Tongass National Forest
 |
Chugach National Forest |
|
Alaska Region |
|
Forest Service Headquarters |
|
Evaluate
Our Service We welcome your comments on our service and your suggestions for improvement. |
Tongass National Forest (907) 225-3101 e-mail comments to: |
|
2007 Annual Monitoring & Evaluation Report
Each section listed below has a link to the full section report, which is in PDF format, requiring Adobe© Acrobat© Reader to view. File size is given in parentheses after each link.
Letter from the Forest Supervisor (63 kb) Summary (12,780 kb) Welcome and Introduction Air Quality (1,130 kb) Biodiversity (276 kb) Fish Habitat (770 kb) & Fish EMS (532 kb) Heritage Resources (88 kb) Karst and Cave (96 kb) Land Management Planning (42 kb) Local and Regional Economics (45 kb) Minerals and Geology (25 kb) Recreation and Tourism (30 kb) Research (77 kb) Scenery (618 kb) Soil and Water (102 kb) Subsistence (28 kb) Timber Management (107 kb) Transportation (28 kb) Wetlands (34 kb) Wild and Scenic River (62 kb) Wilderness (112 kb) Wildlife (704 kb) Costs and Outputs (87 kb) Appendices Welcome and Introduction
Welcome to the 2007 Tongass National Forest Monitoring Report. This Executive Summary contains highlights of Forest programs in Fiscal Year 2007 and summaries of the monitoring questions and answers. It is hoped that this web-based access to the annual monitoring report, will provide accessible, user-friendly avenues to learn more about the monitoring process and how it meshes with products and processes outlined in the 1997 Tongass National Forest Resource and Land Management Plan as amended (1997 Forest Plan).
On January 23, 2008, a new Tongass Land and Resource Land Management Plan was signed. The announcement of the 2008 Forest Plan was in the Federal Register, thus, the 2008 Forest Plan became effective 30-days later. Changes to the monitoring plan were effective with the 2008 Record of Decision. These changes include re-wording the monitoring questions to more specifically focus the monitoring and changing the reporting period from annual to sampling annually and reporting at a 5 year interval in most cases.
During the time the monitoring for this report was completed, the Tongass National Forest was implementing the 1997 Forest Plan. All the monitoring in this Report is under the direction of the 1997 Forest Plan.
As required in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), under 36 CFR 219, the Tongass National Forest (Tongass) issues an annual monitoring report. Tongass resource specialists gather the results of monitoring efforts throughout the forest into a monitoring report. Monitoring and evaluation is a quality control process for implementation of the Forest Plan.
The 1997 Forest Plan identifies management direction for the Tongass in terms of goals, objectives, and Standards and Guidelines - all of which are based on underlying assumptions (policy, theory, data, and technology). Monitoring is gathering data and information and observing the results of management activities to provide a basis for the periodic evaluation of the Forest Plan. Evaluation is a process for interpreting monitoring data and determining whether changes in management direction are needed. The Forest Plan recognizes three types of monitoring and evaluation: implementation, effectiveness, and validation.
Summary of the Monitoring and Evaluation Report, 2007
Air Quality (1,074 kb) Question 1: Is air quality meeting state and federal ambient air quality standards?
During 2007, Alaska Department of Environmental Compliance (ADEC) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) monitored particulate matter (PM 10 and PM 2.5) in the air from Juneau’s Mendenhall Valley for 135 days; 123 days had good air quality 10 days were moderate air quality and two were considered unhealthy. The majority of the particulates (96%) were of PM 2.5 and 4% were PM 10.
Air quality was monitored by various methods on the Tongass National Forest in 2007. The IMPROVE data for 2007 from Petersburg are not available on the web as the analysis is two years behind at the University of California-Davis Crocker Laboratory. No warnings were issued by ADEC to cruise ships that enter into Tracy Arm from the USFS wilderness ranger’s opacity readings of smoke stack emissions. No lichen biomonitoring plots were established in 2007. Results for the lichen biomonitoring program were prepared and finalized. Provisional thresholds for 27 elements have been determined for four lichens species on the Tongass. The WACAP results have been completed by the National Park Service.
The air quality around Juneau and Greens Creek mine area exhibits elevated elements in lichens analyzed such as cadmium, nitrogen, sulfur, copper, iron, lead, vanadium, nickel, potassium, phosphorus, and zinc. Several wilderness areas ( Coronation Island, Warren Island, and Tebenkof) have elevated levels of nitrogen and sulfur in lichens and other elements. This may possibly be due to natural variation or the proximity to marine vessel anchorages in some remote bays. No corrective action with respect to air quality on the Tongass National Forest is recommended at this time. However, monitoring should continue to be summarized every few years from urban areas in close proximity to Forest lands, such as the Juneau area. In order to establish trends in pollution levels, biomonitoring with lichens should continue to be done on a five to ten year interval. USFS wilderness rangers will continue to work with ADEC to monitor cruise ship emissions in Tracy Arm. The USFS and the National Park Service in Glacier Bay and Skagway are collaborating on cruise ship pollution impacts to ecosystems on federal lands. Data from the IMPROVE site will be collected for one more year (until summer of 2009) to observe trends and determine regional and global significance. The WACAP results indicate that in varying amounts, POPs and SOCs are present in Alaska’s National Parks and in Tongass wilderness.
Biodiversity (1,156 kb) Question 1: Are contiguous blocks of old-growth habitat being maintained in a Forest-wide system of old-growth reserves to support viable and well-distributed populations of old-growth-associated species and subspecies?
As directed in the Forest Plan, small OGRs are being systematically reviewed as part of individual timber sale plans. Since the signing of the Forest Plan ROD in May 1997, some project-level plans have changed the size or composition of old growth reserves. None of these changes significantly changed the spacing of the reserves. Amendments to the Forest Plan have resulted in an increase of 13,861 acres, including 5,169 acres of productive old growth (POG) within the Old-growth Habitat LUD. Old-growth habitat reserves modified in these project level plans meet or exceed size and productive old-growth minimums (Appendix K, Forest Plan). The EIS documents that have resulted in changes in OGR and were not reported in FY2006 included: Scott Peak EIS, Overlook EA, Traitors Cove EIS, and Baht EIS.Biodiversity Question 2: Are the effects on biodiversity consistent with those estimated in the Forest Plan?
Biodiversity analyses within the Forest Plan assume the maximum level of harvest. The Forest Plan allows for an ASQ harvest of 267 million board feet of timber (MMBF). An ASQ of 267 MMBF equates to an annual harvest of about 8,529 acres of POG for the first decade of the Forest Plan. Less than half of the annual allowed harvest has occurred during the first 7 years of Forest Plan implementation (Tables B-5 and B-6). Therefore, the magnitude of timber harvest and the potential impacts on biodiversity have been less than those forecast in the Forest Plan. In fiscal year 2007, only 0.07% of the ASQ was harvested. It appears that this trend will continue for the foreseeable future.
Biodiversity Question 3: Are management practices consistent with current knowledge regarding sensitive species conservation?
These practices are consistent with “sensitive species” as defined as federally (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] and National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS]) listed threatened or endangered species, Alaska Region (Forest Service) sensitive species, and state (Alaska Department of Fish and Game [ADF&G]) species of concern.
Forest Service wildlife biologists and biological technicians completed 36 Biological Evaluations (BEs) during the 2007 fiscal year for R10 sensitive wildlife species. Most of the
analyses reported a “no impact” determination, while a few reported a “may impact individuals but not likely to adversely affect population viability” for some findings and “not likely to adversely affect” for one finding.
Tongass National Forest botanists and ecologists completed BEs for sensitive plants for 73 projects on the Forest during FY2007. For 35 projects, the determination was “no impact” to sensitive plants. In the 38 of the BEs the “may impact individuals but not likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability” determination was made for one or more of the following sensitive plants: Aphragmus eschscholtzianus, Arnica lessingii ssp. norbergii, Botrychium yaaxudakeit, Carex lenticularis var. dolia, Cirsium edule, Glyceria leptostachya, Hymenophyllum wrightii, Isoetes truncata, Ligusticum calderi, Papaver alboroseum, Platanthera gracilis, Poa laxiflora, P uccinellia kamtschatica, Romanzoffia unalaschcensis, Senecio moresbiensis, and Stellaria ruscifolia ssp. aleutica. No BEs reported a determination of “may have beneficial impacts”.
Biodiversity Question 4: Are destructive insect and disease organisms increasing to potentially damaging levels following management activities?
The most important diseases and natural declines on the Tongass National Forest since approval of the Revised Forest Plan in 1997 as well as in 2007 were wood decay of live trees, hemlock dwarf mistletoe, and yellow-cedar decline. Heart and butt rot fungi cause substantial decay in late seral spruce-hemlock forests. No serious insect or disease organisms in young-growth stands were detected through monitoring efforts. Dwarf mistletoe is present in some stands following partial harvests, but at disease levels less than occurred before harvest.
Within their limited distribution in southeast Alaska , porcupines are the most damaging biological agent to the health and productivity of young growth trees. Ground and aerial observations of areas with intense feeding will be made in 2007 in order to help produce thinning guidelines in young-growth stands with porcupines.
Fish Habitat (3,003 kb) Question 1: Are population trends for Management Indicator Species (MIS) and their relationship to habitat changes consistent with expectations?
No consistent trends are evident in the abundance of the management indicator species since monitoring began in 1997. For some streams and for short intervals, Dolly Varden char and cutthroat trout appear to be increasing and for other streams the species appear to be decreasing. There are no obvious trends for many streams. The region-wide abundance of coho and pink salmon, as indicated by the annual commercial harvests and spawner escapements, is annually variable with no evident trends. Although the commercial harvest for pink salmon was low in 2006 and reduced for coho in 2006 and 2007, abundance for both salmon species is at relatively high levels compared to historic data dating back to the late 1800’s.
Monitoring protocols are being developed that are expected to be more sensitive to forest management than the methods prescribed in the Forest Plan. The Forest Plan generally requires annual monitoring of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game’s (ADF&G’s) harvest and escapement data. Since 1999, actual abundance of Dolly Varden and cutthroat in small streams has been estimated and stream habitat has been measured. For coho and pink salmon, we continue to review the commercial harvest and escapement data, but we have developed and are ready to begin implementing an alternate protocol to monitor juvenile coho salmon in streams. For pink salmon, a project to determine the sensitivity of historical escapement data to past timber harvest has terminated without success and a conceptual protocol to monitor pink salmon spawning habitat was completed in FY07.
It is recommended that the Forest Plan be modified for Dolly Varden and cutthroat MIS monitoring to specify annual population estimates and stream habitat measurements.
Fish Habitat Question 2: Are Fish Riparian Standards and Guidelines being implemented?
Fish Riparian Standards and Guidelines are being implemented based on two types of assessments for Best Management Practices (BMPs): 100 percent monitoring of units closed out and roads complete and Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) quality control monitoring. This monitoring covered about 444 acres in 20 harvest units and 18 road segments including 5 bridge and 1 culvert replacement sites.
Best Management Practices are successfully being implemented on the Tongass. Significant lengths of stream channels were reported as protected during unit harvest in the implementation monitoring effort in FY 2007. During this monitoring Best Management Practices relative to fisheries habitat showed no corrective actions and no departures from full BMP implementation reported. During the layout and sale administration of the units, measures were taken to ensure that stream protection measures were correctly prescribed and implemented. Recommendations include modification of the monitoring process to transition to monitor a smaller subset of units and roads since implementation is being completed successfully.
Fish Habitat Question 3: Are Fish and Riparian Standards and Guidelines effective in maintaining or improving fish habitat?
Upstream Passage of Juvenile Fish at Road Crossings
No additional work was completed on this monitoring during FY2007. Recommendations follow that monitoring of the hydraulic and structural conditions continue at culverts recently installed (i.e., designed and installed under the direction of the Forest Plan) in fish bearing streams. This
monitoring effort will assess fish passage and will assist in the evaluation of the success of design, maintenance and other management actions. Monitoring the structural and hydraulic conditions of new culverts installed in fish bearing streams is especially important as the Forest applies innovative design concepts and criteria in its aggressive program to restore and improve fish passage.
Fish Habitat Objectives and Case Study Watersheds
Fish habitat objectives developed from physical stream attributes (channel morphology, pools, wood, substrate, etc.) used to evaluate aquatic habitat health were updated in 2007.
A set of three case study watersheds has been established as part of the Forest Plan aquatic monitoring synthesis. The goal of the Aquatic Synthesis is to evaluate the effectiveness of Forest Plan standards and guidelines in protecting aquatic resources such as fish habitat at the watershed scale.
Analysis of a subset of these data (the channel condition assessment reaches) successfully discriminated between unharvested and heavily harvested watersheds. We are developing a decision support model that will eventually integrate reach-level habitat data with watershed scale data (landslides, road erosion, etc) to assess watershed condition across the Tongass National Forest.
Stream Buffer Stability
Two thousand seven was the eighth consecutive year that windthrow within stream buffers was monitored. There are currently 253 RMAs monitored and they are located on 5 Ranger Districts and are associated with 37 timber sales and 113 harvest units that were harvested from 2000 thru 2006. The sample population contains the majority of RMAs associated with 2000 thru 2006 Tongass harvest activity. During 2007 the buffers associated with harvest units harvested in 2000 and 2001 were not re-sampled since it has been 6 and 7 years, respectively, since harvest.
The orientation of buffers is well represented and varies from 12 buffers with northwest exposure orientations to 43 with an east exposure orientation. Monitoring results have shown that post harvest windthrow is present in 84 (33%) of the 253 buffers monitored and associated with harvest units harvested during the 7 years from 2000 through 2006. The average amount of windthrow in the buffers is 3.7 percent. The amount of windthrow is expressed as the cumulative number of trees windthrown divided by the original number standing trees in a buffer. The cumulative windthrow mortality in the buffers is highly variable and ranges from 0 to 73 percent. Eighty-four percent of the buffers have had less than 5 percent windthrow mortality to date.
Heritage Resources (531 kb) Question 1: Are Heritage Resources Standards and Guidelines being implemented?
Monitoring shows Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines are being implemented.
Heritage specialists evaluated 104 undertakings in FY 2007 for their potential to affect heritage resources eligible to the National Register. This compares to 108 undertakings reviewed in FY 2006. Monitoring over the last decade and in FY 2007 suggests some sites are being damaged not directly as a result of project implementation, but as remote areas become more accessible.
Heritage Resources Question 2: Are Heritage Resources Standards and Guidelines effective in protecting heritage/cultural resources as expected in the Forest Plan?
The Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines are effective in meeting resource objectives, i.e. site protection and preservation.
Current evidence suggests that Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines are effective in protecting heritage resources. The Tongass National Forest has a strong record of compliance
with Section 106 of the NHPA. Tongass National Forest archeologists continued an active program of monitoring site conditions in FY 2007; visiting a total of 218 sites. Avoidance of project impacts continues to be an effective mitigation approach.
Sites were monitored across the forest from Ketchikan to Yakutat. Archeologists saw few signs of human-caused impacts or accelerated natural impacts at the monitored sites.
The statistical results of the FY 2007 monitoring program indicate that all but one of the monitored sites are either undisturbed or deteriorating from natural processes (e.g. organic decomposition and soil compaction). Evidence suggests the Standards and Guidelines have been effective in reducing the level of human-caused damage to heritage resources.
Karst and Caves (49 kb) Question 1: Are Karst and Cave Standards and Guidelines being implemented?
The Karst and Cave Standards and Guidelines outlined in Forest Plan were implemented to the fullest extent practicable.
Monitoring was completed on projects implemented under the direction of the Standards and Guidelines in the Forest Plan. Work completed under the Forest Plan Karst and Cave Standards and Guidelines included preliminary inventory, cave inventory and mapping, timber harvest unit and road reconnaissance, timber harvest unit layout, and road layout.
The Karst Resources Standards and Guidelines are fully implemented in proposed and ongoing projects such as Gravina, Logjam, Kosciusko, Kuiu Roaded, Iyouktug Timber Sale Projects, Prince of Wales Island ATM, and Staney Creek LA. Karst and cave resource evaluation was provided for the Thayer Creek Hydropower Project for the community of Angoon on Admiralty Island and additional surveys will be completed in 2008. Karst resource input was provided for a number of sales associated with the Small Sales Program on Thorne Bay and Craig Ranger Districts on Prince of Wales Island . Particular emphasis was placed on the inventory and design of the prescriptions and mitigation proposed for commercial thinning opportunities such as the Naukati Commercial thinning, Winter Harbor Stand No. 587120524 of the Prince of Wales Wildlife Enhancement Commercial Thinning Proposal, and the Kosciusko Island Timber Sale Second-growth Commercial Thinning.
Karst and Caves Question 2: Are karst and cave Standards and Guidelines effective in protecting the integrity of significant caves and the karst resource?
The Karst and Cave Standards and Guidelines outlined in Forest Plan and as modified by effectiveness monitoring ensure a high level of protection for significant caves and karst resources overall.
Effectiveness monitoring has been historically tied to post harvest monitoring and preliminary cave resource inventories.
In 2007 little logging occurred on karstlands where mitigation had been prescribed. Monitoring of some of the small sales on the Thorne Bay Ranger District was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of proposed mitigation. Monitoring of these sites found that prescriptions such as partial suspension and buffer windfirmness were achieved. Limited subsurface monitoring was accomplished. These included subsequent trips into known cave systems to document changes and pre-harvest inventory of karst features to establish baseline inventories. No substantial changes as a result of management activities were documented within the known cave systems.
In 2007, the second-growth areas being considered for commercial thinning were inventoried for karst and cave resources. Discussions of appropriate prescriptions for the proposed harvest focused on the karst groundwater systems.
Monitoring of the effectiveness of the implementation of the Standards and Guidelines over the past few years has shown the need for clarification of the implementation procedures and identified changes to the standards needed. These changes were implemented in the Logjam, Staney, Iyouktug, and Kosciusko, Tuxekan, and Scratchings Projects. The 2008 Forest Plan Amendment karst and cave resource guidelines reflects these changes. These changes capture the findings of past effectiveness monitoring and hopefully provide clarification of the implementation procedures.
Land Management Planning (33 kb) Question 1: Is the management of National Forest System lands consistent with management objectives of adjacent land and their management plans?
No projects approved in FY 2007 were found to be inconsistent with the plans of the agencies regulating the adjacent non-National Forest System lands. Efforts of the Forest Service to improve government-to-government relationships through collaboration have continued.
Local and Regional Economics (64 kb) Question 1: Are the effects on employment and income similar to those estimated in the Forest Plan?
The differences between the Forest Plan estimates and actual Effects of Forest Plan implementation on employment by resource sector are used as evaluation criteria. Income comparisons have been dropped because state earnings data is missing in some of the employment sectors and for some of the towns in Southeast Alaska. This missing data makes any comparison with the 1997 Plan invalid for employment earnings.
Employment and income statistics for resource industries are difficult to collect for several reasons. Alaska Department of Labor employment and earnings statistics do not include people who are self-employed. Most commercial fishers, many loggers, and tourism-related businesses are not reflected
in the state data. The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis income and employment data does include self-employed persons, but it is not reported in the sufficient detail to break out each resource-industry. Additionally, State disclosure laws relating to income prevent the Alaska Department of Labor from releasing detailed figures, resulting in several gaps in the analysis.
Employment and earnings data is collected and reported by industry sectors. The data presented for this monitoring report are not directly comparable to the estimates in the Forest Plan, but are included for general trend analysis of the industry.
Minerals and Geology (22 kb) Question 1: Are the effects of mining activities on surface resources consistent with Forest Plan expectations, as allowed in approved Plans of Operations?
Tongass-wide, two large locatable mine plans were administered as well as five small-scale or exploration-drilling programs. Numerous small and free-use mineral material operations were processed on the Tongass National Forest for FY2006. The mineral material permits were predominantly issued on the Craig and Thorne Bay Ranger Districts due to the extensive road system on Prince of Wales Island.
Fiscal Year 2006 inspections of mineral sites indicate that the effects of mining activities on surface resources are consistent with Forest Plan expectations. The necessity of the operator to obtain approval for their Plan of Operations provides the Forest Service the opportunity and authority to control the effects of the development on the Forest surface resources.
Recreation and Tourism (114 kb) Question 1: Are areas of the Forest being managed in accordance with the prescribed Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) class in Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines?
Special use decisions have been informed by the ROS class. In 2007, individual districts tracked changes to ROS inventories in GIS at each ranger district. Districts conducted monitoring work in conjunction with the normal course of business. Forest wide monitoring indicates that recreation visits to day use areas, campgrounds and cabins are stable overall but there are some areas of change. Plans for assessing cabin use and potential management decisions to close low-use cabins have generated interest in partnerships from outside groups. The forest will likely see reductions of the number of facilities over the next few years in response to reductions in program funds. In some locations, such as wilderness, the elimination of some facilities could improve the wilderness character and management objectives for maintaining a more primitive recreation experience.
Recreation and Tourism Question 2: Is Off Road Vehicle (ORV) use causing, or will it cause considerable adverse effects on soil, water, vegetation, fish and wildlife, visitors or cultural and historic resources of the Forest?
Monitoring of soil productivity and water quality revealed no considerable impact or adverse effects from ORV use. The primary ORV use on the Tongass is ATVs and snowmobiles. Snowmobiles generally use forest roads and higher alpine areas although some use was reported in the Stikine-LeConte Wilderness. Use of this equipment is restricted to times when there is adequate snow cover as provided by the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA).
Generally impacts by ATVs are minor damage to wetlands and soil rutting. In response to these site-specific impacts, districts worked to educate the public on soil and water resource protection and stressed enforcement to ensure compliance. Evaluation of these impacts is ongoing.
Research (28 kb) Question 1: Have the identified high-priority information needs been fulfilled?
Most of the high priority information needs listed in Appendix B of the 1997 Forest Plan have been met or are well on the way to being met. The Tongass Leadership Team in cooperation with the Pacific Northwest Forest Experiment Station (PNW) developed additional research needs on October 10, 2002 . In 2007 those research programs continued in various disciplines including geology, forestry, economics, wildlife, and fisheries. The 2007 Monitoring Report describes some of the ongoing research and cites 7 recent publications from 2007 related to the Tongass information needs.
Scenery Resource (31 kb) Question 1: Are the Standards and Guidelines effective in attaining the adopted Visual Quality Objectives established in the Plan?
Maintaining scenic quality is an important consideration in landscapes being managed for timber harvest visible from the Alaska Marine Highway , popular small boat routes and use areas, State highways, major Forest roads, recreation facilities and recreation places. Monitoring and evaluation of scenic quality after implementation of timber harvest provides a means to determine the effectiveness of the Forest Plan Scenery Standards and Guidelines for harvest unit size, silvicultural systems utilized, unit dispersal, managed stand recovery, and if the overall percentage of viewshed disturbance is adequate to meet different visual quality objectives.
The purpose of this monitoring was to determine if the type of management prescriptions proposed in the timber sales on moderate to steep forested slopes would meet the visual quality objectives consistent with the Tongass Forest Plan Scenery Standards and Guidelines. The results of this monitoring demonstrated that the standards and guidelines are generally effective in meeting the visual quality objectives. The silvicultural prescriptions utilized were consistent with the predicted results and in some cases the results were slightly better than expected.
Soil and Water (1,013 kb) Question 1: Are the Standards and Guidelines for soil disturbance being implemented?
Soil disturbance Standards and Guidelines are being implemented based on assessment of Best Management Practices (BMPs), 100 percent monitoring and quality control checks by interdisciplinary teams. The 100 percent monitoring for BMP implementation was completed on units final inspected and roads that were substantially complete and final inspected for construction. IDT quality control monitoring of a subset of the 100 % monitoring sites provided verification the implementation monitoring process was consistent. This monitoring covered 20 harvest units and 18 roads and road segments. The IDT reviewed 5 units, 6 road construction sites. In the units and roads monitored the BMPs relative to soil disturbance were implemented and there were no incidence of significant disturbance noted.
The monitoring showed that the Tongass is implementing the Standards and Guidelines for soil disturbance successfully during timber sale administration and road construction. The BMPs related to soil disturbance were implemented and monitored 71 times. No departures from full BMP implementation were reported and two corrective actions were reported. Corrective actions were taken during sale administration to ensure implementation of the Standards and Guidelines. Linear graded road construction contract specifications and administration is under review in response to the BMP monitoring evaluations.
Continued emphasis is necessary during initial unit planning and layout phases of timber harvest to implement measures that minimize mass failures and landslides on over steep sections and areas that indicate unstable soils. Application of partial suspension and full suspension has contributed to limiting soil disturbance. Focus on understanding the actual BMPs and the guidelines associated with monitoring will continue through communication and training.
Soil and Water Question 2: Are the Standards and Guidelines effective in meeting Alaska Regional Soil Quality Standards?
Soil and water effectiveness monitoring is completed through monitoring the soil quality standards as described in Forest Service Manual 2554, and is addressed in two parts: 1) Soil Disturbance, and 2) Landslide frequency.
In FY 2007 soil scientists revisited seven harvest units where soil disturbance transects were completed more than 10 years ago. The analysis of the 2007 data collection in combination with any data collected in 2008 may be sufficient to change the Tongass’ definitions of the minimum size of some detrimental soil conditions. Preliminary analysis suggests that the Tongass’ minimum size requirements for detrimental soil disturbance are too small.
Soil and Water Question 3: Are Best Management Practices being implemented?
Soil and Water BMPs are being implemented as shown through the 100 percent monitoring of units final inspected and roads substantially complete and final inspected. This effort is validated through the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) quality control monitoring. This monitoring covered 444 acres of harvest units with 97.64 acres monitored by the IDT.
The BMPs were implemented and monitored 218 times. During the review, corrective actions were used in 6 cases in the process of implementing the BMPs. Two cases of departures from full BMP implementation were reported during construction at two bridge replacement sites.
Corrective actions mitigated the incidents in most of the situations. These corrective actions contributed to no net loss of implementation. The IDT monitoring was in agreement with the 100 % monitoring. Overall the BMPs are being implemented in timber harvest and road construction. Continued focus is necessary on the linear graded road construction contract projects relative to BMPs. The development of these contracts is evolving and the contracts are being administered. Action plans to address concerns relative to implementation of the BMPs relative to stream protection measures and construction on steep slopes are underway.
Soil and Water Question 4: Are Best Management Practices effective in meeting water quality standards?
Attainment of state water quality standards is a specific Forest Plan objective driving the Aquatic Synthesis. Continuous water quality instruments have been installed in each case study watershed. We are within a calibration period for evaluating reference water quality in the case study watersheds.
Subsistence (24 kb) Question 1: Are the effects of management activities on subsistence users in rural Southeast Alaska communities consistent with those estimated in the Forest Plan?
In 2007, eight sockeye salmon stock assessment projects were funded. These systems included Neva Lake , Hatchery Creek, Klag Lake , Hetta Lake , Kanalku Lake , Klawock Lake , and Falls Lake . There was also eulachon project begun in the Behm Canal . A steelhead assessment project on Prince of Wales estimated spawning populations at Ratz Creek and Harris River . Initial funding was also provided for traditional ecological knowledge studies describing subsistence salmon monitoring and development of an ecological knowledge database.
Guidelines to evaluate future studies were developed in 2006 and implemented as a Strategic Plan for the Subsistence Fisheries Resource Monitoring Program in 2007. Within the 5-year planning horizon for this document, the need for continuation of assessments will be evaluated. An important consideration for continued assessments of strategically important stocks is whether the research objectives promote continuation of subsistence uses.
The only project approved for continued funding for the Tongass National Forest through the wildlife information program in 2007 was designed to estimate the abundance of deer on Prince of Wales Island . This study is designed to evaluate the benefits and efficiency of conducting deer population assessments using genetic technology. The 2007 fieldwork continue in cooperation between the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, the University of Alaska and the Hydaburg Cooperative Association.
Timber Management (220 kb) Question 1: Are timber harvest activities adhering to applicable timber management Standards and Guidelines?
There were 1,511 acres fully or partially harvested during FY 2007. Of the 1,511 acres, 1,227 acres were sold under the 1979 TLMP (category 1 and 2 timber sales). 497 acres resulted in the creation of an opening. Of the 497 acres of openings, 388 acres were sold under the 1979 TLMP (category 1 and 2 timber sales). The remaining acres were harvested under category 3 and 4 sales. The 100-acre size limitation applies to all harvest units that create an opening. No openings exceeded 100 acres in size.
Of the total 2007 harvest, no units that were harvested within the 100 ft. TTRA stream buffer nor within the 1,000 foot beach and estuary buffer.
Timber Management Question 2: Are harvested forested lands restocked within five years following harvest?
Obtaining regeneration that meets the stocking guidelines and certification standards identified in the Silvicultural Practices Handbook (FSH 2409.17) is rarely a problem on stands receiving a regeneration harvest on the Tongass National Forest. All harvested lands are examined following treatment. Artificially seeded or planted areas are examined one and three years after treatment. Examination occurs three growing seasons after treatment in areas where it is anticipated that natural regeneration will be adequate. Stands are certified as stocked if the third growing season survey indicates that the areas meet stocking standards. Artificial regeneration is prescribed if the third-year survey indicates that natural regeneration is highly unlikely. All stands harvested in 2002 were certified as restocked in fy2007 or an earlier fiscal year.
Timber Management Question 3: Is the Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ) consistent with resource information and programmed harvest?
The Forest Plan developed an allowable sale quantity as part of the purpose and need of the document as required by the Forest and Rangeland Resources Planning Act. The ASQ is an upper ceiling governing the amount of timber that may be sold over a decade. The amount of sold timber may vary year to year but must not exceed the decadal ceiling. Timber is considered sold when the contract is awarded to the high bidder. The Allowable Sale Quantity for the Tongass is 267 MMBF. In FY 2007, 32 MMBF was offered from 30 sales and permits. Of this total, 0.1 MMBF was re-offered from previous year’s program. Of the 32 MMBF offered, three sales totaling approximately 1.5 MMBF were offered and received no bids.
Timber Management Question 4: Are the Non-Interchangeable Components (NIC) of the allowable sale quantity (ASQ) consistent with actual harvest?
It is uncertain at this time that the non-interchangeable components of the allowable sale quantity are inconsistent with actual harvest. The uncertainty is due in part to the limited number of years of data and the poor market conditions and high fuel costs of FY 2006.
No action is necessary at this time. Recommendations follow to continue to monitor the trend of harvest from NIC II lands.
Timber Management Question 5: Is the proportional mix of volume in NIC I and NIC II accurate, as estimated in the Forest Plan?
The ASQ consists of two separate non-interchangeable components (NIC), also referred to as economic components. Under the 1997 Forest Plan, the ASQ is divided into NIC I (set at 2.2 billion board feet of timber per decade) and NIC II (set at .47 billion board feet per decade). The economic components of the ASQ equate to an average of 220 million board feet (MMBF) NIC I and 47 MMBF NIC II per year for an average annual 267 MMBF/year.
The Forest Plan ROD states that the ratio of the NIC I and NIC II mix is approximately 80 percent NIC I and 20 percent NIC II (Final EIS, Table 3-81, page 3-282; and 1997 ROD page 8). The mix of NIC I and NIC II for FY 2007 as displayed in Table 2-47 is 45 percent NIC I and 55 percent NIC II.
All completed harvest units were analyzed based on normal operability to obtain the Forest Plan non-interchangeable component data (NIC Forest Plan calls). The units harvested using normal operability within the Forest Plan calls were then tabulated by timber sale, harvest unit and operability factors. The NIC Forest Plan calls were then compared to actual timber-sale-harvest unit map to determine yarding methods. The Forest Plan estimated the NIC I proportion of harvest to be 80% and NIC II to be 20%. In actuality, the NIC I proportion for FY 2007 was 45% and NIC II 55% by acres.
Timber Management Question 6: Should maximum size limits for harvested areas be continued?
During FY 2007, 27 harvest areas (timber stands) were delineated in the Forest's geographic information system (GIS), with corresponding records created in the Forest Service Tracking Activity System (FACTS) database. Accounting for adjacency (harvested stands that touch one another, which create a larger opening when added together), 15 harvest areas were logged in FY 2007 that created openings using the even-aged silvicultural system.
In fiscal year 2007,there were no units over 100 acres in size. Trends in harvest opening size have been toward smaller openings and less reliance on the even-aged silvicultural system. The 15 openings averaged 33 acres, and ranged in size from 1 acre to 83 acres.
Transportation (35 kb) Question 1: Are the Standards and Guidelines used for forest development roads and log transfer facilities effective in limiting the environmental effects to anticipated levels?
The monitoring results indicated that removing structures then constructing mounds with the excavated material can be effective roadway features when used to block access to motorized traffic on both system roads and unauthorized roads. The strategy can be effective if placed in locations that provide no alternative to go around the closure. In addition to
choosing effective locations with unforgiving nearby terrain, deeper excavations (greater than 10 feet) should be used to eliminate off road vehicles if all motorized traffic is to be eliminated. During previous years of monitoring road closures, removed structures have been circumvented by off highway vehicles to some degree. However, carefully choosing the location of the device in relation to the local terrain can eliminate motorized traffic.
Log Transfer Facilities (LTF)
Two general types of monitoring occur: upland and marine. The upland monitoring is summarized into assessments developed by Forest Service timber sale administrators, and is recorded under the general categories of "Fuel Control," "Runoff Control," and "Bark and Debris." These assessments were made for all the active sites. Contracted divers perform underwater bark debris surveys to accomplish marine monitoring.
Bark monitoring dives were conducted at one LTF in 2007 at site Wrangell Narrows 127 with Zone of Deposit of 0.0 acres.
Oil Sheen Monitoring
In 2007, all active log transfer facilities were operated in accordance with their permits. The cases where fuel / hydraulic fluid spills were a problem were handled as specified in the Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measure Plan (SPCC) anticipated in their operating plans.
Wetlands (49 kb) Question 1: Are Wetlands Standards and Guidelines being implemented?
The Tongass National Forest has fulfilled the intent of the Standards and Guidelines during fiscal year 2007 in avoiding wetlands where practicable. Forested wetlands were most affected by disturbance from road construction. Prescriptions for unit harvest and road construction are developed and implemented to minimize impact to wetlands. Timber harvest is not a restricted activity on forested wetlands, according to the Forest Plan. Best Management Practices for Wetland Protection Measures noted 2.5 acres identified through the 100 percent implementation monitoring effort and the IDT percent quality control monitoring reviewed 1 acre of wetland. Results of the monitoring of units and roads in FY 2007 concluded that the BMPs were implemented. During this monitoring no corrective actions were noted relating to deletion of some part of the units that contributed to protect wetlands. Some portions of units were deleted and roads were relocated due to other concerns that provided additional protection to wetlands. No departure of full BMP implementation associated with wetlands resources was noted.
Wetkabds Question 2: Are Wetland Standards and Guidelines effective in minimizing the impacts to wetlands and their associated functions and values?
During FY 2007, the Forest ecology group continued the Tongass non-forest vegetation classification project (most non-forested areas are wetlands). Work in 2007 concentrated on the Stikine and Taku River Valley Subsection. Seventy-eight integrated field plots (vegetation, physiography, and soils) were sampled in FY 2007. Data are currently being analyzed to develop a draft non-forested community classification for the subsection.
The wetland monitoring report for the data collected on the Skipping Cow project area was finalized in 2007.
Wild and Scenic Rivers (20 kb) Question 1: Are Wild, Scenic, and Recreational River Standards and Guidelines being implemented?
There are no Standards and Guidelines written specifically for rivers recommended and / or designated Wild and Scenic. Management prescriptions are used instead to maintain and enhance the free flowing conditions and outstandingly remarkable values for which the river was found suitable for designation as part of the National Wild and Scenic River System.
Anan Creek, a river determined suitable for designation as Wild and Scenic, serves as an example of effective implementation of management prescriptions. Although the bear viewing area at Anan receives heavy commercial and public visitor use, restrictions on permitted activities and number of visitors serve to keep visitor impacts to a minimum.
Other rivers recommended for designation as wild and scenic but not later designated as such were also monitored this year for information on the continued embodiment of their wild and scenic qualities. These rivers include the Stikine River , Taku River , Antler River , Punchbowl Creek, Nooya Creek, Unuk River , and the Klahini River . These rivers were generally found to have maintained their wild and scenic qualities in 2007.
Wild and Scenic Rivers Question 2: Are Wild, Scenic, and Recreational River standards effective in maintaining or enhancing the free flowing conditions and outstandingly remarkable values at the classification level for which the river was found suitable for designation as part of the National Wild and Scenic River System?
Management prescriptions followed at Anan for the preservation of Wild and Scenic Rivers have been effective in maintaining and enhancing the remarkable values of the river. The structures present Anan Creek and the activities that take place there are consistent with its designation as a Wild and Scenic river.
Wilderness Area (44 kb) Question 1: Are Standards and Guidelines for the management of Wilderness being implemented?
The standards and guidelines for the management of wilderness are not explicitly defined in TLMP. Instead wilderness standards and guidelines are drawn from those defined for each individual resource group, such as Recreation and Tourism, Trails, Air Quality and Heritage Resources.
Management prescriptions for wilderness are being implemented by managers to the best of their abilities. The geographic distribution and expanse of the 19 wilderness units, totaling 5.7 million acres, make the implementation of management prescriptions difficult. Monitoring of wilderness areas in 2007 has been performed in conjunction with plant and archaeological surveys and cabin and trail maintenance. Wilderness monitoring activities in 2007 include monitoring of cruise ship emissions, wildlife observation, campsite assessment and clean-up, maintenance of buildings and grounds, surveying and eradication of exotic plant species, and exploratory kayak monitoring of saltwater and lake shorelines.
Wilderness Area Question 2: Are Standards and Guidelines for the management of Wilderness effective in maintaining the Wilderness resource?
Wilderness monitoring takes place through repeated observation and documentation using standard protocols and scientific methods as well as informal observation. Application of monitoring protocols and further refinement of the wilderness management prescriptions will continue in an attempt to help reach the Forest Service 10 Year Wilderness Stewardship Challenge of having all wildernesses eventually managed to standard. Further development of the wilderness standards and guidelines would be useful. Specific clarification of these standards and guidelines as well as protocols needs to be developed.
Wildlife (761 kb) Question 1: Are population trends for Management Indicator Species (MIS) and their relationship to habitat changes consistent with expectations?
Timber harvest and road construction on the Tongass has been consistently much less than expected in the 1997 Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). Therefore, actual management effects on MIS populations have been less than projected in the Plan.
Thinning projects on the Tongass offset the effects of the stem exclusion stage in providing more light to the forest understory and improving growing conditions for herbaceous and woody species that wildlife depends on for forage. Restoring second growth, through silvicultural thinning, benefits wildlife by increasing the forage base for browse dependent species and increasing the health of the residual stand. It also reduces the standing stock to a level that encourages better growing conditions through increased light and reduced competition for light, growing space and nutrients within the treated stand. In 2007, approximately 5,066 acres were pre-commercially thinned on the Tongass.
An analysis of habitat and population trends of Management Indicator Species for 1997-2007 is currently being conducted. A short summary for the 13 terrestrial MIS identified in the Forest Plan is included in the response to the monitoring question.
Wildlife Question 2: Are the population levels and associated distribution of mammalian endemic species on islands and portions of the mainland consistent with the estimates of the Forest Plan?
Although researchers have made headway in documenting endemic species, they have only field surveyed a small portion of Southeast Alaska in the last decade. As a conservation measure, Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines exclude timber harvesting on islands smaller than 1,000 acres.
The Pacific Northwest Research Station has recently completed a long-term study of the evolutionary diversity and ecology of endemic mammals in Southeast Alaska. The study focused primarily on the northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus) and the southern red-backed vole ( Myodes gapperi ).
This study of endemic populations of the northern flying squirrel and the southern red-backed vole suggest that the risk of extirpation in managed landscapes is likely less than was presumed during development of the 1997 Forest Plan (Smith, Winston P. 2004).
The Museum of Southwestern Biology, University of New Mexico and Tongass National Forest are collaborating on research and management efforts aimed at monitoring the status of mammals on the Tongass National Forest. During the period October 1 to December 31 2006, we continued our investigations of the mammals of the Tongass National Forest (Tongass) (first started in 1991) in an effort to analyze the distribution, taxonomy, status, and genetic variability of several potentially endemic mammals in Southeast Alaska (e.g., Prince of Wales flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus griseifrons), marten (Martes americana), common and dusky shrew (Sorex araneus; Sorex monticolus), Coronation Island vole (Microtus longicaudus coronarius ), the endemic red-backed vole (Clethrionmys gapperi ), and jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius). This work is helping to fill gaps in the knowledge of species distribution and status.
Costs and Outputs (400 kb) Question 1: What outputs were produced in the previous year (2007)?
This output information was obtained from the final Fiscal Year 2007 Performance Accomplishment Report submitted to the Regional Office. Additional information came from the Annual Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Report or Timber Information Management (TIM) System, Forest Accomplishment Tracking System (FACTS), the Annual Roads Accomplishment Report, and the INFRA database. This output report generally follows the order of the Performance Accomplishment Report. The output tables in some of the previous years followed a different order.
Outputs for FY 2007 by Resource
RESOURCE
ROAD MAINTENANCE OR CONSTRUCTION Miles of road constructed 14.8 miles Road improvements 52.6 miles Miles of road decommissioned 5.0 miles Miles of high clearance roads maintained 351.0 miles Miles of passenger car roads maintained 504.0 miles LAND MANAGEMENT PLANNING Land Management Plan (LMP) amendments underway 1 amendment INVENTORY Above project integrated inventories 152,460 acres Conduct watershed assessments 5 assessments MONITORING Land Management Plan (LMP) monitoring and evaluation reports completed 1 report RECREATION MANAGEMENT Recreation special use authorizations administered to standard 147 permits PAOT days administered to standard 490,000 PAOTS Recreation interpretation & education products provided to standard 108 products Wilderness areas managed to minimum stewardship level 2 areas Recreation days managed to standard (General forest areas) 110 days HERITAGE MANAGEMENT Heritage resources managed to standard 0 sites WILDLIFE HABITAT MANAGEMENT Terrestrial wildlife habitat restored or enhanced 340 acres Provide wildlife interpretation and education 18 events FISH HABITAT MANAGEMENT Lakes restored or enhanced 4525 acres Streams restored or enhanced 46 miles FOREST MANAGEMENT Timber management (NEPA) documents 10 signed documents Establish forest vegetation 0 acres Improve forest vegetation 4862 acres Natural regeneration w/o site preparation 1363 acres Fertilizing established stands 0 acres Certification of tree planting 25 acres Special products permits administered 47 permits Timber volume offered 32 MMBF Timber volume sold 30 MMBF Timber volume harvested 19 MMBF VEGETATION AND WATERSHED MANAGEMENT Noxious weed treatment 18 acres WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT Soil & Water resource improved 186 acres MINERALS AND GEOLOGY Mineral plans of operations administered 29 operations Mineral plans of operations processed 12 operations Geologic resources and hazard assessments completed 43 assessments LAND OWNERSHIP MANAGEMENT Cases resolved through litigation or processed through administrative procedure 6 cases Authorizations administered to standard 193 authorizations Land use proposals and applications processed 76 applications Boundary lines maintained 12 miles Acres acquired or conveyed 518,24 acres Rights-of-way acquired 0 number Number of energy facility applications processed within prescribed timeframes 0 application TRAIL MAINTENANCE OR CONSTRUCTION Miles of trail maintained standard 190 miles Miles of trail improved to standard 1 miles FACILITIES MAINTENANCE OR CONSTRUCTION Number of facilities maintained to standard 96 facilities Number of recreation sites maintained to standard 110 sites LAND ACQUISITION Acres acquired 65.25 acres
Costs and Outputs Question 2: Are the costs associated with carrying out the planned management prescriptions (including those of producing outputs) consistent with those costs estimated in the Forest Plan?
The annual costs estimated in the 1997 Forest Plan were only guidelines. Since the plan was made, the budget line items (BLIs) have been changed and rearranged enough that a direct item by item comparison would be very difficult at best. The first decade the Forest Plan annual total estimated budget may be more valid to compare. The Forest Plan estimated budget was $68,925,000 per year. The allocated FY 2007 budget was $49,570,752 (not counting KV and Salvage Sale). In FY 2007, a certain amount of the allocated budget was held in the Washington Office in overhead “pools.” That means that the actual allocated budget was higher than $49,570,752. These pools did not exist in the Forest Plan projected yearly budget.
The annual costs for KV and Salvage Sale funds estimated in the 1997 Forest Plan were $2,660,000 per year. The allocated KV and Salvage Sale budget authority for FY 2007 was $317,000. The lower levels of timber harvest experienced on the Tongass in recent years are reflected in the declining KV program collections and expenditure levels.
Appendix A: Fisheries (2 kb)
Appendix B: BMP Trip Reports (2 kb)
Appendix C: Wetland Effectiveness Report (962 kb)
Appendix D: Monitoring Questions (23 kb)
Appendix E: 2007 List of Biological Evaluations for Sensitive Plants (120 kb)
Appendix F: Solitude Monitoring (66 kb)
Appendix G: Effectiveness of BMPs on Water Quality (1,435 kb)
Top of Page
USDA Forest Service - Tongass National Forest Accessibility Statement
Last Modified: May 13, 2009