| Concern # |
Concern |
Priority |
Status |
| 04 - 1 |
Concern has been expressed that there may be inconsistent interpretation and application of the Forest Plan. |
Very High |
In 2005, Tongass SO Planning sponsored a training session in Ketchikan, Alaska for employees engaged in project-level NEPA planning. |
| 04 - 2 |
Concern has been expressed that new or updated information from projects are not being incorporated into the corporate library, especially GIS. (See also, concern related to storage and maintenance of Forest Plan related corporate information. [04-6]) |
Very High |
Involved coordinating with the appropriate Forest Service resource staffs and GIS staff to obtain the best available information for each area of the Forest, so that these can be appropriately considered and incorporated for the Forest Plan Amendment. |
| 04 - 3 |
Concern has been expressed that marten and goshawk standards and guidelines may not be applied consistently across the Forest. |
Very High |
Application of these standards and guides were explained in the Forest Plan Refresher Training [04-01]; These are currently being addressed in the Forest Plan Amendment. |
| 04 - 4 |
Concern has been expressed that more emphasis may be placed on wildlife value of volume classes, even though volume classes are statistically invalid for some uses. |
Very High |
Assigned, addressed in Forest Plan Amendment. |
| 04 - 5 |
Concern has been expressed that the issue based Forest Plan Monitoring Plan may not be consistent with the Forest Service Inventory and Monitoring Institute (IMI) systems framework. |
Very High |
Assigned, addressed in Forest Plan Amendment. |
| 04 - 13 |
Concern has been expressed that karst standards and guidelines are not being applied consistently across the Forest. |
High |
Addressing in Forest Plan Amendment. See [04-01], After Record of Decision is signed for the Forest Plan Amendment, a new Forest Plan implementation training program will be initiated. |
| 04 - 6 |
Concern has been expressed that changes, updates, and amendments to the Forest Plan Implementation policy, procedures, interpretations, formal plan reviews, action plan follow-up, etc.are not in one place. |
Very High |
See [04-2], After the Record of Decision is signed for the Forest Plan Amendment, a new Forest Plan Implementation training program will be initiated. Anticipate updated intranet and internet sites after Forest Plan Amendment. |
| 04 - 7 |
Concern has been expressed that wildlife models may not be applied consistently across the Forest. |
High |
Addressed in the Forest Plan Amendment. See also [04-01], After the Record of Decision is signed for the Forest Plan Amendment, a new Forest Plan implementation training program will be initiated. |
| 04 - 8 |
Concern has been expressed that the effects of marten and goshawk standards and guidelines may not have been addressed adequately in calculating the ASQ. |
High |
Application of these standards and guides were explained in the Forest Plan Refresher Training [04-01]; These are currently being addressed in the Forest Plan Amendment. |
| 04 - 9 |
Concern has been expressed that the marten and goshawk habitat structural requirements in the standards and guidelines may not be consistent with current science. |
High |
Assigned, addressed in Forest Plan Amendment. |
| 04 - 10 |
Concern has been expressed that the FORPLAN model used in the Forest Plan may be outdated and it may need to be replaced. |
High |
This is being addressed in the Forest Plan Amendment. |
| 04 - 11 |
Concern has been expressed with the silvicultural consequences of partial harvest prescriptions. |
High |
Pending |
| 04 - 12 |
Concern has been expressed that TES species survey or inventory protocols may not be applied consistently across the Forest. |
High |
Addressing in Forest Plan Amendment. See [04-01], After Record of Decision is signed for the Forest Plan Amendment, a new Forest Plan implementation training program will be initiated. |
| 04 - 14 |
Concern has been expressed that there is inconsistent tracking of retention areas in timber harvest units. |
High |
Progress towards a consistent NEPA cleared layer compatible with FACTS (Forest Service Activities Tracking System) |
| 04 - 15 |
Concern has been expressed that more total acres are being added to Old-growth Habitat Reserves (OGR's), while suitable acres are decreasing. |
High |
Addressed in the Forest Plan Amendment. |
| 04 - 16 |
Concern has been expressed that the 5 year evaluation of the conservation strategy included in the 1997 Forest Plan has not been conducted. |
High |
The Conservation Strategy Review Workshop was conducted April 10-14, 2006 at the Ted Ferry Civic Center in Ketchikan, Alaska. This was the primary event used to conduct the review of the Strategy. See http://tongass-constratreview.net/ |
| 04 - 17 |
Concern has been expressed that there is not an OGR, especially small OGR, mapping and tracking system. |
High |
Addressed in Forest Plan Amendment. |
| 04 - 18 |
Concern has been expressed that riparian buffers may not be wind firm. |
High |
Addressed in Forest Plan Amendment. |
| 04 - 19 |
Concern has been expressed that the current list of wildlife Management Indicator Species (MIS) may not be representative of Forest Plan needs, or that all species are capable of being monitored to meet NFMA requirements. |
Very High |
Assigned |
| 04 - 20 |
Concern has been expressed that there is not a procedure for incorporating road maintenance needs into project area planning so we may be missing opportunities to inventory and implement such needs during the time we're out there. |
High |
Assigned, addressed in Forest Plan Amendment. |
| 04 - 21 |
Concern has been expressed that FISH standards and guideline FISH112, IV, G, for fish passage at road crossings, may not be consistent with current science and policy. |
High |
The Conservation Strategy Review Workshop was conducted April 10-14, 2006 at the Ted Ferry Civic Center in Ketchikan, Alaska. This was the primary event used to conduct the review of the Strategy. See http://tongass-constratreview.net/ |
| 04 - 22 |
Concern has been expressed that National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents are not being completed in the most efficient way, which can slow the implementation of Forest Plan projects. |
High |
Done, Comprehensive review process in place and templates available for use by Interdisciplinary Teams. Training offered for information regarding pre-NEPA project planning and description of value of developing project study plans. |
| 04 - 23 |
Concern has been expressed that some of the assumptions used for managing the wildlife resource have changed since the Forest Plan was approved in 1997, especially as they relate to deer and subsistence resource management. |
High |
Assigned, addressed in Forest Plan Amendment. |
| 04 - 24 |
Concern has been expressed that off road vehicles (ORV's) were not specifically addressed in the Forest Plan. |
High |
Assigned, addressed in Forest Plan Amendment. |
| 04 - 25 |
Concern has been expressed that stream buffers which are required on all Class III streams by the Forest Plan may not be the best management approach on all such streams. |
High |
Assigned, addressed in Forest Plan Amendment. |
| 04 - 26 |
Concern has been expressed that recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) was not well addressed in the Forest Plan, i.e., no ROS maps were published in the Final EIS. |
High |
Assigned, addressed in Forest Plan Amendment. |
| 04 - 27 |
Concern has been expressed that the process for determining the need for proposed commercial enterprises, such as outfitter and guide operations, in Wilderness may be applied inconsistently across the Forest. |
Moderate |
Assigned, addressed in Forest Plan Amendment. |
| 04 - 28 |
Concern has been expressed that the Forest Monitoring Plan may not be specific enough to provide useful information in Congressionally designated Wilderness. |
Moderate |
Assigned, addressed in Forest Plan Amendment. |
| 04 - 29 |
Concern has been expressed that the Operations and Maintenance Plan and Monitoring Plan for the Thorne Bay Landfills are not included in the Forest Plan Monitoring Plan. |
High |
In progress. |
| 04 - 30 |
Concern has been expressed that Ecological Subsections have not been incorporated in the Forest Plan as an analytical tool. |
Moderate |
Assigned, addressed in Forest Plan Amendment. |
| 04 - 31 |
Concern has been expressed that the application of watershed analysis and landscape analysis at a watershed scale may not be applied consistently, or may be duplicative. |
Moderate |
In 2005, Tongass SO Planning sponsored a training session in Ketchikan, Alaska for employees engaged in project-level NEPA planning. |
| 04 - 32 |
Concern has been expressed that Forest Plan may not adequately address Invasive species, including plants. |
High |
Assigned, addressed in Forest Plan Amendment. |
| 04 - 33 |
Concern has been expressed that native plant species are not being specified consistently across the Forest for soil stabilization and other re-vegetation projects consistently across the Forest. |
Moderate |
Assigned, addressed in Forest Plan Amendment. |
| 04 - 34 |
Concern has been expressed that there are not Standards and Guidelines for management of rare plant populations. |
Moderate |
Assigned, addressed in Forest Plan Amendment. |
| 04 - 35 |
Concern has been expressed with 16% of VCU representation for small OGR's and how to calculate the 16% (does it include non-NFS lands?). |
Moderate |
Addressed in Forest Plan Refresher Training see [04-01]. |
| 04 - 36 |
Concern has been expressed that when the Forest acquires lands from other entities, those new lands do not have an official LUD designation. |
Moderate |
Assigned, addressed in Forest Plan Amendment. |
| 04 - 37 |
Concern has been expressed that cutthroat trout is not listed in Chapter 6 of the Forest Plan, as a Management Indicator Species and no sampling methods are provided. |
Moderate |
Assigned, addressed in Forest Plan Amendment. |
| 04 - 38 |
Concern has been expressed that the effects of National roadless policies have not been addressed relative to ASQ. |
Low |
Pending assignment, base on recent court rulings. |
| 04 - 39 |
Concern has been expressed that higher volume stands are being harvested in a higher proportion than they are represented across the landscape. |
Low |
In progress. |
| 04 - 40 |
Concern has been expressed that cedar harvest may be disproportionate. |
Low |
In progress. |
| 04 - 41 |
Concern has been expressed that goshawk Standards and Guidelines which provide for nest protection during project planning may not be applicable once a project is under permit or contract. |
Low |
In progress. |
| 04 - 42 |
Concern has been expressed with the cost and operability of non-clearcut timber harvest prescriptions. |
High |
Incorporate this into the strategy on goshawk and marten relative to the ASQ [04-08], and consistent application of the goshawk and marten S&G's [04-03] |
| 04 - 43 |
Concern has been expressed with road projects and timber harvest on less stable and steeper slopes. |
Low |
In 2005, Tongass SO Planning sponsored a training session in Ketchikan, Alaska for employees engaged in project-level NEPA planning. |
| 04 - 44 |
Concern has been expressed that Class IV streams may not be adequately protected. |
Low |
In 2005, Tongass SO Planning sponsored a training session in Ketchikan, Alaska for employees engaged in project-level NEPA planning. |
| 04 - 45 |
Concerns have been expressed that there are no Standards and Guidelines for riparian thinning and monitoring. |
Low |
Assigned, addressed in Forest Plan Amendment. |
| 04 - 46 |
Concern has been expressed that elk and their local resource disturbance may not be monitored adequately. |
Low |
|
| 04 - 47 |
Concern has been expressed that Forest Plan direction is not in one place for key subjects (i.e. deer winter range, invasive species, et al.). |
Low |
In 2005, Tongass SO Planning sponsored a training session in Ketchikan, Alaska for employees engaged in project-level NEPA planning. Assigned, addressed in Forest Plan Amendment. |
| 04 - 48 |
Concern has been expressed that the Forest Plan does not explicitly address energy development and water development on the Tongass. |
Low |
Pending assignment. |
| 04 - 49 |
Concern has been expressed that the Forest Plan may not adequately address protection of Class A and B public water supplies, including unclassified private water supplies. |
Moderate |
Originally identified in Forest Environmental Management System (status: on hold) |
| 04 - 50 |
Concern has been expressed that air quality standards may be exceeded by the particulate emissions from smokestacks of cruise ships traveling within the Tongass NF. |
Low |
Pending assignment. |
| 04 - 51 |
Concern has been expressed by some that there may not be a consistent methodology to evaluate the effect(s) of proposed actions as required by ANILCA Section 810. |
Low |
|
| 04 - 52 |
Concern has been expressed that all of the potential transportation and utility corridors included in the recent Southeast Conference maps and State of Alaska plans are not included on the Forest Plan LUD map as TUS corridors. |
Low to Moderate |
Assigned, considered in the Forest Plan Amendment. |
| 04 - 53 |
Concern has been expressed that the various Forest Plan descriptors for timber volume categories, wildlife related old growth habitat classifications, and other vegetative or ecological classifications may be confusing or lead to misinterpretation of present and past conditions on the Tongass National Forest. |
|
Assigned, considered in the Forest Plan Amendment. |
| 08 - 54 |
Concern has been expressed that riparian buffers may not be wind firm. |
High |
To be assigned. |
| 05-1 |
|
|
|
