United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest 

Service 

Tongass National 

Forest 

R10-MB-743a 

March 2012 

Prince of Wales 

Outfitter and Guide 

Management Plan 

Environmental Assessment 

Tongass National Forest 

Craig and Thorne Bay Ranger Districts 

Craig and Thorne Bay, Alaska
Cover Photo: Reading an interpretive sign on Beaver Falls Trail 

Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA - Key Acronyms and 

Other Terms 

ACMP Alaska Coastal Management Plan LUD Land Use Designation 

ADF&G 

Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game NAGPRA 

Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation Act 

AIRFA 

American Indian Religious 

Freedom Act NEPA 

National Environmental Policy 

Act 

ANCSA 

Alaska Native Claims Settlement 

Act NFS National Forest System 

ANILCA 

Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act NHPA 

National Historic Preservation 

Act 

BMP Best Management Practices NMFS 

National Marine Fisheries 

Service 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality NOAA 

National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations ROS Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum 

DN Decision Notice SD Service Day 

EA Environmental Assessment SHPO State Historic Preservation 

Officer 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement SOPA Schedule of Proposed Actions 

ESA Endangered Species Act SUA Special Use Authorization 

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact T&E Threatened and Endangered 

FSH Forest Service Handbook Forest 

Plan 

Tongass Land and Resource 

Management Plan 

FSM Forest Service Manual TTRA Tongass Timber Reform Act 

IDT Interdisciplinary Team USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service 

KMRD Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger 

District VCU Value Comparison Unit 

LNT Leave No Trace WA Wilderness Area 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs 

and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where 

applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual 

orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an 

individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited 

bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means 

for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should 

contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 

1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-

3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and 

employer. 

Printed on 

Recycled 

Paper 

This page left blank intentionally. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Index – Page i 

Table of Contents 

Chapter 1, Purpose and Need ...................................................... 1

Document Structure ....................................................................................................................................... 1

Project Area Description ............................................................................................................................... 1

Background ..................................................................................................................................................... 3

Purpose and Need for Action ........................................................................................................................ 5

Summary of the Proposed Action ................................................................................................................ 6

Outfitter and Guide Permit Conditions ........................................................................................................ 7

Management Direction .................................................................................................................................. 8

Decision Framework ...................................................................................................................................... 8

Public Involvement ........................................................................................................................................ 9

Issues .............................................................................................................................................................. 10

Permits, Licenses, and Certifications ......................................................................................................... 12

Project Record .............................................................................................................................................. 12

Other Related Efforts ................................................................................................................................... 13

Chapter 2, Alternatives, including the Proposed Action ......... 15

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 15

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis ........................................................... 15

Elements and Assumptions Common to All Alternatives ....................................................................... 15

Project Elements Common to All Alternatives ............................................................... 15

Project Assumptions Common to All Alternatives ......................................................... 16

Alternative Descriptions .............................................................................................................................. 17

Elements Common to All Action Alternatives ......................................................................................... 19

Project Design and Mitigation Measure .................................................................................................... 20

Adaptive Management ................................................................................................................................ 20

Criteria for Adjusting Guided Use .................................................................................. 20

Implementation ............................................................................................................................................. 22

Project Monitoring ....................................................................................................................................... 23

Comparison of Alternatives ........................................................................................................................ 25

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences ............................................................................ 49 

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 49 

Analyzing Effects ......................................................................................................................................... 49 

Subsistence Uses .......................................................................................................................................... 51 

Affected Environment ..................................................................................................... 51 

Environmental Consequences ......................................................................................... 58 

Wildlife .......................................................................................................................................................... 65 

Affected Environment ..................................................................................................... 65 

Environmental Consequences ......................................................................................... 75 

Recreation and Wilderness .......................................................................................................................... 85 

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 85 

Affected Environment Recreation and Tourism ............................................................. 86 

Affected Environment Wilderness .................................................................................. 87 

Environmental Consequences ......................................................................................... 91 

Economics ................................................................................................................................................... 101 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Index – Page ii 

Affected Environment ................................................................................................... 101 

Environmental Consequences ....................................................................................... 102 

Fisheries and Hydrology............................................................................................................................ 107 

Affected Environment ................................................................................................... 109 

Environmental Consequences ....................................................................................... 116 

Essential Fish Habitat ............................................................................................................................ 122 

Botany ......................................................................................................................................................... 124 

Affected Environment ................................................................................................... 124 

Environmental Consequences ....................................................................................... 127 

Heritage ....................................................................................................................................................... 129 

Affected Environment ................................................................................................... 129 

Environmental Consequences ....................................................................................... 130 

Invasive Plant Species ................................................................................................................................ 133 

Affected Environment ................................................................................................... 133 

Environmental Consequences ....................................................................................... 135 

Soils and Wetlands ..................................................................................................................................... 137 

Affected Environment ................................................................................................... 137 

Environmental Consequences ....................................................................................... 137 

Applicable Laws and Executive Orders .................................................................................................. 139 

Chapter 4, Lists ......................................................................... 145 

Preparers ...................................................................................................................................................... 145 

Consultation and Coordination ................................................................................................................. 145 

References Cited ......................................................................................................................................... 146 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Area Cards ................................ A-1 

Appendix B, Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis ................ B-1 

Appendix C, Other Issues ........................................................ C-1 
Chapter 1, Purpose and Need – Page 1 

CHAPTER 1, PURPOSE AND NEED 

Document Structure _________________________ 

The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) in compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant federal and state laws and 

regulations. This Environmental Assessment discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative 

environmental effects that would result from implementing the Prince of Wales (POW) 

Outfitter and Guide Management Plan proposed action and alternatives. The document is 

organized into five parts: Purpose and Need, Alternatives, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences, Lists (of document preparers, agencies consulted, and 

references), and Appendices. 

Additional documentation, including resource specific detailed descriptions of the project 

area and analyses of the project effects, may be found in the project planning record located 

at the Thorne Bay Ranger District Office in Thorne Bay, Alaska. 

Project Area Description ______________________ 

The POW Outfitter and Guide Management Plan project area includes all of the National 

Forest System lands encompassing the Craig and Thorne Bay Ranger Districts of the 

Tongass National Forest (TNF) (Figure 1-1). The Ranger Districts encompass over 2.3 

million acres of temperate rainforest, mountain peaks, alpine tundra, muskegs, lakes, rivers, 

and streams. It encompasses the communities and cities of Coffman Cove, Craig, Edna Bay, 

Hollis, Hydaburg, Kasaan, Klawock, Lab Bay, Naukati, Point Baker, Port Alice, Port 

Protection, Thorne Bay, and Whale Pass (Figure 1-1) on POW Island. The project area 

consists of National Forest System (NFS) lands and does not cover any state or privately 

owned land, including all areas below mean high tide. The environmental analysis also 

includes 209 recreation use areas (see Figure 1-1 and Table 2-1); these are locations (usually 

encompassing sites within a 1-

mile radius) currently used by 

outfitters or guides as well 

locations that have been used by 

outfitters and guides in the past. 

Additional recreation use areas 

may be added, if requested by 

outfitters and guides. Thus, 

effects are analyzed for the entire 

project area. Maps of current 

recreation use areas are in 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Area 

Cards and defined in Appendix B, 

the Capacity Analysis. 

Photo 1 - Clam Lake Camping 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 1, Purpose and Need – Page 2 

Figure 1-1: Project Area Map 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 1, Purpose and Need – Page 3 

Background ________________________________ 

Before this analysis, the POW districts determined a recreation visitor capacity for all users, 

both guided and unguided. For this analysis, recreation visitor capacity is defined as the 

number of recreation visitors that can be accommodated at a recreation location, while 

balancing the need for a variety of visitor experiences, and following 2008 Tongass Land and 

Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan – USDA Forest Service 2008a) direction for 

resource protection. Based on this recreation visitor capacity, the interdisciplinary team 

(IDT) developed alternatives for analysis in this environmental assessment to determine the 

appropriate amount of outfitter and guide use for POW and surrounding islands. 

This EA analyzes how to allocate recreation visitor capacity on the POW districts. The 

allocation will set use levels for outfitter and guide permits but will not set use levels for 

unguided visitors. Unguided visitors (those people visiting the Tongass National Forest 

without an outfitter or a guide) can continue to enjoy POW recreation and subsistence 

opportunities in the same way they do now; a decision on this project will not regulate 

unguided use. Guided visitors, in this EA, are those people visiting the Tongass who use the 

services of an outfitter or a guide. Unguided visitors accessing the Tongass through a 

transporter (essentially, point to point charter transportation by boat, plane, or other vehicle) 

would be unaffected by this plan. Transporters are permitted by the State of Alaska. 

The POW Recreation Visitor Capacity analysis (Appendix B of this EA) used the following 

parameters to calculate recreation visitor capacity: 

 Maximum group size; 

 Number of encounters allowed between groups (as determined by Managed 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum or MROS – a management parameter from the 

Forest Plan); 

 Number of days in the typical season for each type of use; 

 A factor called “displacement” (this factor considers and helps offset crowding 

and other conflicts and is based on access method; it recognizes the correlation 

between ease of access and crowding); and 

 A conversion factor that allows us to compare use by service days (this 

conversion was needed to meet Forest Service Handbook direction that considers 

visits to multiple locations in the same day for the same purpose, a single service 

day per visitor) 

In calculating the recreation visitor capacity, the dominant activity type determined the 

length of season and group size. The dominant activity is the guided activity that had the 

most service days in that recreation use area. For example the dominant activity for Thorne 

River is fishing and the dominate activity for Dog Salmon Fishpass is passive touring. 

Encounters were determined by the MROS. Displacement was determined by the method of 

access for a location using the premise that the more easily a location is accessed, the more 

displacement is needed. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 1, Purpose and Need – Page 4 

A recreation visitor capacity was calculated for every location that has reported use or has 

been requested for use by an outfitter-guide using the formula shown in Appendix B. It was 

estimated that the total recreation visitor capacity for known use locations on the POW 

districts is 320,979 service days annually (see Appendix B). If additional recreation use areas 

are requested by outfitters and guides, the capacity for that area will be determined using the 

same formula. 

Wilderness Needs Assessments (WNAs) were prepared beginning in 2009 that analyzed the 

need for outfitter and guide uses within Wilderness Areas on POW and surrounding islands 

(WNAs are available on the internet at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r10/tongass/projects/nepa_project.shtml?project=27974). These 

analyses set parameters for outfitter and guide use in all of the Wilderness Areas on POW. 

The analysis of Warren Island Wilderness found that no commercial use was needed, so no 

outfitter or guide use of this wilderness area is proposed in this EA. The WNAs for the other 

wilderness areas determined there was a need for outfitters and guides in the remaining POW 

wilderness areas with the following guided limitations: 

 Coronation Island Wilderness – no hunting and no fishing 

 Maurelle Island Wilderness – no hunting and no fishing 

 Karta River Wilderness – no outfitter and guide use along the river corridor, no 

camping, no fresh water fishing, no guided passive and active touring 

 South Prince of Wales Wilderness - no limitations; all commercial uses are 

permitted. 

Outfitting and guiding services are a permitted activity1 on National Forest System (NFS) 

lands under a variety of laws established by Congress. In September 2008, the Forest Service 

revised direction governing special use permits for outfitting and guiding (Forest Service 

Handbook 2709.11 Chapter 40, Section 41.53). Another revision occurred in 2011 (Forest 

Service Handbook 2709.14 Chapter 50, Section 53). National policy allows the Forest 

Service to issue either temporary or priority special use permits to qualified outfitters and 

guides. 

In addition to temporary and priority use permits, temporary and priority use pools may be 

established. These allow priority use permit holders to apply for a short-term allocation of 

use to meet a seasonal need (FSH 2709.14, Chapter 50, Section 53k, l, m, and n). The 

authorized officer will determine the process of allocating a percentage of use to the 

temporary and priority use pools, which, in this case, is the Craig District Ranger for the 

Craig District or the Thorne Bay District Ranger for the Thorne Bay District. 

 

1 Activities used to calculate carrying capacity include hunting, fishing, camping, active touring (biking, hiking, 

kayaking), and passive touring (wildlife viewing, sightseeing, nature viewing). Only these guided uses would be 

permitted through a decision on this analysis. Other types of uses would have to be considered on a case-bycase basis with a separate NEPA analysis. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 1, Purpose and Need – Page 5 

Purpose and Need for Action __________________ 

There is a need for an island-wide outfitter and guide plan that meets current management 

direction, maintains a range of quality recreation opportunities, and balances guided and 

unguided use. 

An island-wide outfitter and guide plan is needed because the current permitting process: 

 Does not satisfy Forest Service direction to issue long-term (up to 10 years) 

priority use permits, Current Forest Service Handbook direction restricts issuance 

of temporary use permits to minor, non-recurring activities; not continuously 

reissuing for the same activities every year [Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 

2709.14.53.1k and 53.1m]. 

 Does not provide managers with an island-wide strategy for reducing conflicts 

between guided and unguided visitors and ensuring a range of recreational 

opportunities are offered across the Districts, and 

 Does not fully address cumulative impacts of outfitter/guide use on forest 

resources. 

This action is needed to set levels of outfitted and guided use based on social and 

environmental conditions. It responds to the goals and objectives outlined in the 2008 Forest 

Plan (USDA Forest Service 2008a), and helps move the POW Ranger Districts towards the 

desired conditions described in the Forest Plan, (p. 2-1). The Forest Plan provides standards 

and guidelines to authorize services of qualified outfitters and guides to the public, where the 

need has been identified and is compatible with the objectives and management direction of 

the affected Land Use Designation (LUD) (p. 4-46), and to issue priority use permits for up 

to 10 years. 

The purpose of this project is to: 

 Allow the POW Rangers to respond to special use permit applications (USDA 

Forest Service 2008a, pp. 4-46 to 4-47; FSH 2709. 14, Chapter 50, Sec 53.1); 

 Authorize commercial use in the Coronation Island, Maurelle Islands, South 

Prince of Wales, and the uplands of Karta River Wilderness Areas, while 

protecting wilderness character (USDA Forest Service 2008a 4-45, 4-46; FSH 

2709.14 53.1f; Wilderness Act); 

 Manage outfitter and guide recreation use on the POW Ranger Districts to 

minimize potential impacts to all resources (USDA Forest Service 2008a 4-46 to 

4-47); and 

 Provide the opportunity for use of the National Forest that benefits the public 

(USDA Forest Service 2008a, p. 2-6; 4-43 to 4-47; FSH 2709. 14, Sec. 53.1). 

It will also: 

 Establish outfitter/guide use allocations for all identified Commercial Use 

Locations on NFS lands of POW ranger districts; 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 1, Purpose and Need – Page 6 

 Provide a method to add additional Commercial Use Locations and additional 

commercial use or reduce the number of Commercial Use Locations, as the need 

arises; 

 Provide a balance of use for guided and unguided forest users while minimizing 

potential impacts to other resources; 

 Satisfy Forest Service requirements for issuance of long-term, priority use 

permits; 

 Improve the Forest Service’s ability to process permits in a timely manner; and 

 Help to enhance the stability and growth of the outfitter and guide industry by 

allowing the issuance of priority use permits to qualified outfitters and guides, 

and provide opportunities for local and regional economies to benefit from this 

industry, per the revised FSH at 2709.14, Chapter 50, Sec 53.1. 

The POW Outfitter and Guide Management Plan will not establish limits for or regulate 

unguided visitors. Unguided visitors can continue to enjoy the district recreation and 

subsistence opportunities in the same way they do now. 

Summary of the Proposed Action ______________ 

The action proposed by the Forest Service to meet the purpose and need is to authorize 

outfitter and guide operations through the issuance of special use permits, based on the 

Prince of Wales Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis (see Appendix B). The POW District 

Rangers propose to allocate up to 50 percent of the recreation visitor capacity to outfitter and 

guide use. The proposal would authorize use by outfitters and guides up to approximately 

160,490 service days2 (SDs) on Prince of Wales Island and the surrounding islands. The use 

authorized may be temporary in nature (less than one year) or could be for multiple years. 

For those operators who have demonstrated satisfactory performance, the District Rangers 

may issue priority use permits, for a period of up to 10 years, in accordance with FSH 

2709.14. 

The Proposed Action (Alternative 2) includes restrictions on guided fishing on particular 

streams to protect sockeye, steelhead, and coho salmon. Permit administrators would not 

limit the “take” (catching and/or removal) of specific fish species nor reduce the recreation 

use area’s overall allocation. Instead, we would authorize a portion of the total service days 

in specific locations to guided fishing during a particular time frame. Thus, these restrictions 

reduce the service days allocated to guided fishing in specific areas, but leave the remaining 

allocation in that same recreation use area available for other types of guided uses. 

 

2 A service day is an allocation of use consisting of a day or any part of a day on National Forest System (NFS) 

lands for which an outfitter or guide provides services to a client. The total number of service days is calculated 

by multiplying each service day by the number of clients on the trip. For example, a group of four visitors at a 

single location for four days is equal to 16 service days. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 1, Purpose and Need – Page 7 

The following are two examples from Table 2-1 of allocations and fishing restrictions in 

Alternative 2: 

 At Hunter Creek, of the 154 service days allocated annually to outfitters and 

guides under Alternative 2, up to 100 of those days could be allocated to guided 

fishing at any time of year; the remaining 54 days at Hunter Creek could be used 

at any time of year for guided activities other than fishing. 

 At Barnes Lake, of the 231 service days allocated annually to outfitters and 

guides under Alternative 2, up to 25 of those days could be allocated to guided 

fishing, but only 12 of those days could be used between December 1 and July 31 

(the “restricted period” for that area); the remaining 206 days at Barnes Lake 

could be used at any time of year for guided activities other than fishing. 

The Proposed Action also includes an Adaptive Management component. Due to conditions 

varying from weather to wildlife sightings to the state of financial markets, the location, type, 

and amount of recreational use in any area changes irregularly. Adaptive management is a 

process of monitoring results and adjusting the chosen action to meet desired outcomes. 

For this analysis, the feedback element includes Forest Plan monitoring, monitoring outlined 

in this analysis, public comment, outfitter and guide yearly reporting, and on-the-ground 

Forest Service personnel. The permit administrators annually review outfitter and guide 

comments, public comments, and reports from personnel that visit the recreation use areas. 

From this review, they determine if management action is needed to comply with Forest Plan 

standards and guidelines. 

See Chapter 2 and Appendix A for a complete description of the Proposed Action, Adaptive 

Management, and Project Design and Mitigation Measures. 

Outfitter and Guide Permit Conditions __________ 

There were 16 different activities recorded from 2004-2008 by outfitter-guides within the 

analysis area. The activities ranged from passive, short-term activities such as wildlife 

viewing to more active, multi-day activities like big game hunting. Permitted activities 

include: photography, sightseeing, hiking, kayaking, canoeing, wildlife viewing, flying tours, 

power boating, fishing, hunting, and interpretive services. Short-term overnight camping may 

also occur when no leveling or ditching of campsites is made, when Leave No Trace3

practices are used, and when the permit includes the R10-X117 ArchaeologicalPaleontological Discoveries Clause. Only hunting, fishing, camping, active touring (biking, 

hiking, kayaking), and passive touring (wildlife viewing, sightseeing, nature viewing) would 

be permitted through a decision on this analysis. Other types of uses would have to be 

considered on a case-by-case basis with a separate NEPA analysis. In addition, this analysis 

will not address or authorize development of new recreation structures, ground disturbing 

activities or activities that involve any type of collecting, such as beachcombing. 

 

3

 Go to: http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r10/recreation/safety-ethics/?cid=fsbdev2_038794 and LNT main 

website (http://www.lnt.org/) for more information about Leave No Trace practices. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 1, Purpose and Need – Page 8 

Outfitters and guides operate under National Forest System permits that include several 

cultural resource stipulations. Outfitters and guides, are also responsible for the actions of 

their clients, are prohibited from collecting artifacts or disturbing cultural resources. 

Outfitters and guides have an affirmative responsibility to report cultural resource discoveries 

made in the course of their business. Outfitters and guides must comply with all federal laws 

and regulations including the National Historic Preservation Act, the Archaeological 

Resources Protection Act, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, and 

the Bald Eagle Protection Act. Non-compliance with permit stipulations could result in 

permit revocation and/or prosecution under the various federal statutes and regulations. 

Management Direction _______________________ 

The Forest Plan guides the management of the Project Area. This proposal is consistent with 

the direction in the Tongass Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2008a). 

Decision Framework _________________________ 

The Craig and Thorne Bay District Rangers will decide how to manage the guide special use 

program by allocating a portion of the total recreation use for outfitter and guide use while 

taking into account the needs of unguided users and forest resources. In order to maintain a 

quality recreation experience and a balance between guided and unguided use, the District 

Rangers will also decide what level of guided use will trigger additional review. 

The type of recreation use allowed at any given outfitter and guide use area will not be 

established by a decision on this document. The type of guided use is dependent on requests 

by outfitters and guides and is based on the availability of capacity. However, the amount, 

location, and timing of some guided uses may be restricted in some areas by this decision to 

provide resource protection. For example, the number of permitted fishing days on a 

particular creek may be limited to 25 days to maintain steelhead, summer run coho, and 

sockeye runs. These restrictions would not lower the allocation for outfitters and guides in 

an area but would restrict the number of permitted fishing service days. Decisions by the 

Board of Game and Board of Fish may also limit the number of service days available for 

some uses in some areas. 

Given the purpose and need, the District Rangers will review the proposed action and the 

other alternatives in order to make the following decisions: 

 The locations, limitations, management, and terms of guide permits and 

opportunities on the Craig and Thorne Bay Ranger Districts for the next five to 

ten years; 

 How best to manage guided use on Prince of Wales and surrounding islands to 

minimize potential impacts to all resources; and 

 What, if any, mitigation measures and monitoring are needed. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 1, Purpose and Need – Page 9 

The District Rangers will not address proposals for development4 in this document. 

Development proposals, authorized under different Forest Service authorities and policies, 

are beyond the scope of this analysis. 

The decision will be implemented through the Special Uses administrative process. 

Commercial use permits will be authorized under the direction of the Special Uses 

Management Manual (FSM 2700) and Handbook (FSH 2709.14). If the District Rangers 

decide to implement mitigation measures, the measures will be implemented through permit 

requirements and provisions, and administration and program monitoring. Monitoring will 

occur during the administration of Special Use permits and as part of the ongoing program of 

monitoring forest resources (sensitive and invasive plants, wilderness campsites, etc). 

Outfitter and Guide activities involving the taking of fish or game will be implemented under 

Alaska Board of Game, Alaska Board of Fisheries, and Federal Subsistence Board 

regulations. 

When commercial use in specific outfitter and guide use areas approaches the allocated 

levels, commercial requests for use may be redirected to other locations. If this measure is 

not sufficient to accommodate demand, resulting in a competitive interest, use will be 

allocated among qualified guides through a competitive process. 

Public Involvement __________________________ 

Public involvement regarding outfitter and guide management began in April 2007 with a 

“scoping” letter about the “Outfitter-Guide Use Report, Recreation Visitor Capacity 

Analysis” sent to the tribes, tribal corporations, outfitters and guides and many other groups 

and individuals. At that time, posters and notices about the capacity analysis process were 

posted in Craig and Thorne Bay. This input helped the POW districts develop a recreation 

visitor capacity. 

Using the comments from the public, other agencies, the Southeast Alaska Subsistence 

Regional Advisory Council and the City of Craig, the interdisciplinary team developed a list of 

issues to address. 

To date, the public has been invited to participate in this analysis and decision process in the 

following ways: 

Public Mailing and Other Outreach: This project began in April 2007 with an effort to 

determine parameters for the capacity analysis. 

 The Craig and Thorne Bay Outfitter/Guide EA has been listed in the Tongass 

National Forest’s Schedule of Proposed Actions since April 1, 2009. 

 The proposed action was provided to the public and other agencies for comment 

during scoping starting on February 14, 2011. This scoping letter was mailed to 

approximately 197 individuals and groups that had previously shown interest in 

Forest Service projects on POW. This included federal and state agencies, Alaska 

Native groups, municipal offices, businesses, interest groups, and individuals. 

 

4 Development would include construction of resorts, cabins, tent platforms, or any other structure or facility. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 1, Purpose and Need – Page 10 

 The project received 18 responses to the February 2011 scoping letter. 

Respondents included individuals, commercial outfitters, Alaska Department of 

Fish and Game, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Alaska Office of 

Project Management and Permitting, and the City of Craig. 

In addition, as part of the public involvement process, the Forest Service held open houses in 

Craig and Thorne Bay to provide information about the Proposed Action on March 8 and 

March 10, 2011, respectively. 

Government-to-Government Consultation: In March 2010 and 2011, information on the 

POW Outfitter/Guide Carrying Capacity Analysis and upcoming NEPA analysis was 

provided to Prince of Wales Tribes. A roster of Forest Service projects was provided to all 

participants at these tribal consultation meetings and the Forest Service received a few 

questions about this project. Concerns were raised about whether non-commercial and 

subsistence use would be restricted. District staff explained that this analysis only affects 

commercial use on Forest Service lands and the decision would not restrict subsistence. The 

POW District Rangers sent a formal government-to-government consultation offer (prescoping letter) to all Prince of Wales Island Tribal governments and to other interested tribal 

governments on January 11, 2011 (Craig Community Association, Klawock Cooperative 

Association, Hydaburg Cooperative Association, Organized Village of Kasaan, and the 

Ketchikan Indian Community). These Tribes were also sent scoping letters in February 

2011. 

Other Tribal Contacts: The POW District Rangers sent a letter in January 2011 to all 

Prince of Wales ANCSA corporations, as well as to other corporations and interested Tribal 

groups (Shaan Seet Inc., Klawock-Heenya Corporation, Haida Corp., Kavilco, Sealaska, 

Cape Fox Corporation, and the Central Council of Tlingit and Haida). These corporations 

also received scoping letters in February 2011. 

No other comments have been raised to date by Tribes or ANCSA corporations. 

Meetings with Agencies: Individual IDT members contacted resource agencies to gather 

information and to ask or respond to questions. No concerns related to this outfitter and 

guide project were brought forward in these discussions. 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game’s (ADF&G) Steve McCurdy provided sportfishing 

harvest data; he also said that he had no concerns related to fishing and outfitter and guide 

use (pers. com. April 2011). ADF&G’s Boyd Porter provided discussion about bear hunting 

management (pers. com.). The Army Corps of Engineers provided contact information and 

information related to mitigating soil concerns (pers. com.). 

News Release: A February 28, 2011 news release set the time and location for the two 

open houses. 

Issues _____________________________________ 

For the purposes of this analysis, issues identified during the public involvement process 

were categorized as those that were used to develop alternatives or those that were not used 

to develop alternatives. Issues that were directly or indirectly caused by implementing the 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 1, Purpose and Need – Page 11 

proposed action and represent disputes, disagreements or debate about the effects of the 

proposed action were used to design alternatives 

The remaining issues that were not used in developing alternatives are those: 1) outside the 

scope (not related to the effects) of the proposed action; 2) already decided by law, 

regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; 3) irrelevant to the decision to be 

made; or 4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. The Council for 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations require this delineation in Sec. 1501.7, 

“...identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which 

have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 1506.3)...” 

Issues Used in Developing Alternatives 

Eighteen responses to the February 14, 2011 mailing were received. The District also had 

internal scoping discussions. The Forest Service identified issues from public or internal 

scoping for the POW Outfitter and Guide Management Plan that drove the development of 

alternatives:. 

Issue 1: 

Guided hunting may conflict with subsistence hunting near communities5 on Prince of Wales. 

Measurement 

Compare the projected number of service days for hunting near the communities under each 

alternative. 

Issue 2: 

Outfitter and guide activities may negatively affect unguided recreationists that have selected 

Prince of Wales specifically because it has few people. An increase in guided visitors may 

create social problems like crowding and cause unguided recreationists to disperse to less 

desirable areas. 

Measurements 

Number of service days allocated to outfitters and guides and discussion of social effects. 

Issue 3: 

Outfitters and guides need opportunities for business growth on Prince of Wales Island to 

maintain their businesses and increase the local economy. 

Measurements 

Number of service days in areas that have particular opportunities for businesses to grow; for 

example, in areas where there are facilities (Dog Salmon Fishpass) available or areas that are 

close to communities, where travel costs are lower. 

 

5 For this analysis, the IDT used 15 miles to define “near”. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 1, Purpose and Need – Page 12 

Issue 4: 

Limiting the amount and location of outfitted and guided fishing when population data are 

not available, unnecessarily limits outfitter and guide activities. 

Measurement 

Number of service days allocated in areas where the three species of concern - sockeye, 

steelhead, and summer run coho salmon - are located. 

Issues Not Used to Develop Alternatives 

Several external and internal concerns and suggestions were considered as issues but were 

determined not to be alternative-driving issues. Where possible, suggestions about the project 

were incorporated into the design of all the action alternatives. Concerns related to this 

project, followed by the rationale for why these concerns were not used in developing 

individual alternatives, are found in Appendix C of this EA. 

Some of the comments and concerns, such as those asking to open more roads or to disallow 

cabin use by outfitters and guides, relate to past decisions which will not be changed by this 

project or its decision. Other comments and requests, such as requests to limit transporters to 

protect bears from hunting, are outside the management authority of the Forest Service. 

Other comments and requests related to the design of the project or the alternatives. In many 

cases, these design requests were part of all the action alternatives. Please see Appendix C of 

this EA for more information on concerns and responses to the concerns through this EA 

process. 

Permits, Licenses, and Certifications ___________ 

The Forest Service is not required to obtain permits or licenses to implement this project. 

However, outfitter and guide permit holders are responsible for obtaining necessary permits 

and licenses from federal and state agencies prior to commencing outfitting and guiding. 

Prior to guiding on NFS lands, the Federal Government may require verification of current 

business or operating licenses such as Coast Guard License, State of Alaska Sport Fishing 

License, etc. Outfitter and guide activities involving the taking of fish or game will be 

implemented under Alaska Board of Game, Alaska Board of Fisheries, and Federal 

Subsistence Board regulations. 

Project Record ______________________________ 

Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project area resources, may 

be found in the project record located at the Thorne Bay Ranger District Office in Thorne 

Bay, Alaska. Other reference documents such as the Forest Plan and the Tongass Timber 

Reform Act are available at the Supervisor's Office in Ketchikan, Alaska. The Forest Plan is 

also available on the Internet (http://tongass-fpadjust.net/FPA_ROD.htm) and CD-ROM. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 1, Purpose and Need – Page 13 

Other Related Efforts ________________________ 

The following past decisions relate to guided use on the POW Ranger Districts. A statement 

in bold at the end of each effort explains the relationship between the prior effort and the 

current analysis. 

Existing guided uses have been considered, generally under categorical exclusion. 

The POW Outfitter and Guide Management Plan decision would supersede 

these past decisions. 

POW Outfitter and Guide Cabin Use: In 2007, the Tongass National Forest 

established guidelines for authorizing commercial outfitter/guide use of public 

recreation cabins. The Craig and Thorne Bay Ranger Districts used these guidelines 

to develop a policy for authorizing outfitter/guide use of cabins on the district. The 

POW districts determined that guided use at some non-Wilderness cabins would be 

allowed (Table 1-1). A decision on the POW Outfitter and Guide Management 

Plan would incorporate this allocation in all alternatives and continue to 

implement this assessment. 

Table 1-1: Cabins, recent use level, and maximum amount of use currently available 

for outfitters and guides 

Cabin Use 

Level* 

Maximum Outfitter and Guide Use 

Barnes Lake L 20 days per month, except 10 days for July when the cabin receives 

its highest public use 

Black Bear L 20 days per month, no weekends or holidays in July and August 

Honker Lake M 14 days per month, 7 days per month September, October, November 

Josephine 

Lake 

L 20 days per month, 14 days per month in August 

Kegan Creek M 14 days per month, no days in August, no weekends or holidays in 

July and September 

Point 

Amargura 

M 10 days per month, no weekends or holidays 

Red Bay Lake H 7 days per month, no days in August, no weekends or holidays 

Salmon Bay 

Lake 

M 10 days per month, no days in August, 7 days in September 

Sarkar Lake H 7 days per month, no weekends or holidays, no days in July and 

August 

Shipley Bay M 14 days per month, 7 days in August 

Troller’s 

Cove 

M 20 days per month 

* L = Low use cabins = 20 nights or less/year; M = Medium use cabins = 21-50 nights/year; H = 

High use cabins = 51+ nights/year. Use data is based on a three-year average (2004-2006). 

EA and decision on Issuing Special Use Permits for Big-game Guide and Outfitter 

Services (Big Game EA): In September 1993, a Decision Notice was signed by the 

Craig, Thorne Bay, and Ketchikan-Misty Fiords District Rangers that allowed for 

guided/outfitted big game hunting on POW with stipulations (discussed in Chapter 2 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 1, Purpose and Need – Page 14 

of this EA under Actions Common to All Action Alternatives). The current 

management of the area follows those stipulations and the issues and concerns remain 

the same. The effects of continuing that decision have been included in this EA. A 

decision on the POW Outfitter and Guide Management Plan would continue to 

implement this outfitter and guide management decision for POW. 

Revision to the EA for the Determination of Issuing Special Use Permits for 

Sportfishing Outfitter and Guide Services Throughout the Ketchikan Area, Tongass 

National Forest: In March 1998, a Decision Notice was signed by the Craig, Thorne 

Bay, and Ketchikan-Misty Fiords District Rangers to limit commercial guiding on 

streams with high and moderate concern for steelhead from December 1 – May 31. 

The current management of the area follows those stipulations (discussed in Chapter 

2 of this EA under Alternative 1), but additional concerns about steelhead, summer 

run coho, sockeye, and subsistence have been raised. The effects of continuing that 

decision have been included in this EA under Alternative 1; a range of other 

management options are considered in the other alternatives. A decision on the 

POW Outfitter and Guide Management Plan would supersede this 1998 decision 

for POW.

Access and Travel Management Plan: A decision was made in 2009 about what roads 

would remain open and those that would be closed through the public process for the 

access and travel management plan for POW. The subsequent annual version of the 

POW Motor Vehicle Use Map is used to display and implement that decision. 

Outfitters and guides may use open roads and open trails (if it is on their permit), but 

we are not changing the status on any roads and therefore not changing access 

opportunities for subsistence, unguided, or guided visitors. A decision on the POW 

Outfitter and Guide Management Plan would continue to implement this access 

and travel management decision. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 15 

CHAPTER 2, ALTERNATIVES, 

INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION 

Introduction ________________________________ 

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the POW Outfitter and 

Guide Management Plan project. It includes a description and map of each alternative 

considered. This section also presents the alternatives in comparative form, sharply defining 

the differences between each alternative and providing a clear basis for choice among options 

by the decision maker and the public. Some of the information used to compare the 

alternatives is based upon the design of the alternative and some of the information is based 

upon the environmental, social, and economic effects of implementing each alternative. 

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from 

Detailed Analysis ____________________________ 

Alternative A: No outfitter or guide use (no permitted use/zero allocation to outfitters or 

guides) would be allowed because the current effect of guided use is already too high. 

The IDT considered this alternative but eliminated it from further consideration. The Forest 

Plan and other FS regulations allow for and encourage outfitting and guiding as an economic 

opportunity. A zero allocation to outfitter and guide use would not meet the Purpose and 

Need for this project. The analysis included here shows that the current effect of guided use 

is not high in many areas and that there is room for growth in many recreation use areas. 

Elements and Assumptions Common to All 

Alternatives ________________________________ 

Many potential effects can be negated by explaining what will or will not be allowed or 

included in outfitter and guides’ special use permits. The project elements and assumptions 

listed below would be a part of any decision and were used by all IDT members in their 

analysis. 

Project Elements Common to All Alternatives 

Implementation of the entire 1993 decision on the Big Game EA (USDA Forest Service 

1993) would continue in all alternatives. Specifically: 

 Guided/outfitted big game hunting would not be allowed in Wildlife Analysis 

Areas (WAAs) 1318, 1319, 1421, and 1422 under any alternative. This is referred 

to as the “Central WAAs Closure” and restricts guided hunting for bears, wolves, 

and deer. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 16 

 No big game guiding or outfitting would be allowed within one mile of 

communities, one mile of existing or new recreation cabins, campgrounds, or 

picnic areas, or within one mile of the Karta River, Karta Lake, or Salmon Lake 

in the Karta Wilderness Area. 

 Outfitters and guides will be required to identify campsites prior to receiving 

permit approval. 

Outfitter and guide management in all alternatives will follow the parameters found in the 

POW Wilderness Needs Assessments (WNAs - they are available on the internet at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r10/tongass/projects/nepa_project.shtml?project=27974). Specifically: 

 No permitted outfitter or guide use of the Warren Island Wilderness. 

 The WNAs would allow for outfitter and guide use in the remaining POW Wilderness 

areas with the following limitations on outfitter and guide uses: 

 Coronation Island Wilderness – no hunting and no fishing 

 Maurelle Island Wilderness – no hunting and no fishing 

 Karta River Wilderness – no outfitter and guide use along the river corridor, no 

camping, no fresh water fishing, no guided passive and active touring 

 South Prince of Wales Wilderness - no limitations; all commercial uses are 

permitted. 

Project Assumptions Common to All Alternatives 

The number of service days allocated to outfitter and guide use is analyzed. The number 

of special use permits issued by recreation type is not analyzed as part of this document 

except in specific cases to protect resources. 

If adaptive management is used to allow numbers to go up, the risk to some resources 

may increase because more use would be allowed. However, the idea of adaptive 

management and mitigation measures is to anticipate and reduce the effects so that the 

resource problems are addressed early on. 

Any change made through adaptive management is not going to cause significant 

resource damage. 

There will be continued and increased demand for special use permits to conduct outfitter 

and guide activities. 

The State of Alaska ADF&G manages fish and wildlife populations (with some Forest 

Service participation under federal subsistence regulations). The Forest Service manages 

habitat for fish and wildlife. Guided visitor activities will be similar to those that are 

occurring now. 

Facilities and trails will be maintained to standards and BMPs (specifically BMPs 12.5, 

16.1, and 16.4). This allows for concentrated use with minimal impact on resources. 

A decision on this document will not allow ground-disturbing activities, such as cabin 

and trail building. The only ground disturbance associated with the activities identified in 

the analysis would be possible trampling from feet, the footprint of tents and fire rings, 

driving on open roads or designated OHV trails, and human waste disposal. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 17 

The outfitters and guides are required to use Leave No Trace (LNT) principles and are 

subject to all applicable laws. They make money by offering a quality resource 

experience; so, they maintain the resources. 

Use higher than the visitor recreation capacity would not be allowed in any alternative. If 

higher use (unguided plus guided use) is identified through monitoring in any recreation 

use location, administrative action may be taken to limit outfitter and guide use. 

Unguided visitors would not be limited, unless resource damage is occurring. If resource 

damage is occurring (for example, trail erosion), visitors may be detoured away from the 

affected area until the concern can be resolved. 

Alternative Descriptions ______________________ 

Alternative 1 (the No Action Alternative), the Proposed Action (Alternative 2), and two other 

action alternatives are considered in detail. The other action alternatives represent different 

options of satisfying the Purpose and Need by responding with different emphases to the 

issues discussed in Chapter 1. Elements Common to all the Action Alternatives are described 

in a section that comes after Alternative 1. Design Elements and Mitigation required by all 

the action alternatives are included and discussed in Appendix A. Maps of all alternatives 

considered in detail are provided at the end of Chapter 2. Table 2-2 shows how each 

alternative responds to the issues. 

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

For this analysis, the No Action alternative would allow the current (2011) permitted service 

days to be used by outfitters and guides on the POW Ranger Districts. The number of 

permitted service days is substantially higher than actual use in most areas (Table 2-1). 

Under this alternative, outfitter and guide special use permits could be issued up to current 

permitted service days, by recreation use area. See Figures 2-1 and 2-2 at the end of this 

chapter for recreation use area locations. POW-wide, the total permitted service days is 

19,827 service days per year to outfitters and guides (Table 2-1). 

Outfitter and guide permits would be issued as they are now, using the current process. 

Implementation of the entire 1993 decision on the Big Game EA (USDA Forest Service 

1993) would continue as would the current restrictions in numbers/timing of guided fishing 

service days for steelhead. Current outfitter and guide service day sport fishing limits are 

based on the 1998 Environmental Assessment for the Determination of Issuing Special Use 

Permits for Sportfishing Outfitter and Guide Services. The 1998 Decision limits service days 

during the prime steelhead season (December 1-May 31) on streams where moderate and low 

concerns were identified. These systems are identified with a “+” on Table 2-1. Low concern 

(usually low use) streams are limited to 22 fishing service days from 12/1 to 5/31. The 

Thorne River, Staney Creek, Luck Lake/Eagle Creek, Sweetwater (Hatchery/Logjam), and 

Salmon Bay systems are currently limited to 272, 323, 169, 37, and 125 service days, 

respectively, for guided fishing from 12/1 to 5/31. The single high concern streams on POW 

(the Karta River) is currently closed to all outfitter guided sport fishing during the entire year 

(USDA, 1998). 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 18 

A decision for Alternative 1 would only allow permitting up to the current permitted level 

shown in Table 2-1; new NEPA would be required for higher use levels in any recreation use 

area. In Alternative 1, use levels are for comparison and no use is allocated to outfitters and 

guides. Alternative 1 does not meet current Forest Service Handbook direction for outfitter 

and guide management (FSH 2709.14, Chapter 50, Section 53). Alternative 1 recognizes that 

changes in permit requests could increase or decrease the use. New permits or requests from 

existing permit holders to increase use above the highest actual use, may require new NEPA. 

New permits can take a few weeks or several years depending on the amount of analysis 

needed and the availability of specialists to do the analysis. 

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) 

Using the estimated recreation visitor capacity of 320,979 service days per year (Appendix 

B), this alternative allocates half of the capacity to outfitters and guides in all recreation use 

areas with some restrictions in the number of days allocated to outfitted or guided fishing. 

This equates to an allocation of 160,490 service days annually for outfitter and guide use on 

the POW districts (Table 2-1 and Figures 2-3 and 2-4 at the end of this chapter). 

Alternative 2 includes restrictions on guided fishing on particular streams to protect sockeye, 

steelhead, and coho salmon (Table 2-1). Permit administrators would not limit the “take” 

(catching and/or removal) of specific fish species nor reduce the recreation use area’s overall 

allocation. Instead, we would authorize only a portion of the total service days in specific 

locations to guided fishing during a particular timeframe. Thus, these restrictions reduce the 

service days allocated to guided fishing in specific areas, but leave the remaining allocation 

in that same recreation use area available for other types of guided uses. 

Two examples of allocations and fishing restrictions in Alternative 2: 

 At Hunter Creek, of the 154 service days allocated annually to outfitters and 

guides under Alternative 2, up to 100 of those days could be allocated to guided 

fishing at any time of year; the remaining 54 days at Hunter Creek could be used 

at any time of year for guided activities other than fishing. 

 At Barnes Lake, of the 231 service days allocated annually to outfitters and 

guides under Alternative 2, up to 25 of those days could be allocated to guided 

fishing, but only 12 of those days could be used between December 1 and July 31 

(the “restricted period” for that area); the remaining 206 days at Barnes Lake 

could be used at any time of year for guided activities other than fishing. 

Alternative 2 was developed to respond to direction in the Forest Plan to 

“Generally allocate no more than one-half the appropriate capacity of the LUD to 

outfitter/guide operations. For specific locations, consider different allocations based 

on historical use, changing demand, spatial zoning, or temporal zoning.” (USDA 

Forest Service 2008a, pg. 4-46) 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 19 

Alternative 3 

In Alternative 3, the allocation to outfitters and guides would be 25% of the recreation visitor 

capacity across all areas with two exceptions. Outfitter and guide use would be encouraged at 

Dog Salmon Fishpass and Beaver Falls Trail by providing an allocation of 75% to outfitters 

and guides in these areas because the sites are hardened, heavily managed, and designed for 

higher use numbers. This alternative does not include adjustments to fishing allocations; thus 

the full 25% allocation could be for fishing in any given area at any time of year. Alternative 

3 limits the number of fall hunting days allocated to outfitters and guides to no more than 40 

service days per area during the fall hunting season. This limit applies to all outfitter and 

guide hunting, but only applies to fall hunts. 

Alternative 3 would allocate 85,771 service days annually for outfitter and guide use on the 

POW districts (see Table 2-1 and Figures 2-5 and 2-6 at the end of this chapter). 

Alternative 4 

Regulations allow for outfitter or guide permit holders to request 10% more use than their 

permit to meet market fluctuations. Alternative 4 was designed to meet this direction while 

also resolving conflicts with Forest Plan direction related to recreation visitor capacity and 

resource concerns for some fisheries. In most recreation use areas, Alternative 4 would 

allocate ten percent higher than the current (2011) permitted use to outfitters and guides. In 

those areas where such an allocation would put outfitter and guide use above 50% of the 

capacity, Alternative 4 would allocate 50% of the recreation visitor capacity to outfitter and 

guide use. In recreation use areas where there has been past outfitter and guide use but no 

outfitter or guide permit issued in 2011, Alternative 4 allocates the lower of 10% above the 

highest past permit level or 50% of recreation visitor capacity. This alternative allows for 

business flexibility by minimally increasing the level of outfitter and guide use to levels 

allowed by current regulations. This alternative includes fishing restrictions similar to 

Alternative 2. This alternative also includes the fall hunting restriction described in 

Alternative 3. 

Alternative 4 would allocate 23,010 service days annually for outfitter and guide use on the 

POW districts (see Table 2-1 and Figures 2-7 and 2-8 at the end of this chapter). 

Elements Common to All Action Alternatives ____ 

Additional Review - under the action alternatives (Alternatives 2, 3, and 4) some permit 

actions would require additional review by the IDT to assure that effects remain within 

expectations (see Appendix A, Table A-1). If the actions are within expectation, no further 

documentation would be required before permits are issued. 

Adaptive Management - adaptive management would be implemented in all the action 

alternatives (described in a separate section below). 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 20 

Project Design and Mitigation Measure _________ 

The action alternatives are designed to minimize environmental effects and meet Forest Plan 

standards and guidelines. Some measures are required in all areas. Some measures are 

specific to location. The design elements and mitigation measures required within outfitter 

and guide special use permits are located in Appendix A of this document, Recreation Use 

Area Cards. These design elements and mitigation measures will be implemented through 

outfitter and guide permit conditions and administration of the permits. 

Adaptive Management _______________________ 

The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) defines adaptive management as: 

A system of management practices based on clearly identified intended outcomes and 

monitoring to determine if management actions are meeting those outcomes; and, if 

not, to facilitate management changes that will best ensure that those outcomes are 

met or re-evaluated. Adaptive management stems from the recognition that 

knowledge about natural resource systems is sometimes uncertain. (36 CFR 220.3) 

There is some level of uncertainty in describing and analyzing recreational use. Due to 

conditions varying from weather to wildlife sightings to the state of financial markets, the 

location, type, and amount of recreational use in any area changes irregularly. Adaptive 

management is a process of monitoring results and adjusting the chosen action to meet 

desired outcomes. 

The 2008 Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 2008a) 

states: 

Adaptive management is the ecosystem management counterpart to “learning from 

experience.” These two concepts have two essential elements in common: 1) a 

feedback element that gathers and evaluates information about current performance 

(of an action or activity) and 2) an adjustment element that responds to feedback 

information by being able to alter future performance when needed (page 5-3) 

The desired outcomes are the Forest Plan standards and guidelines for each resource. 

For this analysis, the feedback element includes Forest Plan monitoring, monitoring outlined 

in this analysis, public comment, outfitter and guide yearly reporting, and information from 

on-the-ground Forest Service personnel. The permit administrators annually review outfitter 

and guide comments, public comments, and reports from personnel that visit the recreation 

locations. From this review, they determine if management action is needed to comply with 

Forest Plan standards and guidelines. 

Criteria for Adjusting Guided Use 

If unforeseen, unknown, or substantial resource impacts occur while implementing the 

alternative selected in the Decision Notice or if an outfitter or guide requests permitted use 

above the commercial use allocations, the Craig and Thorne Bay District Rangers would 

evaluate the situation and determine if they will use adaptive management to comply with the 

Forest Plan to adjust permits. In some cases, the District Rangers may determine no action is 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 21 

needed. The timing related to when guided use may be adjusted is discussed under 

Implementation. 

Decrease the Guided Use Allocation or Implement Other 

Adaptive Management Options: 

Guided use allocation for a recreation use area may be decreased or other adaptive 

management options may be implemented if ANY of the following occur: 

 Recorded actual use (guided plus unguided) exceeds 75% of recreation visitor 

capacity, 

 Substantial resource issue(s) is/are identified, or 

 Evaluation of the number/content of complaints indicates that a decrease in 

guided use allocation is needed to meet management objectives. 

At the discretion of the District Ranger where the decreased use is considered, all permitted 

outfitter and guide activities can be halted to prevent or limit damage to forest resources. If 

there were no immediate threat to resources or facilities, the District Ranger may first try to 

implement steps with the least impact to recreational visitors. Some potential administrative 

steps to maintain standards and guidelines: 

 Encourage outfitter and guide use at other recreation locations, 

 Identify additional recreation locations, 

 Voluntary/mandatory guided use scheduling, 

 Require guided groups to use designated sites, 

 Limit guided use on weekends and holidays, 

 Reduce guided use allocation for the impacted areas, and 

 Implement resource-specific measures to mitigate impacts to resources (see Appendix A). 

Increase the Guided Use Allocation: 

The guided use allocation for a recreation location may be increased to accommodate 

additional guided use on a temporary basis (authorized by a one-year amendment to a priority 

use permit) at the discretion of the District Ranger for the district where additional use is 

requested, if all of the following occur: 

 An outfitter or guide proposes an activity that has been analyzed in this EA and 

that request requires a higher allocation in a specific recreation use area than 

selected in the Decision Notice, 

 The use levels and timing of the increase meet the parameters shown below under 

Implementation, 

 The proposed use of the recreation location does not exceed the highest number 

of service days analyzed for an action alternative in this EA (160,490 service 

days) or the highest number of service days analyzed for that recreation location, 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 22 

 No substantial6 resource issues are identified during the required resource 

specialist review (see Appendix A), which may include coordination with State 

and Federal counterparts, 

 Evaluation of the number/content of complaints indicates that additional use can 

be accommodated while meeting Forest Plan objectives, and 

 For additional use proposed in Wilderness, the proposed use cannot be 

accommodated on non-wilderness portions of the project area. 

If two years pass without concerns, the location’s guided use allocation may be increased to 

include the additional use and may be issued on priority use permits at the discretion of the 

District Ranger. 

The District Ranger may also increase allocation when a new location is identified as a 

location desired for an existing guided use if all of the conditions above are met. The 

recreation visitor capacity for the new location would be based on the formula in Appendix 

B. That formula would be used to calculate the capacity, and the number of service days 

allocated would be based on the parameters of the alternative that is chosen. The total 

allocation, including any increase, would not be allowed to go above the highest number of 

service days analyzed for an action alternative in this EA (160,490 service days) and the 

request for a new location would trigger an internal review (see Appendix A). 

Implementation _____________________________ 

Timing of Adaptive Management Adjustments: The timing of adjustments is also important 

in this adaptive management strategy. Time is needed to monitor results and adjust the 

chosen actions. Monitoring results at guided use levels close to those chosen are needed to 

assure that environmental and social effects are as, or less than, expected. No increases to 

the guided use allocations selected in the Decision Notice will be made for a minimum of 

two years after implementation occurs. In addition, a recreation use area would need to be 

near the selected guided use allocation for a minimum of two years prior to considering an 

increase in that allocation. This will allow time to monitor the selected allocations before 

implementing adaptive management strategies. On the other hand, if negative effects of 

implementation are discovered they would be dealt with swiftly to minimize harmful 

environmental and social impacts. 

Reductions: In some recreation use areas, the number of service days allocated may be less 

than the current number of permitted days (ex. Biscuit Lagoon, Hessa Inlet, and Klakas Inlet, 

Table 2-1). In those areas, the number of permitted days would be reduced to the number of 

days allocated. Permit administrators would follow direction in Forest Service Handbook 

2709.11 Chapter 40, Section 41.53 and Forest Service Handbook 2709.14 Chapter 50, 

Section 53 to make the reductions. In cases where reductions were needed, the permit 

 

6 Substantial is defined differently for each resource, that is why a resource specialist review is included in the 

adaptive management criteria. More information is available on the resource analysis in the resource reports in 

the project record. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 23 

administrator would work with the outfitter or guide to determine if the permitted activities 

could be accommodated at a different area with similar attributes and available service days. 

Project Monitoring ___________________________ 

Monitoring and evaluation provide the public and the Forest Service with information on the 

progress and results of implementing National Forest management decisions. Monitoring and 

evaluation comprise an essential feedback mechanism to help be responsive to changing 

conditions. There are two distinct types of monitoring: implementation and effectiveness. 

Implementation monitoring determines if the permitted activities comply with adopted 

standards and guidelines: “Did we do what we said we would?” Effectiveness monitoring 

determines whether the standards and guidelines achieve desired results: “Were the results 

what we expected?” 

Implementation and effectiveness monitoring will be accomplished through the 

administration of the special use permits issued to implement a decision on this EA. . These 

measures include: 

Special use permits authorized will be monitored as described in Forest Service Handbook 

2709.14. This monitoring will consist of routine inspections for permit compliance and 

compliance with State and Federal regulations. 

 Field inspections of special use permit operations or approved use areas. 

 Field inspections of a permit holder's operations or approved use will be 

necessary to ensure compliance with permit provisions. Inspections of approved 

use areas would provide information regarding site conditions and whether or not 

additional administrative actions are required. 

 Permit holders are required to provide actual use reports7

 to the Forest Service 

within 30 days of the end of their operating season. 

 Information provided by the yearly use reports will be compiled and available to 

all resource disciplines or other areas as requested. 

Implementation and monitoring of special use permits is a part of the ongoing management 

of resources at the district level. The programs and strategies used to manage resources 

include education and awareness, field visits, site inspections, and visitor feedback (see 

Adaptive Management above). Monitoring may vary depending upon resources that are 

impacted. The following monitoring is proposed to assist in the management of resources 

potentially affected by outfitting and guiding. 

 

7 Actual use reports A form completed by outfitter and guide permit holders and submitted to the District Office 

at the end of the holder’s operating season. The form includes the following information: date(s) of use, number 

of clients, location(s), and a description of the activity(s) at each location. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 24 

Wildlife 

Permit administrators will annually monitor number of use days by sites for guided deer 

hunting. Outfitters and guides will be required to report the number of deer or bear harvested 

by hunt each year. If conflicts arise at particular sites, biologists and permit administrators 

will re-evaluate the permit allocations for these sites. 

Recreation and Wilderness 

The Craig and Thorne Bay Ranger District recreation staff plans and implements a 

Wilderness monitoring trip annually. Wilderness monitoring takes place with an 

interdisciplinary crew that analyzes streams, wildlife, botany, archeological resources and 

social aspects of the Prince of Wales Wilderness Areas. 

Aquatics 

Fisheries personnel will annually visit a sample of high-use sites, such as Eagle Creek/Luck 

Lake, Thorne River and Staney Creek, to assess fish habitat and aquatic resource condition to 

measure best management practices implementation and effectiveness. 

Botany 

Yearly, a sample of rare and sensitive plant populations in or near recreation use areas will be 

monitored based on level of use and rarity of the species. Monitoring will determine if 

recreation use is affecting rare or sensitive plants. Monitoring will be completed by qualified 

district personnel. 

Heritage 

Yearly, a sample of approximately ten recreation use areas will be subjected to standard 

archaeological monitoring and inventory procedures by a Forest Service archaeologist. 

These areas will be examined based on: 1) if any known significant cultural sites are in the 

immediate vicinity, 2) the location’s level of archaeological sensitivity, and 3) type of 

activity conducted. Camping is considered the activity with the most potential to impact 

significant cultural resources and camping sites will be given a high priority for monitoring. 

Active touring is the second-most activity of concern for Heritage. 

During monitoring the recreation use area will be visually examined, with an option to use 

soil probes and test units to determine if buried sites are being impacted. Photographic 

overviews will be taken as a baseline to compare with later examinations of the location. 

The results of these examinations will be included in the required annual report to the Alaska 

State Historic Preservation Officer, added to the Forest Service Heritage files yearly report 

and reflected in the Forest Service archaeological database. Some permit sites might be 

examined more than once during the use season to confirm whether the activities are 

affecting extant significant cultural resources. This periodic monitoring is the key 

component in ensuring the permitted activities will not adversely affect extant significant 

cultural resources. 

Invasive Species 

Future surveys and monitoring for possible invasive plant infestations will be prioritized 

based on level of use and vulnerability of the habitat. Monitoring will determine if invasive 

species are increasing in size or spreading to new locations. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 25 

Soil 

Monitoring of user developed sites should occur on a regular basis (suggest every 2 years) by 

Tongass Forest Service personnel. Soil erosion or puddling should be documented and 

reported to the district Soil Scientist to determine mitigation measures. 

Comparison of Alternatives ___________________ 

This section provides a summary of the effects of implementing each alternative. Information 

in Table 2-1 is focused on different allocation levels that can be distinguished quantitatively 

among alternatives. Information in Table 2-2 is focused on the different outputs and effects 

that can be distinguished quantitatively among alternatives. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 26 

Table 2-1: Comparison of Alternatives 

Recreation Use Area8

Access Highest 

Actual 

Annual 

Use9

Recreation 

Visitor 

Capacity 

Service Days 

(SD) 

Alternative 

1 - No 

Action - 

Current 

Permitted 10

Alternative 2 - 

Proposed 

Action - 50% of 

recreation 

visitor capacity 

(SD) 

Fishing 

Limit (SDs 

allowed/SDs 

with limited 

timing)11

Alternative 3 

- 25% of 

recreation 

visitor 

capacity 

(SD) 

Alter

108 Creek/Cavern Lake 

Road 62 692 116+ 346 200/100* 173 

Aats BayW Shore 24 309 63 155 77 Aiken Cove Shore 9 847 12 424 212 Alder Creek Road 0 2,306 105+ 1,153 25 577 Arena Cove Shore 2 282 141 71 Aston Island Shore 1 847 424 212 Baker Creek Road 0 2,306 10 1,153 25 577 Barnes Lake Remote 18 461 231 25/12* 115 Barrier Islands Shore 0 309 200 155 77 

8 Sites identified with a “W” are located in Wilderness. 9 Data is an aggregate of highest use between 2004 and 2008. 10 Alternative 1 – rows have blanks if there is no 2011 permitted use in these areas; however, these areas have been used by outfitters and 

will probably be requested for use in the future. There are current restrictions in numbers of guided fishing service days for steelhead in 

“+”; these restrictions are briefly discussed above and outlined in the Revision to the Environmental Assessment for the Determination o

Permits for Sportfishing Outfitter and Guide Services throughout Ketchikan Area Tongass National Forest (1998) 

11 Fishing restricted to maintain steelhead, summer run coho, and sockeye runs; restrictions do not lower the entire allocation for outfitter

restrict the number of annual permitted fishing service days to those shown in the left side of this column. If only one number is shown ithe annual permitted fishing service days and there are no timing restrictions. The number and the asterisk in the right side of this columrestrictions: * = the restricted period for guided fishing days is 12/1 to 7/31, ** = the restricted period for guided fishing days is 12/1 to 5right of the “/” displays the highest number of service days allowed during the restricted period. Where no numbers are shown in these corestriction is not applicable. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 27 

Recreation Use Area8

Access Highest 

Actual 

Annual 

Use9

Recreation 

Visitor 

Capacity 

Service Days 

(SD) 

Alternative 

1 - No 

Action - 

Current 

Permitted 10

Alternative 2 - 

Proposed 

Action - 50% of 

recreation 

visitor capacity 

(SD) 

Fishing 

Limit (SDs 

allowed/SDs 

with limited 

timing)11

Alternative 3 

- 25% of 

recreation 

visitor 

capacity 

(SD) 

Alter

Beaver Falls Trail Road 60 2,318 1,159 1,73812 Beaver Mountain Remote 2 4,234 2,117 1,059 Big Creek, W. Cholmondoley Shore 0 1,079 500 540 270 Big Lake Road 5 2,306 95 1,153 25/12* 577 Biscuit LagoonW Shore 69 360 538 180 90 Black Bear Lake Remote 0 4,612 20 2,306 1,153 Bobs Place Shore 3 847 424 212 Boyd Lake Road 2 2,306 32 1,153 25 577 Brownson BayW Shore 2 282 8 141 71 Buster Bay Shore 11 2,822 28 1,411 706 Buster Creek Road 0 2,306 1,153 25 577 Cable Creek Road 12 692 9 346 25 173 Calder Bay Road 19 2,117 418 1,059 529 Calder Creek Road 0 2,306 105 1,153 577 California Bay Road 7 2,117 1,059 529 Cape Chacon Shore 5 847 424 212 

12 In Alternative 3, 75% of the capacity in this area would be allocated to guided use 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 28 

Recreation Use Area8

Access Highest 

Actual 

Annual 

Use9

Recreation 

Visitor 

Capacity 

Service Days 

(SD) 

Alternative 

1 - No 

Action - 

Current 

Permitted 10

Alternative 2 - 

Proposed 

Action - 50% of 

recreation 

visitor capacity 

(SD) 

Fishing 

Limit (SDs 

allowed/SDs 

with limited 

timing)11

Alternative 3 

- 25% of 

recreation 

visitor 

capacity 

(SD) 

Alter

Cavern Lake Trail Road 4 696 348 174 China CoveW Shore 57 309 63 155 77 Cholmondeley Sound, NE Shore 36 1,079 425 540 270 Cholmondeley Sound, South Arm 

Shore 54 1,079 500 540 270 

Cholmondeley Sound, West Arm 

Shore 84 1,079 540 270 

Clover Lake Remote 26 1,270 128 635 318 Cora Point W Shore 4 309 42 155 77 Datzkoo Harbor Shore 55 847 424 212 Devilfish Bay Shore 4 282 28 141 71 Dickman Bay Shore 23 847 424 212 Diver Bay Shore 4 2,822 1,411 706 Dog Salmon Creek Road 2,696 1,348 25 674 Dog Salmon Fishpass Road 1,396 8,733 1,722 4,367 6,55013 Dog Salmon Lake Road 2 635 318 159 

13 In Alternative 3, 75% of the capacity in this area would be allocated to guided use 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 29 

Recreation Use Area8

Access Highest 

Actual 

Annual 

Use9

Recreation 

Visitor 

Capacity 

Service Days 

(SD) 

Alternative 

1 - No 

Action - 

Current 

Permitted 10

Alternative 2 - 

Proposed 

Action - 50% of 

recreation 

visitor capacity 

(SD) 

Fishing 

Limit (SDs 

allowed/SDs 

with limited 

timing)11

Alternative 3 

- 25% of 

recreation 

visitor 

capacity 

(SD) 

Alter

Dry Pass Shore 8 2,822 38 1,411 706 Dunbar Inlet Shore 30 847 424 212 Eagle Creek Road 61 692 224 346 250/125* 173 Eagle Island Shore 20 927 464 232 Egg HarborW Shore 29 309 20 155 77 El Capitan Cave Road 112 7,560 1,167 3,780 1,890 El Capitan Passage Shore 34 927 464 232 Essowah Lakes Remote 2 423 212 106 Exchange Cove, East Shore 8 2,822 1,411 706 Exchange Cove, West Road 100 2,318 10 1,159 580 FDR 2700 Road 7 2,318 1,159 580 Fisherman Cove Shore 3 847 424 212 Flicker Creek Road 19 2,306 + 1,153 25 577 Fredrick Cove Shore 32 3,595 12 1,798 899 Gandlaay Haanaa (Fubar Creek) 

Road 2 2,117 1,059 50/25** 529 

Goat Island Shore 3 847 424 212 Gold Harbor Shore 2 282 141 71 Goose Bay Shore 9 847 424 212 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 30 

Recreation Use Area8

Access Highest 

Actual 

Annual 

Use9

Recreation 

Visitor 

Capacity 

Service Days 

(SD) 

Alternative 

1 - No 

Action - 

Current 

Permitted 10

Alternative 2 - 

Proposed 

Action - 50% of 

recreation 

visitor capacity 

(SD) 

Fishing 

Limit (SDs 

allowed/SDs 

with limited 

timing)11

Alternative 3 

- 25% of 

recreation 

visitor 

capacity 

(SD) 

Alter

Gosti Island Shore 1 847 424 212 Granite Mountain Remote 12 423 9 212 106 Gulch Creek Road 2 2,117 9 1,059 529 Halibut Harbor Shore 13 847 828 424 212 Harris Ridge Road 4 635 10 318 159 Harris River Road 190 2,306 339+ 1,153 150/75** 577 Hassiah Inlet Shore 2 2,822 26 1,411 706 Hatchery Creek Road 100 692 26+ 346 250/125* 173 Hessa InletW Shore 6 282 522 141 71 Holbrook Arm Shore 8 2,822 1,411 706 Hole In The WallW Shore 17 282 34 141 71 Hook Arm Shore 4 847 424 212 Horseshoe Island Shore 3 847 424 212 Hunter BayW Shore 89 360 212 180 90 Hunter Creek Shore 0 307 2 154 100 77 Indian Creek Road 1 635 19 318 159 Ingraham Bay Shore 11 847 424 212 Island Bay Shore 8 927 464 232 Jinhi Bay Shore 2 847 28 424 212 Johnson Cove Shore 6 2,822 12 1,411 706 Karheen Cove Shore 2 2,822 1,411 706 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 31 

Recreation Use Area8

Access Highest 

Actual 

Annual 

Use9

Recreation 

Visitor 

Capacity 

Service Days 

(SD) 

Alternative 

1 - No 

Action - 

Current 

Permitted 10

Alternative 2 - 

Proposed 

Action - 50% of 

recreation 

visitor capacity 

(SD) 

Fishing 

Limit (SDs 

allowed/SDs 

with limited 

timing)11

Alternative 3 

- 25% of 

recreation 

visitor 

capacity 

(SD) 

Alter

Kasaan Bay Shore 2 847 18 424 212 Kasook Inlet Shore 2 282 141 71 Kassa Inlet Shore 14 2,822 26 1,411 706 Keete Inlet Shore 14 2,822 1,411 706 Kegan Creek Shore 0 307 69 154 77 Kendrick Bay Shore 6 2,822 20 1,411 706 Klakas InletW Shore 208 360 854 180 90 Klakas Lake Remote 0 461 212 231 100 115 Kosciusko Island Road System 

Road 12 2,117 8 1,059 529 

Kugel Lake Remote 57 1,618 85 809 405 Kugun Creek Shore 1 2,822 1,411 706 Labouchere Bay Road 10 635 10 318 159 Lake Galea Remote 0 1,391 85 696 348 Lancaster Cove Shore 98 2,822 1,411 706 Lava Creek Road 7 635 14 318 159 Logjam Creek Road 19 2,306 99+ 1,153 50/25* 577 Luck Lake Road 81 2,306 169 1,153 250/125* 577 Luelia Lake Remote 144 539 285 270 135 Mabel Island Shore 2 847 424 212 Marble Creek Road 0 2,306 1,153 577 Marble Island Shore 5 2,822 1,411 706 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 32 

Recreation Use Area8

Access Highest 

Actual 

Annual 

Use9

Recreation 

Visitor 

Capacity 

Service Days 

(SD) 

Alternative 

1 - No 

Action - 

Current 

Permitted 10

Alternative 2 - 

Proposed 

Action - 50% of 

recreation 

visitor capacity 

(SD) 

Fishing 

Limit (SDs 

allowed/SDs 

with limited 

timing)11

Alternative 3 

- 25% of 

recreation 

visitor 

capacity 

(SD) 

Alter

Max CoveW Shore 97 360 218 180 90 Maybeso River Road 11 635 9 318 159 McKenzie Inlet, South Road 48 2,117 1,059 529 McKenzie Inlet, West Shore 10 922 200 461 231 Mclean Arm Shore 4 847 38 424 212 Mcleod Bay Shore 4 847 424 212 Memorial Beach Road 4 2,318 1,159 580 Menefee Anchorage Shore 2 847 424 212 Miller Lake Remote 44 1,618 500 809 405 Moira Sound Shore 121 2,822 8 1,411 706 Moira Sound, North Arm Shore 2 847 424 212 Moira Sound , South Arm Shore 135 1,079 500 540 270 Monie Lake Remote 0 4,612 65 2,306 1,153 Naukati Bay Road 3 2,117 1,059 529 Neck Lake Road 75 2,306 175 1,153 150 577 Niblack Lake Remote 0 1,383 128 692 346 Nichols Bay Shore 4 847 20 424 212 No Name Lake, S8 T68S R 79E Road 0 2,306 90 1,153 577 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 33 

Recreation Use Area8

Access Highest 

Actual 

Annual 

Use9

Recreation 

Visitor 

Capacity 

Service Days 

(SD) 

Alternative 

1 - No 

Action - 

Current 

Permitted 10

Alternative 2 - 

Proposed 

Action - 50% of 

recreation 

visitor capacity 

(SD) 

Fishing 

Limit (SDs 

allowed/SDs 

with limited 

timing)11

Alternative 3 

- 25% of 

recreation 

visitor 

capacity 

(SD) 

Alter

North Bay Shore 2 847 424 212 Nossuk Bay Shore 15 2,822 828 1,411 706 Nowiskay Cove Shore 74 1,079 540 270 Nutkawa Inlet Shore 4 2,822 1,411 706 Nutkawa Lagoon Remote 24 423 65 212 106 Old Franks Creek Road 42 2,306 19 1,153 100 577 Old Log Camp Road 1 2,117 110 1,059 529 Old Toms Creek Road 19 270 10 135 68 One Duck Lake Road 2 2,117 1,059 529 One Duck Road System Road 1 2,117 1,059 529 Orr Island Shore 4 2,822 1,411 706 Paul Bight Shore 3 282 10 141 71 Paul Young Creek Shore 3 847 10 424 212 Pine Point Shore 1 2,822 1,411 706 Point Dolores Shore 4 2,822 1,411 706 Pole Anchorage Shore 2 2,822 1,411 706 Polk Inlet Overlook Road 4 2,117 1,059 529 Polk Inlet, East Shore 2 2,822 1,411 706 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 34 

Recreation Use Area8

Access Highest 

Actual 

Annual 

Use9

Recreation 

Visitor 

Capacity 

Service Days 

(SD) 

Alternative 

1 - No 

Action - 

Current 

Permitted 10

Alternative 2 - 

Proposed 

Action - 50% of 

recreation 

visitor capacity 

(SD) 

Fishing 

Limit (SDs 

allowed/SDs 

with limited 

timing)11

Alternative 3 

- 25% of 

recreation 

visitor 

capacity 

(SD) 

Alter

Polk Inlet, North Road 88 2,117 180 1,059 529 Polk Pass Road 5 2,117 1,059 529 Pond Bay Shore 1 847 424 212 Port Alice Shore 3 847 424 212 Port Refugio Shore 8 2,822 1,411 706 Port Santa Cruz Shore 1 2,822 1,411 706 Ratz Creek Road 27 692 315+ 346 100/50* 173 Ratz Harbor Shore 0 927 464 232 Red Bay Road 16 2,117 338 1,059 529 Red Bay Creek/Lake Road 31 692 259+ 346 25 173 Red Bay Lake Trail Road 13 696 233 348 174 Rip Point Shore 2 2,822 1,411 706 Roller Bay, Noyes Island Shore 0 309 155 77 Ruins Point Shore 2 282 141 71 Sakie Bay Shore 2 847 20 424 212 Salmon Bay Shore 42 282 210 141 71 Salmon Bay Creek Remote 18 461 72 231 50 115 Salmon Bay Lake Remote 19 461 168 231 50 115 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 35 

Recreation Use Area8

Access Highest 

Actual 

Annual 

Use9

Recreation 

Visitor 

Capacity 

Service Days 

(SD) 

Alternative 

1 - No 

Action - 

Current 

Permitted 10

Alternative 2 - 

Proposed 

Action - 50% of 

recreation 

visitor capacity 

(SD) 

Fishing 

Limit (SDs 

allowed/SDs 

with limited 

timing)11

Alternative 3 

- 25% of 

recreation 

visitor 

capacity 

(SD) 

Alter

Salmon Bay Lake Trail Shore 0 309 233 155 77 Salt Chuck Shore 56 3,595 500 1,798 899 Salt Lake Bay Shore 11 847 28 424 212 Sarheen Cove Shore 10 847 10 424 212 Sarkar Lake Road 29 692 159 346 100/50* 173 Scott Lagoon Shore 17 2,822 1,411 706 Security Cove Shore 2 847 424 212 Shaheen Creek Road 9 2,306 4 1,153 25 577 Shakan Bay Shore 22 282 80 141 71 Shipley Bay Shore 32 282 138 141 71 Shipley Bay Creek/Lake Shore 0 307 195 154 77 Shipwreck Point Shore 4 282 141 71 Skowl Arm Shore 23 2,822 178 1,411 706 Snag Island Shore 2 847 424 212 Snakey Lake Road 0 692 85 346 173 Soda Bay Shore 1 847 424 212 Spanish Islands Shore 24 309 155 77 Spiral Cove Shore 4 847 424 212 Staney Creek, Main Stem Road 171 2,306 500+ 1,153 350/175* 577 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 36 

Recreation Use Area8

Access Highest 

Actual 

Annual 

Use9

Recreation 

Visitor 

Capacity 

Service Days 

(SD) 

Alternative 

1 - No 

Action - 

Current 

Permitted 10

Alternative 2 - 

Proposed 

Action - 50% of 

recreation 

visitor capacity 

(SD) 

Fishing 

Limit (SDs 

allowed/SDs 

with limited 

timing)11

Alternative 3 

- 25% of 

recreation 

visitor 

capacity 

(SD) 

Alter

Staney Creek, North Fork Road 2,306 1,153 50/25* 577 Staney Creek, South Fork Road 2,306 1,153 50/25* 577 Staney Creek, Upper Road 2,306 1,153 50/25* 577 Steamboat Bay Shore 2 309 155 77 Stone Rock Bay Shore 4 847 12 424 212 Suemez Island Road System Shore 12 3,091 1,546 773 Survey Cove Shore 8 2,822 800 1,411 706 Sutter Creek/lake Shore 0 307 95 154 77 Sweetwater Lake Road 18 2,306 117 1,153 25/12* 577 Tah BayW Shore 3 282 12 141 71 Tenass Bay Shore 12 847 424 212 The Saitchuck Remote 0 539 500 270 135 Thorne River, Lower Road 243 2,306 543+ 1,153 350/175* 577 Thorne River, North Road 692 346 50/25* 173 Thorne River, Tributaries Remote 1,383 692 50* 346 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 37 

Recreation Use Area8

Access Highest 

Actual 

Annual 

Use9

Recreation 

Visitor 

Capacity 

Service Days 

(SD) 

Alternative 

1 - No 

Action - 

Current 

Permitted 10

Alternative 2 - 

Proposed 

Action - 50% of 

recreation 

visitor capacity 

(SD) 

Fishing 

Limit (SDs 

allowed/SDs 

with limited 

timing)11

Alternative 3 

- 25% of 

recreation 

visitor 

capacity 

(SD) 

Alter

Thorne River, Upper Remote 1,383 692 50* 346 Tlevak Narrows Shore 12 2,822 1,411 706 Tokeen Bay Shore 5 282 141 71 Trocadero Creek Road 7 635 9 318 25 159 Trout Creek Shore 11 2,822 28 1,411 706 Trumpeter Lake Road 40 2,306 10+ 1,153 50/25* 577 Turn Creek Road 47 2,306 + 1,153 25/12** 577 Tuxekan Island Road System Shore 9 847 424 212 Twelvemile Arm Creek Road 7 2,117 33 1,059 25 529 Twelvemile Arm Road System 

Road 11 2,117 1,059 529 

Upper Trocadero Mountain 

Road 2 2,117 1,059 529 

Upper Trocadero Road System 

Road 7 2,117 19 1,059 529 

Upper Twelvemile Arm Road System 

Road 7 2,117 10 1,059 529 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 38 

Recreation Use Area8

Access Highest 

Actual 

Annual 

Use9

Recreation 

Visitor 

Capacity 

Service Days 

(SD) 

Alternative 

1 - No 

Action - 

Current 

Permitted 10

Alternative 2 - 

Proposed 

Action - 50% of 

recreation 

visitor capacity 

(SD) 

Fishing 

Limit (SDs 

allowed/SDs 

with limited 

timing)11

Alternative 3 

- 25% of 

recreation 

visitor 

capacity 

(SD) 

Alter

Van Sant Cove Shore 3 282 141 71 Waterfall Bay Shore 3 847 424 212 West Sentinel Island Shore 8 927 464 232 Whale Passage Road 32 2,318 1,159 580 Windy BayW Shore 24 309 63 155 77 Winter Bay Shore 2 282 141 71 Winter Harbor Road 0 2,318 1,159 580 Wolf Lake Remote 6 4,234 2,117 1,059 Wolk Harbor Shore 2 847 424 212 

Total14 320,979 19,827 160,490 85,771 

14 The number of service days in this “total” row was calculated using decimals, whereas data shown in the columns above were rounded 

the columns do not add up exactly to match the total due to rounding. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 39 

Table 2-2: Comparison of Alternative Effects Issue Responded to and measurement Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative 2 - Proposed Action Alternative 3 Issue 1 - Guided hunting may conflict with subsistence hunting within the home hunting ranges for communities on Prince o

shows the home hunting range as 10 to 25 miles depending on conditions, the IDT suggested an average of 15 miles for anal

Projected number of service days for hunting near the communities under each alternative 

9,980 SDs 94,287 SDs 4,600 SDs 

Issue 2 - Outfitter and guide activities may negatively affect unguided recreationists that have selected Prince of Wales specihas few people. An increase in guided visitors may create social problems, like crowding and causing unguided recreationist

desirable areas. 

Number of service days allocated to outfitters and guides.

19,827 SDs 160,490 SDs 85,771 SDs 2

Issue 3 - Outfitter and guides need opportunities for business growth on Prince of Wales Island to maintain their businesses 

local economy. 

Number of service days in areas that have developed facilities (Dog Salmon Fishpass) available 

4,379 SDs 14, 959 SDs 13,005 SDs 

Number of service days in areas that are close to communities, where travel costs are lower.

15,737 SDs 122,413 SDs 66,732 SDs 1
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 40 

Issue Responded to and measurement Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative 2 - Proposed Action Alternative 3 Issue 4 - Limiting the amount and location of outfitted and guided fishing when population data are not available, unnecessaand guide activities. Number of service days allocated in areas where the three species of concern (sockeye, steelhead, and summer run coho salmon) are located. 

4,673 SDs 32,574 SDs 15,767 SDs 

Total number of service days allocated for fishing

in areas where sockeye, steelhead, and summer run coho salmon are located 

4,673 SDs 3,875 SDs 15,767 SDs 

(Source: Chapter 3 and Resource Reports) 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 41 

Figure 2-1: Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative - Existing Levels of Outfitter and Guide Use – North Half POW 

 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 42 

Figure 2-2: Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative - Existing Levels of Outfitter and Guide Use – South Half POW 

 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 43 

Figure 2-3: Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Levels of Outfitter and Guide Allocation – North Half POW 

 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 44 

Figure 2-4: Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Levels of Outfitter and Guide Allocation – South Half POW 

 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 45 

Figure 2-5: Alternative 3 Levels of Outfitter and Guide Allocation – North Half POW 

 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 46 

Figure 2-6: Alternative 3 Levels of Outfitter and Guide Allocation – South Half POW 

 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 47 

Figure 2-7: Alternative 4 Levels of Outfitter and Guide Allocation – North Half POW 

 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 48 

Figure 2-8: Alternative 4 Levels of Outfitter and Guide Allocation – South Half POW 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 49 

CHAPTER 3, AFFECTED 

ENVIRONMENT AND 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Introduction ________________________________ 

This chapter describes the affected environment of the project area and the potential 

changes to the environment due to implementation of the alternatives. It also presents the 

scientific and analytical basis for the comparison of alternatives presented in Table 2-2 in 

Chapter 2. Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects are disclosed. Effects are quantified 

where possible, but qualitative discussions are also included. 

The following discussion of resources and potential effects associated with each of the 

alternatives takes advantage of existing information included in the Forest Plan Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS – USDA Forest Service 2008b); other project 

Environmental Assessments (EAs); project-specific resource reports and related 

information; roads analyses; and other sources as indicated. Where applicable, such 

information is briefly summarized and referenced to minimize duplication. 

This EA hereby incorporates, by reference, the project record and resource reports 

contained in the project record (40 CFR 1502.21). The project record for this project 

includes all project-specific information, including resource reports and other results of 

field investigations used to support the analysis and conclusions in this EA. These 

reports, including Water and Fisheries Resources, Management Indicator Species, Rare 

Plant Species, Heritage Resources, and Recreation, as well as a Biological Evaluation for 

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species were prepared for the POW Outfitter and 

Guide Management Plan project. Resource reports contain the detailed data, 

methodologies, analyses, conclusions, maps, references, and technical documentation that 

the resource specialists relied upon to reach the conclusions in this EA. The project 

record also contains information resulting from public involvement efforts. The project 

record is located at the Thorne Bay Ranger District Office in Thorne Bay, Alaska, and is 

available for review during regular business hours. Information from the record is 

available upon request. 

Analyzing Effects ____________________________ 

Environmental consequences are the effects of implementing an alternative on the 

physical, biological, social, and economic environment. The Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) include a number of specific categories to use for the analysis of environmental 

consequences. Several of these categories are applicable to the analysis of the proposed 

project and alternatives. They form the basis of much of the analysis that follows and 

are explained briefly below. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 50 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects 

Effects disclosed in this document are organized into three categories: direct, indirect, 

and cumulative effects. Direct environmental effects occur at the same time and place as 

the initial cause or action. Indirect effects occur later in time or are spatially removed 

from the action. Cumulative effects result from the incremental effects of actions, when 

added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Cumulative 

effects can result from individually minor, but collectively significant actions taking 

place over a period of time. 

Level of Effects 

In many cases, the IDT used and defined a level of effects to display the amount and 

direction of effects upon resources. Impacts increase from negligible (which includes no 

effect) to minor to moderate to major. Definitions of level of effect are displayed by 

resource in this chapter. There were no major effects on any resource in any alternative, 

thus definitions of major effects are found only in the specialist reports in the Project 

Record. 

Unavoidable Adverse Effects 

Implementation of an action alternative may cause some adverse environmental effects 

that cannot be effectively mitigated or avoided. Unavoidable adverse effects often result 

from managing the land for one resource at the expense of the use or condition of one or 

several other resources. Many adverse effects can be reduced, mitigated, or avoided by 

limiting the extent or duration of effects. The interdisciplinary procedure used to 

identify specific management activities was designed to eliminate or minimize adverse 

consequences. The application of Forest Plan standards and guidelines, Best 

Management Practices (BMPs), project-specific project design and mitigation 

measures, and monitoring are all intended to further limit the extent, severity, and 

duration of potential effects. Such measures are discussed throughout this chapter. 

Regardless of the use of these measures, some adverse effects will occur. The purpose of 

this chapter is to fully disclose these effects. 

Short-term Use and Long-term Productivity 

Short-term uses, and their effects, are those activities that occur during or within the first 

few years of project implementation. Long-term productivity refers to the capability of 

the land and resources to continue producing goods and services long after the project has 

been implemented. Under the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act and the National Forest 

Management Act, all renewable resources are to be managed so that they are available for 

future generations. Guided use is expected to have minimal effect on trees and tree 

growth, but could affect plants, the spread of invasive plants, and fish and wildlife. Longterm productivity of resources is expected to be maintained through the application of 

resource protection measures (project design elements and mitigation measures) and 

adaptive management as described in Chapter 2. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments 

Irreversible commitments of resources are those that cannot be regained, such as the 

extinction of a species or the removal of mined ore. Irretrievable commitments are 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 51 

those that are lost for a period of time such as the temporary loss of timber productivity in 

forested areas that are kept clear for use as a power line right-of-way or road. 

Generally, the use of rock for construction or the loss of the only known population of a 

plant would be an irreversible commitment of that resource since the rock is no longer in 

the ground or the plant no longer exists. A lower allocation of service days to outfitters 

and guides is a loss of business productivity, which is an irretrievable commitment of 

resources. 

No irreversible commitments are expected if design elements and mitigation in Appendix 

A and Adaptive Management (Chapter 2) are implemented. The action alternatives would 

reduce the amount of potential guided use in one or more recreation use areas but 

increase potential guided use in most other areas. There would be an irretrievable loss of 

business productivity in a few locations if guided use is reduced. This productivity could 

be easily offset by increases in other locations in Alternatives 2 or 3 or through adaptive 

management in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. 

Organization of Analysis 

This chapter and the analysis of effects is organized by resource, with those resources 

related to issues identified in Chapter 1 at the beginning of this chapter. 

Issues 1, 2, and 3 are addressed by individual resource sections, specifically Subsistence 

Uses, Recreation and Wilderness, and Economics. The Subsistence Uses section relies 

heavily on the analysis in the Wildlife section of this EA; thus, the Wildlife section 

follows the Subsistence Uses section in this document. Issue 4 is addressed by the 

Fisheries section, but is also related to and discussed at varying levels in the Subsistence 

Uses, Recreation and Wilderness, and Economics sections. 

The remainder of the analysis in this chapter is organized by resource in alphabetical 

order. 

Concerns, suggestions, and design recommendations are discussed as they relate to the 

project’s affected environment and potential effects of the alternatives on resources. 

Subsistence Uses ___________________________ 

In compliance with the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 

(ANILCA), this document analyzes the potential effects of proposed land use activities 

on subsistence uses and needs, and includes a distinct finding on whether the proposed 

action may significantly restrict subsistence uses. 

The analysis considers fish and wildlife subsistence resources. Outfitters and guides are 

not authorized to collect or harvest other subsistence resources. 

Affected Environment 

Subsistence activities are a major and important activity for many residents of Prince of 

Wales Island (POW) and Southeast Alaska. Subsistence activities for Southeast Alaskan 

residents include fishing, hunting for deer and bear, hunting and trapping furbearers, 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 52 

mainly marten (Martes americana), wolf, beaver (Castor canadensis), river otter (Lutra 

canadensis) and mink. Other subsistence activities include harvest of harbor seals by 

Alaska Natives, collecting of plants for food and medicinal values (berries, roots, stems 

and leaves), and collecting of firewood and materials for crafts and medicine. Subsistence 

exists alongside other important uses of fish and game in Alaska, including commercial 

fishing, sport fishing, and general trapping and hunting. 

Subsistence analysis in this environmental assessment will focus on three factors relating 

to fish and wildlife resources: 

1. Abundance and distribution of the resource 

2. Access to the resource 

3. Competition for the resource. 

Subsistence - Wildlife 

This analysis includes discussion of recent wildlife harvest patterns and compares the 

number of service days allocated by alternative at use sites within 15 miles of any 

community on Prince of Wales. 

A thorough and recent introduction to subsistence issues on POW was completed as part 

of the environmental analysis for the Access and Travel Management Plan (USDA 2009) 

and is incorporated here by reference. Effects to species other than those discussed 

below can be found in the Wildlife Resource Report in the planning record. 

Black bear harvest on POW has increased significantly in recent years; non-resident 

hunters accounted for 41 percent of the black bear harvest in GMU 2 in 1990, but 80% in 

2009, while local, rurally qualified residents only harvested about 10% of all bears 

between 1990 and 2009 (ADF&G unpublished data). Most non-resident bear hunters are 

unguided. Though there are no unimportant subsistence uses, there appears to be low 

demand for subsistence black bears, at this time. However, the small percentage of rural 

Alaskans hunting black bear on POW may be likely to encounter competition with nonFederally qualified bear hunters, given that they harvest the majority of black bears. 

Guided hunters contribute little to competition with rurally qualified users compared to 

other unguided hunters (ADFG, unpublished data. See Wildlife Resource Report in the 

planning record for further information.) because unguided hunters make up the majority 

of bear hunters on POW. Furthermore, the Forest Service will work cooperatively with 

the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) to set appropriate use levels for bear 

hunting guides, but this process will take place independently of this NEPA analysis. 

Because most non-resident bear hunters are unguided, recent regulatory changes aimed at 

restricting harvest of black bears on POW may alleviate the hunting pressure on this 

important wildlife population (see the wildlife resource report in the Project Record for 

more detail). 

Deer are the most important terrestrial subsistence species for POW residents and are 

analyzed in detail for this project with respect to subsistence. Deer populations are 

currently thought to be at a 12-15 year peak (Porter, pers. comm., 5/23/2011). 

Young growth habitats <10 years old are favored by many deer hunters because deer are 

attracted to abundant forage in these areas and large, open clearcuts provide excellent 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 53 

sighting potential and clear shots. Most clearcuts are readily accessed by road and often 

require less strenuous hiking than alpine sites. Harvest reports indicate as much as 75% 

of deer harvested on POW are taken in conjunction with the road system (Bethune 2009). 

Current hunting patterns across POW are changing as open clearcuts that once provided a 

quality hunting experience regenerate into dense, young-growth stands that no longer 

provide quality deer hunting opportunities. Hunters can no longer visually locate deer and 

forage quality begins to drop. Thinning of young growth stands is thought to improve 

habitat values for deer, but it generally does not improve hunting opportunities in these 

habitats. 

In addition to the change in habitat composition over time, recent changes in hunter 

demographics have raised concerns among some subsistence users. Some residents of 

POW contend Ketchikan and other nonlocal hunters (residents of Alaska that do not 

reside on the POW districts) are affecting their ability to get the deer they need to subsist 

(Bethune 2009). Figure 3-1 displays total estimated hunters by residency and success 

from 1998 to 2009. Nonlocal hunters make up about 45 percent of deer hunters on POW 

Island and are nearly as successful as local residents. Non-residents make up about 11 

percent of total hunters and have lower success rates than Alaska residents, both local and 

nonlocal. 

Both the number of non-resident hunters and their success rate have increased in recent 

years; the highest number reported was 224 non-resident hunters in 2009 (ADF&G 

unpublished data). It is difficult to estimate what percentage of non-resident hunters are 

guided, but given that guides reported 128 service days for both deer and fall bear 

hunting in 2009, it is likely that most non-resident hunters are not guided. Regardless, 

non-resident hunters and the number of deer they harvest, either guided or not, represent 

a small percentage of all hunters and deer harvested in GMU 2. 

The combination of habitat changes over time and the rise in non-resident and nonlocal 

resident hunting for deer prompted concern among some that locals may experience 

restrictions in access or competition for subsistence deer. Scoping comments for this 

project included requests for a “local use area” near Craig (see Figure 3-2) where guided 

hunting for deer would be restricted in order to preserve opportunities for subsistence 

harvest. 

 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 54 

Figure 3-1: Number of hunters by residency and success from 1998 through 2009 

(ADF&G, unpublished data). 

Total Hunters by Residency and Success

Year

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Hunters

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Local Resident Successful 

Local Resident Unsuccessful 

Nonlocal Resident Successful 

Nonlocal Resident Unsuccessful 

Nonresident Successful 

Nonresident Unsuccessful 

Guided deer hunting with deer as the primary focal species has increased in recent years, 

up from roughly 18 service days in 2004 to approximately 66 service days in 2009. The 

total amount of guided hunting that occurs for deer is difficult to estimate because deer 

may be harvested either as part of a guided deer or bear hunt. However, only guided bear 

hunts that occur in the fall season coincide with the deer hunting season. Furthermore, 

not all guided bear hunters target deer, but some take deer opportunistically, or focus on 

deer after they have already harvested a bear. Guided deer hunting likely accounts for 

<1% of the annual average harvest of deer from GMU 2 (See Wildlife Resource Report). 

Guided deer or fall bear hunting occurred at 83 (approximately 40%) of the sites under 

consideration in this EA between 2004 and 2009. This includes eight of the 16 use sites 

that fall within the proposed local use area identified for Craig during scoping. No 

guided hunting for fall bear or deer was reported at Shaheen Creek, Port Alice, Bob’s 
Proposed Local 

Use Area 

___________________________________________________________________________________ Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Figure 3-2: City of Craig, Alaska's Proposed Local Use Area (from Scoping Comments, 3/16/2011) _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Page 55
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 56 

Back of Figure 3-2
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 57 

Place, Steamboat Bay, Point Dolores, Suemez Island Road System, or Port Santa Cruz 

between 2004 and 2009. Guided hunting reported for Hole in the Wall was actually from 

another location of the same name not under consideration in this analysis because it is 

not Forest Service land. 

The highest recorded use in any one area for guided deer hunting between 2004 and 2009 

(not including deer hunting incidental to fall bear hunting) was 38 service days in Salmon 

Bay (USDA Forest Service unpublished data). Twenty-two of those service days were in 

2008 alone. This use was comprised of two groups of two hunters that hunted with a 

guide in the area for 5 or 6 days each. While Salmon Bay is used by subsistence hunters 

as well, WAA 1528 containing Salmon Bay ranked 19th of 34 WAAs in terms of overall 

deer harvest between 2005 and 2009 (ADF&G unpublished data). No particular user 

conflicts between guided hunters and subsistence hunters were identified for this site 

during scoping. 

Several sites had higher permitted use than the calculated recreation visitor capacity for 

this project, including Halibut Harbor, Klakas Inlet, Hessa Inlet, and Biscuit Lagoon. 

However, actual use remained well below visitor capacity, most of these sites are not 

within 15 miles of any community, and fall deer or bear hunting was not the dominant 

activity at any of these sites, so impacts to subsistence would have been minimal. 

Of the sites identified in the proposed Craig local use area, guides reported using 72 

service days for fall bear or deer hunting between 2004 and 2009, or approximately 0.75 

service days per site per year, on average. The site in this area with the highest reported 

use specifically for guided deer hunting was Tlevak Narrows with 7.6 service days 

reported in 2008; no fall bear hunting was recorded at Tlevak Narrows. Highest use 

overall for guided hunting between 2004 and 2009 among these sites was reported at 

Nossuk Bay and Salt Lake Bay, with average annual service days for fall bear hunting at 

3.4 annually at both sites. 

Subsistence - Fisheries 

This analysis is a portion of the Aquatics and Fisheries Subsistence Resource Report 

found in the project record. Additional information on existing conditions of fish and 

fish habitat and expected effects to fish and fish habitat can be found in that report and in 

the Fisheries section below. Only conditions and effects specific to subsistence uses are 

summarized here. 

The affected environment for subsistence fisheries resources includes all streams on the 

Thorne Bay and Craig Ranger Districts and surrounding waters. This includes portions 

of rivers that flow through private as well as Forest Service land and surrounding state 

managed coastal waters. Title 8 of ANILCA assures that a subsistence priority will be 

met for federally qualified subsistence users. Residents of all Prince of Wales 

communities have a positive Customary and Traditional Use determination for all waters 

above the mean high tide line. 

In general, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) manages fisheries 

populations and the Forest Service manages fish habitat. The Federal Subsistence Board 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 58 

oversees the Federal Subsistence Management Program, of which the Forest Service is a 

board member. Federal subsistence fisheries often occur in the same area as state 

managed fisheries. 

ADF&G, with some Forest Service participation under federal subsistence regulations, is 

responsible for the sustainability of fish and wildlife on all lands in Alaska and utilizes 

emergency orders to protect that sustainability, when necessary. If a threat to 

sustainability of fish is identified, in-season actions (i.e., immediate changes to fishing 

regulations) can be taken by ADF&G and the federal (Forest Service) in-season manager 

for subsistence fisheries. Actions can be taken separately and/or in cooperation by 

ADF&G sportfish division for emergency closures on sportfishing, by ADF&G 

commercial fisheries for state managed personal use and subsistence fisheries, and/or by 

the federal in-season manager for the respective waterbody on the Craig or Thorne Bay 

Ranger Districts. In addition to allocating fish and wildlife among all user groups, the 

Boards of Fisheries and Game provide a subsistence preference on all lands and can 

address both direct and indirect effects on fish and wildlife. The Federal Subsistence 

Board assures a priority for subsistence use among consumptive uses of fish and wildlife 

by rural residents on federal lands. When conservation concerns arise for a species or a 

particular drainage, regulatory controls are made by the state and federal government. 

The federal in-season manager has the authority to take in-season action. In-season 

actions will most likely have effects on non-qualified uses (sport fishing), and typically 

result in the closure of the affected drainage or fishery to all uses. At times, the state and 

federal boards work together to address issues of mutual concern. Stream and river 

systems that have had recent closures or fishing restrictions due to conservation concerns 

in the project area include Hatchery Creek and the entire Sarkar.drainage system.

Subsistence opportunities are very important to both Native and non-Native people on 

POW. Subsistence fishing has occurred within the project area. Thirty-three streams in 

the project area have reported subsistence harvest under the Federal Subsistence Salmon, 

Trout, and Char permit between 2002-2010. 

Environmental Consequences 

Subsistence - Direct/Indirect Effects 

Subsistence - Wildlife 

Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 

Based on comments, a comparison was made of the number of service days allocated by 

alternative within 15 miles of POW communities. Communities considered included 

Point Baker, Port Protection, Lab Bay, Whale Pass, Coffman Cove, Edna Bay, Naukati, 

Port Alice, Thorne Bay, Klawock, Kasaan, Hollis, Craig, and Hydaburg. 

Approximately 67% of all identified use sites fall within 15 miles of any community on 

POW Island. Most of those sites >15 miles from communities were on southern POW or 

Dall Islands, or on the outer islands west of POW. Six of the proposed Craig local use 

area sites were >15 miles away from any community, including Steamboat Bay on Noyes 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 59 

Island, and Point Dolores, Port Refugio, Arena Cove, Suemez Island, and Port Santa Cruz 

on Suemez Island. Shaheen Creek is included in the Central WAAs closure where 

guided big game hunting is not permitted. 

Alternative 2 would allocate the most service days to use sites within 15 miles of 

communities. Alternatives 3 and 4 would allocate the next highest number of days , 

respectively. Alternative 1 would permit the least number of days within 15 miles of 

communities. Total service days outside the Central WAAs closure area follow the same 

pattern by alternative (Table 3-1. Though not all service days will be used for hunting, 

guided recreationists engaging in other activities may limit access to other hunters by 

their mere presence. 

Alternatives 3 and 4 will permit the fewest number of days for fall hunting (Table 3-1). 

Total number of fall hunting days will be restricted as described in Chapter 2 for these 

two alternatives. There is no way to predict how many fall hunting service days or 

which activity types would actually be used under Alternatives 1 or 2. The maximum 

number of service days that could be used for hunting during deer season at sites within 

15 miles of a community equals the total service days outside the Central WAAs Closure 

for these alternatives (Table 3-1). Service days for deer hunting and number of deer 

harvested by guided clients will be monitored by permit administrators in the future. 

Table 3-1: Number of service days and maximum fall hunting days by alternative 

within 15 miles of POW communities. 

Service Days

Alternative Number 1 2 3 4 

Total Service Days within 15 miles of 

POW Communities

15,737 122,413 66,732 18,282

Total Service Days within 15 miles of 

POW Communities but Outside of the 

Central WAAs Closure Area 

9,980 94,287 52,669 12,278

Maximum Fall Deer Hunting Days 9,980 94,287 4,600 3,300

Abundance and Distribution 

There is no good way to estimate how many deer might be harvested by guided hunters 

under these alternatives because 1) service days are not broken down by activity type in 

some alternatives, 2) not all allocated days will get used, 3) hunter success varies over 

time and with many other variables such as weather. However, given recent trends in 

deer harvest, the current high population of deer, and the small percentage of the overall 

harvest that guided hunting comprises, direct mortality due to guided harvest will not 

cause a measureable change in abundance or distribution of deer under any alternative. 

Alternatives 3 and 4 have lower risk of reducing abundance of deer through harvest 

because of the proposed cap on total service days for fall hunting. 

As discussed in the Wildlife section, disturbance of deer by guided recreationists 

(including but not limited to hunters) may cause some loss of productivity due to stress, 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 60 

increased energetic responses for flight, reduction of forage efficiency and other factors, 

particularly in Alternatives 2 and 3. With respect to such disturbance, the alternatives can 

be ranked by the number of days they allocate, with higher numbers of days presenting 

higher risk of effects due to disturbance. Risk of effects from disturbance is greatest for 

Alternative 2 and least with Alternative 1. Effects of recreational disturbance on deer 

would not likely cause changes in abundance or distribution of deer that would be 

noticeable to hunters under any of the alternatives. 

Given the estimated rate of harvest by guided hunters, the small effects to populations 

anticipated because of recreational disturbance, and current high population numbers for 

deer on the island, none of the proposed alternatives will result in a measurable reduction 

in abundance of distribution of deer on the POW districts. 

Access 

Access to deer may be disrupted by recreationists if they are recreating at the same place 

and time a subsistence hunter wants to hunt. As above with disturbance, risk of reducing 

access increases with the number of days allocated by alternative. The highest risk of 

reducing access to subsistence deer would be from Alternative 2, followed by 

Alternatives 3, 4, and 1 respectively. Potential reductions in access may be mitigated for 

Alternatives 3 and 4, given the cap to fall hunting proposed for these alternatives in 

Chapter 2, but this cap would not reduce other types of recreationists during hunting 

season. It is impossible to estimate the number of days that would actually be used under 

any of these alternatives. 

Aside from guided deer hunters, most guided recreationists use the landscape in a 

dramatically different way from deer hunters. Black bear hunters focus on salmon 

streams and estuaries during the fall where bears gather. Freshwater fisherman, too, 

focus on riparian areas, which are not favored for deer hunting. Many sightseeing groups 

do not leave their boats or vehicles, so generally would not preclude hunting nearby. One 

exception might be Dog Salmon Fishpass, where black bear hunting and viewing 

opportunities overlap and sometimes conflict. Guided recreationists other than deer 

hunters do not tend to spend time in the clearcuts favored by hunters for harvesting deer. 

Few also make it up to high-country alpine sites, although they are popular for hiking or 

sightseeing in some cases. There are also differences in timing of use between 

recreationists and hunters both during the day and throughout the season. 

Of all recreationists, guided deer hunters are the most likely to restrict access to deer by 

hunting in the same place and time as subsistence hunters. Although guided hunters 

likely only account for <1% of total deer harvest on POW, if these hunters are 

concentrating in particular places favored by subsistence hunters, such as easy access 

points or preferred anchorages, reductions in access could occur at these locations. 

Alternatives 3 and 4 limit the number of total hunting days for both guided bear and deer 

hunters in the fall to approximately 25% of the season days at all guide use sites. 

Guided deer and bear hunters are restricted from hunting in WAAs 1318, 1319, 1421 and 

1422 per the Central WAAs closure as described in Chapter 2 and the wildlife section of 

this EA. Of the 14 communities on POW, 11 are within 15 miles of at least one of these 

Central WAAs. This area is important for local subsistence hunters because it contains 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 61 

most of the current and future huntable young growth. Approximately 48% of all POW 

young growth currently <10 years old occurs within the Central WAAs. Roughly 82% of 

the stands likely to be harvested soon, (those that are already NEPA cleared or under 

contract) occur within the Central WAAs closure area as well. Much of currently 

huntable and most of the near future huntable young growth stands occur in the Central 

WAAs closure, where subsistence hunters will not experience reduced access, as a result 

of the presence of guided hunters. Furthermore, as discussed elsewhere, guided deer 

hunters make up a very small percent of all deer hunters in GMU 2. 

None of the alternatives will cause a significant restriction in access to deer for 

subsistence deer hunters because: 

 most subsistence hunters’ preference to hunt in young clearcuts, muskegs or 

alpine, 

 most guided recreationists will not spend time in new clearcuts, 

 guided hunters make up a very small percentage of all hunters, and 

 the Central WAAs closure prevents guided hunters from blocking access to 

preferred hunting habitats where they are most concentrated in the Zone. 

Alternatives 3 and 4 would likely contribute the least to reductions in access because of 

the cap in fall hunting days described in Chapter 2. 

Competition 

As outlined in the wildlife specialist report in the project record and the wildlife section 

(after Subsistence Cumulative Effects), guided deer hunters are estimated to harvest <1% 

of deer taken on the POW districts. At this time, deer populations in GMU 2 are high, 

and deer are plentiful (Porter, pers. comm., 5/23/2011). The Central WAAs Closure 

provides a large area where subsistence deer hunters are free from competition with 

guided hunters, and contains some of the most valuable hunting habitat in the Zone. The15-mile circle surrounding Craig includes most of WAA 1318, one of the four central 

WAAs where guided big game hunting is not permitted. Part of WAA 1318 is also 

included in the proposed Craig local use area identified in scoping (see Figure 3-2). As 

discussed earlier, current use of the proposed Craig local use area by guided hunters is 

relatively light but has shown some increase in 2008 and 2009, the most recent years for 

which data are available. 

Though there is generally higher risk of restriction with higher allocation numbers, there 

is no way to predict how many days will actually be used under any allocation. Given the 

high deer numbers, the low estimated percentage of deer harvested by guided hunters, the 

quality hunting habitats off-limits to guided hunters as part of the Central WAAs closure, 

and the ability of permit managers to modify permits if conflicts arise, none of the 

alternatives will significantly restrict subsistence use of deer through competition. 

Alternatives 3 and 4 would likely contribute the least to competition because of the cap in 

fall hunting days described in Chapter 2. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 62 

Subsistence - Fisheries 

The assumption that increased levels of allocated service days (in other words, increased 

guided use) cause a higher risk to fish and aquatic resources is used in the following 

analysis, especially if use and access is concentrated in certain locations in a stream. It is 

assumed that an increase in use will increase potential impact to habitat, likelihood of 

introducing invasives, competition with subsistence users (if use is in an area where 

subsistence fishing occurs), and trampling and potentially disrupting redds. 

Effects on subsistence resources and uses important to rural communities are discussed in 

three categories: abundance and distribution, access, and competition. The following are 

effects expected related to subsistence uses. General effects to fish and fish habitat are 

discussed in this chapter under Fisheries. 

Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 

Abundance and Distribution 

Guided fishing is not expected to cause a measurable change in the abundance or 

distribution of fish populations under Alternatives 1, 2, and 4 because of fishing 

restrictions. However, Alternative 3 would have a risk of reducing abundance and 

distribution of fish if service day allocations approach maximum allocated days. This 

could have a minor to moderate effect on subsistence fisheries resources. Sport fish 

populations are managed by applying state regulations and the State may adjust 

management if abundance or distribution becomes a concern. 

Access 

There will be no increase or decrease to access for subsistence fishing in any alternative, 

therefore no effects on subsistence fisheries resources are expected from any alternative. 

Changes to access are described in cumulative effects as related to the Prince of Wales 

Access Travel Management Plan decision (USDA, 2009). 

Competition 

Competition for fisheries resources could increase among guided sport anglers and 

subsistence fishing under any alternative, if an increase of allocated service days are 

used. Because certain fish species are targeted in both subsistence and sport fisheries and 

because certain streams receive more use due to access, run timing, or perceived 

abundance, subsistence and sport fishing tend to be concentrated in the same streams or 

at the same sites. However, fishing restrictions recommended in Alternatives 2 and 4, 

which include limiting service days during certain time periods, are expected to decrease 

competition among user groups and protect fisheries resources for subsistence use. 

In Alternative 1, there are no guided fishing permit limits after May 31, therefore there 

may be competition between guided sport fishing and subsistence use for fisheries 

resources particularly in heavily used areas or streams with sockeye and summer run 

coho where subsistence use occurs. Likewise, in Alternative 3, where there are no 

restrictions to guided fishing and where maximum allocated days for guided fishing are 

much higher, there may be minor to moderate negative effects on subsistence fishing 

through the increase in competition, especially if guided use increases and approaches 

maximum allocated days. Should competition for fisheries resources occur, subsistence 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 63 

activities would have priority over other uses, as defined in ANILCA, and adaptive 

management would be used to resolve conflict with guided users. 

Subsistence - Cumulative Effects 

Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 

Cumulative effects relevant to subsistence include habitat changes related to succession 

of managed stands, road closures associated with the recent Access and Travel 

Management Plan (USDA 2009), guided and unguided recreational activities, 

recreational use on non-NFS ownerships within the POW analysis boundary, and 

consumptive use of wildlife. The analysis area includes the entire POW Zone which 

encompasses all identified guide use sites and all areas that could be proposed future 

guide sites. Ground disturbing activities occurring on the POW districts would impact 

subsistence wildlife species through habitat, but would be analyzed at that time based on 

the specific proposal. Ongoing habitat changes associated with long term influences such 

as climate change or succession of managed stands may also contribute to cumulative 

effects to subsistence through changes to subsistence species populations or changes in 

access to preferred hunting sites or habitats. The complete list of projects considered 

under cumulative effects can be found in the planning record. 

As described above, changes in habitat associated with timber harvest and succession of 

young growth stands affects both deer populations and hunting patterns over time. Most 

of the timber harvested on POW is providing reduced habitat for deer as well as poor 

hunting opportunities. The POW districts have the most active timber sale program on 

the Tongass, but the current rate of harvest is not high enough to replace the more easily 

hunted young growth stands that are now entering stem exclusion. 

The Access and Travel Management (ATM) Plan closed or decommissioned a number of 

roads reducing access for hunting on the POW districts. However, approximately 759 

miles of road remain open for highway vehicles and a number of modifications for 

maintaining subsistence access including some motorized trails were adopted as part of 

the decision. Subsistence analyses concluded that there was no significant restrictions to 

access for subsistence based on incorporation of public comments and the results of the 

subsistence hearing. Despite the road closures associated with the ATM, POW still has 

some of the highest road densities across southeast Alaska. 

Human populations can impact hunting pressure. Population across Southeast Alaska has 

been steady to decreasing in recent years. Population estimates for both the KetchikanGateway Borough and the Prince of Wales-Outer Ketchikan Census Areas are projected 

to continue to decrease through 2030 (Keith et al. 2010), potentially reducing hunter 

demand for deer somewhat from these groups. Other factors that may influence hunting 

pressure, such as unemployment or the recent housing crisis and associated economic 

stresses, may have profound impacts but are difficult to predict. 

Though the scale of guided use compared to unguided use are compared where possible, 

most unguided recreation uses are not currently measured under any monitoring plan, and 

data on much of the unguided use of the POW districts are lacking. Unguided bear 

hunting, deer hunting, and fishing likely constitute the majority of the use that occurs on 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 64 

POW. The amount of use by those who are not guided or not licensed cannot be 

quantified easily. Unguided use, particularly unguided hunting, is by far the largest 

contributor to cumulative effects for this analysis, and is thought to be a much bigger 

impact to wildlife and subsistence users than guided uses. Guided hunting has increased 

in recent years for both black bears and deer, but is still a very small percentage of overall 

harvest by non-Federally qualified users. 

While non-rural resident hunting on POW has increased in recent years, only a small 

percentage of this increase has come from guided hunters. The majority of non-rural 

resident hunters that harvest deer on the POW districts are Ketchikan residents (ADF&G, 

unpublished data), who typically do not use guides. The average annual number of deer 

harvested by Ketchikan residents and the average annual number of hunters from 

Ketchikan are both greater than those numbers from all other communities outside of the 

POW districts combined. Unguided, nonlocal hunters are the most likely contributors to 

competition for deer. 

No evidence is available to show that guided recreationists have had any meaningful 

effect on deer abundance or distribution. While competition for deer may occur between 

guided sport hunters and subsistence users, and recreationists using hunting areas during 

hunting season may occasionally limit access to subsistence users, guided recreationists 

are not expected to contribute significantly to restrictions in access or competition in the 

foreseeable future. If guided deer hunting continues to increase and/or conflicts are 

identified, these conflicts can be minimized through permit administration. This includes 

guided deer hunters as well as other recreationists. None of the alternatives in this project 

will result in a significant possibility of a significant restriction for subsistence resources 

through changes in abundance and distribution, access, or competition, based on: 

 the low level of anticipated effects to deer populations, 

 current record high deer populations, 

 differences between habitat use among recreationists and subsistence users, 

 the estimated low level of guided hunting for deer in recent years, 

 the low likelihood that all allocated days will be used in the foreseeable future, 

 the exclusion of quality subsistence hunting habitats from guided big game 

hunting in the Central WAAs, and 

 the ability of permit administrators to mitigate conflicts. 

Cumulative effects relevant to subsistence fishing include road closures associated with 

the recent Access and Travel Management Plan (ATM) for Prince of Wales Island 

(USDA 2009), recreational (guided and unguided), subsistence, and commercial fishing 

in marine waters, recreational (guided and unguided) and subsistence fishing in 

freshwater, fishing on private lands within the project area, and changes to fish habitat 

caused from future management activities or natural disturbances such as landslides or 

climate change. 

Road closures and decommissioning, as decided in the ATM, will reduce access to some 

fish streams in the project area. However, the ATM subsistence analysis (USDA 2009) 

found that these closures would not significantly restrict access to subsistence fishing. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 65 

Alternative 1 could have minor effects to subsistence fishing if guided fishing outside of 

the timing window substantially increased. Under Alternatives 2 and 4, effects to 

fisheries and subsistence are expected to be negligible because of fishing restrictions. 

Given the potential for effects, Alternative 3 could affect have a minor to moderate affect 

on subsistence fishing if service days used approached maximum service day allocations. 

However in all alternatives, if fish population impacts occur, the State may adjust 

management; based on the subsistence priority, adjustments would impact sport or 

commercial fishing first. With combined Forest Service adaptive management and 

ADF&G regulatory management, effects to fisheries and subsistence would still be minor 

in Alternatives 1 and 3 and negligible in Alternatives 2 and 4. 

None of the alternatives in this project are expected to result in a significant possibility of 

a significant restriction for subsistence resources through changes in abundance and 

distribution, access, or competition, because fishing restrictions in Alternatives 1, 2 and 

4, and regulatory controls under all alternatives, protect fisheries resources. 

Overall, none of the alternatives in this project will result in a significant possibility of a 

significant restriction for any subsistence resources through changes in abundance and 

distribution, access, or competition. 

Wildlife ____________________________________ 

This discussion summarizes effects to management indicator species (MIS); threatened, 

endangered, proposed and candidate species listed or proposed under the ESA; and 

Region 10 sensitive species. For more discussion of these species and other species of 

concern, refer to the resource report and Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation 

found in the project record. 

Affected Environment 

Introduction 

Analysis Information 

The wildlife analysis area for the POW O/G Plan for direct and indirect effects includes 

NFS lands on the Craig Ranger and Thorne Bay Ranger District, including nearby 

associated small island groups and the immediately adjacent marine environment that 

would be used by permitted outfitters and guides to access sites. The cumulative effects 

area is the same boundary, but includes non-NFS lands. These areas are appropriate for 

wildlife analysis since POW permitted activities do not overlap onto other districts and 

the area is large enough to cover home ranges. POW comprises Alaska Department of 

Fish and Game (ADF&G) Game Management Unit (GMU) 2. 

The analysis of effects is based on professional judgment using information provided by 

forest staff, relevant references and technical literature citations to describe the most 

susceptible aspects of species life cycle and related habitat components. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 66 

Assumptions for the wildlife analysis are the same as those displayed in Chapter 2 under 

Elements and Assumptions Common to All Alternatives, except as described here: 

 This project will generally not affect species habitat, but effects would include 

disturbance from guides, clients, and the vehicles they use for transportation, or 

mortality from legal harvest using a guide. 

 Because this project does not propose any activities likely to substantially alter 

vegetation or habitats on POW Island, there will be no effect to productive oldgrowth habitats, coarse canopy habitats, or Old-growth Reserves as a result of this 

project. 

 While outfitter-guide service days have remained relatively stable in recent years 

(ranging between 2,381 and 2,848 days between 2004-2009, mean 2,658), assuming 

they will stay the same into the future would provide no real means for comparison 

among the alternatives. Therefore, analyses focus on what could be permitted in the 

future under full implementation of each alternative. 

 This analysis assumes that subsistence deer harvesters may use transporters to access 

favored hunting sites for subsistence harvest, but that they will not use permitted 

outfitters and guides in a guiding capacity to harvest subsistence deer. Therefore it 

was assumed that all deer harvested by clients using guides are harvested under sport 

hunting regulations. 

 This analysis assumes that all hunters using guides to hunt for deer are non-residents 

(not residents of Alaska). 

Level of Effects 

General criteria were developed to assess the intensity or level of influence of the effects. 

The levels of influence are defined below. No major effects are expected from 

implementation of this project, though the definition for major effects can be found in the 

Wildlife Specialist Report in the project record. 

Negligible: Individuals would not be affected, or the action would affect an individual 

but the change would be so small that it would not be of any measurable or perceptible 

consequence to the individuals or populations. Negligible effect would equate with a "no 

effect" determination for threatened and endangered species and the “no impact” 

determination for sensitive species. 

Minor: Individuals would be affected but the change would be small. Impacts would not 

be expected to have any long-term effects on species or their habitats, or the natural 

processes sustaining them. Occasional responses to disturbance by some individuals 

could be expected, but without interference to reproduction, or other factors affecting 

population levels. Minor effect would equate with a “not likely to adversely affect" 

determination for threatened and endangered species and the "may impact individuals but 

not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability" determination for 

sensitive species. 

Moderate: Individuals would be noticeably affected. The effect could have some longterm consequence to individuals or habitat. Breeding animals of concern are present; 

animals are present during particularly vulnerable life-stages, such as migration or 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 67 

juvenile states; or interference with activities necessary for survival can be expected on 

an occasional basis. Frequent response to disturbance by some individuals could be 

expected, with some negative impacts to feeding, reproduction, or other factors affecting 

short-term population levels. Moderate effect can equate with a “likely to adversely 

affect” determination for threatened and endangered species and the "may impact 

individuals but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability" 

determination for sensitive species. 

General Habitat Information 

Outfitter and guide use on POW occurs in a variety of habitats: the beach/estuary fringe 

accessible by boat or floatplane, the subalpine/alpine habitat accessed by floatplanes, 

roads, or developed trails, forested or muskeg habitat adjacent to the beach fringe or 

roads or trails, and riparian habitat along streams that can be accessed by boat, floatplane, 

roads, or trails. 

Beach and estuary fringe is the strip of land within a 1,000-foot horizontal distance inland 

from the saltwater shoreline, not including estuaries. Estuary fringe is the land within 

1,000-foot horizontal distance around river mouths or estuaries. Both the beach and 

estuary fringe have great value to wildlife, particularly bears, bald eagles, swans, other 

waterfowl and shorebirds, river otters, mink, marten, and Sitka black-tailed deer because 

of its generally low elevation and aquatic and vegetative diversity. Some beach and 

estuary areas are favored as hunting sites for black bear. 

Alpine habitat is located at and above tree line and characterized by short, windswept 

perennial shrubs, coniferous tree “islands” and heath-dominated peat bogs. Alpine ridges 

are favored thoroughfares for deer, bear, wolves and other species Subalpine habitat is 

located just below alpine and contains forage, abundant meadows and tree cover. Some 

deer hunters favor alpine sites. 

Forested habitats on POW include a matrix of old-growth forests interspersed with 

sparsely forested wetlands (muskegs) and young growth stands of a variety seral stages 

following timber harvest. Old-growth forests are characterized by large trees with wide 

variation in tree size and spacing; large snags and fallen trees; a high incidence of trees 

with broken or deformed tops, and multiple canopy layers, canopy gaps and patchy 

understory. Old-growth forests are important habitat for many species of wildlife, 

including Sitka black-tailed deer and bald eagles. 

Riparian habitat occurs along rivers, streams, and shorelines of lakes and contains 

elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. These areas are important for species 

such as bears, waterfowl, and shorebirds. 

Guided big game hunting has not been allowed in Wildlife Analysis Areas (WAAs) 1318, 

1319, 1421, and 1422 since 1993 (USDA Forest Service 1993). This is referred to as the 

“Central WAAs Closure” and restricts guided hunting for both deer and black bears. 

Though the rationale for this closure was primarily based on recreation values, it has the 

added benefit of reducing hunting pressure for big game species in this area and 

providing a central location between most POW communities where subsistence hunters 

don’t face competition with guided hunters. In addition to the Central WAAs Closure, 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 68 

the Big Game EA (USDA Forest Service 1993) also restricted guided big game hunting 

around public recreation facilities, cabins, and campgrounds. 

Management Indicator Species 

FSM 2621.3 requires the effects of a proposed action to Management Indicator Species 

(MIS) be assessed and that the Forest Plan requirements, goals and objectives for these 

species are met at the project level (FSM 2621.4). MIS are vertebrates or invertebrate 

species whose response to land management activities can be used to predict the likely 

response of other species with similar habitat requirements (FSM 2631.3). 

Thirteen wildlife MIS were selected for the Tongass (USDA Forest Service 2008b, pp. 3-

230 to 3-241). All are associated with productive old-growth forest (POG). Six of the 

MIS also specifically use riparian habitats and five of the species use estuarine habitats. 

Ten of the MIS were only briefly analyzed due to their lack of presence or the low 

likelihood of effects from outfitter and guide use. Those species that are expected to be 

more than negligibly affected by outfitter guide use were analyzed in detail (Table 3-2). 

Table 3-2: MIS Selected for further analysis and Rationale for selection 

Species Habitat Description and Rationale for Selection 

Sitka BlackTailed Deer 

Sitka black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus sitkensis) are important 

subsistence and game species as well as prey species for bears and wolves. 

Authorized activities would not alter deer habitat. Guided hunting for deer is an 

authorized activity on POW. The IDT identified guided hunting for deer as 

potentially conflicting with subsistence hunting near local communities based 

on scoping comments received from the public. 

Black Bear Black bears (Ursus americanus) are a species of local interest related to 

outfitter-guide activities including wildlife viewing and guided hunting. Bears 

can be affected by human disturbance during critical life phases. Heavy 

hunting pressure from both guided and unguided hunters has contributed to a 

growing concern for black bear populations on POW. Almost half of all service 

days reported by guides between 2004 and 2009 were for either guided bear 

hunters or viewers. 

Bald Eagle Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) are species of national interest and were 

only recently delisted under the Endangered Species Act. Primary nesting 

habitat occurs in a narrow fringe along the beach. Nesting eagles can be 

sensitive to disturbance caused by nearby recreational activities. 

Sitka Black-tail Deer 

Although deer utilize a wide range of habitat from shoreline to alpine, they are associated 

with old-growth forests. The quantity, quality, distribution and arrangement of winter 

habitat are considered the most important limiting factors for Sitka black-tailed deer in 

Southeast Alaska (USDA Forest Service 2008b, p. 3-230). Clearcutting has reduced the 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 69 

quantity and quality of old-growth forest habitat available to Sitka black-tailed deer, 

particularly impacting deer winter range (USDA Forest Service 2007). 

With the exception of El Capitan Cave, all of the identified guide use sites provide habitat 

for deer and therefore opportunities for deer harvest or disturbance to deer associated 

with all guided activities. Deer population and harvest information is discussed in depth 

in the Subsistence section above. 

The Alaska Board of Game and the Federal Subsistence Board develop regulations 

pertaining to hunting and bag limits. Bag limits for deer in GMU 2 are currently liberal. 

At present, sport hunting regulations for deer allow harvest of up to four bucks between 

August 1 and December 31. Subsistence harvest season is July 24 to December 31, and 

harvest limit is 5 deer, with one being antlerless between October 15-December 31. 

These regulatory boards, along with ADF&G and Federal Subsistence officials have the 

ability to change regulations, limit or close seasons, or issue emergency closure orders if 

deer populations appear to drop below desired levels to support subsistence or sport 

harvest sustainably. On federal lands, subsistence uses of game are given a priority over 

commercial and recreational hunting under state and federal law. 

Demand for guided deer hunts in GMU 2 has increased in recent years. Total service 

days for guided deer hunts remained low between 2004 and 2007 (mean 18.7 days), but 

increased considerably in 2008 and 2009 (74.8 and 66.4 service days, respectively). 

Using the most successful annual rate of deer harvest (6.7 days/deer in 2007) for nonresident hunters and the average number of service days for all guided fall hunting days 

during deer season for deer and bears (98.6 total service days on average from 2004-

2009), we arrived at an estimate of 14.7 deer harvested by guided non-residents annually 

in GMU 2. This number is roughly 0.59% of the average annual harvest reported by 

ADF&G during the 11 years prior to 2009, a very small percentage of the overall harvest. 

Service days for fall bear hunts have remained steady except for a drop in 2006 and 2007, 

at the same time as the economic downturn. Based on the wildlife bbiologist’s 

assumptions, the peak year of harvest by all guided hunters during deer season should 

have occurred in 2008, when an estimated 23.9 deer were harvested by all guided 

hunters, including both guided deer and bear hunters during deer season. Guided deer 

hunters alone would have accounted for almost half of those deer. This is still <1% of the 

annual average harvest of deer from GMU 2. 

Black Bear 

Black bears occur throughout POW, which has some of the best habitat for this species in 

Southeast Alaska (Porter 2008). Black bears are important both for hunting (including 

both guided and unguided hunting) and for wildlife viewing (Schoen and Peacock 2007). 

Bears use areas from sea level to the alpine and are habitat generalists. Habitat selection 

by black bears is greatly influenced by food abundance and seasonal shifts in habitat use 

are related to food resources (Costello and Sage 1994). Like deer, bear populations are 

expected to decrease as a result of large-scale timber harvest (Porter 2008). 

Black bears have long been hunted in GMU 2 for trophies and food. Hunters historically 

harvested an average of 225 black bears annually from the POW districts up until the mid 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 70 

1990s (Larson 2010). Harvest numbers increased dramatically from the mid 1990s to a 

peak harvest of 486 bears in 2005 (Porter 2008). Recent declines in harvest, reductions in 

skull size, and changes in sex ratios of harvested bears have raised concerns about black 

bear population sustainability on the POW districts (Larson 2010). 

The Board of Game established a controlled use area (CUA) at their 2008 meeting. It 

restricted the use of motorized land vehicles for bear hunting during September in GMUs 

2 and 3. The new regulation made it illegal to use motorized land vehicles to hunt bears, 

transport bear hunters, hunting equipment or bear parts during the month of September. 

They also established a requirement for all black bear hunters to obtain a harvest 

ticket/report prior to hunting, in an effort to gather more information about hunter effort, 

success, and the state of the bear population (Larson 2010). 

Additional regulatory changes were made at the November 2010 Alaska Board of Game 

meeting. The board revisited the CUA established at the 2008 meeting and opted to 

extend the CUA in GMU 2 until October 31, 2012 (Alaska Board of Game 2010). Citing 

concerns about black bear numbers in GMU 1-3 in Southeast Alaska, the Board of Game 

adopted a drawing permit hunt for non-resident black bear hunters who do not hunt with 

guides. Resident hunters and non-resident hunters who employ a guide were not affected 

by the new regulation, but, in exchange, guides agreed to a reduced hunt allocation based 

upon their average actual harvest 2007-2009 (ADF&G January 6, 2011 letter to Forrest 

Cole.). The Forest Service will work cooperatively with ADF&G to set appropriate use 

levels for bear hunting guides, but this process will take place independently of this 

NEPA analysis. 

There is no guide requirement for non-resident black bear hunters and most non-residents 

hunting bear on POW do not use permitted guides. Since 1990, visitors from off of POW 

Island have accounted for 90% of all bear harvested on POW (ADF&G unpublished 

data). Growth in harvest by non-resident hunters fueled dramatic increases in overall 

harvest; annual harvest rates doubled between 1990 and 2005. From 1990-2009 nonresident hunters account for 76% of bears harvested; however, guided non-residents have 

never accounted for more than 20% of non-resident harvest, and not more than 17% of 

total harvest (ADF&G unpublished data). 

More than 2/3 of guided bear hunters harvest bears during the spring season (ADF&G, 

unpublished data). Most of these hunters access bear hunting sites via motorized boat at 

marine shoreline sites where bears congregate to forage in the spring. The site with the 

highest average black bear guided service days between 2004 and 2009 was Lancaster 

Cove with an average of 13.7 service days used annually. Six other sites had >10 mean 

service days used annually for black bear, including Calder Bay, Klakas Inlet, South 

McKenzie Inlet, Moira Sound, Shipley Bay and North Polk Inlet. North Polk Inlet is of 

particular interest because bears harvested in this area are likely to be among the same 

population that draws wildlife viewers to Dog Salmon Fishpass for bear viewing as 

described below. 

It is impossible to estimate how much use any of these areas received from unguided 

hunters or other recreationists. However, given that no guided hunting for black bears is 

allowed in the Central WAAs Closure area (USDA Forest Service 1993), and yet WAA 

1422 has the highest average harvest reported from 1991-2006 (Porter 2008), it is clear 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 71 

that unguided hunters, most of whom are non-residents, contribute substantially to 

hunting pressure on POW Island. 

Most tourists who visit the area hope to see bears during their visit, and many make the 

extra effort to see them by visiting sites where they are known to congregate. 

Approximately 48% of all service days recorded in GMU 2 between 2004 and 2009 were 

either for bear hunting or bear viewing alone (for comparison, guided fishing accounted 

for approximately 22%). Adding other wildlife viewers to this number, the percentage 

may be as high as 67% or 10,727 service days. Maintaining a healthy population of bears 

to support public viewing and high hunter demand is important to the local and regional 

economy. 

In some places, bear viewing opportunities coexist at locations used for hunting during 

the same season. In addition to human safety concerns, potential for conflict between 

users is high. Sites with high potential for conflict include estuaries and salmon runs 

sometimes utilized simultaneously for fishing, bear and salmon viewing, and bear 

hunting, as well as upland sites along salmon streams that are easily accessible by road 

vehicle. At least 25 rivers, creeks, and bays have potential for conflict (see Wildlife 

Report). 

Dog Salmon Creek Fishpass in Polk Inlet currently has the highest recorded commercial 

use (5,935 service days, 2004-2009) in GMU 2. The only guided activity recorded at this 

site during this timeframe is wildlife viewing. Though most bear hunting in North Polk 

Inlet occurs during the spring, any hunters harvesting bears in this area may be harvesting 

bears that use the Dog Salmon Fishpass in late summer and fall to fatten up on salmon. 

Confrontations between unguided hunters and bear viewing guides/clients at Dog Salmon 

Fishpass have occurred in recent years and are expected to continue to occur. The Forest 

Service has received complaints from a variety of user groups that have clearly identified 

a conflict between uses in this area. The primary tour operator at Dog Salmon Fishpass 

submitted a proposal to the Alaska Board of Game requesting they designate the site as a 

bear viewing area and close the area to bear hunting; however, the proposal failed to pass 

at the Board of Game meeting in November 2010. The Forest Service has provided a 

seasonal interpreter in the area to help educate the public, enhance safety and reduce 

conflict, and the recreation group is considering improvements to accommodate viewing 

such as improved parking through additional NEPA analysis. Outside of this NEPA 

process, the Forest Service is currently evaluating a 1⁄4 mile closure to hunting around the 

fishpass to provide for safety and to promote the salmon and bear viewing opportunities 

at that site. 

Bald Eagles 

Bald eagles nest in mature or old-growth trees, snags, cliffs, and rock promontories, 

along saltwater shorelines and mainland rivers with a dominant view of the surrounding 

landscape (USFWS 2009). Where disturbance is minimal, habitat tends to be composed 

of a narrow strip of land along the coast that provides large trees suitable for nesting, 

fishing, and loafing. Over 2000 bald eagle nests have been identified on the POW 

districts. Nest location are lacking for much of southern POW, many outer islands and 

wilderness areas. Bald eagle populations in southeast Alaska increased steadily through 

the 1970s and have been stable since the late 1980s (Hodges 2011). 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 72 

Eagles breeding in Coastal Alaska remain near their nest sites throughout the year 

(USFWS 2009). The nesting period in Alaska begins with courtship and nest building in 

February and ends when the young fledge by late August into early September (USFWS 

2009). Eagle sensitivity to humans varies during that time, with eagles being most 

sensitive to human disturbance during the courtship through egg laying phases, April and 

May (USFWS 2009). Sensitivity to human activities also varies among individuals within 

each phase. This variability may be related to a number of factors, including visibility of 

the activity, its duration and noise level, extent of the area affected by the activity, the 

eagle pair’s prior experiences with humans, and tolerance of the individual nesting pair 

(USFWS 2009). 

All but 70 of the outfitter-guide use sites are within 1⁄2 mile of saltwater habitats. All 

outfitter-guide use sites that are accessed by motorized boat, kayak, or fixed-wing aircraft 

can be assumed to be near bald eagle nests. It is unknown if outfitter or guide use has 

had negative effects on bald eagle nests. 

Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and Candidate 

Species 

A review of all federally listed Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate species within 

Alaska was completed using existing survey data, GIS layers and databases, 

communication with research personnel, literature reviews, and information in the 2008 

Forest Plan FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2008b). All threatened, endangered, and 

candidate species were reviewed in detail in the Biological Assessment/Biological 

Evaluation available in the planning record for this project. Alexander Archipelago Wolf 

and Prince of Wales Flying Squirrel were recently petitioned for listing under the 

Endangered Species Act and are discussed in the Wildlife Resource Report in the 

planning record. The only listed species known to occur near POW are limited to the 

marine environment. Species known or suspected to occur within the action area were 

analyzed further. These species are displayed in Table 3-3. 

Table 3-3: Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species Occurring in the POW 

districts 

Common Name Scientific Name Status 

Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae Endangered 

Steller sea lion (Eastern DPS) Eumetopias jubatus Threatened 

Fin Whale Balaenoptera physalus Endangered 

Yellow-billed loon Gavia adamsii Candidate Species 

No sea lion rookeries have been identified in the action area. Three major haulouts 

designated as critical habitat have been identified for sea lions in the project area: 

 Coronation Island, 

 Timbered Island, and 

 Cape Addington on Baker Island.

 

These critical habitat sites include a terrestrial zone, an aquatic zone, and an air zone that 

extend 3,000 feet landward, seaward, and above each site. None of the outfitter-guide 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 73 

use sites under consideration as part of this project are within one mile of these 

designated critical habitat sites. No shore landing is authorized in Alikula Bay within 

3000 feet of this haulout site. Small sea lion haulouts that are not designated critical 

habitat occur on Cape Bartolome on Baker Island Sakie Point on Dall Island, and 

Grindall Island, off the south tip of Kasaan Peninsula, POW. 

Since federally listed species known to occur in the action area are primarily restricted to 

the marine environment, activities in marine environment surrounding POW form the 

basis of environmental baseline conditions. Vessel use of the marine environment is 

extensive and watercraft range from small personal skiffs to large commercial ships. The 

Forest Service does not have jurisdiction over marine waters, but access to permitted 

outfitter-guide use sites requires interdependent actions such as use of motorized boats or 

fixed-wing aircraft to reach sites. 

Permit allocations for several sites accessed by saltwater have exceeded calculated 

recreation visitor capacity in recent years at Biscuit Lagoon and Klakas Inlet, with mean 

annual use between 2004 and 2009 of 31 and 103 service days, respectively. However, 

actual use has never reached the visitor capacity let alone the permit allocation. Whales, 

sea lions, and loons may occur at all of these sites, but it is unknown if outfitter or guide 

use has had negative effects on these species. 

Since all federally listed species known to occur in the action area are restricted to the 

marine environment, activities in marine environment surrounding POW are the most 

likely to negatively affect these species through potential vessel strikes and acoustic 

disturbance. Vessel strikes with marine mammals are uncommon and outfitters and 

guides are required to abide by Marine Mammal Protection Act Regulations and Marine 

Mammal Viewing Guidelines. 

Most of the use sites under consideration in the OG EA are accessible from shore via 

marine waters and therefore present the potential for effects to marine mammals and 

birds. Between 2004 and 2009, 139 sites were accessed via shore from fixed wing 

aircraft (mean 240.2 groups/year), from kayaks (mean 3.8 groups/year), or from 

motorized boats (mean 189.8 groups/year). Effects from kayakers are thought to be 

negligible. Groups accessing use sites from marine waters using motorized boats or fixed 

wing aircraft are much more likely to disturb marine mammals because of the noise of 

the engines. They have a higher potential to strike marine mammals due to their faster 

speed. 

Fixed-wing use is both the most common and the most concentrated form of access to 

sites from marine waters. Hazards from fixed-wing aircraft include collisions and noise 

disturbance. Collisions are extremely unlikely as pilots generally look for obstructions 

on the water before they land, only use about 1500’ of taxi space for takeoff and landing, 

and generally land parallel and near to shore in protected coves and inlets. No recorded 

or anecdotal accounts of collisions between fixed-wing aircraft and marine mammals 

were found. Noise disturbance is a potential concern, but take-offs and landings are very 

short duration. 

Outfitters and guides reported accessing only 17 of the sites identified in this analysis via 

fixed-wing aircraft between 2004-2009. Almost half (111.5 groups/year) of the groups 

accessing POW guide use sites via fixed-wing aircraft are landing in Polk Inlet to access 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 74 

the Dog Salmon Fishpass. This is roughly 223 take-offs and landings annually in Polk 

Inlet, concentrated during July through early September. Seals, killer whales, and 

humpback whales have been reported in this area, but are not particularly common in this 

area. Klakas Inlet and Max Cove average 29.0 and 18.5 groups annually by fixed-wing 

aircraft, spread much more evenly throughout the year from March to September. 

Motorized boat use was much more widely distributed across sites, with use reported at 

128 sites between 2004 and 2009. Only two sites averaged 10 or more groups per year 

accessed by motorized boat, including North Polk Inlet and Shipley Bay, which together 

account for roughly 12% of all groups accessing sites by motorized boats on marine 

waters. Still, with an average of 190 groups/year guided on the marine waters 

surrounding POW Island, potential exists for guided groups to disturb marine mammals 

under the existing conditions. 

Sensitive Species 

Region 10 Sensitive Species were reviewed in the Biological Assessment/Biological 

Evaluation available in the planning record for this project. Only the two species likely to 

occur in this project area are discussed here. 

Northern Goshawk 

Goshawks generally occur in dense mature or old growth aspen, conifer, or mixed forests. 

In Southeast Alaska, goshawks preferentially use high and medium volume old growth 

forest and avoid non-forested, clear-cut, and regenerating areas (Federal Register 2007). 

Over 60% of all adult goshawk telemetry locations reported in Iverson et al. (1996) 

occurred in productive old-growth forests. Most use was on gentle slopes (< 35 percent) 

below 800 feet elevation (Iverson et al. 1996). Important food items in southeast Alaska 

include Steller’s jay, grouse, varied thrush, and woodpeckers. 

The major threat to goshawks is the loss of old growth habitat due to logging. Goshawks 

are also susceptible to human disturbance during nesting period. Low reproductive rate 

makes recovery slow if populations are depressed. 

There are over a dozen known goshawk nests on the POW districts. No existing outfitterguide use sites are within close proximity to these known nests. It is unknown if outfitter 

or guide use has had negative effects on goshawks. 

Black Oystercatcher 

Black oystercatcher breeding habitat is the high tide margin of the inter-tidal zone and 

includes mixed sand and gravel beaches, cobble and gravel beaches, exposed rocky 

headlands, rocky islets, and tidewater glacial moraines (Tessler et al. 2007). Pairs nest 

just above the high-tide line and use the inter-tidal zone to feed themselves and their 

chicks. Black oystercatcher populations appear to be regulated by the availability of 

quality foraging and nesting habitat. The black oystercatcher’s small population size and 

complete dependence upon a narrow coastal band throughout their life cycle places this 

species at risk to human and other disturbances. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 75 

Primary threats to black oystercatchers include predation, petroleum contamination of 

shorelines, flooding, and recreational disturbance at nest sites (Tessler et al. 2007). 

Wakes from both commercial and recreational boats may flood nests at extreme high 

tides. 

Oystercatchers’ vulnerability to human disturbance has caused changes in breeding 

distribution and abundance from Alaska to California (Andres and Falxa 1995). In 

addition to stress caused by human intruders, nests are vulnerable to trampling by humans 

and predation by their pets. Oystercatchers appear to be resilient to very low levels of 

recreational disturbance in Alaska (Morse et al. 2006). 

Outfitter and guide use of marine beach and estuary sites accessed via motorized boat has 

been relatively low in the POW zone. Between 2004 and 2009, only 52 of marine access 

sites averaged >1 group visit per year. Only one site, North Polk Inlet, averaged >10 

group visits per year (12.6). Most guided use sites accessed by motorized boat on POW 

are accessed for black bear hunting. Black bear hunters focus on grassy shorelines or 

salmon bearing streams in search of foraging bears. Neither of these types of shorelines 

are important habitat for black oystercatchers. 

Black oystercatchers generally occur on outer exposed coastlines, but are known to nest 

on shores near the Diver Bay use area, and probably others. The majority of the outfitterguide activities within these areas utilize the shoreline in some capacity during nesting 

and young rearing periods and therefore have the potential to impact black 

oystercatchers. It is unknown if outfitter or guide use has had negative effects on 

oystercatchers. 

Environmental Consequences 

Direct/Indirect Effects 

Direct and indirect effects occur from outfitter-guide activities and connected actions that 

adversely affect individuals, their young, or their habitat. General disturbance effects on 

wildlife from recreational activities have been well documented, but not quantified. The 

indirect impacts of recreation on wildlife are even less understood than the direct impacts 

(Cole and Landres 1995). Boyle and Sampson (1985) recognized that impacts were 

occurring, but acknowledged that management was hampered by the complexity of 

cause-and-effect relationships and the incompleteness of existing information. Cole 

(1993) states that recreational impacts on wildlife are not usually obvious, are difficult to 

study, and are poorly understood. Taylor and Knight (2003) document similar lack of 

information on the area of influence from various recreational activities. Tempel et al. 

(2008) compiled current research and summarized effects: 

 if an activity elicits a significant behavioral response from individuals, occurs 

frequently, and/or is widespread, long-term impacts to the reproduction and 

survival of individuals is possible, 

 if a large enough number of individuals is negatively affected by recreation, 

impacts at the population level can occur, and 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 76 

 if impacted wildlife populations have important interactions with other species, 

community impacts are also possible. 

Direct effects from recreation include intentional or unintentional wildlife harassment, 

alteration of wildlife behavior, and displacement from food, water, and shelter (Leung 

and Marion 2000). According to Blanc et al. (2006), the main effect of disturbance is a 

change in behavior, whether it is associated with movement and escape or not; effects can 

be physiological or behavioral. Physiological effects include increased heart rate and 

respiration, increased oxygen consumption, increased body temperature, and increased 

metabolism (Cline et al. 2007). Gill et al. (2001) state the decision to move away from 

disturbance or not is complex and dependent upon the quality of the habitat individuals 

are currently occupying, the distance to and quality of other suitable sites, the relative risk 

of predation, the density of competitors in alternative sites, and the investment required to 

establish a new territory. Indirect effects include reduced health and fitness, reduced 

reproductive rates, increased mortality, and composition change (Leung and Marion 

2000, Taylor and Knight 2003, Cole and Landres 1995). Many immediate disturbance 

responses appear to be short-term; however, little is known about the long-term effects of 

recreational disturbance on energy balance or survival rates (Cole 1993). Indirect impacts 

occur wherever and whenever recreational use occurs (Cline et al. 2007). Cline et al. 

(2007) went on to state that indirect effects typically occur over a long period of time and 

affect a broader ecological scale than wildlife disturbance. They occur through normal 

recreation activities such as hiking, biking, hunting, and fishing where recreationists have 

the potential to negatively impact the physical environment (e.g., trampling vegetation, 

soil compaction, erosion, disturbances due to noise and motion, pollution, nutrition 

loading, and introduction of non-native invasive plant species). While indirect impacts 

such as erosion and trampling have been studied extensively from an ecological 

condition, their impacts on wildlife still are not fully understood (Cline et al. 2007). 

Boyle and Sampson (1985) reviewed 166 research articles of which 163 documented 

negative effects of recreational activity on wildlife. Leung and Marion (2000) state that 

the mere presence of visitors may harm wildlife by displacing them from essential 

habitats or disrupting their raising of young and that trails and campsites may cause a 

landscape fragmentation effect possibly interfering with movement of some animal 

species. Visitors hiking on trails may disturb wildlife, displacing them from trail corridors 

temporarily or permanently. Likewise, camping can disrupt normal wildlife activities, 

attract animals, or alter wildlife habitat through vegetation and soil impacts causing 

wildlife to avoid areas with campsites (Leung and Marion 2000, Boyle and Sampson 

1985). Most vegetation damage occurs quickly at low and moderate levels of visitor use 

(Leung and Marion 2000). Monz (1998) found that campsites on beaches and on forest 

understory in Prince William Sound, Alaska, were very susceptible to vegetation loss. 

Cole and Landres (1995) discuss damage to vegetation and soils caused by human 

trampling during hiking, camping, fishing, nature tours, and off road vehicles. Czech et 

al. (2006) identified outdoor tourism and recreation development as the fourth leading 

cause of population declines in threatened and endangered species. 

Direct and indirect effects vary by activity. Direct impacts from fishing include 

disturbance, entanglement with fishing lines and ingestion of lead sinkers; indirect 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 77 

impacts associated with fishing include vegetation trampling, boating disturbance, 

introduction of non-native species (Cline et al. 2007). Wildlife viewing and photography 

enthusiasts intentionally approach wildlife which can be more disturbing than accidental 

encounters since encounters are generally more frequent and of longer duration (Boyle 

and Sampson 1985, Cline et al. 2007). Motorized recreation can have direct effects from 

collisions with wildlife and indirect effects including noise, pollution, habitat 

degradation, disturbance, and harassment (Cline et al. 2007). 

Given the above information, all authorized outfitter-guide activities considered under 

this management plan could cause disturbance to wildlife. 

Relative Impact on Wildlife 

Because quantitative evaluation of recreation effects was not possible due to data 

limitations for most species, the wildlife biologist developed a relative impact ranking 

based upon the number of service days allocated by alternative and the assumptions at the 

beginning of this document. Specifically, that disturbance to wildlife would increase as 

the number of service days allocated to outfitter-guides increased. This is similar to the 

assumption in Gaines et al. (2003) that as recreational demand increases, effects on 

wildlife also increase over space and time and that increasing recreational use results in 

decreasing species persistence and maintenance of ecosystem processes and function. 

The ranking is only a relative comparison of alternatives, and does not supersede the 

level of effects described for each species as defined above. For example, multiple 

alternatives may have moderate effects, but the ranking score discussed here will identify 

which alternatives among those with moderate effects are thought to have the greatest 

and least impact. 

At most (177) of the recreation use sites, the impact ranking from highest to lowest is 

Alternative 2, Alternative 3, Alternative 4, and Alternative 1, respectively. 

At 12 recreation use sites the current permitted levels either exceed the visitor capacity or 

exceed 50% of the capacity. In these locations, Alternative 1 has the highest impact with 

Alternative 3 being the lowest impact, and Alternatives 2 and 4 having a mid-level of 

impact: 

 Barrier Islands 

 Biscuit Lagoon 

 Halibut Harbor 

 Hessa Inlet 

 Hunter Bay 

 Klakas Inlet 

 Luelia Lake 

 Max Cove 

 Salmon Bay 

 Salmon Bay Lake Trail 

 Shipley Bay Creek/Lake 

 The Saitchuck

With a 75% allocation at Dog Salmon Fish Pass and Beaver Falls Trail in Alternative 3, this 

Alternative has the highest impact ranking for these two areas followed by Alternatives 2, 4, and 

1. 

The relative impact ranking for the remaining locations is shown in Table 3-4. The number of the 

highest impact alternative is shown in the furthest left “Impact Ranking” column and the number 

of the lowest impact alternative is in the furthest right “Impact Ranking” column. The center 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 78 

columns show how the other two alternatives rank. In some instances, two alternatives may have 

the same impact; so, two numbers are shown in a column. 

Table 3-4: Ranking by location of relative impact to wildlife by alternative (remaining 

areas). 

Alternative Relative Overall 

Impact Ranking

Recreation Use Area Highest 

Impact

Lowest 

Impact

Hunter Creek 2 3 1,4 1,4

Cholmondeley Sound, NE 2 4 1 3

Eagle Creek 2 4 1 3

Miller Lake 2 4 1 3

Nossuk Bay 2 4 1 3

Red Bay Creek/Lake 2 4 1 3

Red Bay Lake Trail 2 4 1 3

Salmon Bay Lake 2 4 1 3

Shakan Bay 2 4 1 3

Survey Cove 2 4 1 3

Sutter Creek/Lake 2 4 1 3

Thorne River, Lower 2 4 3 1

Ratz Creek 4 2 1 3

Big Creek, W. Cholmondoley 2,4 2,4 1 3

Cholmondeley Sound, South Arm 2,4 2,4 1 3

Klakas Lake 2,4 2,4 1 3

Moira Sound , South Arm 2,4 2,4 1 3

Shipley Bay 2,4 2,4 1 3

All of the alternatives would allocate more service days to most sites than have been used in the 

past. Between 2004 and 2009, the highest number of service days reported for any year was in 

2006 at 2,848 service days for all sites combined. This amounts to approximately 14% of the 

days allocated in Alternative 1, 2% of the days allocated in Alternative 2, 3% of the days 

allocated in Alternative 3, and 11% of the days allocated in Alternative 4. Exceptions to this 

pattern are sites where past use has been high. This would include sites such as Dog Salmon 

Fishpass and Klakas Inlet. 

Should outfitter-guide use rise to the levels allowed under any of these alternatives, it would 

result in a dramatic increase in all of the potential impacts described for wildlife as outlined 

above. For example, if outfitter-guide use increased enough to fully utilize the allocation in 

Alternative 1, it would amount to a seven-fold increase in service days used across the Zone, 

whereas the increase associated with Alternative 2 would amount to a fifty-fold increase. Some 

species, particularly those sensitive to disturbance from human activities, may experience 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 79 

negative consequences such as disruption of feeding, reproduction, or other factors affecting 

short-term population levels. Though this analysis has assumed full implementation of 

allocations under each alternative, impacts to human recreation and social factors would likely 

cause a re-evaluation of these allocations long before major effects would occur to wildlife. This 

assumption is based on the nature of scoping comments received and POW residents’ low 

tolerance for sharing recreation and subsistence sites compared to people from other parts of the 

country. 

Adaptive management may be implemented to change allocations or other outfitter and guide 

management based on monitoring, observations, or feedback we receive during implementation 

of this project. In most cases, if adaptive management is implemented, it will result in a 

reduction of permit allocations or other management technique designed to reduce effects on 

affected resource/s; these management adjustments would likely either have no effect on or 

reduce effects on wildlife. In cases where adaptive management results in an increase in permit 

allocations, the allocations and their effects will not exceed the greatest allocations and effects 

described in this analysis. 

Generally speaking, the estimated disturbance to wildlife is greatest for Alternative 2, followed 

by Alternatives 3, 4 and 1, respectively. This is based solely on the number of days allocated 

under each alternative. This pattern holds true for all but 32 of the 209 Outfitter-Guide Use sites. 

Most sites that do not hold to this pattern are sites where current permitted service days already 

exceed 25% or even 50% of estimated recreation visitor capacity. Effects to individual species 

are described below. 

Management Indicator Species 

Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 

The likelihood of impacts of each alternative to management indicator species follows the 

discussion under Relative Impact on Wildlife with exceptions discussed below. 

Sitka Black-tailed Deer 

Direct and indirect effects to deer include mortality as a result of guided harvest, vehicle strikes, 

and disturbance that may cause stress to the animals, increase metabolic costs due to stress and 

energy costs of flight, temporary displacement, reduce foraging efficiency, etc. However, it is 

difficult to quantify the degree to which the presence of people recreating within deer habitats 

will disturb individual deer or cause long-term population consequences. 

As described above, overall, Alternative 2 has the greatest likelihood of disturbance to deer of 

any alternative, followed by Alternatives 3, 4, and 1, respectively. The notable exception to this 

pattern is Salmon Bay, which is the outfitter-guide use site most frequently used for guided deer 

hunting. For this site, alternatives by decreasing order of impact were Alternatives 1, 2 and 4, 

and 3. Effects from all four alternatives have the potential to be moderate, with individuals 

noticeably affected and some long-term consequences to populations from repeated disturbance, 

because all four alternatives allocate far more days than have been used in the past. However, 

higher allocations do not automatically mean that more permits will be issued or demand for 

guided activities will rise. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 80 

All four alternatives will result in some mortality due to harvest of deer. Fall hunting service day 

caps in Alternatives 3 and 4 may reduce the number of deer harvested in those alternatives, but 

may also only have the effect of spreading out guided hunters rather than reducing the total 

harvest. All four alternatives allocate far more annual service days than those used between 2004 

and 2009. It is anticipated that guided deer harvest will continue to increase in the near future 

but it is unknown to what degree or how fast this will happen. The guided deer harvest caps in 

Alternatives 3 and 4 will ensure that no one location will be inundated with guided hunters. 

While the estimated impact to deer populations is higher for alternatives that allocate higher 

service days (Alternative 2 in particular), the actual use is more important. We have no good 

means to anticipate future changes in use. 

Black Bear 

Almost all of the identified guide use sites provide habitat for black bears and therefore 

opportunities for disturbance to bears by guided activities. All 209 sites were within 1⁄2 mile of 

anadromous fish streams or beach/estuary habitat, both important habitats for black bears. 

Because most guided activities do not occur during winter, it is not anticipated this project will 

have any effect on bears during denning season or to their denning habitat. 

Harvest of black bears from both guided and unguided hunters has likely contributed to recent 

apparent population declines for this species. Regulatory restrictions, including the Central 

WAAs Closure, a recently defined controlled use area, and adoption of a drawing permit hunt for 

non-resident unguided hunters are hoped to alleviate some of harvest pressure on black bears. 

ADF&G and the Forest Service will work together to set appropriate hunt allocations for guides 

based on their average actual harvest from 2007 to 2009. The hunt allocation process will take 

place independently of this NEPA analysis. Therefore, harvest pressure from guided hunters is 

assumed the same across all alternatives and will not be used for comparison among alternatives. 

Mortality due to guided harvest is anticipated under all four alternatives. While non-resident 

harvest has made up the majority of black bear harvest on the POW districts in recent years, 

guided non-residents have never accounted for more than 20% of the non-resident harvest of 

black bears, and never more than 17% of total harvest. 

Aside from mortality associated with harvest, primary direct and indirect effects for black bears 

are related to disturbance of bears by the presence of people in their habitats. Outfitter-guide use 

under all alternatives has the potential to disturb or displace bears which can alter social patterns 

and affect energy balance and overall bear fitness or survival. Bear viewing and hunting may 

cause disturbance to bears at high quality feeding sites such as beaches and estuaries in 

springtime and at salmon streams in the fall. Guided sports fishermen looking for trout or 

salmon in late summer or fall may compete with bears for fish or trample redds, potentially 

reducing prey availability for bears over the long term. Fisherman are likely to encounter bears 

feeding on streams, potentially disturbing the bears, causing stress and reducing their foraging 

efficiency. These encounters can also lead to potential defense of life and property mortalities in 

bears. However, it is difficult to quantify the degree to which the presence of people recreating 

within bear habitats will disturb individual bears or affect long-term population viability. 

Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 

Overall, Alternative 2 has the greatest likelihood of disturbing bears of any alternative, followed 

by Alternatives 3, 4, and 1, respectively. Notable exceptions to the impact pattern include 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 81 

Halibut Harbor, Hessa Inlet, Hunter Bay, Klakas Inlet, Max Cove, and Salmon Bay. Impact at 

these sites was highest for Alternative 1 since the current permitted number of service days for 

outfitters and guides is higher than the remaining alternatives, followed by Alternatives 2 and 4, 

then 3, respectively. Shipley Bay also defied the common pattern (Alternatives 2 and 4, 1, 3-

highest impact to lowest), as well as Shakan Bay and Survey Cove (Alternatives 2, 4, 1, 3-

highest impact to lowest). All of these sites provide quality habitat for black bears, and are 

known to be bear hunting sites. 

Effects from all four alternatives are anticipated to be moderate, with individuals noticeably 

affected and some long-term consequences to populations from mortality due to harvest and 

repeated disturbance at high quality habitat sites. Fall hunting service day caps in Alternatives 3 

and 4 may reduce the number of bears harvested in those alternatives, but may also only have the 

effect of spreading out guided hunters rather than reducing the total harvest. All four alternatives 

will likely result in mortality due to harvest of bears. All four alternatives allocate more service 

days than those used strictly for bear hunting between 2004 and 2009. 

Bald Eagle 

Primary direct and indirect effects to bald eagles associated with this project relate to disturbance 

of eagles. Bald eagles are most sensitive around nest sites during breeding season and may 

respond in a variety ways when disturbed by human activities near nest sites (Steidl and Anthony 

1996, 2000). During the nest building period, disturbance can lead to failed nesting attempts. 

Disturbance from incubation to fledging may lead to injury, death, or reduced survival of the 

young (USFWS 2009). 

Steidl and Anthony (2000) studied the effects of recreational camping on bald eagles in interior 

Alaska. Where humans were camped for 24 hours 100 meters [~330 feet or minimum required 

by regulation] from active eagle nests, eagles spent less time taking care of themselves, their 

nests, and their young and more time away from the nest than those with campers 500 meters 

away. Steidl and Anthony (2000) concluded that presence of humans near active bald eagle 

nests caused changes in behavior that could ultimately result in population-level impacts through 

reductions in offspring survival. Human activities that cause any of these responses and lead to 

injury, a decrease in productivity, or nest abandonment are considered disturbance and are thus a 

violation of the Bald Eagle Protection Act (USFWS 2009). 

Over 90 percent of nests on the Tongass occur within the beach buffer. Nest maps for bald eagles 

in Southeast Alaska are maintained by USFWS and are infrequently updated, so good sources of 

active nest locations are not available. While legal regulations (16 USC 668-668d and 50 CFR 

22.26) prohibit recreational activities within a minimum of 330 feet from active nests from 

March 1 through August 31, research has documented recreational disturbance effects over 1,500 

feet away. Approximately 64% of the outfitter-guide use sites identified are within 1500 feet of 

saltwater and are therefore likely to be near one or more bald eagle nests. Therefore, alterations 

in eagle behavior from outfitter-guide activities in or near the beach/estuary fringe could still 

occur, even if minimum activity buffers are observed. 

Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 

Given all applicable buffers and seasonal restrictions required by law are followed, effects from 

all alternatives are expected to be minor, with occasional responses to disturbance from some 

individuals, but with no real interference with reproduction or foraging other than short term 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 82 

disturbance and/or displacement from foraging areas. Recommendations for minimizing impacts 

to eagles are outlined in the Project Design and Mitigation Measures section. 

Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and Candidate Species 

Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 

The table below lists determinations on the effects of the alternatives on endangered, threatened, 

and proposed species: 

Table 3-5: Determination of Effect for Federally listed wildlife species known or 

suspected to occur in the vicinity of the Prince of Wales Zone. 

Federally Listed Species Alternative Determination 

Humpback whale All Not likely to adversely affect 

Fin whale All Not likely to adversely affect 

Steller sea lion All Not likely to adversely affect 

Steller sea lion critical habitat All Not likely to adversely affect 

Yellow-billed loon All Not likely to jeopardize candidate species, or 

adversely modify proposed critical habitat 

Alternative 2 poses the greatest impact to Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate species 

because it allocates the most days and therefore offers the greatest opportunity for outfitter and 

guide access to shoreline sites via marine habitats important to these species. Following 

Alternative 2, Alternatives 3 and 4 pose the next greatest impact, respectively, and Alternative 1 

poses the least impact because it allocates the fewest service days for marine access sites. 

Effects to all of these species are expected to be minor. Fin whales and yellow-billed loons 

occur very infrequently in the waters surrounding POW and are therefore not likely to be 

encountered often by outfitters and guides. Yellow-billed loons most often occur in winter when 

outfitter-guide activity is minimal. 

Humpback whales may be subject to occasional acoustic disturbance, but Forest-wide standards 

and guidelines direct the Forest Service to ensure that Forest Service permitted or approved 

activities are conducted in a manner consistent with the Marine Mammal Protection Act, 

Endangered Species Act, and NMFS regulations for approaching whales, dolphins, and porpoise. 

"Taking" of whales is prohibited; "taking" includes harassing or pursuing, or attempting any such 

activity (USDA Forest Service 2008a, pg. 4-99), so effects to humpback whales are expected to 

be minor as well. 

Outfitters and guides are required to follow all marine mammal viewing guidelines and refrain 

from any activities that disturb sea lions when passing near these sites. Given the restrictions to 

activities around marine mammals, effects to sea lions are expected to be minor, consisting 

mostly of infrequent disturbances that may cause animals stress or interrupt foraging or resting 

animals. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 83 

Sensitive Species 

Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 

The risk of effects of each alternative to sensitive species follows the discussion under Relative 

Impact on Wildlife. Determinations for R10 Sensitive species are listed in Table 3-6. 

Table 3-6: Determination of Impact for R10 Sensitive Wildlife Species Known or 

Suspected to Occur in the Vicinity of POW. 

R10 Sensitive Species Alternative Determination

Queen Charlotte goshawk All May impact individuals, but not likely to cause a trend 

to federal listing or a loss of viability 

Black oystercatcher All May impact individuals, but not likely to cause a trend 

to federal listing or a loss of viability 

Northern Goshawk 

None of the authorized outfitter-guide activities would alter productive old-growth habitat. 

Instead, effects would come from human disturbance in close proximity to nesting goshawks. 

Goshawk nests are usually in heavily forested habitats, and since most recreation sites are along 

the shorelines, lakes, rivers, and along the road system, recreation disturbance to known or 

unknown goshawk nests is expected to be uncommon. Effects to goshawks are expected to be 

minor under all alternatives, and at worst could include disturbance to birds near nests that may 

temporarily disrupt breeding or brood rearing activities. 

Forest Plan standards and guidelines to minimize disturbance during the nesting season will be 

included as permit stipulations. 

Black Oystercatcher 

Outfitter-guide use sites where these birds are nesting would be expected to have more negative 

impacts under Alternatives 2 and 3, in general. However, there is not much visitation to guideuse sites on the exposed western shores of POW and surrounding islands, and there are relatively 

few guide-use sites compared to the number of potential nesting sites that likely occur on POW’s 

outer coast, so impacts to populations should be small under any alternative. 

Effects are expected to be minor under all alternatives. These effects will consist of disturbance 

of breeding birds and possible trampling of nests, but overall effects to population should be 

small. 

Cumulative Effects 

All Wildlife Species 

Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 

The list of past, present, or foreseeable future projects that may contribute cumulative effects for 

wildlife is long, and contains a wide variety of influences such as timber sales, salvage harvest, 

restoration projects, road closures and maintenance, recreation site maintenance and 

improvements, potential land exchanges and many others. Ground disturbing activities 

occurring on the POW districts would impact wildlife through habitat, but would be analyzed at 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 84 

that time based on the specific proposal. Ongoing habitat changes associated with long term 

influences such as climate change or succession of managed stands may also contribute to 

cumulative effects to wildlife. The complete list can be found in the planning record. 

Cumulative effects relevant to this project include guided and unguided recreational activities, 

recreational use on non-NFS ownerships within the POW analysis boundary, flight-seeing tours 

and marine based tours not within Forest Service jurisdiction, consumptive use of wildlife. 

Though the scale of guided use compared to unguided use were described here where possible, 

unguided recreation, sport hunting and fishing, and other recreation uses are not currently 

measured under any monitoring plan. Data on much of the unguided use of the POW districts 

are lacking. Unguided bear hunting, deer hunting, and fishing are all likely a substantial 

percentage of the use that occurs on POW. Cumulative effects from unguided recreation would 

be similar to those described in the direct and indirect effects section. 

Unguided persons engaging in floatplane landing tours, freshwater fishing, hiking, beach 

activities, sightseeing, wildlife viewing at developed sites, camping, and road-based activities 

would have disturbance effects similar to those analyzed for outfitter and guides, but cumulative 

effects would add to the amount of disturbance. A greater number of animals would be impacted 

since specific locations would receive more use and additional areas would receive use not 

identified through this analysis. In addition to disturbance, unguided use may cause additional 

trampling and other site disturbance further reducing the quality and/or quantity of available 

habitat. Additional impacts to wildlife populations would occur from similar activities on nonNFS lands. 

Consumptive use of wildlife (i.e., hunting and trapping) would reduce wildlife populations. In 

particular, the State of Alaska has recognized concerns about black bear populations and harvest 

by both guided and unguided hunters on POW, and has taken measures to limit overall harvest. 

Harvest objectives for all wildlife species are regulated by ADF&G Board of Game and the 

Federal Subsistence Board to maintain sustainable population levels. 

In general, the past, present, and foreseeable future actions that relate to this project will all be 

the same under every alternative, so the relative comparison of alternatives will remain the same 

as that described in the Direct and Indirect Effects section. The alternative allocating the highest 

number of service days (Alternative 2) will pose the highest impact to wildlife, followed by the 

other alternatives in descending order of service day allocations (Alternatives 3, 4, and 1, 

respectively). Cumulative effects including disturbance, mortality due to harvest, and minor 

effects to habitat such as vegetation trampling in heavily used areas are not expected to result in 

loss of population viability for any wildlife species. Effects are not expected to be significant 

under any alternative. 

Minor to moderate effects may occur to wildlife species because of this project. There will be 

effects in most places, primarily as disturbance to wildlife. With the protections and 

management in place, effects to wildlife species and habitat will be limited. In addition, it is 

unlikely that the full capacity will be used under any of the alternative. None of the alternatives 

in this project in combination with past, ongoing, or reasonably foreseeable activities would lead 

to a loss of population viability for any wildlife species analyzed. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 85 

Recreation and Wilderness ___________________ 

This analysis considers the existing conditions of and effects of the alternatives on recreation and 

wilderness as well as on outfitters and guides and unguided visitors. 

This section does not focus on economics, but instead focuses on the effects of and complexity 

of management related to the alternatives. The Socioeconomics section of this EA discusses the 

effects to economics and businesses. 

Introduction 

Recreation Use Areas 

POW and its surrounding islands, make up the affected environment for this Recreation and 

Wilderness analysis. In the recreation portion of this analysis, emphasis is placed on developed 

recreation sites, recreation points, areas of concentrated dispersed recreation use and specific 

high use areas. Throughout this analysis, these areas have generally been designated as 

“Recreation Use Areas” and each Use Area has its own name for identification on maps and 

tables. Recreation related to the roads system and access is also considered in this analysis. 

Recreation Visitor Capacity Development 

Before formal recreation visitor capacity development, POW permit administrators allocated use 

on a site-by-site basis as these sites were requested by outfitters and guides. Resource 

implications were considered specifically for each site, but not necessarily in a holistic or 

systematic manner. The recreation visitor capacity model was developed to help outfitter and 

guide administrators and resource managers consider implications of outfitter and guide use over 

an island-wide scale and scope. For the recreation resource, the visitor capacity helps managers 

to provide quality recreation opportunities that reflect the ROS setting and development scale for 

each location. For more information about the visitor capacity process see Appendix B. 

Legal Framework 

According to Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2709.14, outfitters and guide use is secondary to 

protecting environmental and social conditions in an area: 

53.1r - Administration of Outfitting and Guiding Permits 

4. An immediate suspension of all or part of a permit may be imposed when deemed 

necessary to protect public health or safety or the environment in accordance with 36 

CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 251.60(f). Notice and an opportunity to correct 

deficiencies are not required before imposing an immediate suspension (36 CFR 

251.60(e)). 

Forest Service regulations support the suspension of outfitter and guide services in order to 

protect environmental conditions. The Forest Service Handbook does not guarantee the number 

of service days an outfitter or guide receives each year. At any time during the life of the permit, 

the permit administrator may stop activities to protect the environment. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 86 

Affected Environment Recreation and Tourism 

In order to understand the potential effects to recreation uses and outfitters and guides, this 

analysis considers three criteria for effects: 

1. Impact to ROS settings, 

2. Effect to recreation opportunities for the guided user

3. Effect to recreation opportunities for unguided users 

POW tourism is limited by the lack of regularly scheduled public transportation. A small cruise 

line has begun regularly scheduled tours to POW in 2010. This boat, which carries up to 70 

people, stops at El Capitan Cave, Klawock and Sea Otter Sound. The island road system is not 

paved between many of the island communities. 

Tourists in Craig, the largest population center on POW, participate in three basic activities; 

fishing, hunting or pleasure boating (Cerveny 2005). Some non-consumptive opportunities, like 

kayak and hiking tours, are beginning to develop. An estimated 4,000 to 6,000 visitors came to 

Craig and Klawock during 2001 (Cerveny 2005). The majority of these visitors come to Craig 

with a travel package, which includes charter fishing or guided hunting and accommodations. 

Much of the direct revenue from these tourists goes to the lodges and charter operators, but some 

indirect effects occur through the purchase of gas, supplies, and groceries. The privately owned 

Inter-island ferry system transports people to Prince of Wales on a daily basis. This service and 

continued road development are predicted to increase tourism to the island. A northern ferry 

route from Coffman Cove to Wrangell and Petersburg ran for two years, but closed in 2009 due 

to budgetary constraints. A smaller private vessel may reopen this route in 2012. 

Some tourism businesses have seen a large increase in business from the ferry service (Hull, 

pers. com. 2007), and others have stayed about the same or decreased due to the Coffman Cove 

Road construction project (Hedges, pers. com. 2007). POW visitors come to the area primarily 

to fish and hunt, although many lodges and outfitter and guide services have begun to branch out 

into other tourism opportunities such as wildlife viewing and hiking. 

Dispersed Recreation 

Dispersed recreation is any area where visitors concentrate use outside a developed recreation 

site. Examples include popular fishing areas, well-known hunting areas, and anchorages and 

beaches. Little information is recorded about recreation use levels in these areas. Qualitative 

information in the form of observed use by recreation managers and dialogue with Prince of 

Wales recreation and traditional users has been gathered. 

Developed Recreation 

More is known about developed recreation sites. Developed recreation sites are sites that the 

Forest Service has designed for a specific type and level of use. Examples of developed 

recreation sites include recreation cabins, trails, wildlife viewing sites, interpretive areas, 

campgrounds, picnic areas and public boat launches. The maps in Appendix A show all of the 

developed recreation sites on the Craig and Thorne Bay Ranger Districts. 

Both unguided users and outfitters and guides and their clients may use most developed sites. 

Guided use of some public recreation cabins is now allowed on POW as shown in Table 1-1 of 

this EA. The potential outfitter-guide use is anticipated to help boost use in under-utilized cabins 

during parts of the year when public use of the cabin is low. Of the 4,380 nights available for all 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 87 

users at the 12 designated cabins, 2,021 nights are available annually to outfitters and guides. 

Permitted outfitters and guides must reserve the cabins using the National Recreation 

Reservation Service (NRRS); thus, cabins remain available on a first-come, first-served basis. 

Overall cabin use on POW is 1,095 reserved nights across 19 cabins between 2007-2010. The 

cabins are utilized at approximately 32% of their capacity for the 6 month, high use season. 

Trail use data was collected in 2006 using infrared trail counters on Beaver Falls, Gravelly 

Creek, One Duck, Memorial Beach and Twentymile Trails. The total amount of trail use 

recorded for the 5 trails was 3,193 users from June to September, 2006. Over the course of the 

summer, the average number of people using these trails was 5 people per day. Many of these 

users are repeat users that come to the trails several times per season, while others are one-time 

visitors from off the island. 

The two POW campgrounds receive an average of about 125 reserved nights per year, 

respectively. 

Picnic sites like Sandy Beach and Gravelly Creek receive consistent use during the summer 

season. Balls Lake, Harris River Day Use, Luck Lake and Neck Lake receive less consistent use, 

but observations of these areas have shown periodic use each summer. 

The POW districts have over a thousand miles of open roads. The Forest Service Access Travel 

Management (ATM) determines the future use of these roads for highway and off highway 

vehicles. Outfitters and guides use some of these open roads. 

Affected Environment Wilderness 

There are five federally designated Wilderness Areas within the Craig and Thorne Bay Ranger 

Districts: Coronation Island Wilderness (19,232 acres), Karta River Wilderness (39,889 acres), 

Maurelle Islands Wilderness (4,937 acres), South Prince of Wales Wilderness (91,018) and 

Warren Island Wilderness (11,181 acres). Management of these areas is directed by the 

Wilderness Act 1964, ANILCA 1980, and Forest Plan. Activities that are generally prohibited in 

these wilderness areas are: 

 the use of mechanized and motorized equipment on land, 

 helicopter landings, and 

 activities with group sizes greater than 12 individuals. 

Outfitter and guided activities are allowed in these Wilderness areas where the need for such 

commercial use was determined through a Needs Assessment process. 

Wilderness Needs Assessment 

A Determination of Need for Commercial Use in Wilderness (Wilderness Needs Assessment) 

was completed for each of the five Prince of Wales Wilderness Areas (in the project record and 

available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/r10/tongass/projects/nepa_project.shtml?project=27974 

or at the Craig District office). The Wilderness Needs Assessment is a method for determining 

through a variety of criteria if there is a ‘need’ for private enterprise to assist the agency in 

providing access, services and/or other assistance for the recreating public to safely and properly 

enjoy National Forest Wilderness Areas. Table 3-7 below summarizes the types of commercial 

uses determined “needed” for each wilderness. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 88 

Table 3-7: Summary of Commercial Uses in wilderness 

Wilderness Name 

Type of Commercial Activity 

Camping 

Big Game 

Hunting 

Freshwater 

Fishing 

Passive 

Touring1

Active 

Touring2

Coronation Island Y N N Y Y 

Karta River N Y N N N 

Maurelle Islands Y N N Y Y 

South Prince of Wales Y Y Y Y Y 

Warren Island N N N N N 

*Y = yes, N = No 

1

 Sightseeing, wildlife viewing, etc. 

2

 Hiking, biking, kayaking, etc. 

Wilderness Recreation Use 

Measures

In order to understand the potential effects to the Wilderness Resource, this analysis considers 

the same three criteria as the Recreation section for effects: 

Level of Effect 

In Wilderness, the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2008a) guides managers to look at levels 

of effects to opportunities for solitude and changes in Wilderness character. In order to analyze 

opportunities for solitude, this document assumes that increased encounters with other groups in 

Wilderness lowers opportunities to find solitude. In addition, this document assumes that 

evidence of human use on the ground, such as finding campsites, footprints, or trash affects the 

Wilderness character. Wilderness measures are considered by the following levels of effect: 

 Negligible—no or low levels of human evidence on the ground and no or low 

encounters. 

 Minor—Low to medium human evidence on the ground and low to medium 

encounters 

 Moderate—Medium to high evidence of human use and medium to high encounters. 

Wilderness Areas of Concern 

Prince of Wales Wilderness managers perform Wilderness monitoring at all five Wilderness 

areas on a biannual schedule. During this monitoring they record evidence of human use in 

terms of camp sites, fire rings, litter, vegetation trampling and soil compaction in campsites, cut 

trees, etc. They also record encounters with other groups on the ground. The Forest Plan 

Wilderness Section states that Wilderness “encounters should be less than three groups per day 

to maintain the more primitive experience” (USDA Forest service 2008a, p. 3-19). The table 

below describes the amount of human evidence and encounters discovered at the Wilderness 

outfitter and guide recreation use sites. Based on the monitoring information, several areas of 

concern were identified. The areas in gray in Table 3-8 below are areas of concern based on the 

criteria included in the table. The areas of concern are discussed further below the table. The 

evidence of human use and encounters recorded may or may not be associated with outfitter and 

guide use. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 89 

Table 3-8: Wilderness Recreation Use Area Sites 

Location Evidence of Human Use Encounters 

<2 = Low 

3-5 = Medium 

>6 = High 

Aats Bay Low (1 old fire ring) None 

Biscuit Lagoon Low (derelict trap line) None 

Brownson Bay No None 

China Cove No Low (off shore boat) 

Cora Point No ground visit, but flights 

have not shown evidence of 

use. 

No ground visit, but aerial 

showed no boats in fishing 

grounds around Cora Point 

Egg Harbor Medium (trash in caves, fire 

pits in caves, invasive 

plants, fire pits on shore, 

name written in sand) 

Low (2 encounters) 

Hessa Inlet Low (derelict trap line) None 

Hole in the Wall High (camp set-up with tarp 

and semi-permanent 

structure, dock, fire pits and 

tree damage) 

Low--Medium (two 

observed, but 

communications with 

fishermen suggest that 

encounters are greater at 

other times) 

Hunter Bay Low (fire ring, campsites) Low (0-4 2007-2010)) 

Karta River Trail impacts, invasive 

species, litter 

High 

Karta River Trail Trail impacts, invasive 

species, litter 

High 

Klakas Inlet Low—medium (derelict but 

larger campsite with large 

fire ring, cut logs, tree 

impacts, trash) 

Low 

Spanish Islands No ground visit—no aerial 

evidence 

No ground visit—no aerial 

evidence 

Tah Bay Low (old fire ring, old 

timber theft) 

None 

Warren Cove None Low 

Windy Bay Low (archaeology campsite 

small evidence left. Old fire 

ring) 

Low 

*Areas of concern are in grey 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 90 

Of the areas of concern, the two Karta River sites are addressed by the Karta River Wilderness 

Needs Assessment. Only big game hunting in the uplands of the Karta River Wilderness is 

needed. Hence, outfitted and guided uses would be prohibited in the Karta River Valley where 

the trail and recreation cabins are located. 

The other areas of concern are looked at individually in this analysis. Egg Harbor shows 

medium evidence of humans and low encounters. The encounters observed were a mix of 

fishermen anchored in Egg Harbor and tour boats, which could have been an outfitter and guide 

or a private recreation boat. The concern is a perceived impact to Wilderness character in terms 

of a change to the important cave resources in Egg Harbor, evidenced by litter and fire pits in the 

caves. Although outfitters and guides may not have caused these impacts, they are present in 

Egg Harbor and may attribute to the impacts. Hence, it is recommended that outfitter and guide 

use be permitted in Egg Harbor, but monitored to determine if wilderness character impacts are 

caused by outfitter and guide use. In addition, if the impacts are found to result from outfitter 

and guide use, then commercial outfitter and guide use will be limited or prohibited at Egg 

Harbor. 

Hole-in-the-wall, Maurelle Islands Wilderness Area, is a site that has strong traditional use from 

individuals from Klawock and Craig. It is also the site of intense commercial and sports fishing 

during the months of July and August. Commercial outfitter and guide use has taken place in 

this area over the past five years, but likely does not greatly affect the wilderness character 

(measured by human evidence on the ground) but does increase the encounters in a place that 

already has low-medium encounters, with the potential for high encounters at certain times 

during the year. It is recommended that Hole-in-the-wall be closed to outfitter and guide use 

during the high use season (July-August) due to the fact that there is already high evidence of 

human use on the ground and potential for high encounters in the area. 

Hunter Bay, South Prince of Wales Wilderness Area, shows a low level of human evidence on 

the ground and low--medium level of encounters. And the encounters were with outfitter and 

guides hunting, camping and nature viewing in the area (SPOW Report 2007). Based on the 

observations reported during Wilderness monitoring, it is likely that encounter impacts evident in 

Hunter Bay are attributed to outfitters and guides. It is recommended that outfitter and guide use 

be permitted in Hunter Bay with continued monitoring. If encounters increase to more than the 

recommended two per day, then outfitter and guide use will be reduced or prohibited in this 

location. 

Klakas Inlet, South Prince of Wales Wilderness, is a site that once had heavy use but has since 

decreased in popularity, perhaps due to its distance from Hydaburg for subsistence uses. The 

evidence of human use in Klakas Inlet measured a low-medium based on the fact that there is a 

derelict campsite, small fish camp site there that is fairly large, with a big fire pit, several cut 

trees, and rounds for seats. The evidence of human use is undeniable, even though this camp 

does not appear to have been used in several years. Also this camp is not thought to be used by 

outfitters and guides. Observed encounters in Klakas Inlet measured low, however, use reports 

from the outfitter and guides database suggest that at certain times encounters may be higher, 

because Klakas Inlet is one of the locations that the current permit level for outfitters and guides 

exceeds the recreation visitor capacity. Hence, it is recommended that outfitter and guide use be 

dispersed and reduced, and that this location be monitored for encounters. If encounters increase 

to the point that they exceed the Forest Plan threshold of two per day, then outfitter guide use in 

Klakas Inlet should be reduced or prohibited. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 91 

Environmental Consequences 

Direct and Indirect Effects to Recreation and Wilderness 

Summary 

Alternative 1 would not change current conditions, but also would not allow for growth in the 

tourism industry. Alternative 1 also does not adopt the recreation visitor capacity strategy, which 

helps recreation managers provide a variety of recreation experiences, and is a required 

component outfitter-guide management. In Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 there are recreation use areas 

where the current use levels may exceed the allocations in each alternative and the fishing 

restrictions in Alternatives 2 and 4. Thus, a redistribution of guided use would be required to 

maintain fishing resources and social thresholds in primitive locations. Alternatives 2 and 3 

would allow for the most opportunity for industry growth. Alternative 4 creates an 

administrative burden and allows for minimal amounts of growth is some areas and no growth in 

other areas. 

Adaptive management could be used in Alternatives 2, 3, or 4 to adjust outfitter and guide 

management. It may allow increases in outfitter and guide use if resources and social conditions 

can be sustained. It may also reduce outfitter and guide use if conditions warrant. Using adaptive 

management would maintain ROS settings included in the Forest Plan. It would also help to 

maintain recreation and wilderness resources while allowing some flexibility in outfitter and 

guide management. 

Alternative 1 - No Action 

Measure 1: Impact to ROS Settings - Recreation 

Continuing outfitter and guide use at the current levels would have negligible effects to ROS 

settings, remote recreation sites, developed recreation sites, and roaded recreation. 

Measure 1: Impact to ROS Settings - Wilderness 

Klakas Inlet currently receives more guided use than 50% of the established recreation visitor 

capacity for this Wilderness site. Hence, Klakas Inlet is currently out of compliance with the 

Forest Plan, minor effects to ROS may occur from this alternative due to the continued high use 

of Klakas Inlet, where the ROS is managed as primitive. Current use levels are likely to push this 

area’s ROS setting out of the primitive setting into the semi-primitive non-motorized ROS 

setting due to increased encounters. Minor effects would be reduced to negligible effects by 

dispersing outfitter and guide use at Klakas Inlet to other similar sites nearby. 

Measure 2: Effect to recreation opportunities for the guided user, and Measure 3: Effect to 

recreation opportunities for the unguided user - Recreation 

Minor effects to guided and unguided recreation opportunities may occur with Alternative 1. 

Recreation use levels at this time by guided and unguided users are relatively low, compared to 

the visitor capacity for most sites. With recreation use continuing at current levels, current low 

levels of conflict and competition are likely to continue. Yet, some remote sites and freshwater 

fishing sites may have minor effects with Alternative 1, because these areas have been identified 

as areas where current levels of use affects the social conditions and the environmental 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 92 

resources. Also new opportunities would not be considered, for example a new wildlife-viewing 

site on the north end of the island. 

Measure 2: Effect to recreation opportunities for the guided user, and Measure 3: Effect to 

recreation opportunities for the unguided user - Wilderness 

Alternative 1 would continue to allow use at Klakas Inlet to remain at levels above 50% of the 

visitor capacity, exceeding the allowable levels set forth in the Forest Plan. These higher levels 

of guided recreation use would have minor effects to guided and unguided recreation users by 

reducing opportunities for solitude and Wilderness character. 

Alternative 2 

Measure 1: Impact to ROS Settings - Recreation and Wilderness 

Alternative 2 would allow 50% of the calculated visitor capacity for each site, with restrictions 

on fishing streams. Since the visitor capacity takes into account the ROS class for the Forest Plan 

Land Use Designation (LUD) for each site, the managed ROS for this alternative would not be 

affected. Yet, ROS is a measure of what currently exists in a location, while LUD is what is 

prescribed for an area. The difference is that an area may be designated in the Forest Plan as 

Modified Landscape LUD, but no timber harvest has taken place there. So the ROS of the area 

may be primitive to semi-primitive non-motorized, rather than roaded modified, the ROS 

generally associated with modified landscape LUD. In many of the outfitter and guide locations 

(e.g. Kassa Inlet, Keete Bay and Kendrick Bay), the existing ROS would change if use rose to 

meet 50% of the site visitor capacity. This change, however, is anticipated by the designed 

management strategy of the LUD system in the Forest Plan. Effects to ROS would be negligible 

and within Forest Plan guidelines for use levels and development for each site. 

Recreation sites and places would not be affected to a degree greater than what the Forest Plan 

allows for these areas. In other words, although the visitor capacity calculation for allowed 

outfitter and guide use is several times greater than the allocated or actual use in these sites, at 

this time, the amount of use permitted in Alternative 2 would not exceed what the Forest Plan 

shows to be allowed and designed based on LUD definitions and their associated ROS classes. 

Measure 2: Effect to recreation opportunities for the guided user - Recreation 

In order to determine if there is a net increase or decrease in recreation opportunities for guided 

users, the highest annual use recorded for each location was compared to the allocations 

proposed in Alternative 2. Highest annual use is based on actual use reports submitted annually 

by each guide, and can be found in Table 2-1. Highest annual use was chosen for this analysis 

rather than average use or median use because it represents the greatest use and potentially the 

greatest impact for the period of recorded use. Note that some of the locations do not have a use 

recorded in the table. These sites do not have current use information because although guides 

have asked for use at these sites and subsequently use was allocated in their permits, no use has 

been recorded by guides at these sites. 

Next, the highest annual use figures were compared to the proposed Alternative 2 figures in 

Table 3-9, with the fishing restrictions included. For most sites the highest annual use is a 

fraction (less than 25%) of the proposed Alternative 2 allocation. The table below shows the sites 

where current guided use exceeds the proposed Alternative 2 fishing allocations, assuming that 

the highest annual use was all guided freshwater fishing. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 93 

Table 3-9: Comparison of highest annual outfitter and guide use to Alternative 2 

allocations 

Recreation 

Location Name

Alternative 2 - 

Proposed Action - 

50% of recreation 

visitor capacity 

Service Days (SDs)

Alternative 2 - 

Number of SDs 

Available for 

Fishing Permits

Highest Annual 

Use 

SDs

Dog Salmon 

Creek 1,348 25 32P

Harris River 1,153 150 190F

Klakas Inlet 180 180 208P

Turn Creek 1,153 25 47F

1

Highest Annual use column does not differentiate between the type of high use. A subscript F represents a site with 

freshwater fishing as the highest type of use, while a subscript P, demonstrates a site with passive touring as the 

highest use type. 

Turn Creek and Harris River are locations where guided freshwater fishing would be restricted in 

Alternative 2 (at least when compared to highest use), since the historic trend has been to use 

these sites primarily for guided freshwater fishing. At Turn Creek and Harris River, Alternative 

2 would have minor effects on the outfitters and guides that provide guided freshwater fishing of 

these sites and the recreation users that they serve. Minor effects may be reduced by 

redistributing guided use to similar, nearby locations. 

The freshwater fishing experience can be reproduced in a nearby location where current guided 

freshwater fishing use levels do not exceed the proposed fishing allocation in Alternative 2. For 

example, at Turn Creek, outfitter and guide fishing use could be redistributed to 108 Creek, 

Forest Road 2700, or Exchange Cove. Similarly, Harris River users may need to redistribute to 

Indian Creek. 

Another option to voluntary redistribution is to enter into a prospectus. A prospectus is a 

competitive bidding process, much like the process used in contracting, to select the highest 

and/or most qualified outfitter-guide. This competitive process would allow guides an equal 

opportunity to bid for use of these specific fishing systems. 

Measure 2: Effect to recreation opportunities for the guided user - Wilderness 

Of the four sites identified in Table 3-9, two locations are used by guides for passive touring, not 

fishing: Dog Salmon Creek and Klakas Inlet. For these locations, highest annual use is 

compared to the full allocation of Alternative 2. Of these two locations, only Klakas Inlet 

exceeds the Alternative 2 allocation for all types of uses. 

Klakas Inlet is within South Prince of Wales Wilderness area and the current amount of passive 

touring exceeds the proposed allocation for guided use in the area, thus minor effects to outfitter 

and guide users would occur as a result of this alternative. The primitive ROS associated with 

Wilderness areas is the limiting factor. Klakas Inlet is one of the sites identified in the 

Wilderness Affected Environment section as a site of concern for Wilderness managers to 

continue to monitor. 

To meet allocation and reduce effects on wilderness Klakas Inlet requires redistribution of 

passive touring days to another nearby location, such as Max Cove, Hessa Inlet, Hunter Bay, 

Winter Bay or Tah Bay. Each of these areas is in South Prince of Wales Wilderness and is likely 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 94 

to provide similar opportunities for passive touring, with ample opportunities to view wildlife 

and remote, pristine scenery. 

Measure 3: Effect to recreation opportunities for the unguided user - Recreation 

Effects to unguided recreation use are challenging to analyze as little is known or recorded about 

how visitors use many undeveloped recreation sites. Bearing in mind that this decision does not 

restrict unguided recreation use, effects to unguided recreation may show up as dispersal to other 

sites, conflict with other users, and complaints about crowding or changes in use levels at a site. 

At the majority of locations, Alternative 2, which proposes 50% allocation of visitor capacity, 

allows for use at much higher levels than current use. This would meet Forest Plan direction. 

However, if use levels reach this level at most sites, it would be a large increase in use (see Table 

2-1), and some unguided visitors may perceive this as crowding which may be a minor to 

moderate effect on unguided users. Adaptive management and other restrictions would help to 

limit effects to unguided users 

Of the areas shown in Table 3-9 the fishing restrictions will limit fishing O/G use at Turn Creek 

and Harris River; at Klakas Inlet the overall Alternative 2 allocation will limit O/G use Klakas 

Inlet current permitted use exceeds 50% of visitor capacity. Limiting fishing guided use at the 

Turn Creek and Harris River and overall guided use at Klakas Inlet would reduce the potential 

for conflict and competition. This reduces effects in these areas to a minor effect to unguided 

recreation users for Alternative 2. 

Measure 3: Effect to recreation opportunities for the unguided user - Wilderness 

Because Wilderness is managed to provide opportunities to find solitude and protect Wilderness 

Character, unguided Wilderness users expect to have less than 3 encounters per day and see low 

levels of evidence of human use on the ground (USDA Forest Service 2008a, p. 3-19). For 

Alternative 2, use levels in Klakas Inlet exceed 50% of the visitor capacity for that site. It has 

been established that if more than 50% of the visitor capacity is used by outfitters and guides at 

this time, less use is available for unguided uses and higher potential for encounters exists. Thus 

minor effects to unguided users are anticipated at the Klakas site for Alternative 2. Dispersing 

guided recreation use to nearby spots with common attributes would reduce effects on wilderness 

users and solitude. Monitoring to ensure that outfitter and guides follow permit stipulations and 

use Leave No Trace Principles in Wilderness, follow all Wilderness regulations, and limit group 

sizes to 12 would also reduce impacts. These measures would reduce this effect on Klakas to 

negligible. On the ground observations of the Klakas area have not shown higher levels of 

encounters, yet evidence of human use is low-moderate. This evidence of use cannot necessarily 

be tied directly to outfitter and guide use. 

Alternative 3 

Measure 1: Impact to ROS Settings -Recreation and Wilderness 

ROS setting would be negligibly affected by Alternative 3, because the use levels allowed in 

this alternative would not change any of the settings to a more developed ROS setting. 

Negligible effects to recreation places would result from Alternative 3, because the allowed use 

levels with this alternative would be well within Forest Plan management levels for recreation 

places. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 95 

Measure 2: Effect to recreation opportunities for the guided user - Recreation 

Guided use effects are negligible for Alternative 3 for recreation use sites except for Wilderness 

sites discussed below. Guided use for freshwater fishing would not be restricted by this 

alternative. 

Alternative 3 also includes a provision to address subsistence deer hunting opportunities, which 

limits guided fall hunting to no more than 40 service days allocated to hunting annually per 

location. This hunting cap is greater than the highest recorded hunting use at all locations for the 

recorded time period 2004-2008. Table 3-10 shows the spring and fall guided hunting figures for 

2004-2008 for the five highest use hunting locations. 

 Table 3-10: Spring/Fall Guided Hunting Service Days at the Five Highest Use Hunting 

Sites, 2004-2008. 

 Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall 

 2004 2004 2005 2005 2006 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008

Lancaster Cove 98 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

McKenzie Inlet, 

South 

0 0 20 4 22 0 14 0 15 0 

Moira Sound 18 9 0 0 0 0 10 0 54 2 

Polk Inlet, North 0 6 8 2 16 0 32 0 1 15 

Salmon Bay 9 9 0 10 6 11 0 0 1 26 

Based on Table 3-10, negligible effects to the current guided hunting use would occur due to the 

hunting restrictions proposed in Alternative 3 since all fall hunting levels are well below the 40-

service day limitation. Outfitter and guide hunting use would not be reduced as a result of this 

alternative and provision. Opportunity for growth in terms of guided hunts is available in all 

locations. The results described here for the hunting cap of 40 service days for fall hunts 

annually is the same for Alternative 4. 

Measure 2: Effect to recreation opportunities for the guided user - Wilderness 

Three sites (Klakas Inlet, Luelia Lake, and Max Cove) have current actual use that exceeds the 

allocations proposed for Alternative 3. 

With 25% of the visitor capacity allocated to outfitters and guides, Wilderness and remote, 

primitive sites for passive touring are the areas most affected by this alternative (Klakas Inlet, 

and Max Cove). Guided passive touring in wilderness areas would have minor effects through 

this alternative. Current allocations to guides visiting Klakas and Max Cove would need to be 

decreased to meet this alternative. In order to minimize minor effects, permit administrators 

would need to determine if this activity has to occur in Wilderness. If the activity is not 

Wilderness dependent, then guided use could be redistributed to nearby non-Wilderness 

locations such as Keete, Hassiah, or Kassa Inlets. This would greatly decrease Wilderness use 

pressure. If the activity is Wilderness dependent, then use could be redistributed to other less 

utilized Wilderness locations that are likely to provide a similar recreation experience, such as 

Tah Bay, Hessa Inlet or Brownson Bay. A benefit of guide dispersal is to minimize social 

impacts to sites by lowering the chance for encounters with individuals or other groups. In order 

to protect the opportunities for solitude, challenge and risk described in the Wilderness Act, 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 96 

maintaining use levels at current amounts with some shifting of sites may benefit the overall 

experience for guides and visitors. 

Another option to voluntary redistribution is to initiate a prospectus between competing outfitter 

and guide operations for limited use of a preferred location. This would give operators a chance 

to bid on particular preferred locations, so that operators would not be arriving at the site at the 

same time, increasing encounters, and diminishing the Wilderness experience of the guided 

users. This competitive process would allow guides an equal opportunity to bid for use of these 

specific areas. 

Measure 3: Effect to recreation opportunities for the unguided user - Recreation 

Unguided use is not restricted in any way by this alternative. Without specific restrictions at 

freshwater fishing sites for this alternative, conflicts may arise between guided and unguided 

users due to competition for limited resources. Some complaints have been received about 

fishing guides on sites along the Thorne River. This alternative, without fishing restrictions, is 

likely to result in minor effects on unguided users at fishing streams due to competition and 

conflict between users at specific preferred locations. 

To reduce effects to unguided users, permit administrators may disperse outfitter and guide users 

to less heavily used stream systems. 

Measure 3: Effect to recreation opportunities for the unguided user - Wilderness 

Effects to unguided users for Alternative 3 are likely to be negligible, because guided use would 

be held to 25% of the visitor capacity for Wilderness sites, so the likelihood of unguided users 

encountering guided users or evidence of human use by guided users would be minimized. 

Alternative 4 

Measure 1: Impact to ROS Settings - Recreation and Wilderness 

Alternative 4 does not use the visitor capacity formula as the primary method to calculate 

allocations, but instead started with a 10% increase over permitted use. In those areas where 

such an allocation would put outfitter and guide use above 50% of the visitor capacity, 

Alternative 4 would allocate 50% of the visitor capacity to outfitter and guide use. 

The allocation for Alternative 4 is based on permitted use for a single year, not on the highest 

actual use for a single year Outfitters and guides ask for a certain number of use days per year at 

a location, but they do not always use all of the days that they propose for each location. Often 

the requested and permitted numbers represent a much greater number than the actual use 

figures. 

Without using the visitor capacity formula as the primary method to calculate allocations, the 

Alternative 4 allocations are not based on Forest Plan direction for ROS and LUD until they 

exceed 50% of recreation visitor capacity. Once a location exceeds 50% of recreation visitor 

capacity, it will be managed the same as Alternative 2. Since Alternative 4 manages areas that 

reach 50% of the visitor capacity like Alternative 2, effects to ROS and recreation places are 

negligible for this alternative. 

 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 97 

Measure 2 Effect to recreation opportunities for the guided user Recreation and Wilderness 

Based on actual use, the areas which could affect guides and guided uses are the same as those 

shown in Table 3-9, including fishing restrictions, because the actual use on the ground is the 

same as Alternative 2. Allocations are not actual use and do not represent a physical or social 

impact. Hence effects to guided users would be negligible except minor effects at Harris River 

and Turn Creek and Klakas Inlet (described in the Wilderness measures for Alternative 2), where 

actual guided use would have to be reduced to meet the fishing restrictions and protect primitive 

conditions at these sites. 

With fewer service days available for redistribution in Alternative 4, many current guides will 

have their allocations reduced in terms of days allowed for fishing or days allowed in particular 

use areas (for example in wilderness areas). Harris River can be used to illustrate effects. In 

both Alternative 2 and Alternative 4, the Harris River will lose 40 service days for fishing (when 

compared to actual use). In Alternative 2, those days can be redistributed to Fubar (Gandlaay 

Haanaa) Creek or Indian Creek because there is available use at those locations. However, in 

Alternative 4, there are only 19 days available at Fubar (Gandlaay Haanaa) Creek and 20 days 

available at Indian Creek. Thus, days would be lost or additional locations would need to be 

sought. If no other stream systems are available, outfitters and guides would need to enter a 

prospectus. 

Measure 3: Effect to recreation opportunities for the unguided user - Recreation and Wilderness 

Effects to unguided users would be the same as for Alternative 2. Fishing restrictions are likely 

to benefit unguided recreation users on freshwater streams because they would reduce the 

potential for competition and conflict for limited resources. 

Direct and Indirect Effects Related to Recreation Permit Administration 

For most sites, the Alternative 4 allocation is far below 50% of the recreation visitor capacity 

(threshold). Table 3-11shows all recreation use areas where currently permitted numbers exceed 

50% of the visitor capacity At these sites, the allocations would be reduced to 50% of the visitor 

capacity, to meet Forest Plan standards. 

 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 98 

Table 3-11: Comparison between Alternative 2 (50% Recreation Visitor Capacity) and 

Alternative 4. 

Recreation Use Area 

Name 

Access Recreation 

Visitor 

Capacity 

Current 

Permitted 

Use 

(Alternative 

1) 

Alternative 2 

Allocation 

(SD) 

Alternative 4 

Allocation 

(SD) 

Highest 

Annual 

Use 

Recorded 

Barrier Islands Shore 309 200 155 155 N/A 

Biscuit Lagoon Shore 360 538 180 180 69 

Halibut Harbor Shore 847 828 424 424 13 

Hessa Inlet Shore 282 522 141 141 6 

Hunter Bay Shore 360 212 180 180 89 

Klakas Inlet Shore 360 854 180 180 208 

Luelia Lake Remote 539 285 270 270 144 

Max Cove Shore 360 218 180 180 97 

Salmon Bay Shore 282 210 141 141 32 

Salmon Bay Lake Trail Shore 309 233 155 155 19 

Shipley Bay Creek/Lake Shore 307 195 154 154 N/A 

The Saitchuck Remote 539 500 270 270 56 

*Bold indicates actual use is higher than 50% of visitor capacity 

There are 12 sites where the proposed allocations in Alternatives 2 and 4 will need to be reduced 

to meet 50% of the recreation visitor capacity. Nevertheless, as the table shows, actual use at 

nearly all of these sites is far less than the permitted use, which implies that resource and social 

impacts related to actual use on the ground are less than Alternatives 2 and 4 propose. Fishing 

restrictions add another complexity to this alternative’s administration. Alternative 4 calculated 

its use figures based on allocations, yet these allocations are greater than the days allocated to 

fishing on many POW stream systems. Table 3-12 shows all the sites where there are limited 

days allocated to fishing when compared to the overall Alternative 4 allocations (these are the 

sites where fishing restrictions limit the number of guided fishing days). Recall that only in two 

sites did actual use exceed the fishing restrictions (Harris River and Turn Creek). In the past, 

guides asked for many more days (permitted use) than they actually use (highest annual use). 

 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 99 

Table 3-12: Alternative 4 Total Allocation Compared to Days Allocated to Fishing 

Recreation Location Name Alternative 4 

allocation based on 

current and past use 

Alt. 4 days 

allocated for 

fishing 

Restriction 

Alder Creek 116 25

Big Lake 105 25

Buster Creek 66 25

Dog Salmon Creek 35 25

Harris River 373 150

Klakas Lake 231 100

Logjam Creek 109 50

Neck Lake 193 150

Ratz Creek 346 100

Red Bay Creek/Lake 285 25

Salmon Bay Creek 79 50

Salmon Bay Lake 185 50

Salmon Bay Creek 79 50

Salmon Bay Lake 185 50

Sarkar Lake 175 100

Staney Creek, Main Stem 385 350

Staney Creek, North Fork 55 50

Staney Creek, South Fork 55 50

Staney Creek, Upper 55 50

Sweetwater Lake 129 25

Thorne River, Lower 417 350

Thorne River, North 60 50

Thorne River, Tributaries 60 50

Thorne River, Upper 60 50

Turn Creek 52 25

Twelvemile Arm Creek 36 25

Table 3-12 shows that 26 streams would have reduced fishing allocations due to fishing 

restrictions in Alternative 4. No changes to actual use would occur except at the two locations 

described in the recreation section (Harris River and Turn Creek). In order to address all of the 

changes to allocations represented by reductions in allocations for all of the sites listed in Table 

3-11 and Table 3-12 above, implementing adaptive management is required. 

Alternative 4 initially only provides for 10% growth for outfitter and guides for most sites except 

some freshwater fishing streams, where special fisheries and subsistence restrictions would be 

applied for guided freshwater fishing. This does not allow for much flexibility to redistribute 

use. The adjustments needed in Alternative 4 create some administrative burden. Compared to 

the other action alternatives, the growth limitations of Alternative 4 are related to availability of 

time, money and personnel to analyze and document allocation adjustments. For example, 

Harris River and Turn Creek have higher current use levels than the suggested guided freshwater 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 100 

fishing restrictions and guided use would have to be reduced at these sites. Like in Alternative 2, 

guides could disperse to nearby creeks, but with only 10% of an increase above current 

allocations in most areas, there is little room to redistribute the existing allocations. If 

Alternative 4 is selected, the permit administrator would need to immediately begin the process 

of redistributing the guide use for Fubar (Gandlaay Haanaa) Creek and Indian Creek in order to 

accommodate existing allocations. The process to redistribute use may take several months, 

which may affect outfitters, guides, and guided users. A prospectus may be used to allocate the 

limited number of fishing days. 

Cumulative Effects 

The analysis area is the entire POW Outfitter and Guide Management Plan project area - all of 

the National Forest System lands encompassing the Craig and Thorne Bay Ranger Districts of 

the Tongass National Forest. This area is based on the management framework for outfitterguide administration, which corresponds to Ranger District boundaries.

Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 

Past, present, or foreseeable future projects that may contribute cumulative effects for recreation 

and wilderness resources include timber sales, salvage harvest, restoration projects, road closures 

and maintenance, recreation site maintenance and improvements, potential land exchanges and 

many others. 

Recreation uses, both guided and unguided, may be redistributed as a result of timber harvest, 

salvage harvest, and restoration projects. These changes are likely to be short term and limited to 

the period of operation. 

Road closures on POW may reduce the amount of accessible recreation use sites and cause some 

outfitter and guide uses to accumulate in other areas. For the action alternatives, allocations 

would help to keep guided and unguided visitor use dispersed. This potential accumulation of 

use would be managed through incorporation of thresholds developed in the visitor capacity. In 

other words, over 50% of the visitor capacity would not be permitted to outfitters and guides for 

any locations with the action alternatives. 

Recreation site maintenance and enhancements are likely to benefit outfitter and guide users and 

unguided users alike, providing increased developed recreation opportunities to all users. 

Potential land exchanges, like road closures, are likely to cause reductions in the numbers of 

recreation sites available, which means that outfitters and guides would likely seek opportunities 

in other sites. Since there is substantial room for outfitters and guides to distribute to other sites 

(except for a few specific locations), this reduction is considered negligible because use can be 

redistributed and no single kind of use would be disproportionately affected. 

Other potential cumulative effects include potential effects to recreation users, both guided and 

unguided, from recreation users who are not on National Forest System lands, such as 

commercial fishermen, sports fishermen, and developments on private land inholdings. 

Activities taking place on oceans and beaches below mean high tide are not managed by the 

Forest Service. Since the commercial and sports fishing industries are part of the Alaskan 

experience, it is likely that such uses would have negligible effects on recreation activities on 

National Forest System lands. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 101 

Alternatives 1 through 4 would have negligible effects on other projects, developments or 

enhancements because they are not ground disturbing development actions, rather they are 

allocations of relatively low impact recreation uses that are not likely to change a great deal from 

the current condition. 

Economics _________________________________ 

This economic analysis includes outfitter and guide activities on the Craig and Thorne Bay 

Ranger Districts, which includes all national forest system (NFS) lands on POW and the 

surrounding islands on both districts. This socioeconomic review is for the next five to ten years, 

at which time, the district rangers should review the NEPA to determine if there have been 

significant changes in conditions. With adaptive management, this review should show that 

further documentation is not required 

Affected Environment 

Level of Effects 

In 2008, the Forest Service reviewed outfitter and guide permitting in the Threshold Regulatory 

Flexibility Act Analysis (TRFAA). This analysis looked at using a flat fee rate to charge 

outfitters and guides to issue special use permits, based on the agency’s 2006 Special Uses 

Database (SUDS). The data include records of 4,563 outfitting and guiding permits containing 

land use fee information. According to the TRFAA, “Approximately 60 percent of the permits 

generate annual gross revenue of less than $20,000, and nearly 40 percent of the permits generate 

annual gross revenue of less than $5,000.” (USDA 2008b) 

Because the value of outfitter and guide services is different for each permit holder, it was not 

possible to use a dollar amount for the comparison. For example, in 2002 per-client per-hunt fees 

for brown bear hunts ranged from $850 to $17,900 (Alexander 2008) and the 2002 mean clientday charge for freshwater fishing and small game and waterfowl hunting was about $294 (Ibid), 

and sightseeing tours can average about $337 per person per day (Dugan, Fay, and Colt, 2007). 

Additionally, we cannot accurately predict the number or type of permits that will be authorized 

in the future. Thus, service days and not dollar amounts were used for the comparison. 

This analysis determined if there was room for growth in the outfitter and guide industry. This 

analysis uses service days as a measurement because each of the alternatives allocates a specific 

number of service days by recreation use area. Two measures are used to describe the current 

condition and compare the alternatives: 

 Number of service days at recreation areas within 15 miles of communities 

 Number of service days in areas that have developed facilities (Dog Salmon Fishpass) 

available 

Recreation areas within 15 miles of communities was used to be consistent with the subsistence 

section, which found that subsistence resource gathering took place, on average, within 15 miles 

of communities. Fifteen miles is also a good measure when looking at transportation costs, 

availability of clients, and availability of other amenities (supplies, gas, and lodging) for 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 102 

outfitters and guides. For some activities, like passive and active touring, there is a cost savings 

of keeping near communities. 

Approximately 67% of the recreation use areas, 139 sites out of 209 recreation use areas, fell 

within 15 miles of a community on POW Island. Most of those sites more than 15 miles from 

communities were on southern POW or Dall Islands, or on the outer islands west of POW. Table 

3-13 shows the current permitted use at areas within 15 miles of a community is 11,095 service 

days out of the total of 19,827 permitted service days. 

There are eleven developed recreation areas and trails with permitted outfitter or guide use with a 

total of 4,379 service days currently permitted to outfitters or guides (Table 3-13): 

 Beaver Falls Trail 

 Cavern Lake Trail 

 Dog Salmon Fishpass 

 El Capitan Cave 

 Harris River 

 Hatchery Creek 

 Red Bay Lake Trail 

 Salmon Bay Lake Trail 

 Salt Chuck 

 Sarkar Lake 

 Winter Harbor 

The highest actual annual use at these sites totals 1,960 service days. The only developed 

recreation use area where the allocation is less than the highest annual use is Hatchery Creek. 

At Hatchery Creek, the highest annual use is recorded as 100 service days. The permitted 

use at this time is 26 service days and does not meet the highest use level demand for 

developed recreation areas and trails. Some areas have permitted use, though not actual use, 

over 50% of the visitor capacity (see also Table 2-1): 

 Barrier Islands 

 Biscuit Lagoon 

 Halibut Harbor 

 Hessa Inlet 

 Hunter Bay 

 Klakas Inlet 

 Luelia Lake 

 Max Cove 

 Salmon Bay 

 Salmon Bay Lake Trail 

 Shipley Bay Creek/Lake 

 The Saitchuck 

Environmental Consequences 

Direct/Indirect Effects 

Table 3-13: Total Service Days Allocated by Alternative, and Allocated Service Days 

Within 15 miles of a Community and at Developed Recreation Sites and Trails 

Alt. 1 - 

(SD) 

Alt. 1 - 

within 15 

miles 

(SD) 

Alt. 1 – 

dev. sites 

and trails1

Alt. 2 - 

(SD) 

Alt. 2 - 

within 15 

miles (SD)

Alt. 2 – 

dev. sites 

and trails

Alt.3 - 

(SD) 

Alt. 3 - 

within 15 

miles (SD)

Alt. 3 – 

dev. sites 

and trails 

Alt. 4 

(SD) 

Alt. 4 

within 

(SD) 

Alt. 4 – 

dev. sites 

and trails

19,827 15,737 4,379 160,490 122,413 14,959 85,771 66,732 13,005 23,010 18,282 5,175 

 

1 Some of these service days are included in the service days allocated near communities; the numbers are not 

additive. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 103 

Alternative 1 - No Action 

Direct and indirect effects on the economics for outfitters and guides will remain the same. 

When an outfitter or guide applies for a special use permit, the permit administrators will 

complete an individual environmental analysis, which can take a short time or several years 

dependent on the type of application and the availability of resource specialists. Under this 

alternative ,the 10-year priority use permits, which would allow businesses the opportunity 

for long term planning and investment, would not happen. 

The level of use that would be authorized, if Alternative 1 were selected, is 19,827 service 

days per year, which is based on the number of permitted days in 2011. Use would be limited 

to this level unless further analysis is completed. There is no room for outfitters and guides to 

expand their businesses. In addition, some areas have permitted use over 50% of the visitor 

capacity (Table 2-1). In these areas, there may be social conflicts (crowding, avoidance) and 

resource impacts if all of the permitted service days were used. 

Alternative 1 includes the fishing restrictions in the Revision to the Environmental 

Assessment for the Determination of Issuing Special Use Permits for Sportfishing Outfitter 

and Guide Services throughout Ketchikan Area Tongass National Forest (1998) and the 

Central WAA hunting closure in the Big Game EA (1993). These limits are not a change in 

direction and should not limit current outfitters and guides but may limit future permitting. 

Alternative 1 would have the lowest impact on unguided users because it has the lowest 

number of service days within 15 miles of communities (15,737). It would also have the 

lowest value to outfitters and guides because of the low number of project-wide service days, 

the low number of service days at developed recreation areas and trails, and the lowest 

number of service days near communities, where operators would have access to clients, 

supplies, and other amenities (Tables 3-13 and 2-1). 

Effects Common to Alternative 2, 3, and 4 

For all of the action alternatives, the outfitter and guide industry has room to expand in most 

of the recreation use areas since there are more allocated service days then the highest use 

(Table 3-13). With the action alternatives, if an outfitter or guide requests a new special use 

permit and there are service days still available, an individual environmental analysis would 

not be required unless the activity type or location are new (i.e. the activity does not currently 

occur on the district or the site has not been used for outfitter or guide activities). 

The action alternatives also include an adaptive management component. Due to conditions 

varying from weather to wildlife sightings to the state of financial markets, the location, type, 

and amount of recreational use in any area changes irregularly. Adaptive management is a 

process of monitoring results and adjusting the chosen action to meet desired outcomes. 

If unforeseen, unknown, or substantial resource impacts occur while implementing the 

Decision Notice Selected Alternative or if an outfitter or guide requests permitted use above 

the commercial use allocations, the Craig and Thorne Bay District Rangers will evaluate the 

situation and determine if they need to use adaptive management to comply with the Forest 

Plan or adjust permits. In some cases, the District Rangers may determine no action is 

needed. 

The District Rangers can increase or decrease the number of service days allocated by 

following the adaptive management process. Among other steps, as shown in Chapter 2, 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 104 

increases cannot occur unless the proposed use of the recreation location does not exceed the 

highest number of service days allocated for an action alternative in this EA (160,490 service 

days) or the highest number of service days analyzed for that recreation use area. For 

example, in Alternative 4, Big Lake has an allocation of 105 service days. If Alternative 4 

were selected for implementation and a guide came to the district and requested use of 120 

service days at Big Lake, the district ranger could use the adaptive management process to 

determine whether to allocate more service days. The maximum number of service days 

analyzed in this EA for Big Lake is 1,153 in Alternative 2. Since we have already looked at 

the effects to Big Lake based on that allocation, the district ranger may decide to increase the 

number of service days, if all of the other criteria are met. 

The adaptive management plan is based on monitoring and feedback to determine if guided 

visitors are having the effect we expected. 

Alternative 2 

Alternative 2 is the most financially beneficial alternative for outfitters and guides of all the 

alternatives. It increases allowable permitted use to 160,490 service days annually compared 

to 19,827 service days in Alternative 1. This alternative increases allocated permitted use by 

140,663 service days, about 700% over the permitted use in Alternative 1 (Table 3-13) with 

some restrictions in the number of days allocated to outfitted or guided fishing. Fishing 

restrictions are for steelhead, summer run coho, and sockeye; the allocation for outfitters and 

guides in an area remains the same but the number of permitted fishing service days is 

limited, which could limit growth of outfitters and guides that concentrate on fishing. 

Although there is an increase in the total service days allocated, there are some areas where 

the number of service days allocated is less than the number of service days permitted in 

Alternative 1 (Table 2-1). In all of the recreation use areas, the highest annual use is less than 

the proposed allocation in Alternative 2, except Klakas Inlet. In Klakas Inlet, the districts 

may have to go to a prospectus to determine who gets permits, if some outfitters and guides 

are not willing to move to other similar areas. 

Alternative 2 proposes an allocation of 122,413 service days within 15 miles of communities 

(Table 3-13). If all of these service days are permitted and used, there would be some social 

conflicts like crowding and avoidance of areas due to crowds. The number of service days 

near communities is the most proposed in all of the alternatives, which could benefit 

operators since communities are sources for clients, offer amenities (hotels and restaurants), 

and easy access to supplies. 

Alternative 2 also offers the most service days at the developed recreation use areas and 

trails, 14,959 service days (Table 3-13). 

This alternative has the highest number of proposed service days, which would offer 

operators the greatest opportunity for growth and stability2

. 

 

2 If an action alternative is selected for implementation, outfitters and guides may get 10-year priority use 

permits, which would allow businesses the opportunity for long term planning and investment. This could lead 

to stability in the outfitter and guide industry. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 105 

Alternative 3 

Alternative 3 is the second most financially beneficial alternative for outfitters and guides of 

all the alternatives. Alternative 3 increases allowable permitted service days for outfitter and 

guide use to 85,771 compared to 19,827 service days per year in Alternative 1. This 

alternative increases the number of permitted days available for outfitter and guide use by 

65,944 service days, about 330% over the permitted use in Alternative 1 (Table 3-13). There 

are no fishing restrictions in Alternative 3, which would allow all of the allocated days to be 

used for fishing. This may benefit outfitters and guides that specialize in fishing tours. 

However, it may harm the species that are being fished for, steelhead trout and summer run 

coho and sockeye salmon (see the Fisheries section of this EA). 

Although there is an increase in the total service days allocated, there are some areas where 

the number of service days allocated is less than the number of service days permitted in 

Alternative 1 (Table 2-1). In all of the recreation use areas, the highest annual use is less than 

the proposed allocation in Alternative 3, except Hunter Bay, Klakas Inlet, Luelia Lake, and 

Max Cove. In these areas, the districts may have to go to a prospectus to determine who gets 

permits, if some outfitters and guides are not willing to move to other similar areas. 

Alternative 3 would limit the allocation for fall hunting days to 40 days for each site. This 

limit would not affect current outfitter and guide permits because the number of permitted 

hunting days is less than 40 at all sites. However, it may affect outfitters and guides who 

concentrate on hunting in the future. 

Alternative 3 proposes an allocation of 66,732 service days within 15 miles of communities 

(Table 3-13). If all of these service days are permitted and used, there would be some social 

conflicts like crowding and avoidance of areas due to crowds. The number of service days 

near communities is the second highest proposed in all of the alternatives, which could 

benefit operators since communities are sources for clients, offer amenities, and easy access 

to supplies. Alternative 3 also offers the most service days at the developed recreation use 

areas and trails, 13,005 service days (Table 3-13). 

This alternative has the second highest number of proposed service days, which would offer 

operators the opportunity for growth and stability. 

Alternative 4 

Alternative 4 is the least financially beneficial alternative for outfitters and guides of all the 

action alternatives. This alternative increases allowable permit use to 23,010 service days 

annually for outfitter and guide use compared to 19,827 in Alternative 1. The service days 

available for outfitter and guide use increases by 3,183 service days, about a 163 percent 

increase, over the permitted use in Alternative 1 (Table 3-13). 

Although there is an increase in the total service days allocated, there are some areas where 

the number of service days allocated is less than the number of service days permitted in 

 

3 Alternative 4 is based on adding 10% to the number of service days currently permitted. The reason for the 

16% increase is because Alternative 4 allocates use in areas that are do not currently have permitted use; 10% 

was added to previous permitted use. If there was no previous permitted use, 50% of the carrying capacity was 

allocated. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 106 

Alternative 1 (Table 2-1). In all of the recreation use areas, the highest annual use is less than 

the proposed allocation in Alternative 4, except: 

 Cholmondeley Sound, West 

Arm 

 Datzkoo Harbor 

 Dickman Bay 

 Egg Harbor 

 Exchange Cove, West 

 Fredrick Cove 

 Granite Mountain 

 Hatchery Creek 

 Klakas Inlet 

 Kosciusko Island Road System 

 Maybeso River 

 Moira Sound 

 Old Franks Creek 

Outfitters and guides permitted to use these listed areas or who request use that exceeds 

allocated use may have to relocate use to other areas, or the districts would have to do a 

prospectus to determine which operators would be issued permits[FSH 2709.14.53.1h(3)]. 

Since there is limited room for growth in some areas, accommodating the outfitters and 

guides in another area may be possible; however, those areas may not be similar or offer the 

same opportunities. Limiting use in the most popular areas may financially affect the outfitter 

and guide industry, if the outfitters and guides could not be accommodated in other locations. 

While this alternative could affect outfitter and guide economic opportunities, the Forest 

Service Handbook does not guarantee the number of service days an outfitter or guide 

receives each year. This carrying capacity analysis falls with direction to determine where 

impacts associated with use may exceed desired conditions [FSH 2709.14.53.1f(2)and(3)]. It 

also falls within FSH 2709.14. 53.1p - Reduction of Use Based on New or Changed 

Decisions. 

This alternative includes fishing restrictions similar to Alternative 2. Fishing restrictions are 

for steelhead, summer run coho, and sockeye; the allocation for outfitters and guides in an 

area remains the same but the number of permitted fishing service days is limited, which 

could limit growth of outfitters and guides that concentrate on fishing. 

Alternative 4 would limit the allocation for fall hunting days to 40 days for each site. This 

limit would not affect current outfitter and guide permits because the number of permitted 

hunting days is less than 40 at all sites. However, it may affect outfitters and guides who 

concentrate on hunting in the future. 

Alternative 4 proposes an allocation of 18,282 service days within 15 miles of communities, 

which is 2,545 service days more than the current level. If all of these service days are 

permitted and used, most people would probably not notice the increase since the days are 

spread across all recreation use areas throughout the project area. The number of service 

days near communities, may slightly benefit operators since communities are sources for 

clients, offer amenities, and easy access to supplies, although the amount of available growth 

island-wide is low. This alternative would not offer operators the opportunity for growth that 

the other action alternatives offer. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 107 

Cumulative Effects 

This economic analysis includes outfitter and guide activities on the Craig and Thorne Bay 

Ranger Districts, which includes all national forest system (NFS) lands on POW and the 

surrounding islands on both districts. The cumulative effects do not include areas outside of 

POW because there are no economic benefits to the communities on POW from guiding in 

other areas. Guides and outfitters that live on POW may have permits on other districts and 

spend some of their money on POW, however, these funds are not considered in this report 

Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 

This analysis considers those activities that are reasonably foreseeable and may economically 

affect outfitters and guides on the district. Improvements to recreation facilities, like the 

parking lot at Dog Salmon Fishpass, may improve opportunities for outfitters and guides. 

Improving opportunities will not increase the number of service days available for permitting 

in the alternative selected for implementation by the district rangers, but may increase 

requests by outfitters and guides in some areas. Increased requests may result in the need for 

a prospectus to determine who gets the available service days; however, the number of 

service days would remain constant. 

None of the other activities currently occurring or likely to occur in the future will affect any 

of the alternatives. 

Since service days remain constant in all alternatives despite other District activities, effects 

are based on service days without the addition of effects of the other activities. Thus, 

Alternative 2 would be the most financially beneficial for outfitters and guides, followed by 

Alternatives 3, 4, and 1, respectively. Alternative 2 would also be the most beneficial with 

considering allocation within 15 miles of communities (122,413 service days) and service 

days at the developed recreation use areas and trails, 14,959 service days, followed by 

Alternatives 3, 4, and 1, respectively. The number of service days near communities is an 

advantage for outfitters and guides, since communities are sources for clients, offer amenities 

(hotels and restaurants), and easy access to supplies. 

Alternative 2 has the potential for the most social conflicts like crowding and avoidance of 

areas due to crowds. When considering social conflicts, Alternative 1 would have the least 

possibility of social conflicts, followed by Alternatives 4 and 3, respectively. 

Fisheries and Hydrology ______________________ 

This section analyzes the direct and indirect effects each alternative would have on fish and 

aquatic resources including habitat, population, harvest, and cumulative effects. . Four 

concerns regarding outfitter and guide use and fish and aquatic resources were determined, 

by professional opinion, by the Craig and Thorne Bay Ranger District fisheries biologist and 

fisheries subsistence biologist . These concerns relate to effects to biological and physical 

attributes for fish and aquatics resources, and effects to subsistence. An additional concern 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 108 

over limiting outfitter and guide fishing was raised by the public during project scoping. The 

five concerns are: 

1. Reduced resource availability to subsistence users because of competition with sport 

fishers, including outfitted and guided sport fishers; 

2. Outfitted and guided sport fishing may lead to aquatic or riparian habitat degradation 

because popular fishing areas will receive use beyond what would normally occur 

(i.e., use by private individuals only); 

3. Some species or stocks may be negatively affected by outfitted and guided sport 

fishing by direct take (i.e., harvest that results in population reduction), delayed 

mortality from hooking injuries or handling stress, and egg destruction from redd 

(i.e., spawning nest) trampling; species of concern include steelhead, especially small 

runs, summer coho runs and sockeye salmon runs; 

4. Sport fishing activities may lead to invasive species introduction that may cause 

resource damage through predation, competition, change in habitat, and/or disease 

introduction 

5. Limiting the amount and location of outfitted and guided fishing when population 

data are not available, unnecessarily limits outfitter and guide activities. 

The area of analysis for fisheries and hydrology, hereafter referred to as the project area, is 

all National Forest System land administered by the Thorne Bay and Craig Ranger Districts. 

Fish habitat, including streams, lakes, and riparian areas adjacent to fish habitat, and 

subsistence use, as well as existing data on fish populations in various streams in the project 

area, are analyzed in this section. Analysis is based on reported subsistence and outfitter 

guide and unguided sport fishing, existing fish population and run timing data, professional 

opinion and publications that discuss the effects of sport fishing on resources in general. 

Certain identified recreation “sites” were combined to determine total outfitter guide service 

day allocations for fisheries, such as Eagle Creek and Luck Creek and Luck Lake and the 

mainstem of Cable Creek includes Snipe and Beaver Creek. 

Recreational activities that may affect fisheries resources in the project area include fishing 

and access to fishing areas. Other activities such as hiking or bear hunting may affect fish 

habitat where access includes walking in the stream channel or along the stream bank. 

However, there is no existing information to analyze these effects. Therefore they are only 

discussed in general ways , such as effects of trampling redds by walking through stream 

channels. Effects analysis is based on sites with lakes and streams that support fish species. 

Because outfitted and guided fishing often specifically targets certain fish species, it is 

important to consider the effects of these activities on fish populations. However, service 

day allocations are not based on specific species. Because the amount and complexity of 

aquatic resources is vast for this area, some of the discussion in this section will be generic, 

but additional information will be mentioned for known high-use areas or vulnerable 

sensitive species or stocks. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 109 

Affected Environment 

Introduction 

Fish and other aquatic resources on the national forest support subsistence, commercial and 

sport fisheries, and traditional and cultural values. Abundant rainfall, streams with glacial 

origins, and watersheds with high stream densities provide a large number and diversity of 

freshwater fish habitats in southeast Alaska. There are approximately 4,960 miles of Class I 

(anadromous fish bearing streams) and Class II (resident fish bearing streams) stream habitat 

and 35,330 acres of fish bearing lake habitat within the project area. 

Riparian (stream and lakeside) habitats are typically densely forested with forest canopies 

completely shading stream channels. Stream banks are often covered by a dense layer of 

ground cover and shrubs resulting in little to no exposure of mineral soil. This small strip of 

vegetation within a riparian zone provides a wide range of functions including a buffering 

capability for overland sediment delivery, water temperature and pollution. Riparian 

vegetation reduces water velocity on the floodplain, and the roots inhibit stream bank 

erosion. Riparian vegetation also provides leaf and needle litter, which contributes to aquatic 

food chains. Large woody debris (from fallen trees) provides cover for fish, creates pools, 

and provides stream bank protection. As directed in the Forest Plan, the desired condition for 

riparian areas is to conserve or improve their ability to absorb water, filter sediment, and 

sustain stream channel integrity (USDA Forest Service 2008a, p 4-50). This is achieved 

when native and desired non-native plant species are well established and robust throughout 

the riparian zone. Footpaths and stream bank erosion are some of the more noticeable signs 

of recreation use impacts on streams. Areas of concern related to recreation use are noted in 

Appendix A.

The rivers, streams, and lakes in the project area support a variety of anadromous and 

resident fish species. The anadromous species include: chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta), 

coho salmon (O. kisutch), pink salmon (O. gorbuscha), sockeye salmon (O. nerka), cutthroat 

trout (O. clarkii), rainbow trout (steelhead) (O. mykiss), and Dolly Varden char (Salvelinus 

malma). The project area also supports populations of resident cutthroat trout, rainbow trout, 

Dolly Varden char, and non-game fish species such as sculpin (Cottus spp.) and three-spined 

stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus). Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha) are present in the 

marine waters off POW Island, and can stray into streams on POW Island (e.g. Thorne River, 

Staney Creek). Chinook however, typically do not spawn in POW Island streams. 

The affected aquatic resources considered in this section are the submerged and riparian lake 

and stream habitat and the fish populations within the land management jurisdiction of the 

Thorne Bay Ranger District and Craig Ranger District. 

Level of Effects 

The following definitions are used to describe relative levels of effect. 

Negligible – No measureable effects resulting from outfitted and guided activities to other 

resource areas which affect fisheries and aquatic resources are occurring, and no measurable 

change in fisheries habitats is detectable. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 110 

Minor – Effects resulting from outfitted and guided activities to other resource areas which 

indirectly affect fisheries resources may be occurring, but no measurable change is 

detectable. 

Moderate – Effects resulting from outfitted and guided activities directly or indirectly affect 

fisheries and aquatic resources. Measurable change is detectable. The effect could have 

some long-term consequences to individuals or habitat. Frequent response to disturbance by 

some individuals could be expected, with some negative impacts to feeding, reproduction, or 

other factors affecting short-term population levels, but no long-term population effects are 

expected. 

Available Data 

Data that was available and used in this analysis includes, reported subsistence effort and 

harvest, which is a stipulation on the Federal Subsistence Trout, Salmon and Char permit, 

and outfitter guide fishing use determined from angler service day counts reported to the 

USDA Forest Service by outfitter guides. This reporting is a condition for guides to receive 

a permit the following season. ADF&G Statewide Harvest Survey data was also used in this 

analysis to determine fishing effort and high use areas. It should be noted that an unknown 

percent of the Alaska Statewide Sport Fish Harvest Survey may include anglers that fished 

with outfitters or guides. Other data that was considered in this analysis was run timing, such 

as systems with early sockeye returns that have been vulnerable to overharvest due to partial 

barrier falls that keep fish stacked up in an area and known steelhead streams with small 

runs. 

Many concerns or potential concerns regarding outfitter guide use on fish habitat and aquatic 

resources are immeasurable or undocumented. No monitoring has take place and therefore 

there is no existing data on environmental effects of guided or unguided recreational use in 

the project area, however, there are published documents that discuss sport fishing effects to 

resources in general. In addition, there are no existing data on effects of guided fishing on 

subsistence use, or introduction of non-native or invasive species by guided sport fishing. 

Salmon escapement numbers are collected by aerial estimates, stream/lakeside walking 

counts, snorkel counts and weirs where fish are counted as they pass. Weir counts are the 

most accurate means of estimating escapement, but it is a costly process and only used 

occasionally on key fish streams in the project area. For this reason, aerial, snorkel, and 

walking counts are more commonly used. Though not as accurate as weir data, these 

methods do provide escapement data that can be used to compare the year-to-year 

variability in salmon escapement numbers. 

Population data for drainages in the Thorne Bay and Craig Ranger Districts is limited, 

however, existing population data was used in this section. Sixteen drainages have had some 

population study work in the past 30 years including weir counts or mark recapture estimates. 

Species of Concern 

Species of concern in this analysis include steelhead, especially small, road accessed runs, 

sockeye, and summer run coho. They are considered species of concern due to one or more 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 111 

of the following: importance to subsistence users, small run size, and run timing. Certain 

systems have early returns of sockeye or coho often due to a partial, flow dependent barrier 

that the fish have to navigate. This means that these fish are in the system for longer periods 

of time before spawning, often expending energy to surmount the barrier. This can cause 

physical stress, increasing mortality and can increase vulnerability to overharvest when fish 

are staged at a barrier. 

Steelhead 

Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) are comprised of two runs; a fall run which enters 

approximately 13 POW drainages starting in November, and the predominant spring run 

which enters approximately 87 POW drainages in mid to late March. Regardless of when 

they return to freshwater, all steelhead spawn during the spring months when daily water 

temperatures reach 6-9o C usually about mid-April through May to early June (ADF&G, 

2011). Steelhead can spawn more than once before they die. The percentage of steelhead 

that return a second time to spawn typically ranges from 20 to 30%, but may be as low as 

10% or as high as 50%. Generally the larger, older females survive at a higher rate than the 

smaller and younger ones, and males do not survive spawning as readily as females 

(ADF&G, 2011). 

Steelhead are the anadromous form of rainbow trout, and are a prized sport fish. Steelhead 

are a popular sport fish because they are relatively ‘catchable’ with a variety of fishing gear, 

attain large sizes, and are extremely hard-fighting. Steelhead tend to prefer medium-sized 

and larger stream systems with abundant areas of turbulent, well-oxygenated flows (i.e., 

riffles) (Bisson et al. 1998). The small size of most steelhead stocks in Southeast Alaska and 

their relative vulnerability to sport fishing methods makes them susceptible to extirpation 

through habitat degradation or over fishing (Lohr & Bryant 1999). 

Recent data suggest steelhead populations throughout Southeast Alaska were more abundant 

historically than they are now (Lohr and Bryant 1999; Harding and Love 2008). Population 

declines in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s prompted ADF&G to restrict steelhead harvest 

starting in 1994 and continuing to the present day. In 1994, the Alaska Board of Fish 

adopted conservative steelhead management regulations of a one fish bag limit, two fish 

annual limit, and 36-inch minimum size limit for all Southeast Alaska. These regulations 

protect the majority (approximately 95%) of the population from harvest and excessive 

incidental mortality. Current ADF&G regulations also prohibit the use of bait. Fall run 

steelhead drainages prohibit the use of bait year-round and prohibit steelhead harvest 

(ADF&G 2009). Steelhead densities appear to have had a mixed response to these regulation 

changes with some populations showing increased returns in some years while others remain 

stable at very low levels (Harding and Love 2008). 

Management of steelhead in southeast Alaska is complicated by small run sizes and their 

complex and diverse life history. Population data for steelhead is lacking for the majority of 

the drainages in the project area. Managers depend on estimates made by the Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game. 

In certain drainages on POW, steelhead currently receive special protection as determined by 

the local Federal fisheries manager in consultation with ADF&G [36 CFR Part 242

§___.27(i)(13)(xix)(B)]. These systems are: 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 112 

 108 Creek 

 12 Mile Creek 

 Alder Creek 

 Big Creek 

 Black Bear 

Creek 

 Buster Creek 

 Cable Creek 

drainages 

(includes 

Snipe & 

Beaver 

Creeks) 

 Crab Creek 

 Dog Salmon 

Creek 

 El Cap Creek 

 Exchange 

Creek 

 Flicker Creek 

 Harris River 

 Little Ratz 

Creek 

 Maybeso 

Creek 

 Naukati Creek 

 Port Saint 

Nicholas 

Creek 

 Red Bay 

Lake/ Creek 

 Rock Creek 

 Sal Creek 

 Shaheen 

Creek 

 Trocadero 

Creek 

 Turn Creek 

 Yatuk Creek 

Current Federal subsistence regulations in these drainages allow for the harvest of one fish 

daily, two annually under the terms of a Federal permit. These drainages are spot checked 

numerous times during the course of the fishery, and subsistence permit holders are contacted 

monthly to determine harvest levels. Depending on the drainage, if 5 to 10 steelhead are 

known to be harvested, in-season action is taken to close fishing for all species by both sport 

and subsistence users. For Federal subsistence use, you must obtain a separate permit for the 

winter and spring seasons. The winter season may be closed when the harvest level cap of 

100 steelhead for Prince of Wales/Kosciusko Islands has been reached. The spring season 

may be closed prior to May 31 if the harvest quota of 600 fish minus the number of steelhead 

harvested in the winter subsistence steelhead fishery is reached [36 CFR Part 242 

§___.27(i)(13)(xix)(B]). 

Drainages on POW receiving heavy sport use for steelhead are the Thorne River, Eagle 

Creek, Ratz Creek, and Staney Creek. 

Steelhead can be vulnerable to catch and release mortality. Most studies have looked at the 

mortality associated with bait use which can be very high. Studies looking at the use of 

artificial lures show mortality, but at a lower rate. Mortality rates have varied between 3 and 

10 percent for steelhead (Hooten, 2001). Rates can vary depending on how recent the 

steelhead has moved into the drainage, hooking location, how the fish was played, landed 

and released. 

Sockeye Salmon 

Sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) stocks on POW are considered very important as 

they are the most targeted salmon species for subsistence/personal use fisheries. Most 

subsistence sockeye fishing occurs in marine waters under state jurisdiction. However, there 

are sockeye systems on POW important to subsistence and personal use fisheries. These 

systems include Hatchery Creek, Salmon Bay, Red Bay, Sarkar, Klawock River, Hetta, Eek 

Creek, Hunter Bay, Klakas, Karta River and the Thorne River. 

Most sockeye runs start entering streams in July, however, POW does have systems with 

earlier runs which begin in June. These early runs include the Thorne River, Hatchery Creek 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 113 

and Sarkar Creek. Due to concern of overfishing in an inlet stream to Sarkar Lake, an action 

by the Federal Subsistence Board now prohibits the use of any net by both Federallyqualified and non-Federally qualified users above the highway bridge. 

There have been emergency closures for both sport fishing and subsistence on Hatchery 

Creek in recent years due to low returns. Extreme low and high flow levels can highly affect 

this run of sockeye, which can make them extremely vulnerable. Since completion of a 

boardwalk trail to the falls, sport fishing heavily increased. Because of the increase in 

fishing intensity accompanied by low flows during most of the summers since 2001, the state 

has taken numerous emergency actions on this drainage. The State Board of Fisheries 

developed a proposal to reduce the daily bag limit of Hatchery Creek sockeye and institute a 

seasonal fishery closure from the upper falls to the lower falls effective since 2006. A three 

year weir count/ mark-recapture study began in 2007 to obtain data on this unique stock 

which is thought to be small and one of the earliest returning runs in southern southeast 

Alaska. The weir count/mark recapture study was funded again in 2010 for four years. In 

2010, the Forest Service built a fishpass at the upper Hatchery Creek falls to aid sockeye 

salmon passage at less than optimal flows where high mortality was thought to be associated 

with physical stress induced from the flow dependent barrier. 

Coho Salmon 

Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) runs on POW are highly utilized in both subsistence 

and sport fisheries. Although most systems on POW have fall runs, returning to streams in 

mid-August through September, several drainages on POW contain a summer run of coho 

which start showing up in early July. The Thorne River, Logjam Creek, Hatchery Creek, 108 

Creek, Karta River, Old Franks Creek, Harris River, and Staney Creek are a few of the 

summer run coho drainages. Summer run fish are typically smaller, and it is thought that 

typically the navigation of a falls on a drainage has caused fish to return earlier to increase 

chances of surmounting a partial or flow dependent barrier. It is also thought that these runs 

may be unique and typically lower in number than the fall run of coho. 

Current Use 

There are fish bearing streams or lakes in 64 of the 209 recreation use areas identified in the 

project area. Of these 64 recreation use areas with fish, fishing is the dominant activity in 46 

sites meaning that the majority of service days requested for that site are guided fishing (see 

Appendix A). In the 19 additional sites, hunting and passive and active touring are the 

dominant activity type. These activities, however, could have some effects on fisheries 

resources, for example, walking in the river channel or on streambanks when black bear 

hunting. 

Current outfitter and guide service day sport fishing limits are based on the 1998 

Environmental Assessment for the Determination of Issuing Special Use Permits for 

Sportfishing Outfitter and Guide Services. The 1998 Decision limits outfitted and guided 

service days during prime steelhead season (December 1-May 31) on streams where 

moderate concerns were identified (Thorne River, Staney Creek, Luck Lake/Eagle Creek, 

Sweetwater (Hatchery/Logjam), Sarkar, and Salmon Bay-see description of Alternative 1 in 

Chapter 2 of this EA). Outside of the timing restrictions outlined in the 1998 EA, there are 

no limits on service days for any streams or lakes within the project area. This was revised 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 114 

from the 1993 Environmental Assessment for the Determination of Issuing Special Use 

Permits for Sportfishing Outfitter and Guide Services where service days were limited for the 

entire year. Karta River is the only stream within the project area considered “high concern” 

in the 1998 EA. High concern streams are currently closed to all outfitter guided sport 

fishing during the entire year, and no permits or service days are issued in systems in this 

category (USDA, 1998). 

The ADF&G compile annual state-wide harvest survey data (Table 3-14). Table 3-14 

includes harvest survey data for both guided and unguided sport fishing. This data is 

considered an estimate for sport fishing effort based on responses from surveys sent to 

randomly selected fishing license holders. The statistic reliability of this data is highly 

dependent on number of responses (McCurdy, 2010). If a waterbody did not receive at least 

12 responses, it was lumped into a category called “other systems” (not displayed in Table 3-

14). 

Table 3-14: State-wide Harvest Survey Data 

Drainage Days Fished1

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Sarkar System 

(stream/lake) 626 378 705 460 413

Eagle Creek 

(Bear Creek) 539 735 730 724 375 1,311 659

Klawock 

River2 2,201 1,869 2,822 2,693 1,994 2,302 3,947 4,112 3,105 2,584

Karta River3 1,591 462 468 1,527 543 1,031 854

Staney Creek 1,191 1,004 1,996 1,874 1,454 1,300 1,727 1,675 1,709 1,464

Thorne System 5,468 3,366 5,037 6,550 4,303 4,234 3,884 4,674 4,661 3,376

Black Bear 

Creek 394 660 563 600

Harris River 1,699 1,311 1,399 2,275 2,467 1,326 1,480 1,180 1,304

Sweetwater 

system 991 853 1,316 896 1,756

1blanks are locations with inadequate number of responses (less than 12) 

2On private land (not in project area 

3Outfitter and guided use not permitted on the Karta River 

(Data provided by Steve McCurdy ADF&G data query, 2011) 

The highest use areas for guided and unguided sport fishing and subsistence are Thorne 

River, Staney Creek, Hatchery Creek (Sweetwater system), and Eagle Creek/Luck Creek. 

The Karta River is heavily used for subsistence and unguided sport fishing. 

For outfitter guide use, requested use at most systems was well below the 1998 decision’s 

limit during the restricted season. During the restricted timeframe, only 5 to 34 percent (50 to 

397 service days of the allotted 1,102 service days) of the potential outfitter or guide use was 

permitted annually between 2004 and 2010. Only two systems, Harris River and Ratz Creek, 

had more permits requested than the maximum service days allowed during prime steelhead 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 115 

timing where restrictions apply. Between 2004 and 2009, permitted days ranged from 211 to 

744 service days annually to outfitters and guides outside the restricted timeframe in 32 

recreation use areas. Trends seem to be somewhat steady on high use systems such as Staney 

Creek and Thorne River. However, reported service days for fishing were down for most 

systems in 2009. 

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Fish Species 

There are no federally listed threatened, endangered, or sensitive (TES) fish species known to 

occur in rivers, streams, or lakes on POW Island. However, some fish from stocks of 

federally listed salmon from Washington, Idaho, and Oregon may migrate through the marine 

waters off of POW Island. It is assumed that fishing use of POW Island rivers, streams, and 

lakes would not affect these fish. 

Management Indicator Species 

The Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2008a) lists four species of fish as Management 

Indicator Species (MIS). Pink salmon were selected to represent anadromous fish that are 

limited in their freshwater life period by spawning gravel quality and quantity. Coho salmon 

were selected to represent anadromous fish that are generally limited in their freshwater life 

period by stream and lake rearing area. Dolly Varden were chosen because of their 

ubiquitous distribution in freshwater habitats and cutthroat trout because of their dependency 

on small freshwater streams. 

These species are well distributed throughout the project area in appropriate habitats. 

Invasive Aquatic Species 

There are no known invasive species such as New Zealand mud snail, Quagga mussel or 

whirling disease present, at this time, in fresh waters within the analysis area. However, 

guided sport fishing poses a risk of introducing an invasive species. 

The State of Alaska has begun to address the issue of introduction of aquatic invasive species 

by passing a law making the use of felt soled wading boots illegal. This law becomes 

effective in 2012. 

Atlantic salmon (Salmon salar) have been captured in salt waters adjacent to the analysis 

area as well as a few locations in fresh water. This Atlantic Ocean species is reared in net 

pen farms in British Columbia, Canada, and the individuals captured in southeast Alaska are 

thought to be escapees. No spawning Atlantic salmon have been documented within the 

analysis area. If Atlantic salmon were to become established in waters in the analysis area 

they represent a serious competitive factor for the native salmonids. Escaped cultured 

Atlantic salmon may interbreed and compete with native species, introduce or spread 

pathogens, and may, to some extent, increase mortality and decrease fitness of wild fish 

(Naylor et al. 2005; Jonsson and Jonsson 2006). 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 116 

Environmental Consequences 

Direct/Indirect Effects 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

The alternatives, with varying levels of maximum allocated service days, could cause effects 

to fisheries resources. Regardless of percent of capacity or actual number allocated, the same 

Forest Plan direction and BMPs would be applied with the intent of minimizing or negating 

effects. However, risk of affecting fisheries resources could differ due to differing amounts 

of allocation. 

The following summarizes effects of the alternatives on components of the aquatic resource 

area and fish. 

In stream Habitat and Water Quality 

For this analysis in stream habitat is habitat in a fish-bearing stream below high water. This 

includes the stream channel and banks. Bank erosion caused from accessing a stream 

channel and wading in the stream channel can have effects on fish habitat. 

Wading (walking in a stream) may kill salmon eggs or fry by direct crushing or disturbing 

the surrounding gravel. Salmon eggs incubate in stream gravels for days or months until the 

fry emerge. Developing eggs require an adequate supply of dissolved oxygen for 

development. Excess sediment fills spaces between the gravel and obstructs the circulation of 

water and oxygen. Inadequate water circulation and dissolved oxygen extend the incubation 

period and reduce the size of the fry (Shumway 1964). Roberts (1992) found that a single 

incidence of wading directly prior to hatch killed between 5 and 43 percent of the affected 

salmon eggs. Wading disrupts and compacts gravel, and slows water flow around eggs. 

Roberts (1992) recommended wading restrictions be considered where fish populations are 

limited by insufficient or degraded spawning habitat and where intensive angler wading in 

spawning areas occurs during egg and pre-emergent fry development. None of the high value 

fishing streams identified or other streams used by outfitter guides are currently known to 

have negative effects on spawning habitat caused from anglers wading. 

Bank erosion and bank building are continual processes in the function of streams; sediment 

is temporarily stored in pools and point bars until transported downstream during high flows. 

Wading releases small amounts of sediment, which temporarily clouds the water. Sediment is 

also released from the erosion of trails and roads. While salmon fry can tolerate short-term 

turbidity, it is not feasible to predict impacts of specific erosion events on individual fish or 

fish populations. It is recommended that recreation activities that may increase stream 

sedimentation be evaluated, monitored, and mitigated in recreation locations used by 

outfitters and guides. 

Riparian Habitat 

Footpaths and stream bank erosion are some of the more noticeable signs of recreation use 

impacts on streams. Properly built and maintained trails within the riparian zone provide 

access while protecting the stream. However, unmaintained footpaths can promote bank 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 117 

erosion and damage to fish habitat and water quality. Foot traffic can remove the organic 

layer exposing the mineral soil and increase erosion potential. Riparian soils are typically 

mineral in nature and relatively resilient to erosion from foot traffic. The Alaska Region 

Trails Construction and Maintenance Guide (USDA 1991) has estimated mineral soils can 

withstand approximately 600 one-way trips without affecting the soil’s ability to repair itself 

from one year to the next. The riparian zone will likely contain pockets of organic soils or 

low wet spots that will become ‘muck’ holes at lower use levels. The small isolated areas are 

not expected to adversely affect fish habitat or water quality. In some cases, the wet spots 

will be avoided or hardened to prevent resource damage. High value and accessible streams 

in the project area that receive high use by guided and unguided anglers and subsistence 

users include Thorne River, Staney Creek, Luck/Eagle Creek, Sweetwater (including 

Hatchery Creek and Logjam Creek, Harris River, and Salmon Bay. The Karta River is also 

highly utilized by unguided sport fishers and subsistence fishers.

Guided use could affect vegetation within the riparian zone. Physical damage to vegetation 

by trampling could occur. Removal of vegetation would occur in small localized areas such 

as campsites, user generated trails and stream access points. Damage and loss of vegetation 

can lead to a wide range of responses in the riparian area as well as the stream (Kauffman 

and Krueger 1984, Abouguendia 2001). Responses include but are not limited to; decreased 

water quality, increased water temperature and alteration of stream flow patterns. The effects 

of these responses may include reduced dissolved oxygen levels, increased risk of disease 

bearing pathogens being present in the water, increased evaporation, alteration of food webs 

and a reduction or loss of habitat for aquatic species. 

Current riparian conditions show minor effects in some areas. Visual effects to riparian 

vegetation are present in some areas of high use, such as the North Thorne falls, however; no 

measurable changes in channel morphology, or water quality resulting from guided use are 

known to occur thus no impacts to fish or fish habitat resulting from riparian condition 

altered by guided use is currently known. 

Fish 

The risk and level of impact to fisheries resources from outfitted and guided activities would 

vary across the analysis area, and would be most severe in areas that are heavily used, in high 

demand, provide easy access, have existing infrastructure and are sensitive to impacts 

associated with recreational activities (Clark and Gibbons 1991). Despite the acknowledged 

effects, the alternatives are designed to meet or exceed Forest Plan standards and guidelines, 

thus minimizing risk. 

Direct recreational effects on fish occur primarily through sport fishing. Trout, steelhead, and 

salmon are a primary target for anglers in the project area. Sport fishing may have minor or 

major adverse effects on fish and much of the level of effect is dependent upon the fish 

population/species, environmental conditions, angling methods, and fishing pressure 

intensity. Adverse effects to fish species or populations as a result of recreational fishing can 

result from harvest, hooking and/or handling mortality, introduction of diseases or non-native 

organisms, and litter/pollution (Clark and Gibbons 1991; Muoneke and Childress 1994; 

Bartholomew and Bohnsack 2005; Lewin et. al. 2006). Outfitter/guide recreational fishing 

activities may affect area fish populations in all alternatives. 

The following discussion applies to fish populations in all alternatives. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 118 

Several studies and reviews show that catch-and-release mortality for trout and char vary 

widely and can be quite high depending on conditions, methods, and species. They are 

particularly vulnerable to bait, and associated catch-and-release mortality can be very high. 

However, catch and release sport fishing with artificial lures and flies can be comparatively 

low (Gresswell and Harding 1997; Muoneke and Childress 1994; Hooton 2001; 

Bartholomew and Bohnsack 2005). Many sport anglers practice catch-and-release fishing 

techniques for steelhead, either by personal choice or regulatory requirements, to preserve 

this valuable resource. This is a visible trend in Southeast Alaska (Harding et. al. 2005). 

Despite these practices, available information suggests that incidental mortality of steelhead 

from catch-and-release sport fishing is variable and can be quite high (Muoneke and 

Childress 1994; Hooton 2001; Marshall 2001; Bartholomew and Bohnsack 2005). Permitted 

outfitted/guided sport fishing could pose a risk to trout and char populations at high-use 

locations in all alternatives. 

Guided sport fishing would affect fish within the analysis area. Fish would be harvested as 

well as be subjected to mortality from catch-and-release fishing. The harvest of individuals 

and low levels of angler-induced mortality resulting from catch-and-release fishing do not 

appear to significantly affect populations. Salmon and trout populations appear stable 

(allowing for annual population fluctuations) across the analysis area and the majority of 

salmon harvest occurs in salt waters outside the jurisdiction of the Forest Service. 

The assumption that increased levels of guided use (allocated service days) cause a higher 

risk to fish and aquatic resources is used in the following analysis, especially if use and 

access is concentrated in certain locations in a stream. It is assumed that an increase in use 

will increase potential impact to habitat, likelihood of introducing invasives, competition 

with subsistence users (if use is in an area where subsistence fishing occurs), and trampling 

and potentially disrupting redds. This assumption allows comparison of the alternatives, 

which provides information useful to the reader and the decision maker. Other assumptions 

include unregulated unguided recreation will occur and the visitor capacity would not be 

exceeded in any recreation use area. 

In addition, guided fishing, because it is considered a “lessor” activity may be under 

reported, for example if a guide is taking clients bear hunting in the fall, they can fish in that 

area without reporting service day and location. This makes it difficult to assess overall 

guided fishing use on a given system. 

 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 119 

Table 3-15: Outfitted and Guided Service Days in Areas with Fish Concerns 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Total number of service days 

allocated in areas where 

vulnerable sockeye, 

steelhead, and summer run 

coho salmon are located 

4,673SDs 32,574 SDs 15,767 SDs 4,933SDs 

Total number of service days 

allocated for fishing in areas 

where sockeye, steelhead, 

and summer run coho salmon 

are located 

4,673 SDs 3,875 SDs 15,767 SDs 2,846 SDs 

Number of service days 

allocated during the restricted 

period in areas with species 

of concern 

1,388 SDs 2,232 SDs 15,767 SDs 1,095SDs 

Alternative 1 - No Action 

Under Alternative 1, the current 2011 service day limits for guided fishing would continue as 

decided in the Revision to the Environmental Assessment for the Determination of Issuing 

Special Use Permits for Sportfishing Outfitter and Guide Services throughout Ketchikan 

Area Tongass National Forest (1998). These service day limits are from December 1 through 

May 31 on moderate concern streams. During the remainder of the year, permitted service 

days for outfitted and guided fishing can be used until the maximum annual service day 

allocation limit is reached (Table 3-15). 

The only high concern stream within the project area, the Karta River, will remain closed to 

all outfitter/guided sport fishing during the entire year. 

In all other rivers, streams, and lakes in the project area there are no service day allocation 

limits for guided fishing after May 31. If a guide requests a new recreation site (areas that 

have not had guided use before), effects to fisheries resources at a new recreation site would 

be analyzed. 

Because there are no limits to service days after May 31, there may be competition between 

guided sport fishing and subsistence use for fisheries resources, particularly in heavily used 

areas or streams with sockeye and summer run coho, where subsistence use occurs. 

There are no known direct or indirect negative effects to aquatic habitat degradation other 

than what is discussed under Effects Common to all Resources that can be directly tied to 

outfitter guide use in any of the recreation sites in the project area in Alternative 1. Between 

2004 and 2010, permits requested and issued were far less than maximum service days 

permitted with the exception of the Harris River and Ratz Creek during the December 1 to 

May 31 timing window in 2010. Alternative 1 could have minor effects to habitat and fish 

populations if guided fishing outside of the timing restriction substantially increased. If fish 

population impacts occur, the State may adjust management to preserve fish populations. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 120 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 

Alternative 2 includes restrictions for days allocated for fishing on certain systems and 

during certain times of year where there are species of concern (Table 3-15 and 2-1). This 

means that capacity would remain the same, based on recreation visitor capacity formulas, 

and 50% of that capacity would be allocated to outfitter guide operations, but a restricted 

number of those days would be permitted for guided fishing at 39 sites and some fishing has 

restricted time periods. Therefore, total allocation is not reduced, just allocation specifically 

for fishing on select streams. Fishing restrictions include limiting service days and certain 

time periods for guided fishing on drainages where species of concern have returned to the 

systems to spawn. 

Alternative 2 would reduce outfitter guide allocation for sport fishing service days from 

Alternative 1 particularly after May 31, where currently, there is not a service day allocation 

maximum limit for guided fishing (Table 3-15). 

There is little to no risk that aquatic resources would be negatively affected by implementing 

this alternative because maximum allocated service days would be limited on streams and 

lakes where there are species of concern. Effects to fisheries and fish habitat are expected to 

be negligible because of these restrictions. Guided service day restrictions for fishing are 

expected to decrease competition among user groups and decrease negative effects to species 

of concern. 

Alternative 3 

In Alternative 3, the allocation to outfitters and guides would be 25% of the visitor capacity 

across all areas with two exceptions. Outfitter and guide use would be encouraged at Dog 

Salmon Fishpass and Beaver Falls Trail by providing an allocation of 75% to outfitters and 

guides in these areas because the sites are hardened, heavily managed, and designed for 

higher use numbers. Additionally, this alternative does not include adjustments to fishing 

allocations. Thus, the full 25% allocation could be for fishing in any given area (Table 3-15). 

Allocated service days for sites where fishing is the dominant activity would be much higher 

in Alternative 3 than Alternatives 1, 2, and 4 (Tables 3-15 and 2-1). Maximum allocated 

service days at recreation sites where fishing is the dominant activity would increase 

considerably from existing conditions and Alternatives 2 and 4 (Table 3-15). This could 

increase catch and release mortality and increase habitat degradation, which could have 

minor to moderate effects on summer run coho stocks, steelhead runs and early returning 

sockeye runs. Compared to the existing service day limits (22 service day maximum limit 

for small road accessible steelhead systems from December 1 to May 31 on all steelhead 

streams in the project area in 2010), Alternative 3 would have between 173 and 577 service 

days allocated at any time of year in recreation sites where fishing is the dominant activity 

(see Table 2-1). If there is an appreciable increase in outfitter and guide sportfishing activity, 

there could be minor to moderate effects on steelhead runs, especially small steelhead runs 

during the prime steelhead return and spawning season. In addition, if guided fishing 

increases with an increase in maximum service day allocation, there could be more impact to 

habitat from accessing fishing sites and walking/wading in stream channels. This could 

cause minor to moderate effects to fish habitat from stream bank erosion and redd 

disturbance. Alternative 3 would have a risk of reducing abundance and distribution of fish 

if service day use approaches maximum allocated days. Implementation of Best 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 121 

Management Practices (BMPs) and Outfitter and Guide permit stipulations would help to 

minimize effects to habitat. If habitat degradation is identified from guided use, adaptive 

management would be used to maintain habitat. Sport fish populations are managed by 

applying state regulations and the State may adjust management if abundance or distribution 

becomes a concern. 

Alternative 4 

This alternative is the most conservative for service days allocated for guided fishing (Tables 

3-8 and 2-2). In this alternative, fishing is restricted for steelhead, summer run coho, and 

sockeye; however restrictions do not lower the entire allocation for outfitters and guides at a 

recreation site but restrict the number of annual permitted fishing service days at certain 

locations. Where no number is shown, the fishing restriction is not applicable because total 

allocation is lower than fish restriction recommendations. 

Similar to Alternative 2, effects to fisheries and fish habitat are expected to be negligible 

because of the fishing restrictions. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects analysis area is the river and lake systems on the Craig and Thorne 

Bay Ranger Districts and adjacent freshwater water and coastal waters. These areas were 

selected for the cumulative effects analysis because actions and management in these areas 

affect fish and aquatic resources analyzed in this report. 

Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 

As discussed under Effects Common to all Alternatives, many factors can contribute to the 

condition and sustainability of a fishery. Some of the more prominent variable categories 

that can negatively affect aquatic resources include natural environmental conditions (climate 

and habitat), size and species of the fish stock, land management activities, fishing pressure 

(all types), and invasive species. 

With respect to aquatic systems on the Thorne Bay and Craig Ranger Districts, overall 

environmental conditions, commercial fishing, and sport fishing likely have the most impact 

on these systems. Of these three factors, sport fishing likely has the least effect on aquatic 

resources. However, sport fisheries can have localized, and even severe, negative effects to 

aquatic resources in high-use areas like the Thorne River and Staney Creek. Improving 

access to these high use areas could decrease environmental damage. In general, most 

negative effects to area aquatic resources should be minimized because administrative 

controls (i.e., fishing regulations, controlled/directed access points, etc.) are already in place 

to protect these resources. Based on the rationale above, the added cumulative effect of 

outfitted and guided sport fishing on the Thorne Bay and Craig Ranger Districts freshwater 

aquatic resources should pose little to no risk of adversely affecting these resources in 

Alternatives 1, 2, and 4. Without any outfitted and guided fishing restrictions in locations 

with species of concern in Alternative 3, there could be minor effects to fish and fish habitat 

if the number of days used increases approaches the maximum number of service days 

allocated for these locations. Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Outfitter and Guide 

permit stipulations would help to minimize effects to habitat. However, if fish habitat 

degradation is identified from guided use, adaptive management would be used to maintain 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 122 

habitat. If abundance or distribution becomes a concern, the State may adjust management to 

maintain fish populations. 

Essential Fish Habitat 

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) is the water and substrate necessary for fish spawning, 

breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. The marine EFH in Alaska includes estuarine and 

marine areas from tidally submerged habitat to the 200-mile exclusive economic zone. The 

freshwater EFH includes streams, rivers, lakes, ponds, wetlands and other bodies of water 

currently and historically accessible to salmon. EFH for Pacific salmon recognizes six 

critical life history stages: (1) spawning and incubation of eggs, (2) juvenile rearing, (3) 

winter and summer rearing during freshwater residency, (4) juvenile migration between 

freshwater and estuarine rearing habitats, (5) marine residency of immature and maturing 

adults, and (6) adult spawning migration. Habitat requirements within these periods can 

differ significantly and any modification of the habitat within these periods can adversely 

affect EFH. 

Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

states that all federal agencies must consult the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 

for actions or proposed actions that may adversely affect EFH. The Act promotes the 

protection of EFH through review, assessment, and mitigation of activities that may 

adversely affect these habitats. On August 25, 2000 the Forest Service, Alaska Region, and 

NMFS came to an agreement on how consultation will be accomplished in Alaska. 

This EA satisfies the consultation requirements by providing a description and assessment of 

EFH in the project areas, a description of each alternative and its potential impacts on these 

habitats, and a description of the mitigation measures that would be implemented to protect 

these habitats. The formal consultation will start when NMFS receives a copy of the EA 

with the EFH Assessment. NMFS may then respond in writing as to whether it concurs with 

the findings of the assessment or make conservation recommendations. The USDA Forest 

Service must respond to any recommendations made by NMFS within 30 days. For specific 

information about the affected resources and the alternatives under consideration, please refer 

to the EA. 

The project area includes the entire land area of the Thorne Bay and Craig Ranger Districts 

of the Tongass National Forest. The streams and lakes within the project area support a 

variety of anadromous and resident fish species. Anadromous species that spawn in 

freshwater streams or lakes in the project area include: pink salmon (Oncorhynchus 

gorbuscha), chum salmon (O. keta), sockeye salmon, (O. nerka), coho salmon (O. kisutch), 

Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha), coastal cutthroat trout (O. clarkii), steelhead (rainbow) 

trout (O. mykiss), and Dolly Varden char (Salvelinus malma). The project area also supports 

resident populations of coastal cutthroat trout, rainbow trout, Dolly Varden char, and nongame fish species including sculpin (Cottus spp.) and three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus 

aculeatus). 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 123 

The analysis area provides a large amount of EFH and includes all of the freshwaters within 

the lands administered by Thorne Bay and Craig Ranger Districts. Outfitters and guides may 

use Marine Access Facilities, however the permit holder is required to meet all Forest Plan 

standards and guidelines and Leave No Trace practices. We are not analyzing use of marine 

habitats, because they are under the jurisdiction of the State of Alaska and there should be no 

affect from outfitters and guides to these habitats. 

The decision on this EA would authorize a variety of outfitted and guided activities in the 

project area. The Fisheries sections of the EA specifically examines the effects of outfitted 

and guided sport fishing, which is the primary activity that would affect EFH in the project 

area. 

Conclusions 

The Forest Service believes that the Thorne Bay and Craig Ranger District Outfitter/Guide 

Management Plan will not adversely affect EFH in Alternatives 1, 2 and 4. Alternative 3 

could have minor adverse effects on Essential Fish Habitat because the maximum service day 

allocations that can be used for fishing on streams are appreciably higher with a total 15,767 

days. Minor adverse effects to EFH could occur in Alternative 3 from increased foot traffic 

and bank trampling to access fishing locations, and increased redd disturbance. As the 

potential for increased foot traffic in riparian areas, at stream access sites, and on stream 

banks rise with available outfitter guide use, especially in Alternative 3, the likelihood of soil 

erosion and sediment introduction into streams increases. This could affect incubating eggs 

and larvae by reducing water quality and reducing intergravel flow for developing eggs and 

larvae. Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Outfitter and Guide permit stipulations 

would help to minimize effects to habitat. Additionally, if habitat degradation is identified 

from guided use, adaptive management would be used to maintain habitat. 

The effects to aquatic resources, as described in the EA and the aquatic specialist report in 

the planning record, will be negligible in Alternative 1, 2, and 4, and minor in Alternative 3. 

Application of Forest Plan standards and guidelines, Best Management Practices (BMPs), 

and Outfitter and Guide permit stipulations are expected to eliminate or minimize most 

effects to EFH; adaptive management could also be used to maintain habitat. Additional 

impacts to EFH may occur only from unforeseen events. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 124 

Botany ____________________________________ 

Affected Environment 

This analysis addresses the entire land base for the Craig and Thorne Bay Ranger Districts, 

including POW and surrounding outer islands. No ground surveys were done for this project, 

however certain locations have been surveyed in the past as a part of other proposed projects 

or incidentally by the district botanist or zoned ecologist. 

The only threatened, endangered, or proposed threatened or endangered plant in Alaska is 

Polystichum aleuticum, which is listed as endangered. It is only known from Adak Island 

and is not expected to occur in the project area. Sensitive and rare plants are addressed in 

this section. 

The effects from outfitter and guides can be compared based on the maximum number of 

service days potentially allocated. An increase in the number of potential service days 

allocated correlates to the potential increase in habitat disturbance. The purpose of this 

project is to establish a management plan for allocating outfitter and guide services, while not 

increasing the potential risk of impacts to rare and sensitive plants. The Adaptive 

Management Plan, is designed to minimize the potential effects on resources, including for 

rare and sensitive plants. 

Sensitive Plants 

On February 2, 2009, the Regional Forester approved an updated sensitive species list for the 

Alaska Region. Eleven vascular and non-vascular plants are known or suspected to occur 

within the project area. Our known existing condition for rare and sensitive plants is 

maintained spatially within the national database Natural Resource Information System 

(available from the Thorne Bay Ranger District). The following table includes a list of the 

sensitive plants as well as their suspected habitats. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 125 

Table 3-16: Alaska Region Sensitive Plant Species Known and Suspected to Occur on 

POW Districts 

Common Name Scientific Name Occurrence Habitat 

Moosewort fern Botrychium tunux Known Upper beach meadows, well drained open 

areas, alpine and subalpine, and disturbed 

sites (such as roadsides) 

Moonwort fern, no 

common name 

Botrychium 

yaaxudakeit 

Suspected Upper beach meadows, well drained open 

areas, alpine and subalpine, and disturbed 

sites (such as roadsides) 

Calder’s loveage Ligusticum calderi Known Rocky cliffs, open boggy or rocky slopes, 

and edges of coniferous forests 

Unalaska mist-maid Romanzoffia 

unalaschcensis 

Known Open forest, streamside, bog, heath 

Spatulate moonwort Botrychium 

spathulatum 

Suspected Upper beach meadows, well drained open 

areas, alpine and subalpine, and disturbed 

sites (such as roadsides) 

Large yellow lady’s 

slipper 

Cypripedium 

parviflorum var. 

pubescens 

Known Bog, dry meadow, wet meadow, calcareous 

Lichen, no common 

name 

Lobaria amplissima Known Beach forest edge 

Alaska rein orchid Piperia unalascensis Known Open forest, streamside 

Lesser round-leaved 

orchid 

Platanthera orbiculata Known Open forest, forest edge, forest, heath 

Henderson’s 

checkermallow 

Sidalcea hendersonii Suspected Upper beach meadow, forest edge 

Dune tansy Tanacetum bipinnatum 

subsp. huronense 

Suspected Upper beach meadow 

Rare Plants 

Rare Plants on the Tongass National Forest are designated due to several factors. Mainly, 

they are uncommon plants with population viability, rarity or conservation concerns. They 

are known or suspect to occur on the Tongass and ranked by Alaska National Heritage 

Program (ANHP) Rare Vascular Plant Tracking List as S1 or S2 within the State. S1 or S2 

mean the plant is imperiled or critically imperiled in the State because of rarity or other 

factors making it vulnerable to extirpation from the State, but they are not listed on the 

Alaska Region Sensitive Species List. The Rare Plants List is developed through 

consultation and agreement by District, Forest and Regional ecologists and botanists. It is a 

dynamic list that has the flexibility to change as taxons are reassessed; increasing numbers of 

species are found, or as concerns arise. The following table includes the known rare plants 

and their habitats within the project area. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 126 

Table 3-17: Rare Plants Known and Suspected to Occur on POW Districts 

Common 

Name 

Scientific Name Habitat Population Location in Project 

Western 

meadow rue 

Thalictrum 

occidentale 

Streams and 

lakeshores 

 Along the Thorne River 

 Along Luck Lake shoreline 

 Along Rio Roberts 

 Along several streams on Kosciusko 

Island 

Maidenhair 

spleenwort 

Asplenium 

trichomanes 

Low elevation, 

calcareous cliffs 

and rocky 

outcroppings 

 Coronation Island 

 Kosciusko Island, Halibut Harbor 

 White Cliff Island 

Pacific silver 

fir 

Abies amabilis High elevation, 

limestone peaks, 

possible glacial 

refugia 

 Known on Kosciusko island on Mount 

Francis 

 Known on Mount Calder 

Silverweed Abrosia 

chaminssonis 

Beach edge, 

sandy or gravelly 

beaches 

 Long Island 

 South of Sandy Beach, near Slide Creek 

outlet 

Northern 

moonwort 

Botrychium 

pinnatum 

Forest  Known along old Rio Roberts trail, and 

old portion of road east of Rio Roberts 

River 

Lanceleaf 

grapefern 

Botrychium 

lanceolatum 

Forest, wetland 

fen 

 Known north of Luck Lake 

 Known south of Sarkar Lake 

Common 

moonwort 

Botrychium 

lunaria 

Disturbed sites  Known along the side of the road, west 

of Exchange Cove 

Angle leaved 

bittercress 

Cardamine 

angulata 

Streambanks, 

disturbed sites, 

beach edge 

 Known on Goat Island 

 Known along Fubar, Klawock, 

Twelvemile and Harris Rivers 

 Known at Graveyard Island 

Pacific Yew Taxus brevifolia South Prince of 

Wales, scrub 

timbered 

 Known near Bokan Mountain 

 Known near Moira Sound 

Alaska 

oniongrass 

Melica subulata Forest edge, near 

beach or muskeg 

 Known on Suemez Island 

 Known at lower elevations along the 

northwestern edges of Prince of Wales 

Cutleaf 

foamflower 

Tiarella trifoliate 

spp. lacinata 

Forest  Ginsu (North of El Capitan mountain) 

Northern 

golden carpet 

Chyrsosplenium 

tetandrum 

Down logs, near 

streams 

 Known along Charlie Creek on 

Kosciusko Island 

 Known northeast of Bald Mountain on 

Heceta 

Twinberry 

honeysuckle 

Lonicera 

involucrata 

Beach edge  Warren Cove and False Cove on Warren 

Island 

 Several scattered individuals known on 

south POW, and Long Island 

Scouler’s 

harebell 

Campanula 

scouleri 

Forest  El Capitan mountain 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 127 

Environmental Consequences 

Direct/Indirect Effects 

The most likely direct effects are associated with trampling or crushed plants. This could be 

the result of hiking or camping. An increase in the amount of allocated use will increase the 

amount of traffic to an area, and increase the risk of direct effects to rare and sensitive plants. 

Indirect effects include effects that occur at a later point in time as a repercussion of the 

project, such as changes in hydrology, evapotranspiration, and light availability. For 

example, if an area is receiving an increased amount of use, trampling and compaction can 

occur. Trampling and compaction (direct effects) can change the side lighting, hydrological 

flow, and soil moisture of an area (indirect effects), and potentially change the suitable 

habitat available for certain plant species. 

Sensitive and Rare Plants 

Alternative 1 - No Action 

The overall number of service days for current permitted use is relatively low for most areas, 

however, given the estimated potential visitor capacity, there are areas that are moderate and 

high. 

With the “No Action” alternative, there is no established method in place for Adaptive 

Management and set trigger points for getting resource specialists involved in the permitting 

process. For areas that are currently receiving resource damage, they will be handled as a 

part of the bigger picture processes that are going on, and not directly tied to resource 

concerns as a part of Outfitter and Guide allocated use. 

No significant effects are expected with this alternative, and while there may be impacts to 

individuals or habitats, this alternative is not likely to cause a trend toward Federal listing or 

loss of viability. 

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 

For all of the action alternatives (2, 3 and 4) the design criteria, adaptive management plan, 

and the mitigation measures have been developed to limit the potential risk of effects to the 

resources with the proposed allocation. 

Outfitters and Guides practice Leave No Trace principles. This helps to limit vegetation 

damage and ground disturbance to walking areas and tent sites. No removal or cutting of live 

vegetation is allowed, and no water diversions or dams are allowed. 

Through the Adaptive Management Plan, future surveys are recommended and monitoring is 

included. It is also set up with triggers to contact the specialists for additional review if any 

new locations or uses are requested. Also, district rangers and resource specialists will be 

notified to evaluate the situation if any resource damage is reported or if use exceeds 75% of 

commercial allocation. Damage reports could come from other specialists, permit 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 128 

administrator, from the guided visitors, or the general public. This will help to ensure that 

the allocated uses are not exceeding the biological capacity, and that we are maintaining a 

low risk of effects to rare and sensitive plant populations and their habitat. 

The 50% allocation for Alternative 2 translates to a possible 160,490 service days across all 

areas of the POW districts, with the potential to increase as new areas are added. This 

amount is a drastic increase over the current service days being used, or the “No Action” 

alternative. This increase could lead toward an increase in the habitat directly and indirectly 

impacted by guided visitors. Alternative 3 has a lower allocation than Alternative 2, with an 

associated reduced risk of effects. While Alternative 4 allows slightly more guided use than 

the “No Action” alternative, the number of service days in Alternative 4 is a fraction of the 

potential allocation for Alternatives 2 and 3. This correlates to greatly reduced risk. 

However, as a result of the design criteria, adaptive management plan, mitigation measures, 

and monitoring, no significant effects are anticipated as a result of any alternative throughout 

the project area. While there may be impacts to individuals or habitats, the action 

alternatives are not likely to cause a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects analysis includes the incremental effect of the action when added to other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency (Federal 

or non-Federal) or individual undertakes such actions. Cummulative effects for rare and 

sensitive plants are typically analyzed on the island-wide scale. This analysis area tends to 

be used because it is a natural geographic boundary, which can limit pollination and 

dispersal. This project addresses the entire land base for the Craig and Thorne Bay Ranger 

Districts, including Prince of Wales and surrounding outer islands. The cumulative effects 

for this project will be analyzed for the entire Prince of Wales and surrounding outer islands. 

Due to the nature of this project, it is most logical to establish the entire zoned Craig and 

Thorne Bay Ranger Districts as the analysis area, rather than breaking out each individual 

island, due to similar habitat conditions and potential range. 

Even with use the throughout Prince of Wales, including recreation, subsistence, and 

management activities, the overall risk to rare and sensitive plants is generally low. 

Any project with ground disturbing activity requires a biological evaluation (BE). Through 

the BE and project analysis design criteria, mitigation measures, and monitoring are 

developed as necessary to limit the potential impacts to rare and sensitive plants. 

On a site by site basis, there are certain plant species, habitats and populations that could be 

minimally impacted with increased use in conjunction with ongoing unguided use. However, 

with the adaptive management plan, mitigation measures and monitoring included in the 

action alternatives, while there may be impacts to individual plants or habitats, it is not likely 

to cause a trend toward Federal listing or loss of overall viability. 

Alternative 1 - No Action 

In combination with the other ongoing activities on Prince of Wales, this alternative could 

slightly increase the potential risk of impact to rare and sensitive species through time, 

especially for areas with highly vulnerable habitats. Over time, with no mitigation measures 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 129 

or monitoring plan in place, there is potential to increase the risk, without the structure in 

place for addressing potential issues. However, no significant effects are expected as a result 

of this alternative, and while there may be impacts to individuals or habitats, it is not likely to 

cause a trend to Federal listing or loss of viability. 

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 

Since the areas used by outfitters and guides overlap with many of the same areas that get 

used for unguided recreation, subsistence, and personal use, the monitoring will be able to 

target multiple resources and user patterns. This will allow for a quick response to any 

resource damage that is occurring, which will be a benefit over the no action alternative. 

Overall, when combining the other projects on the two districts with this project’s adaptive 

management, mitigation measures and monitoring, there is not expected to be a significant 

increase in risk of effects on rare and sensitive plant species. While there may be impacts to 

individuals or habitats, this is not likely to cause a trend toward Federal listing or loss of 

viability. 

Heritage ___________________________________ 

Affected Environment 

The area known as the Tongass National Forest has been utilized and inhabited from 

prehistoric and historic periods dating back to at least 10,000 years ago. The Affected 

Environment for Heritage Resources on POW includes a wide variety of native occupation 

sites such as villages, seasonal campsites, fish traps and weirs, rock art sacred and religious 

areas, subsistence locations and others. Materials found in a cave on POW were radiocarbon 

dated to 9,200 years before present, the equivalent of 10,300 calendar years ago, the oldest 

human bones known from Canada or Alaska. The historical period in Southeast Alaska began 

in 1741 when Aleksei Chirikov, a member of Russia’s Kamchatka Expedition, sighted land 

somewhere between Yakobi and Chichagof islands. After European contact on the island 

fish canneries, timber harvest and mining became important industries. Historic sites found 

on Prince of Wales include cabins, mines, boat works, canneries and others. 

The Area of Potential Effect (APE) as defined in Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act is the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking that may 

directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any 

such properties exist, occurs. For this project, the APE includes all of the National Forest 

System lands encompassing the Craig and Thorne Bay Ranger Districts including the 209 

previously used/or proposed special use permit sites. 

Numerous archaeological surveys have been conducted on the districts, beginning in the 

1970s and continuing today. These surveys have resulted in the location and documentation 

of over 500 Alaska Heritage Research Sites within the APE. Of those sites, the majority 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 130 

either are determined eligible or are considered potentially eligible for the National Register 

of Historic Places4

. 

This analysis covers the yearly permitted usa of the outfitters and guides in the designated 

special use permit areas at the various proposed levels and the potential of impact to existing 

significant cultural resources5 on Forest Service managed lands on POW. To date there has 

been a relatively limited amount of analysis of outfitter and guide use and potential impacts 

to National Register of Historic Places eligible sites on the island. This analysis is based on 

potential impacts of ground disturbing activities such as camping or activities that would 

result in the outfitters and guides spending an extended amount of time in areas with known 

sites or areas with a higher potential of containing archaeological sites. An example of the 

latter would be if a group of outfitters and guides and their clients frequently occupies the 

same location and create trails or other disturbance, leading to compaction or erosion and 

exposure or degradation of significant cultural resources within the 1-mile permit locations. 

Environmental Consequences 

Direct/Indirect Effects 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Direct potential effects to significant cultural resources due to human activities come 

primarily from vandalism or theft and potential inadvertent damage such as a campfire or 

camping within an archaeological site. Sites can be trampled, dug up, looted, or destroyed. 

Visitors to the site can displace artifacts. Prior to obtaining a permit outfitters and guides are 

given documentation explaining the laws and regulations protecting significant cultural 

resources , along with ways to avoid impact to those sites, and what they should do if they 

discover a site. Overall, camping seems to have the highest potential for direct effect to 

significant cultural resources through campfires and the disturbance and displacement of 

artifacts. Based on the permitted activities allowed at each location, along with strict 

adherence to the principles of Leave No Trace there should be little, if any, direct effect. 

Indirect effects are those that occur later in time or are spatially removed from the action-this 

could include things like erosion of a significant cultural resource after it was disturbed by 

outfitter and guide-related activities. For example, hunters and campers occupying or 

frequenting a location where a significant cultural resource is located can disturb the existing 

ground cover exposing the resource, leaving it open to the effects of erosion, weathering, and 

later looting or displacement of components. Monitoring of outfitters and guides can 

determine if significant cultural resources are being impacted and if mitigation measures and 

further education of the users is necessary. As per the Tongass Forest Plan the preferred 

 

4 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) requires Federal agencies to take into 

account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. Historic properties are properties that are 

included in the National Register of Historic Places or that meet the criteria for the National Register. 5 Generally, when referring to archaeological sites these areas are called historic properties. In this EA, the term 

significant cultural resource is used instead of historic properties and can additionally indicate native sacred or 

religious sites. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 131 

management of sites listed in, nominated to, or eligible for the National Register of Historic 

Places is avoidance and protection. 

For all of the alternatives, the potential effects to existing significant cultural resources are 

difficult to determine because an analysis of the effects of outfitters and guides on lands 

containing potentially National Register of Historic Places eligible significant cultural 

resources has only been conducted on a limited basis in the past. The actual effects to date 

and potential effects of future permitted outfitters and guides must be determined with 

selective annual inventory and monitoring of previous outfitter and guide permit locations. 

Effects on significant cultural resources will be limited through permit stipulations, 

oversight, monitoring, and enforcement of applicable cultural resource laws and regulations, 

education, and use restrictions where necessary. Monitoring can help assure that proposed 

activities do not affect significant cultural resources through activities resulting in soil 

disturbance or erosion. Monitoring can also help address future issues of commercial use that 

may increase the potential for direct or indirect impacts to significant cultural resources. 

Mitigation measures from any impacts to any of the permitted sites will be done on a caseby-case basis and by severity of impact. Mitigation of damage (inadvertent or deliberate) to 

archaeological sites can be successful, when aggressively applied. 

Federal agencies are required to consider the effects of their actions on significant historic 

properties (eligible to, or included in the National Register of Historic Places). The Alaska 

Region of the USDA Forest Service, the Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer, and the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation have established a process to meet the Forest 

Service’s obligations, which is established in the Third Programmatic Agreement6

. The 

outfitter and guide activities permitted in this analysis are addressed in the Programmatic 

Agreement. Under that agreement, activities such as fishing or passive touring fall under 

undertakings considered to have no potential to cause affects to significant cultural resources. 

For these activities, if no ground disturbance occurs and Leave No Trace principles are used, 

then no historic properties should be adversely affected by the proposed activities. Because 

there is limited data available whether the O/Gs have impacted significant cultural resources 

in the past, there is the potential for activities, such as camping, to impact existing significant 

cultural resources. Selected areas of high archaeological sensitivity and areas where known 

sites are in the immediate vicinity will be subject to archaeological inventory and monitoring. 

Under all alternatives, outfitter and guide use will be monitored to determine level of effects. 

If any existing outfitter or guide locations are in close proximity to known Register of 

Historic Places eligible cultural sites the permit location needs to be reviewed by the Forest 

Service heritage staff in conjunction with the planning staff and a determination made if the 

outfitter and guide activities are to be continued. The type of the activity will have a direct 

impact on whether the location needs to be withdrawn. 

 

 

6 Third Programmatic Agreement (as amended) Among The USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region, the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the Alaska State Historic Preservation Office Regarding 

Heritage Program Management on National Forests on the State of Alaska. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 132 

Any increase in the guided use allocation through Adaptive Management could result in 

direct or indirect effects to significant cultural resources, as with any of the alternatives, 

except for Alternative 1. A decrease could mean potentially less impact to cultural resources. 

Alternative 1 - No Action 

Outfitter and guide permits would be issued as we are doing now, using the process that we 

have been doing. Some areas are currently permitted above visitor capacity, although actual 

use has remained well below capacity. As stated above, outfitter and guide use will be 

monitored to verify that there are no effects. 

Alternative 2 

This alternative could result in significantly more outfitter and guide use of the designated 

areas than has occurred in the past, and may result in an increased chance of impact to 

existing significant cultural resources. Alternative 2 has the greatest potential for impacts to 

existing significant cultural resources of all of the alternatives. 

Alternative 3 

While this alternative contains less allocation than Alternative 2, it could still result in 

significantly more outfitter and guide use of the designated areas than has occurred in the 

past and could result in an increased chance of impact to existing significant cultural 

resources. 

Alternative 4 

This alternative has the smallest overall increase over the no action alternative. Under this 

alternative, there is the potential for an increase in usage of the location by outfitters and 

guides over the current usage and could result in impacts to existing significant cultural 

resources. 

Cumulative Effects 

All Alternatives 

The analysis area to determine the cumulative effects of this undertaking is the entire POW 

Outfitter and Guide Management Plan project area- all of the National Forest System lands 

encompassing the Craig and Thorne Bay Ranger Districts of the Tongass National Forest. 

Significant cultural resources have the potential to be impacted cumulatively from forces 

beyond those of outfitters and guides, through natural processes such as weathering, erosion 

and natural decay, through recreation by unguided visitors and by past, present, or 

foreseeable future Forest Service projects and actions. Increased visitation by outfitters and 

guides over time could add to the cumulative adverse effects on existing significant cultural 

resources. This increased visitation could lead to degradation of the site by erosion, theft or 

vandalism. Archaeological inventory and monitoring of outfitter and guide activities near 

known significant cultural resources and in areas with high sensitivity for such sites would 

help catch any potential damage to those sites, which could lead to mitigation measures 

depending on the level of damage. 

There has been a limited amount of archaeological investigation of permit areas prior to this 

EA. No known cumulative effects on significant cultural resources from outfitter and guide 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 133 

activities have been documented. Based on the Third Programmatic Agreement, the outfitter 

and guide activities covered under the EA (like fishing) are considered to have low to no 

potential to impact significant cultural resources when the permit stipulations are strictly 

adhered to. 

With the adherence to Leave No Trace and the lack of ground-disturbing activities, 

combined with periodic inventory and monitoring of outfitter and guide activities, and adding 

potential mitigation measures, administrative oversight, and enforcement of regulations, it is 

expected that proposed activities should result in minimal effects on existing significant 

cultural resources. If all these provisions are adhered to, the cumulative effects for any of the 

alternatives are not likely to result in adverse impacts to the cultural resources. Inventory and 

monitoring will continue to inform the decision. 

Invasive Plant Species _______________________ 

Affected Environment 

Non-native plants, often called weeds, have been introduced to POW and surrounding outer 

islands both intentionally and non-intentionally. Some plants were originally brought to 

Prince of Wales to be used to prevent soil erosion. Reed canarygrass was seeded along 

roadsides and landslides because it established quickly, and was effective at stabilizing banks 

and hillsides. Other plants, such as Japanese knotweed, ox-eye daisies, and foxtail were 

introduced by gardeners and homesteaders. Other plants have attached themselves or their 

seeds into the dirt on equipment or onto people’s clothes, being transported unknowingly. 

We are constantly learning about the potential threats of non-native species on native 

ecosystems, and through education, prevention, and management working to limit the 

potential for spread and new introductions. 

Non-native Plant Inventory

In 2005 weed surveys were conducted, by contract, on the Prince of Wales road system. This 

survey included plots every 1⁄4 mile along the road system as well as plots located at each 

intersection and rock pit encountered. Overall 2,635 non-native plant plots were conducted 

in high priority areas such as rock quarries, road intersections, and road pullouts. The survey 

covered approximately 584 miles of road. Surveys were done at the appropriate time of year 

to identify the broadest range possible of non-native plant species. 

Since 2005, additional surveys were done in association with other proposed projects on 

POW and surrounding outer islands, including timber sales, restoration, and mining. A list of 

all known non-native plants found within the project area is available in the Invasive Plant 

Species Specialist Report in the project record for this analysis. For further explanations of 

the high priority Invasive plant locations and extent, see the Invasive Plant Risk Assessment 

in the Project Record. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 134 

Habitat Vulnerability 

Habitat vulnerability is a review of site-specific factors (such as plant community structure, 

species composition, soils and hydrology) that are present in the project area that would 

make the project area vulnerable or resistant to invasive plant infestation. For most invasive 

plants, two elements usually exist which promote their spread: open sunlight and exposed 

mineral soil (disturbance). 

As previously stated, soil disturbance and sunlight are key factors to the spread of invasive 

plants. Soil disturbance is related to the soil cover, soil type, and degree of disturbance. 

Sunlight is a function of overall canopy cover and vegetative density. 

Table 3-18: Habitat Types on Craig and Thorne Bay Ranger District their Associated 

Vulnerability to Disturbance 

Habitat Habitat vulnerability 

due to light 

Habitat vulnerability due to 

disturbance 

Forested (undisturbed) Low Low 

Young-growth: 

 Sapling to pole size classes High Moderate 

 Stem exclusion stage Low Low 

 Stem re-initiation stage Low Low 

Wetlands (marshes, muskegs, 

meadows, beach fringe) 

High Moderate 

Riparian areas (floodplains, alluvial 

fans and other stream crossings) 

Moderate Moderate to High 

Alpine High Low 

Vectors 

A vector is a pathway that makes possible the movement of invasive plants. Several nonproject vectors exist in the project area. These include existing roads and trails, traffic use, 

wildlife migration, wind patterns and drainage flow direction. . In addition, there is daily 

vehicle ferry service between Ketchikan and Prince of Wales Island and barge services 

available between Southeast Alaska islands and areas outside Southeast Alaska. 

Current use of the existing roads include hunting, trapping, berry picking, boating, camping, 

OHV use, guided tourist destinations, free use logging, commercial logging, firewood 

harvest, and other subsistence and recreation pursuits. All these uses can spread invasive 

plants. 

Other vectors include wildlife and birds, which for the most part, are assumed to be 

negligible. Road maintenance, especially brushing the roadsides, occurs independent of 

project implementation. This activity can have a high potential for invasive plant spread if 

prevention measures are not instituted. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 135 

Environmental Consequences 

Direct/Indirect Effects 

Effects of All Alternatives 

Habitat may be altered as a result of this project. Habitat alterations possible as a result of 

this project would be the result of increased use in an area. This could include vegetation 

trampling or some level of soil disturbance leading to the exposure of mineral and organic 

soils. 

Most of the habitat alteration is expected to be short term, and assumed to be relatively 

temporary. However, for sites that are restricted to small areas with repeated use, longer 

term habitat alteration may occur. 

Vectors may increase as a result of implementing this project. The primary potential vectors 

for the spread of invasive plants in this project will be from the outfitter and guides, their 

clients, and their modes of transportation. The type of transportation used can play a factor 

in the level of risk of transport. For example, vehicles using roads or trails may be more 

likely to transport invasive plants and seed than people that are accessing areas by boat. 

Alternative 1 - No Action 

Under this “No Action” alternative, there are no mitigation measures or established method 

for Adaptive Management or set trigger points for getting resources involved in the 

permitting process. For areas that are currently receiving resource damage, they will be 

handled as a part of the bigger picture processes that are going on, and not directly tied to 

resource concerns as a part of Outfitter and Guide allocated use. 

The outfitters and guides will be obligated to follow all applicable laws, and do practice 

Leave No Trace principles. 

Under this alternative, 19,827 service days are possible and guided use is not likely to 

significantly increase the risk of invasive plant introduction and spread over the current 

condition. 

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 

Alternative 2 has the highest risk for possible invasive plant introduction and spread. 

Alternative 3 would have less risk than Alternative 2 and would have more risk than 

Alternative 1 for the possible direct and indirect effects to the potential habitat change and 

vectors. While slightly more than the “No Action” alternative, the number of service days in 

Alternative 4 is a fraction of the potential allocation for Alternatives 2 and 3. This correlates 

to greatly reduced risk. 

In all the action alternatives, the design criteria, adaptive management plan, the trigger 

points, and the mitigation measures have been developed to limit the potential risk of the 

proposed allocation. Practicing Leave No Trace principles helps to limit vegetation damage 

and ground disturbance to walking areas and tent sites. Other design criteria protect plants 

and reduce the opportunity for spreading invasive plants. Through the Adaptive Management 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 136 

Plan, monitoring is included to ensure early detection and allow for rapid response in the 

event that a new invasive introduction is identified. It is also set up with trigger points to 

contact the District Rangers and specialists for additional review if any new locations or uses 

are requested. The District Rangers and Specialists will also be contacted if use exceeds 75% 

of the commercial allocation or if any resource damage is reported. Damage reports could 

come from other specialists, permit administrator, or from the permit holders. This will help 

to ensure that the allocated uses are not exceeding the biological capacity, and that a low risk 

of invasive plant introduction and spread is maintained. 

No significant effects are expected to occur because of these alternatives with the design 

criteria, mitigation measures, and monitoring in place. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects analysis includes the incremental effect of the action when added to other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency (Federal 

or non-Federal) or individual undertakes such actions. Cumulative effects for invasive plants 

are typically analyzed on the island-wide scale. This analysis area tends to be used because it 

is a natural geographic boundary, which can limit vectors and spread. This project addresses 

the entire land base for the Craig and Thorne Bay Ranger Districts, including Prince of Wales 

and surrounding outer islands. The cumulative effects for this project will be analyzed for 

the entire Prince of Wales and surrounding outer islands. Due to the nature of this project, it 

is most logical to establish the entire zoned Craig and Thorne Bay Ranger Districts as the 

analysis area, rather than breaking out each individual island, due to the close proximity and 

typical travel patterns. 

Due to the traffic throughout Prince of Wales and surrounding outer islands, (including 

recreation, subsistence, community access and management activities), the overall risk of 

invasive plant spread and introductions is moderate. A few recent decisions that impact the 

potential introduction and spread of invasive plants include the Access Travel Management 

Plan, and the Logjam Timber Sale. The ATM proposes to store or decommission 698 miles 

(over 65%) of the roads, and an additional ten miles will be converted to hiking trails. This 

will reduce the roads that are frequently traveled by vehicles and decrease the chance of new 

introductions. 

Any project with ground disturbing activity requires a weed risk assessment. Through the 

weed risk assessment design criteria, mitigation measures, and monitoring are developed as 

necessary to limit the potential increase in the level of risk to invasive plant introduction and 

spread. 

Alternative 1 - No Action 

While, in theory, the no action alternative would not pose an additional risk to the current 

condition, over time, with no mitigation measures or monitoring plan in place, there is a risk 

of invasive plant introduction and spread, without the structure in place for addressing 

potential issues. In combination with the other ongoing activities on POW, this alternative 

could slightly increase the potential risk of invasive plant management and spread through 

time, however that risk would not be significant. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 137 

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 

The number of service days allocated by alternative vary from high (Alternative 2) to a slight 

increase over current permitted levels (Alternative 4). All the action alternatives could 

potentially create an increased risk to invasive plant introduction and spread. However, 

given the adaptive management, the mitigation measures, and monitoring, the overall 

increased risk will remain low. 

Also, since the areas used by outfitters and guides overlap with many of the same areas that 

get used for unguided recreation, subsistence, and personal use, monitoring will be able to 

target multiple resources and user patterns. This will allow for early detection and rapid 

response for any potential introductions, and is a benefit over the no action alternative. 

Overall, when combining the other projects on the two districts with this project’s adaptive 

management, mitigation measures and monitoring, there is not expected to be a significant 

increase in risk or effect with this alternative. 

Soils and Wetlands __________________________ 

Affected Environment 

Soils and Wetlands 

Soils across the project area vary greatly in their ability to support foot traffic without 

becoming muddy (soil puddling). Erosion is a concern where foot traffic occurs on 

streambanks or on slopes adjacent to live streams. Most well drained soils on gentle slopes 

have a thick duff layer and the duff layer can support foot traffic without rupturing or 

becoming muddy. On steeper slopes the duff layer is naturally thinner and more susceptible 

to disturbance from foot traffic or vehicle traffic. Wetland soils often have very low bearing 

strength due to high soil moisture and lack of woody roots to support traffic. 

Past outfitter guide use has not resulted in any reported significant impacts on soils or 

wetlands within the Craig and Thorne Bay Ranger Districts. Where soil erosion and puddling 

is associated with developed recreation activities it has been identified and mitigated within 

two years. Mitigation involves rerouting trails or hardening trails or campsites. 

There are two areas of recreation use that currently have a severe level of effects on the soil 

resource. One area is a user-developed trail that accesses the North Thorne Falls. The trail 

traverses a palustrine forested wetland/emergent sedge fen and has mucky spots up to 30 feet 

wide. The other severely affected site is located in a complex of wetland types at the first 

portage on the Honker Divide Canoe Route. Both trails are subject to be hardened hardening 

or rerouting in the next few years (based on priority ranking and current budget constraints). 

Environmental Consequences 

Outfitter guide use will not be allowed in the severely affected areas until they are either 

hardened or the trails relocated to avoid adverse soil impacts. Outfitter guide use may also be 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 138 

restricted to certain cabins if areas surrounding the cabin are severely affected. Mitigation in 

the North Thorne Falls area via new NEPA analysis is planned in the next two years by 

adding slash on top of the trail to reduce erosion and prevent further widening and impacts, 

hardening, and/or rerouting. The area will be monitored afterwards to determine if the 

mitigation was successful. The site will be re-evaluated to determine if outfitter guide use can 

be allowed in the area. The Honker Divide Canoe Route trail will likely be hardened in the 

next few years (based on priority ranking and current budget constraints). 

All alternatives and proposed activities conform to standards and guidelines and BMPs and 

comply with the Clean Water Act and Executive Orders 11988 and 11990. No extraordinary 

circumstances exist related to soils, wetlands and the proposed activities. No land-disturbing 

activities are proposed with this EA. 

Direct/Indirect Effects 

Soils 

Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 

Adverse effects on the soil resource are not anticipated from proposed activities. No grounddisturbing activities are proposed. Minor losses of vegetation may occur in some places from 

heavy foot traffic. If soil erosion is noted in future monitoring, a Tongass Soil Scientist 

should be notified and mitigation developed. Proposed activities should avoid areas of steep 

slopes with mass wasting potential as identified during initial internal review of the area prior 

to permitting (Appendix A). It is recognized that Alternative 1 permitted use exceeds the 

current visitor capacity despite actual use remaining well below visitor capacity. However, 

other than those areas previously discussed, there are no existing effects or effects from 

activities to soils from any alternative. Implementation of project design elements and 

mitigation measures is expected to be highly successful in preventing resource damage. 

Wetlands 

Adverse effects on wetlands are not anticipated from proposed activities. Filling or draining 

of wetlands are not proposed in any alternatives. Minor loss of vegetation may occur in some 

places due to heavy foot traffic, however wetland function would not be significantly 

impacted by proposed activities. Foot traffic within wetland areas is permitted but should be 

minimized. It is recognized that Alternative 1 permitted use exceeds the current visitor 

capacity. However, other than those previously discussed, there are no existing effects or 

effects from activities to soils from any alternative. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects analysis area is the entire project area. This area encompasses all 

effects of individual actions and potential activities. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 139 

Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 

There are no existing effects or effects from any alternatives; therefore there are no 

cumulative effects. 

Applicable Laws and Executive Orders _________ 

2008 Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment 

The action alternatives analyzed in this environmental document are consistent with the 2008 

Forest Plan goals and objectives. The project was designed in conformance with land and 

resource management plan standards and incorporates appropriate land and resource 

management plan guidelines. 

ANILCA Section 810, Subsistence Evaluation and Finding 

The effects of this project have been evaluated to determine potential effects on subsistence 

opportunities and resources. ANILCA 810 subsistence hearings will be conducted prior to 

signing of the decision notice. 

The evaluation in the EA indicated that there is no documented or reported subsistence use 

that will be restricted as a result of adecision. For this reason, the alternatives will not result 

in a significant possibility of a significant restriction of subsistence use of wildlife, fish, or 

other foods. 

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 

This law provides for the protection of the bald eagle and the golden eagle by prohibiting, 

except under certain specified conditions, the taking, possession and commerce of such 

birds. Bald eagle habitat will be managed in accordance with 50 CFR 22.26 to maintain 

habitat to support the long-term nesting, perching, and winter roosting habitat capability. 

Regulations (16 USC 668-668d and 50 CFR 22.26) prohibit recreational activities within a 

minimum of 330 feet from bald eagle nests. Outfitters and guides are required to comply 

with all federal, state and local laws, regulations and orders. 

Clean Air Act 

Minimal emissions are anticipated from the implementation of any project alternative; 

therefore, the State of Alaska ambient air quality standards (18 AAC 50) will not be 

exceeded. 

Clean Water Act 

The alternatives do authorize activities which have the potential to effect water quality, 

however the implementation of Best Management Practices and standards and guidelines will 

maintain water quality. Additionally the alternatives do not authorize any ground 

disturbance such as road building or timber harvest, or use of or discharge of potential 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 140 

pollutants. Implementation of the any of the alternatives will not result in non-point or point 

sources of pollution; therefore, the project is fully compliant with the Clean Water Act. 

Effects on Prime Farm Land, Range Land, and Forest Land 

No prime farm land or range land exists in the project area. Forest land will maintain its 

productivity. 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as amended) 

A biological assessment was prepared and will be sent to the National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as part of the Section 7 

consultation under the Endangered Species Act. 

Federal Cave Resource Protection Act 

No known significant caves in the project area will be directly or indirectly affected by 

project activities. Forest Plan Karst and Caves Standards and Guidelines are applied to areas 

known or suspected to contain karst resources. 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Act of 1996 

Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

states that all federal agencies must consult the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 

for actions or proposed actions that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). The 

Act promotes the protection of EFH through review, assessment, and mitigation of activities 

that may adversely affect these habitats. 

The potential effects of the project on EFH have been evaluated (Hydrology and Fish 

resources, Chapter 3, EA). The descriptions and the analysis lead to a determination that the 

Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan project will not adversely affect EFH 

in Alternatives 1, 2 and 4 and could have minor adverse effects EFH in Alternative 3; 

however, this risk is minimized through the implementation of 2008 Forest Plan Standards 

and Guidelines, Best Management Practices, and outfitter and guide permit stipulations, as 

well as implementation of adaptive management. 

Several factors were considered in evaluating the potential effects on EFH: 

 The only ground-disturbance associated with the activities identified in the analysis 

would be possible trampling from feet, the footprint of tents, driving on open roads or 

designated OHV trails, and human waste disposal. 

 Any road use associated with access to a permit holder’s authorized locations will be 

in accordance with the most recent Motor Vehicle Use Map in effect at the time. 

 Consumptive uses of water (i.e., diversions, dams, etc.) are not allowed. Limited 

collection of drinking water for individual or group use is acceptable. 

 BMPs will be implemented to protect water quality and aquatic habitat for all 

freshwater streams. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 141 

In accordance with the agreement of June 28, 2007 between the Forest Service and the 

NMFS for consultation on EFH, the Forest Service will send a copy of this Prince of Wales 

Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA to NMFS, which formally started the consultation 

process. 

If NMFS has comments on the findings of the assessment, the Forest Service will 

respond. The EFH Assessment is included in Chapter 3 of the EA.

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 

Actions authorized in the alternatives will not have an adverse effect on marine 

mammals. Outfitters and guide are required to operate within the parameters established in 

regulations governing the approach to humpback whales in Alaska (FR May 31, 2001, Vol. 

66, No. 105, pp. 29505-29509 and 50 CFR 224.103) and the viewing code of conduct for 

marine mammals (http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/protectedresources/mmv/guide.htm). NMFS 

administers the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), which prohibits the “take” of all 

marine mammal species in U.S. waters. “Take” is defined as “to harass, hunt, capture, or 

kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.” Harassment is defined 

in the MMPA as “any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which has the potential to injure 

a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild; or has the potential to disturb a 

marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavior patterns, including, but 

not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering.” Approaching 

within 100 yards, or otherwise disturbing or displacing any marine mammal is prohibited. 

National Forest Management Act 

The action alternatives fully comply with the Forest Plan. These action alternatives 

incorporate all applicable Forest Plan standards and guidelines and management area 

prescriptions as they apply to the project area, and comply with Forest Plan goals and 

objectives. The Forest Plan complies with all resource integration and management 

requirements of 36 CFR 219 (219.14 through 219.27). Application of Forest Plan direction 

for the POW Outfitter and Guide Management Plan ensures compliance at the project level. 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 

The Forest Service program for compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA) includes locating, inventorying and evaluating the National Register of Historic 

Places eligibility of historic and archeological sites that may be directly or indirectly affected 

by scheduled activities. Regulations (36 CFR 800) implementing Section 106 of the NHPA 

require Federal agencies to consider the effects of their actions on sites that are determined 

eligible for inclusion in or are listed in the National Register of Historic Places (termed 

"historic properties"). The Alaska Region of the USDA Forest Service, the Alaska State 

Historic Preservation Officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation have 

established streamlined Section 106 review guidelines and stipulations in a Programmatic 

Agreement. 

Outfitter and guide use is not expected to result in the discovery or disturbance of human 

remains. However, if human remains are discovered, they will fall under the inadvertent 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 142 

discovery provisions of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

(NAGPRA). 

Outfitter and guide use is also not expected to restrict Alaska Native access to traditional 

religious or spiritual sites that are protected under the American Indian Religious Freedom 

Act (AIRFA) and Forest Service standards and guidelines for the treatment of sacred sites 

(USDA 2008, p. 4-19). 

A Forest Service archeologist has reviewed this project and made a determination of No 

Historic Properties Affected in the area of potential effect for the proposed 

project. Obligations using modified procedures of the 36 CFR 800 review process, as 

defined in the Programmatic Agreement, have been met. As stipulated in this document sites 

used by Outfitter/Guides will be monitored to ensure the correct determination has been 

made. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

Three river systems within the project area were recommended by the Forest Plan for 

inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. Congressional action to designate 

these rivers has not occurred. Forest Plan goals for these LUDs include maintaining the freeflowing character and outstandingly remarkable values of the river segments. The action 

alternatives do not propose to change the free-flowing character or outstandingly remarkable 

values associated with any of the rivers and therefore will not affect the eligibility of any 

river segments for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic River System. Recreational use of such 

river segments is allowed, and meets the Forest Plan direction for management of these areas 

with respect to recreation and tourism levels. 

Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment (Executive Order 

11593) 

Executive Order 11593 directs federal agencies to provide leadership in preserving, restoring 

and maintaining the historic and cultural environment of the Nation. The work accomplished 

in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the POW 

Outfitter and Guide Management Plan meets the intent of this Executive Order. 

Floodplain Management (Executive Order 11988) 

No outfitter and guide permits will be issued that allow permanent development in 

floodplains within the Craig and Thorne Bay Ranger Districts. It is expected that none of the 

outfitter and guide activities will affect velocity or location of flows or width and depth of 

water. Therefore, no measurable short or long-term effects for floodplains are anticipated 

under any alternative. 

Protection of Wetlands (Executive Order 11990) 

No outfitter or guide activities that result in long-term impacts (filling, dredging, etc.) to 

wetlands will be permitted under this document (USDA Forest Service Manual 2527.01-04). 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 143 

Environmental Justice/Civil Rights (Executive Order 12898) 

This project does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority populations and low-income populations. 

Recreational Fisheries (Executive Order 12962) 

Federal agencies are required, to the extent permitted by law and where practicable, and in 

cooperation with States and Tribes, to improve the quantity, function, sustainable 

productivity, and distribution of U.S. aquatic resources for increased recreational fishing 

opportunities. As required by this Order, the Forest Service believes that the Prince of Wales 

Outfitter Guide EA has the potential to increase recreational fishing opportunities. This 

activity is consistent with Executive Order 12962. It is also expected to maintain the 

quantity, function, sustainable productivity, and distribution of United States aquatic 

resources.

Indian Sacred Sites (Executive Order 13007) 

Executive Order 13007 directs Federal agencies to accommodate access to and ceremonial 

use of American Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners and to avoid adversely 

affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites. In a government-to-government 

relationship, the tribal government is responsible for notifying the agency of the existence of 

a sacred site. A sacred site is defined as a site that has sacred significance due to established 

religious beliefs or ceremonial uses, and which has specific, discrete, and delineated location, 

which has been identified by the tribe. The analyzed alternatives protect traditional cultural 

properties and sacred sites. 

Invasive Species (Executive Order 13112) 

Federal agencies (in part) are required: 

 to evaluate whether the proposed activities will affect the status of invasive species, 

 to not carry out activities that promote the introduction or spread of invasive species 

unless it has determined that the benefits of such action outweigh the potential harm 

caused by invasive species, to the extent permitted by law and where practicable, and 

 to take all feasible and prudent measures to minimize risk of harm in conjunction with 

the actions. 

The action alternative includes both prevention and management measures, to reduce the risk 

of introducing and spreading invasive species. 

Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (Executive 

Order 13175) 

Executive Order 13175 directs Federal agencies to respect tribal self-government, 

sovereignty, and tribal rights, and to engage in regular and meaningful government-togovernment consultation with tribes on proposed actions with tribal implications. The Forest 

Service met with or contacted local tribes during the planning stages of the project as noted 

in Chapter 1 of the EA. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Page 144 

Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation (Executive Order 

13443) 

Executive Order 13443 directs Federal agencies to facilitate the expansion and enhancement 

of hunting opportunities and the management of game species and their habitat. The analysis 

considered and disclosed the effects both of hunting activities and on hunting activities. All 

the alternatives will provide hunting opportunities for the guided and unguided public. 
Chapter 4, Lists – Page 145 

CHAPTER 4, LISTS 

The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, state and local agencies, 

tribes and non-Forest Service persons during the development of this environmental 

assessment. The references shown here were used in developing this EA; additional 

references were used in developing resource reports and other documents in the Project 

Record. 

Preparers __________________________________ 

INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM MEMBERS: 

Susan Jennings (Tongass National Forest S.O.), Team Leader, Economics 

Sarah Brandy (Craig R.D.), Aquatic Resources 

Sally Burch (Craig R.D. and Thorne Bay R.D.), GIS 

Melissa Cady (Craig R.D.), Wildlife, Subsistence 

Victoria Houser (Craig R.D.), Recreation, Special Uses, Wilderness 

Kristen Lease (Craig R.D. and Thorne Bay R.D.), Botany, Invasive Species 

Tim Marshall (Craig R.D.), Archaeology 

Michelle Putz (Tongass National Forest S.O.), Writer/Editor 

Becki Saari (Craig R.D. and Thorne Bay R.D.), Soils and Wetlands 

Melanie Slayton (Thorne Bay R.D.), Permit Administrator 

Assistance and review were provided by: 

Jeff Reeves (Craig R.D. and Thorne Bay R.D.), Fisheries Biologist 

Sheila Jacobson (Tongass National Forest S.O.), Fisheries Biologist 

Consultation and Coordination ________________ 

FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES: 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service, Aleria Jensen 

City of Craig, Brian Templin 

TRIBES AND CORPORATIONS: 

Craig Community Association 

Klawock Cooperative Association 

Hydaburg Cooperative Association 

Organized Village of Kasaan 

Shaan Seet Inc. 

Klawock-Heenya Corporation 

Haida Corp. 

Kavilco 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 4, Lists – Page 146 

References Cited ____________________________ 

Abouguendia, Z. 2001. Livestock grazing and riparian areas: a literature review. Grazing 

and pasture technology program, Regina, Saskatchewan. 

Alaska Board of Game (ADF&G). 2010. Summary of changes adopted by the Alaska Board 

of Game for regulatory year 2011-2012. Unpublished meeting notes. 4pp. 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, January 6 2011 letter to Forrest Cole. 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 2011. www.adfg.alaska.gov 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 2009. Alaska Sport Fishing Regulations. 

www.adfg.alaska.gov. 

Alexander, Susan J., Ph.D., With contributions from Martin Wild, Ph.D. 2008. Threshold 

Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis for the Revised Alaska Region Flat Fee Proposal 

for Outfitters and Guides. USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region White Paper. April 2, 

2008. 

Andres, B. A., and G. A. Falxa. 1995. Black oystercatcher (Haematopus bachmani). In A. 

Poole and F. Gill [Eds.}, The birds of North America, No. 155. The Academy of 

Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and the America Ornithologists’ Union, 

Washington, DC. http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/155/articles/conservation 

Accessed 8/11/2011. 

Bartholomew, A. , J.A. Bohnsack. 2005. A Review of Catch and Release Angling Mortality 

with Implications for No-take Reserves. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 15: 

129-154. 

Bethune, S. 2009. Unit 2 deer management report. Pages 32-43 in P. Harper, editor. Deer 

management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2006-30 June 2008. 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Juneau, Alaska. 

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/home/library/pdfs/wildlife/mgt_rpts/09_deer.pdf. 

Accessed 5/4/2011. 

Bisson, P. A., K. Sullivan and J. L. Nielsen. 1988. Channel hydraulics, habitat use, and body 

form of juvenile coho salmon, steelhead and cutthroat trout in streams. 1988. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 117:262-273. 

Blanc, R., M. Guillemain, J-B. Mouronval, D. Desmonts, and H. Fritz. 2006. Effects of nonconsumptive leisure disturbance to wildlife. Rve. Ecol. (Terre Vie) 61:117-131. 

Internet: http://www.cebc.cnrs.fr/publipdf/2006/BRETV61.pdf 

Boyle, S. A., and F. B. Samson. 1985. Effects of nonconsumptive recreation on wildlife: A 

Review. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13(2):110-116. Internet: 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3781422. 

Cerveny, L. K. (2005). Tourism and its Effects on Southeast Alaska. Pacific Northwest 

Research Station: USDA Forest Service PNW-RP-566. 

Clark, R.N. and D.R. Gibbons. 1991. Recreation. American Fisheries Society Special 

Publication 19:459-482. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 4, Lists – Page 147 

Cline, R., N. Sexton, and S.C. Stewart. 2007. A human-dimensions review of humanwildlife disturbance: a literature review of impacts, frameworks, and management 

solutions: U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 2007-1111, 88 p. Internet: 

http://www.fort.usgs.gov/Products/Publications/21567/21567.pdf 

Cole, D. N. 1993. Minimizing conflict between recreation and nature conservation. In: D.S. 

Smith and P.C. Hellmund, eds., Ecology of greenways: design and function of linear 

conservation areas. 1993. Univ. of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN. 24:105-122. 

Cole, D. N., and P. B. Landres. 1995. Indirect effects of recreation on wildlife. In Knight, R 

L. and K. J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and recreationists-coexistence through 

management and research. Washington, DC: Island Press: Chapter 11, 183-202. 

Costello, C. M., and R. W. Sage. 1994. Predicting black bear habitat selection from food 

abundance under 3 forest management systems. Bears: Their Biology and 

Management, Volume 9, Part 1: A selection of papers from the Ninth International 

Conference on Bear Research and Management, Missoula, Montana February 23-28, 

1992. Pp. 375-387. 

Czech, B., P. R. Krausman, and P. K. Devers. 2000. Economic associations among causes 

of species endangerment in the United States. BioScience, 50(7):593-601. 

Dugan, Darcy, Ginny Fay, and Steve Colt. 2007. Nature-Based Tourism in Southeast Alaska: 

Results from 2005 and 2006 Field Study. Institute of Social and Economic Research 

University of Alaska Anchorage and Eco-Systems. March 20, 2007. 

Federal Register. 2007. Rules and regulations. 50 CFR 17. Endangered and threatened 

wildlife and plants; response to court on significant portion of the range, and 

evaluation of distinct population segments, for the Queen Charlotte goshawk 

(Accipiter gentilis laingi). Vol 72, No. 216. 18 pp. 

Gaines, W. L., P. H. Singleton, and R. C. Ross. 2003. Assessing the cumulative effects of 

linear recreation routes on wildlife habitats on the Okanogan and Wenatchee National 

Forests. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-586. 79 pp. 

Gill, J. A., K. Norris, and W. J. Sutherland. 2001. Why behavioral responses may not reflect 

the population consequences of human disturbance. Biological Conservation. 97(2): 

265-268. 

Gresswell, R. E. and R. D. Harding. 1997. Role of special angling regulations in 

maintaining and rebuilding sea-run coastal cutthroat trout populations. Pages 151-156 

in J. D. Hall, P. A. Bisson, and R. E. Gresswell, editors, Sea-run cutthroat trout: 

biology, management, and future conservation. Oregon Chapter, American Fisheries 

Society. 

Harding, R. D. and D. C. Love. 2008. Southeast Alaska steelhead snorkel surveys of 

regional index streams, 2004 and 2005. Fishery Data Services No. 08-19. Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game. Juneau. 

Hodges, John I. 2011. Bald eagle population surveys of the North Pacific Ocean, 1967-

2010. Northwestern Naturalist 92:7-12. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 4, Lists – Page 148 

Hooten, R.S., 2001. Facts and Issues Associated with Restricting Terminal Gear Types in 

the Management of Sustainable Steelhead Sport Fisheries in British Columbia. 

Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks, Nanaimo, British Columbia. 

Iverson, G. C., G. D. Hayward, K. Titus, E. DeGayner, R. E. Lowell, D. C. Crocker-Bedford, 

P. F. Schempf, and J. Lindell. 1996. Conservation Assessment for the Northern 

Goshawk in Southeast Alaska. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-387, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 

Jonsson, B. and N. Jonnson. 2006. Cultured atlantic salmon in nature: a review of their 

ecology and interaction with wild fish. ICES Journal of Marine Science 63:1162-

1181. 

Kauffman, J. B. and W. C. Krueger. 1984. Livestock Impacts on Riparian Ecosystems and 

Streamside Management Implications a Review. Journal of Range Management 

35(5):430-438. 

Keith, Brynn, J. Gregory Williams, Elisabeth Mercer, and Eric Sandberg. 2010. Alaska 

Population Projections 2010-2034, Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce 

Development. 123 pp. Accessed at 

http://labor.alaska.gov/research/pop/projected/pub/popproj.htm, May 5, 2011. 

Larson, Doug. 2010. Bear Trails. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 8pp. 

Leung, Y. and J. L Marion. 2000. Recreation impacts and management in wilderness: a stateof-knowledge review. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-5:23-48. 

Lewin, W-C., R. Arlinghaus, T. Mehner. 2006. Documented and Potential Biological 

Impacts of Recreational Fishing: Insights for Management and Conservation. 

Reviews in Fisheries Science 14: 305-367. 

Lohr, S. C. and M. D. Bryant. 1999. Biological characteristics and population status of 

steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in southeast alaska. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR407. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 29 p. 

Marshall, S.L. 2001. Estimates of the incidental mortality of wild steelhead caught and 

released by Idaho anglers, and recommendations for establishing annual take limits 

under Section 10 (a) (1) (B) of the Endangered Species Act. Idaho Department of 

Fish and Game, Bureau of Fisheries, Boise, ID. 

McCurdy, Steve. 2011. Email to Sarah Brandy, 25 April. Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game, Craig Alaska. 

Monz, C. A. 1998. Monitoring recreation resource impacts in two coastal areas of Western 

North America: an initial assessment. In: Watson, A. E.; G. H. Aplet, and J. C. 

Hendee, comps. Personal, societal, and ecological values of wilderness: Sixth World 

Wilderness Congress proceedings on research, management, and allocation, volume I; 

1997 October; Bangalore, India. USDA, Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research 

Station, Ogden, UT. Proc. RMRS-P-4:117-122. 

Morse, J. A., A. N. Powell, and M. D. Tetreau. 2006. Productivity of black oystercatchers: 

effects of recreational disturbance in a National Park. The Condor 108:623-633. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 4, Lists – Page 149 

Muoneke, M.I., W.M. Childress. 1994. Hooking Mortality: A Review for Recreational 

Fisheries. Reviews in Fisheries Science. Volume (2)2: 123-156. 

Naylor, R., K. Hindar, I. A. Fleming, R. Goldburg, S. Williams, J. Volpe, F. Whoriskey, J. 

Eagle, D. Kelso and M. Mangel. 2005. Fugitive salmon: assessing the risks of 

escaped fish from net-pen aquaculture. BioScience, Vol 55, No. 5, pp 427-437. 

Porter, B. 2008. Unit 2 black bear management report. Pages 66-91 in P. Harper, editor. 

Black bear management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2004-30 June 

2007. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Project 17.0. Juneau, Alaska. 

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/home/library/pdfs/wildlife/mgt_rpts/08_blb.pdf 

Roberts, C.B. and R.G. White. 1992. Effects of angler wading on survival of trout eggs and 

pre-emergent fry. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 12:450459. 

Schoen, J. and L. Peacock. 2007. Black bear in: Schoen, J. W. and E. Dovichin eds: A 

conservation assessment and resource synthesis for the Coastal Forests and 

Mountains Ecoregion in southeastern Alaska and the Tongass National Forest. The 

Nature Conservancy and Audubon Alaska. Anchorage, AK. Internet: 

http://home.gci.net/~tnc/HTML/Consv_assessment.html or 

http://conserveonline.org/workspaces/akcfm 

Shumway, D.L.; Warren, C.E.; Doudoroff, P. 1964. Influence of oxygen concentration and 

water movement on the growth of steelhead trout and coho salmon embryos. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 93:342356. 

Steidl, R. J., and R. G. Anthony. 2000. Experimental effects of human activity on breeding 

bald eagles. Ecological Applications, 10(1):258–268. 

Taylor, A. R., and R. L. Knight. 2003. Wildlife responses to recreation and associated visitor 

perceptions. Ecological Applications, 13(4):951–963. 

Tempel, D., V. Wright, J. Neilson, and T. Mildenstein. 2008. Linking wilderness research 

and management—volume 5. Understanding and managing backcountry recreation 

impacts on terrestrial wildlife: an annotated reading list. (Wright, Vita, series ed.) 

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-79-Vol 5. 70 p. Internet: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr079_5.pdf 

Tessler, D. F., J. A. Johnson, B. A. Andres, S. Thomas, and R. Lanctot. 2007. Black 

Oystercatcher (Haematopus bachmani) Conservation Action Plan. 115 pp. 

USDA Forest Service. 2009. Access Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment; 

Prince of Wales and Surrounding Islands. 207 pp. 

USDA Forest Service. 2008a. Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management 

Plan. Ketchikan, Alaska. 

USDA Forest Service. 2008b. Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan and 

accompanying Final Environmental Impact Statement. Forest Service, R10-MB-603b, 

603c. 

USDA Forest Service. 2007. Prince of Wales Island young growth management strategy. 

18 pp. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 4, Lists – Page 150 

USDA, 1998. Decision Notice for Revision to the Environmental Assessment for the 

Determination of Issuing Special Use Permits for Sportfishing Outfitter and Guide 

Services Throughout Ketchikan Area, Tongass National Forest. 

USDA Forest Service. 1993. Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact and 

Environmental Assessment for the determination of issuing special use permits for 

big-game guide and outfitter services throughout Ketchikan Area, Tongass National 

Forest. Ketchikan, Alaska. 70 pp. 

USDA Forest Service. 1991. Alaska Region Trails Construction and Maintenance Guide. 

Tech. Rep. R10-MB-158. Anchorage, AK: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Alaska Region. 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Bald eagle natural history and sensitivity. USDI Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Alaska Region. Accessed January 03, 2011. Internet: 

http://alaska.fws.gov//eaglepermit/guidelines/baea_nhstry_snstvty.htm 
Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 1 

APPENDIX A – 

RECREATION USE AREA CARDS 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Area Cards, is used to explain information about district-wide 

or site-specific resource concerns, design elements, and mitigations. The following sections 

provide background information for the recreation use area cards as well as district-wide 

design elements and mitigations. The Introduction to Recreation Use Area Cards section of 

this appendix explains maps, the organization of site-specific information in this appendix, 

and the information displayed in the individual recreation use area cards. The Project Areawide Information, Design, and Mitigation Measures section summarizes project design 

elements, mitigation measures, and permit stipulations that apply to all or most recreation use 

areas, either where a particular resource or resource condition is found, or where these 

conditions are found during permit administration. These elements and measures can be 

either from the Forest Plan or project specific. 

Introduction to Recreation Use Area Cards ______ 

Narrative cards and maps for recreation use areas of concern in this Environmental 

Assessment are listed in mapped groups. Due to the size of the project area, both Craig and 

Thorne Bay Ranger Districts, it was not possible to print all of the recreation use areas on one 

map. With over 200 recreation use areas on POW, the IDT combined the recreation use 

areas into 16 groups based on their location. For each map displayed on the Map Sheet 

Index, one recreation use card was developed. The information specific to each recreation 

use area is listed in tables in the card. 

Starting with Map 1, recreation use areas are discussed in the first location/card where they 

are shown on a map. Thus, areas which fall in Map 1 are discussed in the tables for Map 1. 

Areas on Map 2 that fall outside Map 1 are discussed in the tables for Map 2; areas that fall 

in Map 2 and Map 1 are displayed in the tables for Map 1 only. The tables for Map 3 and 

subsequent maps only contain data for those areas that are new to that map. The data for 

areas covered on earlier maps (and in earlier cards) is not repeated. 

Capacity estimates and allocations are displayed in Service Days. A service day is: “An 

allocation of use constituting a day or any part of a day on National Forest System (NFS) 

lands for which an outfitter or guide provides services to a client. The total number of 

service days is calculated by multiplying each service day by the number of clients on the 

trip” (FSH 2709.11 §41.53d). 

Recreation visitor capacity includes both guided and unguided visitor service days and was 

calculated as an annual number (see Appendix B of this EA). Additional definitions and 

parameters used in calculating recreation visitor capacity are located in Appendix B. 

The “season of use” was used as a limiting factor in calculating the recreation visitor capacity 

because it is the time of year when you would expect the most use to occur and provides a 

way to maintain the appropriate number of encounters between recreation visitors. The 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 2 

season of use was only used to calculate capacity, it does not restrict outfitters and guides to a 

particular length of season or time of year. 

Recreation use area cards provide site-specific information when/where that information was 

available to IDT members. 

Project Assumptions, Exclusions, and Items that 

will Trigger Additional IDT review ______________ 

Many potential effects can be negated by explaining what will or will not be allowed or 

included in outfitter/guides’ special use permits. Project assumptions used by all 

Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) members are displayed in Chapter 2 of this EA under Elements 

and Assumptions Common to All Alternatives. Permitted activities will be consistent with 

federal, state and local laws, regulations and orders and with the Forest Plan. 

While analysis of effects was completed for both Craig and Thorne Bay Ranger Districts, 

some permit actions would require additional review by IDT members to assure that effects 

remain within expectations. The following items would require additional review by the 

identified resource specialist prior to issuing an outfitter/guide permit. 

Table A- 1) POW Outfitter and Guide Proposals which would Trigger Additional IDT 

Review 

Trigger for Additional Review Aquatics Botany Heritage Lands Recreation Wildlife

Any request in a new outfitter and guide 

recreation use area (any areas not used 

before by O/G and not on the current map 

of sites) 

X X X X X X 

Any permit if there are additions to the 

Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List, 

under the Endangered Species Act, or the 

Alaska Natural Heritage Program Rare 

Plant List who’s viability is determined to 

be at risk by recreation use. 

X X X 

Any request to visit historic or prehistoric 

locations X 

Any request to increase allocation (using 

adaptive management) X X X X X 

Any significant increase in use or 

concentrated use X X X X X 

If any resource concern is brought forward 

(such as a weed is discovered, etc). X X X X X X 

If/when O/G use is at 75% of allocation X X 

Any change in dominant use X X X X X 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 3 

Process ____________________________________ 

Permit Screening and Preparation 

Outfitter and guide permit proposals go through a two-stage screening process prior to being 

accepted as formal applications (36 CFR 251.54(e)). Proposals are first checked for the 

following: 

 Consistency with federal, state and local laws, regulations and orders; 

 Consistency with the Forest Plan; 

 Whether the proposal falls within the bounds of the decision for the POW Outfitter 

and Guide Management Plan EA, or other applicable environmental analyses, or 

whether it requires additional NEPA analysis; 

 Whether there would be a serious or substantial risk to public health and safety; 

 Whether the use would create an exclusive or perpetual right of use or occupancy; 

 Whether the use would unreasonably conflict or interfere with administrative use, 

other scheduled or existing authorized uses, or adjacent land owners; 

If there is outstanding debt to the Forest Service; 

 To ensure that use does not involve gambling or provision of sexually oriented 

commercial services; 

 To ensure use does not involve military or paramilitary training/exercises by private 

organizations or individuals; and, 

 To ensure use does not involve disposal of solid waste, radioactive waste, or other 

hazardous substances. 

 If the proposal passes this initial screening, it is then checked for the following: 

 Is the use inconsistent or incompatible with the purposes for which lands are managed 

or with other uses? 

 Is the use in the public interest? 

 Is the proponent qualified? 

 Does the proponent have the technical and financial capability to comply with the 

terms and conditions of the permit? 

 Is the proponent willing to accept the terms and conditions of the permit? 

A proposal must pass all criteria in order to become an accepted application. Once the 

proposed use is determined acceptable, the authorizing officer may choose to issue a special 

use permit with stipulated terms and conditions. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 4 

Project Design and General Mitigation Measures _ 

The Forest Service uses many measures to prevent or mitigate negative social and 

environmental impacts in the planning and implementation of land management activities. 

These measures were developed from applicable laws and regulations, manual direction, the 

Forest Plan standards and guidelines, and recommendations from other sources (e.g. Leave 

No Trace methods). 

The following is a list of project design and mitigation measures that will be applied in all of 

the action alternatives to commercial recreation activities in all recreation use areas where 

those conditions exist. The use area cards provide site-specific information and guidance for 

commercial permit preparation and administration, and include a narrative identifying 

resource concerns and site-specific mitigation measures. 

The design elements and mitigation measures listed here and on the cards will be used to 

prepare and administer outfitter/guide permits. They will be incorporated into the permits as 

stipulations where applicable. Mitigation measures may be further refined during the 

monitoring and administration of commercial use authorizations as additional information 

becomes available. 

General Permit Stipulations 

The following measures are included as stipulations, permit clauses or additional conditions 

in applicable outfitter/guide special use authorizations: 

 Outfitter/guide activities are required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and 

local laws, regulations, and standards. 

 Outfitter/guides will carry a copy of the permit and annual operating plan in the field 

at all times and guides will be knowledgeable about the locations and activities 

authorized and requirements contained within these documents. 

 Outfitter/guide use of a permitted area is not exclusive and will not preclude public 

use or access. Outfitter/guide activities shall not interfere with subsistence resource 

users or disrupt subsistence resource gathering activities. 

 Land ownership is mixed; it is the responsibility of the permit holder to determine 

ownership and obtain proper authorization for use of private, native, State of Alaska, 

State selected, or local government-held lands. 

 Outfitters and guides will incorporate “Leave No Trace” methods for all activities on 

National Forest System lands, including trash disposal, personal waste disposal, and 

campfire use (see www.lnt.org. for additional information). All food, belongings, and 

gear brought on-site by guides and their clients, will be stored in such a manner as to 

not be an attraction to bears and other wildlife. Outfitter/guides will not harass or 

chase bears, or other wildlife, with motorized land vehicles, boats, or aircraft. 

 Outfitter/guides will provide high-quality services to their clients and facilitate the 

use and enjoyment of National Forest System lands. Outfitter/guides’ actions should 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 5 

increase public understanding and appreciation of the Forest Service’s mission and 

goals. 

 All outfitter/guides will submit an Actual Use Report to the Forest Service annually. 

Information on the Report will include the following: date, number of groups and 

number of clients using NFS lands, specific location of use (including latitude and 

longitude), activity, and time spent on NFS lands. 

 Within designated Wilderness, group size is limited to 12 people (including guides) at 

one time. Group size limit on the non-Wilderness portion of the District is 16 people, 

unless specifically authorized in the permit. 

Additional Permit Stipulations 

The following measures are included as stipulations, permit clauses or additional conditions 

in applicable outfitter/guide special use authorizations: 

 Proposed activities should avoid areas of steep slopes with mass wasting potential. 

 Foot traffic within wetland areas is permitted but should be minimized. 

 Locate campsites on upland areas. 

 If resource damage is noted, report it to permit administrator within 7 days of the end 

of the trip. 

 Any cultural resources encountered during guided activities should be left as found 

and reported to the permit administrator within 7 days of the end of the trip. 

 Provide the Forest Service with the locations of the campsites at the end of each 

month of use so that they can be periodically monitored, as necessary. 

 Avoid concentrations of noisy vessels such as tour boats within 330 feet of eagle 

nests during the breeding season, except where eagles have demonstrated tolerance 

for such activity. Other motorized boat traffic passing within 330 feet of the nest 

should attempt to minimize trips and avoid stopping in the area where feasible, 

particularly where eagles are unaccustomed to boat traffic. If non-motorized 

recreation activities will be visible or highly audible from the nest, maintain a 330-

foot buffer during the breeding season, particularly where eagles are unaccustomed to 

such activity (USFWS 2009). 

 Because no reliable maps are available for active bald eagle nests, outfitters and 

guides should use their best judgment in respecting bald eagle nests. If guides notice 

that their guided activities are disturbing eagles near nests, as evidenced by frequent 

agitated calling or aerial displays, they should move their clients away from nest sites 

to such distance that the eagles calm down and resume their normal activities. 

 Abide by marine mammal viewing guidelines. These regulations prohibit the 

harassment, hunting, capturing, or killing of any marine mammal and prohibit 

approaching within 100 yards of marine mammals. Compliance with these 

regulations will minimize potential impacts to marine mammals. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 6 

 No shore landing is authorized in Alikula Bay within 3000 feet of the Coronation 

Island sea lion haulout site. Small sea lion haulouts that are not designated critical 

habitat occur on Cape Bartolome on Baker Island; Sakie Point on Dall Island; and 

Grindall Island, off the south tip of Kasaan Peninsula, Prince of Wales Island. 

Outfitters and guides are required to follow all marine mammal-viewing guidelines 

and refrain from any activities that disturb sea lions when passing near these sites. 

 Outfitters and guides should report any goshawk nests or instances of being attacked 

by hawks to permit administrators within 48 hours for follow-up. Permit no 

continuous disturbance likely to result in nest abandonment within the surrounding 

600 feet from March 15 to August 15 (USDA Forest Service, pg. 4-99). 

 Report any black oystercatcher sightings and particularly any birds that appear to be 

nesting to permit administrators to document likely nesting habitat. Refrain from 

disturbing nesting oystercatchers by leaving the area if birds flush or react to clients 

with alarm calls. 

 Follow required Tongass equipment cleaning for vehicles transported to remote road 

systems (road systems without communities). 

Project Area-wide Information, Design, and Mitigation 

Measures 

The use area cards provide site-specific information and guidance for commercial permit 

preparation and administration where information and concerns are related to a specific 

location. The area wide and resource-specific information, design, and mitigations listed here 

are for the entire project area. These concerns and/or mitigation measures are related to most 

or all recreation use areas and will be considered and incorporated into the permits as 

stipulations where applicable. Mitigation measures may be further refined during the 

monitoring and administration of commercial use authorizations as additional information 

becomes available. 

Area-wide Design Elements 

 Any road use associated with access to a permit holder’s authorized locations will be 

in accordance with the most recent Motor Vehicle Use Map in effect at the time the 

activity occurs. 

 Any dock use associated with boat-based access to a permit holder’s authorized 

locations will be restricted to the side/back of a dock to minimize interference with 

other users of the area. 

 Removal/collection of objects or plants would not be authorized, except for hunting 

and fishing as described in this document and the associated resource reports. 

 Any use of firewood would be limited to dead material on the ground and would 

follow Leave No Trace principles. No removal or cutting of live vegetation would 

occur. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 7 

 Consumptive uses of water (i.e., diversions, dams, etc.) are not allowed. Limited 

collection of drinking water for individual or group use is acceptable. 

Area-wide Information and Mitigation Measures 

All Resources 

Mitigation: 

 When resource damage is noted and reported to the permit administrator; the permit 

administrator will contact the related resource specialist and actions will be taken to 

mitigate or eliminate the resource damage. As an example, in the case of soils or 

wetland damage, outfitter or guide traffic through the affected area would be 

eliminated (or rerouted) until the site could be hardened through future NEPA. In 

other cases of damage to resources, other management options may be used including 

those described under Adaptive Management. 

Botany 

Rare Plant Species: R10 Sensitive plant and fungi species and Alaska Natural Heritage 

Program Rare Plant species (collectively referred to as "rare plants") and suitable habitats 

exist throughout the POW Districts. Most outfitter and guide locations have no documented 

botany surveys, therefore presence of species with status is unknown. POW has several Rare 

plants documented that occur no where else on the Forest, and sometimes no where else in 

Alaska. 

Concern: Impacts to suitable habitat and/or undocumented rare plants. 

Mitigation: 

 Field surveys of sites with suitable habitat will determine presence/absence. Field 

surveys should occur at all high and medium use-level sites. Potential impacts from 

outfitter and guide recreation use include trampling, soil compaction, trenching 

resulting from social trails leading to water flow modification, loss of woody debris 

near campsites thus reducing fungi viability (orchids require fungi for viability), etc. 

Surveys may occur through this or other projects. 

Invasive Species: Invasive plant species are documented the POW Districts. The abundance 

and diversity of species is extensive. Open road corridors, for example, act as 

pathways/vectors for seed and vegetative propagule distribution. As long as infestations 

persist, and use continues, invasive species will be a concern. Some infestations identified as 

needing treatments may already be receiving treatments. 

Concern: Introduction and/or spread of new or existing Tongass National Forest High 

Priority Invasive Plant Species or POW invasive plants of concern. 

 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 8 

Mitigations: 

 Implement prevention measures. 

 Treat infestations likely to be aggravated by outfitter and guide use, generally through 

other projects. 

Fisheries and Hydrology 

Concern: Fish populations can be limited by insufficient or degraded spawning habitat. 

Intensive angler wading in spawning areas can negatively affect spawing habitat, especially 

if it occurs during egg and pre-emergent fry development. 

Mitigations: 

 If effects from wading become a concern, permits could require outfitter/guides and 

their clients to travel between the high and low water marks (the area periodically dewatered) when practical. 

Heritage 

Concern: Relevant Outfitter/Guide activities, particularly camping and active touring, may 

be conducted in areas of Heritage concern. After a site by site review of each of the outfitter 

and guide use locations, 99% of the locations are in areas that could be considered high 

sensitivity for archaeological sites. Many use locations have areas of archaeologiclaal 

concerns in the general vicinity. 

Mitigations: 

 Sites will need to be monitored for impact to extant Heritage resources. 

 If archaeological resources are being impacted, the outfitter and guide use will be 

eliminated. 

 Mitigation measures for Heritage resources might include future avoidance of the 

area of disturbance, detailed archaeological examination of the site and could range 

up to legal actions (archaeological sites are protected under the Archaeological 

Resources Protection Act and by other protective measures). 

Soil and Wetlands 

Concern: Excessive foot traffic associated with recreational activities on soils and wetlands 

may lead to soil erosion, vegetation loss, puddling, and sediment transport. 

Mitigation: 

 Where soil erosion and puddling is associated with recreation activities it is mitigated 

within two years. Mitigation involves rerouting trails or hardening trails or campsites. 

Apply BMPs 12.5, 16.1, and 16.4. Mitigating these areas would conform to standards 

and guidelines and BMP’s and comply with the Clean Water Act and Executive 

Orders 11988 and 11990. 

 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 9 

Subsistence 

Concern: Potential for loss of subsistence hunting and trapping opportunities due to 

recreational development (access of the resource) and consumptive resource use by nonsubsistence qualified users (competition for the resource). 

Mitigation: 

 Refer to General Permit Stipulations above. 

Wildlife 

Mitigation for wildlife often depends on specific habitat available at a site or access method 

to get to a site. Refer to the following concerns based on the tables in the recreation use area 

cards. 

All location concerns: Black bears, deer, and wolves may be assumed to be present at all 

sites. Only sites where particular concerns have been identified are listed in the tables 

attached here. Black bear hunting days will be restricted to 40 service days during the fall 

hunt, and hunt allocations for black bears will be determined in conjunction with ADFG. 

Maintain Central WAAs big game hunting closure in applicable sites. 

Mitigations: 

 Outfitters and guides should report any goshawk nests or instances of being attacked 

by hawks to POW biologists within 48 hours for follow-up. Permit no continuous 

disturbance likely to result in nest abandonment within the surrounding 600 feet from 

March 15 to August 15 (USDA Forest Service, pg. 4-99). 

 Avoid disturbance of trumpeter swans, particularly during nesting, brood-rearing, and 

wintering periods, to prevent abandonment of important habitats. 

Shore site concerns: All sites accessed from the marine shoreline may be assumed to have 

bald eagle nests and marine mammals occurring nearby such as humpback whales, sea lions, 

and seals. 

Mitigations: 

 Guides and clients must follow applicable guidelines for eagles and marine mammals. 

 Report any black oystercatcher sightings and particularly any that appear to be 

nesting to POW biologists to document likely nesting habitat. Refrain from 

disturbing nesting oystercatchers by leaving the area if birds flush or react to clients 

with alarm calls. 

Areas of concern with no required mitigation measures are provided to increase permit 

administrator and outfitter and guide awareness about wildlife. Where possible, avoid 

disturbing identified wildlife species. If excessive disturbance of wildlife is noted by permit 

administrators, outfitters or guides, or clients, inform and consult with POW wildlife staff to 

determine if any action can or should be taken. 

 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 10 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 11 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 12 

How do I find the Recreation Use Area I am interested in? 

Starting with Map 1, recreation use areas are discussed in the first location/card where they 

are shown on a map. Thus, areas which fall in Map 1 are discussed in the tables for Map 1. 

Areas on Map 2 that fall outside Map 1 are discussed in the tables for Map 2; areas that fall 

in Map 2 and Map 1 are displayed in the tables for Map 1 only. The tables for Map 3 and 

subsequent maps only contain data for those areas that are new to that map. The data for 

areas covered on earlier maps (and in earlier cards) is not repeated. Table A-2 displays all of 

the recreation use areas alphabetically followed by the map number/group number where 

each area is first discussed. 

Table A- 2) Cross-reference for Recreation Use Area and Map #/Group # 

Recreation Use Areas Map/Group 

# 

Recreation Use Areas Map/Group 

# 

108 Creek/Cavern Lake 1 Mclean Arm 13 

Aats Bay 16 Mcleod Bay 14 

Aiken Cove 11 Memorial Beach 1 

Alder Creek 1 Menefee Anchorage 11 

Arena Cove 12 Miller Lake 11 

Aston Island 14 Moira Sound 11 

Baker Creek 1 Moira Sound , South Arm 13 

Barnes Lake 2 Moira Sound, North Arm 11 

Barrier Islands 13 Monie Lake 6 

Beaver Falls Trail 1 Naukati Bay 

Beaver Mountain 10 Neck Lake 4 

Big Creek, W. Cholmondoley 11 Niblack Lake 1 

Big Lake 3 Nichols Bay 11 

Biscuit Lagoon 13 No Name Lake, S8 T68S R 

79E 

13 

Black Bear Lake 7 North Bay 4 

Bobs Place 8 Nossuk Bay 9 

Boyd Lake 4 Nowiskay Cove 8 

Brownson Bay 13 Nutkawa Inlet 11 

Buster Bay 1 Nutkawa Lagoon 10 

Buster Creek 1 Old Franks Creek 10 

Cable Creek 9 Old Log Camp 6 

Calder Bay 1 Old Toms Creek 6 

Calder Creek 1 One Duck Lake 6 

California Bay 1 One Duck Road System 9 

Cape Chacon 13 Orr Island 9 

Cavern Lake Trail 1 Paul Bight 5 

China Cove 16 Paul Young Creek 6 

Cholmondeley Sound, NE 11 Pine Point 6 

Cholmondeley Sound, South 

Arm 

11 Point Dolores 1 

Cholmondeley Sound, West 11 Pole Anchorage 12 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 13 

Arm 

Clover Lake 6 Polk Inlet Overlook 5 

Cora Point 16 Polk Inlet, East 6 

Datzkoo Harbor 14 Polk Inlet, North 6 

Devilfish Bay 1 Polk Pass 6 

Dickman Bay 13 Pond Bay 6 

Diver Bay 9 Port Alice 14 

Dog Salmon Creek 6 Port Refugio 8 

Dog Salmon Fishpass 6 Port Santa Cruz 12 

Dog Salmon Lake 10 Ratz Creek 12 

Dry Pass 1 Ratz Harbor 3 

Dunbar Inlet 10 Red Bay 3 

Eagle Creek 3 Red Bay Creek/Lake 1 

Eagle Creek (cont.) 3 Red Bay Lake Trail 1 

Eagle Island 5 Rip Point 1 

Egg Harbor 16 Roller Bay, Noyes Island 11 

El Capitan Cave 1 Ruins Point 12 

El Capitan Passage 1 Sakie Bay 5 

Essowah Lakes 14 Salmon Bay 15 

Exchange Cove, West 2 Salmon Bay Creek 1 

Exchange Cove, East 2 Salmon Bay Lake 1 

FDR 2700 1 Salmon Bay Lake Trail 1 

Fisherman Cove 15 Salt Chuck 1 

Flicker Creek 1 Salt Lake Bay 6 

Fredrick Cove 13 Sarheen Cove 8 

Gandlaay Haanaa (Fubar 

Creek ) 

9 Sarkar Lake 1 

Goat Island 9 Scott Lagoon 4 

Gold Harbor 15 Security Cove 8 

Goose Bay 6 Shaheen Creek 14 

Gosti Island 6 Shakan Bay 7 

Granite Mountain 6 Shipley Bay 1 

Gulch Creek 9 Shipley Bay Creek/Lake 1 

Halibut Harbor 5 Shipwreck Point 1 

Harris Ridge 7 Skowl Arm 13 

Harris River 7 Snag Island 6 

Harris River (cont.) 7 Snakey Lake 9 

Hassiah Inlet 10 Soda Bay 3 

Hatchery Creek 4 Spanish Islands 9 

Hessa Inlet 13 Spiral Cove 16 

Holbrook Arm 1 Staney Creek, Main Stem 6 

Hole In The Wall 8 Staney Creek, North Fork 4 

Hook Arm 15 Staney Creek, South Fork 7 

Horseshoe Island 9 Staney Creek, Upper 7 

Hunter Bay 13 Steamboat Bay 7 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 14 

Hunter Bay (cont.) 13 Stone Rock Bay 8 

Hunter Creek 13 Sumez Island Road System 13 

Hunter Creek (cont.) 13 Survey Cove 12 

Indian Creek 9 Sutter Creek/Lake 5 

Indian Creek (cont.) 9 Sweetwater Lake 1 

Ingraham Bay 13 Tah Bay 4 

Island Bay 10 Tenass Bay 13 

Jinhi Bay 5 The Saitchuck 5 

Johnson Cove 13 Thorne River, Lower 13 

Karheen Cove 8 Thorne River, Lower (cont.) 3 

Kasaan Bay 6 Thorne River, North 3 

Kasook Inlet 10 Thorne River, Tributaries 3 

Kassa Inlet 14 Thorne River, Upper 3 

Keete Inlet 11 Tlevak Narrows 3 

Kegan Creek 11 Tokeen Bay 9 

Kendrick Bay 13 Trocadero Creek 5 

Klakas Inlet 11 Trout Creek 9 

Klakas Lake 11 Trumpeter Lake 5 

Kosciusko Island Road 

System 

1 Turn Creek 3 

Kugel Lake 11 Tuxekan Island Road System 1 

Kugun Creek 4 Twelvemile Arm Creek 8 

Labouchere Bay 1 Twelvemile Arm Road 

System 

6 

Lake Galea 3 Upper Trocadero Mountain 6 

Lancaster Cove 11 Upper Trocadero Road 

System 

9 

Lava Creek 1 Upper Twelvemile Arm 

Road System 

9 

Logjam Creek 4 Van Sant Cove 9 

Logjam Creek 4 Waterfall Bay 5 

Luck Lake 3 West Sentinel Island 15 

Luelia Lake 11 Whale Passage 6 

Mabel Island 10 Windy Bay 1 

Marble Island 5 Winter Bay 16 

Max Cove 13 Winter Harbor 13 

Maybeso River 6 Wolf Lake 3 

McKenzie Inlet, South 6 Wolk Harbor 6 

McKenzie Inlet, West 6 14 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 15 

Table A-3 lists the recreation use areas in this group, area uses, and the number of service days (SDs) allocated in 

Specific resource concerns are listed by recreation use area in the second table. 

Table A- 3) Group 1 Recreation Use Areas with Service Days (SDs) 

Recreation Use 

Area 

Access Area Uses Recreation 

Visitor 

Capacity 

(SDs) 

Highest 

Annual 

Use1

Alternative 

12 (SDs) 

Alternative 

23 (SDs) 

Alter

33 (

108 Creek/Cavern Lake 

Road Fishing 

692 62 116 346 

Alder Creek Road fishing, hunting 2,306 0 105 1,153 Baker Creek Road Traditional use area for Prince 

of Wales residents. 2,306 0 10 1,153 

Beaver Falls Trail Road All people come to walk the trail 

and see the sinkholes. 2,318 60 0 1,159 

Buster Bay Shore Hunting, fishing, passive/active 

touring 2,822 11 28 1,411 

Buster Creek Road Hunting, fishing, passive/active 

touring 2,306 0 0 1,153 

Calder Bay Road hiking, passive touring. 

Freshwater fishing and hunting opportunities. 2,117 19 418 1,059 

Calder Creek Road freshwater fishing and wildlife 

viewing 2,306 0 105 1,153 

California Bay Road Hunting, passive/active touring 2,117 7 0 1,059 Cavern Lake Trail Road passive/ active touring, 

freshwater fishing 696 57 0 348 

Devilfish Bay Shore Fishing, hunting, passive/active 

touring 282 23 28 141 

Dry Pass Shore Kayaking, fishing, shrimping, 

sight-seeing 2,822 8 38 1,411 

1 This is the highest outfitter and guide use reported from 2005 to 2009. The number of permitted days appears in Alternative 1, the no action alternativ2 Alternative 1 – rows have zeros if there is no permitted use in those areas this year; however, there has been past use and will probably be use in the fu3 Additional limitations related to fishing and/or hunting apply to the action alternatives as described in Chapter 2 of the EA 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 16 

Recreation Use 

Area 

Access Area Uses Recreation 

Visitor 

Capacity 

(SDs) 

Highest 

Annual 

Use1

Alternative 

12 (SDs) 

Alternative 

23 (SDs) 

Alter

33 (

El Capitan Cave Road hiking 7,560 112 1,167 3,780 El Capitan Passage Shore Hiking, hunting, passive touring 927 34 0 464 FDR 2700 Road biking, hiking 2,318 7 0 1,159 Flicker Creek Road freshwater fishing 2,306 19 0 1,153 Holbrook Arm Shore Hunting, passive/active touring 2,822 8 0 1,411 Kosciusko Island Road System 

Road Hunting, passive/active touring 

2,117 12 8 1,059 

Labouchere Bay Road hunting, passive/active touring 635 10 10 318 Lava Creek Road Most people come to fish, hunt, 

and view Clarence Strait. 635 7 14 318 

Memorial Beach Road hunting, passive/active touring 2,318 4 0 1,159 Neck Lake Road fishing 2,306 75 175 1,153 Pine Point Shore hunting 2,822 1 0 1,411 Red Bay Road hunting 2,117 16 338 1,059 Red Bay Creek/Lake 

Road fishing 

696 13 233 348 

Red Bay Lake Trail Road hiking 692 31 259 346 Salmon Bay Shore hunting and fishing 282 42 210 141 Salmon Bay Creek Remote hunting and fishing 461 18 72 231 Salmon Bay Lake Remote hunting and fishing 461 19 168 231 Salmon Bay Lake Trail 

Shore fishing 

309 0 233 155 

Sarheen Cove Shore hunting 847 10 10 424 Shakan Bay Shore hunting 282 22 80 141 Shipley Bay Shore hunting 282 32 138 141 Shipley Bay Creek/Lake 

Shore hunting 

307 0 195 154 

Sutter Creek/Lake Shore fishing, hunting 307 0 95 154 Turn Creek Road fishing 2,306 47 0 1,153 Whale Passage Road biking, hiking, fishing 2,318 32 0 1,159 TOTAL 61,523 818 4,253 30,768 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 17 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

108 Creek/Cavern Lake 

Near Whale Pass. 50 miles north of Craig on FR 20 to FR 2700. The creek runs alongside the road and through young and old growth forest. 

Whale Pass private land 

none Access: Bushwhack 

to creek if done by many people in the same place may cause muddy conditions, vegetation trampling and erosion. 

Fisheries: summer run coho, small steelhead system 

Recreation: Site exceeds capacity July and Aug

Alder Creek 150 miles north of 

Craig on the 20 road. Near Memorial Beach. 

Point Baker, Port Protection 

none Fisheries: fishing 

access fairly easy because Alder creek is crossed by the main 20 road. Visitors tend to fish in all of the small creeks between Red Bay and Memorial Beach. 

Wildlife: See All Locations. 

Baker Creek 62 miles north of 

Craig by boat (outside Baker). LUD II area uncut, rugged coastline. Sea Caves. 

Point Baker, Port Protection 

none Access: Access to 

this site is very weather dependent. 

Recreation: Picnics and fishing occur at Baker Creek currently by local users. A recreation trail proposal on Baker Island was rejected by the Craig community 

Wildlife: See All Locations. 

Beaver Falls Trail 

45 miles north of Craig on FR 20. Muskeg. Access is fairly easy by gravel road. 

none nearby Board walk 

trail, 2 kiosks, 4 car parking area, SST 

Invasive Species:

Invasive plants known in the parking area, recommend future monitoring to 

Recreation: popular attraction to locals and visitors to POW alike. Serving the 

Wildlife: See All Locations. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 18 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

toilet. determine possible 

spread. 

purpose it was designed to. Compliments El Cap Cave 

Buster Bay About 90 miles 

north of Craig. Old growth forest along the beach. Beautiful views of Kupreanof 

Point Baker, Port Protection 

none Wildlife: This is a 

shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. Rocky shorelines may provide habitat for nesting black oystercatchers. Disturbance to black oystercatchers is a concern. See mitigation measures. 

Buster Creek About 90 miles 

north of Craig. Old growth forest along the beach. Beautiful views of Kupreanof 

Point Baker, Port Protection 

none Wildlife: See All 

Locations. 

Calder Bay 75 miles north of 

Craig (by boat). Calder Bay was once a heavily used marble quarry. There's old roads and timber harvest areas around. Un harvested area to the west is 

none nearby none Recreation: Small 

cruise boat is thinking about using this area. Consistent use may have conflicts. 

Wildlife: Large estuary system important to waterfowl, deer and bear. This site provides high value habitat during periods of critical use for black bears. Easy access by boat 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 19 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

managed as LUD II. 

and road leaves bears vulnerable to harvest. 

Calder Creek 75 miles north of 

Craig (by boat). Calder Bay was once a heavily used marble quarry. There are old roads and timber harvest areas around. Un harvested area to the west is managed as LUD II. 

none nearby none Recreation: Small 

cruise boat is thinking about using this area. Consistent use may have conflicts. 

Wildlife: Large estuary system important to waterfowl, deer and bear. Bald eagle nests occur here. This site provides high value habitat during periods of critical use for black bears. Easy access by boat and road leaves bears vulnerable to harvest. 

California Bay 

About 90 miles north of Craig. Old growth forest along the beach. Beautiful views of Kupreanof 

none nearby none Wildlife: See All 

Locations. 

Cavern Lake Trail 

50 miles north of Craig on the north end of the Whale Pass loop. Young growth surrounds area. 

none nearby 500 foot 

trail, viewing platform 

Invasive Species: Reed Canarygrass is known along the trail and stream, and St. John's Wort at nearby rock pit. Continued treatment of this infestation of St. 

Fisheries: 108 Creek drainage, small steelhead system, summer run coho 

Recreation: moderate use. Compliments El Cap tour 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 20 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

John's Wort should continue, as well as future monitoring of the reed canarygrass infestation. 

Devilfish Bay 60 miles north of 

Craig by boat. Undeveloped area, but legend holds that this is the site of Tlingit Village that was swallowed by the Devilfish. 

none nearby none Recreation: Small 

cruise boat is thinking about using this area. Consistent use may have conflicts. 

Wildlife: This is a shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. 

Dry Pass 40 miles north of 

Craig. Old growth on south shore, young growth on the north. Ocean shore. 

areas of private inholdings 

El Capitan dock, trail and living area. Private docks. 

Wildlife: This is a shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. Black bears are vulnerable to spring harvest in this location. 

El Capitan Cave 

50 miles north of Craig on FR 20. Site of old logging camp heavily developed. Young growth surrounds area. Up near the cave there is old growth. Access by road and a hike. 

Access is relatively 

easy because it is 

Adjacent land in private ownership (lodge). 

El Cap Trail, El Cap Cave, Cave shed to store gear, Cave housing (permanent admin site), boat launch, hardened 

Invasive Species: The administrative site at El Cap has many high priority invasives. Recommend continued treatment and future monitoring. 

Wildlife: Bats occur here. Potential for transference of "white nose syndrome" to bats. Continue to implement strict regulations regarding disinfection of shoes, clothes, 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 21 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

on the road system, although 2+ hours north of Craig. 

area for camping, dock (dock is in poor condition). 

and other equipment prior to entry into the cave. 

El Capitan Passage 

50 miles north of Craig on FR 20. Old growth in the foreground, timber harvest in the background. Shoreline. El Cap passage can be accessed at the boat launch at El Cap 

Some private inholdings along shore.

none except at El Cap and private land. 

Wildlife: This is a shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. This site is adjacent to an Old Growth Reserve. This site provides high value habitat during periods of critical use in spring and fall for black bears. Easy access by boat leaves bears vulnerable to harvest. 

FDR 2700 50 miles north of 

Craig on FR 20. 1 mile from Whale Pass. Young growth surrounds area. Access is relatively easy because it is on the road system, although 2+ hours north of Craig. 

Whale Pass none Recreation: Popular 

local use area for Whale Pass and other communities. Increased guide use may conflict with local use for few resources.

Wildlife: Adjacent to an Old Growth Reserve. 

Flicker Creek About 90 miles 

north of Craig. Roadside creek. 

Point Baker, Port Protection 

Road pulloff by creek 

Fisheries: small steelhead system 

Wildlife: See All Locations. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 22 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

Young growth forest in area. 

Holbrook Arm Southern 

Kosciusko Island. 50 miles north of Craig by boat. Beach fringe, LUD II, old growth. 

none nearby none Recreation: 

Kosciusko is a popular hunting area but mostly in the roaded section. The LUD II area receives less use.

Wildlife: This is a shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. 

Kosciusko Island Road System 

 Kosciusko Island. 50 miles north of Craig by boat. Beach fringe with young growth stands nearby. Many roads on the island if people bring an ATV. 

Edna Bay none Botany: Rare plant 

populations known. Recommend future surveys of high use areas and follow-up monitoring. 

Invasive Species:Several high priority invasive plants known along the road system. Recommend future monitoring and ongoing treatment as feasible. 

Recreation: Kosciusko is a popular hunting area for locals because of the road system. People bring ATVs to hunt and recreate. Increased huntinmay put pressure on locals to find deer elsewhere. 

Labouchere Bay 

About 100 miles north of Craig by road. Lab Bay is a large log landing at the far north of POW. It is surrounded by second growth. 

Point Baker, Port Protection 

MAF and big open landing 

Botany: Minimal weed survey of area. Recommend weed/rare plant survey of area. 

Wildlife: Rocky shorelines may provide habitat for black oystercatchers. Disturbance to black oystercatchers is a concern. See mitigation measures. 

Lava Creek About 80 road Whale Pass none Access: Bushwhack Invasive Species: Recreation: 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 23 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

miles north of Craig on FR 20. 1 mile from Whale Pass. Young growth around area. Access is relatively easy because it is on the road system, although 2+ hours north of Craig. 

to creek if done by many people in the same place may cause muddy conditions, vegetation trampling and erosion. 

Several high priority invasive plants known. Recommend additional surveys, future monitoring, and treatment as feasible. 

Popular local use area for Whale Pass and other communities. Increased guide use may conflict with local use for few resources. 

Memorial Beach 

About 100 miles north of Craig by road. Beach is accessed by a maintained trail. Old growth forest by ocean. Second growth surrounding. Named for an air craft crash in front of the beach in Sumner Strait. 7 Forest Service personnel perished. 

State land adjacent to west. Point Baker, Port Protection 

600 foot trail. 2 hardened campsites. Within the next two seasons, there will be a 3-sided shelter installed. 

Recreation: popular 

location despite the long drive to get there.

Wildlife: Rocky shorelines may provide habitat for black oystercatchers. Disturbance to black oystercatchers is a concern. See mitigation measures. 

Neck Lake 70 road miles north 

of Craig on FR 20. 1 mile from Whale Pass. Young growth along southwestern 

Whale Pass Gravel 

turn around and parking, boat 

Botany: Several known rare plant populations near the road and lake. Recommend future surveys of high use 

Invasive species:Several high priority invasive plants known. Recommend additional surveys, 

Fisheries: Coho hatchery, lake haresident fish, barrier by hatchery 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 24 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

shore. Access is relatively easy because it is on the road system, although 2+ hours north of Craig. 

launch areas and follow-up 

monitoring. 

future monitoring, and treatment as feasible. 

Pine Point 60 air miles from 

Craig at the far north end of POW near Red Bay. Mature young growth. Karst geology. 

Private land none Wildlife: This is a 

shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. 

Red Bay 55 miles north of 

Craig on FDR 20. 

Point Baker, Port Protection 

none Invasive Species:

Several high priority invasive plants known. Recommend additional surveys, future monitoring, and treatment as feasible. 

Wildlife: This site is a large estuary system important to waterfowl, swans, deer and bear. Disturbance to waterfowl is a concern. There is a high potential for conflict between users for fishing, hunting and viewing of bears. 

Red Bay Creek/Lake 

55 mile north of Craig on the 20 road. Access by road and hiking or floatplane. Access is medium because it is a long 

none nearby Red Bay 

Lake Cabin, Red Bay Trail. 3 car parking area. 

Fisheries: small steelhead system, sockeye 

Wildlife: Waterfowl, trumpeter swans, loons, and geese occur here. Disturbance to waterfowl is a 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 25 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

way to drive on the 20 road and then one must hike. 

concern. 

Red Bay Lake Trail 

55 mile north of Craig on the 20 road. Access to lake by road and hiking or floatplane. Access to Creek is by road. 

none nearby Red Bay 

Lake Cabin, Red Bay Trail. 3 car parking area. 

Botany: Several known rare plant populations along the trail. Recommend future surveys of high use areas and followup monitoring. 

Invasive Species: Conduct official survey of trail, stream and parking area for weeds/rare plant habitat 

Wildlife: This site is in an Old Growth Reserve. 

Salmon Bay 50 miles north of 

Craig. Closer to Wrangell and Petersburg. Lake shore, old growth, young growth, salmon stream. 

Access is available 

by floatplane or boat and hike though difficult due to lack of roads and a hike is required even if accessed by boat. 

none nearby 2 mile trail, 

Salmon Bay Lake Cabin. 

Wildlife: This is a shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. This large estuary system is important to waterfowl, swans, deer and bear. Disturbance to waterfowl is a concern.

Salmon Bay Creek 

50 miles north of Craig. Closer to Wrangell and Petersburg. Lake shore, old growth, young growth, salmon stream. 

none nearby 2 mile trail, 

Salmon Bay Lake Cabin. 

Fisheries: remote system, sockeye, large steelhead system 

Wildlife: This large estuary is important to waterfowl, deer and black bear. Disturbance to waterfowl is a 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 26 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

Access is available 

by floatplane or boat and hike, though it is difficult due to lack of roads and a hike is required even if accessed by boat. 

concern. Black bears are vulnerable to harvest on beaches and salmon streams at this site because they tend to congregate in these areas during periods of critical use. 

Salmon Bay Lake 

50 miles north of Craig. Closer to Wrangell and Petersburg. Lake shore, old growth, young growth, salmon stream. 

Access is available 

by floatplane or boat and hike, though it is difficult due to lack of roads and a hike is required even if accessed by boat. 

none nearby 2 mile trail, 

Salmon Bay Lake Cabin. 

Fisheries: remote system, sockeye, large steelhead system 

Wildlife: This large estuary is important to waterfowl, deer and black bear. Disturbance to waterfowl is a concern. Black bears are vulnerable to harvest on beaches and salmon streams at this site because they tend to congregate in these areas during periods of critical use. 

Salmon Bay Lake Trail 

20 air miles east of Craig in the Karta 

none Cabin, 

trail, 

Botany: Several known rare plant 

Invasive Species:Several high 

Fisheries: sockeye, large 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 27 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

River Wilderness. abandone

d cabin 

populations along the lake shoreline. Recommend future surveys of high use areas and follow-up monitoring. 

priority invasive plants known. Recommend additional surveys, future monitoring, and treatment as feasible. 

steelhead systemsummer run coho 

Sarheen Cove 

40 air miles north of Craig on El Capitan Passage. Unharvested. 

none none Wildlife: This is a 

shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. This site is in an Old Growth Reserve. 

Shakan Bay 50 air miles north 

of Craig on Kosciusko Island. 

none none Wildlife: This is a 

shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. 

Shipley Bay 40 air miles north 

from Craig. Fairly undeveloped. LUD II. Old Growth, big 

none Shipley 

Bay Cabin, Shipley Bay Trail. 

Wildlife: This is a shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 28 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

intertidal area. Access is available 

by boat or floatplane though challenging due to remoteness and lack of roads. 

Shipley Bay Creek/Lake 

40 air miles north from Craig. Fairly undeveloped. LUD II. Old Growth, big intertidal area. 

Access is available 

by boat or floatplane and is challenging due to remoteness and lack of roads. 

none Shipley 

bay Cabin, Shipley Bay Trail. 

Wildlife: This is a shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. 

Sutter Creek/Lake 

West end of Dry Pass, North End of Kosciusko Island. LUD II. Old harvest and alder in road. 

Private land to the west of Sutter Lake 

none Recreation: A few 

visitors come to fish and hunt in this area. Important native site. 

Wildlife: This is a shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. 

Turn Creek 50 miles north of 

Craig on FDR 20, near El Capitan Cave. 

State none Fisheries: small 

steelhead system 

Wildlife: See All Locations. 

Whale Passage 

50 miles north of Craig on FR 20. 1 mile from Whale Pass. Young growth surrounds 

Whale Pass None Botany: Several 

known rare plant populations. Recommend future surveys of high use 

Wildlife: See All Locations. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 29 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

area. Access limited to boaters and weather dependent in Clarence Strait. Can access Whale passage by FR 20 to Whale Pass. 

areas and follow-up monitoring. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 30 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 31 

Table A- 4) Group 2 Recreation Use Areas with Service Days (SDs) 

Recreation Use Area 

Access Area Uses Recreation 

Visitor 

Capacity 

(SDs) 

Highest 

Annual 

Use1

Alternative 

1 2(SDs) 

Alternative 

23 (SDs) 

Altern

33 (S

Barnes Lake Remote bear hunting, crabbing, canoe 

and kayaking, relaxing 461 18 0 231 

Exchange Cove, West 

Road biking, fishing, hunting, 

sightseeing 2,318 100 10 1,159 

Exchange Cove, East 

Shore hunting, fishing, sightseeing 

2,822 8 0 1,411 

TOTAL 5,601 126 10 2,801 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

Barnes Lake Remote, pristine 

lake. Old growth. 

none Barnes 

Lake Cabin, outhouse and woodshed

Access: Salt chuck or bottleneck where water can move through fast due to tide change. Can be unsafe if people don't know how to read the tide. 

Fisheries:Sweetwater drainage, concerns Hatchery sockeye, large steelhead system. Limit service days.

Recreation: Low use cabin. Peopfrom Coffman Cove use this cabin. 

1 This is the highest outfitter and guide use reported from 2005 to 2009. The number of permitted days appears in Alternative 1, the no action alternativ2 Alternative 1 – rows have zeros if there is no permitted use in those areas this year; however, there has been past use and will probably be use in the fu3 Additional limitations related to fishing and/or hunting apply to the action alternatives as described in Chapter 2 of the EA 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 32 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

Exchange Cove, West 

50 miles north of Craig on FR 20. 1 mile from Whale Pass. Young growth forest in northern end of cove. Access is relatively easy because it is on the road system, although 2+ hours north of Craig. 

Whale Pass none Invasive Species: 

Several high priority invasive plant infestations known, recommend future monitoring and treatment where feasible. 

Fisheries:Exchange creek small steelhead system 

Recreation: Popular local use area for Whale Pass and other communities. Increased guide use may conflict with local use for few resources.

Exchange Cove, East 

50 miles north of Craig on FR 20. 1 mile from Whale Pass. Young growth forest in northern end of cove. Access is relatively easy because it is on the road system, 

Whale Pass none Recreation: Popular 

local use area for Whale Pass and other communities. Increased guide use may conflict with local use for few resources. 

Wildlife: This is a shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. The head of the bay is part of an Old Growth Reserve. This site includes a large estuary system important 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 33 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

although 2+ hours north of Craig. 

to waterfowl, deer and bear. This site provides high value habitat during periods of critical use for black bears. Easy access by boat and road leaves bears vulnerable to harvest. There is high potential for conflict between users for fishing, hunting and viewing of bears. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 34 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 35 

Table A- 5) Group 3 Recreation Use Areas with Service Days (SDs) 

Recreation Use Area 

Access Area Uses Recreation 

Visitor 

Capacity 

(SDs) 

Highest 

Annual 

Use1

Alternative 

12 (SDs) 

Alternative 

23 (SDs) 

Alte

33 

Big Lake Road Fish and wildlife viewing. 2,306 5 95 1,153 Eagle Creek Road Fishing (popular steelhead and 

salmon fishing area). Used heavily by locals from Coffman Cove and other island communities. Hunting also possible. 692 61 224 346 

Lake Galea Remote Canoeing, fishing, hunting, 

trapping 1,391 0 85 696 

Luck Lake Road fishing, hunting, camping 2,306 81 169 1,153 Ratz Creek Road hunting and fishing 692 27 315 346 Ratz Harbor Shore hunting and fishing 927 0 0 464 Snakey Lake Road canoeing, fishing 692 0 85 346 Thorne River, Lower 

Road Fishing 

2,306 243 543 1,153 

Thorne River, North 

Road Fishing 

692 0 0 346 

Thorne River, Tributaries 

Remote Fishing 

1,383 0 0 692 

Thorne River, Upper 

Remote Fishing 

1,383 0 0 692 

Trumpeter Lake Road fishing, hunting 2,306 40 10 1,153 Winter Harbor Road boating, hunting, camping 2,318 0 0 1,159 TOTAL 19,394 457 1,526 9,699 

1 This is the highest outfitter and guide use reported from 2005 to 2009. The number of permitted days appears in Alternative 1, the no action alternativ2 Alternative 1 – rows have zeros if there is no permitted use in those areas this year; however, there has been past use and will probably be use in the fu3 Additional limitations related to fishing and/or hunting apply to the action alternatives as described in Chapter 2 of the EA 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 36 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

Big Lake About 18 miles 

north of Thorne Bay on the Sandy Beach Road FR 30 to FR 302350. Older second growth. Salmon Stream. 

none nearby Fish 

Ladder and small 100ft trail 

Invasive Species: Disjunct population of orange hawkweed on Big Lake road. Population of orange hawkweed should be treated, as feasible, to prevent further spread.

Fisheries: Sweetwater drainage, concerns Hatchery sockeye, large steelhead system 

Recreation: Use is very low considering the amount of infrastructure to support use. May need to advertise better. 

Eagle Creek same as Luck 

Lake 

none nearby Old 

trappers cabin at the mouth of the lake and the outlet of Eagle Creek. FS may develop a cabin or shelter on Eagle Creek. 

Access: current use levels have caused user made trails with trampled vegetation and some soil compaction/erosion. Consider soils mitigation. 

Botany: One rare plant population known along Eagle Creek, recommend future monitoring. 

Invasive Species: Reed Canarygrass known along stream channel, recommend futurmonitoring. 

Eagle Creek (cont.) 

Recreation: Popular fishing site. Some user conflicts apparent. Increased use may lead to more conflict. 

Wildlife: This site is in an Old Growth Reserve. Trumpeter swans winter here. This site has potential for conflict between user groups for hunting and viewing of 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 37 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

bears. 

Lake Galea 7 miles south of 

the Hatchery Creek. This lake provides access to the Honker Divide Canoe Route. Honker Lake Cabin is located on Lake Galea. 

none Honker 

Lake Cabin 

Access: Water Levels make this canoe route difficult during late summer, fall and early spring. 

Recreation: The Honker Lake Cabin receives very little use. Outfitter and guide use, if scheduled and managed, could improve the usage of this canoe route when it is reopened. Outfitter and guide use at the most popular times may cause conflict with other users. 

Soil/Wetland:The Honker Dividtrail traverses a palustrine forestewetland, emergesedge fens, tall sedge fen, and moss muskeg. There are muckypuddle and trampled areas along the trail. Outfitter guide uswill not be allowein this severely affected area untit is either hardened or the trail relocated to avoid adverse soimpacts. This trais planned to be mitigated in the next two years by hardening and/or rerouting (based on priority rankinand current budget constraints). The area will be monitored 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 38 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

afterwards to determine if the mitigation was successful. The site will be reevaluated to determine if outfitter guide uscan be allowed in the area. Apply BMPs 12.5, 16.1and 16.4. 

Luck Lake 40 miles northeast 

of Craig, 30 miles north of Thorne Bay on the Sandy Beach Rd, 1 mile outside of Coffman Cove. Areas of young growth and old growth, lake shore, riparian areas, salmon stream. Relatively good access because of the paved road to Coffman Cove. 

City of Coffman Cove 

Gravel turn around and parking, boat launch. User-made trail to Eagle Creek. 

Botany: Several known rare plant populations near Luck Lake. Recommend future surveys of high use areas and followup monitoring. 

Invasive species:Several high priority invasive plants known. Recommend additional surveys, future monitoring, and treatment as feasible. 

Fisheries: sockeye, large steelhead system 

Ratz Creek 58 miles northeast 

of Craig on FDR 30 on the east coast of POW. Harvested, roaded. 

none nearby none Fisheries: large 

steelhead system, sockeye 

Wildlife: This site is in an Old Growth Reserve. This site has easy access by road or 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 39 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

boat. Black bears are vulnerable to harvest on beaches and salmon streams at this site because they tend to congregate in these areas during periods of critical use. There is high potential for conflict between users for fishing, hunting and viewing of bears. 

Ratz Harbor 58 miles northeast 

of Craig on FDR 30 on the east coast of POW. Harvested, roaded. 

none nearby Former 

MAF 

Wildlife: This is a shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. This site is in an Old Growth Reserve. This site has easy access by road or boat. Black bears are vulnerable to harvest on beaches and salmon streams at this site because they tend to congregate in these areas during periods of critical use. There is high potential for conflict between 

Recreation: undeveloped/unmaintained boat launch and campsite 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 40 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

users for fishing, hunting and viewing of bears. 

Snakey Lake 5 miles E of 

Thorne Bay off the NSR 3016. Road Access due to former timber sale activity. Snakey Lakes is a system of lakes and streams that ultimately tie into the Thorne River. 

none none Access: There is no 

developed access so canoe/kayakers make user trails near bridge and may erode banks accessing the Snakey Lake System 

Recreation: Used infrequently for fishing and passive viewing 

Wildlife: See All Locations. 

Thorne River, Lower 

3-7 miles E from Thorne Bay. Riparian and forest within the stream buffer . 

None nearby Gravelly 

Creek Picnic area - Pump toilet, 5 car parking, 800 ft gravel trail, picnic shelter, 2 picnic sites, burn toilet, access stairs to Thorne River. 

Access: Unmaintained routes developed to access stream are not marked and do not meet trails standards. 

Botany: Several known rare plant populations around this area. Recommend future surveys of high use areas and follow-up monitoring. 

Invasive Species: Severahigh priority invasive plants known. Recommend additional surveyfuture monitoringand treatment as feasible. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 41 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

Thorne River, Lower (cont.) 

Fisheries: Steelhead, sockeye, summer run coho 

Recreation: Some recreationists want undeveloped access so that there is less competition to favored sites. 

Thorne River, North 

3-7 miles E from Thorne Bay. Riparian and forest within the stream buffer . 

None nearby none Access: 

Unmaintained access routes to Thorne River from 3015 and 3016 

Recreation: Guides and locals use the North Thorne Falls Area. Great fishing hole in a beautiful location. Visitor made trail is in very poor condition and causing erosion/sedimentation. There is competition between guides and locals. 

Soil/Wetlands: The trail at North Thorne Falls traverses a palustrine forestewetland/ emergesedge fen and hamucky spots up t30 feet wide. Outfitter guide uswill not be allowein this severely affected area untit is either hardened or the trail relocated to avoid adverse soimpacts. This area is planned t
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 42 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

be mitigated in thnext two years by adding slash on top of the trail to reduce erosion and prevent further widening and impacts, hardening, and/orerouting. The area will be monitored afterwards to determine if the mitigation was successful. The site will be reevaluated to determine if outfitter guide uscan be allowed in the area. Apply BMPs 12.5, 16.1and 16.4. 

Thorne River, Tributaries 

3-7 miles E from Thorne Bay. Riparian and forest within the stream buffer. 

None nearby none Wildlife: No big-game 

guiding or outfitting is permitted per the 1994 Big Game EA. This site has high potential for conflict between users for fishing, hunting and viewing of bears. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 43 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

Thorne River, Upper 

3-7 miles E from Thorne Bay. Riparian and forest within the stream buffer. 

None nearby none Access: 

Unmaintained access routes to Thorne River from 3015 and 3016 

Recreation: Guides and locals use the North Thorne Falls Area. Great fishing hole in a beautiful location. Visitor made trail is in very poor condition and causing erosion/sedimentation. There is competition between guides and locals. 

Soil/Wetlands: The trail at North Thorne Falls traverses a palustrine forestewetland/ emergesedge fen and hamucky spots up t30 feet wide. Outfitter guide uswill not be allowein this severely affected area untit is either hardened or the trail relocated to avoid adverse soimpacts. This area is planned tbe mitigated in thnext two years by adding slash on top of the trail to reduce erosion and prevent further widening and impacts, hardening, and/orerouting. The area will be monitored afterwards to determine if the mitigation was 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 44 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

successful. The site will be reevaluated to determine if outfitter guide uscan be allowed in the area. Apply BMPs 12.5, 16.1and 16.4. 

Trumpeter Lake 

10 miles north of Thorne Bay on the Sandy Beach Road. Young growth, lake shore, stream. Access simple because of the gravel road and nearness to Thorne Bay. 

none nearby none Fisheries: large 

steelhead system, sockeye 

Wildlife: This site has important overwinter habitat for trumpeter swans. 

Winter Harbor 

Located on the 2050 road, south of Staney Creek. About 25 air miles north of Craig and 25 air miles west of Thorne Bay. 

none Large boat 

ramp. Log transfer or Marine Transfer facility. 2-3 acres flat and graveled staging area. Planning to construct a 

Recreation: Heavily used area for boating and camping. Locals like this location. Many fire pits. Some issues with people camping in front of the boat launch. Conflicts may arise when the 3-sided shelter is constructed. 

Wildlife: See All Locations. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 45 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

small 3-sided shelter 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 46 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 47 

Table A- 6) Group 4 Recreation Use Areas with Service Days (SDs) 

Recreation Use 

Area 

Access Area Uses Recreation 

Visitor 

Capacity 

(SDs) 

Highest 

Annual 

Use1

Alternative 

12 (SDs) 

Alternative 

23 (SDs) 

A

3

Boyd Lake Road freshwater fishing 2,306 2 32 1,153 Hatchery Creek Road Most users come to fish for salmon in 

Hatchery Creek. State of AK closed this system to subsistence sockeye fishing. 692 100 26 346 

Kugun Creek Shore fishing 2,822 1 0 1,411 Logjam Creek Road fishing and hunting 2,306 19 99 1,153 Naukati Bay Road hunting and fishing 2,117 3 0 1,059 No Name Lake, S8 T68S R 79E 

Road fishing, hunting 

2,306 0 90 1,153 

Sarkar Lake Road fishing, boating 692 29 159 346 Staney Creek, Main Stem 

Road Hunting, fishing, driving 

2,306 171 500 1,153 

Sweetwater Lake Road fishing 2,306 18 117 1,153 TOTAL 17,853 343 1,023 8,927 

Recreation Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource Information

Resource Information

Boyd Lake Approximately 20 

miles north of Craig on FR 20 near Naukati. Older second 

Naukati none Access: Bushwhack 

to lake if done by many people in the same place may cause muddy conditions, 

Invasive Species: Several high priority invasive plants known along the road 

Fisheries: Part oNaukati Creek, small steelhead system 

1 This is the highest outfitter and guide use reported from 2005 to 2009. The number of permitted days appears in Alternative 1, the no action alternativ2 Alternative 1 – rows have zeros if there is no permitted use in those areas this year; however, there has been past use and will probably be use in the fu3 Additional limitations related to fishing and/or hunting apply to the action alternatives as described in Chapter 2 of the EA 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 48 

Recreation Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource Information

Resource Information

growth area. vegetation trampling 

and erosion. 

system. Recommend future monitoring and ongoing treatment as feasible. 

Hatchery Creek 

35 miles northeast or Craig, 35 miles north of Thorne Bay on the Sandy Beach Rd, 5 mile outside of Coffman Cove. Riparian areas, salmon stream, muskeg. 

none nearby boardwalk 

trail. 2 Viewing platforms, fish ladder. 

Invasive Species:

One high priority invasive plant, reed canarygrass, is known along Hatchery Creek, recommend future monitoring. 

Fisheries: early sockeye run, large steelhead system, summer coho. reduce/limit service days 

Recreation: Site is in social conflicbecause the access created affected the fish population. Design meets usneeds, but affectfisheries resource needs 

Kugun Creek About 40 miles 

north of Craig, 1 mile south of Naukati on the 20 road. Young growth stands, stream buffer. 

Naukati private land to north 

none Access: Bushwhack 

to creek if done by many people in the same place may cause muddy conditions, vegetation trampling and erosion. 

Wildlife: This is a shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. Part of this area is in an Old Growth Reserve. 

Logjam Creek 

About 30 mile north of Craig on the 3030 road to Coffman Cove. The road is newly 

none nearby road pulloff and 

signage 

Access: Bushwhack to creek if done by many people in the same place may cause muddy conditions, 

Invasive Species:Several high priority invasive plants known. Recommend 

Fisheries: large steelhead, summer run cohosockeye. Reduce/limit 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 49 

Recreation Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource Information

Resource Information

paved and this pull-off is well marked. Young growth forest surrounds with a stream buffer. 

vegetation trampling and erosion. 

additional surveys, future monitoring, and treatment as feasible. 

service days. 

Logjam Creek (cont.) 

Wildlife: No big-game guiding or outfitting is permitted per the 1994 Big Game EA. Black bears forage for salmon here in the late summer and fall. There is high potential for conflict between users for hunting and viewing of bears at the falls. 

Naukati Bay 42 road miles from 

Craig on FDR 20. Near the community of Naukati 

State, private 

public boat dock 

Wildlife: No big-game guiding or outfitting is permitted per the 1994 Big Game EA. 

No Name Lake, S8 T68S R 79E 

Between Sarkar Lakes and Sweetwater Lake. Boating in from Rocky Bay would be a challenge. 

Access is generally 

by a rough bushwhack. 

none none Access: challenging 

to access. 

Wildlife: Likely provides habitat for wintering trumpeter swans. 

Sarkar Lake 48 road miles north none Cabin, Botany: Several Invasive Species: Fisheries: 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 50 

Recreation Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource Information

Resource Information

of Craig on FDR 20. Developed recreation site. 

trail, dock, parking, outhouses, dumpsters.

known rare plant populations near the lake. Recommend future surveys of high use areas and followup monitoring. 

Several high priority invasive plants known. Recommend additional surveys, future monitoring, and treatment as feasible. 

sockeye, large steelhead system 

Staney Creek, Main Stem 

About 30 miles N of Craig and W of Thorne Bay. Riparian Area, old growth forest along Creek, young growth timber and muskeg outside riparian. Access is simple with lots of roads within the area. Hiking is more challenging from the road through young growth. 

None nearby 2 small 

campsites, Staney Creek Cabin. 

Botany: Several known rare plant populations. Recommend future surveys of high use areas and follow-up monitoring. 

Invasive Species:Several high priority invasive plants known. Recommend additional surveys, future monitoring, and treatment as feasible. 

Fisheries:summer coho, large steelhead system 

Sweetwater 60 road miles from State, Cabin, Fisheries: Early Wildlife: No big- 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 51 

Recreation Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource Information

Resource Information

Lake Craig on FDR 30 

near Coffman Cove. Harvested, roaded. 

private parking 

area 

sockeye run, large steelhead system, summer coho 

game guiding or outfitting is permitted per the 1994 Big Game EA. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 52 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 53 

Table A- 7) Group 5 Recreation Use Areas with Service Days (SDs) 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Access Area Uses Recreati

on 

Visitor 

Capacity 

(SDs) 

Highest 

Annual 

Use1

Alternative 

1 2(SDs) 

Alternative 

23

 (SDs) 

Alternative 

33 (SDs) 

Alternative 

43 (SDs) 

Eagle Island Shore Saltwater fishing, 

passive/active touring 927 20 0 464 232 22

Halibut 

Harbor 

Shore Hunting, 

passive/active touring 847 13 828 424 212 424

Jinhi Bay Shore hunting and 

freshwater fishing, 

ATV use 847 2 28 424 212 31

Marble Island Shore Hunting, 

passive/active touring 2,822 5 0 1,411 706 33

Orr Island Shore hunting 2,822 4 0 1,411 706 33

Pole 

Anchorage 

Shore hunting 

2,822 2 0 1,411 706 22

Ruins Point Shore hunting 282 2 0 141 71 22

Survey Cove Shore hunting 2,822 8 800 1,411 706 880

Tenass Bay Shore hunting 847 12 0 424 212 121

Tokeen Bay Shore hunting 282 5 0 141 71 55

Trout Creek Shore hunting 2,822 11 28 1,411 706 31

Van Sant 

Cove 

Shore hunting 

282 3 0 141 71 33

TOTAL 18,424 87 1684 9,214 4611 1707

 

1

 This is the highest outfitter and guide use reported from 2005 to 2009. The number of permitted days appears in 

Alternative 1, the no action alternative. 

2

 Alternative 1 – rows have zeros if there is no permitted use in those areas this year; however, there has been past use and 

will probably be use in the future.

3

 Additional limitations related to fishing and/or hunting apply to the action alternatives as described in Chapter 2 of the EA 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 54 

Recreation Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and nonNFS Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource Information

Resource Information

Eagle Island About 55 miles 

north of Craig by boat. This little island receives open ocean surge. Previously roaded and trees harvested; currently appears undeveloped. Rugged coastal. 

none nearby none Access: open ocean 

surge and weather limit access. 

Wildlife: This is a shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. Rocky shorelines may provide habitat for black oystercatchers. Disturbance to black oystercatchers is a concern. See mitigation measures. 

Halibut Harbor 

Southern Kosciusko Island. 50 miles north of Craig by boat. Cliffs, sea caves, forested beach fringe with young growth stands above cliffs. Many roads. 

Community of Edna Bay 2 miles east.

none Botany: Rare plant 

populations known. Recommend surveys of high use areas and future monitoring. 

Invasive Species: One non-native plant infestation along the shoreline, recommend follow up monitoring, and treatment if feasible. 

Recreation:Kosciusko is a popular hunting area for locals because of the road system. People bring ATVs to hunt and recreate. Increased huntinmay put pressure on locals to find deer elsewhere. 

Jinhi Bay About 45 mile 

north of Craig by boat to Tuxekan Island. Safe harbor on the north 

state land to the north of bay 

none Recreation: popular 

hunting area for locals because of road system. Increased pressure on animals 

Wildlife: This is a shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. This site is in an Old 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 55 

Recreation Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and nonNFS Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource Information

Resource Information

east side of island. Developed with roads and harvest areas. 

may cause conflict. Growth Reserve. 

Marble Island Southeast of 

Kosciusko Island. 50 north of Craig by boat. Beach fringe with young growth stands nearby. Many roads. 

Private land on north end of Marble Island 

none Recreation: 

Kosciusko is a popular hunting area for locals because of the road system. People bring ATVs to hunt and recreate. Increased hunting may put pressure on locals to find deer. Increased hunting may put pressure on locals to find deer. 

Wildlife: This is a shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. Rocky shorelines may provide habitat for black oystercatchers. Disturbance to black oystercatchers is a concern. See mitigation measures. 

Orr Island 35 air miles from 

Craig in Sea Otter Sound. Heavily harvested/young growth forest. Karst geology. 

none none Wildlife: This is a 

shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. 

Pole Anchorage 

42 air miles from Craig. Southwest corner of Kosciusko Island. 

non-NFS inholdings at Cape Pole 

Cape Pole was an old logging camp with an MAF, jetty, and old buildings 

Botany: Several known rare plant populations near the road system. Recommend future surveys of high use areas and follow-up monitoring. 

Invasive Species:Several high priority invasive plants known. Recommend additional surveys, future monitoring, and treatment as feasible. 

Wildlife: This is a shore access siterefer to shore site concerns. 

Ruins Point 46 air miles none none Wildlife: This is a 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 56 

Recreation Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and nonNFS Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource Information

Resource Information

northwest of Craig on Kosciusko Island. Harvested inland. 

shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. 

Survey Cove 39 air miles 

northwest of Craig on Kosciusko Island near Edna Bay. Harvested, roaded. 

State, private 

none Wildlife: This is a 

shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. 

Tenass Bay 36 air miles north 

of Craig on southeast shore of Kosciusko Island. Mature second growth. 

none none Wildlife: This is a 

shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. 

Tokeen Bay 39 air miles north 

of Craig on Kosciusko Island in the Mt. Calder/Mt. Holbrooke LUD II. Unharvested. 

private land none Wildlife: This is a 

shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. This is an important area for waterfowl. Disturbance to waterfowl is a concern. 

Trout Creek 46 air miles 

northwest of Craig on Kosciusko Island. Harvested inland. 

none none Wildlife: This is a 

shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. 

Van Sant Cove 

39 air miles northwest of Craig on Kosciusko Island near Edna Bay. Near Karst 

none none Wildlife: This is a 

shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 57 

Recreation Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and nonNFS Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource Information

Resource Information

special interest area. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 58 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 59 

Table A- 8) Group 6 Recreation Use Areas with Service Days (SDs) 

Recreation Use 

Area 

Access Area Uses Recreation 

Visitor 

Capacity 

(SDs) 

Highest 

Annual 

Use1

Alternative 

12 (SDs) 

Alternative 

23 (SDs) 

Alt

3

Clover Lake Remote freshwater fishing 1,270 4 128 635 Dog Salmon Creek Road passive touring, fishing, hunting. 

Commercial tours brought by floatplane from cruise boats. Visitors drive from local POW communities and lodges to wildlife viewing site. 2,696 32 0 1,348 

Dog Salmon Fishpass 

Road Commercial tours brought by 

floatplane from cruise boats. Visitors drive from local POW communities and lodges to wildlife viewing site. 8,733 1,396 1,722 4,367 

Goose Bay Shore fishing, hunting 847 9 0 424 Gosti Island Shore hunting 847 1 0 424 Granite Mountain Remote hunting 423 12 9 212 Kasaan Bay Shore Site seeing, hunting, fishing. 847 2 18 424 Maybeso River Road popular ATV area. Hunting and 

fishing 635 11 9 318 

McKenzie Inlet, South 

Road fishing, hunting 

2,117 48 0 1,059 

McKenzie Inlet, West 

Shore fishing, hunting 

922 10 200 461 

Monie Lake Remote freshwater fishing 4,612 0 65 2,306 Old Franks Creek Road fishing, hunting, passive touring 2,306 42 19 1,153 Old Log Camp Road hunting, fishing, passive touring, 

access. 2,117 1 110 1,059 

1 This is the highest outfitter and guide use reported from 2005 to 2009. The number of permitted days appears in Alternative 1, the no action alternativ2 Alternative 1 – rows have zeros if there is no permitted use in those areas this year; however, there has been past use and will probably be use in the fu3 Additional limitations related to fishing and/or hunting apply to the action alternatives as described in Chapter 2 of the EA 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 60 

Recreation Use 

Area 

Access Area Uses Recreation 

Visitor 

Capacity 

(SDs) 

Highest 

Annual 

Use1

Alternative 

12 (SDs) 

Alternative 

23 (SDs) 

Alt

3

Old Toms Creek Road hunting, fishing, passive touring, 

active touring 270 19 10 135 

Paul Bight Shore hunting 282 3 10 141 Paul Young Creek Shore hunting 847 3 10 424 Polk Inlet Overlook Road hunting 2,117 4 0 1,059 Polk Inlet, East Shore hunting 2,822 2 0 1,411 Polk Inlet, North Road hunting, passive touring 2,117 88 180 1,059 Polk Pass Road hunting 2,117 5 0 1,059 Salt Chuck Shore passive touring, sightseeing, fishing 3,595 56 500 1,798 Skowl Arm Shore hunting 2,822 23 178 1,411 Spiral Cove Shore hunting 847 4 0 424 Twelvemile Arm Creek 

Road hunting and fishing 

2,117 7 33 1,059 

Twelvemile Arm Road System 

Road Hunt, fish, cabin use, view birds, 

walk in the estuary, collect shrimp and crabs. 2,117 11 0 1,059 

West Sentinel Island 

Shore hiking 

927 8 0 464 

Wolf Lake Remote hunting 4,234 6 0 2,117 TOTAL 55,603 1,807 3,201 27,810 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 61 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

Clover Lake 25 miles by plane 

from Ketchikan. This site is a remote lake north of Chomondeley and east of Polk Inlet. There are no roads nearby and no access from saltwater. 

none nearby none Access: Only people 

who can afford a flight go here. 

Wildlife: This site is in an Old Growth Reserve. Sandhill cranes and other waterfowl use this area. 

Dog Salmon Creek 

See Dog Salmon Fish Pass 35 miles from Craig. 30 air-miles from Ketchikan. Riparian area and young growth forest. Access is simple due to road connection 

None-nearby 600-ft 

gravel trail, 2-car parking, directional signs, interp. signs, fish ladder, wildlife viewing platform. 

Invasive Species: Several high priority invasive plant infestations known. Also, a high number of potential vectors. Recommend future monitoring and treatment where feasible. 

Fisheries: sockeye run, small steelhead system 

Wildlife: This site is a seasonal beacongregation arefor black bears foraging for salmon. Conflictbetween user groups have occurred here. This site has high potential for further development as a bear viewing location. Establish a nohunting zone around the viewing area. 

Dog Salmon Fishpass 

35 miles SE of Craig; 30 air-miles W from Ketchikan; Riparian area and 

None nearby 600-ft 

gravel trail, 2-car parking, 

Invasive Species: Several high priority invasive plant infestations known. 

Fisheries: sockeye run, small steelhead system 

Recreation: Site exceeds capacity July and Aug. Conflict between 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 62 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

young growth forest 

directional signs, interp. signs, fish ladder, wildlife viewing platform. 

Also, a high number of potential vectors. Recommend future monitoring and treatment where feasible. 

wildlife and viewers 

Goose Bay 35 mile west of 

Ketchikan by boat. North McKenzie Inlet. Remote, but harvested (particularly around Polk Inlet). 

Native Land close to the north. 

none Wildlife: This is a 

shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. This site is in an Old Growth Reserve. 

Gosti Island 24 air miles west of 

Craig. Near Kasaan & Karta River Wilderness. 

Kavilco, Sealaska, State & private. 

none Wildlife: This is a 

shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. 

Granite Mountain 

18 air miles east of Craig in the Karta River Wilderness. Alpine. 

none none Wildlife: This is an 

alpine area where there is potential for user conflicts due to limited number of alpine sites with reasonable access. 

Kasaan Bay 30 miles from 

Thorne Bay. Salt Chuck mine site 

native land Salt Chuck 

Trail and interp. site. 

Access: developed trail allows for easier access to site. 

Invasive Species: Several high priority invasive 

Recreation: trail is not over crowded. Some 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 63 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

and trail. Second growth 

Historic mine site. 

plants known along the road system. Recommend future monitoring and ongoing treatment as feasible. 

increase in use would be valuablMine site is dangerous. 

Maybeso River 

About 25 mile east of Craig. Experimental Forest area. Older second growth. 

State land to the south 

none Access: Conflicts 

between ATV use and experimental forest management; area is heavily used by ATV riders. 

Fisheries: Small steelhead run. 

Recreation:Management and user conflict between ATV users and FSL. If guides use ATVs there may be more conflict. 

McKenzie Inlet, South 

35 mile west of Ketchikan by boat. North McKenzie Inlet. Remote, but heavily harvested. 

Native Land close to the north. 

none Wildlife: Trumpeter 

swans, waterfowl, and a heron rookery occur here. Disturbance to waterfowl is a concern.

McKenzie Inlet, West 

35 mile west of Ketchikan by boat. North McKenzie Inlet. Remote, but heavily harvested. 

Native Land close to the north. 

none Wildlife: This is a 

shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. This site is in an Old Growth Reserve. Trumpeter swans, waterfowl, and a heron rookery occur here. Disturbance to waterfowl is a concern.
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 64 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

Monie Lake 25 miles by plane 

from Ketchikan. This site is a remote lake north of Chomondeley and east of Polk Inlet. There are no roads nearby and no access from saltwater. 

none nearby none Recreation: none--

only people who can afford a flight go here. 

Wildlife: May provide habitat for wintering trumpeter swans. 

Old Franks Creek 

35 mile southeast of Craig on FR 21. The area is mostly young growth forest with some protected areas. Access is simple by road, and many people from the southern community of Hydaburg use this area. 

none nearby none Fisheries: sockeye, 

summer run coho, large steelhead, remote system 

Wildlife: Loons, waterfowl, and swans occur on lake system. Disturbance to waterfowl is a concern. 

Old Log Camp 

36 miles from Craig on west side of Polk Inlet. 30 air-miles from Ketchikan. Riparian area and young growth forest. 

none MAF, dock Invasive Species:

Several high priority invasive plants known. Recommend additional surveys, future monitoring, and treatment as feasible. 

Wildlife: See All Locations below. 

Old Toms Creek 

30 air miles from Craig on the west 

Kavilco none Wildlife: See All 

Locations below. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 65 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

side of McKenzie Inlet. Research natural area. 

Paul Bight 30 air miles from 

Craig on the west side of McKenzie Inlet. Near heavily harvested native lands and Old Tom Creek Natural Area. 

Kavilco none Wildlife: This is a 

shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. 

Paul Young Creek 

23 air miles from Craig. Near Kasaan & Karta River Wilderness. Old growth reserve. 

Kavilco, Sealaska, State & private. 

none Wildlife: This is a 

shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. This site is in an Old Growth Reserve. 

Polk Inlet Overlook 

37 miles from Craig on the road system. FDR 2103. Clear cut, view location. 

none none Invasive Species:

Several high priority invasive plants known. Recommend additional surveys, future monitoring, and treatment as feasible. 

Wildlife: See All Locations. 

Polk Inlet, East 

26 air miles from Craig. East side of Polk Inlet. 

none none Invasive Species:

Several high priority invasive plants known. Recommend additional surveys, future monitoring, and treatment as feasible. 

Wildlife: This is a shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. This site has high potential for conflict between users for fishing, hunting and 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 66 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

viewing of bears. 

Polk Inlet, North 

40 miles fro Craig, 25 miles from Hydaburg. Young growth. Access is easy by road or boat. 

none nearby none Invasive Species:

Several high priority invasive plants known. Recommend additional surveys, future monitoring, and treatment as feasible. 

Wildlife: This site has high potential for conflict between users for fishing, hunting and viewing of bears. 

Polk Pass 23 miles southeast 

of Craig on FDR 2100. Alpine. 

Sealaska none Invasive Species:

Several high priority invasive plants known. Recommend additional surveys, future monitoring, and treatment as feasible. 

Wildlife: Sandhill cranes use this area and gulls nest on an island in lake. 

Salt Chuck 35 mile northeast 

of Craig, 10 miles west of Thorne Bay. The area is heavily harvested. There is a stream and an abandoned mine site. The site is a registered CERCLA site with on-going environmental mitigations. Access is by road and hiking. Access is simple because it is on the road system 

Corporation land and private parcels nearby. 

Salt Chuck Mine trail. Nearby is the Lake Ellan Number 3 campsite. 

Botany: Several known rare plant populations along the shoreline. Recommend future surveys of high use areas and follow-up monitoring. 

Invasive Species:Several high priority invasive plants known. Recommend additional surveys, future monitoring, and treatment as feasible. 

Wildlife: This is a shore access siterefer to shore site concerns. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 67 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

and it is close to the City of Thorne Bay. 

Skowl Arm 33 air miles east of 

Craig near Kasaan Bay. 

Kavilco, Sealaska 

none Wildlife: This is a 

shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. Trumpeter swans have been reported by public in this area. Disturbance to waterfowl is a concern. 

Spiral Cove 37 air miles east of 

Craig on the east coast of POW, south of Skowl Arm. Unharvested. 

none none Wildlife: This is a 

shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. This site is in an Old Growth Reserve. 

Twelvemile Arm Creek 

38 miles southeast of Craig on FDR 21. 

Sealaska none Fisheries: small 

steelhead system 

Wildlife: This site includes a large estuary system important to trumpeter swans, waterfowl, deer and bear. Disturbance to waterfowl is a concern. Black bears are vulnerable to harvest at this site due to its easy access and 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 68 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

seasonal concentration of food resources. This site has high potential for conflict between users for fishing, hunting and viewing of be 

Twelvemile Arm Road System 

35 mile southeast of Craig on FR 21. The terrain is heavily timber harvested with some protected areas. Access is simple because of the roads and many people from the southern community of Hydaburg use this area. 

none nearby Twelvemile 

Cabin, Twelvemile Trail, three vehicle parking, abandoned logging camp, MAF. 

Wildlife: This estuary is a high value habitat area during periods of critical use for species such as black bear, trumpeter swans and other waterfowl. Disturbance to waterfowl is a concern. Black bears are vulnerable to harvest at this site due to its easy access and seasonal concentration of food resources. This site has high potential for conflict between users for fishing, hunting and viewing of bears. 

West Sentinel Island 

30 air miles from Craig in McKenzie Inlet. Unharvested 

none none Wildlife: This is a 

shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 69 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

Wolf Lake 21 air miles east of 

Craig near the Karta Rive Wilderness. Alpine lake. 

none none Wildlife: See All 

Locations. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 70 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 71 

Table A- 9) Group 7 Recreation Use Areas with Service Days (SDs) 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Access Area Uses Recreation 

Visitor 

Capacity 

(SDs) 

Highest 

Annual 

Use1

Alternative 

12 (SDs) 

Alternative 

23 (SDs) 

A

Black Bear Lake 

Remote Most visitors climb up to access the Black 

Bear Lake Cabin and Klawock Mountains. Some people back-country ski/ snowboard. Others camp, hunt the alpine in early deer season, or fish -- lake has a rainbow trout population, but water levels fluctuate significantly. 4,612 0 20 2,306 

Harris Ridge Road hunting 635 4 10 318 Harris River Road Community of Hollis developed a picnic 

area with picnic shelter and trail on the Harris river. Most people visit to fish, although more people are coming to learn about the restoration and timber thinning projects taking place in the area. 2,306 190 339 1,153 

Shaheen Creek Road fishing 2,306 9 4 1,153 Staney Cr., North Fork 

Road Hunting, fishing, driving 

2,306 0 0 1,153 

Staney Cr., South Fork 

Road Hunting, fishing, driving 

2,306 0 0 1,153 

Staney Cr., Upper 

Road Hunting, fishing, driving 

2,306 0 0 1,153 

TOTAL 16,777 203 373 8,389 

1 This is the highest outfitter and guide use reported from 2005 to 2009. The number of permitted days appears in Alternative 1, the no action alternativ2 Alternative 1 – rows have zeros if there is no permitted use in those areas this year; however, there has been past use and will probably be use in the fu3 Additional limitations related to fishing and/or hunting apply to the action alternatives as described in Chapter 2 of the EA 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 72 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

Black Bear Lake 

Located at approximately 3000 feet elevation in the Klawock Mountain, central Prince of Wales Island. 

Private land adjacent for the hydroelectric dam. 

Site of a hydroelectric dam that powers most POW communities. 

Access: The hike is through private land. Float plane access is limited due to the changing water levels at the lake and freezing lake water. Inexperienced visitors may injure themselves trying to access the lake. 

Recreation: Black Bear lake is popular with younger visitors looking for an adventure. It is also a known deer hunting location if one is willing to hike in and carry a deer out. Float plane access is expensive. The recreation cabin is in poor condition due to the snow pack. 

Wildlife: See All Locations. 

Harris Ridge 20 miles east of 

Craig on paved 924 road. Rugged mountain face with young and old growth stands. Extensive alpine at top. 

State land to the south, less than a mile. 

none Access: hike in 

access only. Used for hunting.

Invasive Species: Several high priority invasive plant infestations known along the road, recommend continued treatment where feasible and future monitoring. 

Wildlife: This is an alpine area where there is potential for user conflicts due to limited alpine sitewith reasonable access. 

Harris River 20 miles SE of 

Craig, 5 miles W of Hollis. Riparian, young growth forest. 

Hollis community is nearby. State land nearby. 

Interpretive Trail 2500-ft. Access Trail 5 miles. 

Botany: A rare plant population is known, recommend future surveys in high use areas, and follow up monitoring. 

Invasive Species:Several high priority invasive plant infestations known, along the road system and 

Fisheries: small steelhead system 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 73 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

Interp. signs. Campground--14 sites, 2 vault toilets, water source. Day Use -- picnic shelter, pit toilet, 2 picnic sites, water source. 

streambanks, recommend continued treatment where feasible and future monitoring. 

Harris River (cont.) 

Wildlife: Black bears and waterfowl depend on quality habitat at the estuary. This site provides high value habitat during periods of critical use for black bears. Easy access by road leaves bears vulnerable to harvest. There is high potential for conflict between users for fishing, hunting and viewing of bears. 

Shaheen 43 road miles north none none Invasive Species: Fisheries: small Wildlife: No big-
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 74 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

Creek of Craig on FDR 

2050. Harvested, roaded. 

Several high priority invasive plants known. Recommend additional surveys, future monitoring, and treatment as feasible. 

steelhead system game guiding or 

outfitting is permitted per the 1994 Big Game EA. There is a high potential for conflict between users for fishing, hunting and viewing of bears. 

Staney Creek, North Fork 

About 30 miles N of Craig and W of Thorne Bay. Riparian Area, young growth timber and muskeg. Access is simple with lots of roads within the area. Hiking is more challenging from the road through young growth. 

None nearby 2 small 

campsites, Staney Creek Cabin. 

Wildlife: No big-game guiding or outfitting is permitted per the 1994 Big Game EA. This site has high potential for conflict between users for fishing, hunting and viewing of bears. 

Staney Creek, South Fork 

About 30 miles N of Craig and W of Thorne Bay. Riparian Area, young growth timber and muskeg. Access is simple with lots of roads within the 

None nearby 2 small 

campsites, Staney Creek Cabin. 

Wildlife: No big-game guiding or outfitting is permitted per the 1994 Big Game EA. This site has high potential for conflict between users for fishing, hunting and viewing of bears. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 75 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

area. Hiking is more challenging from the road through young growth. 

Staney Creek, Upper 

About 30 miles N of Craig and W of Thorne Bay. Riparian Area, young growth timber and muskeg. Access: road and hiking. Access is simple with lots of roads within the area. Hiking is more challenging from the road through young growth. 

None nearby 2 small 

campsites, Staney Creek Cabin. 

Wildlife: No big-game guiding or outfitting is permitted per the 1994 Big Game EA. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 76 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 77 

Table A- 10) Group 8 Recreation Use Areas with Service Days (SDs) 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Access Area Uses Recreation 

Visitor 

Capacity 

(SDs) 

Highest 

Annual 

Use1

Alternative 

12 (SDs) 

Alternative 

23 (SDs) 

Alte

33 

Bobs Place Shore active/passive touring. Saltwater 

Fishing. 847 3 0 424 

Hole In The Wall 

Shore Fishing, fish processing, camping, 

282 17 34 141 

Karheen Cove Shore hunting and freshwater fishing, ATV 

use 2,822 2 0 1,411 

Nossuk Bay Shore hunting and fishing 2,822 15 828 1,411 Port Alice Shore hunting 847 3 0 424 Salt Lake Bay Shore hunting 847 11 28 424 Scott Lagoon Shore hunting 2,822 17 0 1,411 Steamboat Bay Shore hunting 309 2 0 155 Tuxekan Island Road System 

Shore hunting 

847 9 0 424 

TOTAL 12,445 79 890 6,225 

Recreation Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communitie

s and nonNFS Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource Information

Resource Information

Bobs Place About 10 miles 

north from Craig. By St. Phillip 

State Land 2 miles north 

none Potential 3-sided 

Access: Attempting to develop site as part of the west coast kayak 

Recreation:Encourage O/Gs to use the north 

Wildlife: This is a shore access siterefer to shore site 

1 This is the highest outfitter and guide use reported from 2005 to 2009. The number of permitted days appears in Alternative 1, the no action alternativ2 Alternative 1 – rows have zeros if there is no permitted use in those areas this year; however, there has been past use and will probably be use in the fu3 Additional limitations related to fishing and/or hunting apply to the action alternatives as described in Chapter 2 of the EA 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 78 

Recreation Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communitie

s and nonNFS Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource Information

Resource Information

Island. Remote, unharvested area. Safe harbor south of Sea Otter Sound. 

shelter location for future. 

route. Access by kayak. Weather dependent. 

end of Phillips Island to reduce resource concerns. Could be a lot of boats during fishing season. If 3-sided shelter is constructed, then we will monitor for conflicts, but it is not likely. 

concerns. 

Hole In The Wall 

Maurelle Island Wilderness. 25 miles NW of Craig. Old growth but small trees. Rugged shoreline. 

none nearby floating 

dock used by fish tender. Makeshift fish camp.

Access: For a Wilderness, Maurelle Islands is relatively close to town and heavily used by boat traffic 

Recreation:During July, site is crowded although not on the land. Great deal of boat traffic and noise and disturbance due to fish processing. Boat generators all night etc. 

Wilderness: areas within wilderness have had observable social and resource impacts for the past several years during wilderness monitoring trips. Wilderness regs. must apply to all activities; considerecommendation that commercial outfitter and guidservices be restricted. 

Karheen Cove 

About 35 mile north of Craig by boat to Tuxekan Island. Harbor on 

state land to the north of bay 

none Wildlife: This is a 

shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 79 

Recreation Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communitie

s and nonNFS Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource Information

Resource Information

the west side of island. Developed with roads and harvest areas. 

Nossuk Bay 18 air miles from 

Craig on west side of POW. Unharvested. 

none none Wildlife: This is a 

shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. Trumpeter swans use this area. Disturbance to trumpeter swans is a concern. Excellent habitat for a wide variety of species. This site has high potential for conflict between users for fishing, hunting and viewing of bears. 

Port Alice 28 air miles 

northwest of Craig on Heceta Island. Harvested, roaded. 

State none Wildlife: This is a 

shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. This site is in an Old Growth Reserve. 

Salt Lake Bay 17 air miles 

northwest of Craig. Unharvested. 

State none Wildlife: This is a 

shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. Wintering waterfowl use this area. Disturbance to waterfowl is a concern. 

Scott Lagoon 27 air miles north 

of Craig on 

none none Wildlife: This is a 

shore access site; 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 80 

Recreation Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communitie

s and nonNFS Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource Information

Resource Information

Tuxekan Island. refer to shore site 

concerns. 

Steamboat Bay 

20 air miles west of Craig in the Outside Islands LUD II. Unharvested. 

Haida Village, Private 

none Wildlife: This is a 

shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. Offshore bird species have been reported here. 

Tuxekan Island Road System 

25 air miles north of Craig with several individual sites listed. Harvested, roaded. 

State none Invasive Species:

Several high priority invasive plants known. Recommend additional surveys, future monitoring, and treatment as feasible. 

Wildlife: This is a shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. Part of this site is in an Old Growth Reserve. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 81 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 82 

Table A- 11) Group 9 Recreation Use Areas with Service Days (SDs) 

Recreation Use Area Access Area Uses Recreation 

Visitor 

Capacity 

(SDs) 

Highest 

Annual 

Use1

Alternative 

12 (SDs) 

Alternative 

23 (SDs) 

A

Cable Creek Road Fish and wildlife viewing. 692 12 9 346 Diver Bay Shore hunting, fishing 2,822 2 0 1,411 Gandlaay Haanaa (Fubar Cr. ) 

Road fishing, hiking 

2,117 2 0 1,059 

Goat Island Shore Hunting and fishing, maybe passive 

and active touring. 847 3 0 424 

Gulch Creek Road Fish and wildlife viewing. 2,117 2 9 1,059 Horseshoe Island Shore hunting 847 3 0 424 Indian Creek Road hunting, snow mobiling, hiking, 635 1 19 318 North Bay Shore hunting and fishing 847 2 0 424 One Duck Lake Road hunting 2,117 2 0 1,059 One Duck Road System 

Road hunting 

2,117 1 0 1,059 

Snag Island Shore hunting 847 2 0 424 Soda Bay Shore hunt 847 1 0 424 Tlevak Narrows Shore hunting 2,822 12 0 1,411 Trocadero Creek Road hunting and fishing 635 7 9 318 Upper Trocadero Mountain 

Road hunting 

2,117 2 0 1,059 

Upper Trocadero Road System 

Road hunting 

2,117 7 19 1,059 

Upper Twelvemile Arm Road System 

Road hunting 

2,117 7 10 1,059 

TOTAL 26,660 68 75 13,337 

1 This is the highest outfitter and guide use reported from 2005 to 2009. The number of permitted days appears in Alternative 1, the no action alternativ2 Alternative 1 – rows have zeros if there is no permitted use in those areas this year; however, there has been past use and will probably be use in the fu3 Additional limitations related to fishing and/or hunting apply to the action alternatives as described in Chapter 2 of the EA 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 83 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

Cable Creek 16 miles south of 

Craig on Hydaburg Road. Stream buffer, riparian area, salmon stream. 

Sealaska land nearby 

Accessible boardwalk trail, viewing platform, interpretive signs 

Fisheries: small steelhead system, only one fishing hole in area, use is concentrated. Limit/reduce service days 

Recreation: No use record, but observations show that it receives low use--no cars parked and no encounters. Heavy infrastructure for little use. 

Wildlife: This site is in an Old Growth Reserve. High use area foboth bears and humans due to quality foraging habitat and the location of a recreation trail here. Trumpeter swans winter in this area. 

Diver Bay About 45 miles 

south of Craig by boat to northwest coast of Dall Island. Remote, undeveloped area. Old Growth forest and open ocean coast. 

none nearby none Wildlife: This is a 

shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. In addition to all the common marine mammals, goshawks have been reported here. Black oystercatchers are known to nest in the area. 

Gandlaay Haanaa (Fubar Cr. ) 

30 miles south of Craig by paved road. Young growth, riparian area. Hardened for stream restoration 

state land nearby 

parking area, trail, 

Invasive Species: Several high priority invasive plant infestations known, recommend continued treatment where feasible and future monitoring. 

Fisheries: small steelhead system (Harris drainage) 

Wildlife: See All Locations. 

Goat Island About 45 miles none nearby none Botany: A rare plant, Recreation: Used Wildlife: This is a 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 84 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

south of Craig by boat. North of Sukkwan Island. This is a low lying, muskeg area. Undeveloped. 

Cardamine angulata, is known, recommend future surveys in high use areas, and follow up monitoring. 

by people from Hydaburg. May be conflicts with local users. 

shore access siterefer to shore site concerns. There are numerous bald eagle nests here. Muskeg areas support grouse. 

Gulch Creek 16 miles south of 

Craig on Hydaburg Road. Stream buffer, riparian area, salmon stream. 

SeaAK land nearby, State selection to the south 

none Access: Bushwhack 

to creek if done by many people in the same place may cause muddy conditions, vegetation trampling and erosion. 

Recreation: Used by people from Hydaburg. May be a subsistence area. May be conflicts with local users. 

Wildlife: See All Locations. 

Horseshoe Island 

Small island 20 air miles southeast of Craig, north of Goat Island near Hydaburg. Unharvested. 

Sealaska, Haida Village 

none Wildlife: This is a 

shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. 

Indian Creek About 20 miles 

from Craig to the Southeast toward Hydaburg (State highway 913). This gated road leads to upland muskegs and alpine. 

none nearby none Access: Indian Creek 

is one of 4 gated roads on POW, gated to prevent motorized use. Cross-country skiiers, snowshoers and hikers use this area. There is a conflict between motorized and nonmotorized uses. 

Invasive Species: Several high priority invasive plants known along the road system. Recommend future monitoring and ongoing treatment as feasible. 

Fisheries: Part oHarris watershedsmall steelhead system 

Indian Creek Wildlife: This site is in 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 85 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

(cont.) an Old Growth 

Reserve. 

North Bay 19 air miles from 

Craig on east side of Dall Island. Unharvested. 

Sealaska none Wildlife: This is a 

shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. This site is in an Old Growth Reserve. Trumpeter swans use this area. Disturbance to trumpeter swans is a concern. 

One Duck Lake 

21 road miles from Craig on the Hydaburg Road. Harvested. 

none none Invasive Species:

Several high priority invasive plants known. Recommend additional surveys, future monitoring, and treatment as feasible. 

Wildlife: Waterfowl and possibly sandhill cranes use this area. Disturbance to waterfowl is a concern. 

One Duck Road System 

24 road miles from Craig on the FDR 2016. Access to alpine. Harvested. 

none none Invasive Species:

Several high priority invasive plants known. Recommend additional surveys, future monitoring, and treatment as feasible. 

Wildlife: This is an alpine area where there is potential for user conflicts due to limited number of alpine sites with reasonable access. 

Snag Island Small island 20 air 

miles southeast of Craig, north of Goat Island near Hydaburg. 

Sealaska, Haida Village 

none Wildlife: This is a 

shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 86 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

Unharvested. 

Soda Bay 18 air miles 

southeast of Craig, near Hydaburg. 

Sealaska none Wildlife: This is a 

shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. This site is in an Old Growth Reserve. Seal haul outs occur here. 

Tlevak Narrows 

15 air miles south of Craig near Hydaburg on the north end of Dall Island. 

none none Wildlife: This is a 

shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. 

Trocadero Creek 

37 miles south of Craig on Hydaburg Road. Riparian. 

State none Fisheries: small 

steelhead system 

Wildlife: This site is in an Old Growth Reserve. Trumpeter swans winter in the estuary here. Disturbance to waterfowl is a concern. This is a high use area for both bears and humans due to quality foraging habitat and the location of a recreation trail here. This site has potential for conflict between users for fishing, 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 87 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

hunting and viewing of bears. 

Upper Trocadero Mountain 

24 road miles from Craig on the Hydaburg Road. Harvested. 

none none Wildlife: Possible 

alpine species and/or sandhill cranes may use this area. 

Upper Trocadero Road System 

24 road miles from Craig on the Hydaburg Road. Harvested. 

none none Wildlife: See All 

Locations. 

Upper Twelvemile Arm Road System 

20 road miles south of Craig on Hydaburg Road. Harvested. 

Sealaska none Wildlife: Possible 

alpine species and/or sandhill cranes may use this area. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 88 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 89 

Table A- 12) Group 10 Recreation Use Areas with Service Days (SDs) 

Recreation Use 

Area 

Access Area Uses Recreation 

Visitor 

Capacity 

(SDs) 

Highest 

Annual 

Use1

Alternative 

12 (SDs) 

Alternative 

23 (SDs) 

A

Beaver Mountain Remote hunting and hiking 4,234 2 0 2,117 Dog Salmon Lake Road hiking, bear hunting/viewing, deer 

hunting, berry picking 635 2 0 318 

Dunbar Inlet Shore Hunting and fishing, maybe passive 

and active touring. 847 30 0 424 

Hassiah Inlet Shore hunting and fishing 2,822 2 26 1,411 Island Bay Shore Hunting and fishing, maybe passive 

and active touring. 927 8 0 464 

Kasook Inlet Shore hunting and fishing 282 2 0 141 Mabel Island Road hunting and fishing 2,306 0 0 1,153 Nutkawa Inlet Shore hunting and fishing 2,822 4 0 1,411 Nutkawa Lagoon Remote hunting and fishing 423 24 65 212 TOTAL 15,298 74 91 7,651 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

Beaver Mountain 

50 miles south of Craig toward Polk and Chomondeley 

Sealaska area south 

none Access: access to the 

foot of the mountain is fairly easy but climbing 

Recreation: Popular hunting area for people 

Wildlife: This is an alpine area thoccurs near a 

1 This is the highest outfitter and guide use reported from 2005 to 2009. The number of permitted days appears in Alternative 1, the no action alternativ2 Alternative 1 – rows have zeros if there is no permitted use in those areas this year; however, there has been past use and will probably be use in the fu3 Additional limitations related to fishing and/or hunting apply to the action alternatives as described in Chapter 2 of the EA 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 90 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

Sound. This mountain is near an active corporation timber harvest area. Roads and harvest units are visible. The mountain is rugged with a fair amount of alpine. 

the mountain is more of a challenge. 

from Hydaburg. Potential for conflict for prime hunting locations, but this site is far enough off the coast that it is less likely to have conflicts. 

pinch point for wildlife where a narrow spit of lanconnects two larger lobes of thisland. 

Dog Salmon Lake 

35 miles SE of Craig; 30 air-miles W from Ketchikan; Riparian area and young growth forest 

none nearby none Fisheries: sockeye 

run, small steelhead run 

Recreation: low use due to 2 mile bushwhack to area 

Wildlife: This site is in an Old Growth Reserve. Loons, geese, antrumpeter swans use this area. 

Dunbar Inlet About 45 miles 

south of Craig by boat to western Sukkwan Island. This is a low lying, muskeg area. Undeveloped. 

none nearby none Recreation: Used by 

people from Hydaburg. May be a subsistence area. May be conflicts with local users. 

Wildlife: This is a shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. This site is in an Old Growth Reserve. 

Hassiah Inlet About 80 miles 

south of Craig by boat. Old growth. Protected shoreline. 

Encumbered land to the south 

none Wildlife: This is a 

shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. 

Island Bay About 45 miles 

south of Craig by boat to western Sukkwan Island. This is a low lying, 

none nearby none Recreation: Used by 

people from Hydaburg. May be a subsistence area. May be conflicts with local users. 

Wildlife: This is a shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. This site is in an Old 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 91 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

muskeg area. Undeveloped. 

Growth Reserve. Mudflats at the head of the bay may provide foraging opportunities for migrating shorebirds. 

Kasook Inlet About 45 miles 

south of Craig by boat. Old growth. Protected shoreline. 

Encumbered land to the south 

none Wildlife: This is a 

shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. 

Mabel Island About 55 miles 

south of Craig by boat. Old growth. Protected shoreline. 

Area may be encumbered.

none Wildlife: This is a 

shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. 

Nutkawa Inlet 35 air miles from 

Craig in southwest POW. Near Nutkawa LUD II. 

Sealaska none Wildlife: This is a 

shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. Trumpeter swans winter here and other waterfowl use this area. Disturbance to waterfowl is a concern. 

Nutkawa Lagoon 

35 air miles from Craig in southwest POW. Within Nutkawa LUD II. 

Sealaska none Wildlife: Trumpeter 

swans winter here and other waterfowl use this area. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 92 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 93 

Table A- 13) Group 11 Recreation Use Areas with Service Days (SDs) 

Recreation Use 

Area 

Access Area Uses Recreation 

Visitor 

Capacity 

(SDs) 

Highest 

Annual 

Use1

Alternative 

12 (SDs) 

Alternative 

23 (SDs) 

A

Aiken Cove Shore Hunting, fishing, passive/active touring 847 9 12 424 Big Creek, W. Cholmondoley 

Shore bear viewing and fishing 

1,079 0 500 540 

Cholmondeley Sound, NE 

Shore Recreation visitors come to hunt and 

view wildlife. Roads built in association with timber harvest increase hunting access in the area. 1,079 54 425 540 

Cholmondeley Sound, South Arm 

Shore Recreation visitors come to hunt. 

Roads built in association with timber harvest increase hunting access in the area. 1,079 84 500 540 

Cholmondeley Sound, West Arm 

Shore Recreation visitors come to hunt. 

Roads built in association with timber harvest increase hunting access in the area. 1,079 26 0 540 

Keete Inlet Shore hunting and fishing 2,822 14 0 1,411 Kegan Creek Shore Fishing, hunting, passive/active touring 307 0 69 154 Klakas Inlet Shore Most visitors boat to this area to view 

wildlife or to hunt bears. Sockeye fishing at the falls. Subsistence salmon fishing. 360 208 854 180 

Klakas Lake Remote Most visitors boat then hike into the 

lake or float plane to the lake. Most visitors view wildlife or hunt bears. Sockeye fishing at the falls and in the 461 0 212 231 

1 This is the highest outfitter and guide use reported from 2005 to 2009. The number of permitted days appears in Alternative 1, the no action alternativ2 Alternative 1 – rows have zeros if there is no permitted use in those areas this year; however, there has been past use and will probably be use in the fu3 Additional limitations related to fishing and/or hunting apply to the action alternatives as described in Chapter 2 of the EA 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 94 

Recreation Use 

Area 

Access Area Uses Recreation 

Visitor 

Capacity 

(SDs) 

Highest 

Annual 

Use1

Alternative 

12 (SDs) 

Alternative 

23 (SDs) 

A

lake. Subsistence salmon fishing. 

Kugel Lake Remote fishing and hunting 1,618 57 85 809 Lancaster Cove Shore hunting 2,822 98 0 1,411 Luelia Lake Remote passive touring, fishing, hunting 539 144 285 270 Menefee Anchorage 

Shore hunting 

847 2 0 424 

Miller Lake Remote fishing and hunting 1,618 44 500 809 Moira Sound Shore hunting, passive touring, fishing, wildlife 

viewing 2,822 121 8 1,411 

Moira Sound, North Arm 

Shore hunting 

847 2 0 424 

Niblack Lake Remote fishing and hunting 1,383 0 128 692 Nowiskay Cove Shore passive touring 1,079 74 0 540 Rip Point Shore hunting 2,822 2 0 1,411 TOTAL 25,510 939 3,578 12,761 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

Aiken Cove South end of 

POW, Moira Sound North Arm, near Niblack. Remote cove. Old Growth and little evidence of human use. 

Private land just north of cove. 

None Botany: Rare plant 

known. The only known Alaska population of low bull rush, Isolepis cernua, is known from the upper beach meadow at a tidal flat in Aiken Cove. Recommend surveys to determine presence/absence and 

Wildlife: This is a shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. This site is in an Old Growth Reserve. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 95 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

document exact extent, and follow up monitoring if necessary. 

Big Creek, W. Cholmondoley 

25 air miles from Craig. Closer for Ketchikan residents to boat over. Old growth, shoreline. 

Native Corporation Land to the west and south in Cholmondoley 

none Recreation: Observed 

planes flying in July to see bears in big creek. May be competition between bear viewing visitors. 

Wildlife: This is a shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. 

Cholmondeley Sound, NE 

25 air miles from Craig. Closer for Ketchikan residents to boat over. Old growth, shoreline. 

Corporation land around Cholmondeley Inlet. 

none Wildlife: This is a 

shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. This site is in an Old Growth Reserve. 

Cholmondeley Sound, South Arm 

25 air miles from Craig. Closer for Ketchikan residents to boat over. NFS land is old growth forest, corporation land is young growth forest, shoreline. 

Corporation land all around Cholmondeley Inlet. 

none Wildlife: This is a 

shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. This site is in an Old Growth Reserve. 

Cholmondeley Sound, West Arm 

25 air miles from Craig. Closer for Ketchikan residents to boat over. NFS land is old growth forest, corporation land is 

Corporation land all around Cholmondeley Inlet. 

none Wildlife: This is a 

shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. This site is in an Old Growth Reserve. This site includes valuable 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 96 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

young growth forest or is being harvested, shoreline. 

black bear, shorebird and waterfowl habitat. 

Keete Inlet About 60 miles 

south of Craig by boat. Old growth. Protected shoreline. 

Encumbered land to the south 

none Wildlife: This is a 

shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. There are some seal haulout areas here. Some mudflats may provide shorebird habitat. 

Kegan Creek About 50 miles by 

boat from Ketchikan 

none two 

recreation cabins and a 1/2 mile trail 

Access: The bay is small and difficult to navigate with a float plane or a boat larger than the landing craft. 

Recreation: Recreation cabins located in the area are used heavily during the salmon run, JulySeptember. They are also used by spring and fall bear hunters. Competition between cabin users and guides could arise on Kegan Creek. 

Wildlife: This is a shore access siterefer to shore site concerns. 

Klakas Inlet 50 miles SE of 

Craig. Ocean Inlet with old growth forest. Access is by boat or plane and is difficult 

None nearby none Fisheries: sockeye, 

steelhead (documented subsistence use). Area once used a lot for sockeye fishing, but 

Wilderness: Wilderness regs. must apply to all activities 

Wildlife: This is a shore access siterefer to shore site concerns. Seabird wintering habitat and harbo
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 97 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

because this site is remote and there is no road access. 

doesn't seem to be used as much in the past 5 years. May attract use for sockeye fishing 

seal haulout areaoccur here. Beamay be vulnerabto harvest here during periods of critical use at seasonally important foraginareas. 

Klakas Lake 50 miles S from 

Craig. Old growth forest. Access is by boat or plane and is difficult because this site is remote and there is no road access. The lake has a lot of log jams making it difficult for a plane to land at times. 

None nearby none Fisheries: sockeye, 

steelhead. Area once used a lot for sockeye fishing, but doesn't seem to be used as much in the past 5 years. May attract use for sockeye fishing 

Wilderness: Wilderness regs. must apply to all activities 

Wildlife: See All Locations. 

Kugel Lake 30 air miles from 

Craig. Old growth, lake shore, riparian, stream. 

None nearby none Access: very remote 

location. Likely only people who can afford to charter a flight would visit this location

Wildlife: Potential access to nearby alpine, potential habitat for swans and sandhill cranes on and around the lake. 

Lancaster Cove 

25 air miles from Craig. Closer for Ketchikan residents to boat 

Corporation land around Cholmondeley Inlet. 

none Botany: A rare plant 

population known in the area. Recommend future surveys of high 

Invasive Species: Several high priority invasive plants known at 

Wildlife: This is a shore access siterefer to shore site concerns. Ospre
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 98 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

over. Old growth, shoreline. Roads built in association with timber harvest increase hunting access in the area but do not connect the area by road to the north. Access is by boat or float plane. Boating across Clarence Strait makes access challenging. 

use sites and follow-up monitoring. 

the MAF. Recommend additional surveys, future monitoring, and treatment as feasible. 

have been observed in this area. 

Luelia Lake 30 air miles from 

Craig. Old growth, lake shore, riparian, stream. Access is challenging because no roads and one must boat in or across Clarence Strait then bush whack to the lake system, or charter a floatplane. Very remote. 

None nearby none Botany: A rare plant 

population in known in the area. Recommend future surveys of high use areas and followup monitoring. 

Wildlife: Trumpeter swans, loons, and waterfowl use this area; possibly sandhill cranes as well. 

Menefee Anchorage 

54 air miles southeast of Craig in Moira Sound. 

State none Wildlife: This is a 

shore access site; refer to shore site 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 99 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

Unharvested concerns. This site is 

in an Old Growth Reserve. 

Miller Lake About 40 miles 

west of Ketchikan by boat. Close to timber area. Young growth visible and roads. 

native land and encumbered land on north and west sides. 

none Wildlife: This site is in 

an Old Growth Reserve. 

Moira Sound 30 air miles from 

Craig. Closer for Ketchikan residents to boat over. Old growth, shoreline. Access is by boat or floatplane and is challenging because no roads and one must boat in or across Clarence Strait. 

none Kegan 

Cove Cabin, Kegan Creek Cabin, Kegan trail

Botany: Several known rare plant populations. Recommend future surveys of high use areas and follow-up monitoring. 

Wildlife: This is a shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. 

Moira Sound, North Arm 

47 air miles southeast of Craig. Unharvested. 

Kootznoowoo, private 

none Invasive Species: No 

survey data - remote area 

Wildlife: This is a shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. 

Niblack Lake 30 air miles from 

Craig. Old growth, lake shore, riparian, stream. 

None nearby none 

Visitors fish or hunt 

Recreation: very remote location. Likely only people who can afford to charter a flight would visit this location 

Wildlife: Likely provides habitat for wintering trumpeter swans. 

Nowiskay 45 air miles from Private land none Wildlife: This is a 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 100 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

Cove Craig in north arm 

of Moira Sound on east side of POW. 

shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. This site is in an Old Growth Reserve. Trumpeter swans may winter here. 

Rip Point 55 air miles 

southeast of Craig at the southeast entrance to Moira Sound. 

State none Wildlife: This is a 

shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 101 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 102 

Table A- 14) Group 12 Recreation Use Areas with Service Days (SDs) 

Recreation Use Area Access Area Uses Recreation 

Visitor 

Capacity 

(SDs) 

Highest 

Annual 

Use1

Alternative 

12 (SDs) 

Alternative 

23 (SDs) 

A

Arena Cove Shore Surfing, beach combing, 

watching the ocean 282 2 0 141 

Point Dolores Shore hunting 2,822 4 0 1,411 Port Refugio Shore hunting 2,822 8 0 1,411 Port Santa Cruz Shore hunting 2,822 1 0 1,411 Roller Bay, Noyes Island Shore beach combing 309 0 0 155 Suemez Island Road System 

Shore hunting 

3,091 12 0 1,546 

TOTAL 12,148 27 0 6,075 

Recreation Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communitie

s and nonNFS Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource Information

Resource Information

Arena Cove 15 mile south of 

Craig by boat. Large sandy beach facing open ocean. Old growth on the shore. 

none nearby none Wildlife: This is a 

shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. Peregrine falcons and black oystercatchers use the area around Cape Felix. 

Point Dolores 16 air miles 

southwest of Craig. 

State none Wildlife: This is a 

shore access site; 

1 This is the highest outfitter and guide use reported from 2005 to 2009. The number of permitted days appears in Alternative 1, the no action alternativ2 Alternative 1 – rows have zeros if there is no permitted use in those areas this year; however, there has been past use and will probably be use in the fu3 Additional limitations related to fishing and/or hunting apply to the action alternatives as described in Chapter 2 of the EA 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 103 

Recreation Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communitie

s and nonNFS Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource Information

Resource Information

Northwest corner of Suemez Island. Unharvested. 

refer to shore site concerns. Migrating shorebirds and black oystercatchers use this site. Disturbance to black oystercatchers is a concern. 

Port Refugio 15 air miles 

southwest of Craig on Suemez Island. Harvested, roaded. 

none MAF Botany: Several 

known rare plant populations. Recommend future surveys of high use areas and follow-up monitoring. 

Invasive Species:Several high priority invasive plants known. Recommend additional surveys, future monitoring, and treatment as feasible. 

Wildlife: This is a shore access siterefer to shore site concerns. Trumpeter swanswaterfowl, goshawk nests and deer exclosures are present on the island. Disturbance to waterfowl, goshawk, and deer exclosures are concerns. 

Port Santa Cruz 

18 air miles southwest of Craig on Suemez Island. Watershed is harvested, roaded. 

none none Wildlife: This is a 

shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. Black bears are vulnerable to harvest on beaches at this site because they tend to congregate in these areas during periods of critical use. 

Roller Bay, 20 air miles west of none none Recreation: People Wildlife: This is a 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 104 

Recreation Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communitie

s and nonNFS Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource Information

Resource Information

Noyes Island Craig in the 

Outside Islands LUD II. Unharvested. 

visit this open sandy beach on nice days. 

shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. 

Suemez Island Road System 

Medium-sized island 17 air miles southwest of Craig with several individual use area locations identified. 

State none Wildlife: This is a 

shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. Sandhill cranes, geese, known goshawk nests, waterfowl, and deer exclosures occur in this area. Disturbance to raptors, waterfowl, and deer exclosures are concerns. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 105 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 106 

Table A- 15) Group 13 Recreation Use Areas with Service Days (SDs) 

Recreation Use 

Area 

Access Area Uses Recreation 

Visitor 

Capacity 

(SDs) 

Highest 

Annual 

Use1

Alternative 

1 2(SDs) 

Alternative 

23 (SDs) 

A

Barrier Islands Shore Otter hunting. Camping. Haida traditional 

use and gathering area. 309 0 200 155 

Biscuit Lagoon Shore Most visitors boat to this area to view wildlife 

or to hunt bears. Some fishing in the stream. Signs of trapping. 360 69 538 180 

Brownson Bay Shore Most visitors boat to this area to view wildlife 

or to hunt bears. Beach comb 282 2 8 141 

Cape Chacon Shore Saltwater fishing, hunting, passive and 

active touring 847 5 0 424 

Dickman Bay Shore Fishing, hunting, passive/active touring 847 4 0 424 Fredrick Cove Shore freshwater fishing, hunting 3,595 32 12 1,798 Hessa Inlet Shore Most visitors boat to this area to view wildlife 

or to hunt bears. Some fishing in the stream. Signs of trapping. 282 6 522 141 

Hunter Bay Shore Most visitors boat to this area to view wildlife 

or to hunt bears. Some fishing in the stream. 360 89 212 180 

Hunter Creek Shore Most visitors boat to this area to view wildlife 

or to hunt bears. Some fishing in the stream. 307 0 2 154 

Ingraham Bay Shore fishing and hunting 847 11 0 424 Johnson Cove Shore freshwater fishing, hunting 2,822 6 12 1,411 Kendrick Bay Shore fishing and hunting 2,822 6 20 1,411 Max Cove Shore passive touring, hunting 360 97 218 180 Mclean Arm Shore fishing and hunting 847 4 38 424 

1 This is the highest outfitter and guide use reported from 2005 to 2009. The number of permitted days appears in Alternative 1, the no action alternativ2 Alternative 1 – rows have zeros if there is no permitted use in those areas this year; however, there has been past use and will probably be use in the fu3 Additional limitations related to fishing and/or hunting apply to the action alternatives as described in Chapter 2 of the EA 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 107 

Recreation Use 

Area 

Access Area Uses Recreation 

Visitor 

Capacity 

(SDs) 

Highest 

Annual 

Use1

Alternative 

1 2(SDs) 

Alternative 

23 (SDs) 

A

Moira Sound South Arm 

Shore camping, passive touring, hunting 

1,079 135 500 540 

Nichols Bay Shore hunting and fishing 847 4 20 424 Shipwreck Point Shore hunting 282 4 0 141 Stone Rock Bay Shore hunting 847 4 12 424 Tah Bay Shore hunting, wildlife viewing 282 3 12 141 The Saitchuck Remote recreation uses on the trail to look at the old 

mine site 539 0 500 270 

Winter Bay Shore hunting 282 2 0 141 TOTAL 19,045 483 2,826 9,528 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

Barrier Islands 

South Prince of Wales Wilderness Area. 30 air miles from Hydaburg. Old Growth Forest, shoreline. Small remote islands with no road access and boat access is at least 40 miles. 

none none Access: Access is 

very weather dependent. Large surge in this area. 

Recreation: Small camp observed. Local traditional use site, but no conflicts observed.

Wildlife: This is a shore access siterefer to shore site concerns. Colonies of nesting seabirds occur on Barrier Islands. 

Biscuit Lagoon 

South Prince of Wales Wilderness Area. 30 air miles from Hydaburg. Old Growth Forest, shoreline. Cove is remote with no 

Sealaska Heritage site (Klinkwan). Boyer owns 10 acre inholding at cannery site.

none Botany: Rare plant 

populations were found in the area around Hunter Bay. Recommend future surveys of high use areas, and follow-up 

Recreation: no encounters during monitoring. Monitoring showed little disturbance from use. 

Wilderness: Wilderness regs. must apply to all activities 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 108 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

road access and boat access is at least 40 miles. 

monitoring. 

Brownson Bay 

South Prince of Wales Wilderness Area. About 40 miles by boat from Hydaburg. Old Growth Forest, shoreline. Cove is remote with no road access and boat access is at least 40 miles. 

none nearby none Botany: One rare 

plant population at head of bay. Recommend follow-up monitoring. 

Recreation: No encounters during monitoring. Monitoring showed little disturbance from use. 

Wilderness:Wilderness regs. must apply to all activities 

Cape Chacon About 95 miles 

south of Craig by boat. Cape Chacon is the southernmost point on Prince of Wales Island. It is a rugged, storm swept area, with little evidence of human use. 

none nearby none Access: bad weather 

limits access. 

Wildlife: This is a shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. Rocky shorelines may provide habitat for black oystercatchers. Disturbance to black oystercatchers is a concern. See mitigation measures. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 109 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

Dickman Bay About 50 miles by 

boat from Ketchikan 

one small inholding to the north 

none Wildlife: This is a 

shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. Seals with pups use this area. 

Fredrick Cove 

West most point Moira Sound. About 40 boat miles from Ketchikan. Remote, undeveloped area. Old Growth Forest. 

none nearby none Wildlife: This is a 

shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. Seals with pups occur here. There is an Old Growth Reserve in this area. 

Hessa Inlet South Prince of 

Wales Wilderness Area. 40 miles by boat from Hydaburg. Old Growth Forest, shoreline. Cove is remote with no road access and boat access is at least 40 miles. 

none nearby none Botany: One rare 

plant population is known. Recommend surveys in high use areas, and future monitoring. 

Recreation: little sign of use on shores 

Wilderness: Wilderness regs. must apply to all activities 

Hunter Bay South Prince of 

Wales Wilderness Area. 30 air miles from Hydaburg. Old Growth Forest, shoreline. 

Sealaska Heritage site (Klinkwan). Boyer owns 10 acre inholding at cannery site.

none Botany: Rare plant 

populations known in the area. Recommend future surveys of high use areas, and followup monitoring. 

Heritage: Modern topographic maps note an abandoned cannery within 1 mile of the O/G spot. Increased visitation might cause physical 

Invasive Species: Severanon-native plants known at the former cannery site. Recommenfollow up monitoring and treatment as 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 110 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

impact to the site. necessary. 

Hunter Bay (cont.) 

Recreation: some boat visitors, siteseeing. Little signs of use. 

Wilderness: Wilderness regs. must apply to all activities 

Wildlife: This is a shore access siterefer to shore site concerns. Rockshorelines at the mouth of the bay may provide habitat for black oystercatchers. Disturbance to black oystercatchers is a concern. See mitigation measures. Black bears are vulnerable to harvest on beaches and salmon streams athis site because they tend to congregate in these areas durinperiods of critical use. 

Hunter Creek South Prince of 

Wales Wilderness Area. 30 air miles from Hydaburg. Old Growth Forest, shoreline. 

Sealaska Heritage site (Klinkwan). Boyer owns 10 acre inholding at 

none Botany: Rare plant 

populations known the area. Recommend future surveys of high use areas, and followup monitoring. 

Invasive Species: Several non-native plants known at the former cannery site. Recommend 

Fisheries: Steelhead, sockeye 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 111 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

cannery site. follow up 

monitoring and treatment as necessary. 

Hunter Creek (cont.) 

Wilderness: Wilderness regs. must apply to all activities 

Wildlife: This is a shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. 

Ingraham Bay 

About 45 miles west of Ketchikan. Remote bay south of Moira Sound. Old growth and undeveloped. 

none nearby none Wildlife: This is a 

shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. This site is in an Old Growth Reserve. 

Johnson Cove 

 Moira Sound. About 40 boat miles from Ketchikan. Remote, undeveloped area. Old Growth Forest. 

none nearby none Botany: A rare plant 

population is known at this use area, recommend future surveys in high use areas, and follow up monitoring.

Wildlife: This is a shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. Goshawks may occur here. 

Kendrick Bay About 45 miles 

west of Ketchikan. Remote bay south of Moira Sound. NFS lands-old growth and undeveloped. Site of active mine claim with roads and young growth. 

Private mine holding 

none Recreation: Mining 

activity may affect experience 

Wildlife: This is a shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. Mudflats occur at the heads of some arms here that may provide habitat for migrating shorebirds. 

Max Cove South Prince of None nearby none Access: Access is Wildlife: This is a 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 112 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

Wales Wilderness Area. 30 air miles from Hydaburg. Old Growth Forest, shoreline. Access is available by boat or float plane. 

difficult because Max Cove is remote with no road access and boat access is at least 40 miles. 

shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. Opportunities for both sustainable hunting and viewing of black bears occur here. 

Mclean Arm About 45 miles 

west of Ketchikan. Remote bay south of Kendrick Bay. Old growth and undeveloped. 

none nearby none Wildlife: This is a 

shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. Mud flats at the head of the bay may provide habitat for shorebirds. Rocky shorelines at the mouth of the bay may provide habitat for black oystercatchers. Disturbance to black oystercatchers is a concern. See mitigation measures. 

Moira Sound , South Arm 

30 air miles from Craig. Closer fro Ketchikan residents to boat over. Old growth, shoreline. Access is by boat or floatplane and is challenging because no roads 

none nearby none Botany: Several 

known rare plant populations in this area. Recommend future surveys of high use areas and followup monitoring. 

Wildlife: This is a shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 113 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

and one must boat in or across Clarence Strait. 

Nichols Bay 65 air miles south 

of Craig. Extreme south end of POW. Unharvested. 

none none Botany: Cardamine 

angulata and Lonicera involucrata found along a stream and the shoreline immediately North of the 1-mile buffer. 

Wildlife: This is a shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. Waterfowl and trumpeter swans use this estuary. Disturbance to waterfowl is a concern. 

Shipwreck Point 

48 air miles southeast of Craig in the South Prince of Wales Wilderness. Unharvested. 

none none Wildlife: This is a 

shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. 

Stone Rock Bay 

67 air miles southeast of Craig at the extreme southeast corner of POW. 

Private land none Wildlife: This is a 

shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. 

Tah Bay South Prince of 

Wales Wilderness Area. 30 air miles from Hydaburg. Old Growth Forest, shoreline. Access is available by boat or float plane and is difficult because 

None nearby none Access: Access is 

difficult because it's remote with no road access and boat access is at least 40 miles. 

Wilderness: Wilderness regs. must apply to all activities 

Wildlife: This is a shore access siterefer to shore site concerns. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 114 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

it's remote with no road access and boat access is at least 40 miles. 

The Saitchuck 

15 miles Southwest of Thorne Bay and 15 miles northwest of Kasaan on FS 2030. Old mine site. Site of recent superfund clean-up project. Heavily roaded and timber harvested. 

State land to the east. 

trail and mine interpretation 

Access: Access has greatly improved with the CERCLA clean-up, the mine site is currently accessible by gated road 

Recreation: Visitors may enter the mine site and injure themselves.

Wildlife: See All Locations. 

Winter Bay 58 air miles 

southeast of Craig in the SPOW Wilderness. 

none none Wildlife: This is a 

shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. Nesting colonies of seabirds occur on Barrier Islands. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 115 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 116 

Table A- 16) Group 14 Recreation Use Areas with Service Days (SDs) 

Recreation Use Area 

Access Area Uses Recreation 

Visitor 

Capacity 

(SDs) 

Highest 

Annual 

Use1

Alternative 

12 (SDs) 

Alternative 

23 (SDs) 

A

Aston Island Shore fishing, maybe hunting but it very little. 

Passive and active touring could take place here. 847 1 0 424 

Datzkoo Harbor Shore hunting, freshwater fishing 847 4 0 424 Essowah Lakes Remote hunting, fishing, kayaking, boating, 

sightseeing 423 2 0 212 

Kassa Inlet Shore hunting and fishing 2,822 14 26 1,411 Mcleod Bay Shore hunting 847 4 0 424 Pond Bay Shore hunting 847 1 0 424 Security Cove Shore hunting 847 2 0 424 Wolk Harbor Shore hunting 847 2 0 424 TOTAL 8,327 30 26 4,167 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

Aston Island Approximately 45 

miles south of Craig, just north of Long Island and east of Dall Island. This small island is 

Long Island and much of Dall is non FS land 

none Wildlife: This is a 

shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. Rocky shorelines provide habitat for nesting 

1 This is the highest outfitter and guide use reported from 2005 to 2009. The number of permitted days appears in Alternative 1, the no action alternativ2 Alternative 1 – rows have zeros if there is no permitted use in those areas this year; however, there has been past use and will probably be use in the fu3 Additional limitations related to fishing and/or hunting apply to the action alternatives as described in Chapter 2 of the EA 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 117 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

remote and uncut, but logging operations are visible. 

black oystercatchers. Disturbance to black oystercatchers is a concern. See mitigation measures. 

Datzkoo Harbor 

About 90 miles south of Craig by boat. Located southeast Dall Island. Old Growth forest and saltwater anchorage. 

One small private area to the west and another to the east about 3-4 miles. 

none Wildlife: This is a 

shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. 

Essowah Lakes 

90 miles south of Craig by boat. Old Growth, ocean shoreline, saltchuck. 

none nearby none Access: Very remote 

on the open ocean. Limited visitation 

Recreation: few visitors due to weather and remoteness 

Wildlife: This veremote site provides importawintering habitat for trumpeter swans, and loons may use the lake

Kassa Inlet About 55 miles 

south of Craig by boat. Old growth. Protected shoreline. 

Encumbered land to the south 

none Wildlife: This is a 

shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. 

Mcleod Bay 56 air miles south 

of Craig on Dall Island. 

Haida Village 

none Wildlife: This is a 

shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. Rocky shorelines may provide habitat for black oystercatchers. Disturbance to black 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 118 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

oystercatchers is a concern. See mitigation measures. 

Pond Bay 49 air miles from 

Craig on the southeast corner of Dall Island. Unharvested 

Sealaska none Wildlife: This is a 

shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. 

Security Cove 

52 air miles south of Craig on Dall Island. 

none none Wildlife: This is a 

shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. Trumpeter swans, waterfowl, and loons have been recorded in this area. Disturbance to waterfowl is a concern. 

Wolk Harbor 56 air miles south 

of Craig on Dall Island. 

private land nearby 

none Wildlife: This is a 

shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 119 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 120 

Table A- 17) Group 15 Recreation Use Areas with Service Days (SDs) 

Recreation Use 

Area 

Access Area Uses Recreation 

Visitor 

Capacity 

(SDs) 

Highest 

Annual 

Use1

Alternative 

12 (SDs) 

Alternative 

23 (SDs) 

A

Fisherman Cove Shore hunting, fishing 847 3 0 424 Gold Harbor Shore hunting, fishing 282 2 0 141 Hook Arm Shore hunting, fishing 847 4 0 424 Sakie Bay Shore hunting 847 2 20 424 Waterfall Bay Shore hunting 847 3 0 424 TOTAL 3,670 14 20 1,837 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

Fisherman Cove 

About 45 miles south of Craig by boat to northwest coast of Dall Island. Remote, undeveloped area. Old Growth forest and open ocean coast. 

none nearby none Wildlife: This is a 

shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. Rocky shorelines provide habitat for black oystercatchers. Disturbance to black oystercatchers is a concern. See mitigation measures. Grey whales have 

1 This is the highest outfitter and guide use reported from 2005 to 2009. The number of permitted days appears in Alternative 1, the no action alternativ2 Alternative 1 – rows have zeros if there is no permitted use in those areas this year; however, there has been past use and will probably be use in the fu3 Additional limitations related to fishing and/or hunting apply to the action alternatives as described in Chapter 2 of the EA 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 121 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

been seen south of Fisherman Cove. 

Gold Harbor About 45 miles 

south of Craig by boat to northwest coast of Dall Island. Remote, undeveloped area. Old Growth forest and open ocean coast. 

none nearby none Wildlife: This is a 

shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. Rocky shorelines may provide habitat for nesting black oystercatchers. Disturbance to black oystercatchers is a concern. See mitigation measures. 

Hook Arm About 45 miles 

south of Craig by boat to northwest coast of Dall Island. Remote, undeveloped area. Old Growth forest and open ocean coast. 

Private land close to north 

none Recreation:

Developed area may be seen and/or heard. 

Wildlife: This is a shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. Rocky shorelines found here may provide habitat for black oystercatchers. Disturbance to black oystercatchers is a concern. See mitigation measures. 

Sakie Bay 29 air miles south 

of Craig on Dall Island. 

Sealaska none Wildlife: This is a 

shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. Known sea lion haulout occurs at 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 122 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communities and 

non-NFS 

Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource 

Information

Resource 

Information

Sakie Point. 

Waterfall Bay 37 air miles south 

of Craig on Dall Island. 

Sealaska none Wildlife: This is a 

shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 123 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 124 

Table A- 18) Group 16 Recreation Use Areas with Service Days (SDs) 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Access Area Uses Recreation 

Visitor 

Capacity 

(SDs) 

Highest 

Annual 

Use1

Alternative 

12 (SDs) 

Alternative 

23 (SDs) 

A

Aats Bay Shore Most people beach comb or look at caves. 309 24 63 155 China Cove Shore Most people beach comb or look at caves. 309 36 63 155 Cora Point Shore Most people beach comb or look at caves. 309 55 42 155 Egg Harbor Shore hiking 309 29 20 155 Spanish Islands Shore camping 309 24 0 155 Windy Bay Shore camping 309 24 63 155 TOTAL 1,854 192 251 930 

Recreation Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communitie

s and nonNFS Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource Information

Resource Information

Aats Bay Coronation 

Wilderness Area. 50 air miles from Craig. Old Growth but small trees. Rugged shoreline. Sea caves. 

none nearby none Recreation: Locals 

want undeveloped access so that there is less competition to favored sites 

Wilderness: Wilderness regs. must apply to all activities 

Wildlife: This is a shore access siterefer to shore site concerns. Rocky shorelines may provide habitat fonesting black oystercatchers. Disturbance to black oystercatchers is a concern. See 

1 This is the highest outfitter and guide use reported from 2005 to 2009. The number of permitted days appears in Alternative 1, the no action alternativ2 Alternative 1 – rows have zeros if there is no permitted use in those areas this year; however, there has been past use and will probably be use in the fu3 Additional limitations related to fishing and/or hunting apply to the action alternatives as described in Chapter 2 of the EA 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 125 

Recreation Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communitie

s and nonNFS Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource Information

Resource Information

mitigation measures. 

China Cove Coronation 

Wilderness Area. 50 air miles from Craig. Old Growth but small trees. Rugged shoreline. Sea caves. Challenging due to remoteness and lack of roads. 

none nearby none Recreation: Used by 

a permit holder. No signs of use evident during monitoring 

Wilderness: Wilderness regs. must apply to all activities 

Wildlife: This is a shore access siterefer to shore site concerns. Steep cliff walls may make appropriate habitat for nestinseabirds and peregrine falcons

Cora Point Coronation 

Wilderness Area. 50 air miles from Craig. Old Growth but small trees. Rugged shoreline. Sea caves. 

none nearby none Recreation: Use by 

permit holder. Monitoring has shown little evidence of use. 

Wilderness: Wilderness regs. must apply to all activities 

Wildlife: This is a shore access siterefer to shore site concerns. 

Egg Harbor Coronation 

Wilderness Area. 50 air miles from Craig. Old Growth but small trees. Rugged shoreline. Sea caves. Access occurs by floatplane or boat and is challenging due to remoteness and lack of roads. 

none nearby none Botany: Rare plant 

populations known near the shoreline. Recommend future monitoring. 

Wilderness: areas within wilderness have had observable social and resource impacts for the past several years during wilderness monitoring trips. Wilderness regs. must apply to all activities; consider recommendation that commercial 

Wildlife: This is a shore access siterefer to shore site concerns. Mud osand flats that may be good habitat for shorebirds. Rockshorelines may provide habitat foblack oystercatchers. Disturbance to black oystercatchers is 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix A, Recreation Use Cards – Page 126 

Recreation Use Area 

Location Nearby 

Communitie

s and nonNFS Land 

Forest 

Service 

Facilities

Resource 

Information 

Resource Information

Resource Information

outfitter and guide services be restricted. 

a concern. See mitigation measures. Criticahabitat is identifiefor a sea lion haulout at Alikula Bay just east of Egg Harbor. No shore landing is authorized in Alikula Bay within 3000 feet of the Coronation Island sea lion haulout site. 

Spanish Islands 

52 air miles northwest of Craig in the Coronation Island Wilderness. 

none none Wilderness: 

Wilderness regs. must apply to all activities 

Wildlife: This is a shore access site; refer to shore site concerns. Offshore seabird species may occur here. 

Windy Bay 52 air miles 

northwest of Craig in the Coronation Island Wilderness. 

none none Botany: Several 

known rare plant populations. Recommend future surveys of high use areas and follow-up monitoring. 

Wilderness: Wilderness regs. must apply to all activities 

Wildlife: This is a shore access siterefer to shore site concerns. 
Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis 

Amended August, 2011 

Craig Ranger District Thorne Bay Ranger District

Prepared By: /s Melanie M. Slayton Date: 12/15/2010 

Amended By: /s Melanie M. Slayton Date: 08/31/2011 

____________________________________________________________________________________

Appendix B, Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis - Page 1
Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis ii

____________________________________________________________ Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan ____________________________________________________________________________________

Appendix B, Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis - Page 2
Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis iii

CONTENTS 

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1

Purpose ..................................................................................................................................... 1

Study Area ................................................................................................................................. 1

Tourism and Tourism Economics .............................................................................................. 3

Southeast Alaska ............................................................................................................ 3

Prince of Wales ............................................................................................................... 3

Recreation Visitor Capacity ....................................................................................................... 3

Data Collection................................................................................................................ 4

Data Errors ..................................................................................................................... 4

Business Locations ......................................................................................................... 5

Types of Use ................................................................................................................... 6

Access ............................................................................................................................ 8

Locations ........................................................................................................................ 9

Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 12

Recreation Visitor Capacity ........................................................................................... 12

Maximum Group Size ................................................................................................... 12

Encounters .................................................................................................................... 13

Season Days ................................................................................................................ 14

Temporal Displacement Factor ..................................................................................... 15

Service Day Conversion Ratio ...................................................................................... 16

Proximity ....................................................................................................................... 16

Applying the Formula .................................................................................................... 16

Conflicting Activity Types .............................................................................................. 17

Areas of Concern .......................................................................................................... 18

Recommendations ................................................................................................................... 19

Monitoring ..................................................................................................................... 19

Capacity Issues ............................................................................................................. 19

Activity Type Conflict ..................................................................................................... 19

Big Game Hunting Allocations ...................................................................................... 19

Amendments ........................................................................................................................... 19

New Locations .............................................................................................................. 19

Split Locations............................................................................................................... 20

____________________________________________________________ Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan ____________________________________________________________________________________

Appendix B, Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis - Page 3
Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis iv

Combined Locations ..................................................................................................... 21

Removed Locations ...................................................................................................... 21

Works Cited ............................................................................................................................. 22

Appendix .................................................................................................................................. 23

Cover Photo: El Capitan Cave Entrance – from the inside looking out

Figures 

Figure 1 - Map of the Study Area ............................................................................................... 2

Figure 2 – Outfitter-Guides by Business Location ..................................................................... 5

Figure 3 – Percentage of Use by Activity Type .......................................................................... 6

Figure 5 - Activity Type Trends .................................................................................................. 7

Figure 4 - Count of Outfitter-Guides by Activity Type by Year ................................................... 7

Figure 6 - Locations by Access Method ..................................................................................... 8

Figure 7 - Percentage of Use by Access Method ...................................................................... 8

Figure 8 - Percentage of Use by Activity Type and Access ....................................................... 9

Figure 9 - Outfitter Guide Use Map .......................................................................................... 11

Figure 10 – Recreation Visitor Capacity Formula .................................................................... 12

Figure 11 - El Capitan Cave Tour Commercial Use Calculation .............................................. 15

Figure 12 - Dog Salmon Fishpass Commercial Use Calculation ............................................. 15

Figure 13 - Recreation Visitor Capacity Calculation Example .................................................. 17

Tables 

Table 1 - Data Errors ................................................................................................................. 4

Table 2 - Business Locations ..................................................................................................... 5

Table 3 - Years in Operation by Business Location ................................................................... 5

Table 4 - Activity Types ............................................................................................................. 6

Table 5 – Location Days by Activity Type .................................................................................. 7

Table 6 – Location Days by Activity Type and Access Method .................................................. 9

Table 7 - Location Attributes ...................................................................................................... 9

Table 8- Top 10 Locations ....................................................................................................... 10

Table 9 - Group Size Statistics ................................................................................................ 12

Table 10 - Social Encounters Indicator .................................................................................... 13

Table 11 - MROS by LUD ........................................................................................................ 13

Table 12 - Encounters ............................................................................................................. 14

Table 13 – Season Days by Activity Type ............................................................................... 14

Table 14 – Temporal Displacement Factor by Access Method ................................................ 15

Table 15 - Service Day Conversion Ratio ................................................................................ 16

Table 16 - Activity Type Conflicts ............................................................................................ 18

____________________________________________________________ Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan ____________________________________________________________________________________

Appendix B, Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis - Page 4
Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis v

Table 17 - Areas of Concern for Conflicting Activity Types ...................................................... 18

Table 18 - New Locations ........................................................................................................ 20

Table 19 - Split Locations ........................................................................................................ 21

Table 20 - Combined Locations ............................................................................................... 21

Table 21 - Removed Locations ................................................................................................ 21

Table 22 - Use Statistics by Location ...................................................................................... 23

____________________________________________________________ Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan ____________________________________________________________________________________

Appendix B, Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis - Page 5
Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis 1

INTRODUCTION 

The need for a recreation visitor capacity analysis was identified in 

response to several factors: a management decision to cap the 

number of guided bear hunts allowed; a perception by ADF&G that 

there were too many guided bear hunts allowed; new Forest Service 

Handbook direction allowing the issuance of 10-year priority use 

outfitter-guide permits; and a perception of overcrowding by local 

residents and Forest Service personnel. 

PURPOSE 

The carrying capacity model provides a basis for examining several important interactions: 

between supply and demand considerations, between concerns about resource conditions and 

perceived recreational quality, and between the quantity of recreational opportunities supplied 

and the quality of experiences derived from them (Stankey & Manning, 1986). 

The purpose of this analysis is to determine a sustainable level of outfitter-guide use on the 

Thorne Bay and Craig Ranger Districts, while limiting impacts to the environment, local 

economy and visitor experience. 

STUDY AREA 

The study area includes all of the Thorne Bay and Craig Ranger Districts, Tongass National 

Forest, Alaska. Thorne Bay and Craig Ranger Districts are located primarily on Prince of 

Wales Island. 

Prince of Wales (POW) Island and its surrounding islands are part of the Alexander 

Archipelago located at the southeastern end of the Alaskan mainland. The island is 135 miles 

long and 45 miles wide, encompassing an area of 2,577 mi2. There are over 990 miles of 

coastline within the study area. 

The temperate climate is influenced by the Japanese current and gives Prince of Wales Island 

between 60 and 200 inches of precipitation per year. Mean temperatures range from around 

35 degrees in January to about 58 degrees in July. Daylight on the longest day of the year is 

about 151⁄2 hours with about 7 hours on the shortest day of the year. Most of the island is 

characterized by steep, forested mountains (2,000-3,000 feet high) carved by glacial ice which 

left deep U-shaped valleys with streams, lakes, saltwater straits and bays. The forest is made 

up of Sitka spruce and western hemlock with some western red and yellow cedar, alder, and 

shore pine. Sitka black tailed deer and black bear are the primary game animals, and the 

island supports several packs of wolves. The streams and lakes contain a variety of trout, and 

all of the major drainages have a salmon spawning run. Eagles are a 

common sight and waterfowl abound during the nesting season 

(Prince of Wales Chamber of Commerce, 2008). 

Prince of Wales Island has more roads than any other area in 

southeast Alaska. Many of these roads are the legacy of the island's 

timber industry. POW boasts about 105 miles of paved road, nearly 

155 miles of improved gravel roads, and over 2,000 miles of shot-rock 

logging roads (USDA Forest Service, 2008). 

Black Bear in Alpine

Mount Calder

____________________________________________________________ Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan ____________________________________________________________________________________

Appendix B, Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis - Page 6
Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis 2

Figure 1 - Map of the Study Area 

 

____________________________________________________________ Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan ____________________________________________________________________________________

Appendix B, Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis - Page 7
Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis 3

TOURISM AND TOURISM ECONOMICS 

Southeast Alaska 

Recreation opportunities in Southeast Alaska are growing with 

increased tourism to the area. Nearly 1 million tourists visited 

Southeast Alaska in 2004 (Cerveny, 2005), with seventy-five 

percent arriving by cruise ship. Non-cruise tourists tend to either 

utilize package deals designed to provide transportation, lodging, 

meals and activities or visit as independent travelers. These 

independent travelers design their own travel itineraries and tend 

to utilize public transportation systems and stay in the local 

communities. For the majority of Alaska visitors, it is important to 

experience the natural resources, cultural history and wildness of the region. Many have 

expectations of seeing glaciers, wildlife or being able to bring home wild game and fish. 

According to Cerveny (2005), “tourism providers often rely on public lands to bring guest closer 

to glaciers, bears, and whales.” For example, in 1998, 262 outfitter and guide permits were 

issued for commercial use of the Tongass National Forest (USDA Forest Service, 1999). In 

2001, it was estimated that 188,000 visitors participated in guided commercial tours on 

Tongass National Forest lands (Cerveny, 2005). The direct and indirect economic value of 

tourism to Alaska is estimated to be $1.5 billion, and provides approximately 26,000 jobs 

(Global Insight, 2004). Recreation opportunities on the Tongass National Forest are an 

important part of Alaska’s tourism and economic sustainability. 

Prince of Wales 

Prince of Wales Island tourism is limited by its remoteness. Cruise ships do not travel to 

Prince of Wales and until recently, the ferry system only traveled to Prince of Wales once a 

week and the island road system was not paved between most of the island communities. 

Federal Highway grants, however, have expanded the paved road system throughout the 

island, while the new privately owned Inter-island ferry system transports people to Prince of 

Wales on a daily basis. A newly constructed ferry terminal in Coffman Cove and continued 

road development are predicted to increase tourism to the island. The majority of tourists to 

Prince of Wales Island and the surrounding area come to fish and 

hunt. Independent travelers comprise a small percentage of the 

area’s tourism. The extensive road system provides a unique 

tourism opportunity in Southeast Alaska for access to fishing, 

hunting and other forms of recreation. 

RECREATION VISITOR CAPACITY 

There are many methods for determining recreation visitor capacity, ranging from a simple 

calculation of total area divided by desired user density, to a complex planning and 

management framework. Factors that can affect recreation capacity are related to facility 

design, social expectations, and land management policy and direction. 

Ultimately, capacity is a measurement of volume or “how much”, and is most easily understood 

as a numerical value. A mathematical formula is used to determine the number of recreation 

Nearly 1 million tourists

visited Southeast 

Alaska in 2004. 

Interpretive sign at Beaver Falls Trail

____________________________________________________________ Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan ____________________________________________________________________________________

Appendix B, Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis - Page 8
Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis 4

visitors that can be accommodated at a recreation location, while balancing the need for a 

variety of visitor experiences, and following Forest Plan direction. 

The two dynamics, a variety of visitor experience and following Forest Plan direction, have 

been distilled into several variables and constants, which will be described in the following 

sections. The recreation visitor capacity has been calculated for every location that has 

reported use or has been requested for use by an outfitter-guide using the Recreation Visitor 

Capacity Formula. 

Data Collection 

Outfitter-guides permitted to operate within the analysis area are required to return actual use 

reports recording the type of use, location and number of clients. The actual use reports are 

used by permit administrators to determine the annual fees paid by each guide and to evaluate 

their performance. The actual use data is also used for statistical analysis. This resource 

capacity analysis is based on actual use reports submitted by permitted outfitters and guides 

operating between 2004 and 2008, the analysis period.

It is important to note that the number of days derived from the actual use reports used in this 

analysis represent location days, not service days or recreation visitor days. The Forest 

Service Handbook (FSH 2709.11 §41.53d) defines service days as: An allocation of use 

constituting a day or any part of a day on National Forest System (NFS) lands for which an 

outfitter or guide provides services to a client. The total number of service days is calculated 

by multiplying each service day by the number of clients on the trip. Service days are used to 

calculate fees paid by outfitter-guides and often a service day may be used in multiple 

locations or represent more than one activity, if the activities are similar. 

The term Recreation Visitor Day, or RVD, is equal to 12 hours of recreation use on National 

Forest System lands or water by an outfitted or guided client(s). One RVD may be one client 

for 12 hours, 12 clients for one hour, or any combination that equals 12 hours of use on 

National Forest System lands. The inherent problem with using RVDs to determine recreation 

carrying capacity at a location is that it assumes that there is no difference between one client 

for 12 hours and 12 clients for one hour. 

A location day represents 1 client in 1 location, regardless of the fee paid or time spent on NFS 

lands. This distinction is most noticeable when dealing with big game hunts, which are 

allocated as 1 hunt = 1 client. A single hunt may represent 14 days of use with multiple 

locations visited each day. 

Data Errors 

There are several known data errors that have been mitigated in this report: 

Table 1 - Data Errors 

Error Type Mitigation 

Data Entry Reviewed original actual use report. 

Activity Similar activities were consolidated. For example, Hunting – Black Bear 

(Camping) and Hunting – Black Bear (Day Use) were combined into Hunting – 

Black Bear. 

Location Some locations merited consolidation. For example, Old Tom Creek and Tom 

Creek were recorded as separate locations. Note: the location name retained 

____________________________________________________________ Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan ____________________________________________________________________________________

Appendix B, Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis - Page 9
Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis 5

in the data was verified in the Geographic Name Information System. 

Missing Data One of the more active outfitter-guides operating on Prince of Wales was 

unable to return an actual use report in 2005. After reviewing the available 

actual use records for the analysis period, the actual use data for 2006 was 

duplicated for 2005. The total actual use for this guide in 2006 was less than 

in 2004, which should prevent a false inflation of actual use. 

Business Locations 

A total of 50 outfitter-guides operated on the Prince of Wales Island Districts during 2004-2008. 

The business location for each outfitter-guide is determined by the address on the most current 

business license submitted as part of their annual operating plan and has been characterized 

as one of the following: 

Table 2 - Business Locations 

Business Location Description 

Prince of Wales Island Prince of Wales and surrounding islands 

Southeast Alaska Southeast Alaska – exclusive of Prince of Wales and surrounding islands 

Alaska Alaska – exclusive of Prince of Wales Island and the rest of Southeast 

Alaska 

Outside Alaska Outside of Alaska 

Seventy six percent of the businesses were located within Alaska, primarily in the Southeast. 

Twelve outfitter-guide businesses were located outside of Alaska. 

Figure 2 – Outfitter-Guides by Business Location 

There were a total of 16

outfitter‐guides providing

services from Prince of

Wales Island communities

during the analysis period.

Twenty one outfitter‐guides

were based out of nearby

Southeast Alaskan

communities.

Table 3 - Years in Operation by Business Location 

1 2 3 4 5 Total Thirty percent of the

outfitter‐guides

operated all 5 years,

while another 30%

operated for only a

single year.

Total 15 11 8 1 15 50 

Prince of Wales Island 4 6 2 1 3 16 

Southeast Alaska 7 3 3 0 8 21 

Alaska 0 0 1 0 0 1 

Outside Alaska 4 2 2 0 4 12 

1

Alaska

12

Outside Alaska

16

Prince of Wales

21

Southeast Alaska

Prince of Wales 32.0%

Southeast Alaska 42.0%

Alaska 2.0%

Outside Alaska 24.0%

Total: 100.0%

____________________________________________________________ Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan ____________________________________________________________________________________

Appendix B, Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis - Page 10
Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis 6

Types of Use 

There were a total of 16 different activities 

recorded during 2004-2008 by outfitter-guides 

within the analysis area. The activities ranged 

from passive, short term activities such as 

wildlife viewing to more active, multi-day 

activities like big game hunting. These activities 

have been grouped into six activity types, based 

on similarity of experience, in order to better 

understand the nature of outfitter-guide use 

within the analysis area. 

Prior to 2004, fishing was the dominant use. 

The increase in passive touring can be 

attributed to several operators that began 

providing fly-in nature viewing opportunities to 

cruise ship visitors from Ketchikan. The almost 

steady increase in location days since 2004 

indicates that passive touring is likely to remain 

the dominant use in the future. 

Figure 3 – Percentage of Use by Activity Type 

During the analysis

period, passive touring

represented 52.9% of the

guided use in the analysis

area.  Combined with

fishing (24.3%), they

comprise more than 77%

of the outfitter‐guide

services on Prince of

Wales and surrounding

islands.  Hunting

represents 12.2% of

location days, followed

by active touring with

8.7%.

Active Touring

Camping

Hunting Fishing

Passive Touring

Active Touring 8.7%

Camping 1.8%

Fishing 24.3%

Hunting 12.2%

Passive Touring 52.9%

Total: 100.0%

Table 4 - Activity Types 

Activity Type Activity 

Active Touring Biking 

Hiking 

Kayaking 

Camping Camping 

Fishing Fishing 

Steelhead Fishing 

Hunting Black Bear 

Deer 

Waterfowl 

Wolf 

Combination Hunts 

Passive Touring Nature Viewing 

Sightseeing 

Wildlife Viewing 

*One of the above Outfitting 

Transporting 

____________________________________________________________ Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan ____________________________________________________________________________________

Appendix B, Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis - Page 11
Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis 7

Table 5 – Location Days by Activity Type 

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total 

The reduced number of

location days in 2007 is

due to an accident that

shut down one operator

for several weeks.

Total 3,076 3,207 3,391 2,834 3,325 15,833 

Active Touring 398 224 255 327 171 1,375 

Camping 8 48 88 84 60 288 

Fishing 911 946 759 599 633 3,848 

Hunting 429 286 348 347 529 1,939 

Passive Touring 1,330 1,703 1,941 1,477 1,932 8,383 

Ten operators provided active 

touring during the analysis period. 

The largest, providing 1,115 

location days, began operating in 

2004, and accounts for more than 

80% of all Active Touring on 

Prince of Wales Island. 

Camping represents the least 

amount of commercial use on 

Prince of Wales and surrounding 

islands. Camping use almost 

doubled in 2006; however the use 

levels are still low. 

Fishing and hunting combined 

represent 36.5% of the total location days during the analysis period. The number of hunting 

guides is stable due to an administrative cap on the number of guided black bear hunts 

allowed in the analysis area. There have been requests from existing guides for additional 

hunts, as well as new proposals for additional big game guiding. 

Figure 5 - Activity Type Trends 

Guided fishing location days

peaked in 2004 and 2005, but

have dropped back down to

prior levels.  The number of

guides offering freshwater

fishing peaked and stabilized

correspondingly.

0

400

800

1200

1600

2000

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Active Touring

Camping

Fishing

Hunting

Passive Touring

Year

Location Days

Figure 4 - Count of Outfitter-Guides by Activity Type by Year 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

3 5 4 5 3

1

2

1 1

2

21 16

15 13 13

9

6

9

7 8

6

5 4

7 6

Passive Touring

Hunting

Fishing

Camping

Active Touring

Year

Outfitter‐Guides

____________________________________________________________ Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan ____________________________________________________________________________________

Appendix B, Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis - Page 12
Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis 8

Access 

There are three methods of access: road, shore, and remote. To be considered road 

accessible, a location needs to be within easy walking distance of a road. Similarly, shore 

accessible locations are near the shore. A location that is considered remote is only accessible 

by float plane or hiking a considerable distance. The type of access designated to a location is 

determined by the simplest form of access available. For example, although the 

preponderance of use at the Dog Salmon Fishpass is accessed by float plane, the site itself is 

road accessible. On Prince of Wales and the surrounding islands there are 113 shore 

accessible locations, 60 accessible by road, and only 13 remote locations identified as 

currently in use by outfitter-guides, based on the actual use reports for the study period. Refer 

to the Locations section on page 9 for more information. 

Figure 6 - Locations by Access Method 

Although there are almost twice as

many shore accessible locations, use

at road accessible locations

represents 71.5% of all outfitter‐guide

use within the analysis area.  This is

not surprising as there are more than

2,000 miles of road on Prince of Wales

Island.

Only sites on the road system of Prince of Wales Island are considered road accessible. 

Although a few of the larger surrounding islands have an extensive logging road system, the 

islands themselves are not connected with Southeast Alaska by a ferry system. Thus, any 

vehicle use on these islands represents a significant investment in time, money and energy; 

and all sites not on the shore of the surrounding islands are considered remote. 

Figure 7 - Percentage of Use by Access Method 

Shore use accounts for 25.6% of the

total use during the analysis period,

while remote use accounts for 2.9%

of outfitter‐guide use.  The analysis

area contains 4,787 miles of

shoreline.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Remote Road Shore

13

60

113

Remote

Road

Shore

Access Method

Count of Locations

2.9%

Remote

71.5%

Road

25.6%

Shore

Remote 2.9%

Road 71.5%

Shore 25.6%

Total: 100.0%

____________________________________________________________ Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan ____________________________________________________________________________________

Appendix B, Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis - Page 13
Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis 9

Passive touring is the dominant activity type, regardless the access method. But for road 

accessible locations this represents a distortion of the actual access method, as a single 

operator provided 5,721 location days at Dog Salmon Fishpass during the analysis period. 

And, although Dog Salmon Fishpass is located on the road system, the outfitter-guide was 

providing floatplane based wildlife viewing to cruise ship tourists from Ketchikan. Thus, the 

typical activity types actually accessed by road within the analysis area would be fishing, active 

touring, and hunting. 

Figure 8 - Percentage of Use by Activity Type and Access 

Table 6 – Location Days by Activity Type and Access Method 

 Road Shore Remote Total For shore accessible locations,

passive touring and hunting are

the dominant activity types,

while passive touring and fishing

are the activity types of choice

for remote locations.

Total 11,320 4,057 456 15,833 

Active Touring 1,164 211 0 1,375 

Camping 30 258 0 288 

Fishing 3,602 120 126 3,848 

Hunting 571 1,306 62 1,939 

Passive Touring 5,953 2,162 268 8,383 

Locations 

During the analysis period 186 locations were identified as used by outfitter-guides. Every 

location can be uniquely described by several attributes: 

Table 7 - Location Attributes 

Attribute Description 

Dominant Activity The activity type with the most use reported. This may vary over 

time as commercial use patterns change. 

Access Method Road, Shore, or Remote. Refer to section on Access. 

Land Use Designation (LUD) Determined by the Forest Plan. 

Managed Recreation 

Opportunity Spectrum (MROS) 

Determined by LUD and Forest Plan. Refer to section on 

Encounters. 

Of the top ten locations, five rank in the top ten for fishing, four for passive touring, and one for 

active touring. 

10.3%

31.8% 0.3%

5.0%

52.6%

Road

5.2%

6.4%

3.0%

32.2%

53.3%

Shore

27.6%

13.6%

58.8%

Remote

Active Touring

Camping

Fishing

Hunting

Passive Touring

Values less than 1% not shown.

____________________________________________________________ Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan ____________________________________________________________________________________

Appendix B, Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis - Page 14
Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis 10

The top 5 active touring locations are all found on the north end of Prince of Wales Island, and 

can be attributed to a single outfitter-guide providing services from the nearby community of 

Whale Pass. As active touring requires a certain level of coordination, transportation and, 

often, equipment, it is no surprise that all of these locations are on the road system and that 

three of the locations are trails or recreation sites maintained by the Forest Service. 

All 5 top camping locations are located along the shoreline in the Coronation Island 

Wilderness, one of the outlying islands to the northwest of POW Island, where a single 

operator provides an annual, week-long camping/kayaking expedition for a small group. 

The top five fishing locations are all in the top ten for overall use. They are also road 

accessible, near communities, and popular fishing locations for local residents, subsistence 

fishing, and unguided visitors. 

Four of the five top locations for hunting are located on the southeast coast of Prince of Wales 

Island. Two of the locations are road accessible. The other 3 are shore accessible. However, 

more than 80% of all guided hunts are conducted by motorized boat, and only a single guide 

provides hunting on the road system. 

The top five passive touring locations are all located on the south end of POW, most likely due 

to its proximity to Ketchikan and the large number of cruise ship passengers seeking 

flightseeing tours. Four of the sites are shore accessible, 3 of which are located in the South 

Prince of Wales Wilderness. The 5th site, Dog Salmon Fishpass, is ranked #1 for overall use, 

where a single operator represents 100% of all the guided use. 

Table 8- Top 10 Locations 

Top Ten Locations 

Touring 

Active 

Camping

Fishing 

Hunting 

Touring 

Passive 

Location Rank Access Total

Dog Salmon Fishpass 1 Road 5,721 5,721 

Thorne River 2 Road 867 6 861 

Staney Creek 3 Road 690 684 4 2

Klakas Inlet 4 Shore 581 12 41 528 

Harris River 5 Road 508 1 482 25

Max Cove 6 Shore 396 25 371 

El Capitan Cave 7 Road 384 383 1

Hunter Bay 8 Shore 256 18 12 226 

Luck Lake 9 Road 248 248 

Hatchery Creek 10 Road 240 240 

____________________________________________________________ Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan ____________________________________________________________________________________

Appendix B, Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis - Page 15
Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis 11

Figure 9 - Outfitter Guide Use Map 

 

____________________________________________________________ Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan ____________________________________________________________________________________

Appendix B, Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis - Page 16
Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis 12

ANALYSIS 

Recreation Visitor Capacity 

In order to identify areas of concern, it is first necessary to determine if the level of use at a 

location has exceeded a definable quantity, or capacity. It is equally important to be able to 

adapt to changes in visitor use patterns, and incorporate new requests for commercial use into 

the current mix of recreation opportunities. For this analysis, the recreation visitor capacity will 

be determined for every location that has reported use by an outfitter-guide using the following 

formula: 

Figure 10 – Recreation Visitor Capacity Formula 

Maximum Group Size (MG)* Encounters (E) * Season Days (SD) x Service Day Conversion Ratio Temporal Displacement Factor (TD) 

The Maximum Group Size is multiplied by the number of Encounters allowed between 

groups. This gives the number of location days per day. Multiplying the number of 

location days per day by the number of days in a season (Season Days) results in the 

maximum number of location days per year. Divide the maximum number of location 

days per year by the Temporal Displacement Factor and the result is the Recreation 

Visitor Capacity expressed in location days. Finally, multiply the recreation visitor 

capacity by the ratio of location days to service days (Service Day Conversion Ratio). 

The result is the recreation visitor capacity, expressed in service days. 

This same formula will be used to determine the capacity of locations that may be used in the 

future. The variables for calculating the recreation visitor capacity of a location are detailed in 

the following sections. 

Maximum Group Size 

Group sizes tend to vary according to activity type, with 12 being the largest recorded group 

size. The term “capacity” implies a maximum amount; consequently, a Maximum Group Size 

constant has been determined, based on the following group size statistics developed from 

actual use data for the analysis period. The exception is fishing, which has an established 

maximum group size of 6, based on current planning decisions. (USDA Forest Service, 1998) 

Table 9 - Group Size Statistics 

Group Size 

Statistics 

Smallest 

Group 

Size 

Average 

Group 

Size 

Largest 

Group 

Size 

Maximum 

Group 

Size 

Activity Type 

Active Touring 1 4 12 12 

Camping 2 7 12 12 

Fishing 1 3 12 6 

Hunting 1 2 6 6 

Passive Touring 1 6 12 12 

____________________________________________________________ Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan ____________________________________________________________________________________

Appendix B, Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis - Page 17
Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis 13

Encounters 

A discussion regarding Encounters starts with a discussion of the Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum (ROS). ROS is a classification system used to describe recreation settings. 

Recreation settings are diverse and range from primitive to urban, with all the variations in 

between. (USDA Forest Service, 1982) The Tongass National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan (Forest Plan) directs recreation specialists to use the ROS system to 

assess the potential effects of activities on recreation settings. (USDA Forest Service, 2008) 

Each ROS class has seven setting indicators: Scenic Quality, Access, Remoteness, Visitor 

Management, On-site Recreation Development, Social Encounters, and Visitor Impacts. Each 

setting indicator has applicable standards and guidelines for managing the setting. For 

example, the standards and guidelines for the Primitive class, Visitor Impact indicator states: 

Visitor-caused impacts to resources are slight and usually not noticeable the following 

year. Site hardening is limited to boardwalk trails and necessary boat moorings or bearproof food caches and rustic public recreation cabins. 

Using the ROS system allows land managers to quantify levels of use, typically defined as 

Low, Moderate or High. In analyzing outfitter-guide use at a location, the most meaningful 

indicator is Social Encounters. 

Table 10 - Social Encounters Indicator 

Social Encounters Indicator 

High Moderate Low 

ROS Class 

Primitive >3 3 1 

Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized >10 10 3 

Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized - Wilderness >6 6 3

Semi-Primitive Motorized >10 10 3 

Roaded Natural >20 20 10

Roaded Modified >20 20 10 

Rural No limit 

Urban No limit 

The Managed Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (MROS) determines which ROS Class to 

apply to each location. The MROS describes the desired condition for a location and can be 

found in the Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) by 

referencing the Recreation and Tourism Standards and Guidelines for the Land Use 

Designation (LUD) for each location. The following table represents the MROS for each LUD: 

Table 11 - MROS by LUD 

LUD MROS 

Experimental Forest (EF) Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized/Semi-Primitive Motorized 

Land Use Designation II (L2) Primitive/ Semi-Primitive Motorized 

Modified Landscape (ML) Roaded Modified 

Old Growth (OG) Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized/Semi-Primitive Motorized 

Recreational River (RR) Roaded Natural 

Research Natural Area (RA) Primitive 

Remote Recreation (RM) Primitive 

Scenic River (SR) Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized/Semi-Primitive Motorized 

____________________________________________________________ Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan ____________________________________________________________________________________

Appendix B, Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis - Page 18
Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis 14

Scenic Viewshed (SV) Adopt MROS of surrounding LUDs. 

Semi-Remote Recreation (SM) Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized/Semi-Primitive Motorized 

Special Interest Area (SA) Primitive/ Semi-Primitive Motorized 

Timber Production (TM) Roaded Modified 

Wild River (WR) Primitive/ Semi-Primitive Motorized 

Wilderness (WW) Primitive 

Where there are two ROS classes, the access type will determine which applies. For example, 

Cavern Lake Trail and Paul Young Creek are both located within an Old Growth LUD (OG). 

The MROS for Cavern Lake Trail is Semi-Primitive Motorized, because it is accessible by road. 

The MROS for Paul Young Creek is Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized, because it is not 

accessible by road. 

Due to the relatively isolated nature of the study area, the expense of travel, and the level of 

difficulty to access even the highest use locations, a Social Encounters Indicator of Low will be 

the default level of use for all locations and activities within the study area. 

The values for encounters are determined by the dominant activity type, and the Managed 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (MROS) class of each location. 

Table 12 - Encounters 

Encounters

MROS Class 

Primitive Non-Motorized Semi-Primitive Motorized Semi-Primitive Roaded Natural Modified Roaded 

Activity Type 

Active Touring 1 3 3 10 10 

Big Game Hunting 1 3 3 10 10 

Camping 1 3 3 10 10 

Fishing 1 3 3 10 10 

Passive Touring 1 3 3 10 10 

Season Days 

The numbers of days in a season varies by activity type: 

Table 13 – Season Days by Activity Type 

Season Days Season of Use Season 

Activity Type Days 

Active Touring Jun 1 – Aug 30 92 

Camping Jun 1 – Aug 30 92 

Fishing Apr 1 - Sep 30 183 

Hunting Apr 15 – Jun 30 

Aug 15 - Nov 15 168 

Passive Touring Jun 1 – Sep 15 107 

____________________________________________________________ Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan ____________________________________________________________________________________

Appendix B, Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis - Page 19
Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis 15

Temporal Displacement Factor 

The Temporal Displacement Factor is defined as the amount by which the total number of 

location days is divided in order to allow for temporal displacement. A Temporal Displacement 

Factor (TDF) is used to mitigate the lack of management control of “when” location days are 

used. In the absence of assigning specific dates and times for the use of each location day, 

also known as a temporal visitor control, the Temporal Displacement Factor reduces the 

number of location days allowed, thus preventing some conflicts without excessive 

management oversight. 

For this analysis, the TDF is based on access method. Over 70% of all commercial use occurs 

at locations accessed by the road system. Since commercial use is a subset of recreation 

visitor use, it is safe to conclude that over 70% of all recreation visitor use will occur at road 

accessible location. Thus, a higher TDF will be needed to prevent conflicts and overuse. 

Shore accessible locations represent 25.6% of the total use, while remote accessible locations 

account for 2.9% of the total use. 

Table 14 – Temporal Displacement Factor by Access Method 

Access Method Percent of Use TDF 

Road 71.5% 4 

Shore 25.6% 3 

Remote 2.9% 2 

Exceptions 1 

There are currently two locations in the Study Area that have temporal visitor controls. El 

Capitan Cave is on the road system and has a locked gate. It is only accessible to the public 

via a guided tour. The tour is approximately 1 1⁄2 hours long, with 3 tours daily, 5 days per 

week. Tours operate from Memorial Day Weekend through Labor Day Weekend. There is a 

limit of 6 visitors per tour: 

Figure 11 - El Capitan Cave Tour Commercial Use Calculation 

6 visitors * 3 tours * (14 weeks * 5 days) 

 x Service Day Conversion Ratio (MG) (E) (SD) 

1 

(TD) 

Since 100% of visitor use at El Capitan Cave is controlled, no temporal displacement factor 

need be applied. 

Dog Salmon Fishpass is the second location with a temporal visitor control. This location is 

road accessible and has a short commercial use season - approximately 6 weeks from midJuly through the end of August. During that time, over a thousand visitors are flown in from 

Ketchikan for wildlife viewing, where a Forest Service guide provides tours 6 days per week, 4 

tours per day, with a maximum group size of 12. However, unlike El Capitan Cave, access to 

the fishpass is not physically restricted. Of the 107 season days, 36 days, or 33%, have a 

visitor control: 

Figure 12 - Dog Salmon Fishpass Commercial Use Calculation 

12 visitors * 4 tours * (6 weeks * 6 days) 

+ 

12 * 10 * (107 – 36)

x Service Day Conversion Ratio (MG) (E) (SD) (MG) (E) (SD) 

1 4 

(TD) (TD) 

____________________________________________________________ Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan ____________________________________________________________________________________

Appendix B, Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis - Page 20
Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis 16

Service Day Conversion Ratio 

The final variable in the calculating recreation visitor capacity is the Service Day Conversion 

Ratio. The Forest Service Handbook (FSH 2709.11 §41.53d) defines service days as: An 

allocation of use constituting a day or any part of a day on National Forest System (NFS) lands 

for which an outfitter or guide provides services to a client. The total number of service days is 

calculated by multiplying each service day by the number of clients on the trip. Service days 

are used to calculate fees paid by outfitter-guides and often a service day may be used in 

multiple locations or represent more than one activity, if the activities are similar. 

The data used in this analysis is based on actual use reports recorded by outfitter-guides. The 

reports provide a detailed record of each location visited, the number of clients, the activity, 

method of access, and the amount of time spent at each location visited. This very specific 

information is referred to as location days and is the most accurate data available for 

determining the impact of outfitter-guide use on the ground. A location day represents 1 client 

in 1 location, regardless of the fee paid or time spent on NFS lands. 

Since outfitter-guide use is allocated in service days, a conversion ratio was developed to 

translate location days to service days, using the actual use data. The ratio of all service days 

to all location days is 84%, which will be used as the conversion ratio for this analysis: 

Table 15 - Service Day Conversion Ratio 

Service Day 

Statistics 

Location 

Days 

Service 

Days 

Conversion 

Ratio 

Activity Type 

Active Touring 1,375 1,096 0.80 

Camping 288 222 0.77 

Fishing 3,848 3,240 0.84 

Hunting 1,939 1,756 0.91 

Passive Touring 8,383 6,917 0.83 

Total 15,833 13,231 0.84 

Proximity 

Proximity is not a variable in the formula for calculating recreation visitor capacity, it is a 

method to determine whether 2 or more locations are close enough to be considered a single 

location. Since commercial use is currently documented with actual use reports, we have a 

very thorough history of use locations. For this analysis, we have applied a 1 mile radius to all 

locations. Any use reported within 1 mile of an existing location will be assigned to that 

location. 

Applying the Formula 

To determine the recreation visitor capacity of a location, currently used or for future use 

requests, it is a 4-step process: 

1. Determine if this location is already identified in the outfitter-guide database, or, by 

proximity, can be considered an existing location. 

2. Determine the attributes of the location: 

____________________________________________________________ Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan ____________________________________________________________________________________

Appendix B, Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis - Page 21
Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis 17

a. What is the dominant or proposed activity type? Determined by checking the 

actual use records for existing locations or proposal for new locations.

b. What is the managed ROS for that location? Determined by the Land Use 

Designation of the location. See Table 11 - MROS by LUD. 

c. What is the temporal displacement factor? Determined by access type. See 

Table 14 – Temporal Displacement Factor by Access Method. 

3. Determine if there are any existing temporal visitor controls for the location. Temporal 

visitor controls require a management decision and are made during a separate study. 

Currently there are only 2 locations with temporal visitor controls: Dog Salmon 

Fishpass and El Capitan Cave. 

4. Calculate the recreation visitor capacity using the location attributes determined in Step 

1. Refer to the Figure 10 – Recreation Visitor Capacity Formula. 

The following example may make this easier to understand: 

During the study period, the Thorne River had the greatest amount of recorded commercial 

use for fishing, and ranked second for overall use. 

Location 

Total 

Use 

Highest 

Annual 

Use MROS 

Dominant 

Activity 

Access 

Touring 

Active 

Camping 

Fishing 

Hunting 

Touring 

Passive 

Thorne River 867 243 RN Fishing Road 0 6 861 0 0 

1. Determine if this location is already identified in the outfitter-guide database, or, by 

proximity, can be considered an existing location. This is an existing location.

2. Determine the attributes of the location: 

a. Dominant Activity = Fishing – Based on actual use recorded. 

b. MROS = RN – Based on the Recreational River LUD. 

c. Temporal Displacement Factor = 4 - Based on Road access type. 

3. Determine if there are any existing temporal visitor controls for the location: 

There are no temporal visitor controls on the Thorne River. 

4. Calculate the recreation visitor capacity: 

Figure 13 - Recreation Visitor Capacity Calculation Example 

6 * 10 * 183 / 4 * 84% = 2,306 Location Days 

Max 

Group 

Size 

 Encounters Season 

Days 

Temporal 

Displacement 

Factor 

Service Day 

Conversion Ratio

Recreation visitor capacity 

Conflicting Activity Types 

Certain activity types inherently conflict with other activity types. Hunting is the most obvious 

example. From the perspective of the big game hunter, encountering other recreational users 

during a hunt would be considered a negative social encounter. This is most likely to occur 

along rivers and streams where other recreational users could be fishing or wildlife viewing. 

From the other perspective, encountering a big game hunter while fishing or wildlife viewing 

would also be considered a negative social encounter. 

____________________________________________________________ Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan ____________________________________________________________________________________

Appendix B, Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis - Page 22
Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis 18

Table 16 - Activity Type Conflicts 

Activity Type Conflicting Activity Types 

Active Touring Hunting 

Hunting Active Touring 

Camping 

Fishing 

Passive Touring 

Camping Hunting 

Fishing Hunting 

Passive Touring Hunting 

Dealing with conflicting user groups is a long standing problem for public land managers. For 

this analysis, specific locations with conflicting activity types have been identified. 

Areas of Concern 

Capacity: 

Using the Recreation visitor capacity formula, the level of recreation visitor capacity was 

determined for each location currently used by Outfitter-Guides in the study area. If a location 

had different activity types with similar use numbers, the activity type with the least amount of 

capacity was used to determine capacity for that location because the lower threshold more 

accurately reflects an area of concern. Refer to Table 22 - Use Statistics by Location in the 

Appendix for the complete list. There are no locations exceeding or approaching recreation 

visitor capacity. 

Conflict: 

In order for there to be a real conflict of activity type, a location needs a minimum of five days 

of the conflicting use during the study period. Additionally, if the percent of capacity is less 

than 10%, there is no perceived conflict of activity type because the possibility of 2 outfitterguides operating in the same location at the same time is greatly reduced. These locations 

have conflicting activity types: 

Table 17 - Areas of Concern for Conflicting Activity Types 

Location 

Conflict 

Dominant use is underlined. MROS 

LUD or 

Wilderness 

Recreation 

Visitor 

Capacity 

Dominant use. 

Percent 

of 

Capacity 

Biscuit Lagoon Passive Touring vs. 

Hunting P South POW Wilderness 360 19.2% 

Hunter Bay Passive Touring vs. 

Hunting P South POW Wilderness 360 24.8% 

Klakas Inlet Passive Touring vs. 

Hunting P South POW Wilderness 360 57.9% 

Max Cove Passive Touring vs. 

Hunting P South POW Wilderness 360 27.0% 

Salmon Bay Hunting vs. Fishing P LUD II 282 14.9% 

____________________________________________________________ Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan ____________________________________________________________________________________

Appendix B, Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis - Page 23
Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis 19

RECOMMENDATIONS 

With the use of the Outfitter-Guide database and the requirement that guides turn in their 

actual use reports at the end of their operating season, the authorized officer is able to make 

timely decisions regarding capacity. All locations can be monitored each year and use can be 

diverted to similar locations, if needed. Similar locations are described as locations with the 

same access method and dominant activity type. 

Monitoring 

1. Produce an outfitter-guide use report annually, using the data provided by actual use 

reports. The report should analyze: 

a. Activity type trends 

b. Access type trends 

c. Locations that are approaching or exceeding capacity 

d. Activity type conflicts 

2. Determine if there are data gaps that need to be addressed. 

Capacity Issues 

For any location that approaches (>85%) or exceeds commercial capacity, determine a 

strategy to mitigate any problems arising from excessive commercial use at that location. 

Activity Type Conflict 

For any location that exhibits conflicting activity types, redirect the conflicting use to a similar 

location. 

Big Game Hunting Allocations 

1. Work with ADF&G to determine a sustainable number of hunts for big game. 

2. Allocate 50% of those hunts to existing big game guides as priority hunts. 

3. Use the other 50% to adapt to changing needs in the form of a priority use pool. One 

technique might be: 

a. Working with ADF&G, determine annually if the resource can support all of the 

hunts in the priority use pool. 

b. Allocate to priority use permit holders and new operators using a lottery system. 

c. Hunts relinquished by existing operators will be placed in the priority use pool. 

AMENDMENTS 

During interdisciplinary evaluation, several amendments were made to the original report. 

New Locations 

The original list of locations was determined by actual use. However, there were several 

locations that had been allocated use, but where no actual use was recorded. These locations 

were added, and the capacity for these locations was determined using the proposed dominant 

use. 

____________________________________________________________ Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan ____________________________________________________________________________________

Appendix B, Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis - Page 24
Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis 20

Table 18 - New Locations 

Location Dominant 

Activity MROS Access RV Capacity 

Alder Creek Fishing RM Road 2306 

Baker Creek Fishing RM Road 2306 

Barrier Islands Active Touring P Shore 309 

Big Creek, W. Cholmondoley Passive 

Touring SPNM Shore 1079 

Black Bear Lake Fishing RM Remote 4612 

Buster Creek Fishing RM Road 2306 

Calder Creek Fishing RM Road 2306 

Hunter Creek Fishing P Shore 307 

Kegan Creek Fishing P Shore 307 

Klakas Lake Fishing P Remote 461 

Lake Galea Active Touring SPNM Remote 1391 

Marble Creek Fishing RM Road 2306 

Monie Lake Fishing RM Remote 4612 

Niblack Lake Fishing SPNM Remote 1383 

No Name Lake, S8 T68S R 79E Fishing RM Road 2306 

Ratz Harbor Active Touring SPNM Shore 927 

Roller Bay, Noyes Island Active Touring P Shore 309 

Salmon Bay Lake Trail Active Touring P Shore 309 

Shipley Bay Creek/Lake Fishing P Shore 307 

Snakey Lake Fishing SPM Road 692 

Staney Creek, North Fork Fishing RM Road 2306 

Staney Creek, South Fork Fishing RM Road 2306 

Staney Creek, Upper Fishing RM Road 2306 

Sutter Creek/lake Fishing P Shore 307 

The Saitchuck Passive 

Touring P Remote 539 

Thorne River, North Fishing SPM Road 692 

Thorne River, Tributaries Fishing SPNM Remote 1383 

Thorne River, Upper Fishing SPNM Remote 1383 

Winter Harbor Active Touring RM Road 2318 

Split Locations 

Two locations, Staney Creek and Thorne River, encompass large river systems with multiple 

access locations. In order to more accurately reflect how recreation visitors use these large 

river systems, they were subdivided into smaller systems. This does add recreation visitor 

capacity to the overall totals; however, it also adds the ability to more closely manage 

individual subsections of the larger systems. 

____________________________________________________________ Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan ____________________________________________________________________________________

Appendix B, Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis - Page 25
Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis 21

Table 19 - Split Locations 

Location Dominant 

Activity MROS Access RV Capacity 

Staney Creek, Main Stem Fishing RM Road 2306 

Staney Creek, North Fork Fishing RM Road 2306 

Staney Creek, South Fork Fishing RM Road 2306 

Staney Creek, Upper Fishing RM Road 2306 

Thorne River, Lower/Angel Lake Fishing RN Road 2306 

Thorne River, North Fishing SPM Road 692 

Thorne River, Tributaries Fishing SPNM Remote 1383 

Thorne River, Upper Fishing SPNM Remote 1383 

Combined Locations 

Three small lakes have been combined with their creek/river system to more accurately reflect 

the impact of recreational fishing on local fish populations. 

Table 20 - Combined Locations 

Location Dominant 

Activity 

MROS Access RV 

Capacity 

108 Creek/Cavern Lake Fishing SPM Road 692 

Red Bay Creek/Lake Fishing SPM Road 692 

Thorne River, Lower/Angel Lake Fishing RN Road 2306 

Removed Locations 

After completion of a Needs Assessment to determine the need for commercial use in 

designated wilderness areas, the following locations were removed from the list of locations 

available for commercial use. Karta River, Karta River Trail and Salmon Lake are all located 

within the Karta River Wilderness, where there was not a need to provide commercial use for 

fishing or active touring. Warren Cove is located within the Warren Island Wilderness where 

no commercial use is allowed. 

Table 21 - Removed Locations 

Location Dominant 

Activity 

MROS Access RV 

Capacity 

Karta River Fishing P Shore 307 

Karta River Trail Active Touring P Shore 309 

Salmon Lake Fishing P Remote 461 

Warren Cove Active Touring P Shore 309 

 

____________________________________________________________ Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan ____________________________________________________________________________________

Appendix B, Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis - Page 26
Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis 22

WORKS CITED 

Cerveny, L. K. (2005). Tourism and its Effects on Southeast Alaska. Pacific Northwest 

Research Station: USDA Forest Service PNW-RP-566. 

Global Insight. (2004). The Alaska Tourism Satellite Account: A Comprehensive Analysis of 

the Economic Contribution of Travel and Tourism. Juneau: Alaska Department of Community 

and Economic Development. 

Prince of Wales Chamber of Commerce. (2008). Prince of Wales Island. Retrieved from Prince 

of Wales Chamber of Commerce. 

Stankey, G. H., & Manning, R. E. (1986). Carrying Capacity of Recreational Settings. A 

Literature Review for The President's Commission on Americans Outdoors . 

USDA Forest Service. (2008). Prince of Wales Island. Retrieved 2008, from Tongass National 

Forest: http://www.fs.fed.us/r10/tongass/districts/pow/index.shtml 

USDA Forest Service. (1982). ROS users Guide. U.S. Government Printing Office. 

USDA Forest Service. (1999). Saltwater shoreline-based outfitter guide analysis 1998 

[database]. Hoonah Ranger District, AK: U. S. Government Printing Office. 

USDA Forest Service. (1998). Sportfishing EA, Steelhead Revision. U.S. Government Printing 

Office. 

USDA Forest Service. (2008). Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management 

Plan. U.S. Government Printing Office. 

____________________________________________________________ Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan ____________________________________________________________________________________

Appendix B, Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis - Page 27
Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis 

APPENDIX 

Table 22 - Use Statistics by Location 

Location 

Highest 

Actual 

Use 

Dominant 

Activity MROS Access 

Recreation 

Visitor 

Capacity 

108 Creek/Cavern Lake 62 Fishing SPM Road 692 

Aats Bay 24 Camping P Shore 309 

Aiken Cove 9 Hunting SPNM Shore 847 

Alder Creek Fishing RM Road 2,306 

Arena Cove 2 Hunting P Shore 282 

Aston Island 1 Hunting SPNM Shore 847 

Baker Creek Fishing RM Road 2,306 

Barnes Lake 18 Fishing P Remote 461 

Barrier Islands Active Touring P Shore 309 

Beaver Falls Trail 60 Active Touring RM Road 2,318 

Beaver Mountain 2 Hunting RM Remote 4,234 

Big Creek, W. Cholmondoley Passive Touring SPNM Shore 1,079 

Big Lake 5 Fishing RM Road 2,306 

Biscuit Lagoon 69 Passive Touring P Shore 360 

Black Bear Lake Fishing RM Remote 4,612 

Bobs Place 3 Hunting SPNM Shore 847 

Boyd Lake 2 Fishing RM Road 2,306 

Brownson Bay 2 Hunting P Shore 282 

Buster Bay 11 Hunting RM Shore 2,822 

Buster Creek Fishing RM Road 2,306 

Cable Creek 12 Fishing SPM Road 692 

Calder Bay 19 Hunting RM Road 2,117 

Calder Creek Fishing RM Road 2,306 

California Bay 7 Hunting RM Road 2,117 

Cape Chacon 5 Hunting SPNM Shore 847 

Cavern Lake Trail 4 Active Touring SPM Road 696 

China Cove 57 Camping P Shore 309 

Cholmondeley Sound, NE 36 Passive Touring SPNM Shore 1,079 

Cholmondeley Sound, South Arm 54 Passive Touring SPNM Shore 1,079 

Cholmondeley Sound, West Arm 84 Passive Touring SPNM Shore 1,079 

Clover Lake 26 Hunting SPNM Remote 1,270 

Cora Point 4 Camping P Shore 309 

Datzkoo Harbor 55 Hunting SPNM Shore 847 

Devilfish Bay 4 Hunting P Shore 282 

Dickman Bay 23 Hunting SPNM Shore 847 

Diver Bay 4 Hunting RM Shore 2,822 

Dog Salmon Creek 23 Passive Touring RM Road 2,696 

Dog Salmon Fishpass 1396 Passive Touring RM Road 8,733 

Dog Salmon Lake 2 Hunting SPM Road 635 

____________________________________________________________ Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan ____________________________________________________________________________________

Appendix B, Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis - Page 28
Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis 

Location 

Highest 

Actual 

Use 

Dominant 

Activity MROS Access 

Recreation 

Visitor 

Capacity 

Dry Pass 8 Hunting RM Shore 2,822 

Dunbar Inlet 30 Hunting SPNM Shore 847 

Eagle Creek 61 Fishing SPM Road 692 

Eagle Island 20 Active Touring SPNM Shore 927 

Egg Harbor 29 Active Touring P Shore 309 

El Capitan Cave 112 Active Touring SPM Road 7,560 

El Capitan Passage 34 Active Touring SPNM Shore 927 

Essowah Lakes 2 Hunting P Remote 423 

Exchange Cove, East 8 Hunting RM Shore 2,822 

Exchange Cove, West 100 Active Touring RM Road 2,318 

FDR 2700 7 Active Touring RM Road 2,318 

Fisherman Cove 3 Hunting SPNM Shore 847 

Flicker Creek 19 Fishing RM Road 2,306 

Fredrick Cove 32 Passive Touring RM Shore 3,595 

Fubar Creek 2 Hunting RM Road 2,117 

Goat Island 3 Hunting SPNM Shore 847 

Gold Harbor 2 Hunting P Shore 282 

Goose Bay 9 Hunting SPNM Shore 847 

Gosti Island 1 Hunting SPNM Shore 847 

Granite Mountain 12 Hunting P Remote 423 

Gulch Creek 2 Hunting RM Road 2,117 

Halibut Harbor 13 Hunting SPNM Shore 847 

Harris Ridge 4 Hunting SPM Road 635 

Harris River 190 Fishing RM Road 2,306 

Hassiah Inlet 2 Hunting RM Shore 2,822 

Hatchery Creek 100 Fishing SPM Road 692 

Hessa Inlet 6 Hunting P Shore 282 

Holbrook Arm 8 Hunting RM Shore 2,822 

Hole In The Wall 17 Hunting P Shore 282 

Hook Arm 4 Hunting SPNM Shore 847 

Horseshoe Island 3 Hunting SPNM Shore 847 

Hunter Bay 89 Passive Touring P Shore 360 

Hunter Creek Fishing P Shore 307 

Indian Creek 1 Hunting SPM Road 635 

Ingraham Bay 11 Hunting SPNM Shore 847 

Island Bay 8 Active Touring SPNM Shore 927 

Jinhi Bay 2 Hunting SPNM Shore 847 

Johnson Cove 6 Hunting RM Shore 2,822 

Karheen Cove 2 Hunting RM Shore 2,822 

Kasaan Bay 2 Hunting SPNM Shore 847 

Kasook Inlet 2 Hunting P Shore 282 

Kassa Inlet 14 Hunting RM Shore 2,822 

Keete Inlet 14 Hunting RM Shore 2,822 

____________________________________________________________ Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan ____________________________________________________________________________________

Appendix B, Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis - Page 29
Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis 

Location 

Highest 

Actual 

Use 

Dominant 

Activity MROS Access 

Recreation 

Visitor 

Capacity 

Kegan Creek Fishing P Shore 307 

Kendrick Bay 6 Hunting RM Shore 2,822 

Klakas Inlet 208 Passive Touring P Shore 360 

Klakas Lake Fishing P Remote 461 

Kosciusko Island Road System 12 Hunting RM Road 2,117 

Kugel Lake 57 Passive Touring SPNM Remote 1,618 

Kugun Creek 1 Hunting RM Shore 2,822 

Labouchere Bay 10 Hunting SPM Road 635 

Lake Galea Active Touring SPNM Remote 1,391 

Lancaster Cove 98 Hunting RM Shore 2,822 

Lava Creek 7 Hunting SPM Road 635 

Logjam Creek 19 Fishing RN Road 2,306 

Luck Lake 81 Fishing RM Road 2,306 

Luelia Lake 144 Passive Touring P Remote 539 

Mabel Island 2 Hunting SPNM Shore 847 

Marble Creek Fishing RM Road 2,306 

Marble Island 5 Hunting RM Shore 2,822 

Max Cove 97 Passive Touring P Shore 360 

Maybeso River 11 Hunting SPM Road 635 

McKenzie Inlet, South 48 Hunting RM Road 2,117 

McKenzie Inlet, West 10 Fishing SPNM Shore 922 

Mclean Arm 4 Hunting SPNM Shore 847 

Mcleod Bay 4 Hunting SPNM Shore 847 

Memorial Beach 4 Active Touring RM Road 2,318 

Menefee Anchorage 2 Hunting SPNM Shore 847 

Miller Lake 44 Passive Touring SPNM Remote 1,618 

Moira Sound 121 Hunting RM Shore 2,822 

Moira Sound, North Arm 2 Hunting SPNM Shore 847 

Moira Sound, South Arm 135 Passive Touring SPNM Shore 1,079 

Monie Lake Fishing RM Remote 4,612 

Naukati Bay 3 Hunting RM Road 2,117 

Neck Lake 75 Fishing RM Road 2,306 

Niblack Lake Fishing SPNM Remote 1,383 

Nichols Bay 4 Hunting SPNM Shore 847 

No Name Lake, S8 T68S R 79E Fishing RM Road 2,306 

North Bay 2 Hunting SPNM Shore 847 

Nossuk Bay 15 Hunting RM Shore 2,822 

Nowiskay Cove 74 Passive Touring SPNM Shore 1,079 

Nutkawa Inlet 4 Hunting RM Shore 2,822 

Nutkawa Lagoon 24 Hunting P Remote 423 

Old Franks Creek 42 Fishing RM Road 2,306 

Old Log Camp 1 Hunting RM Road 2,117 

Old Toms Creek 19 Passive Touring P Road 270 

____________________________________________________________ Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan ____________________________________________________________________________________

Appendix B, Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis - Page 30
Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis 

Location 

Highest 

Actual 

Use 

Dominant 

Activity MROS Access 

Recreation 

Visitor 

Capacity 

One Duck Lake 2 Hunting RM Road 2,117 

One Duck Road System 1 Hunting RM Road 2,117 

Orr Island 4 Hunting RM Shore 2,822 

Paul Bight 3 Hunting P Shore 282 

Paul Young Creek 3 Hunting SPNM Shore 847 

Pine Point 1 Hunting RM Shore 2,822 

Point Dolores 4 Hunting RM Shore 2,822 

Pole Anchorage 2 Hunting RM Shore 2,822 

Polk Inlet Overlook 4 Hunting RM Road 2,117 

Polk Inlet, East 2 Hunting RM Shore 2,822 

Polk Inlet, North 88 Hunting RM Road 2,117 

Polk Pass 5 Hunting RM Road 2,117 

Pond Bay 1 Hunting SPNM Shore 847 

Port Alice 3 Hunting SPNM Shore 847 

Port Refugio 8 Hunting RM Shore 2,822 

Port Santa Cruz 1 Hunting RM Shore 2,822 

Ratz Creek 27 Fishing SPM Road 692 

Ratz Harbor Active Touring SPNM Shore 927 

Red Bay 16 Hunting RM Road 2,117 

Red Bay Creek/Lake 31 Fishing SPM Road 692 

Red Bay Lake Trail 13 Active Touring SPM Road 696 

Rip Point 2 Hunting RM Shore 2,822 

Roller Bay, Noyes Island Active Touring P Shore 309 

Ruins Point 2 Hunting P Shore 282 

Sakie Bay 2 Hunting SPNM Shore 847 

Salmon Bay 42 Hunting P Shore 282 

Salmon Bay Creek 18 Fishing P Remote 461 

Salmon Bay Lake 19 Fishing P Remote 461 

Salmon Bay Lake Trail Active Touring P Shore 309 

Salt Chuck 56 Passive Touring RM Shore 3,595 

Salt Lake Bay 11 Hunting SPNM Shore 847 

Sarheen Cove 10 Hunting SPNM Shore 847 

Sarkar Lake 29 Fishing SPM Road 692 

Scott Lagoon 17 Hunting RM Shore 2,822 

Security Cove 2 Hunting SPNM Shore 847 

Shaheen Creek 9 Fishing RM Road 2,306 

Shakan Bay 22 Hunting P Shore 282 

Shipley Bay 32 Hunting P Shore 282 

Shipley Bay Creek/Lake Fishing P Shore 307 

Shipwreck Point 4 Hunting P Shore 282 

Skowl Arm 23 Hunting RM Shore 2,822 

Snag Island 2 Hunting SPNM Shore 847 

Snakey Lake Fishing SPM Road 692 

____________________________________________________________ Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan ____________________________________________________________________________________

Appendix B, Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis - Page 31
Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis 

Location 

Highest 

Actual 

Use 

Dominant 

Activity MROS Access 

Recreation 

Visitor 

Capacity 

Soda Bay 1 Hunting SPNM Shore 847 

Spanish Islands 24 Camping P Shore 309 

Spiral Cove 4 Hunting SPNM Shore 847 

Staney Creek, Main Stem 171 Fishing RM Road 2,306 

Staney Creek, North Fork Fishing RM Road 2,306 

Staney Creek, South Fork Fishing RM Road 2,306 

Staney Creek, Upper Fishing RM Road 2,306 

Steamboat Bay 2 Active Touring P Shore 309 

Stone Rock Bay 4 Hunting SPNM Shore 847 

Sumez Island Road System 12 Active Touring RM Shore 3,091 

Survey Cove 8 Hunting RM Shore 2,822 

Sutter Creek/lake Fishing P Shore 307 

Sweetwater Lake 18 Fishing RN Road 2,306 

Tah Bay 3 Hunting P Shore 282 

Tenass Bay 12 Hunting SPNM Shore 847 

The Saitchuck Passive Touring P Remote 539 

Thorne River, Lower 243 Fishing RN Road 2,306 

Thorne River, North Fishing SPM Road 692 

Thorne River, Tributaries Fishing SPNM Remote 1,383 

Thorne River, Upper Fishing SPNM Remote 1,383 

Tlevak Narrows 12 Hunting RM Shore 2,822 

Tokeen Bay 5 Hunting P Shore 282 

Trocadero Creek 7 Hunting SPM Road 635 

Trout Creek 11 Hunting RM Shore 2,822 

Trumpeter Lake 40 Fishing RM Road 2,306 

Turn Creek 47 Fishing RM Road 2,306 

Tuxekan Island Road System 9 Hunting SPNM Shore 847 

Twelvemile Arm Creek 7 Hunting RM Road 2,117 

Twelvemile Arm Road System 11 Hunting RM Road 2,117 

Upper Trocadero Mountain 2 Hunting RM Road 2,117 

Upper Trocadero Road System 7 Hunting RM Road 2,117 

Upper Twelvemile Arm Road System 7 Hunting RM Road 2,117 

Van Sant Cove 3 Hunting P Shore 282 

Waterfall Bay 3 Hunting SPNM Shore 847 

West Sentinel Island 8 Active Touring SPNM Shore 927 

Whale Passage 32 Active Touring RM Road 2,318 

Windy Bay 24 Camping P Shore 309 

Winter Bay 2 Hunting P Shore 282 

Winter Harbor Active Touring RM Road 2,318 

Wolf Lake 6 Hunting RM Remote 4,234 

Wolk Harbor 2 Hunting SPNM Shore 847 

____________________________________________________________ Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan ____________________________________________________________________________________

Appendix B, Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis - Page 32
Appendix C, Other Issues – Page 1 

Appendix C _________________________________ 

Other Issues 

Issues and Concerns Not Used to Develop Alternatives 

For the purposes of this analysis, issues identified during the public involvement process 

were categorized as those that were used to develop alternatives or those that were not used 

to develop alternatives. Issues that were directly or indirectly caused by implementing the 

proposed action and represent disputes, disagreements or debate about the effects of the 

proposed action were used to design alternatives 

The remaining issues that were not used in developing alternatives are those: 1) outside the 

scope (not related to the effects) of the proposed action; 2) already decided by law, 

regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; 3) irrelevant to the decision to be 

made; or 4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. The Council for 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations require this delineation in Sec. 1501.7, 

“...identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which 

have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 1506.3)...” This appendix considers 

those issues that were not used to develop alternatives. 

Several external and internal concerns and suggestions were considered as issues but were 

determined not to be alternative-driving issues. Where possible, suggestions about the project 

were incorporated into the design of all the action alternatives. Concerns related to this 

project, followed by the rationale for why these concerns were not used in developing 

alternatives, is found below. 

Concern 

There are concerns about limiting commercial uses in Wilderness areas based on the Wilderness 

Needs Assessment (WNA), which did not have a public review. 

 The most common approach to determining the need for Commercial Services in 

wilderness has been to prepare a WNA. Agency policy does not require a needs 

assessment nor provide guidance as to required content in determining a need for 

commercial services beyond what is stated in the Wilderness Act (TWA). A Needs 

Assessment is typically a programmatic assessment that does not require a NEPA 

analysis. 

Identification of need is not based solely on public need for a service but may 

consider how an outfitter-guide operation can contribute to meeting wilderness 

management objectives and support the public purposes of wilderness [TWA, Section 

4(b)]. The public’s need for services can be determined by examining current and 

past use and trends, results of a visitor preference survey, state game hunting license 

data, etc. The IDT determined that this issue is outside of the scope of this document, 

since the Wilderness Needs Assessments were completed in accordance with 

direction. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix C, Other Issues – Page 2 

Concern 

How does this proposal deal with transporters? If transporters are included in this POW Outfitter 

and Guide Management Plan, a fixed percentage allocation and possible limits would effectively 

restrict public access and use of an area. 

 Transporters are not managed or controlled by the Forest Service, thus, their 

management is outside the scope of this document. 

Concern 

Bear hunting at or near the Dog Salmon Fishpass may endanger visitors to the observation deck 

and may discourage bear from using the site, which will negatively affect the expected recreation 

experience. 

 Dog Salmon Creek fishpass in Polk Inlet currently shows the highest recorded 

commercial use (7,006 service days, 2004-2010) in GMU 2. The only guided activity 

recorded at this site during this timeframe is wildlife viewing. Though most bear 

hunting in North Polk Inlet occurs during the spring, any hunters harvesting bears in 

this area may be harvesting bears that use the Dog Salmon Fishpass in late summer 

and fall to fatten up on salmon. Confrontations between hunters and bear viewing 

guides/clients at Dog Salmon Fishpass have occurred in recent years and are expected 

to continue to occur. The Forest Service has received complaints from a variety of 

user groups that have clearly identified a conflict between uses in this area. 

The primary tour operator at Dog Salmon Fishpass submitted a proposal to the Alaska 

Board of Game requesting they designate the site as a bear viewing area and close the 

area to bear hunting; however, the proposal failed to pass at the Board of Game 

meeting in November 2010. The Forest Service recreation group is considering 

improvements to accommodate viewing such as improved parking, and has provided 

a seasonal interpreter in the area to help educate the public, enhance safety and reduce 

conflict. The Forest Service is currently pursuing a 1⁄4-mile closure to bear hunting 

around the fishpass to provide for safety and to promote the salmon and bear viewing 

opportunities at that site. The closure would occur through a Forest Order, enforced 

by law enforcement. 

Concern 

There is a concern about allowing guided big-game hunting in the central WAAs (1318, 1319, 

1421, 1422). 

 Guided big game hunting has not been allowed in Wildlife Analysis Areas (WAAs) 

1318, 1319, 1421, and 1422 since 1994 (USFS 1994, Big Game EA). This is referred 

to as the “Central WAAs Closure” in this EA. The Big Game EA restricts guided biggame hunting for black bears, wolves, and deer. The closure will apply to all 

alternatives in this EA. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix C, Other Issues – Page 3 

Concern 

Increased outfitter and guide allocations may contribute to population declines already identified 

by ADF&G for bears and wolves in GMU 2. 

Control bear hunts so bear are not over hunted, which requires controlling outfitters, guides, 

transporters, and out of state hunters. 

Need to limit transporting and non-resident hunters to protect bears. Guided hunters are more 

careful and limit harvest to mature adults. 

 The recent declines in harvest, reductions in skull size, and changes in sex ratios of 

harvested bears raised concerns about black bear population sustainability in the 

POW Zone (Larson 2010). Analysis of harvest data from the late 1990s onward 

revealed large numbers of female bears have been harvested during the fall bear hunt 

since the late 1990s. This, in combination with the apparent population decline, led 

the Board of Game to establish a controlled use area (CUA) at their 2008 meeting, 

which restricted the use of motorized land vehicles for bear hunting during September 

in GMUs 2 and 3. The new regulation made it illegal to use motorized land vehicles 

to hunt bears, transport bear hunters, hunting equipment or bear parts during the 

month of September. They also established a requirement for all black bear hunters 

to obtain a harvest ticket/report prior to hunting, in an effort to gather more 

information about hunter effort, success, and the state of the bear population (Larson 

2010). 

More emphasis was placed on black bear populations with regulatory changes made 

at the November 2010 Alaska Board of Game meeting. The board revisited the CUA 

established at the 2008 meeting and opted to extend the CUA restricting motorized 

access in GMU 2 until October 31, 2012. Citing concerns about black bear numbers 

in GMU 1-3 in Southeast Alaska, the Board of Game adopted a drawing permit hunt 

for nonresident black bear hunters who do not hunt with guides. Resident hunters and 

nonresident hunters who employ a guide were not affected by the new regulation, but, 

in exchange, guides agreed to a reduced hunt allocation based upon their average 

actual harvest 2007-2009 (ADF&G January 6, 2011 letter to Forrest Cole.). The 

Forest Service will work cooperatively with ADF&G to set appropriate use levels for 

hunting guides, but this process will take place independently of this NEPA analysis. 

Concern 

Disallow or severely limit O/G days within a set geographical area around Craig that has been 

traditionally used for recreation and subsistence harvest of deer. Restrictions could include 

limitations on hunting as an allowed O/G activity within these areas. 

 Rather than develop one local use area for one community, it makes more sense to 

monitor guided deer hunting at all sites and re-evaluate the permitting if it goes above 

a certain level. Furthermore, the proposed Craig local use area does not currently 

produce much deer harvest, not compared to the central Wildlife Analysis Areas 

(WAAs), which are already closed to guided hunting. 

 Development of one local use area for one community may appear to unfairly benefit 

subsistence users in one community above another. Instead we set a cap for the total 

number of service days at any site and will be monitoring deer harvest 

 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix C, Other Issues – Page 4 

 In addition: 

1) Recent data indicate there is very little demand for guided hunts in this area. 

Only eight of the 15 sites in the area had deer or fall bear hunting from 2004-

2009. The average service days for each of these eight sites between 2004 and 

2009 was 1.5 service days per year including both deer and fall bear hunting. 

2) The central WAAs Closure provides subsistence hunting opportunities free 

from competition with guided hunters. Furthermore, 

 much of POW's current deer harvest already comes from the 

Central WAAs Closure area. 

 Future hunting opportunities in young-growth areas are 

concentrated in the Central WAAs closure area. 

 And the Central WAAs closure area is closer to more 

communities, giving more communities an opportunity to 

subsistence hunt for deer in places unavailable to guided hunters 

(thus causing no competition from guided hunters). 

3) By monitoring use at each site and evaluating permit allocations, if any sites 

exceed a low threshold for deer hunting, subsistence resources can be protected 

from competition with guided hunters more evenly across the landscape. 

Concern 

Whale Pass does not need outfitters and guides due to the lodges and cabins for self-guided people. 

 The POW Outfitter and Guide Management Plan looks at the entire project area, 

including Whale Pass. The range of alternatives addresses your concern about 

outfitter and guide use in the Whale Pass area through the No Action Alternative, 

which keeps outfitter and guide activity at the current level. Alternative 4 also keeps 

outfitter and guide allocations low, just 10% over the current level. 

Concern 

If the Forest Service regulates outfitters and guides, then they need to regulate all users to “keep 

access fair.” 

 There is no plan to regulate unguided users; the POW Outfitter and Guide 

Management Plan only addresses guided users. 

Forest Plan direction requires the district to: 

“Work with recreation service partners and the tourism industry in 

identifying and developing services and opportunities. Recreation service 

partners provide services and opportunities that supplement the use and 

enjoyment of the national forests by a variety of people.” (Forest Plan, page 

4-45) 

 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix C, Other Issues – Page 5 

And, 

“Manage outfitter and guide services as partnerships with the Forest Service, 

as a way to nurture and encourage assistance and support for attaining the 

objectives of the LUD, and to assist in increased public understanding and 

appreciation of the Forest Service's mission and goals.” (Forest Plan 4-46) 

If, 

“The operations can be carried out in a manner that is compatible with 

existing or expected use by the non-guided public and adverse impacts to 

subsistence users are minimized.” (Ibid) 

Since the Forest Plan directs that operations be carried out in a manner compatible 

with existing and expected use by non-guided public, we are not attempting to 

regulate unguided visitors. Our goal is to allocate service days to support our outfitter 

and guide partners while limiting the impact to unguided visitors. 

Concern 

All use in Moira Sound is low due to no roads and remoteness, so keep it the way it is now. Do not 

lower the allocation to guides. 

 The alternatives in this analysis range from the no action alternative to a 50% 

allocation of the recreation visitor capacity to outfitters and guides. The no action 

alternative addresses your request for no decrease or increase in allocation in Moira 

Sound. 

Concern 

Group size should be at least 15 for some activities (kayak tours). 

 Group sizes tend to vary according to activity type, with 12 being the largest recorded 

group size in the project area. Maximum Group Size was determined, based on 

statistics developed from actual use data for the analysis period. The exception is 

fishing, which has an established maximum group size of 6, based on current 

planning decisions (USDA Forest Service, 1998). If an outfitter of guide wanted an 

increase in group size, they would have to request the exception at the time they apply 

for their permit. The district may or may not grant an exemption, depending on 

resource impacts and public concerns for crowding. 

 The Forest Plan does allow for larger groups outside of Wilderness Areas, 12 to 20 

(Forest Plan, page 46); however, for this analysis, the group size is limited to 12. As 

stated, the limit is based on actual recorded use and may be adjusted upon request. 

Concern 

Use of the area south of Craig to Cape Chacon is low so do not need to limit guides in this area. 

The southern half of the island does not get as much use as the northern half of the island due to 

access so the management should not be the same. 

Do not restrict southern outfitter and guide use. 

 The POW Outfitter and Guide Management Plan looks at the entire project area, 

including the area south of Craig to Cape Chacon. The range of alternatives 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix C, Other Issues – Page 6 

addresses your concern about outfitter and guide use in the area by Alternative 2, 

which would allocate 50% of the recreation visitor capacity to outfitters and guides. 

Concern 

Need to get permits earlier in the season or multi-year permits to keep business going. 

 This POW Outfitter and Guide Management Plan does not change how early in the 

season permits are issued but does allow the district to issue multi-year permits for 

qualified outfitters and guides. Business opportunities are considered in Issue 3. 

Concern 

Open more logging roads for recreation opportunities. 

 The decision on which roads to keep open was made during the Access and Travel 

Management Planning and is not part of this decision. 

Concern 

Only “cap” guided use where it is absolutely needed. 

 The POW Outfitter and Guide Management Plan does set a level of use available to 

outfitters and guides based on the recreation visitor capacity completed for the project 

area. The level of available use varies between alternatives. For most areas, even 

with the lowest allocation of service days to outfitters and guides, there is still room 

for growth in the guided industry. The purpose of the POW Outfitter and Guide 

Management Plan is to set reasonable levels of use based on social and environmental 

conditions, while minimizing potential impacts to all resources. A cap is needed to 

maintain quality recreation opportunities for both guided and unguided visitors and 

protect forest resources. 

Concern 

Make separate allocations for outfitters and guides that are road (land) based and those that are 

water based because they have limited overlap. 

 Each recreation use area has an allocation based on the recreation visitor capacity 

formula. The capacity formula has a temporal displacement factor, based on access 

method. Thus, the allocations consider access. 

Concern 

Guided and transported hunters should only be allowed to use roads by foot or bicycle, with boat 

transport, to take pressure off bears. 

 The district rangers have authority to do an emergency order to close hunting or 

fishing if there is a threat to wildlife or fish populations. The Forest Service does not 

set access regulations. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the State Game 

Board set hunting regulations including access. In Game Management Unit (GMU) 

2, ADF&G Regulations state that Unit 2 is closed to the use of any motorized land 

vehicle for black bear hunting Sept 1-Oct 31. The State is responsible for any 

additional closures. 
Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Appendix C, Other Issues – Page 7 

Concern 

Guided fishing trips should be limited to remote streams to reduce conflicts with locals. 

 The range of alternatives does limit guided use on some streams to reduce conflicts 

with other users. These limits are in the percent of the recreation visitor capacity 

allocated to outfitters and guides and fishing restrictions to protect steelhead, sockeye 

salmon and summer run coho salmon. 

Concern 

No guided trips on the weekends on heavily used rivers like Harris, Klawock, Lower Thorne, and 

Eagle Creek. 

 The environmental analysis includes adaptive management (Chapter 2). In cases of 

crowding or other user conflicts, the district rangers have the option to reduce the 

number of outfitter and guide weekend and holiday days to relieve conflicts. 

Concern 

Limit guides based on years of experience (to limit new guides). 

 This analysis does not change how guide permits are issued. Permit administrators 

will issue permits based on outfitter and guide permitting regulations. 

Concern 

Concerned about guides using rental cabins for clients - they should only be allowed to use low use 

cabins. 

Guides using cabins increases impacts to all resources. 

Guides using cabins limits available use by island residents for subsistence gathering. 

 This decision occurred prior to this analysis. A recreation master management plan 

was done that considered these concerns. Public input was sought on the proposal to 

allow outfitters and guides to use rental cabins. An administrative decision was made 

in 2007 to allow cabins to be used based on the conditions described in this EA under 

Other Related Efforts. These conditions are meant to provide the public with 

adequate opportunity to use cabins as they desire. Limitations on guided use of cabins 

is tracked in special use permits; to date, little or no guided cabin use is ocurring. 

Additionally, cabins are still available under a first-come-first-served reservation 

system, thus allowing equal access for any given date to all users.