United States Department of Agriculture

Wrangell Island Project

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Forest Service

Alaska Region

Tongass National Forest

Wrangell RangerDistrict R10-MB-634b July 2017
Acronyms

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation

ADEC Alaska Department of Environmental 

Conservation

ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish and Game

AMHT Alaska Mental Health Trust

ANCSA Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act

ANILCA Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act

APDES Alaska pollutant discharge elimination 

system

APE Area of potential effect

ATM Access and travel management

BMP Best management practice

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

DEIS Draft environmental impact statement

DHC Deer habitat capability

DPS Distinct population segment

EFH Essential fish habitat

EIS Environmental impact statement

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act

FACTS Forest activities tracking system

FAST-R Financial analysis spreadsheet tool –

Residual value

FEIS Final environmental impact statement

FSH Forest Service Handbook

FSM Forest Service Manual

GIS Geographic information system

GMU Game management unit

GPS Global positioning system

HUC Hydrologic unit code

IDT Interdisciplinary team

IRA Inventoried roadless area

LTF Log transfer facility

LUD Land use designation

MAF Marine access facility

MBF Thousand board feet

MIS Management indicator species

ML Maintenance level

MBF Thousand board feet

MMBF Million board feet

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NFMA National Forest Management Act

NFS National Forest System

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NRIS Natural Resource Information System

OBML Objective maintenance level

OGR Old-growth reserve

OHV Off-highway vehicle

OPML Operational maintenance level

POG Productive old growth

R10 Region 10 (Alaska Region of the Forest 

Service)

RAW Reasonable assurance of windfirmness

RMA Riparian management area

ROD Record of decision

ROS Recreation opportunity spectrum

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

SIO Scenic integrity objective

TSZ Transitional Snow Zone

TTRA Tongass Timber Reform Act

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

VCU Value comparison unit

VPR Visual priority travel routes and use areas

WAA Wildlife analysis area

Cover Photo: Pat Valley, Wrangell Island. Photograph by Andrea Slusser

NOTE: Every effort is made to create documents that are accessible to individuals of all abilities; 

however, limitations with our word processing programs may prevent some parts of this document from 

being readable by computer-assisted reading devices. If you need assistance with this document, please 

contact the Wrangell Ranger District at (907) 874-2323.
Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper

Logo Department Name Agency Organization Organization Address Information

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Forest 

Service

Tongass National Forest

Alaska Region

648 Mission Street

Ketchikan, AK 99901

907-225-3101

File Code: 1950 

Date: July 5, 2017 

Dear Planning Participant:

The Wrangell Ranger District, on the Tongass National Forest, has released its final 

environmental impact statement (FEIS) for the Wrangell Island Project. In the FEIS, the Forest 

Service analyzed four action alternatives and a no action alternative. The action alternatives 

proposed varying amounts of timber harvest and road construction associated with that harvest. 

The action alternatives also proposed public motorized access on roads associated with the 

project. 

Identified significant issues addressed by alternatives include timber supply and timber 

economics, wildlife habitat, scenic quality, and access management. 

The Wrangell Island Project FEIS, the response to comments on the Wrangell Island Project 

draft environmental impact statement (DEIS), and the associated road and unit cards are posted 

online at http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=34831. Paper copies of these documents are 

available for review at the Wrangell Ranger District (525 Bennett Street, Wrangell, AK 99929) 

and the Forest Supervisor’s Office in Ketchikan (Federal Building, 648 Mission Street, 

Ketchikan, AK 99901). Paper copies of the FEIS have been mailed to those who requested one. 

If you require a paper copy or a DVD, or need additional information, please contact Andrea 

Slusser, Wrangell Ranger District NEPA Planner, at 907-874-2323 or send your request to: 

andreamslusser@fs.fed.us. 

Sincerely,

cc: Robert Dalrymple, Andrea Slusser 

Wrangell Island Project

Final Environmental Impact Statement

United States Department of Agriculture

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Tongass National Forest

Cooperating Agencies: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Alaska Department of Natural Resources

Responsible Official: M. Earl Stewart, Forest Supervisor

Federal Building

648 Mission Street

Ketchikan, AK 99901

For Information Contact: Robert Dalrymple, District Ranger

Wrangell Ranger District

PO Box 51

Wrangell, Alaska 99929

907-874-2323

Andrea Slusser, NEPA Planner

Wrangell Ranger District

PO Box 51

Wrangell, Alaska 99929

Abstract

The Forest Service proposes to harvest timber, construct new roads and landings, recondition existing 

roads, and update some road access management decisions on Wrangell Island, Tongass National Forest, 

Alaska. The Final EIS (FEIS) describes and analyzes five alternatives that provide differing outputs and 

responses to issues identified for this project. Alternative 2 is the preferred alternative. None of the action 

alternatives propose young-growth harvest.

Summary

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ i

Summary 

Introduction

The Tongass National Forest has prepared this environmental impact statement (EIS) to analyze the 

potential environmental impacts of a multi-year proposal involving timber harvest, road construction, and 

future road access management on Wrangell Island in Southeast Alaska. Proposed activities would take 

place on National Forest System (NFS) lands on the Wrangell Ranger District.

In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State 

laws and regulations, this EIS describes the purpose and need for the project and discloses the direct, 

indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts and any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of 

resources that would result from the proposed action and alternatives.

Location of the Project Area

Wrangell Island is part of the Alexander Archipelago and lies between Juneau and Ketchikan in Southeast 

Alaska. Wrangell Island is 134,306 acres and is part of the Wrangell Ranger District of the Tongass 

National Forest (figure 1).

Why is this Project Important?

Pursuant to the July 2, 2013 Secretary of Agriculture’s Memorandum 1044-009, the Forest Service has 

been asked to seek opportunities to supply sufficient old-growth “bridge timber” while the timber 

industry re-tools for processing young growth (USDA 2013). As designed, the Wrangell Island Project 

would contribute a supply of commercial old-growth timber while commercial young-growth timber 

processing and marketing opportunities are explored and developed. This could help maintain the existing 

workforce, retain local knowledge, and maintain timber industry infrastructure and experience as 

businesses retool toward smaller diameter wood utilization.

The Project Purpose and Need

The purpose of the Wrangell Island Project is to respond to the goals and objectives identified by the 2016

Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan (often referred to as the “Forest Plan”) (USDA Forest 

Service 2016b) to guide timber management to support the local and regional economies of Southeast 

Alaska, while moving the Wrangell Island project area towards the desired condition for all resources.

The underlying need for the Wrangell Island Project comes from the Forest Service’s obligation, subject 

to applicable law, to seek to provide a supply of timber from the Tongass National Forest that meets 

market demand annually and for the planning cycle.

This project would contribute to the orderly flow of timber to large and small timber purchasers, mill 

operators, and value-added wood product industries in Southeast Alaska and benefit the local and regional 

economies of Wrangell and Southeast Alaska while also improving forest resource conditions. This 

project would help provide a reliable, long-term supply of “bridge” timber that would support local jobs 

and facilitate the industry transition to a sustainable wood product industry based on young-growth 

management on the Tongass National Forest.
Summary

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ ii

The Proposed Action

The Forest Service is proposing a multi-year project involving timber harvest and associated road 

construction on Wrangell Island. The proposed action includes the harvest of timber from approximately 

4,767 acres of forested land, which would provide an estimated 56 million board feet (MMBF) of 

sawtimber and utility wood that could be made available to industry. Timber harvest prescriptions would 

include both even-aged (clearcut) and uneven-aged (partial cut) harvest using cable, helicopter and 

ground-based methods. 

The timber harvest would require the construction of approximately 16.8 miles of National Forest System 

(NFS) roads, the reconditioning of 4.4 miles of road and construction of approximately 9.9 miles of 

temporary road. Existing road systems and marine access facilities would also be used as needed to 

transport the timber. 

All activities would be conducted in a manner conducive to moving resources towards their desired 

conditions described in the Forest Plan.

Decisions to Be Made

The Responsible Official for this project is the Forest Supervisor for the Tongass National Forest. After 

reviewing the analysis, public comments, and how well each alternative achieves the purpose and need, 

the Forest Supervisor will make a decision which will include:

1. The estimated timber volume to make available from the project, as well as the location, design, 

and scheduling of timber harvest, road construction and reconditioning, and silvicultural practices 

used;

2. Road management objectives on both proposed and existing roads which will define motorized 

access (road, trail and area restrictions and closures); and 

3. Project design features, mitigation and monitoring requirements.

This decision will be documented in a Record of Decision.

Key Issues

Key issues are used to formulate and design alternatives to the proposed action, formulate project design 

features, and analyze significant effects. Key issues for the project have been identified through public 

and internal scoping.

The following key issues are addressed by the action alternatives.

Issue 1: Timber Supply and Timber Sale Economics

Issue statement: Both the timber supply and timber sale economics produced from National Forest 

System lands on Wrangell Island affect the stability of Southeast Alaska’s forest products industry and the 

ability of the industry to contribute to the local and regional economies during the transition to a 

sustainable supply of young growth. 

Issue 2: Wildlife Habitat

Issue Statement: Proposed timber harvest and roads, combined with past and reasonably foreseeable 

timber harvest, would affect old-growth habitat used by wildlife, particularly deer, wolves, and goshawks.
Summary

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ iii

Issue 3: Scenic Quality

Issue Statement: Proposed timber harvest, combined with past and reasonably foreseeable timber 

harvest, would affect scenic integrity from visual priority travel routes and use areas identified in the 

Forest Plan, and in areas of particular scenic importance to the community of Wrangell.

Issue 4: Access Management

Issue Statement: Access management decisions for motorized road use will affect future public access 

for recreation and subsistence and access for agency administrative purposes.

Alternatives Considered in Detail

The Forest Service designed five alternatives for detailed analysis in this EIS. These include the no action 

alternative, the proposed action, and three alternatives developed in response to key issues to provide a 

reasonable range of alternatives. 

With the exception of Alternative 1, all are designed to achieve the purpose and need for the Wrangell 

Island Project. Maps of each alternative are provided in chapter 2.

Alternative 1 – No Action

Alternative 1 is the “no-action” alternative because in this alternative, none of the proposed activities 

would occur (figure 3). 

The no action alternative is required. It provides a baseline of existing conditions and trends, enabling the 

Responsible Official to compare the magnitude of environmental effects of the action alternatives. In this 

alternative, other approved forest management activities not related to the proposed project would 

continue. Road access management would fully implement the 2007 Wrangell Ranger District Access and 

Travel Management Plan decision (ATM) for Wrangell Island.

The ATM deferred closure of some roads until the Wrangell Island Project EIS is complete. If Alternative 

1 is selected, then approximately 23.5 miles of NFS road currently open to motorized use would be 

closed, and 2.5 miles of existing NFS road would be decommissioned. Approximately 73.7 miles of 

existing NFS road would be open for public use for motorized vehicles of all types. These roads are 

shown on the Alternative 1 Access Management map (figure 8).

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Alternative 2 is the project’s proposed action, the initial project proposal developed by the Forest Service 

to address the purpose and need. The proposed action is the alternative designed to provide the greatest 

supply of timber volume for the timber industry, while protecting scenic quality, old-growth habitat and 

connectivity.

Alternative 2 proposes even-aged and uneven-aged timber harvest on suitable lands consistent with the 

2016 Forest Plan, and new and temporary road construction. Alternative 2 also proposes road 

management objectives which define public motorized access.

Alternative 2 is designed to harvest timber in the Timber Production and Modified Landscape LUDs. This 

alternative provides timber volume opportunities for both large and small sales within the suitable land 

base under the 2016 Forest Plan. This alternative proposes harvest in the mill basin area, as well as in 

areas near Long Lake. This alternative addresses Issue 1 by providing the greatest timber volume from 

which to offer individual timber sales. It also addresses Issue 4 by providing the most motorized public 

access following harvest.
Summary

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ iv

Timber Harvest: Alternative 2 would produce an estimated 56 MMBF of old-growth saw/utility timber 

volume from approximately 4,767 acres. Silvicultural prescriptions include approximately 3,359 acres of 

uneven-aged management (implemented using the single-tree or group-selection harvest method) and 

1,408 acres of even-aged management (implemented using clearcut or clearcut with reserves harvest 

methods) with conventional cable, shovel, and helicopter logging systems. The uneven-aged management 

prescription is designed to provide visual resource protection but also reduce negative effects to wildlife. 

Where there are no safety or resource concerns, this alternative will allow for short-term public access 

under permit to gather firewood from temporary roads, after timber harvest activities are complete. No 

young-growth harvest is included in this alternative or any of the other alternatives, as no commercial 

young-growth timber is available. 

Roads: Alternative 2 proposes construction of 16.8 miles of new NFS roads and 9.9 miles of temporary 

roads. It also proposes reconditioning 4.4 miles of existing NFS roads. All temporary roads would be 

decommissioned after activities are complete. Existing marine access facilities at Pat Creek and Earl West 

could be used.

Motorized Access Management: The motorized access management proposed in this alternative was 

developed through a collaborative process between the IDT and the Wrangell Borough. The process 

identified the roads associated with the alternative that are the most important to the community for 

subsistence and recreation access. Then the roads were evaluated based on resource protection needs and 

future maintenance costs. Alternative 2 proposes closing 15.9 miles of road to public motorized use and 

decommissioning 0.2 mile. Approximately 86 miles of NFS road would be available for public motorized 

access, of which 14.5 miles would be restricted to motorized trail use. These roads are shown on the 

Alternative 2 Access Management map (figure 9).

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 proposes even-aged and uneven-aged timber harvest and new and temporary road 

construction. Alternative 3 also proposes road management objectives which define public motorized 

access.

Alternative 3 was designed to harvest timber in Timber Production and Modified Landscape LUDs while 

maintaining scenic quality, old-growth habitat and habitat connectivity as specified in the Forest Plan. 

This alternative provides timber volume opportunities for both large and small sales within the suitable 

land base under the 2016 Forest Plan. Alternative 3 is designed to address Issues 2 (Wildlife Habitat), 3 

(Scenic Quality) and 4 (Access Management). This alternative avoids harvest in the mill basin area and in 

areas adjacent to Long Lake. It proposes less harvest in the Fools Inlet area than the proposed action. 

In this alternative the effects of timber harvest on scenic quality are reduced by prescribing more partial 

harvest, requiring at least two-thirds of the stand to remain, and harvesting fewer acres overall (figure 7). 

Alternative 3 also maintains wildlife habitat and connectivity (Issue 2), and minimizes impacts to 

recreation while still incorporating some economic harvest opportunities. It addresses Issue 4 by 

providing additional motorized public access following harvest.

Timber Harvest: Alternative 3 would yield an estimated 41 MMBF of old-growth saw/utility timber 

volume from approximately 2,648 acres. Silvicultural prescriptions include approximately 1,311 acres of 

uneven-aged management (implemented using the single-tree or group-selection harvest method) and 

1,337 acres of even-aged management (implemented using clearcut or clearcut with reserves harvest 

methods) with conventional cable, shovel, and helicopter logging systems. The uneven-aged management 

prescription is designed primarily to provide visual resource protection but also reduce effects to wildlife. 

Where there are no safety or resource concerns, this alternative will allow for short-term public access 

under permit to gather firewood from temporary roads, after timber harvest activities are complete. No 

young-growth harvest is included in this alternative. 
Summary

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ v

Roads: Alternative 3 proposes construction of 15.4 miles of new NFS roads and 8.9 miles of temporary 

roads. It also proposes reconditioning 4.4 miles of existing NFS roads. All temporary roads would be 

decommissioned after activities are complete. Existing marine access facilities at Pat Creek and Earl West 

could be used.

Motorized Access Management: The motorized access management proposed in this alternative was 

developed through a collaborative process between the IDT and the Wrangell Borough. The process 

identified the roads associated with the alternative that are the most important to the community for 

subsistence and recreation access. Then, the roads were evaluated based on resource protection needs and 

future maintenance costs. Alternative 3 proposes closing 16.4 miles of road to public motorized use and 

decommissioning 0.2 mile of road. Approximately 85.4 miles of NFS road would be open for public 

motorized access of all types and 13.2 miles would be open to off-highway vehicles (motorized trail). 

These roads are shown on the Alternative 3 Access Management map (figure 10). 

Alternative 4

Alternative 4 was designed to harvest timber in Timber Production and Modified Landscape LUDs. This 

alternative provides timber volume opportunities for both large and small sales within the suitable land 

base under the 2016 Forest Plan. Alternative 4 proposes even-aged and uneven-aged timber harvest and 

new and temporary road construction. Alternative 4 also proposes road management objectives which 

define public motorized access.

The alternative was designed to maximize the economic value of the timber harvest from which to offer 

individual timber sales (Issue 1) while protecting scenic quality, old-growth habitat and connectivity, and 

other resources as specified in the Forest Plan. This was done by proposing harvest units with the lowest 

logging costs and minimizing road construction and helicopter yarding distances (figure 6). Alternative 4 

minimizes helicopter harvest in the mill basin and Eastern Passage areas. It emphasizes even-aged harvest 

over the more costly partial harvest.

Timber Harvest: Alternative 4 would yield an estimated 43 MMBF of old-growth saw/utility timber 

volume from approximately 2,992 acres. Silvicultural prescriptions include approximately 1,572 acres of 

uneven-aged management (implemented using the single-tree or group-selection harvest method) and 

1,420 acres of even-aged management (implemented using clearcut or clearcut with reserves harvest 

methods) with conventional cable, shovel, and helicopter logging systems. The uneven-aged management 

prescription is designed primarily to provide visual resource protection but also reduce effects to wildlife. 

Where there are no safety or resource concerns, this alternative will allow for short-term public access 

under permit to gather firewood from temporary roads, after timber harvest activities are complete. No 

young-growth harvest is included in this alternative. 

Roads: Alternative 4 proposes construction of 15.9 miles of new NFS roads and 10.3 miles of temporary 

roads. It also proposes reconditioning 4.0 miles of existing NFS roads. All temporary roads would be 

decommissioned after activities are complete. The existing marine access facilities at Pat Creek and Earl 

West could be used.

Motorized Access Management: The motorized access management proposed in this alternative was 

developed through a collaborative process between the IDT and the Wrangell Borough. The process 

identified the roads associated with the alternative that are the most important to the community for 

subsistence and recreation access. Then, the roads were evaluated based on resource protection needs and 

future maintenance costs. Alternative 4 proposes closing 16.8 miles of road to public motorized use and 

decommissioning 0.2 mile of road. Approximately 85.7 miles of NFS road would be open for public 

motorized access of all types and 12.9 miles would be open to off-highway vehicles (motorized trail). 

These roads are shown on the Alternative 4 Access Management map (figure 11).
Summary

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ vi

Alternative 5

Alternative 5 is designed to harvest timber in the Timber Production and Modified Landscape LUDs. This 

alternative provides timber volume opportunities for both large and small sales within the suitable land 

base under the 2016 Forest Plan. Alternative 5 proposes even-aged and uneven-aged timber harvest, and 

new and temporary road construction. Alternative 5 also proposes road management objectives which 

define public motorized access. 

Alternative 5 is designed to provide timber harvest while protecting wildlife habitat to respond to Issue 2 

(Wildlife Habitat). In this alternative, the effects of timber harvest on wildlife habitat are reduced by using 

more partial-harvest prescriptions that require at least two-thirds of the stand to remain and reduce the 

number of acres harvested. As a result, fewer acres of wildlife habitat would be affected, including 

elevational corridors, low-elevation habitat, and high productive old-growth (POG) habitat. It also 

minimizes harvest activities in areas with higher specific wildlife values such as 500-foot no-harvest 

buffers on streams that have brown bear feeding (figure 9). This alternative also provides wildlife habitat 

connectivity by proposing fewer roads overall and closing all newly constructed roads following timber 

harvest activities, to create a lower road density. These road closures are intended to reduce effects on 

wolves and would also reduce effects on deer and marten. This alternative avoids harvest in the Thoms 

Area and in areas adjacent to Long Lake. It does propose partial harvest in the mill basin area. 

Timber Harvest: Alternative 5 would yield an estimated 39 MMBF of old-growth saw/utility timber 

volume from approximately 3,440 acres. Silvicultural prescriptions include about 2,635 acres of unevenaged management (implemented using the single-tree or group-selection harvest method) and about 805 

acres of even-aged management (implemented using clearcut or clearcut with reserves harvest methods) 

with conventional cable, shovel, and helicopter logging systems. This alternative will not allow for public 

access to harvest firewood from temporary roads. No young-growth harvest is included in this alternative. 

Roads: Alternative 5 proposes construction of 12.7 miles of new NFS roads and 6.6 miles of temporary 

roads. It also proposes reconditioning 2.9 miles of existing NFS roads. All temporary roads would be 

decommissioned immediately after harvest activities are complete. Existing marine access facilities at Pat

Creek and Earl West could be used.

Motorized access management: The ATM deferred closure of some roads until the Wrangell Island 

Project EIS is complete. Alternative 5 would fully implement the ATM and also close all newly 

constructed roads. Approximately 37 miles of road (existing and proposed) would be closed and 2.5 miles 

of existing road would be decommissioned. Approximately 72.9 miles of existing NFS road would be 

available for public use for motorized vehicles of all types and no road would be open to off-highway 

vehicles (motorized trail). These roads are shown on the Alternative 5 Access Management map (figure 

12).

Comparison of Alternatives

The following table compares outputs and provides a summary of the effects of implementing each 

alternative for the key issues. 
Summary

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ vii

Table 1. Alternative Comparison table summarizing the effects of implementing each alternative for the key 

issues

Measure or Question Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Basic Project Data

Timber Harvest (acres) 0 4,767 2,648 2,992 3,440

Volume of Harvest 

(MMBF) 0 56 41 43 39

Road construction (total 

miles of NFS 

construction and 

reconditioning, and 

temporary road 

construction)

0 31.1 28.6 30.1 22.2

ISSUE 1: TIMBER 

SUPPLY AND TIMBER 

SALE ECONOMICS

Timber Volume 

Millions of 

Board Feet 

(MMBF)

Sawtimber 0 51 36 38 35

Utility 0 4.9 4.6 4.8 4.4

Total Net Volume 0 55.8 40.7 43.3 39.1

Logging System (Acres)

Cable 0 998 969 1,010 576

Shovel 0 528 411 543 343

Helicopter 0 3,241 1,268 1,439 2,521

Total Harvest Acres 0 4,767 2,648 2,992 3,440

Timber Volume by 

Species 

Millions of 

Board Feet 

(MMBF)

Sitka spruce 0 11.2 8.0 8.5 7.6

Hemlock 0 26.5 18.8 20.0 18.0

Western redcedar 0 4.1 2.9 3.1 2.8

Yellow-cedar 0 9.2 6.5 6.9 6.2

Financial Efficiency 

Analysis 

(Current 

Region 10 

Export 

Policy)

Indicated Advertised 

Rate ($/thousand board 

feet (MBF) net 

removed)

0 ($59.23) ($55.00) ($61.54) ($92.74)

Road Construction and 

Reconditioning Costs 

($/MBF net removed)

$0.00 $81.60 $96.80 $98.20 $85.40

Logging Costs ($/MBF 

net removed) 0 $325.55 $298.66 $303.96 $352.30
Summary

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ viii

Measure or Question Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Financial Efficiency 

Analysis

(Domestic 

Processing)

Indicated Advertised 

Rate ($/MBF net 

removed)

0 ($220.64) ($216.41) ($222.95) ($254.15)

Road Construction and 

Reconditioning Costs 

($/MBF net removed)

0 $81.60 $96.80 $98.20 $85.40

Logging Costs ($/MBF 

net removed) 0 $325.55 $298.66 $303.96 $352.30

Employment 

Number of 

Annualized 

Jobs 

Supported

Total Jobs Estimated 

under Current Region 

10 Policy (includes 

export and domestic 

processing)

0 222 158 168 151

100% Domestic 

Processing 0 267 190 202 182

ISSUE 2: WILDLIFE 

HABITAT 

Cumulative Change to 

Deer Habitat on All 

Land Ownerships

Percent 

Change From 

Historical 

Acres

Historical Deep Snow 

Winter Habitat (highproductivity old-growth 

(POG) ≤800’ elevation 

on south-facing

aspects)

-33% -34% -34% -34% -33%

Historical Average 

Winter Habitat (POG 

≤1,500’ elevation)

-18% -25% -22% -22% -23%

Historical Non-winter 

Habitat (all habitats 

except older young 

growth)

-4% -5% -5% -5% -5%

Cumulative Change in 

Deer Model Habitat 

Capability (DHC) on 

All Land Ownerships

Percent 

Change in 

DHC Since 

1954 

(at stem 

exclusion)

1954 Theoretical 

Number of Deer -17% -22% -20% -21% -21%
Summary

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ ix

Measure or Question Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Effects on Wolves on 

All Land Ownerships

Deer Density 

Compared to 

Historical 

Deer Density 

(deer/mi2 at 

stem 

exclusion)

Deer Model Deer 

Density – 1954 10.6 10.0 10.3 10.2 10.2

Road Density below 

1,200’ for all roads 

(open and closed)

Road Density

(mi/mi2)

Road Density 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.2

Cumulative Change to 

Bear Habitat on All 

Land Ownerships

Percent 

Change From 

Historical 

Habitat

Historical POG within 

500’ of Class I fish 

streams

-17% -19% -18% -18% -18%

Cumulative Change to 

American Marten

Habitat on All Land 

Ownerships

Percent 

Change From 

Historical 

Habitat

Historical Winter 

Habitat – High-volume 

POG < 1500’ in 

elevation

-34% -40% -38% -38% -39%

Historical Year-round 

Habitat – POG -15% -21% -18% -19% -19%

Cumulative Change to 

Goshawk Habitat on 

All Land Ownerships

Percent 

Change From 

Historical 

Habitat

Historical Nesting 

Habitat by WAA – HighVolume POG -32% -39% -36% -36% -37%

Historical Foraging 

Habitat by WAA – All 

POG

-15% -21% -18% -19% -19%

Cumulative Changes 

to High-Volume POG 

and all POG Habitat 

on All Land 

Ownerships

Percent 

Change From 

Historical 

Habitat

High-volume POG -32% -39% -36% -36% -37%

All POG -15% -21% -18% -19% -19%
Summary

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ x

Measure or Question Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

ISSUE 3: SCENIC 

QUALITY

Scenic integrity 

objectives met? yes yes yes yes yes

Relative impact on 

scenery as a result of 

proposed timber 

harvest (lowest=1 to 

highest=5)

1 5 4 3 2

Relative impact on 

scenery as a result of 

proposed road 

construction (lowest=1 

to highest=5)

1 4 3 5 2

ISSUE 4: ACCESS 

MANAGEMENT

Proposed NFS road 

construction (miles) 0 16.8 15.4 15.9 12.7

Proposed temporary 

road construction 

(miles)

0 9.9 8.9 10.3 6.6

Proposed road 

reconditioning (miles) 0 4.4 4.4 4.0 2.9

Estimated total road 

costs (in millions of 

dollars)

0 $4.5 $3.9 $4.2 $3.3

Road designations, 

following 

implementation (total, 

island-wide)

Open to all vehicles 

(miles) 73.7 86.0 85.4 85.7 72.9

Motorized trails (miles) 0 14.5 13.2 12.9 0

Closed to all vehicles 

(miles) 23.5 15.9 16.4 16.8 37.0

Decommissioned 

(miles) 2.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 2.5
Table of Contents

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ xi

Table of Contents

Abstract..........................................................................................................................................................i

Summary........................................................................................................................................................i

Introduction ...............................................................................................................................................i

Location of the Project Area......................................................................................................................i

Why is this Project Important? ..................................................................................................................i

The Project Purpose and Need...................................................................................................................i

The Proposed Action ................................................................................................................................ii

Decisions to Be Made...............................................................................................................................ii

Key Issues.................................................................................................................................................ii

Issue 1: Timber Supply and Timber Sale Economics............................................................................ii

Issue 2: Wildlife Habitat .......................................................................................................................ii

Issue 3: Scenic Quality.........................................................................................................................iii

Issue 4: Access Management ...............................................................................................................iii

Alternatives Considered in Detail............................................................................................................iii

Alternative 1 – No Action ....................................................................................................................iii

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ..........................................................................................................iii

Alternative 3.........................................................................................................................................iv

Alternative 4..........................................................................................................................................v

Alternative 5.........................................................................................................................................vi

Comparison of Alternatives.....................................................................................................................vi

Table of Contents.........................................................................................................................................xi

Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action.......................................................................................................1

Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................1

Document Organization ........................................................................................................................1

Location of the Project Area.....................................................................................................................1

Why is this Project Important? .................................................................................................................3

The Project Purpose and Need..................................................................................................................3

The Proposed Action ................................................................................................................................7

Relationship to the Forest Plan.................................................................................................................7

Decisions to be Made ...............................................................................................................................7

Public and Agency Involvement...............................................................................................................8

Cooperating Agencies...........................................................................................................................8

Stewardship Opportunities .......................................................................................................................8

Roads and Transportation......................................................................................................................9

Recreation .............................................................................................................................................9

Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Improvement......................................................................................10

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

Key Issues...........................................................................................................................................10

Federal and State Permits and Authorizations........................................................................................13

Applicable Laws and Executive Orders .................................................................................................13

Changes Made Between the Draft EIS and the Final EIS ......................................................................14

Availability of the Project Record ..........................................................................................................15

Map Disclaimer...................................................................................................................................15

Chapter 2. Alternatives................................................................................................................................17

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................17

Alternative Development........................................................................................................................17

Alternatives Considered in Detail...........................................................................................................17

Alternative 1 – No Action ...................................................................................................................17
Table of Contents

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ xii

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action .........................................................................................................18

Alternative 3........................................................................................................................................19

Alternative 4........................................................................................................................................19

Alternative 5........................................................................................................................................20

Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures for Action Alternatives............................................21

Best Management Practices................................................................................................................21

Marine Access Facilities.....................................................................................................................21

Landings..............................................................................................................................................22

Hazardous Materials ...........................................................................................................................22

Streams................................................................................................................................................22

Silviculture..........................................................................................................................................22

Soils.....................................................................................................................................................22

Wildlife ...............................................................................................................................................22

Wetlands..............................................................................................................................................22

Invasive Plants....................................................................................................................................23

Scenery................................................................................................................................................23

Monitoring..............................................................................................................................................23

Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Detailed Study..............................................................23

Small Sales and Wildlife Alternative ..................................................................................................24

Increase Available Timber Volume through Forest Plan Amendments...............................................24

Increase Wildlife Habitat Protections through Forest Plan Amendments...........................................24

Increase Available Timber Volume by Reducing Nest and Stream Buffers........................................24

Increase Available Timber Volume by Proposing Harvest over a 30-year Harvest Period .................24

Include Timber Harvest within Inventoried Roadless Areas...............................................................25

Avoid Timber Harvest within the 2003 Forest Plan Inventoried Roadless Areas...............................25

Avoid Timber Harvest in Low-Elevation Productive Old-Growth Areas...........................................25

Avoid Timber Harvest in McCormack Creek and Salamander Creek Watersheds.............................25

No New Road Construction ................................................................................................................25

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

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences........................................................53

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................53

The Project Area .....................................................................................................................................53

Administrative and Ecological Land Divisions..................................................................................53

Available Information .........................................................................................................................64

Other Resources..................................................................................................................................65

Issue 1: Timber Economics and Availability ..........................................................................................65

Summary.............................................................................................................................................65

Affected Environment.........................................................................................................................66

Environmental Consequences.............................................................................................................67

Issue 2: Wildlife Habitat.........................................................................................................................73

Introduction.........................................................................................................................................73

Affected Environment.........................................................................................................................77

Environmental Consequences.............................................................................................................92

Issue 3: Scenic Quality .........................................................................................................................122

Introduction.......................................................................................................................................122

Affected Environment.......................................................................................................................122

Environmental Consequences...........................................................................................................126

Issue 4: Access Management................................................................................................................148

Affected Environment.......................................................................................................................149

Environmental Consequences...........................................................................................................154

Other Resources Concerns....................................................................................................................161
Table of Contents

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ xiii

Air Quality and Climate Change.......................................................................................................161

Aquatics............................................................................................................................................168

Cultural Resources............................................................................................................................189

Environmental Justice.......................................................................................................................195

Plants: Sensitive and Rare.................................................................................................................195

Invasive Plants..................................................................................................................................203

Recreation .........................................................................................................................................209

Silviculture........................................................................................................................................223

Soils...................................................................................................................................................235

Subsistence........................................................................................................................................242

Wetlands............................................................................................................................................257

Findings and Disclosures......................................................................................................................262

Chapter 4. Lists and References................................................................................................................263

Document Preparers and Contributors..................................................................................................263

Interdisciplinary Team Members ......................................................................................................263

Major Contributors and Reviewers...................................................................................................264

Distribution of the Environmental Impact Statement...........................................................................265

List of Agencies, Organizations and Persons to whom copies of the Statement are Sent.................265

References ............................................................................................................................................266

Index .........................................................................................................................................................283

Appendix A - Rationale for Scheduling the Wrangell Island Project........................................................283

Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................287

How Does the Wrangell Island Project Fit into the Greater Tongass Timber Program? ......................287

Why is This Project Occurring in This Location? ................................................................................288

Why is Timber Volume from the Tongass Being Offered for Sale? .....................................................289

National Legislation..........................................................................................................................289

Alaska-Specific Legislation ..............................................................................................................289

Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan................................................................................290

USDA Investment Strategy for Creating Jobs and Healthy Communities in Southeast Alaska .......291

Transition to Young-Growth Timber.................................................................................................292

Old-growth “Bridge Timber”............................................................................................................292

How Does the Forest Service Develop Forecasts about Future Timber Market Demand? ..................293

Market Demand for the Planning Cycle ...........................................................................................293

Annual Market Demand....................................................................................................................294

What Steps Must Be Completed to Prepare a Timber Contract for Offer? ..........................................296

Gate 1 – Initial Planning of Timber Sale Project ..............................................................................296

Gate 2 – Project Analysis and Design (and Decision) ......................................................................296

Gate 3 – Sale Plan Implementation and Appraisal (Preparation of a Timber Harvest Contract)......296

Gate 4 – Final Package Preparation, Review, Appraisal, and Offering (Advertise a Contract)........296

Gate 5 – Bid Opening .......................................................................................................................297

Gate 6 – Award a Contract ................................................................................................................297

How Does the Forest Service Maintain an Orderly and Predictable Timber Program? .......................297

Pools of Timber (Pipeline Volume)...................................................................................................297

Pool 1 - Timber Volume under Analysis (Gate 1 and Gate 2)...........................................................297

Pool 2 - Timber Volume Available for Sale (Gates 3, 4, and 5)........................................................298

Pool 3 - Timber Volume under Contract (Gate 6).............................................................................299

How Objections and Litigation Affect the Tongass Timber Program...................................................300

How Does The Forest Service Decide Where Timber Harvest Projects Should Be Located? .............301

Forest-level and District-level Planning ...........................................................................................301

Conclusion............................................................................................................................................302

References ............................................................................................................................................303
Table of Contents

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ xiv

List of Tables

Table 1. Alternative Comparison table summarizing the effects of implementing each alternative for the 

key issues............................................................................................................................................vii

Table 2. Alternative comparison table.........................................................................................................26

Table 3. Land use designations (LUDs) on Wrangell Island.......................................................................54

Table 4. 2001 Inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) within the Wrangell Island project area.........................56

Table 5. Summary of past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions within or adjacent to the project 

area......................................................................................................................................................62

Table 6. Estimated Forest Service Costs.....................................................................................................68

Table 7. Employment multipliers................................................................................................................68

Table 8. Project employment and income utilizing the current export policy1 ...........................................69

Table 9. Project employment and income utilizing 100 percent domestic processing1 ..............................70

Table 10. Alternative comparison of the measures and potential effects of project activities on timber 

supply and timber sale economics ......................................................................................................72

Table 11. List of threatened and endangered species, sensitive species, management indicator species and 

species of interest analyzed.................................................................................................................74

Table 12. Size-density model habitat classifications...................................................................................78

Table 13. Wrangell Island Project, species analyzed, preferred habitat and units of measure....................79

Table 14. Total acres of POG harvested by VCU or WAA for each alternative (NFS lands only) .............94

Table 15. Total acres of high-volume POG harvested by VCU or WAA for each alternative (NFS lands 

only)....................................................................................................................................................95

Table 16. Original (1954) POG and high-volume POG (HPOG) remaining by VCU and WAA (all land 

ownerships).........................................................................................................................................97

Table 17. Deer density (deer/mi2

) estimates for each alternative compared to the current (2015) condition 

on NFS lands in WAA 1903................................................................................................................98

Table 18. Road miles (mi) and density (mi/mi2

) below 1,200 feet on NFS lands by alternative and road 

status ...................................................................................................................................................99

Table 19. Cumulative effects to deer density (deer/mi2

) on all land ownerships in WAA 1903 by 

alternative..........................................................................................................................................100

Table 20. Cumulative road density below 1,200 feet (mi/mi2

) on all land ownerships on Wrangell Island 

by alternative.....................................................................................................................................100

Table 21. Existing acres of POG, HPOG and percent reduction from existing by alternative in WAA 1903 

on NFS land only ..............................................................................................................................101

Table 22. Number of historical and current POG patches, compared to POG patches for the action 

alternatives (NFS land only).............................................................................................................101

Table 23. Acres of marten habitat harvested by alternative ......................................................................102

Table 24. Acres of marten high-volume POG (HPOG) habitat harvested by even and uneven management

..........................................................................................................................................................103

Table 25. Acres of historical marten habitat, POG/high-volume POG (HPOG), and the percent remaining 

by alternative within WAA 1903 for all land ownerships.................................................................105

Table 26. Existing acres of bear habitat (NFS lands) in WAA 1903 and percent reduction from existing 

condition ...........................................................................................................................................106

Table 27. Historical and existing acres of bear habitat and percent remaining by alternative (all land 

ownerships) in WAA 1903 ................................................................................................................107

Table 28. Acres of POG (high, medium, low) and nonproductive lands - historical, existing, amount of 

harvest and percent remaining by alternative (NFS land).................................................................109

Table 29. Effects on brown creepers, hairy woodpeckers and red-breasted sapsuckers by alternative, as 

represented by the reduction of acres of POG habitat on Wrangell Island (NFS lands only)........... 110
Table of Contents

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ xv

Table 30. Effects on brown creepers, hairy woodpeckers and red-breasted sapsuckers by alternative, as 

represented by acres of remaining POG habitat on all land ownerships on Wrangell Island ........... 111

Table 31. Acres of POG harvested within 500 feet of Class I and II streams in WAA 1903 and percent 

reduction by alternative (NFS lands) ................................................................................................ 112

Table 32. Acres of POG harvested within 500 feet of Class I and II streams (all lands) in WAA 1903. Also 

shows percent of historical POG remaining for each alternative...................................................... 113

Table 33. Deer habitat capability (DHC) (measured from theoretical number of deer) and percent of 

current DHC reduced by alternative in WAA 1903 on NFS lands only............................................ 114

Table 34. Acres of harvest of deep snow, average snow, and non-winter habitat for deer (NFS lands only). 

Also includes percent reduction from current acres.......................................................................... 114

Table 35. Deer habitat capability (measured as theoretical number of deer) and percent remaining of 

historical (1954). Numbers are for all lands in WAA 1903............................................................... 115

Table 36. Deep snow, average snow, and non-winter habitat for deer in WAA 1903 (all lands) and acres 

harvested, percent remaining from historical condition.................................................................... 116

Table 37. Acres of existing Vancouver Canada goose habitat and percent reduction from existing 

condition by alternative (NFS lands only) ........................................................................................ 116

Table 38. Historical acres of Vancouver goose habitat and percent remaining by alternative (all lands). 117

Table 39. Great blue heron habitat (1,000-foot beach buffer and 100-foot lake buffer) on NFS lands in 

WAA 1903......................................................................................................................................... 118

Table 40. Acres of historical and existing POG habitat in WAA 1903 (NFS lands only). Also shows the 

percentage of POG habitat remaining from historical and percentage of POG reduction by alternative

.......................................................................................................................................................... 118

Table 41. Acres harvested and percentage of remaining historical POG habitat on all lands on Wrangell 

Island in WAA 1903.......................................................................................................................... 119

Table 42. Acres by distance zone for Wrangell Island ..............................................................................123

Table 43. Scenic integrity objectives for NFS lands on Wrangell Island..................................................124

Table 44. Issues and indicators for the scenery resource ..........................................................................125

Table 45. Proposed acres of even-aged and uneven-aged timber harvest by alternative and scenic integrity 

objective............................................................................................................................................128

Table 46. Miles road construction (new) and existing road reconditioning (rec) by alternative and scenic 

integrity objective (SIO) ...................................................................................................................128

Table 47. Post-1980 young growth and proposed timber harvest acres by VCU and alternative.............147

Table 48. Post-1980 young growth and proposed timber harvest on NFS land by VCU expressed as a 

percentage of cumulative visual disturbance ....................................................................................148

Table 49. Miles of existing roads, Wrangell Island project area...............................................................150

Table 50. Existing bridges, Wrangell Island project area..........................................................................152

Table 51. Proposed and existing road miles..............................................................................................155

Table 52. Proposed Road Management Objective recommendations by alternative ................................155

Table 53. Estimated transportation costs and efficiencies.........................................................................156

Table 54. Seventh level HUC watersheds analyzed for the Wrangell Island Project................................169

Table 55. Stream classes and stream density within watersheds affected by the proposed timber harvest 

activities............................................................................................................................................173

Table 56. Summary of past timber harvest acres (not including road clearings) since 1985 in watersheds 

affected by the proposed activities....................................................................................................174

Table 57. Existing roads1 within affected watersheds...............................................................................175

Table 58. Riparian area within affected watersheds that include recorded riparian harvest.....................176

Table 59. Transitional snow zone (TSZ) watersheds with predicted peak flow change from existing (Alt 1)

..........................................................................................................................................................177

Table 60. Proposed road construction in project area watersheds (percent increase)...............................178

Table 61. New NFS and temporary road crossings by alternative ............................................................179
Table of Contents

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ xvi

Table 62. Proposed acres of harvest by watershed and harvest type and the predicted peak flow change for 

Alternative 2......................................................................................................................................180

Table 63. Proposed roads and stream crossings by watershed for Alternative 2.......................................180

Table 64. Cumulative harvest, road density and peak flow response for Alternative 2 ............................181

Table 65. Proposed acres of harvest by watershed and harvest type and the predicted peak flow change for 

Alternative 3......................................................................................................................................181

Table 66. Proposed roads and stream crossings by watershed for Alternative 3.......................................182

Table 67. Cumulative harvest, road density and peak flow response for Alternative 3 ............................182

Table 68. Proposed acres of harvest by watershed and harvest type and the predicted peak flow change for 

Alternative 4......................................................................................................................................183

Table 69. Proposed roads and stream crossings by watershed for Alternative 4.......................................183

Table 70. Cumulative harvest, road density and peak flow response for Alternative 4 ............................184

Table 71. Proposed acres of harvest by watershed and harvest type and the predicted peak flow change for 

Alternative 5......................................................................................................................................185

Table 72. Proposed roads and stream crossings by watershed for Alternative 5.......................................185

Table 73. Cumulative harvest, road density and peak flow response for Alternative 5 ............................186

Table 74. Alaska Region sensitive plant and lichen species known or suspected to occur in the Wrangell 

Island project area .............................................................................................................................198

Table 75. Invasive species known to occur in the Wrangell Island project area.......................................206

Table 76. A summary of the level of risk of invasive plant spread by alternative based on proposed road 

construction, road reconditioning and miles of open road after project implementation..................208

Table 77. ROS classes on Wrangell Island, listed from least to most developed, and the acres of each ..214

Table 78. Change in ROS class.................................................................................................................215

Table 79. Existing condition in the Wrangell Island Project unit pool expressed as percent of unit pool by 

rating .................................................................................................................................................225

Table 80. Acres harvested by silvicultural system and harvest method for each alternative ....................231

Table 81. Soil texture and drainage related to parent material..................................................................237

Table 82. Summary of existing soil disturbance related to past management activities...........................239

Table 83. Estimated acres of detrimental soil disturbance........................................................................240

Table 84. Acres of harvest and miles of road construction on steep slopes..............................................240

Table 85. Deer habitat capability (measured from a theoretical number of deer) and the percentage of 

DHC remaining or reduced from the existing condition by alternative in WAA 1903 (NFS lands 

only)..................................................................................................................................................245

Table 86. Percentage of deer habitat capability from historical (1954) and total deer available to humans 

on all land ownerships in WAA 1903................................................................................................246

Table 87. Deer density (deer/mi

2

) from current condition on NFS lands in WAA 1903...........................246

Table 88. Cumulative change in deer density (deer/mi2

) from current condition on all land ownerships in 

WAA 1903.........................................................................................................................................246

Table 89. Miles and density of open roads1 on all land ownerships in WAA 1903...................................247

Table 90. Wetland acres impacted by alternative ......................................................................................260

Table 91. Tongass National Forest Timber Sale Volume to Meet Derived Demand.................................293

Table 92. Accomplishments in Gate System and Timber Pools (MMBF) as of May 2017 ......................300

List of Figures

Figure 1. Wrangell Island Project vicinity map ............................................................................................2

Figure 2. Land use designations and value comparison units within the project area ..................................5

Figure 3. Alternative 1 - Existing condition of the Wrangell Island project area........................................33

Figure 4. Alternative 2 - Proposed action for the Wrangell Island Project .................................................35

Figure 5. Alternative 3 for the Wrangell Island Project ..............................................................................37
Table of Contents

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ xvii

Figure 6. Alternative 4 for the Wrangell Island Project ..............................................................................39

Figure 7. Alternative 5 for the Wrangell Island Project ..............................................................................41

Figure 8. Access management - existing road access plan for Wrangell Island..........................................43

Figure 9. Access management proposed for Alternative 2..........................................................................45

Figure 10. Access management proposed for Alternative 3........................................................................47

Figure 11. Access management proposed for Alternative 4........................................................................49

Figure 12. Access management proposed for Alternative 5........................................................................51

Figure 13. Inventoried roadless areas on Wrangell Island ..........................................................................57

Figure 14. National Forest System lands available for harvest...................................................................59

Figure 15. Area of forested land on Wrangell Island ..................................................................................61

Figure 16. Deep snow deer habitat; areas of refugia for deer during times of deep snow..........................87

Figure 17. Existing scenic integrity (Alternative 1) for the Wrangell Island project area ........................129

Figure 18. Scenery integrity objectives (SIOs) for Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) ...............................131

Figure 19. Scenery integrity objectives (SIOs) for Alternative 3..............................................................133

Figure 20. Scenery integrity objectives (SIOs) for Alternative 4..............................................................135

Figure 21. Scenery integrity objectives (SIOs) for Alternative 5..............................................................137

Figure 22. Visual simulation viewpoint map. The numbers (1, 2 and 3) on the map correspond to the 

photographs on the following pages .................................................................................................139

Figure 23. Viewpoint #1. Zimovia Highway at Shoemaker Bay looking south towards the mill basin area; 

existing condition..............................................................................................................................141

Figure 24. Simulation of uneven-aged management, 33 percent removal, as seen from Viewpoint #1 ...142

Figure 25. Viewpoint #2. Zimovia Strait looking northeast toward Pat Lake; existing condition............143

Figure 26. Simulation of uneven-aged management, 33 percent removal, as seen from Viewpoint #2 ...144

Figure 27. Viewpoint #3. Eastern Passage looking southward toward Salamander Ridge; existing 

condition ...........................................................................................................................................145

Figure 28. Simulation of uneven-aged management, 33 percent removal, as seen from Viewpoint #3 ...146

Figure 29. Stream class and 7th level HUC watersheds for Wrangell Island ............................................171

Figure 30. Recreation areas on Wrangell Island ....................................................................................... 211

Figure 31. Existing recreation opportunity spectrum inventory on Wrangell Island - least impact 

(Alternative 1)...................................................................................................................................217

Figure 32. Recreation opportunity spectrum inventory for the Proposed Action (Alternative 2) – highest 

impact (maximum harvest) ...............................................................................................................219

Figure 33. Tongass Timber Volume Harvested (MMBF) for Fiscal Years 2001-2016 .............................291

Chapter 1

Purpose and Need for 

Action

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 1

Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action

Introduction

The Tongass National Forest has prepared this environmental impact statement (EIS) to analyze the

potential environmental impacts of a multi-year proposal involving timber harvest, road construction, and 

future road access management on Wrangell Island in Southeast Alaska. Proposed activities would take 

place on National Forest System (NFS) lands on the Wrangell Ranger District.

In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State 

laws and regulations, this EIS describes the purpose and need for the project and discloses the direct, 

indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts and any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of 

resources that would result from the proposed action and alternatives.

Document Organization

This document was prepared following regulations provided in the Council of Environmental Quality’s 

“Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act” and 

Forest Service directives. According to those regulations, this environmental impact statement is designed 

to be analytic rather than encyclopedic, discussing only briefly issues other than significant ones, and 

incorporating more detailed reports, regulations, and literature by reference. Detailed and supporting 

information can be found in the project record.

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need for Action: This chapter explains the purpose and need for the proposed 

action, details public involvement activities conducted to date, and identifies the key issues driving the 

EIS analysis. This chapter also lists required Federal and State permits, licenses and certifications needed 

to implement the project, as well as applicable laws and executive orders that pertain to the project.

Chapter 2 – Alternatives: This chapter describes the proposed action and alternatives, explains how 

alternatives were developed, compares alternatives by issues and effects, and explains alternatives 

considered but eliminated from detailed study. 

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: This chapter describes the affected 

environment and evaluates the potential direct, indirect and cumulative environmental consequences of 

each of the alternatives on the existing conditions.

Chapter 4 –Lists and References: This chapter contains the list of preparers, FEIS distribution list, 

references and index. 

Appendix A – Rationale for Scheduling the Wrangell Island Project: This appendix explains why the 

Wrangell Island Project was selected for inclusion into the Tongass National Forest Timber Program, and

explains the basis and components of the Tongass Timber Program.

Appendix B – Response to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement: This appendix is the 

Forest Service’s response to comments received on the Wrangell Island Project Draft EIS (DEIS) and can 

be found online at http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=34831.

Location of the Project Area

The project area is defined as Wrangell Island. Wrangell Island is part of the Alexander Archipelago and 

lies between Juneau and Ketchikan, in Southeast Alaska. The northern end of Wrangell Island lies at the 

mouth of the Stikine River, which is located on the North American mainland, and has long-standing 
1 Purpose and Need for Action

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 2

Figure 1. Wrangell Island Project vicinity map
Purpose and Need for Action 1

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 3

cultural and economic value to the community of Wrangell. Wrangell Island is surrounded by Zimovia 

Strait, Ernest Sound, the Eastern Passage and Blake Channel (the latter two are collectively and locally 

referred to as the “backchannel”). Nearby islands include Woronkofski, Etolin and Zarembo. Of Wrangell 

Island’s 134,306 acres, 113,110 acres are part of the Tongass National Forest (figure 1).

According to the 2010 Census, the City and Borough of Wrangell had a population of 2,369, with Alaska 

Natives comprising approximately 16 percent of the total (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). Wrangell’s total 

estimated population was 2,442 in 2015 (ADOL 2016).

Why is this Project Important?

A project plan for the Wrangell Island Project was completed in April 2009. At that time, the Forest 

Supervisor for the Tongass reviewed the project plan and determined the proposed project was feasible to 

prepare, it was consistent with the 2008 Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

(also referred to as the “Forest Plan”), and further investment of resources and capital was warranted.

In 2010, the Alaska Regional Forester introduced the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA)

development of a strategy known as the Transition Framework program in a letter to the Members of the 

Tongass Futures Roundtable (USDA Forest Service 2010a). The purpose of the Transition Framework is 

to help Southeast Alaska diversify and strengthen its economy. The Forest Service, Rural Development, 

and Farm Service Agency and the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Economic Development 

Administration are working with business industry leaders, other government agencies, tribes, and nongovernmental organizations to help communities move to a more diversified economy by supporting job 

creation in renewable energy, forest restoration, timber, tourism, subsistence, fisheries, and mariculture. 

Key strategies for success are collaboration, innovation, access to capital, and strengthening community 

capacity.

In 2013, the Secretary of Agriculture directed the Forest Service to transition to a predominantly younggrowth-based timber program over the next 10 to 15 years (USDA 2013). However, maintaining the 

existing industry during this time period will be essential and will require a “bridge” strategy to continue 

to allow some old-growth harvest to sustain communities and jobs through this transition. A major step, 

following the example of successful mills in the lower 48, is for industry in Southeast Alaska to retool its 

equipment to process smaller logs from younger trees. To do so, however, requires substantial investment 

over several years.

The Wrangell Island Project can contribute to providing “bridge” timber to sustain the current industry 

and jobs in communities, while opportunities are developed for Southeast Alaska young growth. 

Therefore, an underlying need exists for a reliable economic supply of sawtimber for Southeast Alaska 

mills to help support the timber industry and employment through the transition years until the industry 

can switch to a stable supply of young growth.

The Project Purpose and Need

The purpose of the Wrangell Island Project is to respond to the Plan Components (for example, goals and 

objectives) identified by the 2016 Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan (also referred to as the 

“Forest Plan”) (USDA Forest Service 2016b) to guide timber management to support the local and 

regional economies of Southeast Alaska, while moving the Wrangell Island project area towards the 

desired condition for all resources. The Wrangell Island Project DEIS referred to the goals and objectives 
1 Purpose and Need for Action

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 4

in the 2008 Forest Plan. These have been updated in this FEIS to be consistent with the 2016 Forest Plan. 

Forest-wide multiple-use goals and objectives that apply to this project include, but are not limited to:

Timber—Goals and Objectives (USDA Forest Service 2016b):

• Goal: Provide for the continuation of timber uses and resources by the timber industry and Alaska 

residents.

• Goal: Manage the timber resource for production of saw timber and other wood products from 

lands suitable for timber production, on an even-flow, long-term sustained yield basis and in an 

economically efficient manner.

• Objective: Seek to provide an economic timber supply sufficient to meet the annual market 

demand for Tongass National Forest timber, and the market demand for the planning cycle. The 

volume of young growth as part of the yearly offer will increase from an average of 9.2 MMBF 

annually in the first decade to an average of 25 MMBF annually in years 11-15 as the program 

nears full transition.

• Objective: Seeking to accelerate a transition to primarily young-growth harvest, offer an average 

of 46 MMBF annually in a combination of old-growth and young growth. When young growth

offered is less than 41 MMBF, provide old-growth to make up the difference and achieve the 

average annual projected timber sale quantity of 46 MMBF. After the transition, offer an average 

of 5 MMBF of old-growth annually to support Southeast Alaska mills. 

• Objective: Provide about a 3 year supply of volume under contract to local mills and then 

establish NEPA-cleared volume to maintain flexibility and stability in the sale program. 

• Objective: Review the timber sale program and work with the State and other partners to 

implement changes that keep an “economic timber” perspective throughout the process and 

monitor the implementation of these reforms to ensure they are consistently employed across the 

Forest. 

Local and Regional Economy—Goals and Objectives (USDA Forest Service 2016b):

• Goal: Provide a diversity of opportunities for resource uses that contribute to the local and 

regional economies of Southeast Alaska.

• Objective: Support a wide range of natural resource employment opportunities within Southeast 

Alaska’s communities.

The underlying need for the Wrangell Island Project comes from the Forest Service’s obligation, subject 

to applicable law, to seek to provide a supply of timber from the Tongass National Forest that meets 

market demand annually and for the planning cycle (Tongass Timber Reform Act, Section 101).

This project would contribute to the orderly flow of timber to large and small timber purchasers, mill 

operators, and value-added wood product industries in Southeast Alaska and benefit the local and regional 

economies of Wrangell and Southeast Alaska while also improving forest resource conditions. This 

project would help provide a reliable, supply of “bridge” timber consistent with the selected alternative in 

the 2016 Forest Plan ROD to support local jobs and facilitate the industry transition to a sustainable wood 

product industry based on young-growth management on the Tongass National Forest (USDA Forest 

Service 2016e, p. 7).
Purpose and Need for Action 1

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 5

Figure 2. Land use designations and value comparison units within the project area

Purpose and Need for Action 1

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 7

The Proposed Action

The Forest Service is proposing a multi-year project involving timber harvest and associated road 

construction on Wrangell Island. The proposed action includes the harvest of timber from approximately 

4,767 acres of forested land, which would provide an estimated 56 million board feet (MMBF) of 

sawtimber and utility wood that could be made available to industry. Timber harvest prescriptions would 

include both even-aged (clearcut) and uneven-aged (partial cut) harvest using cable, helicopter and 

ground-based methods. 

The timber harvest would require approximately the construction of 16.8 miles of National Forest System 

(NFS) roads, the reconditioning of 4.4 miles of road and construction of approximately 9.9 miles of 

temporary road. Existing road systems and marine access facilities would also be used as needed to 

transport the timber. 

All activities would be conducted in a manner conducive to moving resources towards their desired 

conditions described in the Forest Plan.

Relationship to the Forest Plan

The Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) guides all natural resource management 

activities and establishes management direction for the Tongass National Forest, including timber 

management. The Forest Plan is updated about every 10 years. The Wrangell Island Project was originally 

developed under—and the DEIS referred to—the goals and objectives in the 2008 Forest Plan, which was 

amended and replaced in December 2016. In this FEIS, these goals and objectives have been updated to 

be consistent with the 2016 Forest Plan. 

The 2016 Forest Plan ROD states:

For activities or projects that are proposed and for which a final decision document has not yet 

been made prior to the approval of the amended Forest Plan, the project or activity decision 

document must describe how the project or activity is consistent with the amended Plan, as 

addressed in chapter 6 of the amended Plan.

To that end, the Wrangell Island Project FEIS has been updated for consistency with the 2016 Forest Plan,

including the alternatives in chapter 2 and the associated resource analysis in chapter 3. 

Decisions to be Made

The Responsible Official of this project is the Forest Supervisor for the Tongass National Forest. After 

reviewing the analysis, public comments, and how well each alternative achieves the purpose and need, 

the Forest Supervisor will make a decision which will include:

1. The estimated timber volume to make available from the project, as well as the location, design, 

and scheduling of timber harvest, road construction and reconditioning, and silvicultural practices 

used;

2. Road management objectives on both proposed and existing roads which will define motorized 

access (road, trail and area restrictions and closures); 

3. Project design features, mitigation and monitoring requirements; and

4. Any adjustments required to bring the selected alternative into compliance with the 2016 Forest 

Plan.
1 Purpose and Need for Action

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 8

Public and Agency Involvement

This project has included extensive public and agency involvement, through scoping letters, notices of 

intent in the Federal Register, public notices in the local news media, public meetings, and consultation 

with the Wrangell Cooperative Association, a federally recognized tribe. Additionally, the project has 

been listed in the Tongass National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions, and presentations about the 

project proposal were made to interested groups. Detailed information on the public and agency 

involvement process is located in the project record.

In response to advertised comment periods prior to the release of the DEIS, 77 comment letters were

received regarding the project proposal. While some comments supported the proposed project, most 

expressed concerns about additional road construction, the effect of motorized access management 

decisions on subsistence, uneconomic timber harvest, a reduction in old-growth habitat and high-value

deer winter range, the effect on scenic integrity from visual priority travel routes and use areas identified 

in the Forest Plan, clearcutting as a harvest method, and the cumulative effects of additional old-growth 

harvest on previously harvested watersheds.

On June 3, 2016, after the DEIS was made available to the public, the Environmental Protection Agency 

published the Notice of Availability for the DEIS in the Federal Register, starting the 45-day public 

comment period (81 FR 35761). A legal notice was published on June 3, 2016 in the Ketchikan Daily 

News, the official newspaper of record. A courtesy notice was also published on June 2, 2016 in the 

Wrangell Sentinel, the local community newspaper. The DEIS was mailed to Federal and State agencies, 

native and municipal office and to others who requested it. A list of recipients is included in the project 

record. The DEIS was also available at the Wrangell Ranger District and at the Wrangell public library 

and on the Internet at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=34831. 

Sixty-five individual comment letters, one form letter and two petition-style documents, were received 

during the 45-day comment period. All submissions are in the project record and can be viewed in the 

public reading room on the Internet at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=34831. Text from 

municipal, State and Federal agency comment letters can also be found in appendix B of this document, 

along with the Forest Service’s response to all the public’s comments on the DEIS (table 94). Similar to 

those received during scoping, comments largely reflected concerns on the economics of the project, 

impacts to wildlife and fisheries, new road construction, and the cumulative effects of old-growth harvest 

on Wrangell Island. 

Cooperating Agencies

Because of interrelated goals and interests, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the State of Alaska and the 

City and Borough of Wrangell cooperated on this project. Scoping results and comments were shared with 

these agencies. Representatives from these agencies attended interdisciplinary team meetings, assisted in 

the development of the alternatives, and provided input to the analysis. 

Stewardship Opportunities

Many ideas for restoration and enhancement projects – collectively referred to as “stewardship 

opportunities” – were identified during the public involvement process for the Wrangell Island Project. 

These opportunities have not been included in this project. However, it is important to document these 

ideas so they may be assessed in future collaborative planning efforts. Separate environmental analyses, 

including additional public involvement, would be required before any of these projects could be 

implemented, and at this time, none are considered to be reasonably foreseeable. Timber receipts from the 

Wrangell Island Project or other funding sources could pay for these projects. A summary of these 

stewardship opportunities is presented below.
Purpose and Need for Action 1

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 9

Roads and Transportation

• Complete the north Wrangell loop road 

in cooperation with other land owners

• Tyee transmission line road access 

construction

• Fools Inlet ferry terminal construction

• Improve Pat Creek road and parking and 

picnic sites within Forest Service rightof-way easement

• Reopen road access south of Pat Creek

• Work with Wrangell Borough to 

improve Spur road access to the High 

Country Trailhead and reestablish 

drainages to reduce sedimentation and 

effects on water quality

• Work with State of Alaska to

decommission State road in Pat Valley 

and remove trash and contaminants, 

rehabilitate drainages to ensure fish 

passage and water quality, and 

reestablish as a recreational ATV trail

Recreation

• Improve Upper Salamander campsite 

• Surface trail to Salamander Ridge 

• Reestablish snowmobile trail in Pat

Creek Valley 

• Establish Old Hermit / Mt. Extreme 

snowmobile trail access

• Establish and implement vegetation 

management plans around recreation 

sites and key roadside viewpoints 

(includes hazard tree assessment and 

removal)

• Develop new dispersed recreation sites

• Develop a water trail concept with 

pullouts and shelters to circumnavigate 

island, including Fools Inlet area

• Enhance Earl West Marsh parking and 

recreation 

• Construct picnic area and shelter at 

overlook on Earl West Cove

• Construct trail to Earl West marsh and 

kayak launch area

• Build roadside cabin in Thoms Creek 

Crossing campsite area 

• Build roadside cabin at Fools Inlet 

road/trail

• Build cabin near Earl West Cove

• Establish Long Lake pond trail access 

and improve campsite 

• Improve access to Long Lake and High 

Bush Lake 

• Extend trail along Long Lake with 

shelter

• Improve dock at Long Lake 

• Build a dock at Thoms lake

• Connect the Spur Road 

• Improve Salamander Ridge trail

• Create a short, accessible trail to an oldgrowth stand of timber

• Extend existing trails with possible forks 

and loops

• Mark a cross-country ski trail off Pat

Creek road or McCormack Creek road 

area

• Create a network system of ATVpreferred roads

• Create trail along ridge and to ridge 

overlooking the mill basin

• Create winter trail system

• Create trail to access National Forest 

System land above Sowle’s rock pit

• Create trail from overgrown road across 

from Nemo Campsite for subsistence 

berry picking

• Create trail off of Rainbow Falls trail 

after first bridge, to other creek, and 

possibly looping back to main trail
1 Purpose and Need for Action

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 10

Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat 

Improvement

• Pat Lake area restoration with State and 

partners

• Beach fringe thinning

• Pre-commercial thinning

• Invasive plant control across land 

ownerships

• Re-establish south shore road access to 

Highbush Lake for potential fisheries 

enhancement

• Small-scale fish habitat enhancement 

opportunities on fish streams across the 

island

• Lower Salamander bank protection and 

fish improvements

• Watershed enhancements

• Restore sockeye habitat and maintain 

recreational usability of Pat Lake

• Install vault toilets to reduce surface 

water contamination

Issues

Issues serve to highlight effects or unintended consequences that may occur from the proposed action and 

alternatives, providing opportunities during analysis to reduce adverse effects and compare trade-offs for 

the Responsible Official and public to understand. After reviewing comments on the Wrangell Island 

Project received through public and internal scoping, the interdisciplinary team (IDT) developed a list of 

issues to help shape the environmental analysis. Similar issues are combined where appropriate. These 

were categorized as either key issues, or other issues and concerns. 

Key Issues

Key issues are used to formulate and design alternatives to the proposed action, formulate project design 

features, and analyze significant effects. Issues can arise from a variety of sources, including:

• Issues, concerns, and opportunities identified in the Forest Plan,

• Issues identified for similar projects (past actions),

• Current internal issues,

• Changes in public uses, attitudes, values, or perceptions,

• Issues raised by the public during scoping, and

• Comments from other government agencies.

Measures of the significance of an issue are based on the extent of the geographic distribution, the 

duration of the related effects, or the intensity of interest or resource conflict surrounding the issue. For an 

issue to be considered significant at the project level, it must be relevant to the specific project so that it 

can be appropriately addressed at the project level. Some issues have already been resolved through 

national level direction or analyzed at the Forest Plan level.

Once a significant issue is identified, measures are developed to analyze how each alternative responds to 

the issue. Measures are chosen that are quantitative (where possible), predictable, responsive to the issue, 

and linked to cause and effect relationships. These measures describe how the alternative affects the 

resource(s) at the heart of the issue (See Comparison of Alternatives and table 2 in chapter 2). Monitoring 

and mitigation of the anticipated environmental effects of the project are also designed to be responsive to 

key issues. 

The following issues are addressed by the action alternatives.
Purpose and Need for Action 1

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 11

Issue 1: Timber Supply and Timber Sale Economics

Issue statement: Both the timber supply and timber sale economics produced from National Forest 

System lands on Wrangell Island affect the stability of Southeast Alaska’s forest products industry and the 

ability of the industry to contribute to the local and regional economies during the transition to a 

sustainable supply of young growth. 

Most commenters expressing economic concerns cited the need to create well-paying local jobs and 

invigorate the local and regional timber economy in a sustainable manner; however, their ideas regarding 

what elements should be included in the proposed action to accomplish these goals varied considerably. 

Commenters suggested both large-volume sales (to attract large investors and create more service jobs) 

and small-volume sales (representing different demand calculations that incorporate factors beyond mill 

capacity and that would develop local value-added operations), as well as varying harvest unit 

prescriptions (i.e., clearcut versus partial cut). Some suggested including other economic support and 

recreation opportunities to make the project more economically viable. 

Units of measure: The comparison of alternatives for this issue will focus on the following units of 

measure:

• Total net volume of sawlog (MMBF) 

• Net sawlog volume by species (MMBF)

• Acres of harvest by logging system

• Acres of harvest by prescription 

• Cost of logging, haul and roads per total sawlog timber volume available ($/net MBF)

• Indicated advertised value ($/net MBF), using the FAST-R model

• Number of annualized jobs supported

Issue 2: Wildlife Habitat

Issue Statement: Proposed timber harvest and roads, combined with past and reasonably foreseeable 

timber harvest, would affect old-growth habitat used by wildlife, particularly deer, wolves, and goshawks.

Public and agency comments, as well as internal scoping, expressed concerns about project effects on 

wildlife in the project area, including a reduction in biodiversity, species imperilment, and destruction of 

wildlife habitat. Commenters indicated past management activities on Wrangell Island have caused 

habitat fragmentation, and the proposed project presents impacts to wildlife species that should be 

discussed in the environmental analysis. Further, commenters suggested the Forest Service seek 

opportunities for manipulating forest structure and composition to improve wildlife habitat.

Because the project area includes low-elevation, old-growth habitat, concern was noted relative to deer, 

wolves, bears, marten, goshawk, and other species. Of special concern are project effects on deer because 

of their importance to wolves and subsistence users. In particular, loss of deer habitat and increased 

competition due to additional road access were noted. 

Commenters are also concerned about impacts to subsistence use of wildlife. Because of its ease of 

access, the Wrangell Island project area is considered an important deer hunting area for the community 

of Wrangell. The cumulative effects on old-growth habitat associated with additional harvest, past harvest 

and increasing road density were noted concerns.
1 Purpose and Need for Action

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 12

Units of Measure: The primary units of measure to assess and compare the effects of the proposed 

activities to wildlife habitat include:

• Goshawk, acres of POG and high-volume POG habitat

• Deer model output, run separately for NFS lands only (direct and indirect effects), and all land 

ownerships given current or zero value (cumulative effects)

• Percentage reduction in POG at all elevations, POG below 1,500 feet and POG below 800 feet in 

elevation

• Percentage reduction in high-volume POG below 800 feet in elevation (marten and deep deer 

snow winter range habitat)

• Miles of open road at all elevations

• Road density (all roads) below 1,200 feet in elevation

• Patch size (acres) and number

• Total, high-volume, and large-tree productive POG acres by value comparison unit (VCU), 

wildlife analysis area (WAA), project area, and biogeographic province 

• Connectivity/fragmentation (qualitative analysis of corridors; reduction of POG acres; patch size 

analysis)

• Deer habitat capability by WAA and biogeographic province in deer/mi2

• Abundance and distribution of known wildlife subsistence resources

Issue 3: Scenic Quality

Issue Statement: Proposed timber harvest, combined with past and reasonably foreseeable timber 

harvest, would affect scenic integrity from visual priority travel routes and use areas identified in the 

Forest Plan, and in areas of particular scenic importance to the community of Wrangell.

Concerns were raised regarding potential effects of proposed timber harvest to Visual Priority Travel 

Routes, and areas of high scenic integrity. Comments were expressed regarding visual evidence of 

logging on the island and advocated for protection of the viewshed along the back channel from the water, 

which is important to the Wrangell tourism industry. Individual respondents urged avoidance of the 

viewsheds along the back channel or eastern passage southeast of Earl West and to leave the long pristine 

stretches of timber untouched to maintain scenic integrity. Long Lake, Zimovia Strait and the area to the 

east of the old mill site, known locally as the mill basin area, were identified as areas of visual concern. 

Other comments noted removing trees can provide desirable views of the landscape. 

Units of Measure: The following indicators were used to measure the potential effects of project 

alternatives to scenery.

• Forest Plan scenic integrity objectives (SIOs) achieved

• Total allowable visual disturbance by value comparison unit (VCU)

• Acres of timber harvest within Foreground distance zone by alternative

• Acres of harvest by scenic integrity objective (SIO)

• Acres of land use designation (LUD) by alternative

Issue 4: Access Management

Issue Statement: Access management decisions for motorized road use will affect future public access 

for recreation and subsistence and access for agency administrative purposes.
Purpose and Need for Action 1

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 13

Individual respondents offered support for creating more NFS roads and keeping temporary roads open 

longer for subsistence, firewood gathering, and recreation. Other respondents indicated the project should 

limit new roads, reduce density as a means of resolving wildlife or aquatic issues, protecting watersheds, 

or lowering maintenance costs.

Many respondents expressed concerns about the impacts of road construction on wildlife, fisheries, 

riparian and aquatic habitats, and watersheds, and about the impacts of reduced habitats and increased 

competition for subsistence resources. 

Units of Measure: The following indicators were used to measure potential effects of project activities on 

future public access:

• Miles of NFS road constructed

• Miles of temporary road construction

• Miles of NFS road reconditioning

• Total cost of NFS and temporary road construction and NFS road reconditioning.

• Total road cost per net thousand board feet of sawlog and utility volume harvested ($/net MBF)

Federal and State Permits and Authorizations

Prior to implementation of the project, the Forest Service would have to obtain various permits or 

authorizations from other Federal and State agencies. These include the following: 

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Review of the project’s hazardous materials spill 

prevention control and countermeasure plan

• State of Alaska, Department of Environmental Conservation: Certification of Compliance 

with Alaska Water Quality Standards (401 Certification); Stormwater Discharge Permit/Alaska

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System review under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act (402); 

Solid Waste Disposal Permit

• State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources: Authorization for occupancy and use of 

tidelands and submerged lands

• State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources and Alaska Mental Health Trust: Right-of-way 

authorizations

• State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO): Concurrence on Forest Service historic property 

determination

• State of Alaska, Department of Fish and Game: Concurrence with Title 16 for activities in 

streams such as culvert and bridge installation.

Applicable Laws and Executive Orders

Shown below is a partial list of Federal laws and executive orders pertaining to project-specific planning

and environmental analysis on Federal lands. While most pertain to all Federal lands, some of the laws 

are specific to Alaska. Disclosures and findings required by these laws and orders are contained in the 

Wrangell Island Project Record of Decision.

• Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) of 1980

• Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (as amended)

• Clean Air Act of 1970 (as amended)

• Clean Water Act (1977, as amended)
1 Purpose and Need for Action

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 14

• Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (as amended)

• Federal Cave Resource Protection Act of 1988

• Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

• Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972

• National Forest Management Act of 1976 (as amended)

• National Forest Transportation System Final Administrative Policy and Final Rule

• National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (as amended)

• Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA) of 1990

• Executive Order 11988 (Floodplains)

• Executive Order 11990 (Wetlands)

• Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)

• Executive Order 12962 (Aquatic Systems, Recreational Fisheries)

• Executive Order 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites)

• Executive Order 13112 (Invasive Species)

• Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments)

• Executive Order 13186 (Migratory Birds)

• Executive Order 13443 (Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation)

Changes Made Between the Draft EIS and the Final EIS

Minor changes or clarifications were made to most resource sections in chapter 3 between the DEIS and 

FEIS in response to public comments on the DEIS and to correct minor errors. The more substantial 

changes between the DEIS and FEIS are captured below.

Page numbers reference the FEIS. 

1. Throughout the FEIS, changes have been made to bring the Wrangell Island Project into 

compliance with the 2016 Forest Plan. Primarily this involved changes to the suitable forested 

land base, and in particular, removed harvest units from VCU 4790, which are no longer 

considered suitable for old-growth harvest.

2. Figure 14. National Forest System lands available for harvest has been changed to indicate nonNFS lands correctly. Page 59.

3. Figure 15. Area of forested land on Wrangell Island was added to aid discussion on the context of 

the impact of the project on Wrangell Island. Page 61.

4. The Purpose and Need for the Wrangell Island Project was developed under the 2008 Forest Plan 

and has not changed under the 2016 Forest Plan. The FEIS (page 3) has been updated to reflect 

consistency with the Plan Components (for example, goals and objectives) in chapter 5 of the 

2016 Forest Plan.

5. Table 5. Summary of past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions within or adjacent to the 

project area) was revised and moved to the beginning of chapter 3. Page 62.

6. Annualized job numbers (with 100 percent domestic processing) have been clarified. 

7. Clarifications on Wrangell red-backed vole have been made in the “Wildlife Habitat” section, 

including language on the distribution of the species (page 91), and that all effects are based on 

habitat (page 119). 
Purpose and Need for Action 1

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 15

8. Table 34 (page 114) and table 36 (page 116) have been revised to clarify information about highvolume POG on south-facing slopes below 800 feet.

9. Wolf mortality concerns have been clarified in the Issue 2 Wildlife section of chapter 3. 

Beginning on page 97.

10. The “Air Quality and Climate Change” section of chapter 3 has been updated to rescind

consideration of greenhouse gas emissions and the effects of climate change in the NEPA process.

11. Greenhouse gas contributions from timber harvest and their effect have been clarified. Beginning 

on page 163.

12. Cumulative effects of climate change have been clarified. Page 167.

13. Terminology related to partial harvest, and single-tree or group-selection harvest has been 

clarified throughout the EIS.

14. Appendix A has been revised to incorporate information about the Daniels et al. 2016 demand 

report (PNW-GTR-934) and updated timber volume numbers. Beginning on page 283.

15. Information on the AMHT land exchange has been updated to reflect the recent enactment of the 

Alaska Mental Health Land Trust Land Exchange Act of 2017. Page 62.

Availability of the Project Record

This analysis used the best information available. The Wrangell Island Project EIS project record contains 

detailed supporting material that documents the NEPA process and analysis from the beginning of the 

project to the publication of the final EIS (FEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD). The project record is 

available by request from the Wrangell Ranger District office in Wrangell, Alaska. 

Map Disclaimer

All map products in this document are reproduced from geospatial information prepared by the Forest 

Service. Geographic Information System (GIS) data and product accuracy may vary. Using GIS products 

for purposes other than those for which they were created may yield inaccurate or misleading results. The 

Forest Service reserves the right to correct, update, modify, or replace GIS products without notification. 

For more information, contact the Wrangell Ranger District.

Chapter 2

Alternatives

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 17

Chapter 2. Alternatives

Introduction

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives developed to address the key issues identified in 

chapter 1. The chapter includes a discussion of how the alternatives were developed, alternatives not 

brought forward for full analysis, and a description of each alternative considered in detail. Also included 

is a discussion of design features, mitigation measures and monitoring common to all action alternatives. 

The chapter concludes with maps of each alternative and an alternative comparison table.

A complete detailed discussion of the environmental effects of the alternatives are presented in chapter 3 

“Environment and Effects.”

At this time, Alternative 2 is identified as the Preferred Alternative. However, any one of the alternatives, 

or portions of them, could be selected by the Responsible Official in the Record of Decision.

Alternative Development

The suitable timber volume within the project area was analyzed in a logging system transportation plan 

which identified a possible pool of timber harvest units. This unit pool was screened for consistency with 

the 2008 Forest Plan and for economic feasibility to develop the proposed action in the DEIS. The 

proposed action was presented to the public during scoping to solicit public comment. Those comments 

were used to identity the key issues and alternatives to the proposed action to address those issues. 

The alternatives were reviewed during preparation of this FEIS for consistency with the lands currently 

suitable for old-growth timber production under the 2016 Forest Plan.

The 2016 Forest Plan, appendix A states that “Old-growth forest located within ... the T77 Watersheds 

and The Nature Conservancy / Audubon conservation priority areas...is identified as not suitable for 

timber production” (p. A-5).

For the Wrangell Island Project this means harvest units originally proposed within VCU 4790, a T77 

Watershed, are no longer suitable for old-growth timber harvest and have been removed from the 

alternatives.

All of the action alternatives and associated environmental impact analyses have been revised to reflect 

this change in the suitable timber base on Wrangell Island. 

Alternatives Considered in Detail

The Forest Service designed five alternatives for detailed analysis in this EIS. These include the no action 

alternative, the proposed action, and three alternatives developed in response to key issues to provide a 

reasonable range of alternatives. 

With the exception of Alternative 1, all are designed to achieve the purpose and need for the Wrangell 

Island Project. Maps of each alternative are located at the end of this chapter.

Alternative 1 – No Action

Alternative 1 is the “no-action” alternative because in this alternative, none of the proposed activities 

would occur (figure 3). 
2 Alternatives

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 18

The no action alternative is required. It provides a baseline of existing conditions and trends, enabling the 

Responsible Official to compare the magnitude of environmental effects of the action alternatives. In this 

alternative, other approved forest management activities not related to the proposed project would 

continue. Road access management would fully implement the 2007 Wrangell Ranger District Access and 

Travel Management Plan decision (ATM) for Wrangell Island.

The ATM deferred closure of some roads until the Wrangell Island Project EIS is complete. If Alternative 

1 is selected, then approximately 23.5 miles of NFS road currently open to motorized use would be 

closed, and 2.5 miles of existing NFS road would be decommissioned. Approximately 73.7 miles of 

existing NFS road would be open for public use for motorized vehicles of all types. These roads are 

shown on the Alternative 1 Access Management map (figure 8).

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Alternative 2 is the project’s proposed action, the proposal developed by the Forest Service to address the 

purpose and need. The proposed action was published in the Federal Register on October 27, 2015 (80 FR 

65691) and is the alternative designed to provide the greatest supply of timber volume for the timber 

industry, while protecting scenic quality, old-growth habitat and connectivity (figure 4). 

Alternative 2 proposes even-aged and uneven-aged timber harvest on suitable lands, and new and 

temporary road construction. Alternative 2 also proposes road management objectives which define 

public motorized access.

Alternative 2 is designed to harvest timber in the Timber Production and Modified Landscape LUDs. This 

alternative provides timber volume opportunities for both large and small sales within the suitable land 

base under the 2016 Forest Plan. This alternative proposes harvest in the mill basin area, as well as 

adjacent to Long Lake. This alternative addresses Issue 1 by providing the greatest timber volume from 

which to offer individual timber sales. It also addresses Issue 4 by providing the most motorized public 

access following harvest.

Timber Harvest: Alternative 2 would produce an estimated 56 MMBF of old-growth saw/utility timber 

volume from approximately 4,767 acres. Silvicultural prescriptions include approximately 3,359 acres of 

uneven-aged management (implemented using the single-tree or group-selection harvest method) and 

1,408 acres of even-aged management (implemented using clearcut or clearcut with reserves harvest 

methods) with conventional cable, shovel, and helicopter logging systems. The uneven-aged management 

prescription is designed to provide visual resource protection but also reduce negative effects to wildlife.

Where there are no safety or resource concerns, this alternative will allow for public access to gather 

firewood from temporary roads, after timber harvest activities are complete. No young-growth harvest is 

included in this alternative or any of the other alternatives, as no commercial young-growth timber is 

available.

Roads: Alternative 2 proposes construction of 16.8 miles of new NFS roads and 9.9 miles of temporary 

roads. It also proposes reconditioning 4.4 miles of existing NFS roads. All temporary roads would be 

decommissioned after activities are complete. Existing marine access facilities at Pat Creek and Earl West 

could be used.

Motorized Access Management: The motorized access management proposed in this alternative was 

developed through a collaborative process between the IDT and the Wrangell Borough. The process 

identified the roads associated with the alternative that are the most important to the community for 

subsistence and recreation access. Then the roads were evaluated based on resource protection needs and 

future maintenance costs. Alternative 2 proposes closing 15.9 miles of existing and proposed NFS road to 

public motorized use and decommissioning 0.2 mile of existing NFS road. Of the 16.8 miles of new NFS 

roads, 4.2 miles would be closed to all vehicles, 7.1 miles would be closed yet dual-designated as 
Alternatives2

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 19

motorized trails, and 5.6 miles would remain open to all vehicles. Approximately 86 miles of NFS road 

would be available for public motorized access, of which 14.5 miles would be restricted to motorized trail 

use. These roads are shown on the Alternative 2 Access Management map (figure 9).

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 proposes even-aged and uneven-aged timber harvest, and new and temporary road 

construction. Alternative 3 also proposes road management objectives which define public motorized 

access.

Alternative 3 was designed to harvest timber in Timber Production and Modified Landscape LUDs while 

maintaining scenic quality, old-growth habitat and habitat connectivity as specified in the Forest Plan. 

This alternative provides timber volume opportunities for both large and small sales within the suitable 

land base under the 2016 Forest Plan. 

Alternative 3 was designed to address Issues 2 (Wildlife Habitat), 3 (Scenic Quality) and 4 (Access 

Management). This alternative avoids harvest in the mill basin area and in areas adjacent to Long Lake. It 

proposes less harvest in the Fools Inlet area than the proposed action. In this alternative the effects of 

timber harvest on scenic quality are reduced by prescribing more partial harvest, requiring at least twothirds of the stand to remain, and harvesting fewer acres overall (figure 5). Alternative 3 also maintains 

wildlife habitat and connectivity (Issue 2), and minimizes impacts to recreation while still incorporating 

some economic harvest opportunities. It addresses Issue 4 by providing additional motorized public 

access following harvest.

Timber Harvest: Alternative 3 would yield an estimated 41 MMBF of old-growth saw/utility timber 

volume from approximately 2,648 acres. Silvicultural prescriptions include approximately 1,311 acres of 

uneven-aged management (implemented using the single-tree or group-selection harvest method) and 

1,337 acres of even-aged management (implemented using clearcut or clearcut with reserves harvest 

methods) with conventional cable, shovel, and helicopter logging systems. The uneven-aged management 

prescription is designed primarily to provide visual resource protection but also reduce effects to wildlife.

Where there are no safety or resource concerns, this alternative will allow for short-term public access 

under permit to gather firewood from temporary roads, after timber harvest activities are complete. No

young-growth harvest is included in this alternative.

Roads: Alternative 3 proposes construction of 15.4 miles of new NFS roads and 8.9 miles of temporary 

roads. It also proposes reconditioning 4.4 miles of existing NFS roads. All temporary roads would be

decommissioned after activities are complete. Existing marine access facilities at Pat Creek and Earl West 

could be used.

Motorized Access Management: The motorized access management proposed in this alternative was 

developed through a collaborative process between the IDT and the Wrangell Borough. The process 

identified the roads associated with the alternative that are the most important to the community for 

subsistence and recreation access. Then, the roads were evaluated based on resource protection needs and 

future maintenance costs. Alternative 3 proposes closing 16.4 miles of road to public motorized use and 

decommissioning 0.2 mile of road. Approximately 85.4 miles of NFS road would be open for public 

motorized access of all types and 13.2 miles would be open to off-highway vehicles (motorized trail). 

These roads are shown on the Alternative 3 Access Management map (figure 10). 

Alternative 4

Alternative 4 was designed to harvest timber in Timber Production and Modified Landscape LUDs. This 

alternative provides timber volume opportunities for both large and small sales within the suitable land 

base under the 2016 Forest Plan. Alternative 4 proposes even-aged and uneven-aged timber harvest and 
2 Alternatives

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 20

new and temporary road construction. Alternative 4 also proposes road management objectives which 

define public motorized access.

The alternative was designed to maximize the economic value of the timber harvest from which to offer 

individual timber sales (Issue 1) while protecting scenic quality, old-growth habitat and connectivity, and 

other resources as specified in the Forest Plan. This was done by proposing harvest units with the lowest

logging costs and minimizing road construction and helicopter yarding distances (figure 6). Alternative 4 

minimizes helicopter harvest in the mill basin and Eastern Passage areas. It emphasizes even-aged harvest 

over more costly partial harvest.

Timber Harvest: Alternative 4 would yield an estimated 43 MMBF of old-growth saw/utility timber 

volume from approximately 2,992 acres. Silvicultural prescriptions include approximately 1,572 acres of 

uneven-aged management (implemented using the single-tree or group-selection harvest method) and 

1,420 acres of even-aged management (implemented using clearcut or clearcut with reserves harvest 

methods) with conventional cable, shovel, and helicopter logging systems. The uneven-aged management 

prescription is designed primarily to provide visual resource protection but also reduce effects to wildlife. 

Where there are no safety or resource concerns, this alternative will allow for short-term public access 

under permit to gather firewood from temporary roads, after timber harvest activities are complete. This 

alternative will not allow for public access to harvest firewood from temporary roads. No young-growth 

harvest is included in this alternative.

Roads: Alternative 4 proposes construction of 15.9 miles of new NFS roads and 10.3 miles of temporary 

roads. It also proposes reconditioning 4.0 miles of existing NFS roads. All temporary roads would be 

decommissioned after activities are complete. The existing marine access facilities at Pat Creek and Earl 

West could be used.

Motorized Access Management: The motorized access management proposed in this alternative was 

developed through a collaborative process between the IDT and the Wrangell Borough. The process 

identified roads associated with the alternative that are most important to the community for subsistence 

and recreation access. Then, the roads were evaluated based on resource protection needs and future 

maintenance costs. Alternative 4 proposes closing 16.8 miles of road to public motorized use and 

decommissioning 0.2 mile of road. Approximately 85.7 miles of NFS road would be open for public 

motorized access of all types and 12.9 miles would be open to off-highway vehicles (motorized trail). 

These roads are shown on the Alternative 4 Access Management map (figure 11). 

Alternative 5

Alternative 5 is designed to harvest timber in the Timber Production and Modified Landscape LUDs. This 

alternative provides timber volume opportunities for both large and small sales within the suitable land 

base under the 2016 Forest Plan. Alternative 5 proposes even-aged and uneven-aged timber harvest, and 

new and temporary road construction. Alternative 5 also proposes road management objectives which 

define public motorized access.

Alternative 5 is designed to provide timber harvest while protecting wildlife habitat to respond to Issue 2

(Wildlife Habitat). In this alternative, the effects of timber harvest on wildlife habitat are reduced by using 

more partial-harvest prescriptions that require at least two-thirds of the stand to remain and reduce the 

number of acres harvested. As a result, fewer acres of wildlife habitat would be affected, including 

elevational corridors, low-elevation habitat, and high productive old-growth (POG) habitat. It also 

minimizes harvest activities in areas with higher specific wildlife values such as 500-foot no harvest 

buffers on streams that have brown bear feeding (figure 7). This alternative also provides wildlife habitat 

connectivity by proposing fewer roads overall and closing all newly constructed roads following timber 

harvest activities, to create a lower road density. These road closures are intended to reduce effects on 
Alternatives2

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 21

wolves and would also reduce effects on deer and marten. This alternative avoids harvest in the Thoms 

Lake Area and in areas adjacent to Long Lake. It does propose partial harvest in the mill basin area.

Timber Harvest: Alternative 5 would yield an estimated 39 MMBF of old-growth saw/utility timber 

volume from approximately 3,440 acres. Silvicultural prescriptions include about 2,635 acres of unevenaged management (implemented using the single-tree or group-selection harvest method) and about 805 

acres of even-aged management (implemented using clearcut or clearcut with reserves harvest methods) 

with conventional cable, shovel, and helicopter logging systems. No young-growth harvest is included in 

this alternative.

Roads: Alternative 5 proposes construction of 12.7 miles of new NFS roads and 6.6 miles of temporary 

roads. It also proposes reconditioning 2.9 miles of existing NFS roads. All temporary roads would be 

decommissioned immediately after harvest activities are complete, limiting access to firewood. Existing 

marine access facilities at Pat Creek and Earl West could be used.

Motorized access management: The ATM deferred closure of some roads until the Wrangell Island 

Project EIS is complete. Alternative 5 would fully implement the ATM and also close all newly 

constructed roads. Approximately 37.0 miles of road (existing and proposed) would be closed and 2.5 

miles of existing road would be decommissioned. Approximately 72.9 miles of existing NFS road would 

be available for public use for motorized vehicles of all types and no road would be open to off-highway 

vehicles (motorized trail). These roads are shown on the Alternative 5 Access Management map (figure 

12).

Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures for Action 

Alternatives

To reduce or avoid the overall impacts of this project, design features and mitigation measures have been 

incorporated into the harvest units for all action alternatives based on the application of the Forest Plan

standards and guidelines and management prescriptions. The intent of these standards and guidelines are 

to help avoid, minimize, or mitigate possible adverse impacts due to project activities. Where applicable, 

these site-specific project design features are identified the unit and road cards. 

Best Management Practices

Best management practices (BMPs) are methods, measures, or practices to directly or indirectly protect 

water quality, and abate or mitigate adverse water quality impacts while meeting other resource goals and 

objectives identified in FSH 2509.22, Region 10 Soil and Water Conservation Handbook and the National 

Core BMPs. They are the result of collaboration between the Forest Service and the State of Alaska to 

identify practices to ensure timber harvest activities minimize soil erosion and protect aquatic habitat to 

meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act. 

BMPs are applied to all management activities including timber harvest and road construction, 

reconditioning, and maintenance.

Marine Access Facilities

The two existing Forest Service marine access facilities (MAFs), Pat Creek and Earl West, are available

to convey logs for saltwater transportation. These facilities are permitted with the State of Alaska and are 

designed to minimize impacts to soil, water quality and marine environment.
2 Alternatives

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 22

Landings

Landings constructed for conventional or helicopter logging systems would be located adjacent to 

existing or newly constructed roads near harvest locations. Existing landings and rock quarries would be 

used for log storage and helicopter support services when available.

Hazardous Materials

All activities with potential for spills of hazardous materials would comply with all State and Federal 

permits and laws regarding hazardous materials storage and cleanup. They would also comply with BMPs 

and other requirements such as a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan. 

Streams

To retain stream channel characteristics, including riparian vegetation, all Class I and II streams and lakes 

would be protected by a no-harvest riparian management area (RMA) buffer of 100 feet or more, and 

managed an appropriate distance beyond the no-harvest buffer to provide for a reasonable assurance of 

windfirmness, consistent with the Forest Plan. Class III streams would be protected by a minimum width, 

no-harvest buffer, and a reasonable assurance of windfirmness zone adjacent to the RMA. Class IV 

streams would be protected by directional timber felling and yarding away from stream channel. 

Silviculture

Where specified, uneven-aged management (partial harvest) would harvest a maximum of one-third of the

stand leaving a minimum of two-thirds to provide for visual, wildlife, and other resource values.

Soils 

Effects to soils would be minimized by utilizing existing roads, landings, and rock quarries for timber 

harvest activities when present. Where feasible, temporary road locations would take advantage of 

topography and minimize disruption of natural drainage patterns. Areas identified for shovel yarding 

generally only occur on slopes less than 35 percent and outside riparian management areas. Slash or 

puncheon mats would be used to protect soils by distributing the weight of the mechanized harvest 

equipment in exposed soil areas. The leading end of logs would be suspended during cable yarding 

operations, reducing the soil disturbance as the logs are dragged along the soil surface. Helicopter yarding 

would provide full suspension of logs, suspending logs above the ground and avoiding soil disturbance. 

Fine organic matter and coarse woody debris from cull logs and breakage of tops and branches remaining 

on the ground would provide nutrient recycling.

Wildlife

In units designated for uneven-aged management (partial harvest), a maximum of one-third of the stand 

would be removed leaving a minimum of two-thirds to provide cavity-nesting habitat and other wildlife 

habitat values. In areas of uneven-aged management, standing snags, and snags felled for safety reasons,

would be retained to provide wildlife habitat. Known or suspected heron and raptor nests would be 

protected. A 600-foot windfirm buffer would be applied around all active nests. A minimum of 100 acres 

of POG would be provided around all known goshawk nests.

Wetlands

Roads would be located to avoid wetlands to the extent practicable. Drainage structures would be used in 

sufficient number to maintain natural hydrologic conditions. Ditching would be minimized to prevent 

excessive drainage. Ground-based logging systems would be required to place slash to float the 

equipment to minimize wetland disturbance. 
Alternatives2

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 23

Invasive Plants

Require rock material from existing quarries for construction of new roads to be inspected and 

documented as being free of any highly invasive species; require erosion control material (such as seed 

mixes) to be certified as “weed-free” for the local ecosystem; and maintain crushed rock stockpiles and 

active quarries in a “weed-free” condition. 

Develop a comprehensive invasive plant management approach prior to project implementation; focus

treatment of small weed infestations in high-value habitats (e.g., riparian, beach fringe) tiering to the 2013 

Wrangell-Petersburg Integrated Weed Management Plan; eradicate or control of any newly introduced 

invasive plant species prior to closing roads; prioritize for eradication or control of invasive plants on 

roads with low levels of existing infestations that act as a vector to high country or estuarine habitat.

Scenery

To reduce the visual impact of clearcut harvest areas, and where safety and operability concerns would 

permit, vertical structure containing both live and dead trees may be retained within timber harvest units 

and along unit edges to emulate natural openings. Unit boundaries would be shaped and feathered where 

feasible to reduce unnaturally-shaped edges and hard lines that appear as artificial features on the 

landscape.

Monitoring

Project monitoring is used to determine how well specific design features or mitigation work in 

minimizing adverse impacts and achieving resource objectives. The project would be monitored during 

implementation to ensure that timber sale contract provisions and resource protection measures are 

followed.

Harvest activities would be monitored as part of timber sale contract administration. Harvest units would 

be monitored with regeneration surveys to ensure adequate stand regeneration as required by the National 

Forest Management Act. Project harvest units and roads would be incorporated into the random selection 

pool for Forest-wide BMP monitoring program. 

Invasive plants would be monitored within the project area as part of the Wrangell District Invasive Plant 

Management program.

Soil disturbance would be monitored through the Forest-wide BMP and soils monitoring programs.

Bark accumulation at the Pat Creek and Earl West marine access facilities would be monitored as required 

by the Alaska APDES Permit AKG700000 – Log Transfer Facilities in Alaska.

Project activities would be monitored to ensure that any previously unknown historical or cultural sites 

that are found would be adequately protected.

Roads and bridges associated with the project would be monitored as part of the Forest-wide roads and 

bridges inspection program. 

Goshawk nests and suspected nest areas would continue to be monitored in accordance with Forest 

goshawk monitoring protocols.

Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Detailed Study

Several alternatives were considered during the planning process, but eliminated from detailed study in 

the EIS. They are described briefly below, along with rationale for not considering them further.
2 Alternatives

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 24

Small Sales and Wildlife Alternative

This alternative proposed a limited timber offer to industry of 2 MMBF per year to meet the needs of 

small local sawmills. Comments suggested that doing so over a period up to 30 years would protect 

wildlife habitat on Wrangell Island. 

This alternative was eliminated because an offer of only 2 MMBF of timber per year would not meet the 

purpose and need for the project. Another reason this alternative was eliminated is because accessing the 

available timber would require road construction and helicopter yarding. Such costs could not be 

recovered by small operators in sales of only 2 MMBF in size. Opportunities for small mill owners to

obtain small sales are already included in all the action alternatives.

Increase Available Timber Volume through Forest Plan Amendments

This alternative was proposed to provide a larger supply of timber by dropping some of the environmental 

protections which restrict the amount of timber available for harvest. This would require project-specific 

Forest Plan amendments to move or modify old-growth reserve boundaries, and to remove some visual 

priority route designations. 

This alternative was eliminated from further study by the Responsible Official because the Forest Plan 

was undergoing an amendment process. The amendment process is now complete. The 2016 Forest Plan 

FEIS considered visual protection and the Tongass Conservation Strategy and found them to be valid.

Increase Wildlife Habitat Protections through Forest Plan Amendments

This alternative proposed to increase the size, and modify the boundaries, of the small and medium oldgrowth reserves in order to provide additional wildlife habitat protection and connectivity. This would 

require a project-specific Forest Plan amendment to modify the old-growth reserve boundaries.

This alternative was eliminated from further study by the Responsible Official because the Forest Plan 

was undergoing an amendment process. The amendment process is now complete. The Tongass 

Conservation Strategy including OGR boundaries was considered in the 2016 Forest Plan Amendment. 

No changes to the OGRs themselves on Wrangell Island were identified in the Forest Plan.

Increase Available Timber Volume by Reducing Nest and Stream Buffers

This alternative proposed to increase available timber volume by reducing nest and stream buffers. Nest 

buffers would apply only a standard radius, without regard for productive old growth within the buffer. 

Stream buffers would only be placed on Class III streams in areas where required by best management 

practices. 

This alternative was eliminated because it would not meet the Forest Plan standards and guidelines for 

nests and stream buffers. In addition, a preliminary analysis indicated that reducing these buffers would 

not result in enough additional timber volume to justify the reduced buffer protections.

Increase Available Timber Volume by Proposing Harvest over a 30-year Harvest

Period

This alternative proposed to provide timber volume from the project over a 30-year period by scheduling 

harvest that would not currently meet the “green up” guidelines until adjacent harvested stands had 

adequately regenerated. 

This alternative was eliminated because the additional timber volume is similarly represented in other 

alternatives and there is too much uncertainty to schedule harvest activities over a 30-year period.
Alternatives2

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 25

Include Timber Harvest within Inventoried Roadless Areas

This alternative was eliminated because timber harvest and road construction are no longer allowed 

within the 2001 Roadless Rule inventoried roadless areas due to the Tongass exemption no longer being 

valid. In addition, the 2016 Forest Plan Record of Decision states, “no old-growth or young-growth 

harvest will occur in roadless areas identified in the 2001 Roadless Rule” (p. 6). As a result, these areas 

are unsuitable for timber harvest.

Avoid Timber Harvest within the 2003 Forest Plan Inventoried Roadless Areas

This alternative proposed to exclude timber harvest and road construction within inventoried roadless 

areas identified in the 2003 Forest Plan SEIS and decision. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 

decision eliminating the Tongass exemption to the Roadless Rule, reestablishing the 2001 inventoried 

roadless areas on the Tongass. The 2003 Forest Plan inventoried roadless areas are no longer considered 

as inventoried roadless due to the 2001 Roadless Rule reinstatement, which specifically identifies the 

inventoried roadless areas established by the Roadless Rule.

Avoid Timber Harvest in Low-Elevation Productive Old-Growth Areas

These alternatives proposed to avoid timber harvest and road construction within areas of productive old 

growth below 1,500-, 1,000- or 800-foot elevations to protect wildlife habitat and winter range concerns. 

This alternative was eliminated because it is represented in the Alternative 5 design to reduce the effect of 

timber harvest on wildlife habitat.

Avoid Timber Harvest in McCormack Creek and Salamander Creek Watersheds

This alternative proposed to exclude timber harvest or road construction within McCormack Creek and 

Salamander Creek basins to address watershed-related concerns about the level of previous harvest in 

these areas. 

This alternative was eliminated because it is already addressed in Alternative 1.

No New Road Construction 

This alternative proposed timber harvest without any new road construction which would limit timber 

harvest to only helicopter yarding or to areas along existing roads. 

This alternative was eliminated because it would not meet the purpose and need for timber volume, would 

be highly uneconomical due to the high costs of helicopter yarding, and it would not develop road 

infrastructure to support the transition to young-growth harvest.
2 Alternatives

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 26

Comparison of Alternatives 

Table 2 compares outputs and provides a summary of the effects of implementing each alternative for all 

resources.

Table 2. Alternative comparison table

Measure or Question Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Basic Project Data

Timber Harvest (acres) 0 4,767 2,648 2,992 3,440

Volume of Harvest 

(MMBF) 0 56 41 43 39

Road construction (total 

miles of NFS and 

temporary road 

construction)

0 31.1 28.6 30.1 22.2

ISSUE 1: TIMBER 

SUPPLY AND TIMBER 

SALE ECONOMICS

Timber Volume 

Millions of 

Board Feet 

(MMBF)

Sawtimber 0 51 36 38 35

Utility 0 4.9 4.6 4.8 4.4

Total Net Volume 0 55.8 40.7 43.3 39.1

Logging System (Acres)

Cable 0 998 969 1,010 576

Shovel 0 528 411 543 343

Helicopter 0 3,241 1,268 1,439 2,521

Total Harvest Acres 0 4,767 2,648 2,992 3,440

Timber Volume by 

Species 

Millions of 

Board Feet 

(MMBF)

Sitka spruce 0 11.2 8.0 8.5 7.6

Hemlock 0 26.5 18.8 20.0 18.0

Western redcedar 0 4.1 2.9 3.1 2.8

Yellow-cedar 0 9.2 6.5 6.9 6.2

Financial Efficiency 

Analysis 

(Current 

Region 10 

Export 

Policy)

Indicated Advertised 

Rate ($/thousand board 

feet (MBF) net removed)

$0.00 ($59.23) ($55.00) ($61.54) ($92.74)

Road Construction and 

Reconditioning Costs 

($/MBF net removed)

$0.00 $81.60 $96.80 $98.20 $85.40

Logging Costs ($/MBF 

net removed) $0.00 $325.55 $298.66 $303.96 $352.30
Alternatives2

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 27

Measure or Question Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Financial Efficiency 

Analysis

(Domestic 

Processing)

Indicated Advertised 

Rate ($/MBF net 

removed)

$0.00

($220.64) ($216.41) ($222.95) ($254.15)

Road Construction and 

Reconditioning Costs 

($/MBF net removed)

$0.00

$81.60 $96.80 $98.20 $85.40

Logging Costs ($/MBF 

net removed)

$0.00 $325.55 $298.66 $303.96 $352.30

Employment 

Number of 

Annualized 

Jobs 

Supported

Total Jobs Estimated 

under Current Region 

10 Policy (includes 

export and domestic 

processing)

0 222 158 168 151

100% Domestic 

Processing 0 267 190 202 182

ISSUE 2: WILDLIFE 

HABITAT 

Cumulative Change to 

Deer Habitat on All 

Land Ownerships

Percent 

Change From 

Historical 

Acres

Historical Deep Snow 

Winter Habitat (highproductivity old-growth 

(POG) ≤800’ elevation 

on south-facing aspects)

-33% -34% -34% -34% -33%

Historical Average 

Winter Habitat (POG 

≤1,500’ elevation)

-18% -25% -22 -22% -23%

Historical Non-winter 

Habitat (all habitats 

except older young 

growth)

-4% -5% -5% -5% -5%

Cumulative Change in 

Deer Model Habitat 

Capability (DHC) on 

All Land Ownerships

Percent 

Change in 

DHC Since 

1954 

(at stem 

exclusion)

1954 Theoretical 

Number of Deer -17% -22% -20% -21% -21%
2 Alternatives

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 28

Measure or Question Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Effects on Wolves on 

All Land Ownerships

Deer Density 

Compared to 

Historical 

Deer Density 

(deer/mi2 at 

stem 

exclusion)

Deer Model Deer 

Density – 1954 10.6 10.0 10.3 10.2 10.2

Road Density below 

1,200’ for all roads 

(open and closed)

Road Density

(mi/mi2)

Road Density 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.2

Cumulative Change to 

Bear Habitat on All 

Land Ownerships

Percent 

Change From 

Historical 

Habitat

Historical POG within 

500’ of Class I fish 

streams

-17% -19% -18% -18% -18%

Cumulative Change to 

American Marten

Habitat on All Land 

Ownerships

Percent 

Change From 

Historical 

Habitat

Historical Winter Habitat 

– High-volume POG < 

1500’ in elevation

-34% -40% -38% -38% -39%

Historical Year-round 

Habitat – POG -15% -21% -18% -19% -19%

Cumulative Change to 

Goshawk Habitat on 

All Land Ownerships

Percent 

Change From 

Historical 

Habitat

Historical Nesting 

Habitat by WAA – HighVolume POG 

-32% -39% -36% -36% -37%

Historical Foraging 

Habitat by WAA – All 

POG

-15% -21% -18% -19% -19%

Cumulative Changes 

to High-Volume POG 

and all POG Habitat on 

All Land Ownerships

Percent 

Change From 

Historical 

Habitat

High-volume POG -32% -39% -36% -36% -37%

All POG -15% -21% -18% -19% -19%

ISSUE 3: SCENIC 

QUALITY

Scenic integrity 

objectives met? yes yes yes yes yes

Relative impact on 

scenery as a result of 

proposed timber harvest 

(lowest=1 to highest=5)

1 5 4 3 2
Alternatives2

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 29

Measure or Question Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Relative impact on 

scenery as a result of 

proposed road 

construction (lowest=1 

to highest=5)

1 4 3 5 2

ISSUE 4: ACCESS 

MANAGEMENT

Proposed NFS road 

construction (miles) 0 16.8 15.4 15.9 12.7

Proposed temporary 

road construction 

(miles)

0 9.9 8.9 10.3 6.6

Proposed road 

reconditioning (miles) 0 4.4 4.4 4.0 2.9

Estimated total road 

costs (in millions of 

dollars)

$0 $4.5 $3.9 $4.2 $3.3

Road designations, 

following 

implementation (total, 

island-wide)

Open to all vehicles 

(miles) 73.7 86.0 85.4 85.7 72.9

Motorized trails (miles) 0 14.5 13.2 12.9 0

Closed to all vehicles 

(miles) 23.5 15.9 16.4 16.8 37.0

Decommissioned 

(miles) 2.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 2.5

AIR QUALITY AND 

CLIMATE CHANGE

Contribute to the effects 

of or current rate of 

climate change, 

including carbon 

sequestration?

not likely slight increase slight increase slight increase slight increase

Contribute to Yellowcedar decline? not likely not likely not likely not likely not likely

Contribute to 

greenhouse gas 

emissions?

no yes yes yes yes

AQUATICS

NFS road stream 

crossings

Class I 0 2 2 1 1

Class II 0 8 5 6 3

Class III 0 29 25 21 21
2 Alternatives

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 30

Measure or Question Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Temporary road 

stream crossings

Class I 0 0 0 0 0

Class II 0 2 1 1 1

Class III 0 11 7 4 8

CULTURAL 

RESOURCES

Impacts to cultural 

resources? no no no no no

ENVIRONMENTAL 

JUSTICE

Disproportionately high 

or adverse impact on 

low-income or minority 

populations who use the 

project area?

no no no no no

INVENTORIED 

ROADLESS AREAS

Impact on inventoried 

roadless areas? no no no no no

PLANTS: SENSITIVE 

AND RARE

Sensitive plants: lung 

lichen and Henderson’s 

checkermallow

No risk of 

adverse 

impact

No risk of 

adverse 

impact

No risk of 

adverse 

impact

No risk of 

adverse 

impact

No risk of 

adverse 

impact

Sensitive plants: Alaska 

rein orchid, Calder’s 

lovage, edible thistle, 

mountain lady’s slipper

No risk of 

adverse 

impact

Minor risk of 

adverse 

impact

Minor risk of 

adverse 

impact

Minor risk of 

adverse 

impact

Minor risk of 

adverse 

impact

Sensitive Plant: lesser 

round-leaved orchid

No risk of 

adverse 

impact

Minor to 

moderate risk 

of adverse 

impact

Minor to 

moderate risk 

of adverse 

impact

Minor to 

moderate risk 

of adverse 

impact

Minor to 

moderate risk 

of adverse 

impact

PLANTS: INVASIVE

Risk of introduction and 

spread of invasive 

species

Low Moderate Moderate Moderate Low

RECREATION

Relative ranking of 

impacts to inventoried 

recreation sites on 

Wrangell Island, not 

including roads (1 = 

least impact, 5 = most

impact)

1 5 3 4 2
Alternatives2

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 31

Measure or Question Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

SILVICULTURE

Silvicultural system 

and harvest method

Even-aged 

management - clearcut

Cable/Shovel 0 1,340 1,269 1,352 737

Clearcut with reserves

Cable/Shovel 0 68 68 68 68

Helicopter 0 0 0 0 0

Uneven-aged 

management – singletree selection (up to 

33% removal)

Shovel 0 118 43 133 114

Helicopter 0 3,241 1,268 1,439 2,521

Total Acres Harvested 0 4,767 2,648 2,992 3,440

SOILS

Estimated acres of 

detrimental soil 

disturbance

Yarding 0 70 65 75 45

Temporary Roads 0 54 48 56 36

Landings 0 19 17 18 13

Rockpit 0 27 24 26 19

Total acres 0 170 154 175 113

Estimated harvest 

acres and road miles 

on steep slopes

Acres of harvest 

proposed on slopes >

72% (all harvest 

methods)

0 199 132 153 177

Miles of proposed road 

on slopes > 67% 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3

WETLANDS

Acres of wetlands 

impacted by activity

Harvest (acres) 0 1,554 871 927 1,082

Rock quarry (acres) 0 11 10 11 8

Road construction 

(acres) 0 55 50 56 39

Alternatives2

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 33

Figure 3. Alternative 1 - Existing condition of the Wrangell Island project area

Alternatives2

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 35

Figure 4. Alternative 2 - Proposed action for the Wrangell Island Project

Alternatives2

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 37

Figure 5. Alternative 3 for the Wrangell Island Project

Alternatives2

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 39

Figure 6. Alternative 4 for the Wrangell Island Project

Alternatives2

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 41

Figure 7. Alternative 5 for the Wrangell Island Project 

Alternatives2

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 43

Figure 8. Access management - existing road access plan for Wrangell Island

Alternatives2

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 45

Figure 9. Access management proposed for Alternative 2

Alternatives2

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 47

Figure 10. Access management proposed for Alternative 3

Alternatives2

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 49

Figure 11. Access management proposed for Alternative 4

Alternatives2

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 51

Figure 12. Access management proposed for Alternative 5