Tongass National Forest

Tongass Home » Projects & Plans » Recent Decisions

Note: This is a word-for-word representation of the official signed document reformatted for the Web. It is provided for your convenience and is not considered the official project documentation.

Harbor Mountain Road and Recreation

Decision Notice/Finding of No Significant Impact

Sitka Ranger District

Complete printable EA (1.6 MB PDF, needs Adobe Acrobat® Reader to open)

This Decision Notice contains a brief summary of the environmental analysis completed for this project as well as my decision regarding which alternative to implement and the rationale for my decision. It also contains certain Findings required by various laws, and information concerning the right to Administrative Review of this decision. The Environmental Assessment completed for this project is incorporated by reference in this decision document.

Harbor Mountain Road (National Forest System Road #7576) was originally constructed as a single lane road for military equipment during World War II. Harbor Mountain Road is in poor condition; use of this road is currently limited by the following deficiencies: poor vertical and horizontal sight distance, narrow roadway widths, cut and fill slope failures, ditch and culvert blockages, lack of turn outs, and potholes in the road surface caused by rotting woody debris in the original fill that was used to construct the road. The road has been closed a number of times over the past 15 years for extended periods of time because of roadway failures (EA Chapters 1 and 3).

The existing recreation facilities, which include an overlook area near the fourth switchback and the Radar Shack/Tower picnic area (the three separate picnic tables nearby, the restroom and connecting trails) are deteriorating and becoming unsafe (EA Chapter 1 and 3). Increased recreational use of the Harbor Mountain area has exceeded the capacity of existing parking areas and user made trails are causing resource damage.

This Decision Notice documents my decision concerning the Harbor Mountain Road and Recreation project, which includes reconstruction of 4.7 miles of Harbor Mountain Road (National Forest System Road #7576), reconstruction of some existing recreation facilities, and construction of new recreation facilities.

Decision

Based on the Environmental Assessment (EA) completed for this project, as well as comments received during the 30-day public review of the document, it is my decision to select Alternative 2 (the Proposed Action), including all project design elements and monitoring described in Chapter 2 of the EA, for implementation. Three clarifications of the Proposed Action were made in the EA based on public comment and internal review of the EA: (1) While it was stated in the EA effects section, the Proposed Action description did not state that we would install informational signs on the road. Therefore, the Proposed Action description in the EA now includes installation of driver informational signs to meet safety standards for a maintenance level three road designed for passenger vehicles; (2) funding allowed some reconstruction activities to occur on the existing picnic shelter (new posts and a new roof) as deferred maintenance in 2006. These reconstruction activities will not be included in the decision for this project; and (3) the Proposed Action incorrectly showed the proposed accessible picnic site at the existing picnic area on the south side of the parking lot. Due to topography, the accessible picnic site will be placed on the north side of the parking lot. The remainder of the Proposed Action will occur as described below and in Chapter 2 of the EA.

The Proposed Action (Figure 3 in the EA and Alternatives in Chapter 2 of the EA) includes reconstruction of 4.7 miles of Harbor Mountain Road, and reconstruction and construction of recreation facilities. New recreation facility construction will include 1.2 miles of hiking trail, 2.9 miles of cross-country ski/mountain bike trail, accessible viewing area, picnic shelter, and restrooms, and 5 areas with interpretive signs.

Use of the Harbor Mountain Road will remain the same as the existing use except for the addition of another gate (Proposed Gate 0) at the bottom of the road and relocation of Gate 2; these gates will be closed to passenger and high-clearance vehicles when the road is snow or ice-covered nearly to the bottom and may be closed if, due to conditions, damage would occur from road use. Non-motorized use will continue to be allowed year-round on Harbor Mountain Road.

Project design elements and monitoring described in Chapter 2 of the EA apply to the Proposed Action.

Rationale for the Decision

I have selected the Proposed Action (Alternative 2) because this alternative best responds to the purpose, needs and concerns brought forward by the Forest Service and the public. In addition, a recently completed Forest-Level Roads Analysis (USDA Forest Service 2003) for the Tongass National Forest identified the need to upgrade Forest roads used for major recreation and subsistence to public road status. I believe the Harbor Mountain Road meets the Forest Level Road Analysis criteria because of the continuous, year-round recreation use of the road, and that the Proposed Action (Alternative 2) in the Harbor Mountain Road and Recreation EA meets the need identified in the Forest Level Road Analysis. The Proposed Action responds to the goals and objectives outlined in the Tongass Forest Plan, and helps move the project area towards desired conditions described in that plan (USDA Forest Service 1997).

Alternative 2 addresses roadway deficiencies and reduces resource damage caused by the old road structure: Road safety would be improved: sight distance will be improved by straightening the road; as a result collisions on blind corners will be less likely. Roadway width will be increased, 7 parking areas and 38 turnouts will be improved or constructed making passing oncoming traffic safer. Roadway failures would be substantially less common. Motorized access will be maintained, although the road would be closed to public access during portions of the reconstruction period.

Alternative 2 reduces resource damage caused by the increase of recreation use of the area, and develops more recreation opportunities for visitors: Two areas with a series of user made trails to scenic viewpoints would be hardened, reducing resource damage in the fragile sub-alpine environment. While construction/reconstruction occurs, recreation opportunities will be reduced due to closures for construction. After construction, recreation capacity and opportunities would increase by 2 picnic sites, 1 viewing area, and 4 miles of trail through reconstruction of existing facilities and construction of new facilities. Facility conditions would improve at the existing picnic area and at existing parking areas, thus improving users’ recreational experiences. People’s recreational and educational experience is expected to improve with the addition of interpretation of World War II history as well as interpretation of appropriate interaction with bears.

Alternative 2 addresses the desire for additional skiing without conflicts with motorized snow vehicles: Road management would remain the same, but two trails, totaling 2.9 miles would be constructed in the Harbor Mountain area that are designated for non-motorized use - cross-country skiing in winter and mountain bikes in summer.

Alternative 2 addresses the concern that Harbor Mountain’s scenic value may be lowered if the road became visible due to road reconstruction: No changes in the scenic value are expected because project design measures would be employed that would ensure that the road reconstruction would meet the Forest Plan Semi-Remote LUD visual objective of Partial Retention. It is expected that with these measures, the activities (including the road cuts) would be “subordinate to the landscape character” (i.e., difficult to see when compared to the rest of the landscape) within one year of the completion of the project.

Alternative 2 enhances Sitka economics by …providing a destination spot that is more accessible to recreation opportunities…and can be used as a drawing point by local businesses: Existing recreation facilities are improved and new facilities are constructed to spread the recreation use across the mountain and reduce the possibility of resource damage by overuse. Additionally, when improvements are completed, this area would be considered for additional Forest Service outfitter and guide recreation special use permits or added capacity to existing permits (see Socioeconomics, Chapter 3). The revenue generated by additional use could contribute to the economy of Sitka.

Under Alternative 1 (No Action) the needs and desires stated above are not met: The road condition would stay generally the same. Maintenance would occur, but would not fix the underlying inadequacies of the road. Existing recreation facilities would continue to degrade as maintenance cannot keep up with demand. No additional recreation opportunities would be provided. Continued use of a series of user made trails to scenic viewpoints would occur; resource damage would continue to occur and likely increase in the fragile sub-alpine environment. No additional opportunities for skiing would be provided. While scenic value would not change in Alternative 1, some residents and visitors may be deterred by the current road condition and facilities would continue to inadequately meet the demands of residents and visitors. Social and economic opportunities would not be expanded in the Harbor Mountain area.

Public Involvement

The Harbor Mountain Road and Recreation project Environmental Assessment (EA) has been listed on the Tongass National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions since December 14, 1999.

Various levels of public involvement occurred in 1988, 1990, and 1994 in Sitka asking how people would like to see recreation developed in the area. Participants indicated that users wanted more hiking opportunities, and an improved picnic area on Harbor Mountain. Separation of winter uses was suggested, with many respondents desiring separate areas for motorized and non-motorized uses. A Harbor Mountain Recreation Area Design Narrative was completed in September 1993 and amended in 2004 to plan recreation improvements on Harbor Mountain (Project Planning Record).

An announcement about the project was printed in the Sitka Daily Sentinel on May 30, 2003. On June 2, 2003, a letter providing information and seeking public comment was mailed to approximately 164 individuals and groups, which had previously shown interest in Forest Service projects in Southeast Alaska. This included federal and state agencies, Alaska Native groups, municipal offices, businesses, interest groups, and individuals. Fourteen responses to the Harbor Mountain EA mailing were received.

Public review was also provided for the Proposed Action through its inclusion in the 2003 Sitka Trail plan.

The Sitka Ranger District informed the Sitka Tribe of Alaska, Shee Atika Incorporated, Tlingit and Haida Central Council, and Sealaska Corporation of the proposed project by letter. To date these groups have expressed no concerns. The Sitka Tribe of Alaska has been kept informed of the progress of the Harbor Mountain Road and Recreation project at monthly Sitka Tribe of Alaska Council meetings.

The completed EA was mailed to 17 individuals and groups, including those who responded to Harbor Mountain EA mailings as well as representatives of Tribes and Tribal corporations. On January 25, 2006 a Legal Notice was published in the Sitka Daily Sentinel announcing the availability of the EA and beginning of the 30-day comment period on the Harbor Mountain Road and Recreation project.

The Sitka Ranger District received 15 responses from individuals, organizations, and agencies during the 30-day comment period. Many people who commented expressed support for the project. Others had the following concerns:

1. Some of the letters recommended additional or other recreation improvements.

I did not consider adding improvements or activities to the proposal at this time since we are at the final stage of this analysis and because the public and the analysis team had not seen these proposals before. The new recommendations are outside the scope of this analysis, but could be considered in future project analysis, such as the upcoming analysis for a Winter Recreation Management Plan.

2. Some of the letters expressed concern about funding the project. In particular, people want to make sure that both the road and the recreation portions of this project get funded. Some comments recommended that particular portions of the project get a high priority for funding.

I agree that the entire project should be funded, and I am working to acquire funding for all parts of the project through a variety of sources. Partnerships, including partial funding by the FS, are the desired method of funding. The funding of the road parts of the project should not affect the funding of the recreation parts of the project (or vice versa) because Forest Service recreation and road projects are funded through separate appropriations from Congress. While we hope to fund the entire project quickly, we will likely prioritize activities within the roads portion of the project and within the recreation portion of the project to take care of the areas of highest concern first (see page 15 in the EA).

3. Some letters pointed out that the road closures necessary to reconstruct the road will (negatively) affect the public’s ability to use the area over the next 5 years.

The Proposed Action description points out that the road and some facilities will be closed intermittently during road reconstruction and facility improvement for up to five years (page 15 in the EA). We also recognized that road and facility closures will affect the use of this and other areas by the public (page 29 in the EA).

I am concerned about the effects of road closures to the public. Road construction will require that the road be closed for driver’s safety during large parts of the reconstruction due to blasting, dug out culverts, large equipment use, etc. However, unless the road is closed due to safety concerns or other reasons, we will try to keep the road open. After the final design is completed, we will work with the contractor to try to make the road available at times that the public has expressed an interest in keeping the road open. Additionally, the five-year time frame includes time for design work as well as construction. Forest Service engineers anticipate that the actual road construction period would last for a maximum of two years, substantially less time than the 5 years for the entire project. The construction of recreation facilities may require limited road closures to allow for equipment access.

4. Some letters pointed out minor omissions made in the document. Omissions included failing to acknowledge the public review of the Proposed Action through its inclusion in the 2003 Sitka Trail plan, including informational signs in the effects but failing to include informational signs in the Proposed Action description, failing to make it clear in all places that ski trails are ski/bike trails and failing to make it clear that non-motorized use will continue to be allowed on all parts of Harbor Mountain.

This Decision Notice and the EA clarify items that were not well articulated in the Proposed Action/EA document that was provided to the public during the 30-day comment period.

5. Some letters expressed concern about project design and effects. Specifically, there was concern about road design and recreation facility design.

As described in the EA (Page 15), we will use Best Management Practices to minimize environmental effects and meet Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. Cut and fill slope stabilization will be incorporated into the road design. The number of cross drains will increase and we may use drilling and explosives to accomplish the project. Gates will be replaced both to meet management needs and because road reconstruction may make existing gates non-functional. Some design recommendations from letters were considered but will not be added to the project because the IDT determined that the proposed design was the most functional or provided the most resource protection. Other design recommendations will be given further consideration as the project goes forward.

6. Some letters pointed out that winter motorized and new non-motorized activities will remain in conflict (partially because some lesser-skilled skiers will not be able to access the new ski trails).

The EA acknowledges this conflict (Page 7). A response to this conflict is found on Pages 7 and 30 of the EA.

While this project provides some additional winter non-motorized use areas (on new cross-country ski trails), I recognize that the new trails had to be located high enough on the mountain to be located in areas with more reliable snow conditions. Although changes to motorized management were not considered in this EA, recommendations for winter uses on Harbor Mountain could be considered in future project analysis, such as the upcoming analysis for a winter recreation management plan. Additionally, other areas near Sitka, such as the Blue Lake Road, are available for non-motorized winter uses.

7. One letter expressed a concern that the cumulative effects of the Winter Recreation Management Plan are not clear.

While a Winter Recreation Management Plan is foreseeable, a proposed action has not yet been considered or developed for analysis. Without a proposal, there are no cumulative effects from this project.

8. One letter expressed concern that the City’s activities (related to the City of Sitka and the landfill site at Granite Creek) will affect how we would use and where we could put Gate 0.

We have resolved this concern through discussions with City engineers. The Forest Service will provide the City with a key to Gate 0. This will allow the City access to their site when the gate is closed and allow Gate 0 to be placed in its proposed location.

Issues

Based on public scoping, there were no significant issues related to the Proposed Action. All comments were supportive of the Harbor Mountain proposal. Most recommendations about the Harbor Mountain Road and Recreation project were incorporated into the design of the Proposed Action (see Alternatives and Project Design, Chapter 2).

Alternatives Considered

Two alternatives were considered as part of this analysis:

Alternative 1 (No Action) –
In Alternative 1, no reconstruction or construction of roads, parking areas, trails, or other facilities would occur (see Figure 2). With this alternative, there would be periodic maintenance of the road. In the past, frequent closures occurred because of poor road conditions; future road closures can be expected. Yearly maintenance of existing recreation facilities would continue and no new facilities would be built. Use of the Harbor Mountain Road would be managed the same as in the past (Alternatives in Chapter 2 of the EA).

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) –
See Description of the Proposed Action above under “Decision.” Project design elements and monitoring described in Chapter 2 of the EA apply to the Proposed Action.

Biological Evaluations were completed for sensitive plants and animals. No sensitive species will experience impacts that would cause or contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.

Findings Required by Other Laws

1997 Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan)
This decision is consistent with the Forest Plan. The project is located within an area identified in the Forest Plan as having a Land Use Designation (LUD) of Semi-Remote Recreation. The activities associated with the Selected Alternative are compatible with the direction for managing land in this LUD.

This project is consistent with all applicable Forest Plan standards and guidelines as they apply to the project area, and it complies with Forest Plan goals and objectives.

ANILCA Section 810, Subsistence Evaluation and Finding
The effects of this project have been evaluated to determine potential effects on subsistence opportunities and resources. There is no documented or reported subsistence use that would be restricted as a result of this decision. For this reason, none of the alternatives would result in a significant possibility of a significant restriction of subsistence use of wildlife, fish, or other foods.

Coastal Zone Management Act 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 approved Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) to the maximum extent practicable. Section 202.B. of the Memorandum of Understanding between the State of Alaska and the USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region on ACMP Consistency Reviews, (MOU), lists Forest Service activities which require documentation in an EA or EIS, and may affect the coastal zone, and therefore normally require a consistency determination or a negative determination. The Forest Service must determine whether there are effects to the coastal zone. Upon review of all input and comments relating to effects on the coastal resources, review of the ACMP, the Sitka Coastal Management Plan, the requirements of the MOU, and all applicable standards and guidelines, I find that this project is consistent with the ACMP to the maximum extent practicable. A letter from the State Office of Project Management and Permitting on March 6, 2006 concurred with my determination.

Endangered Species Act of 1973
Biological Evaluations (BEs) were completed for threatened, endangered, plants and animals. The BEs indicate that no Federally listed threatened or endangered species will be affected by this activity. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA-NMFS) concurred with the determinations in the BE (Mecum 2005).

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
The Forest Service program for compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act includes locating, inventorying and nominating all cultural sites that may be directly or indirectly affected by scheduled activities. The consultation and concurrence process with the State Historic Preservation Officer has been concluded. This activity has been reviewed by a qualified archeologist and a determination made that no known cultural resources are present in the project area.

Floodplain Management (E.O. 11988), Protection of Wetlands (E.O. 11990)
The numerous streams and wetlands in the Harbor Mountain Road and Recreation project area make it essentially impossible to avoid all floodplains and wetlands during proposed treatments. No adverse effects to overall floodplain and wetland function and condition are anticipated due to their relatively small size and through the use of Best Management Practices to reduce impacts. I have determined that this activity will not impact the functional value of any floodplain as defined by Executive Order 11988 and will not have negative impacts on wetlands as defined by Executive Order 11990.

Recreational Fisheries (E.O. 12962)
With the application of Forest Plan standards and guidelines, including those for riparian areas, no significant adverse effects to freshwater or marine resources are expected. Road closures would remain the same in all alternatives; road closure could limit, to foot or permitted off-highway vehicle means, access to some recreational fishing opportunities. This activity is consistent with Executive Order 12962, in that it maintains the quantity, function, sustainable productivity, and distribution of United States aquatic resources for recreational fishing opportunities.

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1996
There is no freshwater Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) or marine EFH in the project area of the Harbor Mountain Road and Recreation project. The Class 2 stream habitat located in the project area is not considered to be EFH for Pacific salmon. Therefore, the proposed actions of this project would have no impacts on these described habitats.

Clean Water Act
The Forest Service will apply Best Management Practices that are consistent with the Alaska Forest Resources and Practices Regulations 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 (October 2000). In 1997, The State approved the BMPs in the Forest Service’s Soil and Water Conservation Handbook (FSH Handbook 2509.22, October 1996) as consistent with the Alaska Forest Resources and Practices Regulations. This Handbook is incorporated into the Tongass Land Management Plan.

Movement of road alignment to improve sight distance and provide safe maintainable design standards as well as improvements to the recreation facilities may minimally affect wetlands. The Corps of Engineers wetland permit review under Section 404(f) of the Clean Water Act will be mandatory for this project. Detailed road construction delineation will be provided to Corps of Engineers standards that will quantify the amount of wetlands affected. The FS standard is to avoid wetlands if possible, and if not able to avoid, to minimize the effects to wetlands considering it has values and functions. Based on the existing analysis, I have determined that this project is consistent with the Clean Water Act.

A preliminary wetland delineation is being provided to the Corps of Engineers with this Decision Notice. We will provide a final wetland delineation based on field verification to the Corps after the final design package is completed for the road.

Environmental Justice (E.O. 12898)
I have determined that 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. Expected effects are similar for all populations, regardless of nationality, gender, race, or income.

Finding of No Significant Impact

I have reviewed the Environmental Assessment for this project using criteria identified in implementing regulations for the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1508.27). Based on the Environmental Assessment and the findings displayed above, I have determined that this is not a major action that will have a significant effect on the human environment and therefore does not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement.

Implementation Date

Implementation of decisions made by the Sitka District Ranger, which are subject to appeal pursuant to 36 CFR part 215, may occur on, but not before, five business days from the close of the appeal filing period. The appeal filing period closes 45 days after publication of legal notice of this decision in the Daily Sentinel newspaper, published in Sitka, Alaska.

Right to Appeal or Administrative Review

This decision is subject to administrative review (appeal) pursuant to 36 CFR Part 215. Individuals or non-federal organizations who submitted written comments during the 30-day comment period or provided comments or otherwise expressed interest in this particular action prior to the close of the comment period specified at 215.6 may appeal this decision. The notice of appeal must be in writing, meet the appeal content requirements at 215.14 and be filed with the Appeal Deciding Officer:

Forrest Cole, Tongass National Forest Supervisor
Federal Building
Ketchikan, AK 99901-6591
FAX: 907-228-6292
appeals-alaska-tongass@fs.fed.us

The Notice of Appeal, including attachments, must be filed (regular mail, fax, e-mail, express delivery or messenger service) with the Appeal Deciding Officer at the correct location within 45 calendar days of publication of notice of this decision in the Sitka Daily Sentinel, the newspaper of record for the Sitka Ranger District. The publication date in the newspaper of record is the exclusive means for calculating the time to file an appeal. Those wishing to appeal this decision should not rely upon dates or timeframe information provided by any other source.

Appeals submitted electronically, including attachments, must be in an electronic format compatible with Microsoft Word.

Hand delivered appeals will be accepted at the Sitka, Petersburg or Ketchikan Supervisor’s Offices, during normal business hours (8:00 am through 4:30 pm) Monday through Friday, excluding holidays.

Contact Person

Mary Beth Nelson, Sitka Ranger District Recreation Planner
204 Siginaka Way, Sitka, Alaska 99835
907-747-4229

USDA Forest Service - Tongass National Forest Accessibility Statement
Last Modified: September 29, 2006