Sonar Cabin Replacementa123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...United States Department of Agriculture Sonar Cabin Replacement Environmental Assessment Forest Service Alaska

United States Department of Agriculture

Sonar Cabin Replacement Environmental Assessment

Forest Service Alaska Region

Tongass National Forest Wrangell Ranger District R10-MB-796b November 2017

https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=47136

Sonar Cabin Replacement

Environmental Assessment

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Alaska Region

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service Alaska Region Tongass National Forest Responsible Official: Beth G. Pendleton, Regional Forester Regional Office, Alaska Region P.O. Box 21628 Juneau, AK 99801-1807 (907) 586-8863 For Further Robert J. Dalrymple, Wrangell District Ranger Information Contact: Tongass National Forest P.O. Box 51 Wrangell, AK 99929-0051 (907) 874-2323

Abstract The Forest Service proposes to authorize Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) to replace the Sonar Cabin used to monitor salmon on the Stikine River with a new cabin at the same location. The condition of the Sonar Cabin had deteriorated to the point that it was no longer useable. The replacement cabin would continue to provide support for ADF&G crews conducting international fisheries monitoring on the Stikine River, a transboundary river flowing from Canada into the United States. The Sonar Cabin site is located within the Stikine-LeConte Wilderness. This EA documents the analysis of the effects of replacing the cabin.

This document is available online at https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=47136.


Sonar Cabin Replacement Environmental Assessment 1

Sonar Cabin Replacement Environmental Assessment

Introduction The Sonar Cabin was built in 1983 and has been used to support Alaska Department of Fish and Game’s (ADF&G) salmon fisheries research and monitoring on the Stikine River. The Forest Service proposes to authorize Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) to replace the original Sonar Cabin used to monitor salmon on the Stikine River with a new cabin at the same location.

The Forest Service has prepared this EA in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). It discloses the environmental effects of the project. This EA incorporates by reference the 2016 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). Additional documentation may be found in the project planning record located at the Wrangell Ranger District Office.

Location The Sonar Cabin site is located about 20 miles northeast of Wrangell on the north bank of the Stikine River, midway between Andrew Slough and Shakes Slough, within the Stikine-LeConte Wilderness. See Figure 1. The Stikine River is an international transboundary river with the lower 40 miles flowing through the Stikine-LeConte Wilderness. The Stikine-LeConte Wilderness is approximately 448,926 acres in size.

The cabin site is within the Southwest ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 35, Township 59 South, Range 84 East, Copper River Meridian. The project area includes the approximately 0.3 acre area around the cabin and associated improvements. See Figure 2.


2 Sonar Cabin Replacement Environmental Assessment

Figure 1. Stikine-LeConte Wilderness



Figure 2. Sonar Cabin Site and Stikine River Corridor



Background The Sonar Cabin site is within the Stikine-LeConte Wilderness which was established under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA). The cabin site is on the Stikine River, which is a navigable river with regular motorized boat traffic. The Sonar Cabin site is accessible by shallow draft boat.

The lower 40 miles of the Stikine River flow through the Stikine-LeConte Wilderness. Recently, the Forest Service withdrew its objection to the State’s claim of sovereignty of the main stem of the Stikine River. The beds and banks of the main stem of the Stikine River, from its mouth to the Canadian border, are considered State jurisdiction and are not part of the Stikine-LeConte Wilderness. Similarly, slough channels below the point of tidal influence are considered State jurisdiction as are select sloughs above the point of tidal influence per the Recordable Disclaimer of Interest filed with the U.S. District Court, Alaska District, on June 17, 2016.

In 1982, the Forest Service authorized ADF&G to build and use the Sonar Cabin to provide safe and efficient shelter for crews conducting research and monitoring of salmon migrating up the Stikine River. The cabin was constructed by ADF&G in 1983 and became the property of the Forest Service under the provisions of ANILCA Section 1303(b)(4). The Sonar Cabin was an approximately 16 x 18 foot, two-story modified A-frame structure which exceeded its original design life. In the summer of 2014, substantial rot was discovered in the cabin and it was determined to be unsafe to use. The upper portions of the cabin were removed in 2015. The cabin’s foundation, porch, stairs, outhouse, steel bear proof food storage locker, and boardwalk trail remain in place. As an interim measure while the cabin was not habitable, ADF&G was authorized to shelter their employees in other structures along the river.

The Stikine River Chinook monitoring project is essential in meeting the State of Alaska’s obligations under the international Pacific Salmon Treaty between the United States and Canada. This treaty requires ADF&G to provide in-season estimates of the abundance of Chinook salmon in the river. The data gathered by the monitoring crews is used in the sustainable management of the commercial, sport, and subsistence fisheries in the United States and Canada, for the conservation of those salmon, and to protect historic use of the fish by indigenous people in Canada and the United States. The Pacific Salmon Treaty has been in place for over 30 years with no indications that it or the Stikine River monitoring will be discontinued into the future.

The Stikine River Chinook monitoring project is run cooperatively between the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada and Tahltan First Nations of Canada in support of mandates of the Pacific Salmon Treaty that allows for the management, conservation and study of primarily Chinook but also other salmon populations on this transboundary river.

Monitoring crews from both the ADF&G and Tahltan First Nations of Canada run drift gillnets and mark Chinook salmon . Monitoring requires two crews, each with its own boat. The full crew is on site from the last week of April through mid-July and a smaller subset are on site in August to sample Andrew Creek for Chinook salmon ages and abundance.

The fisheries monitoring crew consists of up to seven individuals. Generally there are three Americans and two Canadians doing the tagging and an additional two individuals involved



with project oversight and scientific assessments. Since its inception, the monitoring project crews have been housed in the Kakwan Cabin (generally three employees) and in the Sonar Cabin (generally four employees). The data collected from the monitoring is transferred daily to the project biologist in Juneau by satellite internet, which is available only at the Kakwan Cabin site. The cabins have also provided secure storage for monitoring equipment. The housing quarters have been tight but generally sufficient to conduct the monitoring.

Purpose and Need for Action ADF&G proposed replacement of the Sonar Cabin with a new cabin because it had deteriorated to the point where it was no longer safe for the fish monitoring crews to use. The purpose of this project is to respond to ADF&G’s request to authorize the replacement of the Sonar Cabin to provide shelter for the fish monitoring crews.

The need for the project is to provide safe and efficient long-term shelter for ADF&G crews conducting the fisheries monitoring and research on the Stikine River required by the Pacific Salmon Treaty. Monitoring crews need to be housed within close proximity (1/2 hour or less) to the monitoring sites in order to be efficient and ensure timely completion of the monitoring. In order for crews to be productive and safe, they need to be sheltered where they can be warm and dry and have protection from the harsh climate conditions, high winds, biting insects, rodents, bears, and other wild animals. The shelter site also needs to provide security for equipment used in the monitoring.

The requested cabin site is within the Stikine-LeConte Wilderness; as a result, the Forest Service is required to ensure consistency of this project with the Wilderness Act, ANILCA, the Forest Plan, and other laws and policies specific to wilderness as well as other resources. If the project is authorized, the Forest Service must seek ways to minimize effects to the wilderness resource.

Management Direction Minimum Requirements Analysis (MRA) Section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act prohibits structures and installations unless they are the minimum necessary for administering the wilderness for wilderness purposes. Accordingly, and in compliance with Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2320 and the Alaska Region FSM Supplement for Wilderness Management (R-10 2300-2008-2); 2322.03, Policy (6), the Forest Service has conducted an MRA in order to determine if administrative action is necessary for the administration of the Stikine-LeConte Wilderness and, if so, the minimum activity for sheltering fisheries monitoring crews on the Stikine River. The MRA also evaluated the effect of the associated activities on the quality of wilderness character. The MRA is documented in the October, 2017, Minimum Requirements Decision Guide (MRDG) Shelter for employees conducting fisheries monitoring on the Stikine River in the Stikine-LeConte Wilderness. The Regional Forester determined that replacing the Sonar Cabin with a new a permanent rustic cabin at the existing cabin location is necessary for wilderness administration and is the minimum necessary means for long-term, safe and efficient sheltering for the fisheries crews monitoring salmon migrations in the Stikine River.

An extensive list of laws, regulations, policies and Forest Plan direction which govern the replacement of the cabin can be found in the MRDG Shelter for employees conducting



fisheries monitoring on the Stikine River in the Stikine-LeConte Wilderness and in the Wilderness Resource Report.

Key direction applying to this project comes from the Wilderness Act, ANILCA, wilderness management policy, the Pacific Salmon Treaty, and the Forest Plan.

Public Involvement This project has appeared on the Tongass National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) since July 2015. In July 2015, a public scoping notice inviting comment on the proposal was published in the Wrangell Sentinel, Juneau Empire, and Alaska Dispatch News in Anchorage. Scoping letters were sent to individuals, organizations, and agencies on the project mailing list and a scoping flyer posted online, on Facebook, and in public locations around Wrangell. The Wrangell Cooperative Association, the federally recognized tribal government for the project area, was also sent a copy of the scoping notice. Eight written responses were received.

A legal notice was published in the Ketchikan Daily News and the Alaska Dispatch News, the newspapers of record, on June 20, 2017, making the Environmental Assessment (EA) available for a 30-day comment period, and notification sent to the project mailing list. To ensure wide notification and encourage public comment, courtesy notices were also published in the Ketchikan Daily News, Wrangell Sentinel, and Petersburg Pilot on June 22, 2017. The EA was posted on the Tongass National Forest website at https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=47136. Ten comment letters and emails on the EA were received, and are included along with Forest Service responses in the project record.

Issues Two issues were identified from the public and internal scoping responses.

Issue 1. The need for safe and efficient shelter for ADF&G’s Canadian and American crews in order to successfully conduct the Stikine River fisheries research and monitoring projects.

Salmon monitoring on the Stikine River is an essential part of the State of Alaska’s obligations under the Pacific Salmon Treaty between the United States and Canada. ADF&G is required by the treaty to provide in-season estimates of the abundance of Chinook salmon. This information is used in the sustainable management of commercial, sport, and subsistence fisheries in the United States and Canada. The monitoring data must be collected in an efficient and timely manner and in accordance with monitoring protocols. The monitoring typically occurs from April through July (or October if coho salmon runs are also monitored). Monitoring is currently focused on the Chinook salmon stock assessment project which began in 1995. Coho and sockeye salmon are also included in the Pacific Salmon Treaty and it is likely additional sampling for these species could become required each season in the future, which would extend the field season and require additional personnel. The Pacific Salmon Treaty is in its 32nd year and is expected to continue well into the future. While the Treaty is up for renewal there are no indications that it will not be extended. The need for fisheries monitoring data from the Stikine River will continue because the data is the basis of fisheries management for both the United States and Canada.




The monitoring requires working long hours, seven days a week often in the inclement weather of Southeast Alaska’s rainforest. Strong winds blow through the Stikine River valley. Suitable, safe, and clean shelter is essential to crew productivity. It is also important to crew morale and the retention of experienced employees. In order for crews to be productive and safe, they need to be sheltered where they can be warm and dry and have protection from the harsh climate conditions, biting insects, rodents, bears, and other wild animals. The shelter site also needs to provide adequate security for equipment used in the monitoring.

The area generally receives heavy snows. In some years there is still considerable snow pack remaining on the ground when ADF&G needs to begin its monitoring.

Health and safety of monitoring crews is an important factor in consideration of ADF&G’s sheltering needs.

Health and safety includes the following factors:

• providing warmth and shelter from the inclement weather conditions in the area,

• reducing the crew’s exposure to the harmful effects of rodents and biting insects. Biting insects are present in great quantities during periods of the year.

• reducing the risk of brown bear incidents and risk from other wildlife species such as moose.

Operational efficiency is also a factor in meeting the monitoring requirements. Operational efficiency includes:

• shelter in close proximity to the sampling locations, reducing travel time and increasing safety,

• adequate space to shelter four people, their supplies, and monitoring equipment at the Sonar site,

• secure storage for monitoring equipment and supplies,

• adequate river access to shelter during all river stages,

• secure boat moorage at the shelter at most river levels,

• a relatively stable river bank for access to the shelter,

• a shelter that is economically feasible.

Issue 2. The effects to Wilderness Character.

The Sonar Cabin site is in the Stikine-LeConte Wilderness. Wilderness effects are assessed through provisions of both ANILCA and the Wilderness Act of 1964. Because the Wilderness Act requires preservation of the area’s wilderness character, activities can only be approved in wilderness if they are determined to be the minimum necessary for the administration of the area for wilderness purposes. The effects of the alternatives on the five qualities of wilderness character must be considered along with effects on the wilderness resource as a whole. The five qualities of wilderness character are:

• Untrammeled



• Undeveloped • Natural • Opportunities for Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation • Other Features of Value

In addition to the five qualities of wilderness character defined above, the Wilderness Act mentions societal benefits to wilderness that go beyond recreational use. These “non-use values” are, for the most part, intangible aspects of wilderness character that are difficult or impossible to quantify. The challenge of wilderness stewardship is that decisions and actions taken to protect one aspect of wilderness character may diminish another aspect. Issue 2: The effects to Wilderness, is discussed in greater detail under the Environmental Effects: Wilderness section of this EA.

Alternatives Three alternatives were considered in detail in this analysis.

Alternative 1 – No Action Under the No-action Alternative, the Sonar Cabin would not be replaced. All improvements would be removed from the site and any disturbed areas would be rehabilitated. The site would no longer be authorized to provide shelter for employees during fisheries monitoring. . The crews would continue to be sheltered in the locations used during the 2015 - 2017 field seasons: Kakwan Cabin and tent platform, USGS Cabin, Forest Service Wilderness Administration Cabin, Shakes Slough public recreation cabin #1.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action In this alternative, the Forest Service proposes to authorize ADF&G to replace the Sonar Cabin with a permanent two-story rustic cabin about 18 x 18 feet (324 square feet) in size at the same location to shelter fisheries monitoring crews. The tent platform at Kakwan Cabin would be removed once the reconstructed Sonar Cabin is available for use.

National and regional policy define “temporary” and “permanent.” Definitions in R-10 Supplement 2709.11-2006-4 include:

Permanent Foundation. Footings, piers or jacks installed to support the bearing weight of the structures specified on the face of the authorization. A permanent foundation requires some excavation and is constructed of durable materials.

Temporary Facility or facilities. Any structure or other human-made improvement that is intended to serve for a limited time and can be disassembled and stored, on site, during periods of non-use. Further, the facility can be readily and completely dismantled and removed from the National Forest within 48 hours. Temporary facilities do not involve excavation of surface materials for a permanent foundation.

Definitions in national wilderness policy, FSM 2320.5, state:

Permanent Improvement. A structural or nonstructural improvement that is to remain at a particular location for more than one field season. Permanent improvements include



such items as trails, toilet buildings, cabins, fences, tent frames, fire grills, and instrumentation stations.

Temporary Structure. Any structure that is easy to dismantle, that could be removed completely from a site between periods of actual use, and that must be removed at the end of each season of use if the non-use period is greater than 30 days.

The cabin would be used to shelter four employees and storage of the nets and other equipment needed for the salmon monitoring. Existing improvements at the 0.3 acre Sonar site including the outhouse, the boardwalk trail from the river to the cabin and to the outhouse, and the steel bear proof food storage locker would continue to be used. The original cabin’s remaining structural materials would be recycled into the replacement cabin or removed from the site. The orientation of the cabin would be shifted slightly from the original cabin orientation to take advantage of existing trees and downfall to minimize visual effects from the river. All construction activities would occur within the previously disturbed area. See Figure 3.

ANILCA allows for the use of motorboats and the temporary use of motorized equipment for fisheries research, management, rehabilitation, and enhancement activities. Cabin materials and supplies would be transported to the site by motorboat. Under this alternative, limited motorized and mechanized equipment would be used in combination with traditional tools and skills to move and lift heavy building materials, reduce the risk of injury to employees, and to reduce construction time.

Time and Duration of Activity The construction is anticipated to occur during the 2018 field season. Any activities associated with construction would be limited to the spring, summer, or fall seasons when river levels allow for the transport of materials to the site. Weather and river conditions outside of this time period do not allow for construction. Work on site may be completed in one or two seasons depending on the timing of the work, and conditions on the river.



Figure 3. Sonar Cabin Replacement Conceptual Site Design (not to scale)

Alternative 2 Design Features The Sonar Cabin would be designed as a two-story structure of approximately 18 x 18 feet to provide living quarters while minimizing the building footprint. The new cabin would be rustic in appearance. ADF&G would be responsible for the purchase and construction of the cabin. The cabin would become a Forest Service-owned facility permitted for use to ADF&G.

The following project design elements would be used to reduce or mitigate the environmental impacts. These have been found to be effective when used in other projects on the Forest.

1) The Sonar Cabin would be designed to blend into the natural setting consistent with direction in the Forest Service’s Built Environment Image Guide (September 2001). Dark non-reflective colors would be used to minimize visual effects. Materials for building the cabin would consist of products suitable for use in construction and compatible with conditions found in Southeast Alaska.

2) The cabin orientation would be shifted slightly from the original footprint to take advantage of existing trees and downfall to minimize visual effects. Vegetative screening would be maintained or developed to reduce visual impacts of the cabin from visitors boating on the river.



3) Site disturbance would be kept to the existing disturbed area to minimize effects to the vegetation, soil, and water resources in compliance with the Forest Plan. Existing materials and infrastructure from the old cabin shall either be re-used during reconstruction or removed from the wilderness area.

4) The Sonar Cabin design will meet Forest Service structural requirements (including for snow and wind loads) and the engineer-stamped plans must be approved by the Forest Service Regional Engineer. The Forest Service shall assign a qualified inspector to the project.

5) Limited motorized and mechanized equipment would be used to reduce construction time and to reduce risks to the construction crew. Motorized/mechanized equipment and tools would only be used when hand tools would not be practical or safe. The Forest Service shall review and approve the list of equipment proposed for cabin replacement work in advance of any work at the site. Authorized motorized equipment would be used at the river’s edge beyond the wilderness boundary to the maximum extent possible.

6) If any unknown heritage resources are discovered during construction, all construction would cease and the resource would be evaluated.

7) If any unknown endangered, threatened, candidate or sensitive species are encountered prior to or during the implementation of this project, the project will be re-evaluated.

8) All equipment and materials must be cleaned and inspected before arriving on the site to reduce the potential for invasive plants.

9) The standard invasive plant clause for control and eradication would be included in the special use permit and would be enforced through permit administration. Any invasive plant treatments would be approved by the Forest Service in advance.

10) Construction activities would be limited to weekdays during normal working hours to limit the sights and sounds of construction on other wilderness visitors.

11) Crews working on this project would receive training on wilderness awareness and ethics. They would implement minimum impact techniques such as the Leave No Trace principles, and shall abide by all wilderness regulations specific to the Stikine-LeConte Wilderness.

12) Cabin construction activities would comply with all Federal and State safety requirements for training, personal protective equipment, and practices. Contract terms and conditions would include providing for safety training and equipment for employees working at the site. All associated boat travel would comply with Coast Guard and State of Alaska boating safety policies.

13) The cabin and cabin site would be monitored through permit administration and as part of the Stikine-LeConte Wilderness monitoring program.

14) The tent platform at Kakwan Cabin shall be removed, using hand tools, once the reconstructed Sonar Cabin is available for use.



15) Monitoring equipment and work items being left at the end of the monitoring season shall be stored only within the cabin.

Alternative 3 This alternative would authorize ADF&G to construct, install, and use three temporary structures at the existing Sonar site to shelter four fish monitoring employees and equipment during the field season. The structures would be used for sleeping, cooking, and storage. The remaining portions of the original Sonar Cabin would be reused or removed from the site. The other existing improvements at the 0.3 acre Sonar site including the outhouse, the boardwalk trail system and the large steel bear proof food storage locker would continue to be used at the site.

The wooden platforms would remain on site year-round but the temporary structures on top of the platforms could be any structure or other human made improvement that is intended to serve for a limited time and can be disassembled and removed during periods of non-use. An example of a temporary facility would be, a panelized knock-down wooden cabin, wooden frame for wall tents, or boonie barn type structures. These structures on top of the platforms would be disassembled during the off season and either left on site (e.g. wooden frames) or removed from the site, along with any monitoring equipment.

The three temporary structures would be placed within the 0.3 acre Sonar site using the original cabin site and clearing and levelling two additional sites for the structures. A total of approximately 840 square feet of additional disturbance would occur: each temporary structure is estimated to be 10 x 12 feet in size (120 square feet). An estimated 200 feet of additional board walk trail with a 3 foot wide disturbance area (600 square feet) would be constructed to access each individual temporary structure and the outhouse. See Figure 4.

Personnel, equipment, and materials would travel to and from the site by motorboat on the Stikine River.

Time and Duration of Activity Construction of the additional board walk trail is anticipated to occur during the 2018 field season. The installation and take down of the temporary structures would be required annually at the beginning and end of each field season for the duration of the monitoring activities. Any activities associated with installation would be limited to the spring, summer, or fall seasons when river levels allow for the transport of materials to this site. Weather and river conditions outside of this time period would preclude the need for the installation. Work on site would be completed in approximately 1 week depending on the timing of the work and conditions on the river.



Figure 4. Temporary Structures Conceptual Site Design (not to scale)

Alternative 3 Design Features ADF&G would be responsible for the purchase, construction, and installation of the temporary structures.

The same following project design elements as in Alternative 2 would be used to reduce or mitigate the environmental impacts except as noted below. These have been found to be effective when used in other projects on the Forest.

1) No motorized or mechanized equipment would be used to establish the camp, construct the additional boardwalk, or to set up or take down the camp each year.

2) Dark non-reflective colors would be used to minimize visual effects.

3) Vegetative screening would be maintained or developed to reduce visual impacts of the temporary structures from visitors boating on the river.

4) Site disturbance would be kept within the 0.3 acre Sonar site and use the existing disturbed area to the maximum extent practicable to minimize effects to the vegetation, soil, and water resources.



5) The tent platforms and camp would be monitored through permit administration and as part of the Stikine-LeConte Wilderness monitoring program.

6) No equipment or supplies would be left or stored at the site after the end of the monitoring season.

Alternatives Considered but not Analyzed in Detail The following alternatives were identified during the analysis and were considered, but not analyzed in detail.

Shelter monitoring crews at additional public recreation cabins. This alternative would allow ADF&G to shelter their fisheries monitoring crews at three additional public recreation cabins, depending on their availability each year. These sites include the Mount Flemmer, Twin Lakes, and Mount Rynda cabins, which are over 5 miles from the Sonar site.

This alternative was considered but not analyzed in detail. The distance is too far for safe and efficient monitoring of the drift nets because the crews are spread out along the river corridor. In addition, these public recreation cabins would not be available for the public to rent during the period they would be occupied by ADF&G.

Do not authorize any shelter sites for ADF&G fisheries monitoring crews. This alternative to not authorize any shelter sites on National Forest System land for ADF&G fisheries monitoring crews was considered but not analyzed in detail because the monitoring requires crews to be on site throughout the monitoring season. If no shelter was authorized, ADF&G would not be able to conduct the fisheries monitoring in the safe, efficient, and timely manner required under the Pacific Salmon Treaty.

Require ADF&G to shelter fish monitoring crews outside of the Stikine-LeConte Wilderness. This alternative, requiring ADF&G to shelter their crews outside of the Stikine-LeConte Wilderness boundary, was considered but not analyzed in detail because there are no practical locations to shelter the fisheries crews outside of the wilderness area and still allow the crews to conduct the fisheries monitoring in a safe, efficient, and timely manner due to the remoteness of the area, the proximity the crews must be to the monitoring sites, and the difficulty and time it takes to navigate the river. The fisheries monitoring is specific to the fisheries resources of the Stikine River and cannot be replicated at another location on the Tongass National Forest. The monitoring of Chinook salmon occurs in the United States portion of the Stikine River, the entire length of which flows through the Stikine-LeConte Wilderness. This monitoring can only occur on the Stikine River where it flows through the wilderness, and the crews need nearby shelter (within ½ hour of the monitoring sites) to be efficient. Transporting crews to the monitoring sites each day from outside the wilderness would affect their ability to accomplish the monitoring in a safe, timely, and efficient manner.

Transport of personnel and equipment by means other than a motorboat such as by floatplane or helicopter. This alternative, which would require ADF&G to transport personnel and equipment from Wrangell by means other than a motorboat, such as by floatplane or helicopter, was considered but not analyzed in detail because access to the monitoring sites by floatplane and



helicopter would be hazardous and unreliable. The winds and inclement weather conditions on the river would not allow for assured access to the monitoring sites which is essential for the monitoring protocols. The river current is too strong to safely land floatplanes. Helicopter landings within the wilderness are not appropriate when other means of easy access, such as motorboats, are allowed for in ANILCA. Helicopters could only be used when weather was favorable and lower river levels provided gravel bars on State of Alaska land for landing. Helicopter access would be prohibitively expensive for daily access.

Provide a floating facility within the main stem or a slough of the Stikine River that has been determined to be outside of the wilderness. Under this alternative, ADF&G would build and place a floating facility in the main stem or a slough of the river to provide shelter for the monitoring crews.

In June 2016, the U.S. District Court, Alaska District, accepted the Forest Service’s withdrawal of its objection to the State’s claim of sovereignty for the beds and banks of the main stem of the Stikine River and select sloughs above the point of tidal influence. Tidally-influenced waters on the Stikine were previously disclaimed. These areas of the river are now considered to be State jurisdiction and are therefore outside of the Stikine-LeConte Wilderness.

This alternative was considered but not analyzed in detail for the following reasons:

Feasibility: It would not be practical to shelter crews on a floating facility on the main stem or sloughs of the river due to the high winds, strong currents, and constantly changing river levels. The Stikine River is said to be the fastest free flowing river in North America. The sloughs are also subject to strong currents. The float house itself would have to be constructed specifically to withstand these forces and be secured in place with substantial anchors and/or piling. Shore ties to the Wilderness for additional security would likely be needed.

The river level also fluctuates dramatically over the seasons. If a float was anchored outside of the main stem, it would likely not be accessible at all river levels. The river also floods periodically and river levels can rise or fall suddenly, sometimes changing by several feet over the course of 24 hours. This makes securing a float very difficult. Floats that went dry on an uneven surface could be damaged.

The river also carries a lot of floating debris, including whole trees and logs, which can be very hazardous. Logs and debris could strike the float, damaging it or tangling in the anchor and safety lines.

Any float would require a constant high level of maintenance to deal with changing river conditions.

Safety: A floathouse would create additional safety concerns for the crew over a land camp due to the hazardous conditions mentioned above. There are no known locations on the river with access at all river levels where a floathouse could be placed that would exclude these types of risks, not only to the crew, but also to the structure.

Administrative: A floating facility in the main stem or slough of the river would need to be large enough to house four employees and monitoring equipment. The floathouse would have to meet all federal or local safety, construction, and sanitation requirements. It would require a substantial structure and anchoring or piling to hold it securely in place. A floating structure



meeting these requirements would be expensive to build and to maintain. For those reasons, there are no floating structures used by agencies on the river.

There are privately owned floathouses in the sloughs and side channels of the river. None of these are authorized by either the State or the federal government. They are very basic, economical structures that would not meet federal or local safety, construction or sanitation standards. These private floathouses are used for short term recreation purposes. The State recently sent letters to the floathouse owners notifying them that their occupancy on the river was not authorized. Under State policy, these would not be authorized because they are in violation of the current State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources Area Plan for Central/Southern Southeast which does not allow floating camps/floathouses in the Stikine River for several reasons:

• Floathouses can only be authorized if they are in salt water; therefore, they are not allowed in the freshwater of the Stikine River

• Floathouses are not allowed in the State Area Plan land use designation WT-01 Stikine River tideland (i.e. downstream of Limb Island ) because the WT-01 land use designations do not allow floathouses for habitat, public recreation and tourism, transportation, harvest and to remain undeveloped reasons.

• Floathouses are not allowed adjacent to areas designated as Wilderness because the State defers to the upland owners (the Forest Service in this case) and floathouses are not compatible with Wilderness management.

Wilderness impacts: Even if a feasible and safe location on a slough and outside of wilderness could be found for the floathouse, its presence would not be without impacts to wilderness character. The floathouse structure would be substantial and would be immediately adjacent to wilderness and highly visible, with few options to screen or minimize its impacts to the undeveloped and opportunities for solitude qualities of wilderness character. Furthermore, the floathouse could require shore ties to the wilderness uplands, and these would be considered installations in wilderness, which are also prohibited under Section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act.

Build a new cabin at a new site for use by both ADF&G crews and Forest Service crews to replace both the Sonar and Wilderness Cabins. An alternative to replace both the Sonar and Wilderness cabins with a new cabin at a new site on the south side of the river for use by both ADF&G and Forest Service crews was considered but not analyzed in detail. A new cabin site would require disturbance at a previously undisturbed area within the wilderness. It would also require a larger structure of adequate size to provide shelter for both agency crews. The funding necessary to develop this new site and build a new cabin is not available to ADF&G or the Forest Service.

Replace the cabin at the Wilderness Cabin site with one large enough to house both ADF&G fisheries crews and Forest Service crews. Building a larger, replacement cabin at the Wilderness Cabin site would require a larger footprint than the current cabin. The existing cabin would be torn down and unavailable during construction, further displacing ADF&G fisheries crews. Additionally, a cabin at this location would not address access concerns early in the monitoring season – the beach at Wilderness Cabin is less steep than at the Sonar site at higher water levels, but Wilderness



Cabin is extremely affected by water levels. Lastly, such an alternative would require a large structure adequate to provide shelter for both agency crews, and neither agency has the budget to fund this scale of facility.

Have ADF&G fisheries crews and USGS crews share housing at the USGS cabin. An alternative for ADF&G and USGS crews to share use of the USGS cabin was not analyzed. The USGS has welcomed ADF&G for occasional and temporary use of the USGS cabin, but if the ADF&G crews were to reside there every year for the duration of their field season, ADF&G would impinge on USGS crews, their work, and the equipment they use. In addition, the cabin is too small to suffice for crews and gear.

Existing Condition and Environmental Effects The environmental effects of the alternatives as they relate to the existing conditions are described in this section. The environmental analysis focuses on those issues and resources most likely to be affected by the Proposed Action.

The 0.3 acre project area is the analysis area for direct and indirect effects. Direct effects are the results of immediate project activities whereas indirect effects are those that occur following project implementation. Since land managers are required to manage the wilderness resource as a whole, the area used to assess cumulative effects consists of the entire Stikine-LeConte Wilderness. The cumulative effects analysis takes into account the past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities listed in Appendix A.

The definitions for the terminology used in describing the degree of effects are provided below:

No Effect Negligible Minor Moderate Major

No effect to the resource.

Little or no impact to the resource; any change that might occur may be perceptible but difficult to measure.

Change in resource would occur, but no substantial impact would result. Change would be perceptible and measurable but not alter resource condition.

Noticeable and measurable change would occur and would alter resource condition; integrity of the resource would remain.

Substantial impact to resource would occur; impact is easily defined, highly noticeable, and would measurably alter resource integrity.



Existing Condition The Sonar Cabin site was developed in 1983 to provide safe and efficient shelter for crews conducting research and monitoring of salmon on the Stikine River.

The Sonar site was originally chosen for a cabin because it provides a good site along the river from which to operate the fisheries monitoring. It provides safety and effective logistics for the crew, as well as the best available compromise of the main river channel location, boat moorage, river access, soil stability, and visual screening. The Kakwan Cabin is located near the lower end of the drift gillnet sampling reach and the Sonar site is located near the upper end of the reach; the combination provides the crews with efficient access to the entire sampling reach and access to shelter and safety equipment at both ends. However, the Stikine River is a dynamic system which changes every year, even during the season, so the exact location of the monitoring activities within the area may shift slightly depending on the weather, river snags, and fluctuating water level. The Sonar site is also adjacent to the project’s net maintenance area on a large, open river bar. Considering the longevity of the Pacific Salmon Treaty and changes in monitoring technology over time, the site also provides future adaptability because it is a good site for a sonar installation.

The site is near the monitoring locations on the river and it provides a good river bank access point with access at most river levels, which fluctuate dramatically through the seasons. The gradient of the riverbank allows for boat storage throughout the river’s height fluctuations, and the stable, rocky surface of the riverbank is unlikely to erode. Compared to other sites along the river, the site’s soils are stable. The site is also flat and provides good vegetative screening with large trees and brush between the cabin and the river, which reduces the risk of theft or vandalism.

The Sonar site is approximately 0.3 acre in size. The original Sonar Cabin was an approximately 16 x 18 foot, two-story modified A-frame structure. Other improvements at the site include an outhouse, a boardwalk trail from the river to the cabin and to the outhouse and a large steel bear-proof food storage locker. The cabin site has had some minimal excavation to place the cabin foundation on a sound gravel surface and the outhouse has been excavated.

In the summer of 2014, substantial rot was discovered in the cabin and it was determined to be unsafe to use. The upper portions of the cabin were removed in 2015. The cabin’s foundation, porch, stairs, outhouse, and boardwalk trail remain in place. ADF&G is authorized under a special use permit to use the site to support salmon monitoring and research.



ADF&G driftnet crew on the Stikine River (photo courtesy of ADF&G)

Environmental Effects Issue 1. Need for safe and efficient shelter for ADF&G fisheries monitoring crews The Stikine River Chinook monitoring project is essential in meeting the State of Alaska’s obligations under the international Pacific Salmon Treaty. ADF&G is required by the treaty to provide in-season estimates of the abundance of Chinook salmon. This information is used in the sustainable management of commercial, sport, and subsistence fisheries in the United States and Canada. The monitoring data must be collected in an efficient and timely manner and in accordance with monitoring protocols.

The monitoring requires working long hours, seven days a week in the inclement weather of a temperate rainforest. Strong winds blow through the Stikine River valley. Suitable, safe and clean shelter is essential to crew productivity. It is also important to crew morale and the retention of experienced employees. In order for crews to be productive and safe, they need to be sheltered where they can be warm and dry and have protection from the harsh climate conditions, biting insects, rodents, bears, and other wild animals. The shelter site also needs to provide adequate security for equipment used in the monitoring.



Alternative 1 – No Action The No-action Alternative would not replace the Sonar Cabin to provide shelter for the fisheries monitoring crews and the Sonar site would no longer be authorized for fisheries monitoring use. ADF&G crews would continue to be sheltered in the locations used during the 2015 - 2017 seasons. By having crews spread out along the river, efficiency could be reduced which could in turn have adverse negligible effects on the fisheries being monitored. This in turn could cause the fisheries to be managed more conservatively.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative 2 would authorize the Sonar Cabin replacement. The replacement cabin would provide safe and efficient shelter for four members of the crew conducting the fisheries monitoring on the Stikine River in one structure at the Sonar site.

The cabin would provide a durable long-term, hard-sided structure which would provide a warm and dry environment and protection from bears, moose, and other wildlife. The cabin would enable less snow removal time for fisheries crews to access and use the shelter at the beginning of the season. The cabin can be made rodent-proof to reduce the potential for transmission of diseases to humans and the contamination of equipment and supplies. The cabin can also provide protection from the biting insects which are present in great quantities during periods of the year.

The cabin would withstand the high winds in the Stikine River valley and provide protection from falling trees and branches. The cabin would also provide secure storage for equipment and supplies at risk from animal damage or theft.

The tent platform at Kakwan Cabin would be removed once the Sonar Cabin becomes available for use.



Deep snow at the Sonar Cabin site, May 2007 (photo courtesy of ADF&G)



Alternative 3 This alternative would authorize ADF&G to install three temporary structures at the existing Sonar site to provide shelter for four fish monitoring employees and equipment during the field season. The structures would be used for sleeping, cooking, and storage. The temporary structures and all monitoring equipment would be removed at the end of each field season.

The temporary shelters would provide a basic level of warmth and shelter from inclement weather conditions. They would provide limited protection from rodents and biting insects. During a high snow year, crews would need to spend time and effort clearing deep snow from tent platforms and boardwalks before they could even set up their shelters.

Shelter would not be available at the beginning of the monitoring season. ADF&G would need to bring in and install the temporary structures on top of the existing platforms before the monitoring began. Crews would need to clear any snow from the platforms and boardwalk before shelters could be installed, which would require considerable time and effort during years with a heavy spring snow pack. This could result in delays to the monitoring and temporary lack of shelter if snow removal and installation of temporary structures a substantial amount of time. The temporary shelters would not provide the same level of protection to employees from large animals such as bears and moose. There would be unavoidable lingering food odors from cooking and food storage which could be an attractant for bears. Supplemental methods of protection would be required such as electric fencing. The temporary shelters would not provide secure storage for equipment and supplies which would be susceptible to animal damage or theft. The temporary shelters could be susceptible to damage from the high winds and would not provide adequate protection from falling trees and branches.

Issue 2. Effects to Wilderness Character The Stikine-LeConte Wilderness is largely an intact, unspoiled, and naturally-functioning landscape dominated by the Stikine River and the LeConte Glacier. The lower 40 miles of the Stikine River flow through the Stikine-LeConte Wilderness. The beds and banks of the main stem of the Stikine River, below ordinary high water, are considered to be State land and are not part of the wilderness area. Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude and for Primitive and Unconfined Recreation are plentiful across the wilderness, especially in areas away from the main stem of the Stikine River. The reduction in motorized uses during winter improves the Undeveloped quality seasonally, and the Untrammeled and Natural qualities of wilderness character remain high throughout the year. The strong cultural and subsistence values of the Stikine River and its fisheries mean that the Other Features of Value quality of the wilderness is intact and such values remain high.

Potential effects to Wilderness are evaluated using five qualities: Untrammeled, Undeveloped, Natural, Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation, and Other Features of Value, which determine Wilderness Character. The analysis area for direct and indirect effects is the Sonar Cabin site and the 40-mile stretch of the Stikine River that passes through the Stikine-LeConte Wilderness, including wilderness lands and waters within sight and sound of the river. The area used to assess cumulative effects consists of the entire Stikine-LeConte Wilderness.



Alternative 1 – No Action Direct and Indirect Effects Under the No-action Alternative, a replacement cabin would not be built at the Sonar Cabin site. All existing improvements would be removed from the site and disturbed areas would be rehabilitated. Materials would be hauled away from the site using motorboats and taken back to Wrangell for proper disposal. ADF&G crews would conduct their monitoring via motorboat from the various shelters used in 2015 - 2017 on the Stikine River.

Effects on Untrammeled Character The act of rehabilitating the site is a trammeling action that would have a negligible impact on the untrammeled quality of the Stikine River corridor and the wilderness as a whole. While the rehabilitation work could have a beneficial effect on other aspects of wilderness character, it is an intentional manipulation of the local environment and would therefore have an adverse effect on untrammeled character.

Effects on Undeveloped Character The removal of existing improvements would result in a minor improvement to the undeveloped quality of wilderness character. All remaining structures and installations would be removed from the site, thus reducing the number and impact of such structures and installations in and along the Stikine River corridor and the wilderness as a whole. The use of motorboats to haul people and material to and from the site would be a negligible adverse impact on undeveloped character. The number of trips would not be measurable against the regular and ongoing boat traffic on the river.

Effects on Natural Character The removal of existing improvements and the rehabiliation of the site would result in a negligible to minor improvement to the natural quality of wilderness character at the Sonar Cabin site and negligible improvement along the Stikine River corridor. Rehabilitation could result in the faster renewal of natural processes and eliminate the risk of non-native or invasive plant species becoming established at the old cabin site. Additionally, the overall site would have a more natural appearance.

Minor adverse effects to natural character of the Stikine-LeConte Wilderness could result over the long-term if the the lack of reliable shelter for fisheries crews were to reduce the amount and type of fisheries data collected to manage Stikine River fisheries.

Effects on Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude Removing evidence of people and occupation and naturalizing the site would result in a minor improvement to opportunities for solitude in the immediate project area and a negligible improvement to opportunities for solitude along the mainstem of the Stikine River. Visitors would have an improved sense of being alone and being the first to occupy the wilderness in the vicinity of the Sonar Cabin site. .

Effects on Outstanding Opportunities for Primitive and Unconfined Recreation The No-action Alternative would result in a negligible improvement to opportunites for unconfined recreation along the Stikine River. By removing the existing improvements and rehabilitating the site, visitors will be more likely to disperse their use in the vicinity of the Sonar Cabin site and beyond and/or move on to other locations that have existing cabins and infrastructure. There should be no effect to opportunities for primitive recreation.



Effects on Other Features of Value In the near-term, the No-action Alternative would have no effect on other features of value in the Stikine-LeConte Wilderness. Fisheries monitoring on the Stikine River would continue, and data would still be collected in support of commercial, sport, and subsistence fisheries in the U.S. and Canada. However, the efficiency and efficacy of such monitoring could be reduced as the crews use other, more distant, and more marginal structures for shelter.

Over the long-term, effects could become minor on other features of value if the the lack of reliable shelter for fisheries crews were to reduce the amount and type of data collected to manage the fisheries. This in turn could result in adverse impacts to the culture and subsistence of Native people.

Effects on Non-Use Wilderness Values Under the No-action Alternative, some people may be aware that small improvements to wilderness character are being made through the removal of developments and the rehabilitation of a disturbed and formerly occupied site. This realization could have indirect beneficial impacts to certain non-use values. At the same time, awareness of activities under the No-action Alternative could also have indirect adverse effects on non-use values, such as concern that managers are not effectively and efficiently addressing the natural quality of wilderness character and the cultural and subsistence values of the Stikine River fisheries. Both beneficial and adverse effects to non-use values would be negligible and localized to the affected individuals.

Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects Overall, the effects of the No-action Alternative would be negligibly beneficial to wilderness character in the Stikine River corridor. There would be negligible to minor improvement to the natural, undeveloped, and opportunities qualities and negligible degradation of the untrammeled quality. There would be no effect to other features of value. Over the long-term, however, minor degradation of natural quality and negligible to minor adverse impacts to the other features of value quality could occur if the lack of reliable shelter for monitoring crews were to reduce the amount and type of data collected to manage the Stikine River fisheries.

Cumulative Effects The effects of the No-action Alternative would be cumulative to those past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the Stikine-LeConte Wilderness. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions include a variety of administrative and public actions (see Appendix A of the Environmental Assessment for a complete listing).

Past and ongoing actions that affect wilderness character include: flightseeing tours, public and commercial boat traffic, agency boat traffic, public use cabins, tent platform sites, public recreation sites, special use and agency use cabins, unauthorized floathouses, helicopter landings, subsistence and sport hunting and fishing activities, nature tours, charter boats, guided hunts, and a communication site. Reasonably foreseeable future actions that will likely affect wilderness character include: outdoor hot tub repairs and decking, decommissioning a public recreation cabin, and vegetation clearing adjacent to wilderness along the U.S.-Canada border.

Those actions and activities that include motorized equipment, installations, and structures adversely affect the undeveloped and outstanding opportunities for solitude qualities of



wilderness character. Although many of these activities are allowed under ANILCA and are occurring on the river adjacent to wilderness or in the air space above wilderness, the sights and sounds of these activities adversely affect wilderness character and are cumulative to each other and the No-action Alternative. Effects are concentrated in the Stikine River and LeConte Bay portions of the wilderness, with only a few of the activities occurring in or adjacent to other portions of the wilderness area (e.g., overflights, certain public use activities, border vegetation clearing). Cumulative effects are moderate along the Stikine River corridor and negligible to minor across the wilderness area as a whole. While each action that utilizes motorized equipment is temporary in duration and has a local extent, cumulatively such actions have a permanent presence in the Stikine-LeConte Wilderness during spring, summer, and fall. Cabins, tent platforms, recreation sites, and unauthorized floathouses have a permanent presence year-round, even if they are not used during the winter and spring. Vegetation clearing along the border adjacent to wilderness has minor effects on natural character and opportunities for solitude and is cumulative to the effects on the natural and opportunities for solitude qualities of wilderness character proposed by the No-action Alternative.

The act of hauling personnel and materials by motorboat to remove developments and rehabilitate the Sonar Cabin site would be cumulative to other boating and recreational activities in and immediately adjacent to the wilderness area, and the work would take place during the same season as much of the other boating use. The crew and their boat will make noise that will be a negligible cumulative effect to the sights and sounds of other people and activities along the Stikine River, cumulatively degrading the undeveloped quality. However, the end result of the No-action Alternative would be to remove some developments from the wilderness itself, which would be a negligible improvement to the undeveloped quality. Overall, the No-action Alternative would cumulatively contribute a negligible amount to the degradation of opportunities for solitude quality of wilderness. The positive effect of removing developments and the negative effect of additional boat noise and traffic would equate to no additional cumulative effect to the undeveloped quality of wilderness character. Long-term, there could be negligible cumulative adverse effects to the other features of value quality if sheltering concerns were to result in a reduction in the quality and/or quantity of data collected to manage the fisheries. There would be both negligible adverse and negligible beneficial cumulative effects to wilderness non-use values.

Summary of Cumulative Effects The No-action Alternative would be a cumulative, negligible adverse effect to opportunities for solitude and would have both negligible adverse and negligible beneficial cumulative effects to the undeveloped character of the Stikine-LeConte Wilderness and to wilderness non-use values. Cumulative effects from the No-action Alternative on the untrammeled and natural qualities of wilderness character would be nearly unmeasurable. Long-term, there could be negligible cumulative effects on the other features of value quality. Overall, the No-action Alternative would make a negligible contribution to cumulative effects on the Stikine-LeConte Wilderness.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects Under the Cabin Replacement alternative, a permanent cabin would be built at the site of the old Sonar Cabin. The cabin would be approximately 18’ x 18’, two-story, rustic wood



structure situated so as to be screened the maximum extent possible from the river. The cabin would be used to shelter up to four employees and would provide storage for nets and other monitoring equipment. Existing improvements at the site (outhouse, boardwalk trail, and steel food storage locker) would be retained and reused. The original cabin’s structural material will be reused or, if not needed, removed and properly disposed of in Wrangell. No new areas would be disturbed. Limited motorized equipment and mechanized transport would be used in combination with traditional tools and skills during construction. Personnel would travel to and from the site via motorboat on the Stikine. Materials would be hauled to and from Wrangell using motorboats. The tent platform at Kakwan Cabin would be removed once the Sonar Cabin becomes available for use.

Effects on Untrammeled Character Cabin replacement would have no effect on the untrammeled quality of the Stikine River corridor or the wilderness as a whole. Natural processes would not be manipulated and there would be no additional disturbance to the Sonar Cabin site.

Effects on Undeveloped Character A permanent cabin at the Sonar Cabin site would have a minor adverse impact on the undeveloped quality of wilderness character in the Stikine River corridor. While the cabin would be rustic, dark colored, and screened, its presence is a negative effect to the wilderness resource. Removal of the tent platform at Kakwan Cabin would have a negligible beneficial effect on undeveloped character but would not fully compensate the effects of the reconstructed cabin.

The use of motor boats to haul people and supplies to and from the site would have a negligible adverse impact on undeveloped character. The number of trips would not be measurable against the regular and ongoing boat traffic on the river, although the number of trips would likely be greater than those made under the existing condition of the No-action Alternative.

The use of motorized equipment during construction would have a negligible to minor impact on undeveloped character. Although the sights and sounds of motorized boat traffic occurs regularly on the Stikine River, the sound of power tools is not a typical sound and would be noticeable in the vicinity of the cabin site.

Overall, direct and indirect impacts on the undeveloped quality of wilderness character would be minor in the vicinity of the project site and negligible to minor along the Stikine River corridor.

Effects on Natural Character There would be no direct effect to natural character along the Stikine River corridor or the wilderness as a whole. There would be no new ground disturbance. The ongoing presence of people at the site could disturb or displace individual animals, but would not be measurable. There is the potential that people and equipment could inadvertently introduce non-native or invasive species to the cabin site, which would be an adverse, indirect effect on natural character. However, there is no assumption that non-native or invasive species would become established, and monitoring and removal of invasive species could be required under the terms of the special use permit if issued. By providing reliable shelter for crews, monitoring data



would continue to be collected so as to manage the Stikine River fisheries; natural character should be maintained (no effect) under the Cabin Replacement alternative over the long-term.

Effects on Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude The cabin and the presence of crews would result in a long-term minor, adverse effect on opportunities for solitude in the vicinity of the Sonar Cabin site. The sights and sounds coming from the cabin would be a change over the current condition. Effects would be negligible along the Stikine River corridor.

The use of motorized and other equipment during cabin construction would be a near-term minor to moderate adverse effect on opportunities for solitude. The sound of power tools, and even traditional tools such as hammers, are not typical sounds in the area. Sounds of the construction work would carry over some distance and would be noticeable to wilderness visitors when compared with other sounds in the vicinity of the cabin site. However, sounds would not be noticeable along much of the river corridor, and these negligible adverse effects would occur only during the period of construction.

The use of boats to haul materials and personnel to and from the site during construction would be a negligible impact to opportunities for solitude. The number of boat trips and encounters would not be measurable against the regular and ongoing boat traffic on the river, although the number of trips and encounters would likely be greater than those made under the No-action Alternative. The use of motor boats during monitoring activities would have no effect on opportunities for solitude because it is not a change from the current condition.

Effects on Outstanding Opportunities for Primitive and Unconfined Recreation The Cabin Replacement alternative would result in a negligible adverse impact to opportunities for unconfined recreation along the Stikine River. The Sonar Cabin itself would not be available to the general public; however, the public is not prohibited from using or recreating at the Sonar Cabin site or the area around the cabin site. There would be no effect to opportunities for primitive recreation.

Effects on Other Features of Value There would be no effect to the other features of value qualityof the Stikine-LeConte Wilderness under this alternative. Fisheries monitoring on the Stikine River would be collected, and the data would continue to support commercial, sport, and subsistence fisheries in the U.S. and Canada in the near- and long-term. By providing reliable shelter for crews, monitoring data to manage the Stikine River fisheries would be collected over the long-term, and the cultural values and historic use of fish by indigenous peoples will be protected.

Effects on Non-Use Wilderness Values Under the Cabin Replacement alternative, some people may be aware that the undeveloped quality of wilderness character is being degraded and that there would be ongoing occupation of a currently unoccupied site. This realization could have indirect adverse impacts to certain non-use values. At the same time, awareness of activities under the Cabin Replacement alternative could also have indirect beneficial effects on non-use values, such as an awareness that managers are efficiently and effectively addressing the natural quality of wilderness character and the cultural and subsistence values of the Stikine River fisheries. Both adverse and beneficial effects to non-use values would be negligible and localized to the affected individuals.



Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects Overall, there would be negligible adverse effects of the Cabin Replacement alternative on wilderness character in the Stikine River corridor. There would be negligible to minor degradation of the undeveloped, opportunities for solitude, and opportunities for unconfined recreation qualities, and no effect to untrammeled, natural, opportunities for primitive recreation, or other features of value. Long-term, there would be no effect to the natural or other features of value qualities. The amount and type of data would continue to be sufficient for the management of the fisheries resources, and for the protection of the cultural and subsistence value of the fisheries to Native people.

Cumulative Effects The effects of the Cabin Replacement alternative would be cumulative to those past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the Stikine-LeConte Wilderness and along the Stikine River corridor. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions include a variety of administrative and public actions (see Appendix A of the Environmental Assessment for a complete listing).


Those actions and activities that include motorized equipment, installations, and structures adversely affect the undeveloped and outstanding opportunities for solitude qualities of wilderness character. Although many of these activities are allowed under ANILCA and are occurring on the river adjacent to wilderness or in the air space above wilderness, the sights and sounds of these activities adversely affect wilderness character and are cumulative to each other and the Cabin Replacement alternative. Effects are concentrated in the Stikine River and LeConte Bay portions of the wilderness, with only a few of the activities occurring in or adjacent to other portions of the wilderness area (e.g., overflights, certain public use activities, border vegetation clearing). Cumulative effects are moderate along the Stikine River corridor and negligible to minor across the wilderness area as a whole. While each action that utilizes motorized equipment is temporary in duration and has a local extent, cumulatively such actions have a permanent presence in the Stikine-LeConte Wilderness during spring, summer, and fall. Cabins, tent platforms, recreation sites, and unauthorized floathouses have a permanent presence year-round, even if they are not used during the winter and spring. Vegetation clearing along the border adjacent to wilderness has minor effects on natural character and opportunities for solitude and is cumulative to the effects on the natural and opportunities for solitude qualities of wilderness character proposed by the Cabin Replacement alternative.

The Cabin Replacement alternative would result in the construction and use of a permanent, two-story cabin (and associated infrastructure), which would be a negligible to minor degradation to the undeveloped quality of the Stikine River corridor and a negligible



degradation of the wilderness as a whole. The use of power tools in support of the construction activity would contribute to the degradation of the undeveloped quality of the Stikine-LeConte Wilderness. Similarly, the act of hauling personnel and materials by motorboat to construct and replace the Sonar Cabin would be cumulative to other boating and recreational activities in and immediately adjacent to the wilderness area, and the work would take place during the same season as much of the other boating use. The crew, their boat, and the power tools will make noise that will negligibly contribute to the sights and sounds of other people and activities along the Stikine River, cumulatively degrading the undeveloped and opportunities for solitude qualities. There would be both negligible adverse and negligible beneficial cumulative effects to wilderness non-use values.

Summary of Cumulative Effects The Cabin Replacement alternative would be a cumulative, negligible adverse effect to the undeveloped and opportunities for solitude qualities of the Stikine-LeConte Wilderness. There would be no cumulative effects to the untrammeled, natural, opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation, and other features of value qualities across the wilderness as a whole. There would be both negligible adverse and negligible beneficial cumulative effects to wilderness non-use values. Overall, the Cabin Replacement alternative would make a negligible, adverse contribution to cumulative effects on the Stikine-LeConte Wilderness.

Alternative 3 Direct and Indirect Effects Under the Temporary Shelter alternative, three approximately 10’ x 12’ tent platforms or boonie barns would be set up and used at the Sonar Cabin site from April to August each year. One shelter would be placed in the footprint of the original cabin. An additional 240 square feet of ground would need to be brushed and leveled to accommodate two of the three shelters. Additionally, 600 square feet would be brushed to accommodate 200 feet of new boardwalk. The shelters would be used for sleeping, kitchen, and storage for the four-person monitoring crews. At the end of the monitoring season, the tent or boonie barn frames would be collapsed and/or removed from the site, as would nets and all other monitoring equipment. Existing improvements at the site (outhouse, original boardwalk trail, and steel food storage locker) would be retained and reused. The orginal cabin’s structural material would be reused or, if not needed, removed and properly disposed of in Wrangell. No motorized or mechanized equipment would be used to establish the camp or to set it up and take it down each year. Personnel would travel to and from the site via motorboat on the Stikine. Materials and equipment would be hauled to and from Wrangell using motorboats.

Effects on Untrammeled Character An additional 840 square feet (0.02 acre) of land would be disturbed to accommodate two of the three tent sites and the new boardwalk. The removal of vegetation or any ground-disturbing activity is a trammeling action that would have a negligible, adverse impact on the untrammeled quality of the Stikine River corridor and the wilderness as a whole.

Effects on Undeveloped Character Temporary shelters and tent platforms at the Sonar Cabin site would have a negligible adverse impact on the undeveloped quality of wilderness character in the Stikine River corridor.

The use of motor boats to haul people and supplies to and from the site would have a negligible adverse impact on undeveloped character in the Stikine River corridor. The number



of trips would not be measurable against the regular and ongoing boat traffic on the river, although the number of trips would likely be greater than those made under the existing condition of the No-action Alternative.

Overall, direct and indirect impacts on the undeveloped quality of wilderness character would be negligible to minor in the vicinity of the project site and negligible along the Stikine River corridor.

Effects on Natural Character Vegetation removal and/or ground disturbance of 840 square feet (0.02 acre) would have a minor adverse effect on the natural quality of wilderness character at the Sonar Cabin site and negligible adverse effect on natural character along the Stikine River corridor. The ongoing presence of people at the site could disturb or displace individual animals, but would not be measurable. There is the potential that people and equipment could inadvertently introduce non-native or invasive species to the cabin site, which would be an adverse, indirect effect on natural character. Additionally, there is no assumption that non-native or invasive species would become established, and monitoring and removal of invasive species could be required under the terms of the special use permit if issued.

Negligible to minor adverse effects to natural character of the Stikine-LeConte Wilderness could result over the long-term if sheltering inefficiencies and/or concerns with crew safety result in a reduction in the quality and/or quantity of data collected to manage Stikine River fisheries.

Effects on Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude The temporary shelters and the presence of crews would result in a long-term minor, adverse effect on opportunities for solitude in the vicinity of the Sonar Cabin site. The larger number of structures might make them more visible from the river corridor than would the cabin replacement; however, the temporary structures would be lower in height and therefore might be better screened than the cabin would be. The sights and sounds coming from the shelters would be a change over the current condition. Effects would be negligible along the Stikine River corridor.

The use of boats to haul materials and personnel to and from the site to establish and take down the camp each year would be a negligible impact to opportunities for solitude. The number of boat trips and encounters would not be measurable against the regular and ongoing boat traffic on the river, although the number of trips and encounters would likely be greater than those made under Alternative 2. The use of motor boats during monitoring activities would have no effect on opportunities for solitude because it is not a change from the current condition.

Effects on Outstanding Opportunities for Primitive and Unconfined Recreation The Temporary Shelter alternative would result in a negligible adverse impact to opportunities for unconfined recreation along the Stikine River. The temporary shelters themselves would not be available to the general public; however, the public is not prohibited from using or recreating at the shelter site or the area around the shelter site. There would be no effect to opportunities for primitive recreation.

Effects on Other Features of Value There would be no effect to the other features of value quality of the Stikine-LeConte



Wilderness under this alternative. Fisheries monitoring on the Stikine River would be collected, and the data would continue to support commercial, sport, and subsistence fisheries in the U.S. and Canada.

Over the long-term, however, there could be a negligible to minor impact to this quality if the shelters and condition of the camp are such that the efficiency and safety of the crew are at all compromised. This could diminishthe amount and type of data collected to manage the fisheries, resulting in negligible adverse impacts to the culture and subsistence of Native people.

Effects on Non-Use Wilderness Values Under the Temporary Shelter alternative, some people may be aware that the undeveloped quality of wilderness character is being degraded and that there would be ongoing occupation of a currently unoccupied site. This realization could have indirect adverse impacts to certain non-use values. At the same time, awareness of activities under the Temporary Shelter alternative could also have indirect beneficial effects on non-use values, such as an awareness that managers are addressing the natural quality of wilderness character and the cultural and subsistence values of the Stikine River fisheries. Both adverse and beneficial effects to non-use values would be negligible and localized to the affected individuals.

Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects Overall, there would be negligible adverse effects of the Temporary Shelter alternative on wilderness character in the Stikine River corridor. There would be negligible degradation of the untrammeled, undeveloped, natural, opportunities for solitude, and opportunities for unconfined recreation qualities, and no effect to opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation and to other features of value. Long-term, there could be negligible effects to the natural quality and negligible to minor impacts on the other features of value quality if concerns about the efficiency and saftey of the crews were to affect the amount and type of data being collected. This could indirectly result in negligible impacts to management of the fisheries resources, and the protection of the cultural and subsistence value of the fisheries to Native people.

Cumulative Effects The effects of the Temporary Shelter alternative would be cumulative to those past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the Stikine-LeConte Wilderness and along the Stikine River corridor. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions include a variety of administrative and public actions (see Appendix A of the Environmental Assessment for a complete listing).




Those actions and activities that include motorized equipment, installations, and structures adversely affect the undeveloped and outstanding opportunities for solitude qualities of wilderness character. Although many of these activities are allowed under ANILCA and are occurring on the river adjacent to wilderness or in the air space above wilderness, the sights and sounds of these activities adversely affect wilderness character and are cumulative to each other and the Temporary Shelter alternative. Effects are concentrated in the Stikine River and LeConte Bay portions of the wilderness, with only a few of the activities occurring in or adjacent to other portions of the wilderness area (e.g., overflights, certain public use activities, border vegetation clearing). Cumulative effects are moderate along the Stikine River corridor and negligible to minor across the wilderness area as a whole. While each action that utilizes motorized equipment is temporary in duration and has a local extent, cumulatively such actions have a permanent presence in the Stikine-LeConte Wilderness during spring, summer, and fall. Cabins, tent platforms, recreation sites, and unauthorized floathouses have a permanent presence year-round, even if they are not used during the winter and spring. Vegetation clearing along the border adjacent to wilderness has minor effects on natural character and opportunities for solitude and is cumulative to the effects on the natural and opportunities for solitude qualities of wilderness character proposed by the Temporary Shelter alternative.

The Temporary Shelter alternative would result in the installation and use of three tent platforms or boonie barns (and associated infrastructure), which would be cumulative to other structures in the Stikine-LeConte Wilderness. Cumulatively, there would be a negligible degradation of the undeveloped quality of the Stikine River corridor and a negligible degradation of the wilderness as a whole. The act of hauling personnel and materials by motorboat to establish and take down the camp each year would be cumulative to other boating and recreational activities in and immediately adjacent to the wilderness area, and the work would take place during the same season as much of the other boating use. The crew and their boat would make noise that would negligibly contribute to the sights and sounds of other people and activities along the Stikine River, cumulatively degrading the undeveloped and opportunities for solitude qualities. An additional 840 square feet (0.02 acre) of land would be disturbed under this alternative, which would be a negligible, cumulative degradation of the untrammeled and natural qualities of the Stikine-LeConte Wilderness. Long-term, there could be negligible cumulative adverse effects to the other features of value quality if there were to be a reduction in the amount and type of data collected to manage the fisheries. There would be both negligible adverse and negligible beneficial cumulative effects to wilderness non-use values.

Summary of Cumulative Effects The Temporary Shelter alternative would be a cumulative, negligible adverse effect to the undeveloped and opportunities for solitude qualities of the Stikine-LeConte Wilderness, and an even less measurable, negligible cumulative effect on the untrammeled and natural qualities. Long-term, there could be negligible cumulative effects on the other features of value quality. There would be no cumulative effects to the primitive and unconfined recreation quality across the wilderness as a whole. There would be both negligible adverse and negligible beneficial cumulative effects to wilderness non-use values. Overall, the Temporary Shelter alternative would make a negligible, adverse contribution to cumulative effects on the Stikine-LeConte Wilderness.



Other Resources Recreation The Sonar Cabin site is adjacent to the Stikine River within the Stikine-LeConte Wilderness. The physical location of the Sonar Cabin site is inventoried in the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) class of Semi-Primitive Motorized (SPM). Visitors to SPM class areas can expect mostly natural-appearing landscape with a low chance of interactions with other visitors, and an expectation of moderate sights and sounds from human activity, including motorized travel.

The Stikine River is a popular destination for visitors and residents of Wrangell and Petersburg, Alaska. It is also a destination for remote nature jet boat tours servicing the tourists and cruise ship passengers visiting both towns. Along with traditional motorized travel originating from the mouth of the river, kayak and rafting trips featuring float trips down the Stikine River from Telegraph Creek in British Columbia to Wrangell are increasing in popularity.

The Forest Service maintains several public recreation facilities in the Stikine River corridor including five public rental recreation cabins, a day-use picnic area, a day-use developed hot springs site, and a variety of short paths and trails associated with these facilities. Activities associated with the river include wildlife viewing and fishing opportunities, particularly in the early spring when the hooligan run begins in April, drawing in eagles, sea lions, and harbor seals for visitors to watch. It is not uncommon to sight brown bear, black bear, and moose during spring, summer and fall in this area. The river is also popular with moose hunters in the fall.

The Sonar Cabin site itself, while available for public use, is not used by the public. There are no natural attractions there, and the cabin, when it was present, was difficult to see by boaters on the river.

Alternative 1 – No Action Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Under the No-action Alternative, a replacement cabin would not be built at the Sonar Cabin site, and all improvements would be removed. The removal of the improvements would not have an effect on the recreation character, ROS, or opportunities at the Sonar Cabin site. The removal would have a negligible positive effect on those visitors expecting a wilderness experience. The site does not have any physical recreation attributes to attract visitors. Noise and human disturbance already exist on the Stikine River and this will continue. ADF&G’s use of Forest Service public recreation cabins displaces visitors when such use occurs.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action, and Alternative 3 Direct and Indirect Effects The replacement of sheltering facilities, whether it is a cabin (as in Alternative 2, the proposed action), or tent platforms (as in Alternative 3) at the existing location to shelter fisheries monitoring crews would not change the inherent character of the site which has been in place since 1983. The site does not have any physical attributes to attract visitors. Implementing either Alternative 2 or Alternative 3 is not expected to change the existing or future recreation opportunities at the site or along the Stikine River.



ADF&G crews would continue to use the site, as they have since 1983. Neither the cabin replacement nor use of temporary structures such as tent platforms is expected to increase this use. There is regular motorized boat traffic occurring on the river. The river will continue to have motorized use, but this project would not result in any notable increase in river traffic. Noise and human disturbance already exist on the Stikine River.

Cumulative Effects Because all action alternatives would have only negligible effects to recreation use, there would be negligible cumulative effects from the other activities listed in Appendix A.

Wildlife There are no threatened and endangered wildlife species located in the wilderness area. The proposed project area is about 12 miles from saltwater up the Stikine River, so no marine habitat for humpback whales would be affected at the project location. Any increase in boat traffic through the transportation of materials between Wrangell or Petersburg and the Stikine River would be negligible, because the volume of boat traffic to and from the project area is not expected to be distinguishable from existing conditions, and because all permitted watercraft are required to follow MMPA regulations and stay at least 100 yards from any marine mammal. The Sonar Cabin project area (about 0.3 acre) and surrounding forest provides potential habitat for 12 of the 13 (no habitat in the project area for mountain goats) Tongass National Forest wildlife and fish management indicator species (MIS) as well as for one of the Forest’s sensitive species, the Queen Charlotte goshawk. All of these species may be present in or near the project area. However, there are currently no known raptor nests, including goshawk or bald eagle nests, within 1/2 mile of the cabin site.

Alternative 1 – No Action Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Under the No-action Alternative, a replacement cabin would not be built at the Sonar Cabin site. All improvements would be removed and any disturbed area would be rehabilitated. There would be no effect to wildlife, including MIS or sensitive species at the Sonar Cabin site.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects Under the Proposed Action, the cabin would be replaced in the same location and ADF&G crews would continue to use the site. The effects from the cabin and use by ADF&G to wildlife would continue as they have since 1983. The cabin replacement is not expected to result in any increase in use. Noise and human disturbance already exist on the Stikine River. There would be a limited period of time during construction where there would be activity and construction noise but any disturbance effects from construction are expected to be short term and have negligible effect on any wildlife species. No known raptor nests would be affected through project activities.

The replacement of the Sonar Cabin would occur on the same footprint of disturbance as the original cabin so there would be no additional removal of any productive old-growth wildlife habitat.



Primary effects associated with this project would be noise disturbance to MIS species in the immediate vicinity of the cabin and the disturbance of some vegetation from trampling during construction. There could be a short-term increase in noise disturbance to MIS species but all effects are expected to be negligible because of the project’s short duration and small footprint on the landscape. The increased noise through project implementation would not measurably affect wildlife that frequent this area because noise and human disturbance already exist from regular motorized boat traffic and recreation use on the river.

No productive old growth habitat that is essential to most MIS and sensitive species would be impacted. The impact to the vegetation would not negatively impact any MIS or sensitive species because of the limited size of the replacement cabin footprint and the limited amount of vegetation affected, which would amount to much less than 1 percent of total available habitat in this area. Therefore, there would be negligible direct or indirect effects to any MIS or sensitive species, because the proposed activities would be short-term and would not alter productive old growth habitat.

Implementation of the Proposed Action would have “no effect” on the endangered humpback whale, because all activities are upland and away from the marine environment, and any associated boat traffic would not have effects because it is not different from the baseline conditions.

This alternative would have “no impact” on any sensitive species listed by Region 10 because no Queen Charlotte goshawks have been documented using the proposed project area and project activities would not alter any potential productive old growth habitat.

Cumulative Effects Because the Proposed Action would have only negligible, short-term effects to MIS and sensitive species or their habitat, there would be negligible cumulative effects from the other activities listed in Appendix A.

Alternative 3 Direct and Indirect Effects Under this alternative, the installation of three temporary shelters and 200 feet of additional boardwalk at the Sonar site project area would disturb an estimated additional 840 square feet of potential brush and forb wildlife habitat. Also, Alternative 3 has the potential to create a noise disturbance. Therefore, Alternative 3 would have negligible direct or indirect effects on wildlife because the disturbance footprint is limited to less than an acre, and use patterns will not substantially change at this location.

Cumulative Effects Because there would be negligible direct/indirect effects to wildlife species, therefore there would be negligible cumulative effects when combined with past, present or reasonable foreseeable future activities with the implementation of this project.

Botany Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive Plants In Alaska, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists one plant species as endangered, Polystichum aleuticum C. Christesen, known from Adak Island only. No plants federally



listed or proposed by the USFWS are known or suspected to occur in the Alaska Region; therefore, a biological assessment (BA) was not necessary.

A biological evaluation (BE) was completed (Johnson 2015a) to consider any effects of the Proposed Action on the Regional Forester’s designated sensitive species list. Habitat included western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla)-Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) old growth, with a dense Devil’s club (Oplopanax horridus)-blueberry (Vaccinium alaskense) shrub layer surrounding the existing site. Shifting the position of the cabin will create little additional disturbance to the surrounding vegetation. No plant species of concern were found during surveys of the project area; hence the determination of “no impact” on sensitive plants.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects – All Alternatives Since there are no known R10 sensitive plant species in the project area there will be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to those species under any alternative.

Invasive Plants Executive Order 13112 requires federal agencies in part: 1) to evaluate whether the proposed activities will affect the status of invasive species; 2) to not carry out activities that promote the introduction or spread of invasive species unless it has been determined that the benefits of such action outweigh the potential harm caused by invasive species; and 3) that all feasible and prudent measures to minimize risk of harm will be taken in conjunction with the actions.

An invasive plant risk assessment was completed for this project. Only one invasive plant, annual bluegrass (Poa annua), was found within the project area along the river cut bank. This species is ranked 46 (weakly invasive) by the Alaska Conservation Center for Science (Carlson et al. 2008). This plant could spread along the cut bank or colonize the forest edge; however, it is not as likely to establish in the shaded forest canopy by the cabin site. Due to the Wilderness land use designation, this species is given consideration in this analysis even though it is considered weakly invasive.

Alternative 1 – No Action Direct and Indirect Effects Under the No-action Alternative, a replacement cabin would not be built at the Sonar Cabin site. All improvements would be removed and any disturbed areas would be rehabilitated. The disturbance footprint would be unchanged; however, removal of the remaining portions of the cabin, outhouse, boardwalk and material that has been staged at the site for many years would expose patches of mineral soil and/or patches of forest floor without vegetation. As an indirect effect, the forest community would slowly revert back to its original condition, decreasing the risk of invasive plant establishment.

Cumulative Effects The cumulative contribution of the activities listed in Appendix A to the spread of invasive plants within the Stikine-LeConte Wilderness as a result of this project is negligible. Due to the disturbance involved with removing all materials, there is a low risk for transport of annual bluegrass or other invasive plant species into the forested community. The shady habitat will limit establishment of most invasive species, and the absence of human activity would remove the long-term impacts to the site. Following project design features would minimize the distribution of invasive plant species.



Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects Work at the site could transport plant propagules from the river bank to the forest edge in boot tread or in equipment. Proposed activities are unlikely to create any indirect effects as the disturbance footprint and use patterns would not change.

Cumulative Effects As to cumulative effects from activities listed in Appendix A, the proposed project would have a negligible contribution to the spread of annual bluegrass or the introduction of other species. The disturbance footprint is unchanged with this proposed project, nor would the project alter current use patterns of the site. The proposed project would not change or alter current management, recreational or subsistence uses of the river corridor that might contribute to the spread of invasive plants. Moreover, annual bluegrass does occur at developed sites along the river, so the Sonar site is not an isolated occurrence.

Alternative 3 Direct and Indirect Effects Under this alternative, the installation of three temporary shelters and about 200 feet of additional boardwalk at the Sonar site would disturb an additional estimated 840 square feet of vegetation within the Sonar site from the existing condition. Work at the site could transport plant propagules from the river bank to the forest edge in boot tread or in equipment. Proposed activities would only create negligible direct or indirect effects as the disturbance footprint is limited and use patterns will not substantially change.

Cumulative Effects As to cumulative effects from activities listed in Appendix A, the proposed project would have a negligible contribution to the spread of annual bluegrass or the introduction of other species. The disturbance footprint is unchanged with this proposed project, nor would the project alter current use patterns of the site. The proposed project would not change or alter current management, recreational or subsistence uses of the river corridor that might contribute to the spread of invasive plants. Moreover, annual bluegrass does occur at developed sites along the river, so the Sonar site is not an isolated occurrence.

Aquatics The 0.3 acre Sonar site is located on the north bank of the Stikine River within the riparian zone. There are no other streams within the site. The use of the Sonar Cabin and associated improvements since 1983 has caused minimal disturbance to the riparian zone. No trees have been removed. A minor amount of brush and forbs have been eliminated from the footprint of the cabin, outhouse, and boardwalk.

Alternative 1 – No Action Direct and Indirect Effects Under the No-action Alternative, a replacement cabin would not be built at the Sonar Cabin site. All improvements would be removed and any disturbed areas would be rehabilitated. The disturbance footprint would be unchanged; however, removal of the remaining portions of the cabin, outhouse, boardwalk and material that has been staged at the site for many years would expose patches of mineral soil and/or patches of forest floor without vegetation. As an indirect



effect, the vegetation would slowly revert back to its original condition within the riparian zone. There would be essentially no effect to aquatic resources because of the small scale of vegetation and soil disturbance. Long-term, there could be adverse negligible effects on the recreational fishery if sheltering inefficiencies result in a reduction in the quality and/or quantity of data collected. This in turn could cause the fisheries to be managed more conservatively.

Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects of the activities listed in Appendix A to the aquatic habitats or fish habitat within the Stikine-LeConte Wilderness as a result of this project is negligible.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects Replacement of the Sonar Cabin would not cause any additional alteration of stream or riparian fish habitat beyond the existing condition. As a result, construction activities would have no direct or indirect effects on aquatic resources in the area. There would be no short-term or long-term effect on the recreational fishery.

Cumulative Effects Since this alternative would have no effects on aquatic resources in the area, there would be no cumulative effects of this alternative and the activities listed in Appendix A to the aquatic habitats or fish habitat within the Stikine-LeConte Wilderness.

Alternative 3 Direct and Indirect Effects Under this alternative, the installation of three temporary shelters and the additional disturbance of about 200 square feet of vegetation within the riparian zone would have negligible direct or indirect effects on aquatic resources in the area. Long-term, there could be negligible adverse effects on the recreational fishery if sheltering inefficiencies result in a reduction in the quality and/or quantity of data collected. This in turn could cause the fisheries to be managed more conservatively.

Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects of this alternative and the activities listed in Appendix A to the aquatic habitats or fish habitat within the Stikine-LeConte Wilderness as a result of this alternative is negligible.

Subsistence Uses The Federal government has the authority for the subsistence management of fish and wildlife on Federal public lands and waters because the State of Alaska does not provide a rural subsistence priority to the access of resources through its Constitution. The fisheries information gathered by ADF&G fish monitoring crews provides the Federal government with critical information to manage the fisheries resources and the Federal subsistence salmon fishery on the Stikine River for the rural communities of Wrangell, Meyers Chuck, and Petersburg, who rely on these subsistence resources.

Section 810 of ANILCA requires a federal agency having jurisdiction over public lands in Alaska to analyze the potential effects of proposed land use activities on subsistence uses and



needs, and to include a distinct finding on whether the Proposed Action may significantly restrict subsistence uses. Subsistence analysis usually focuses on three factors relating to fish and wildlife resources. These are: 1) abundance and distribution of the resource; 2) access to the resource; and 3) competition for the resource. Consistent with Section 810 of ANILCA, the potential effects of each alternative was evaluated for effects on subsistence opportunities and resources.

Alternative 1 – No Action Direct and Indirect Effects There would be no change in access to and competition for subsistence resources under the No-action Alternative. This alternative may impact the ability to efficiently monitor the fisheries resource. If this inefficiency results in a reduction in the quantity and/or quality of data, fisheries may be managed more conservatively. Long-term, the indirect effects of the No-action alternative could be minor.

Cumulative Effects Overall, there would be negligible incremental cumulative effects on the subsistence fishery when combined with the other activities occurring in the Stikine River corridor.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects There would be no change in abundance and distribution of, access to and competition for subsistence resources under Alternative 2, therefore this alternative would not result in a restriction of subsistence uses. The replacement of the Sonar Cabin at this site would have no direct or indirect effect to subsistence plant gathering, fishing, or hunting. Cumulative Effects Since no direct or indirect effects are expected, there would be no cumulative effects to subsistence activities under either Alternative 2.

Alternative 3 Direct and Indirect Effects There would be no change in access to and competition for subsistence resources under Alternative 3. The use of temporary shelters at this site would have no direct or indirect effect to subsistence plant gathering, fishing, or hunting. However, long-term, there could be adverse negligible effects on management of the subsistence fishery if reduced safety and efficiency of the monitoring crews result in a reduction in the quality and/or quantity of data collected. This could cause the fisheries to be managed more conservatively.

Cumulative Effects Overall, there would be negligible incremental cumulative effects on the subsistence fishery when combined with the other activities occurring in the Stikine River corridor.

Cultural Resources The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires the agency to consider the effects of its actions on historic properties that are eligible or listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and to consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer, Indian Tribes, and interested stakeholders. The National Environmental Policy Act requires Federal agencies to



consider effects of their actions on cultural resources which include historic and prehistoric sites regardless of eligibility status to the NRHP.

The Section 106 implementing regulations of the NHPA is a review process that considers historic preservation concerns with the needs of federal actions. Research, consultation and cultural resource survey are undertaken to identify properties and resources that may be affected by project activities.

Ground-disturbing activities have the potential to affect cultural resources should any exist in the project area of potential effect (APE). A Forest Service archaeologist reviewed the Tongass National Forest Sites Database, cultural resource files and atlases, the Forest Service Cultural Sites and Survey GIS data layers, the Office of History and Archaeology Integrated Business Suite, and the Alaska Land Records federal plats for information on previous work or known historic properties in the APE. There are no known sites in the APE. On June 11, 2015, Forest Service archaeologists surveyed the APE using the Secretary of Interior standard procedures for the identification of historic properties. We did not discover any cultural resources. The Forest Service has made a determination of No Historic Properties Affected with project implementation. We have met our obligations using modified procedures of the 36 CFR 800 review process as defined in our Programmatic Agreement (2010).

Alternative 1 – No Action Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects The No-action Alternative would not result in direct/indirect or cumulative effects to cultural resources because no historic properties or cultural resources are known to exist in the project area.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action, and Alternative 3 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects No historic properties or cultural resources are known to exist in the project area, eliminating the potential for direct, indirect, or cumulative effects. In the unlikely event that a cultural resource be discovered under implementation of either Alternative 2 or Alternative 3, work in the area will cease until a Forest Service archaeologist has the opportunity to assess the situation and begin the Section 106 process if necessary.

Other Considerations Economics Alternative 1 - No Action The removal of all improvements, and rehabilitation of the Sonar Site is estimated to cost $5,000 in crew and transportation costs (Cost estimates provided by ADF&G.)

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action The cost of implementing the Proposed Action is estimated at $73,000 in the first year. The cabin replacement cost would occur in the first year and the cabin would have an estimated design life of 30 years with only minor maintenance expected over that time. Transporting cabin materials and personnel would only occur in the first year. (Cost estimates provided by ADF&G.)



Alternative 3 The cost of implementing the Proposed Action is estimated at $14,000 per year in the first year. However, the annual transport and set up costs would occur every year into the future. The tent camp components would need to be replaced regularly because they are not constructed of durable materials. Personnel would require more time on site before and after the season to set up and take down the temporary structures. ADF&G also anticipates additional costs from securing the camp from wildlife. Temporary structures would require more fossil fuel to heat because a heat source would be necessary in each structure.

Agencies and Persons Consulted The Forest Service consulted with individuals, Federal, State, and local agencies, and tribes in the development of this environmental assessment. Other agencies, entities, and individuals contacted include the following:

• Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Habitat, Juneau, Alaska • Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Sport Fish Division, Douglas, Alaska • Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Anchorage,

Alaska • Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Petersburg,

Alaska • Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Wrangell Advisory Committee, Wrangell,

Alaska • Alaska State Historic Preservation Office • Dale Kelly, Alaska Trollers Association, Juneau, Alaska • David Rak, Wrangell, Alaska • Dr. John Clark, Pacific Salmon Treaty Specialist, Helena, Montana • Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, Eugene, Oregon • Mayor David Jack, City and Borough of Wrangell, Wrangell, Alaska • Rodney Brown, Transboundary Panel Pacific Salmon Commission, Wrangell, Alaska • Sierra Club, Tongass Group • Sitka Conservation Society, Sitka, Alaska • Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, Juneau, Alaska • Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association, Ketchikan, Alaska • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • Wilderness Watch, Missoula, Montana • Wrangell Conservation Council, Wrangell, Alaska • Wrangell Cooperative Association, Wrangell, Alaska

Project Record Additional documents, including more-detailed analysis of project area resources, may be found in the project planning record available on CD at the Wrangell Ranger District Office in Wrangell, Alaska. The original project record resides on a centralized agency server. Other reference documents such as the Forest Plan are also available at the Wrangell office.



Opportunity to Review and Comment Public comments on the project proposal were solicited on the June 2017 EA. A legal notice initiating a 30-day comment period on the EA was published in the Juneau Empire and the Alaska Dispatch News, the newspapers of record on June 20, 2017, as well as courtesy notices published in the Ketchikan Daily News, the Wrangell Sentinel, and the Petersburg Pilot on June 22, 2017. We received ten letters and emails commenting on the proposal. Those comments, and Forest Service responses, are included in the project record.

After the draft Decision Notice is made available to the public, a legal notice announcing the objection period for this project will be published in the Juneau Empire and the Alaska Dispatch News. Objections will be accepted only from those who have previously submitted specific written comments regarding the proposed project during scoping or other designated opportunity for public comment in accordance with 36 CFR 218.5(a). Issues raised in objections must be based on previously submitted, timely, specific written comments regarding the proposed project unless based on information arising after designated comment opportunities.

Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) Ken Post – IDT Leader Dee Galla - Recreation Specialist Sharon Seim – Wilderness Martin Hutten – Ecology and Botany Jane Smith - Cultural Resources Specialist Joe Delabrue - Wildlife Biologist Joni Johnson – Botany Specialist Sandy Powers – Writer-Editor

Sonar Cabin Replacement Environmental Assessment A-1

Appendix A Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects Occurring within the Stikine-LeConte Wilderness

Wilderness area = 448,926 acres

Sonar site area = 0.3 acre

Within the 0.3 acre Sonar site:

No projects or activities except those associated with the current fisheries monitoring.

Within the Stikine Wilderness:

Future:

• Forest Service cabins, recreation sites, and authorized private and agency cabins have regular annual maintenance activities.

• In 2018: Repairs and deck of the outdoor hot tub is planned for replacement

• 2017/2018: Decommissioning of Binkley Slough Public Recreation Cabin

Past and current:

• AT&T Horn Cliff communication site with a microwave reflector about the size of a drive-in movie screen

• Forest Service communication site on Elbow Mountain

• Tent platform sites – 19 including one ADF&G tent platform at the Kakwan Cabin site

• Historic structures – 3

• Public recreation cabins – 12 total: 11 active and one scheduled for decommissioning

• Designated public recreation sites – 2: Twin Lakes and Shakes Hot Tubs

• Special Use Cabins private – 12

• Special Use Cabins permitted to other agencies – 4: ADF&G Sonar cabin, ADF&G Kakwan Cabin, ADF&G Dry Island Cabin, US Geological Service River Gage cabin. (The USFS Wilderness Cabin (administrative use) is permitted to ADF&G until a decision is made on the Sonar Cabin).

• Forest Service cabins, recreation sites, and authorized private and agency cabins have regular annual maintenance activities.

• Unauthorized floathouses – 20 in 2017

Permitted monitoring:

• Alaska Herpetological Society amphibian monitoring (boat access)


A-2 Sonar Cabin Replacement Environmental Assessment

• ADF&G Stikine River fisheries monitoring (boat access)

• ADF&G Andrews Creek fisheries monitoring (boat access and helicopter access)

• USGS Stikine River gage monitoring (boat access summer/helicopter access winter)

• Petersburg High School and University of Alaska LeConte Glacier monitoring (helicopter access)

• Wrangell High School Chief Shakes Glacier monitoring (boat access)

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects Occurring Immediately Adjacent to the Stikine-LeConte Wilderness

• 2017/2018: United States/Canada border vegetation clearing approximately 200 foot wide strip. This clearing has occurred periodically in the past and is anticipated in the future.

• Private inholding development on Farm Island, Camp Island, and Sergief Island.

• Federally managed subsistence fishery in the Stikine River: 136 subsistence fishing permits issued in 2016. This is expected to remain essentially the same into the future.

Boat traffic on the Stikine River:

• Stikine River is a navigable international river.

• There is no quantitative information available on the amount of motorized and non-motorized boat traffic but the motorized traffic is the primary method of travel.

• The motorized boat traffic is from residents on private property, permitted private cabin users, recreationists, sport and subsistence fisherman, hunters, law enforcement offices, Forest Service employees, and charter boats.

• There is the transport of commercial fish taken in the Canadian commercial fisheries to Wrangell on a motorized river boat regularly during fishing season.

• Regular motorized boat traffic occurs on the river from breakup in the spring to freeze up in the late fall, primarily by jet boats, but also skiffs and other shallow draft boats, and a few hovercraft (estimated six or less). There is a very active moose hunt on the river in the fall with associated boat traffic.

• The river is a favorite destination for local residents from Wrangell and Petersburg.

• The river is very popular with visitors and cruise ship passengers hiring charter jet boats to do sightseeing trips on the river up to the border. There are also some long distance charters on the river between Wrangell and the town of Telegraph Creek, British Columbia.

• Paddle craft and float craft coming down the river. The US/Canadian border is a popular starting location to float down to Wrangell. Another popular long distance floating trip is putting in the river at Telegraph Creek, British Columbia and floating down to Wrangell.


Sonar Cabin Replacement Environmental Assessment A-3

• A minor amount of motorized snow machine use occurs on the river in winter after freeze-up.

• There are regular flightseeing trips taking visitors from Petersburg or Wrangell in a fixed wing airplane over the wilderness during the tourist season.

Sixteen outfitter guide companies are permitted in the Wilderness. Of these, five have a primary purpose of hunting or fishing, and eleven have a primary purpose of remote nature tours.


A-4 Sonar Cabin Replacement Environmental Assessment

This page left blank

Federal Recycling Program Printed on Recycled Paper

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected].

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

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

mailto:[email protected]

Documents

Sonar Cabin Replacementa123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...United States Department of Agriculture Sonar Cabin Replacement Environmental Assessment Forest Service Alaska