial photo interpretation and field visits. Stream types in the project area were classified by the process groups in the Alaska Region Channel Type Classification System (USDA 1992).

Forest Plan standards and guidelines for resources associated with this analysis are as follows: Fish, pages 4-9 through 4-14; Riparian, pages 4-50 through 4-54; and Soil and Water, pages 4-64 through 4-67. The State of Alaska sets water quality standards for chemical, physical, and biological parameters for waters on National Forest System lands. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation and the Forest Service agreed that the USDA Forest Service is the agency responsible for the purpose of meeting the Clean Water Act, as amended. Best Management Practices (BMPs), as described in the Soil and Water Conservation Handbook (USDA Forest Service 2006c), the Alaska Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Strategy, and the Alaska Water Quality Standards (18 AAC 70) are the primary means to protect water quality from non-point source pollution. The effects section includes specific references to these criteria.

Affected Environment There is one watershed in the project area (Figure 3-6). The watershed boundary for this EA was developed using the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District GIS layer based on Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC 19010102030811) seventh-field watersheds and the mean low tide line, and revised to meet the project needs. The 321-acre watershed has a northeastern aspect with a maximum elevation of 1,850 feet extending down to sea level with an average watershed slope of approximately twenty-eight percent. Average annual precipitation is 150 inches per year, with the heaviest amount occurring from September through January, and an average winter temperature of 34 degrees Fahrenheit (Nowacki, et. al. 2001).

Aquatic Habitat Fresh and marine aquatic resources provide subsistence, commercial and sport fisheries, and traditional use and values. The Forest Service must maintain these uses, protect riparian habitat, and prevent detrimental changes in water temperatures, water chemistry, stream channel stability, and sediment loads that adversely affect these uses and values (18 AAC 70).

The Tongass National Forest categorizes streams into channel type and stream class to provide an estimate of the amount and quality of fish habitat in project areas as well as to help predict their physical response and sensitivity to different management activities.

The following fish stream value classification system from the Forest Plan was used for this analysis:

50 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment

1. Class I: Streams and lakes with anadromous or adfluvial fish habitat; or high quality resident fish waters or habitat above fish migration barriers known to be reasonable enhancement opportunities for anadromous fish. 2. Class II: Streams and lakes with resident fish populations and generally steep (6- 15 percent) gradient where no anadromous fish occur and, otherwise not meeting Class I criteria. 3. 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 capacity. 4. Class IV: Other intermittent, ephemeral, and small perennial channels with insufficient flow or sediment transport capacity to directly influence downstream water quality or fish habitat capability. Class IV streams do not have characteristics of Class I, II, or III streams, and have a bank full width of at least 0.3 meters (1 foot).

Table 3-5. Stream Classes in the Project Watershed

Stream Class Channel Type Process Group Length (miles)

I Estuarine 0.24 Unidentified 0.09 Total 0.33 II High Gradient Contained 0.16 Total 0.16 III High Gradient Contained 0.18 Moderate Gradient Contained 0.33 Total 0.51 IV High Gradient Contained 0.71 Alluvial Fan 0.09 Moderate Gradient Mixed Control 0.19 Total 0.99 Total 1.99

The majority of the streams in the project area are high gradient contained streams with little to no fish habitat present (Table 3-5). The primary channel type associated with quality fish habitat in the project area is Estuarine. It is located below Wood Road in Herring Cove. The anadromous streams catalogued by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game in the project area include: 1) stream number 101-45-10070 listed for the presence of coho ( Onchorynchus kisuth ), chum, ( O. keta ), and pink ( O. gorbushca ) salmon and 2) stream number 101-45-10070-2011 listed for pink ( O. gorbushca ) salmon spawning habitat. Chinook salmon ( O. tshawytscha ) are also present in Herring Cove as a result of the Whitman Lake Hatchery. Resident fish in the project area include rainbow trout ( O. mykiss ); cutthroat trout ( O. clarki ); and Dolly Varden char ( Salvelinus malma ).

51 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment______

Water Quality Freshwater and marine habitats may be affected by sedimentation, introduction of chemical pollutants into water courses, and changes in stream dynamics. Changes in any of the physical or chemical properties of water can directly affect water use by people, fish, and wildlife. The most affected water quality factor in this project would be sedimentation.

Sediment is water-transported earth material. Sediment may be transported as either suspended load or bed load. Suspended sediment is carried within the water column, while bed load material moves (rolls or bounces) along the bottom of the stream or riverbed. Suspended sediment causes water to have a turbid or murky appearance. Under natural conditions, the majority of sediment transport occurs during storm runoff events.

Soil mass movements (landslides), streams cutting new channels, and bank erosion are the main natural processes creating sediment. Steep terrain and large amounts of rainfall make the land sensitive to natural sediment production, and to sediment produced by construction, blasting and timber harvest activities. The Soils section has a more detailed description and map of the mass movement potential in the project area.

A portion of the nature trail on Alaska Rainforest Sanctuary property is less than 10 meters downstream of NFS land on the Class IV stream near proposed tram Tower T; the trail impedes water flow, causing trail erosion and increasing sediment loads to aquatic habitat downstream on private and state land (Appendix A, Aquatic and Geologic Resources Report). The loss of sediment transport connectivity can lead to upstream aggradation.

Geology Karst and Caves The project is located within the In Active Glacial Terrain, Angular Mountains, Ketchikan Mafics/Ultramafics Ecoregion of Southeast Alaska (Nowacki, et. al., 2001). There are three main geologic rock types located within the project area watershed. These rock types in order of abundance are Cretaceous and Jurassic Volcanic rocks of the Gravina Belt (KJgv), Cretaceous and Jurassic Sedimentary rocks of the Gravina Belt (KJgs) and unconsolidated deposits of Quaternary sediments (Qu) (Berg, et. al, 1988). Field reconnaissance confirmed that the predominant geology of the watershed is a mixture of andesitic tuff and massive basaltic andesite. There are no karst or cave resources in the project area. There are also no vertebrate or invertebrate paleontological resources in the area. Therefore, there would be no effects to these resources and they will not be analyzed further.

52 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment

Figure 3-6. Project Watershed

53 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment______

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects Under the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) , there would be no direct or indirect effects upon aquatic or geologic resources. Aquatic habitat and water quality would continue to undergo natural processes, including the possibility of a landslide (sediments) reaching a stream.

Under the Proposed Action (Alternative 2) , there are a several potential direct and indirect effects upon aquatic resources. Discussion of these potential effects follows.

Water Quality and Aquatic Habitat The aerial tram project could potentially affect water quality and aquatic habitats in three ways: sedimentation, introduction of chemical pollutants into water courses, and changes in stream dynamics. The most affected water quality factor in this project would be sedimentation. Other water quality factors such as water temperature are anticipated to have little to no change from the proposed project. This project would have minimal effects on water quantity and the timing of water flows due to little vegetation removal or change in moisture interception and storage.

Sedimentation The aerial tram blasting, construction, and access trail could increase the potential for slope failure and exposed bare mineral soil, which could increase sedimentation of aquatic systems, adversely affecting aquatic communities. High erosion results and fine sediment deposition into streams can result in declines in spawning habitat. Macroinvertebrate populations, the primary food source of juvenile fish, also decline when large amounts of sediment are present. Sediment entering stream channels can fill deep pools and change channel shape and form.

Tower T was moved less than 50 feet to the east of its originally proposed location to ensure that water quality is not degraded.

Application of the following BMPs would minimize the risk of sedimentation and therefore any subsequent effects. • BMPs 14.5, 14.6, and 14.7: The applicant must develop an Erosion Control Plan to minimize or mitigate erosion, sedimentation, and resulting water quality degradation prior to the initiation of construction and maintenance activities. They are also responsible to ensure compliance through effective contract administration and timely implementation of erosion control measures. Minimize erosion or the chance of mass failures by restricting operating schedule and conducting operations during low risk periods when soil is not saturated. This plan should include the installation of silt fencing along the section of the main Class III stream where construction activities will be occurring to minimize the potential for sedimentation into the creek. • BMPs 14.8 and 14.9: Proper drainage must be constructed on the maintenance trail to minimize erosion and transportation of sediment to water courses.

54 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment

Chemical Pollutants Water quality may decrease in the project area by the increased potential for chemical pollutants to enter waterways. These chemical pollutants may include oils and lubricants used for the maintenance of the tram towers, rotors and lines.

Application of the following BMPs would minimize effects. • BMPs 12.8 & 12.9 : Risk can be minimized by locating service and refueling away from stream channels and wetlands and by following techniques in BMP 12.8. A hazardous materials Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) will need to be completed to prevent contamination of surface and subsurface soil and water from accidental spills of oil and hazardous substances if quantities on site exceed the limits specified in 40 CFR 112. Secondary containment would also be required.

Stream Flows This project would have minimal to no effects on water quantity and the timing of water flows. Canopy removal can affect stream flows by altering the interception of precipitation and storage of ground water. Studies in southeast Alaska have shown that timber harvest of over 20 percent in watersheds has resulted in changes to stream flow (Bartos 1989). The clearing for the tram corridor would remove less than 4 percent of the canopy cover in the watershed (Appendix A, Aquatic and Geologic Resources Report).

Stream Dynamics There are no new roads proposed in the project that would affect the natural courses or dynamics of the streams in the project area. The few streams crossed in the project area would be crossed by a foot trail and the tram from the air.

The tram would have minimal affect on the main Class III stream dynamics due to the minimal effect of the canopy removal on water quantity and timing of water flows and the locations of the towers away from the stream. The only anticipated effects could be potential mass movement events into the creek, triggered by construction blasting (see mitigation measures).

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Effect to Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) as a result of this project would be negligible. Potentially affected EFH is located downstream of the project area near the estuary of Herring Cove. Species present include chinook, chum, coho, and pink salmon; cutthroat and rainbow trout; and Dolly Varden char. No Federal- or State-listed or proposed threatened and endangered fish species or federal candidate species occur in the project area and no State species of special concern occur in the project area (ADFG 2010).

Potential adverse effects on water quality and EFH are elevated turbidity levels. Risks to EFH would be sediment from ground disturbance entering project streams. Due to steep terrain, sediment would be rapidly routed downstream into Herring Cove estuary. Adverse effects on in river EFH would be short-term or episodic (pulsed) depending on the degree of ground disturbance, and rate and duration of precipitation following ground disturbance. Blasting could induce landslides during and or after construction. A

55 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment______landslide could occur at any point in time during or after project completion. If a landslide occurs, it could result in chronic delivery of sediment to Herring Cove. Restrictions have been placed on blasting and are based on the precipitation over time. The restrictions are to minimize the potential for landslides, and thus reduce the potential risk to EFH from sediments.

The vast majority of salmon would never be adversely affected by the project. This is due to Herring Cove being a terminal salmon fishery, with the vast majority of salmon returning to the fish hatchery. A few pink salmon, cutthroat and rainbow trout, and Dolly Varden char could be adversely affected by the project. The project would occur over a protracted period of time (not all tower footings would be constructed on the same day). In addition, the following restrictions/mitigations would be followed to minimize the chance of sedimentation:

1) implementation of Best Management Practices as described in the Soil and Water Conservation Handbook (FSH 2509.22, Region 10 Amendment, 2006), 2) applicant development of erosion control and hazardous materials spill plans, 3) complying with the blasting restrictions outlined in the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration FP-03 section 205, and precipitation restrictions. Therefore, anticipated adverse affects to resident and anadromous fish resulting from this project are anticipated to be negligible and discountable.

Cumulative Effects The proposed aerial tram project would increase traffic on Wood Road (Table 3-4 in the Transportation section). The increased access on the dirt road could increase sedimentation levels in local streams and fish habitat on state and private land. The Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association fish hatchery on the north side of Herring Bay Creek obtains water from the Whitman Lake watershed and the tram project will not affect that operation. The Whitman Lake hydroelectric project also is associated with a different watershed and will not be affected by the tram.

Past canopy removal on private lands and the additional removal for the proposed aerial tram project, would be approximately 13 percent of the watershed (Appendix A, Aquatic and Geologic Resources Report). Loss of canopy cover may minimally affect stream flows through changes in interception and evapotranspiration, and result in increasing peak flows. No reasonably foreseeable projects are planned in the watershed.

Mitigation Measures 1. The applicant must submit a Blasting Plan and avoid blasting during periods of heavy rain or times of high soil saturation to minimize the risk of mass movements and surface erosion, thereby protecting water quality. Daily precipitation records will be kept on site through use of a commercially available rain gauge or locally collected data will be monitored by the Contractor during the construction period. In compliance with the U.S. Department of Transportation,

56 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment

Federal Highway Administration FP-03, Section 205, national supplement issued by the U.S. Forest Service, “halt blasting operations when any of the following conditions exist:

(1) Precipitation exceeds 1 inch any 24-hour period (2) Precipitation exceeds 3 inches in any 96-hour period. (3) Precipitation exceeds 4 inches in any 144-hour period. (4) A landslide occurs within 100 feet of a blast site under any precipitation conditions.”

Blasting operations would not resume until precipitation conditions have been less than the above conditions for at least 48 hours, or as directed by the Forest Service contracting officer. In the event of a slide, blasting plans will be evaluated and adjusted to ensure that blasting will not aggravate the existing conditions.

57 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment______

WILDLIFE AND SUBSISTENCE RESOURCES This section reviews the possible effects to Federally listed threatened, endangered, or proposed wildlife species or to USDA Forest Service Region 10 sensitive wildlife species. It also analyzes effects to Tongass National Forest management indicator species and subsistence resources. The full Biological Assessment /Biological Evaluation (BA/BE) can be found in the project planning record, along with field survey data.

Affected Environment Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Sensitive species Federally listed threatened, endangered, and proposed species lists from the US Fish and Wildlife Service website were reviewed on May 26, 2009. This list and associated information on the website provides the basis for the analysis of federally listed species. All Federally listed species use marine habitat, primarily outside waters in more northern locations. Humpback whales and Steller sea lions are the only Federally listed species known to occur in the waters near the project area.

The Region 10 Sensitive Species list was revised in March 2009. Information provided in the 2008 Forest Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement (USDA Forest Service 2008a) and March 2009 Sensitive species revision was used for this analysis. Based on the available information and the lack of suitable habitat for most species, project specific surveys were only conducted for goshawks.

Northern goshawks have potential to occur in the project area. Although goshawk nest sites have been documented in several locations across the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District, the proposed activity is not located near any of the known nest sites. No goshawks were heard or observed during project surveys (see the BA/BE in the project planning record). Minimal old-growth trees (preferred habitat) would be cut to create the 17-foot wide tram corridor and other suitable habitat exists in adjacent forest and within the nearby Old-Growth Habitat LUD. In the event goshawks are observed or heard during project development or implementation, the local Forest Service biologist would be contacted for follow-up assessment.

Management Indicator Species (MIS) Management indicator species with the potential to occur in the project area include black bear, Sitka black-tailed deer, mountain goat, red squirrel, hairy woodpecker, red-breasted sapsucker, brown creeper, Alexander Archipelago wolf, and American marten. Bald eagles are known to concentrate in Herring Cove; one active nest is located on non-NFS land near the Wood Road / South Tongass Highway intersection. River otter and Vancouver Canada goose may also occur in Herring Cove adjacent to the project area. Black bear scat was observed along the proposed tram. City of Saxman Council members report deer harvesting in the project area. Mountain goats occur in the alpine habitat at or near the top of the tram.

Standards and guidelines for wildlife are located on Forest Plan pages 4-89 through 4- 100. Relevant standards and guidelines for this project include:

58 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment

IX. Bear Habitat Management A. Continue to implement strategies, in cooperation with the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, ADF&G, cities, and boroughs that prevent habituation of bears to human foods/garbage and reduce chances of human/bear incidents. Strategies that can be used to reduce human/bear incidents include the following: 2. Requiring incinerators and/or other bearproof garbage-disposal-methods at work camps, recreation sites, administrative and research facilities, and Special Use Authorizations in bear habitats. 5. Maintaining an aggressive public education program on bear behavior to reduce the number of human/bear incidents 6. Requiring storage of human food in ways to make it unavailable to bears to reduce habituation of bears and reduce human/bear incidents.

XV. Mountain Goat A. Provide for the long-term productivity of mountain goat habitat and viability of mountain goat populations, both native and introduced. 1. Locate facilities and concentrated human activities as far from important wintering and kidding habitat as feasible. a) Where feasible, locate facilities, camps, LTFs, campgrounds, and other developments 1 mile or more from important wintering and kidding habitat. b) If the 1 mile or more distance cannot be achieved, mitigate possible adverse impacts by seasonally restricting or regulating human use and other site-specific mitigation measures. 2. Forest Service and State of Alaska permitted or approved aircraft flights (fixed wing and helicopter), including helicopter yarding of timber, should maintain a 1,500-foot vertical or horizontal clearance from traditional summer and kidding habitat and animals whenever feasible. Where feasible, flight paths should avoid known mountain goat kidding areas from May 15 through June 15. Pilots will not compromise safety.

Subsistence Comments related to the tram proposal and subsistence were provided by the Organized Village of Saxman at their regular monthly council meeting August 3, 2009; the meeting minutes are available in the project planning record. Saxman is currently considered rural and qualifies under Federal Subsistence regulations. Research on subsistence harvest patterns in Saxman in 2000 by Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), Division of Subsistence in cooperation with the Organized Village of Saxman (OVS) revealed that use of land mammals (deer and other species) fell from 21.9 percent of the total subsistence harvest in 1987 to 13.7 percent in 1999.

Analysis of subsistence resources includes information on the abundance and distribution of resources, the access to resources, and competition for resources between rural and non-rural users.

City of Saxman Council members expressed concern that the project could affect hunting opportunities in the area since several members hunt deer along the Fawn Mountain ridge

59 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment______and in the vicinity of the proposed tram and that these deer complement their subsistence lifestyle. They were concerned that the project could reduce their access to deer due to the restriction on firearm discharge under Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations 261.10, which prohibits discharging a firearm within 150 yards of a residence, building, campsite, developed recreation site, or occupied area.

The proposed aerial tram is located within Wildlife Analysis Area (WAA) 408, a subdivision of Game Management Unit 1A used by ADF&G for managing wildlife populations. While individuals from Saxman use the area for hunting deer, WAA 408 is not one of the WAAs where community members obtain 75 percent or more of their deer (USDA Forest Service 1997 Appendix H).

Saxman Council members also expressed that the project could negatively affect the number of deer available for harvest through animal disturbance. No population data is available at the project level. However, deer numbers in Game Management Unit 1A have remained below the long-term average, but hunter effort per deer has improved and is again near the long-term average (Porter 2007).

The private land around the project has been developed for many years without noticeable impacts on deer distribution. Long-term improvements include the Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association fish hatchery, housing subdivisions, and a former sawmill; newer improvements include the Alaska Rainforest Sanctuary trail and zipline. Despite these surrounding developments, Saxman Council members noted that there are deer tracks and trails in the area and that it is a good hunting area.

The proposed project is for organized tours only. Once at the top of the tram, visitors would be allowed to use the observation tower but they would not be allowed to leave the permit area as described by the special use authorization. In other words, the general public would not be allowed to use the tram to access the surrounding area for unguided recreation or subsistence reasons.

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Sensitive Species In the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) , no Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, or Sensitive species would be affected; existing conditions would continue.

In the Proposed Action (Alternative 2), access to the tram would be by vehicle using South Tongass Highway and Wood Road. All Federally listed species use marine waters. Therefore, this project would have no effect on any Federally listed Threatened, Endangered, or Proposed species as determined under 50 CFR 402.03(b)(1). Given the lack of habitat for most R10 Sensitive species and the lack of goshawk response, the project would have no impact on any Region 10 Sensitive species. In the event goshawks are observed or heard during project development or implementation, the local Forest Service biologist would be contacted for follow-up assessment.

60 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment

Management Indicator Species (MIS) In the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) , no habitat alteration or development would occur under this alternative and there would be no effects to any MIS.

In the Proposed Action (Alternative 2), habitat alteration would be minimal for most MIS because the proposed clearing is a 17-foot corridor. While individuals could be affected, extensive habitat would remain adjacent to the project area. Therefore, there would be no measurable effect to MIS wildlife populations. Mitigation measures to limit effects to bald eagles, black bears, and mountain goats would be followed to further limit effects.

Individual bald eagles or pairs could temporarily be disturbed, primarily during the construction phase when some helicopter use and timber removal is expected. In general, the eagles that concentrate in Herring Cove have been exposed to a moderate level of human activity (traffic and noise) associated with a residential area and the existing tourism attractions, as well as some noise associated with the existing hatchery operations. The one active eagle nest is near the corner of a previously harvested timber sale unit. Mitigation measures are provided to minimize disturbance during the breeding season.

Black bears are known to frequent the Herring Cove area during the fall salmon runs and there could be increased potential for human-bear interactions at the base station and the observation tower, especially if any concessions are offered. In accordance with Forest Plan standards and guidelines, tram operators must ensure policies on food and garbage that prevent bear/human interactions; mitigation measures are provided to minimize the potential for such encounters.

There would be minimal disturbance to goats during critical wintering or kidding periods because tram users would be restricted to the tram and observation tower with no nature hikes in subalpine and alpine habitat. In addition, project operations are anticipated to coincide with the cruise ship season from May to October, the majority of which is after kidding in mid- to late May. Although goats are not expected to frequent the project area, mitigation measures are provided for the use of helicopters during the construction phase to protect any goats that could be encountered in or enroute to the project area.

Subsistence In the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) , no effects to subsistence resources would occur. Rural residents could continue to use the project area for subsistence purposes at the current levels.

In the Proposed Action (Alternative 2), the tram would be considered a developed recreation site and would fall under the 36 CFR 261.10 firearm discharge restriction. The analysis included the entire length of the tram to calculate the area affected by the restriction even though part of the route occurs on non-NFS land. Under this scenario, the tram would create a 78-acre shooting area restriction (3,793-foot tram length x 150 yards either side of tram). WAA 408 equals 16,632 acres. Therefore, the 78 acre shooting restriction covers less than 0.5 percent of the WAA. This would not result in a

61 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment______significant restriction on access to the area for hunting. In addition, the restriction does not prevent travel through the area, only the discharge of a firearm. With use of the proposed tram limited to organized tours, there would also be no change in access to the larger hunting area on Fawn Mountain ridge or the area outside the restricted firearm shooting area.

Past development on non-NFS lands adjacent to the project area has not had a noticeable impact on deer distribution. Use of the tram project area by visitors would be restricted to the tram ride and the area between the tram’s observation tower and top station, which would limit disturbance to wildlife. Therefore, the tram is not expected to have a measurable effect on deer distribution or abundance.

There would also be no change in competition for subsistence resources as a result of the project. The project would not affect the proportion of rural vs. non-rural hunters.

In addition, there would be limited overlap between tram operations and hunting seasons, the area of the tram operations is limited, and the use of the project area is not exclusive. When abundance and distribution of resources, access to resources, and competition with non-rural users are considered, the overall subsistence finding is that no significant possibility of a significant restriction to subsistence resources would occur as a result of the proposed tram.

Cumulative Effects Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Sensitive Species Common to all Alternatives: No effect to threatened, endangered, or proposed species would occur because no species or habitat has been identified in the project area.

Although the northern goshawk potentially exists in the tram project area, none were found during field surveys. The Whitman Lake hydroelectric project was previously cleared. The goshawk is listed as a Region 10 Forest Service sensitive species and therefore projects located on non-NFS lands such as the proposed Oceans Alaska facility are not subject to restrictions for this species. Habitat for other sensitive species does not occur in the project area. Therefore, no effects to sensitive species are expected in the reasonably foreseeable future.

Management Indicator Species (MIS) Common to all Alternatives: Habitat alteration has previously occurred due to residential and some commercial development on adjacent non-NFS lands. Further changes on NFS lands would be minimal for most MIS, with approximately 1.5 acres of habitat alteration proposed for the tram and about 2.3 acres of alteration proposed as part of the Whitman Lake hydroelectric project to the north of Herring Cove. While individuals could be affected, extensive habitat would remain adjacent to the tram and Whitman Lake project areas, and there would be no measurable effect to MIS wildlife populations. Mitigation measures to further limit effects to bald eagles, black bears, and mountain goats would be followed for the tram. The proposed Oceans Alaska center on non-NFS lands would require some tree removal but due to the educational nature of the

62 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment center, that habitat alteration is expected to be the minimum necessary to construct and operate the facility.

Subsistence Common to all Alternatives: Past development has not had a noticeable impact on distribution of subsistence resources in the project area. Minimal forested habitat would be removed under Alternative 2, and an Old Growth Habitat LUD forms the majority of the NFS lands adjacent to the project area. Visitors to the tram will be restricted to the developed permit area, minimizing disturbance to wildlife. No changes in access to or competition for subsistence resources are anticipated. Therefore, no significant possibility of a significant restriction is expected.

Mitigation Measures 1. Follow the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (USFWS 2007): a. Avoid timber-harvesting operations, including chain saw and yarding operations, during the breeding season within 660 feet of an active nest. b. Avoid operating aircraft within 1,000 feet of a nest during the breeding season. c. Avoid blasting and other activities that produce extremely loud noises within ½ mile of active nests or communal roosts, when eagles are congregating, without prior coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2. Ensure Forest Plan policies on food and garbage to prevent bear/human interactions are implemented. These include: a. the use of bearproof canisters for all on-site garbage disposal, b. food storage by concessions personnel and visitors shall be in a manner inaccessible to bears, and c. tram personnel should be trained on bear behavior. 3. Guidelines that apply to helicopter use during project construction include: a. maintain a 1500-foot vertical or horizontal clearance from traditional summer and kidding habitat (Deer Mountain to Mahoney Mountain alpine areas) and animals, whenever feasible. Where feasible, flight paths should avoid known mountain goat kidding areas from May 15-June 15. Pilots will not compromise safety. 4. Any goshawks heard or seen during project construction or operation should be reported to the Forest Service within 48 hours, or the next business day if the sighting is on a non-workday.

63 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment______

HERITAGE RESOURCES

Affected Environment Heritage resources include all of the fragile and nonrenewable remains of human activity that are found in historic districts, sites, buildings, and artifacts dating from our earliest beginnings to the recent past. In accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended) and the implementing regulations (36 CFR 800), the Tongass National Forest is undertaking a program to identify, evaluate, preserve, and protect heritage resources as a nonrenewable National heritage. The purpose of these investigations is to identify any possible impacts that proposed activities would have on recorded heritage resources in the area that may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.

Herring Bay , often called Herring Cove , was a local name obtained in 1904 by H. C. Fassett. A Tlingit clan used a point of land at the entrance to the bay for a fish camp (Roppel 1996, page 23). Native Place Name #184 “Cove That Opens Out Like a V” (T. T. Waterman 1926, page 29) refers to Herring Cove. A complete account of the area’s history can be found in the Heritage and Archaeological Resource Report in the project record.

Heritage Resources Inventory Under the Second Amended Programmatic Agreement (# 02MU-111001-076), Regarding Heritage Resource Management On National Forests In The State Of Alaska, the Forest Service, Advisory Council On Historic Preservation, and Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer agreed to Sensitivity Zones for cultural resources. High Sensitivity Zone for cultural resources include all areas below 100 feet above sea level, karst areas, known mining areas, passes and portages, and the shores of certain streams and lakes. All areas in the High Sensitivity Zone, which are located in a project's area of potential effect, require ground surveys to locate any significant cultural resource sites that might be affected by the proposed activity. All of the proposed project area lies in the Low Sensitivity Zone for cultural resources being present.

Most of the previous archaeological work conducted near the project area was related to the fish hatchery project and the Whitman Lake hydroelectric project, both on the north side of Herring Cove.

A review of the literature was conducted to identify all previously recorded sites near and within the project area. Sources consulted included, but were not limited to, the Alaska Heritage Resource Survey, National Register of Historic Places, Forest Service Site and Survey files and databases, Tongass National Forest Cultural Resources Overview (Arndt, et al. 1987) and Haa Aaní, Our Land Tlingit and Haida Land Use Rights and Use (Goldschmidt and Haas 1998) and previous reports submitted by the Forest Service (see bibliography). Also examined was a detailed (historic) listing of Native Place-Names (T. T. Waterman 1926).

64 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment

There are fourteen (14) AHRS sites that are located within five miles of the project area; six (6) AHRS sites that may be prehistoric, while the remaining eight (8) are historic. However, there are many more historic structures, buildings and homes with AHRS numbers within the city boundaries of Ketchikan and Saxman that may also be within 5 miles of the project area that are not included in this analysis. There are no known sites within the tram clearance area.

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects In the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) , no impacts to Heritage Resources would occur.

The Proposed Action (Alternative 2) would not negatively affect known Heritage Resources in the project area. A Forest Service archeologist has reviewed the proposed project and made a determination of "No Historic Properties Affected " in the area of potential effects. In accordance with the Section 106 process of the National Historic Preservation Act, the formal report, and the determinations of effect were completed and submitted to the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) for review on December 4, 2008. The SHPO concurred with the Forest Service determination of "No Historic Properties Affected” for the proposed Rain Forest Aerial Tram Project on December 24, 2008.

Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects on heritage resources occur through natural erosion and weathering as well as from continued development near lands containing heritage sites. The bulk of the project area encompasses lands traditionally used and claimed by the Tongass Tribes (Goldschmidt and Haas 1998). The Whitman Lake Hydroelectric project will adversely affect one of the fourteen known AHRS sites within five miles of this project. No other reasonably foreseeable projects will impact known sites, including the proposed tram analyzed in this EA. While the proposed project activities would not have an effect on past historic events or sites, continued Federal management activities, coupled with the actions of other land managers, may have a long-range, cumulative impact on places of importance to the Tongass Tribe and the Native people of Ketchikan, Saxman and Metlakatla. The following mitigation measures are designed to preserve National Register Eligible sites.

Mitigation Measures 1. Should previously undiscovered archaeological or historical sites be discovered during project implementation, those project activities shall immediately stop until a professional archaeologist can complete an evaluation of the newly discovered site(s). Further mitigation measures must be agreed upon and implemented before project activities may proceed.

2. There is also the potential to discover human remains and associated funerary objects, which might include mortuary poles, jewelry, beads, mortuary boxes, and

65 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment______

associated clan crest items. If human remains, objects of cultural patrimony or sacred objects, as defined by the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) are discovered, the process to be followed in the handling of these remains and cultural items is outlined specifically in CFR Title 43, Part 10, Sections 4 and 5.

3. If human remains are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, archaeological survey or testing activities, no further excavation or disturbance will occur in the immediate area. Human remains and any associated funerary objects will not be excavated or removed without consultation with the tribal government representatives. The immediate securing and protection of the discovered remains will be accomplished as appropriate for each circumstance. To the extent possible, notification of tribal government representatives, the coroner, and the State Troopers will occur within 24 hours of the discovery. To insure appropriate respect, protection, treatment and care of human remains, a professional archaeologist will be present during any subsequent inspections or activities. Appointed tribal government representatives will be given the opportunity to be present for examination of the site and will participate in the formulation of a signed mitigation plan, which will detail the further treatment of the remains prior to any further actions. If, by consensus, the site and/or human remains are to be covered and remain undisturbed, then the project activity will be moved or redesigned to insure protection. Should removal and/or scientific study be the preferred mitigation, then a report will be compiled that details methods, descriptions, analysis, drawings, photographs, maps and other details or results, which would complete the documentation. The final report will be made available to the tribal government(s) for review. Upon completion of any analysis, the Forest Service shall assist in the reburial of the remains and the conservation and curation of cultural items with a museum, which has the ability to properly preserve and curate those items as specified in the signed mitigation plan. Work at the site could begin again only after approval by the Forest Service archaeologist.

4. If any new sites are located during monitoring of the proposed project or during any ground disturbing activities associated with the proposed project, a determination of eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places will be completed for each new site and the State Historic Preservation Officer will be notified. The frequency of monitoring activities will be determined on a case-by- case basis and will depend upon the significance of each site and the sensitivity of the site location in respect to potential damage. If a site is determined to be vulnerable to, or determined to be threatened by recreational use, natural erosion processes or project activities, then it will be evaluated for protective measures that might include administrative closure, signing, increased inspection, law enforcement investigation, stabilization, and/or data recovery. Under normal circumstances, National Register eligible sites will be monitored on an opportunity basis or at a minimum annually, unless special considerations warrant other protective measures.

66 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment

BOTANY RESOURCES

Affected Environment A pre-field review included obtaining information on known species occurrence from the Regional Forester's Sensitive Species List. Aerial photographs were examined to determine expected habitats in the project area. The University of Alaska ARCTOS (UAF 2009) database was queried to determine if any rare or sensitive plants had been previously collected in the area. No results were returned from this query.

A 100-foot wide corridor was surveyed along the proposed tram alignment. A total of 67 taxa were identified within the project area. All taxonomic determinations were based on Hultén (1968) and Pojar and Mackinnon (1994). The Botany Resource Report contains additional information on the timing, methods, and intensity of field surveys; a complete list of species encountered during the surveys; and copies of the sensitive and rare plant lists. The report is filed in the project planning record.

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plant Species Only one species in Alaska, Aleutian Shield Fern [ Polystichum aleuticum (C. Christen.)] is listed as endangered. Its known range is restricted to Adak Island in the Aleutian Islands several hundred miles from the project area. No proposed or threatened species are known on the Tongass National Forest and therefore will not be considered further in this analysis.

Currently, there are 17 plant species and one lichen listed as sensitive in Region 10 (Appendix B of the Botany Resource Report). Field surveys did not locate any sensitive species in the project area. The biological evaluation made a finding of “no impact” for sensitive plant species.

Rare Plant Species A list of plants determined to be rare by the Tongass National Forest Botany and Ecology staff is in Appendix C of the Botany Resource Report. No rare plants were found during field surveys.

Vegetation Vegetation types found during surveys of the project area are listed below. All plant association codes are from DeMeo et.al. 1992.

• Heath (530 Mountain Hemlock/Cassiope) • Bog • Shallow ponds • Subalpine coniferous forest (510 Mountain hemlock/blueberry) • Forest edge • Coniferous forest (110 Western hemlock/blueberry) • Clearings in coniferous forest (150 Western Hemlock/devils club/salmonberry) • Streambanks

67 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment______

• Young growth forest dominated by Sitka spruce • Young growth forest dominated by red alder

All vegetation types found in the project area are common throughout Revillagigedo Island.

Invasive Plants No non-native species were observed in the project area, but the perimeter of the nearby parking area at the entrance to the Alaska Rainforest Sanctuary facility had low level infestations (10 percent) of reed canary grass ( Phalaris arundinacea L.), an invasive species common on roadsides and disturbed areas on the Ketchikan road system.

A risk assessment was completed to establish the potential for the project to cause a spread of invasive plant species. Risk of invasion is ranked by considering a combination of habitat vulnerability and proximity to ground-disturbing activities. Areas that are in close proximity to ground disturbing activities and vulnerable due to plant community structure and composition are at the highest risk.

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects In the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) , there would be no disturbance to the habitat and therefore no project effects to sensitive or rare species and no risk of introduction of invasive species.

In the Proposed Action (Alternative 2) , potential effects could include plants being crushed, uprooted or covered by soil during construction. Habitat disturbance would be minimal. No rare or sensitive plants were found in the project area and there would be no effects to these species.

Invasive Plants A risk assessment was completed to establish the potential for the project to cause a spread of invasive plant species. Areas of soil disturbance as a result of this project include: digging footings for the towers; construction of the top and base stations, the observation tower, and the trail; and the potential for new landslide areas (see the Soils section for more information on landslide potential). These areas would be at highest risk for colonization by invasives. Importation of soil, rock, gravel or sand into the project area could lead to a high risk of introduction of invasive species. Application of mitigation measures is necessary to reduce this risk.

Non-implementation of the mitigation measures would result in a high risk of introduction of species common in other locations in southeast Alaska to disturbed areas and moderate risk of introduction to non-disturbed areas. These species include Hawkweeds (Hieracium spp.), Tansy Ragwort ( Senecio jacobaea ), Thistle ( Cirsium spp.), Sowthistles ( Sonchus spp.), Japanese/Bohemian/Giant Knotweed ( Polygonum spp.), and Sweetclover (Melilotus officinale ).

68 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment

Reseeding can help mitigate the risk of invasive species introduction because the planted seed tends to crowd out undesirable species. Reseeding also incurs some level of risk of introduction of invasive species. Seed used for revegetation has an allowable (<0.01%) degree of contamination by species other than listed on the packaging. It is impossible to produce seed that can be guaranteed to be free of any weed seeds.

Visitors using the tram will not contribute significant sources of invasive seed because their travel will be limited to tram cars and the observation tower at the top of the tram.

Cumulative Effects Activities causing disturbance of vegetation in the past, present, and future are largely restricted to road building, timber production, and recreation.

The proposed action would contribute 1.5 acres to harvest of old-growth forest on Revillagigedo Island. The Whitman Lake hydroelectric facility to the north of Herring Cove is expected to harvest about 2.3 acres of forest. No other reasonably foreseeable projects in the vicinity of the proposed tram would harvest timber on NFS lands. Together these projects total less than seven acres of forest clearing. To date, more than 43,000 acres of forest have been harvested on National Forest Lands on Revillagigedo Island where the project is located. Additional acres have been harvested on state, tribal and private lands in the vicinity of Ketchikan.

Mitigation Measures 1. If any previously undiscovered sensitive plants are encountered at any time prior to or during implementation of this project, protect the population and avoid any disturbance in the area containing the population (and similar habitats in that vicinity). The district or forest botanist/ecologist should be notified immediately to evaluate the population and recommend avoidance or mitigation measures. 2. Wheeled or tracked equipment used in construction of the tramway should be cleaned of soil prior to transport to the project site. 3. If materials such as sand, gravel, rock or soil are to be imported into the project area for construction a qualified Forest Service botanist or ecologist should determine the materials to be free of invasive plants, seeds and propagules before they are transported to the site. 4. Erosion control measures should use materials that are free of weed seed. Revegetation seed mixtures should be compliant with Tongass National Forest guidelines for revegetation. (USDA Forest Service 2006b) 5. Use of hay or straw bales for erosion control should be avoided. Use weed-free jute matting, synthetic sediment fence or other weed-free materials, where necessary.

69 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment______

TIMBER RESOURCES

Affected Environment The natural vegetation of Revillagigedo Island is a mixture of coniferous forest interspersed with alpine tundra, muskeg (bog), shrubland, estuarine, and beach-fringe- plant-communities. A regional plant association guide (DeMeo et. al. 1992) helps classify different forest types and provides an inventory of vegetation resources grouped into series based on the dominant overstory species. A walk through the proposed project area was conducted for timber resources in 2008. The project area contains primarily the western hemlock vegetation series.

Natural disturbance patterns due to wind caused events are commonplace in southeast Alaska. Forested slopes with south, southeast and southwest aspects directly exposed to prevailing winds are at highest risk for wind throw disturbance. Forested slopes with north, northeast, and northwest aspects present the lowest risk of wind throw disturbance. The proposed location of the aerial tram at Herring Cove to Fawn Mountain lies along a northeast slope behind a moderate ridge that is transverse to the prevailing southeast wind patterns. The tram project area has minimal exposure risk for wind disturbance.

The Forest Plan land use designations (LUDs) determine which activities are suitable within these areas including the amount of land capable of, or available for, timber production. This project is located within a Semi-remote Recreation LUD that maintains a mostly natural setting where timber production is not the primary emphasis (Forest Plan pages 3-63 to 3-68). Although this LUD is unsuitable for timber production, removal of trees may be authorized for improvement of recreation and tourism opportunities. Forest officers may grant a permittee the right to cut, damage, or destroy National Forest System timber or other forest products in conjunction with an authorized occupancy of a right-of- way or other use of National Forest System land (36 CFR 223.12) (USDA Forest Service 2002). Any merchantable timber would be appraised and sold using a timber settlement agreement.

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects Under the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), no trees will be cut and the project area will remain a Semi-remote Recreation LUD unsuitable for timber production.

Under the Proposed Action (Alternative 2), the proposed 3,793-foot long by 17-foot wide corridor would require 1.5 acres of felled timber within the tramway project area. The removal of single hazard trees or small clumps of hazard trees along the corridor using vertical (helicopter) logging methods would have minimal effect on the surrounding forest environment. There is also a low risk of wind throw in the surrounding forest because this limited tree removal would mimic natural openings in the mature forest canopy that are commonplace due to natural mortality or small wind caused

70 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment events. In addition, the proposed tram would run along a northeast slope behind a moderate ridge that would block most of the prevailing winds from the south / southeast.

The final ground location of the aerial tram would determine the actual number of trees that require cutting and removal to facilitate construction of the proposed tram. A field timber cruise, in 2008, identified 57 trees that may need to be felled to facilitate construction of the towers and skyline and allow passage for the tram cars under the forest canopy. This estimate was based on a wider, 34-foot width to account for the possible removal of additional hazard trees outside of the proposed 17-foot corridor or slight adjustments to the corridor alignment once the final design survey is complete. These 11 Sitka spruce, 1 Alaska yellow-cedar, and 45 western hemlock trees were cruised to 100 percent sample standards according to Region 10 Timber Cruising Handbook (USDA Forest Service 2006d) standards and were estimated to contain 48 thousand board feet (MBF) of timber using the U.S. Forest Service FS Cruiser processing program. Because the proposed F-tower configuration is estimated at 17-feet wide, Alternative 2 is anticipated to remove about 24 MBF (Table 3-6). The ecological/educational nature of the proposed tour activity also suggests that the number of trees to be removed would be far less than the maximum number identified in order to preserve the integrity of the multi-level canopy tour.

The aerial tram project would be a private endeavor for commercial use of National Forest System lands under a special use permit, and therefore the permittee would not qualify for free use of the timber felled to facilitate construction of the project. Timber felled would require designation, marking, and payment at appraised rates under a timber settlement agreement prior to felling and removal of the timber. The tram permit holder will own the trees under the settlement agreement and disposal of the felled timber would be the responsibility of the permittee.

Table 3-6. Direct Effects to Timber in Alternatives 1 and 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Acres 0 1.5 Volume in CCF 0 45 Volume in MBF 0 24

Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects area includes the proposed tram alignment north to the Whitman Lake Hydroelectric facility, and the adjacent non-NFS lands. No past timber harvest has occurred on NFS lands within the timber cumulative effects area. Much of the adjacent, low elevation non-NFS lands are currently developed for residential and commercial uses, including the harvest of timber.

Approximately five acres (approximately 46 MBF) of clearing is proposed to construct a new diversion pipeline, penstock, and access road associated with the Whitman Lake Hydroelectric facilities; about 2.3 acres of the harvest would be on NFS land with the rest

71 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment______on non-NFS lands. The proposed tram and the Whitman Lake hydroelectric clearings would total about 70 MBF (less than seven acres). This would have no measurable effects on timber supply and demand in the Ketchikan area. No other reasonably foreseeable projects that would require the harvest of timber are proposed on NFS lands in the effects area.

Any further development of non-NFS lands, including timber harvest, would follow applicable Federal, State, and local law. Any removal of trees identified as a public safety hazard during future tram operations would be coordinated with the authorized officer of the special use permit as per the terms and conditions of the permit.

72 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment

ROADLESS Affected Environment This report provides a summary of Revilla Roadless Area #524 for the Rain Forest Aerial Tram project. The roadless area is on the southwest quarter of Revillagigedo (Revilla) Island. A full description of the roadless area begins on page C2-503 of the 2003 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Roadless Area Evaluation for Wilderness Recommendations, Volume III: Appendix C-Part 2 (FSEIS).

The geographic area covered by this analysis is Revilla Roadless Area #524 and adjacent land ownership that may affect roadless characteristics. The project location is in a small area at the south tip of the roadless area (Figure 3-7).

Other roadless areas nearby on Revilla Island but outside of the geographic analysis area include: South Revilla #523, located southeast across George Inlet (53,559 acres); Carroll #535 located east (11,180 acres); and North Revilla # 526, located north and west beyond Ward Lake recreation area (225,444 acres).

There are six land use designations (LUDs) assigned to the area in the Forest Plan:

Table 3-7. Land Use Designations in Revilla Roadless Area #524

Land Use Designation Acres Timber Production 2,744 Scenic Viewshed 1,986 Semi-remote Recreation 9,273 Municipal Watershed 6,995 Special Interest Area 5,113 Old-growth Habitat 4,830

The resource indicators used to measure the effects of the project on the roadless characteristics are the number or acres of roadless area characteristics affected. Six roadless characteristics identified in the 2001 Roadless Rule apply to this project and are used to analyze effects: 1. Sources of public drinking water (number of sources affected) 2. Diversity of plant and animal communities (acres of habitat affected) 3. Habitat for endangered, threatened, proposed, candidate, and sensitive (TES) species (acres) 4. Recreation Opportunities (number of opportunities) 5. Landscape character and scenic integrity (acres of change) 6. Traditional cultural properties and sacred sites (number of sites affected)

73 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment______

Figure 3-7. Revilla Inventoried Roadless Area #524

74 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment

Relative contribution to Wilderness The roadless area provides moderate natural integrity and high apparent naturalness. There is moderate opportunity for solitude and primitive recreation: 23 percent of the area is designated Primitive on the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum and 57 percent of the area is designated Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized (FSEIS, page C2-506). The Revilla Roadless Area received a score of 17 out of a possible 28 and the area’s relative contribution to Wilderness would be low (FSEIS, page C2-512).

Roadless Characteristics Sources of public drinking water Ketchikan Lakes is the source of municipal water for a population of about 7,280 in Ketchikan, Alaska. The dam is on non-NFS land outside of roadless, but the lakes are located within the boundary of the Revilla Roadless Area. Saxman, population 370, obtains its public water supply from a creek and reservoir within the city limits of Saxman, on non-NFS land outside of the roadless area. The Mountain Point Service Area obtains water from Forks Creek, located on private and State of Alaska land outside of the roadless area. People living north of city limits use individual cisterns for water, thus outside of the roadless area.

Diversity of plant and animal communities Fish: Anadromous fish habitat in the roadless area is limited. However, waters from the roadless area contribute to adjacent fish habitat in Ward Creek to the northwest, White River to the northeast, and Herring Bay Creek to the south near the proposed tram. Fish known to occur in these adjacent streams include: pink, chum, coho, sockeye, and Chinook salmon; steelhead and cutthroat trout; and Dolly Varden char. See the aquatics section for specifics on fisheries resources within the proposed tram watershed at the south tip of the Revilla Roadless Area.

Wildlife: The roadless area supports a wide array of wildlife species, including birds, mammals, and amphibians. Management indicator species known to occur in the roadless area include black bear, Sitka black-tailed deer, mountain goat, red squirrel, hairy woodpecker, red-breasted sapsucker, brown creeper, Vancouver Canada goose, Alexander Archipelago wolf, river otter, and American marten. Bald eagles are abundant along the shorelines surrounding the roadless area and have the potential to occur at the lakes within the roadless area. Black bear scat and deer tracks were observed along the proposed tram corridor at the south end of the roadless area. Mountain goats inhabit the mountainous areas of the roadless area and may occur in the subalpine habitat near the top of the proposed tram. See the wildlife section for information on the wildlife resources within the vicinity of the tram project.

Plants: Area vegetation is typical coastal temperate rain forest with hemlock, spruce, and cedar forest and associated alpine, lake, and muskeg habitats. One rare plant location is known within the roadless area, but not within the vicinity of the tram. No non-native species were observed in the proposed tram corridor, but low level infestations (10 percent) of reed canary grass ( Phalaris arundinacea L.) are known at the Alaska Rainforest Sanctuary parking area; a population of reed canary grass was also observed along the Silvis Lake Trail near the east edge of the roadless area. Several other invasive

75 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment______species have also been recorded near the Silvis and Perseverance trailheads outside the roadless area.

Habitat for endangered, threatened, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species Wildlife: Humpback whales and Steller sea lions are the only federally listed species that occur near the Revilla Roadless Area, but none are present within the area because no marine waters are present. Based on available information, there is a lack of suitable habitat in the roadless area for most Region 10 Sensitive Species; project specific surveys were conducted for goshawk only. No goshawk nests are known within the Roadless Area, and none were detected in the vicinity of the tram during field surveys.

Plants: Only one plant species in Alaska is listed as endangered and its range is restricted to Adak Island in the Aleutian Islands several hundred miles north of the Revilla Roadless Area. No proposed or threatened species are known on the Tongass National Forest.

There are seventeen plant and one lichen species listed as sensitive in Region 10, eleven of which are known or suspected on KMRD (Appendix B of the botany resource report). No sensitive species have been identified within the roadless area, including the vicinity of the proposed tram.

Recreation Opportunities There is no developed access (roads or trails) directly to NFS land in the vicinity of the proposed tram alignment. The roadless area borders the Ward Lake recreation area and Revilla Road on the northwest. Ward Lake recreation area has three campgrounds, day use areas, and several trailheads along the road system. Trail systems entering the roadless area from the Ward Lake recreation area are: Connell Lake (2.3 miles easy walking); Perseverance Lake Trail (2.4 miles difficult walking); and Minerva Mountain Trail (4 miles difficult walking from the end of Perseverance Trail). Other trails in the Ward Lake Recreation Area but not within the roadless area include Ward Creek Trail (2.5 miles easy walking), Ward Lake Trail (1.3 miles easy walking), and Salvage Trail (1.5 miles easy walking).

Other trails also provide access to the roadless area. Dude Mountain Trail (1.5 miles most difficult walking) accesses the roadless area from the north. The Deer Mountain – Silvis Lake Traverse (13.75 miles, most difficult walking) crosses through the roadless area; the Deer Mountain trailhead is located to the west of the roadless area and the Silvis Lake trailhead is located to the east. Two short trails connect to the transverse: John Mountain Trail and Mahoney Mountain Trail. Two shelters (Deer Mountain and Blue Lake) provide the opportunity for an overnight stay along the traverse.

In addition to the hiking trails, mountain goat, deer, and bear hunting is known to occur in the roadless area. Saxman community members reported deer hunting in the vicinity of the proposed tram. One big game guide is permitted to use the roadless area for guided mountain goat hunting and one guide is permitted for the use of Connell Lake Trail. Flightseeing tours to Misty Fiords National Monument to the east often fly over the roadless area.

76 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment

Landscape character and scenic integrity The 30,941 acres roadless area is characterized by steep, heavily forested terrain with numerous lakes. Elevations rise to over 3,000 feet, contributing to nearly 5,000 acres of alpine habitat. Most of the roadless area is natural appearing and allocated to non- development LUDs (Table 3-7) with Moderate to High Scenic Integrity Objectives. The area appears natural when viewed from visual priority routes. However, private and commercial development and timber harvest on non-NFS lands is visible on the private lands bordering the roadless area. There is evidence of human modification from recreation trails, recreation shelters, past mining activity, hydropower plants, roads and logging on adjacent lands, private property development, and the proximity of Ketchikan and Saxman. There is noise from fixed wing and helicopter over flights (FSEIS, pages C503-505).

The Revilla Roadless Area is surrounded by development. Most of the roadless area is bounded by non-National Forest System (NFS) land: the lands to the south, southwest, southeast, and northeast are almost entirely other ownerships (Figure 3-7). Development associated with the cities of Ketchikan and Saxman, as well as numerous private and state holdings, form the south and southwest borders. George Inlet (saltwater) forms a section of the border along the east side. Roads and past timber harvest on both private and NFS lands line the north and northeast borders. The Ward Lake Recreation Area lies to the northwest; this area is designated as a Special Interest Area in the Forest Plan.

There are three hydropower facilities associated with the Revilla Roadless Area. Ketchikan Lakes and the adjacent Granite Basin Creek to the east of the lower lake are located within the roadless area and provide water for a hydropower facility located within the Ketchikan city limits; a road accesses the dam at Ketchikan Lakes at the edge of the roadless area.

Beaver Falls hydropower plant gets its water from Upper Silvis Lake within the roadless area and Lower Silvis Lake outside the roadless area; the power facility is located at the end of South Tongass Highway, outside the roadless area. The dam at Upper Silvis Lake is at the edge of the roadless area.

A third hydropower project has been licensed but not yet built at Whitman Lake. Whitman Lake and the adjacent Achilles Creek watersheds within the roadless area will supply water to a power generation facility to be located on private land next to the fish hatchery at Herring Cove outside the roadless area. A maintenance road will be built to access an existing dam at Whitman Lake and a new diversion dam on Achilles Creek. The Achilles Creek diversion and a portion of the road will be within the Revilla Roadless Area.

Traditional cultural properties and sacred sites A review of the literature was conducted to identify all previously recorded sites associated with the proposed tram vicinity. There are 14 Alaska Heritage Resource Survey sites within five miles of the proposed tram project: six Alaska Heritage Resource Survey sites are prehistoric and eight are historic. The only known historic site within the roadless area is in the vicinity of Perseverance Lake. All of the proposed tram project

77 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment______and the Revilla Roadless Area lie within the Low Sensitivity Zone for cultural resources being present.

No portions of the roadless area have been identified as sacred sites. Traditional uses such as; berry picking, bark collecting, and herb collection all occur within the roadless area.

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternatives 1 and 2: No changes to the existing hydroelectric power facilities would occur. Existing Forest Plan LUDs within the roadless area would not be affected.

Relative contribution to Wilderness Alternatives 1 and 2: The roadless area would continue to provide moderate natural integrity, high apparent naturalness, and moderate opportunity for solitude and primitive recreation. The roadless area already has high public use and is surrounded by development. Under Alternative 2, the additional 1.5 acres of proposed development at the southern tip of the roadless area would not change the existing low relative contribution to Wilderness and would therefore have minimal effect on the area’s capability for management as Wilderness.

Roadless Characteristics

Table 3-8. Direct Effects to Roadless Area Characteristics Resource Indicator Alt 1 Alt 2 Number of sources of public drinking water affected 0 0 Acres of habitat disturbed (plant and animal communities) 0 1.5 acres Acres of habitat for TES species 0 0 Number of recreation opportunities affected 0 adds 1 site Acres of landscape character / scenic integrity changed 0 1.5 acres Number of traditional cultural properties / sacred sites 0 0 affected

Sources of Public Drinking Water Alternatives 1 and 2: Neither alternative would affect the existing sources of public drinking water at Ketchikan Lakes for the city of Ketchikan, the creek used by the city of Saxman, or Forks Creek used to supply the Mountain Point Service Area.

Diversity of plant and animal species Alternative 1: Existing conditions would continue, with animal and plant communities experiencing changes associated only with natural processes.

Alternative 2 fish: Minimal fish habitat occurs in the vicinity of the proposed tram. The tram would cross one Class III stream and there is Class I habitat downstream of the proposed project. A fisheries biologist has determined that there would be negligible

78 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment effects to essential fish habitat in Herring Cove as a result of the proposed project. Best management practices and blasting restrictions would be in place to minimize effects. See the aquatics resource report for additional information on the water resources in the vicinity of the proposed tram.

Alternative 2 wildlife: The proposed tram would alter less than one-tenth of one percent of the habitat in the roadless area. Extensive habitat would remain adjacent to the proposed tram; the majority of the roadless area is in a non-development LUD and would remain in a natural condition. There would be minimal disturbance to goats during critical wintering or kidding periods because there would be minimal operating season overlap with these time periods, no nature hikes in subalpine and alpine habitat would be allowed, and Forest Plan standards and guidelines for minimum flight distances would be in place. Restrictions on flight paths and blasting would be in place to minimize disturbance to bald eagles adjacent to the project area outside the roadless area. Forest Plan standards and guidelines to reduce human-bear interactions would also be in place. See the wildlife resource report for more information on effects to wildlife in the vicinity of the tram.

Alternative 2 plants: Vegetation would remain typical of the coastal temperate rain forest with hemlock, spruce, and cedar forest associated with alpine, lake, and muskeg habitats interspersed. The risk of introducing invasive species as a result of the proposed tram is minimal provided best management practices are followed. No rare species were identified during field surveys in the vicinity of the proposed tram; no effects to rare species in the roadless area would occur. See the botany resource report for more information on the effects to plants in the vicinity of the tram.

Habitat for endangered, threatened, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species Alternatives 1 and 2 wildlife: There would be no effect under either alternative on any federally listed threatened, endangered, or proposed species. No goshawk nesting sites are known in the roadless area and no goshawks were detected during field surveys in the vicinity of the proposed tram. Habitat for other Region 10 sensitive species is not present within the roadless area. Therefore, no sensitive species would be affected.

Alternatives 1 and 2 plants: There are no endangered, threatened, or proposed species in the roadless area and no sensitive species were found during field surveys for the proposed tram. There would be no effect to endangered, threatened, proposed or sensitive plant species under either alternative.

Recreation opportunities Alternatives 1 and 2: The proposed aerial tram project would not significantly affect forest recreation resources in the roadless area. The proposed tram would not affect any existing developed or dispersed recreation sites in the roadless area. Existing outfitter- guides will continue to operate in the roadless in their current capacity. Existing Recreational Opportunity Spectrum classifications would not change in the roadless area, including in the vicinity of the proposed tram.

79 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment______

Under Alternative 2, the proposed tram would expand the range of educational excursions available to visitors with limited physical mobility and increase recreational access to the forest canopy.

Landscape Character and Scenic Integrity Alternative 1: No change in the landscape character or scenic integrity would occur. There would be no effect on the existing rugged landscape features or the size of the roadless area.

Alternative 2: The vast majority of the Revilla Roadless Area would be unaffected by the proposed tram. No roads are proposed. Less than one percent of the acres of the roadless area would be affected.

The observation tower and portions of the tram line would be visible from certain ocean water locations on George and Carroll Inlets. The structures would be subordinate and diminutive in scale relative to the surrounding landscape due to a middle-ground distance zone of approximately 2 miles. The lift line and support towers may be seen intermittently from both George and Carroll Inlets and Revilla Channel from a distance of approximately 1 to 2 miles, primarily near the intersection of these waters. The visual impact caused by the lift line and towers would be very subordinate relative to the surrounding existing landscape character.

Minimal clearing width and the use of forest green color schemes on the support towers, gondola cars, and observation tower would reduce the visual impact of the tower and top station. The direct effect of the proposed action is within Forest Plan standard and guidelines for scenery, a Moderate Scenic Integrity would be met, and the Existing Scenic Integrity level would not change.

Traditional cultural properties and sacred sites Alternatives 1 and 2: No traditional cultural properties or sacred sites in the roadless area would be affected under either alternative. If new resources are discovered during construction or operation of the tram, immediate reporting would be required to determine if mitigation measures are necessary.

Cumulative Effects Relative contribution to Wilderness Alternatives 1 and 2: The roadless area would continue to provide moderate natural integrity, high apparent naturalness, and moderate opportunity for solitude and primitive recreation. The roadless area already has high public use and the area is surrounded by development. Under Alternative 1, about 2.3 acres of proposed development, including about 0.52 mile of new road construction, would occur for the Whitman Lake project at the southern tip of the roadless area; Alternative 2 would add another 1.5 acres of development but no roads. The existing relative contribution to Wilderness is low and therefore the additional 3.8 acres of cumulative disturbance would have minimal effect on the area’s capability for management as Wilderness.

80 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment

Table 3-9. Cumulative Effects to Roadless Area Characteristics Resource Indicator Alt 1 Alt 2 Number of sources of public drinking water affected 0 0 Acres of habitat disturbed (plant and animal communities) 0 3.8 acres Acres of habitat for TES species 0 0 Number of recreation opportunities affected 0 adds 1 site Acres of landscape character / scenic integrity changed 0 3.8 acres Number of traditional cultural properties / sacred sites 0 0 affected

Sources of Public Drinking Water Alternatives 1 and 2: There would be no effect to the Ketchikan Lakes water source located within the roadless area. There would also be no effects to the creek outside the roadless area used by the city of Saxman for water.

The Mountain Point Service Area water supply currently comes from Forks Creek outside the roadless area and would not be affected by the proposed tram. Continued development on non-NFS lands could occur in the vicinity of this source.

The water supply for Mountain Point Service Area will be changed to Whitman Creek in the foreseeable future. The proposed tram is not in the Whitman Creek watershed. The Whitman Lake hydroelectric project would have ground-disturbing activities within the roadless area and water withdrawal upstream of the new water source location. However, a water rights permit has been issued to the Ketchikan Gateway Borough for the new Whitman Creek water source for the purpose of a public water source. No other reasonably foreseeable activities are planned in the Whitman Creek watershed (in the roadless area) and effects to the new source would be minimal.

Diversity of plant and animal species Fish: Fish habitat in the roadless area is limited. The proposed tram, Whitman Lake hydroelectric facility, Perseverance Trail reconstruction, and Silvis Lake Trail reconstruction are reasonably foreseeable projects in the roadless area. The essential fish habitat analysis determined that adverse effects to resident and anadromous fish resulting from the proposed tram would be negligible and discountable. Effects on fisheries resources from the Whitman Lake project are also expected to be minimal; minimal instream flows would be met, intake screens would be used, and the fish hatchery would continue to be provided with water for its operations. No effect to fisheries would occur from the two trail-reconstruction projects. Development of surrounding non-NFS lands would continue but should not affect fisheries within the roadless area.

Wildlife: Much of the roadless area is allocated to non-development LUDs and extensive habitat would remain in the roadless area for wildlife. The tram proposes to harvest about 1.5 acres of habitat and the Whitman Lake project proposes to harvest about2.3 acres of habitat. The two trail reconstruction projects would have minimal habitat disturbance and no effects to wildlife would occur. Together, these projects affect less than one-tenth of one percent of the habitat in the roadless area. The roadless area could

81 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment______continue to serve as a refuge for wildlife from surrounding development on non-NFS lands and would continue to host a wide variety of species.

Plants: Vegetation would remain typical of the coastal temperate rain forest with hemlock, spruce, and cedar forest associated with alpine, lake, and muskeg habitats interspersed. The risk of introducing invasive species as a result of the proposed tram is minimized by through the use of best management practices. The risk of spreading invasive species as a result of the Whitman Lake project is also minimized by implementing an approved vegetation management plan. No rare species were identified during field surveys in the vicinity of the proposed projects; no effects to rare species in the roadless area would occur. The Perseverance Trail reconstruction has a low risk of introducing invasive species to the roadless area. The Silvis Lake reconstruction has a high risk of introducing invasive species because invasive species exist on or nearby the trail and could be spread as a result of ground disturbance; mitigation measures were recommended.

Habitat for endangered, threatened, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species Wildlife: There would be no effect to any federally listed threatened, endangered, or proposed species. No goshawk-nesting-sites are known in the roadless area and no goshawks were detected during field surveys in the vicinity of the proposed tram or the Whitman Lake project. A no effect determination was made for goshawks for the two trail reconstruction projects. Habitat for other Region 10 sensitive species is not present within the roadless area. Therefore, no sensitive species would be affected.

Plants: There are no endangered, threatened, or proposed species in the roadless area and no sensitive species were found during field surveys for the proposed tram, Whitman Lake hydroelectric project, or the two trail reconstruction projects. There would be no effect to endangered, threatened, proposed or sensitive plant species under either alternative.

Recreation opportunities Cumulative effects to developed or dispersed recreation sites in the roadless area would be minimal. The two trail reconstruction projects would improve the existing recreational access to the roadless area, Perseverance Trail from the Ward Lake recreation area and Silvis Lake trail from the east. The Herring Cove area (non-NFS land outside the roadless area to the south) also has recreation opportunities that would not be affected by the proposed tram or the Whitman Lake project: Alaska Rainforest Sanctuary (nature trail and zipline tours), informal wildlife viewing from the Herring Bay Bridge, the fish hatchery, and recreational fishing. The proposed Oceans Alaska Marine Science Center would create a new primary destination emphasizing education and interpretation in marine ecology about one mile east of the tram along Tongass Highway.

Existing outfitter-guides would continue to operate in the roadless area. Existing Recreational Opportunity Spectrum classifications would not change in the roadless area, including in the vicinity of the proposed tram or Whitman Lake.

82 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment

The Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association hatchery and Alaska Rainforest Zipline Canopy Tour will continue to be the primary sources of noise in the Herring Cove area. The zip line operates during the summer months. The fish hatchery spillways are a year-round source of noise. The Whitman Lake hydroelectric facility will be located next to the fish hatchery in Herring Cove. The power generators from this facility will contribute additional noise to the area. However, the existing Rural ROS designation on non-NFS lands allows for these types of development.

Landscape Character and Scenic Integrity Alternatives 1 and 2: The non-NFS lands surrounding the roadless area have been extensively modified and further changes from residential and commercial development activities would continue. In the vicinity of the tram, the NFS lands in the roadless area are minimally modified.

The Whitman Lake project is in an Old Growth Habitat LUD with a High Scenic Integrity objective. Most of the Whitman Lake hydroelectric facilities would be located outside the roadless area and the scenic integrity of the NFS lands would meet the High Scenic Integrity Objective when viewed from Visual Priority Routes.

Visual impacts of the proposed tram in Alternative 2 would be subordinate relative to the existing landscape character and would remain within the Moderate Scenic Integrity required by the Forest Plan standards and guidelines for a Semi-Remote Recreation LUD. Existing Scenic Integrity is not expected to change.

Traditional cultural properties and sacred sites The Whitman Lake Hydroelectric project will adversely affect one Alaska Heritage Resource Survey sites that is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. No other reasonably foreseeable projects will impact known sites, including the proposed tram (see the heritage section) or either of the trail reconstruction projects.

83 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment______

FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL PERMITS, LICENSES AND CERTIFICATIONS To proceed with construction of the rain forest aerial tram project as addressed in this EA, various permits, licenses, or certifications would be obtained from federal, state, and local agencies. The follow permits would be obtained for the project:

• Approval of discharge of dredged or fill material into the waters of the United States under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. • A zoning permit from the Ketchikan Gateway Borough for construction of the tram base station and accessory concessions located on private land. • A driveway permit issued by the State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities.

In addition to the above permits, the applicant is required to obtain concurrence from the State of Alaska, Office of Project Management and Permitting (in the Department of Natural Resources) on a coastal zone consistency determination to proceed with the proposed action.

APPLICABLE LAWS AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS Many federal laws and Executive Orders pertain to project-specific planning and environmental analysis on federal lands. While most of the laws and Executive Orders listed below pertain to all federal lands, some of the laws are specific to Alaska.

Findings and Disclosures Several of the laws and executive orders listed below require project-specific findings or other disclosures. These apply to federal land management projects and activities and are included here and in the Decision Notice. They apply to all alternatives considered in detail in this EA.

National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 (as amended) This decision is consistent with the 2008 Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). The project was designed in conformance with the Forest Plan Land Use Designation (LUD) of Semi-Remote Recreation. Direction for the management of this LUD is located in the Forest Plan on pages 3-63 through 3-68.

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) of 1980; Sections 810 and 811 The effects of this project have been evaluated to determine potential effects on subsistence opportunities and resources. Because there would be no change in abundance and distribution of, access to, and competition for subsistence resources, the proposed project would not result in a significant possibility of a significant restriction on subsistence resources or uses.

84 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (as amended) The project complies with the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines issued in May 2007 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) restricts management activities near active bald eagle nest sites. Management zones vary by the type of activity the project entails. One active nest is known near the project area and bald eagles are known to congregate in Herring Cove. Mitigation measures are required around the active nest within ½ mile of potential blasting operations; within 1,000 feet of helicopter operations; and within 660 feet of chain saw or yarding operations.

Clean Air Act of 1970 (as amended) Emissions from the implementation of the project will be of short duration and are not expected to exceed State of Alaska ambient air quality standards (18 AAC 50). The day- to-day tram operations would use an electric motor; a diesel-powered generator would only be used for emergency operations in the event of a power outage. Fuel usage during the construction period would be of limited duration. Some of the bus transportation of visitors to the site is anticipated to be shared with the already existing Alaska Rainforest Sanctuary, minimizing the addition of traffic use, and such transportation would primarily be during the months of May through September.

Clean Water Act (1977, as amended) Project activities meet all applicable State of Alaska Water Quality Standards. Congress intended the Clean Water Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-500) as amended in 1977 (Public Law 95-217) and 1987 (Public Law 100-4) to protect and improve the quality of water resources and maintain their beneficial uses. Section 313 of the Clean Water Act and Executive Order 12088 of January 23, 1987 addresses Federal agency compliance and consistency with water pollution control mandates. Agencies must be consistent with requirements that apply to "any governmental entity" or private person. Compliance is to be in line with "all Federal, State, interstate, and local requirements, administrative authority, and process and sanctions respecting the control and abatement of water pollution."

The Clean Water Act (Sections 208 and 319) recognized the need for control strategies for nonpoint source pollution. The National Nonpoint Source Policy (December 12, 1984), the Forest Service Nonpoint Strategy (January 29, 1985), and the USDA Nonpoint Source Water Quality Policy (December 5, 1986) provide a protection and improvement emphasis for soil and water resources and water-related beneficial uses. Soil and water conservation practices (BMPs) are recognized as the primary control mechanisms for nonpoint source pollution on National Forest System lands. The EPA supports this perspective in their guidance, "Nonpoint Source Controls and Water Quality Standards" (August 19, 1987).

The Forest Service must apply BMPs that are consistent with the Alaska Forest Resources and Practices Act (AFRPA) to achieve Alaska Water Quality Standards. The site-specific application of BMPs, with a monitoring and feedback mechanism, is the approved strategy for controlling nonpoint source pollution as defined by Alaska’s Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Strategy (2007). In 1997, the State approved the

85 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment______

BMPs in the Forest Service Soil and Water Conservation Handbook (FSH 2509.22, October 1996) as consistent with AFRPA. This handbook is incorporated into the Forest Plan.

A discharge of dredge or fill material from normal silvicultural activities such as harvesting for the production of forest products is exempt from Section 404 permitting requirements in waters of the United States, including wetlands (404(f)(1)(A). Forest roads qualify for this exemption only if they are constructed and maintained in accordance with BMPs to assure that flow and circulation patterns and chemical and biological characteristics of the waters are not impaired (404)(f)(1)(E). The BMPs that must be followed are specified in 33 CFR 323.4(a). These specific BMPs are incorporated into the Soil and Water Conservation Handbook under BMP 12.5.

The design of the project was guided by standards, guidelines and direction in the Forest Plan and applicable Forest Service Manuals and Handbooks.

Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972 (as amended) The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) requires that the Forest Service when conducting or authorizing activities or development be consistent with the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) to the maximum extent practicable. This activity is one authorized under a Forest Service permit, as defined in 15 CFR 930.51(a). The Forest Service / State of Alaska Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Coastal Zone Management Act / Alaska Coastal Management Program Consistency Reviews lists permitted activities as normally requiring a consistency determination. This activity is listed in Section 302.B.2 as normally requiring a consistency determination. A Coastal Project Questionnaire will be completed by the applicant and submitted to the State of Alaska for their consistency determination. A consistency determination will be received before a permit is issued.

Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (as amended) A Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation has been completed for this action, which indicates that no Federally listed threatened, endangered, or proposed species exist within the project area. As a result, there would be no effects to these species.

Federal Cave Resource Protection Act of 1988 There are no occurrences of carbonate rock and associated cave resources in the project area. The activities of the project will not have a direct, indirect, or cumulative effect on any significant cave in the project area.

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Potentially affected EFH is located downstream of the project area near the estuary of Herring Cove. Species present include chinook, chum, coho, and pink salmon, cutthroat and rainbow trout and Dolly Varden char. No Federal- or State-listed or proposed threatened and endangered fish species or federal candidate species occur in the project area and no State species of special concern occur in the project area (ADFG 2010).

86 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment

Potential adverse effects on water quality and EFH are elevated turbidity levels from sedimentation. Adverse effects on EFH would be short-term or episodic (pulsed) depending on the degree of ground disturbance, and rate and duration of precipitation following ground disturbance. The vast majority of salmon would never be adversely affected by the project. A few pink salmon, cutthroat and rainbow trout, and Dolly Varden char could be adversely affected by the project. The following restrictions/mitigations would be followed to minimize the chance of sedimentation:

1) implementation of Best Management Practices as described in the Soil and Water Conservation Handbook (FSH 2509.22, Region 10 Amendment, 2006), 2) applicant development of erosion control and hazardous materials spill plans, 3) complying with the blasting restrictions outlined in the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration FP-03 section 205, and precipitation restrictions. Therefore, anticipated adverse affects to resident and anadromous fish resulting from this project are anticipated to be negligible and discountable. See the Aquatic and Geologic Resources section of the EA for additional information.

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (as amended) This project area is not located in or accessed by marine waters and therefore actions authorized in this project will not have a direct, indirect, or cumulative effect on marine mammals.

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (as amended) This project has been reviewed by a qualified archeologist and a determination made of "No Historic Properties Affected " in the area of potential effects. There will be no effects to sites listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. In accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, a formal report and the determinations of effect were completed and submitted to the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) for review on December 4, 2008. The SHPO concurred with the Forest Service determination of “No Historic Properties Affected” for the proposed Rain Forest Aerial Tram Project on December 24, 2008.

Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA) of 1990 No commercial timber harvest will occur within 100 feet of any Class I stream or any Class II stream flowing directly into a Class I stream, as required in Section 103 of the TTRA. The design and implementation direction for the project incorporates best management practices (BMPs) and Forest Plan standards and guidelines for the protection of streams.

Applicable Executive Orders Executive Order 11988 (Floodplains) Executive Order 11988 directs Federal agencies to take action to avoid, to the extent possible, the long- and short-term adverse effects associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains. This activity will not impact the functional value of any floodplain as defined by Executive Order 11988.

87 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment______

Executive Order 11990 (Wetlands) Executive Order 11990 requires Federal agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, the long- and short-term adverse effects associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands. Techniques and practices required by the Forest Service serve to maintain the wetland attributes including values and functions. This activity will not have negative impacts on wetlands as defined by Executive Order 11990.

Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice) Executive Order 12898 directs Federal agencies to state clearly whether a disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental impact on minority populations, low-income populations, or Indian tribes is likely to result from the proposed action and any alternatives. The Executive Order specifically directs agencies to consider patterns of subsistence hunting and fishing when an agency action may affect fish or wildlife.

In accordance with Executive Order 12898, this project does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations and low income populations.

Executive Order 12962 (Aquatic Systems, Recreational Fisheries) Executive Order 12962 requires Federal agencies to evaluate the effects of proposed activities on aquatic systems and recreational fisheries. The project minimizes the effects on aquatic systems through project design, application of standards and guidelines, BMPs, and site-specific mitigation measures. Recreational fishing opportunities would remain essentially the same as the current condition because aquatic habitats are protected through implementation of BMPs and riparian buffers.

Executive Order 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites) Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites, provides presidential direction to Federal agencies to give consideration to the protection of American Indian sacred sites and allow access, where feasible. In a government-to-government relationship, the tribal government is responsible for notifying the agency of the existence of a sacred site. A sacred site is defined as a site that has sacred significance due to established religious beliefs or ceremonial uses, and which has a specific, discrete, and delineated location that has been identified by the tribe. Tribal governments or their authorized representatives have been consulted and have not identified any specific sacred site locations in the project area.

Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments) Executive Order 13175 directs Federal agencies to respect tribal self-government, sovereignty, and tribal rights, and to engage in regular and meaningful government-to- government consultation with tribes on proposed actions with tribal implications.

The following federally recognized tribal governments and organizations were provided information and maps, and a quarterly newsletter that included this project:

88 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment

• Ketchikan Indian Community • Organized Village of Saxman • Metlakatla Indian Community

Executive Order 13186 (Migratory Birds) The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (as amended) prohibits the taking of migratory birds, unless authorized by the Secretary of Interior. The law provides the primary mechanism to regulate waterfowl hunting seasons and bag limits, but its scope is not just limited to waterfowl. Federal agencies are required to analyze actions that have, or are likely to have, a measurable negative effect on migratory bird populations and avoid or minimize, to the extent practicable, adverse impacts on migratory bird resources. Additional objectives are to restore and enhance the habitat of migratory birds. While some individuals or nests could be affected by the harvest of a limited number of trees or by the disturbance caused during construction and operation activities, no measurable effects on migratory bird populations are anticipated.

Executive Order 13443 (Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation) Executive Order 13443 directs Federal agencies to facilitate the expansion and enhancement of hunting opportunities and the management of game species and their habitat. The analysis considered and disclosed the effects on game species. There will be limited habitat alteration as a result of this project and effects on game species would be minimal.

89 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment______

CHAPTER 4, CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, state, and local agencies, tribes and non-Forest Service persons during the development of this Environment Assessment.

PREPARERS INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM MEMBERS: John Hill, Hill & Associates, Third-Party NEPA Contractor Chere Klein, Wetland Delineation and Design Services Cheryl Fultz, Wetland Delineation and Design Services Martin Stanford, Heritage Resources Darin Silkworth, Soil Resources Tom Heutte, Sensitive Plants and Biological Evaluation Jill Reeck, Wildlife and Subsistence Resources Angela Coleman, Aquatic and Geologic Resources Stan McCoy, Timber Resources Paul Valcarce, Scenery Resources

FOREST SERVICE REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS: Cathy Tighe, Team Leader Robert Reeck, Planning Staff Officer Linda Pulliam, NEPA Specialist

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES: Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game Ketchikan Gateway Borough Department of Planning and Community Development

TRIBES: Ketchikan Indian Community Metlakatla Indian Community Organized Village of Saxman

90 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment

REFERENCES CITED Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Interactive Mapping of Catalogued Anadromous Streams. http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/SARR/AWC/index.cfm/FA/maps.interactive

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence. 2000. Saxman Household Harvest Survey Information. Juneau, AK

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 2010. Retrieved April 22, 2010 from http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/special/esa/esa_home.php

Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development. July 2007. Alaska Population Projections 2007-2030. Juneau, AK

Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development 2007. Resident and Nonresident Workers and Earnings by Place of Work, Alaska 2007. http://laborstats.alaska.gov

Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Office History and Archaeology. n.d. Alaska Heritage Resource Survey. Anchorage, AK

Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Office of History and Archaeology. December 24, 2008. Concurrence letter from State Historic Preservation Officer. Anchorage, AK

Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. 2008. Ketchikan Area-wide Traffic Map 2008.

Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. December 5, 2008. Correspondence from Irene Gallion, ADOTPF Regional Planner, to Matt Walker, USFS Misty-Fiords Ranger District.

Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. 2009. Average Daily Traffic South Tongass Highway: North and South of Wood Road and Wood Road, 2003-2008. Email attachment, March 20, 2009, from Daniel Fagnant, Traffic and Safety Division, Southeast AK.

Alaska Division of Community and Regional Affairs. 2009. Retrieved June 15, 2010 from http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/dca/commdb/CIS.cfm

Arndt, K. R. Sackett, and J. Ketz. 1987. A Cultural Resource Overview of the Tongass National Forest . Prepared by GDM and Associate Inc., for the USDA Forest Service under contract No. 53-0109-6-00203.

Bartos, L. 1989. A New Look at Low Flows after Logging. Tongass National Forest. Unpublished article. pp. 95-98

Berg, H.C., Raymond, E.L., and Koch, R.D. 1988. Geologic Map of the Ketchikan and Prince Rupert Quadrangles, Southeastern Alaska . USDI Geological Survey.

91 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment______

Bishop, D.M. and M.E. Stevens. 1964. Landslides on logged areas in southeast Alaska. USDA Forest Service Research Paper NOR

Dalton, John. August 26, 2008. Correspondence to Lynn Kolund, District Ranger, Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District

Dell’Andrea, Rodney. 2009. Personal communication via conference call November 17, 2009.

DeMeo, T, J. Martin, R.A. West, J. Canterbury. 1992. Forest Plant Association Management Guide, Ketchikan Area, Tongass National Forest . USDA Forest Service Alaska Region R10-MB-210

Fagnant, Daniel. 2009. Personal communication via email on March 20, 2009

Goldschmidt, Walter R. and Theodore H. Haas. 1998. Haa Aani, Our Land: Tlingit and Haida Land Rights and Use. Sealaska Heritage Foundation. Juneau, AK

Hultén, E. 1968. Flora of Alaska and Neighboring Territories . Stanford University Press. Stanford, California.

Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2003. Trip Generation, 7 th Edition. Washington, DC

Ketchikan Visitors Bureau. 2008. Tourism Statistics Historical Report thru calendar year 2008. Ketchikan, AK

Ketchikan Visitors Bureau. 2009. Cruise Ship Outlook 2010 . May 28, 2009. Ketchikan, AK

Laurence, Len. 2009. Personal communication via telephone November 11, 2009

London, Dragon. 2009a. Personal communication via telephone September 28, 2009

London, Dragon. 2009b. Personal communication via email December 29, 2009

McDowell Group. 2007. The Economic and Employment Impacts of the Visitor Industry in Ketchikan, Summer 2006 .

Nowacki, G., Krosse, P., Fisher, G., Brew, D., Brock, T., Shepard, M., Pawuk, W., Baitchal, J., and Kissinger, E. 2001. Ecological Subsections of Southeast Alaska and Neighboring Areas of Canada . USDA Forest Service, Technical Publication No. R10- TP-75. Juneau, AK

Organized Village of Saxman. 2009. Saxman I.R.A. Council meeting agenda and minutes from August 3, 2009 regular monthly meeting. Unpublished

Pojar, J. and A. Mackinnon, (eds.) 1994. Plants of The Pacific Northwest Coast. Lone Pine Publishing. Vancouver, BC

92 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment

Porter, B. 2007. Unit 1A Deer, pages 1-11 in P. Harper, editor. Deer management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2004 - 30 June 2006 . Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Juneau, AK

Preschel, Josef. 2009. Personal communication via email July 21, 2009

Roppel, Patricia. 1998. Land of Mists, Revillagigedo & Gravina Islands Misty Fiords National Monument, Alaska . Farwest Research. Wrangell, AK

Swanston, D.N. 1969. Mass Wasting in Coastal Alaska. USDA Forest Service Research Paper PNW-83, Institute of Northern Forestry, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. Portland, OR

Swanston, D.N. 1970. Mechanics of Debris Avalanching in Shallow Till Soils of Southeast Alaska . USDA Forest Service Research Paper PNW-103, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, OR

Swanston, D.N. 1995. Overview of Controlling Stability Characteristics of Steep Terrain in Southeast Alaska, with Recommendations for Revising and Standardizing Mass Movement Hazard Indexing on the Tongass . Unpublished. Juneau, AK

Swanston, D.N. and W.J. Walkotten. 1969. The effectiveness of rooting as a factor of shear strength in the Karta soil. USDA Forest Service Progress Report, Study No. FS- PNW-1604:26, Northern Forest and Range Experiment Station, Juneau, AK

University of Alaska Fairbanks, Museum of the North Herbarium, 2009. Retrieved July 13, 2009 from http://acrtos.database.museum

USDA Forest Service. 1985. Landscape Management Handbook 2309.22, Region 10 Amendment 1. Juneau, AK

USDA Forest Service. 1992. Tongass National Forest, Southeast Alaska. Channel Type User Guide. R10 Technical Paper 26, April 1992

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Landscape Aesthetics - A Handbook for Scenery Management. Agriculture Handbook 701. Washington, D.C.

USDA Forest Service. 1997. Tongass Land Management Plan Revision: Final Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix H. R10-MB-338b. Juneau, AK

USDA Forest Service. 2000. Forest Service Manual 7320, Washington Office Amendment ID 7300-2000-1. Washington, DC.

USDA Forest Service. 2002. Forest Service Manual 2400, Chapter 2460. Washington Office Amendment 2400-2002-2. Washington, DC.

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Tongass Land Management Plan Revision: Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Roadless Area Evaluation for Wilderness Recommendations, Volume III: Appendix C – Part 2. R10-MB-481c. Juneau, AK

93 Rain Forest Aerial Tram Environmental Assessment______

USDA Forest Service. 2006a. FS-2700-4 (03/06), special use permit. OMB 0596-0082

USDA Forest Service. 2006b. Revegetating Disturbed Sites on the Tongass National Forest. Memo signed by Forest Supervisor Forrest Cole, July 28, 2006

USDA Forest Service. 2006c. Forest Service Handbook 2509.22, Soil and Water Conservation Handbook, Alaska Region. Juneau, AK

USDA Forest Service. 2006d. Forest Service Handbook 2409.12, Timber Cruising. Alaska Region supplement R-10 2409.12-2006-5 issued May 15, 2006. Juneau, AK

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. R10-MB-603b. Juneau, AK

USDA Forest Service. 2008a. Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, Final Environmental Impact Statement. R10-MB-603c. Juneau, AK

USDA Forest Service. 2009 Forest Service Alaska Region Sensitive Species List, Assessment and proposed Revisions to the 2002 List. Prepared by Michael I. Goldstein, Donald Martin, and Mary C. Stensvold. Unpublished

USDA Forest Service. n.d. National supplement to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Commission, 2003 Standard specifications for construction of roads and bridges on federal highway projects, FP-03, Section 205

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. Washington, D.C.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Retrieved May 26, 2009 from http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/stateOccurrenceIndividual.jsp?state=AK

Waterman, T.T. 1922. Tlingit Geographical Names for Extreme Southeast Alaska . Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D.C.

94

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, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Printed on Recycled Paper

95