Chapter 4

Lists and References

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 263

Chapter 4. Lists and References

Chapter 4 includes lists of the document contributors (both interdisciplinary team members and other 

contributors), a distribution list for agencies, individuals, organizations, municipalities and tribal groups 

who were sent the Wrangell Island Project FEIS, references cited in the FEIS, and an index of key words 

by page number.

Document Preparers and Contributors

The following list of contributors to the Wrangell Island Project EIS. Other Forest Service employees 

contributed to the completion of this document through their assistance in support functions. Their help is 

greatly appreciated.

Interdisciplinary Team Members

Joe Delabrue, Wildlife

Education: B.S. Fisheries and Wildlife Biology, Utah State University, 2002

Relevant experience: 19 years

Jackie de Montigny, Soils/Wetlands/Invasive Plants

Education: B.A. Education, University of Montana, 1979

M.S. Forestry, University of Montana, 1993

Relevant experience: 27 years

Karen Endres, Aquatics

Education: B.S Civil Engineering, Michigan Technological University, 1998

M.S. Civil Engineering, Michigan Technological University, 2000

Ph.D. Environmental Engineering, Michigan Technological University, 2004

Relevant Experience: 19 years

Dee Galla, Recreation

Education: B.S. Wildland Recreation Management, University of Idaho, 1990

Relevant experience: 29 years

Jason Powell, Access Management 

Education: B.S. Forest Engineering, Oregon State University, 2010

Relevant experience: 9 years 

Greg Roberts, Silviculture

Education: B.S. Forestry, Southern Illinois University, 1987

Relevant experience: 24 years 

Andrea Slusser, Interdisciplinary Team Leader

Education: B.S. Natural Resources Planning, Humboldt State University, 2000

M.L.A., University of Washington, 2012

Relevant experience: 17 years 

Jane Smith, Cultural Resources

Education: B.S. Anthropology, Radford University, 1983

Relevant experience: 34 years

Nathan Stearns, Timber Economics and Supply

Education: B.S. Forest Management, Administration and Utilization, University of Wisconsin, 1998

Relevant experience: 19 years
4Lists and References

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 264

James Steward, Scenic Quality

Education: Oregon State University, 1982

Relevant experience: 26 years

Rick Turner, Plants: Sensitive and Rare; Invasive Plants

Education: B.S. Forestry, Stephen F. Austin State University, 1994 

M.S. Biology, Stephen F. Austin State University, 1999

Relevant experience: 24 years

Major Contributors and Reviewers

Sally Burch, Geographic Information Systems Analysis

Education: B.S

Relevant experience: 27 years

Richard Burke, Forest Transportation Planner

Education: AAS Civil Engineering Technology, Mount Hood Community College, 2005

B.S. Forest Engineering, Oregon State University, 2010

Relevant experience: 13 years

Gregory Dunn, Wildlife Planner

Education: B.S. Zoology and B.S. Fish and Wildlife Management, Northern Arizona University, 2000

Relevant Experience: 11 years

Pat Heuer, Forester/NEPA Coordinator

Education: B.S. Forest Management, Colorado State University, 1991

Certified Silviculturist, USFS, 1997

Relevant Experience: 28 years

Shelia Jacobson, Forest Fisheries Biologist

Education: B.S. Fisheries and Wildlife Management, University of Missouri-Columbia, 1990

Relevant Experience: 27 years

Andy Klimek, Geographic Information Systems Analysis

Education: B.A. English, Juniata College, 1991

Relevant experience: 19 years

Brenda Miller, Geographic Information Systems Analysis

Education: B.S. Forestry, Mississippi State University, 1985

Relevant experience: 26 years

Tim Piazza, Forester/NEPA Planner

Education: B.S. Natural Resources Management, Sheldon Jackson College, 1999

A.A.S. Forestry, Mount Hood Community College, 1992

Relevant experience: 28 years

Gene Primaky, Geographic Information Systems Analysis

Education: Certificate of Forestry, AV Tech, 1990

Relevant experience: 27 years

Julianne Thompson, Forest Hydrologist 

Education: B.S. Natural Resources Management, California Polytechnic State University, 1985 

Relevant experience: 29 years
Lists and References 4

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 265

Kristin Whisennand, Enterprise Writer/Editor

Education: B.A. Anthropology, Dartmouth College, 1984

B.S. Resource Conservation Management and Forestry, University of Montana, 2006

Relevant Experience: 14 years

Marina Whitacre, Writer/Editor

Education: B.A. Biology, Colorado College, 1994

M.S. Range Science, Utah State University, 2004 

Relevant Experience: 14 years

Distribution of the Environmental Impact Statement

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

Sent 

This environmental impact statement is available online 

at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=34831. Individuals who specifically requested a copy of the 

document and those who submitted substantive comments on the draft environmental impact statement 

were provided this link either through an email or letter. In addition, paper copies of the document have 

been sent to the following Federal agencies, federally recognized tribes, State and local governments, 

organizations and individuals. 

Library of Congress

US Government Publishing Office

USDA National Agricultural Library

Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance

US Fish and Wildlife Service

Alaska Department of Natural Resources, 

Southern Southeast Area Office

City and Borough of Wrangell

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Rebecca Knight

George Woodbury

Earthjustice

Greenpeace

Irene Ingle Public Library

Jack Ozment

Sitka Public Library

Wrangell Cooperative Association

In addition to agencies, organizations and persons to whom a paper copy of the FEIS was sent, 

approximately 383 contacts have been notified of the availability of the FEIS on the World-Wide Web via 

a letter delivered by the US Post Service, and 753 have been notified electronically. These lists of 

recipients are available in the Wrangell Island project record. Hard copies of the FEIS are also available 

for public review at the Wrangell Ranger District Office.
4Lists and References

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 266

References

The following list of references includes both literature cited in this DEIS and other sources of 

information used in the Wrangell Island Project analysis. Complete reference lists are included in 

individual resource reports which are on file in the Wrangell Island Project EIS project record.

Ager, T.A., P.E. Carrara, J.L. Smith, V. Anne and J. Johnson. 2010. “Postglacial vegetation history of 

Mitkof Island, Alexander Archipelago, southeastern Alaska.” Quaternary Research 73:259-268.

Alaska Climate Research Center. 2013. Website. Available online at: http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/

(accessed March 14, 2017). 

Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development (ADCCED). 2006. 

Community profiles online. Available online 

at: https://www.commerce.alaska.gov/dcra/DCRAExternal (accessed March 14, 2017).

ADCCED. 2016. Website. Communities-Wrangell. Available online 

at: https://www.commerce.alaska.gov/dcra/DCRAExternal (accessed March 14, 2017).

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). 2008. Water Quality Standards. 18 AAC 70. 

Amended as of July 1, 2008. Supplement to the Alaska Administrative Code. Available online 

at: http://www.dec.state.ak.us/water/wqsar/wqs/pdfs/18%20AAC_70_WQS_Amended_July_1_2

008.pdf (accessed March 14, 2017).

Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). 1994. Subsistence Resource Use Patterns in Southeast 

Alaska: Summaries of 30 Communities.

ADF&G. 2012. Feasibility assessment for increasing sustainable harvest of Sitka black-tailed deer in a 

portion of Game Management Unit 3. Division of Wildlife Conservation. Unit 3, p.1-50.

ADF&G. 2015. Unpublished harvest data from Lowell, R.E. 

Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development (ADOL). 2013. State of Alaska, Department of 

Labor and Workforce Development website. Available online at: http://labor.state.ak.us/ (accessed 

March 14, 2017).

ADOL. 2016. Alaska Population Overview, 2015 Estimates. November. Available online 

at: http://live.laborstats.alaska.gov/pop/estimates/pub/popover.pdf (accessed March 14, 2017).

Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR). 2013. Division of Forestry, Coastal Region, Southern 

Southeast Area. Five-year Schedule of Timber Sales. Available online 

at: http://forestry.alaska.gov/Assets/uploads/DNRPublic/forestry/pdfs/timber/ketchikan_timber/20

15-2019/2015_2019_FINAL_FYSTS_no_matrix.pdf (accessed March 14, 2017).

ADNR. 2015. Alaska Division of Forestry five-year schedule of timber sales. Available online 

at: http://forestry.alaska.gov/timber/fiveyearschedules (accessed March 14, 2017).

Alaska Natural Heritage Program (AKNHP). 2015. Alaska Rare Plant List. 

AlaskaWeb. 2016. Website. AlaskaWeb.org. Wrangell, Alaska. Available online 

at: http://alaskaweb.org/cmtys/wrangell.html (accessed March 14, 2017).

Alexander, S.J. 2012. Employment Coefficients and Indirect Effects, for NEPA Planning: 2012 Update. 

Alexander, S.J., E. Henderson and R. Coleman. 2010. Economic Analysis of Southeast Alaska: 

Envisioning a Sustainable Economy with Thriving Communities. Forest Service, Alaska Region 

Publication R10-MB-725, Juneau, AK, 93 p. 
Lists and References 4

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 267

Allen, B.M. and R.P. Angliss. 2010. Alaska Marine Mammal Stock Assessments, 2009. Seattle, 

Washington: US Department of Commerce, NOAA, NMFS, Alaska Fisheries Science Center. 287 

p.

Ames, K.M., and H.D.G. Maschner. 1999. Peoples of the Northwest Coast: Their Archaeology and 

Prehistory. London, England: Thames and Hudson. 

Arhangelsky, K. 2006. Non-Native Plant Species Inventory Of Southeast Alaska: Ketchikan, Wrangell, 

Mitkof, Kupreanof. Summary of 2006 Survey Findings Final Report for USDA Forest Service, 

State and Private Forestry. Unpublished report.

Arimitsu, M.L., J.F. Jiatt, M.D. Romano, E.N. Madison, and J.S. Conaway. 2010. Kittlitz’s and marbled 

Murrelets in Kenai Fjords National Park, south-central Alaska: At sea disturbance, abundance, 

and Foraging habitat, 2006-08. USGS Open-File Report 2010-1181, 68 p.

Armstrong, R.H. 1995. Guide to the birds of Alaska. Alaska Northwest Books, Anchorage. 322 p.

Arndt, K.L., R.H. Sackett and J.A. Ketz. 1987. “A Cultural Resource Overview of the Tongass National 

Forest, Alaska.” Submitted to USDA Forest Service, Tongass National Forest, under Contract No. 

53-0109-6-00203. 3 vols. GDM Inc., Fairbanks, Alaska. 

Aubry, K.B and M.G. Raphael. 2014. Martens, Sables, and Fishers: New Synthesis Informs Management 

and Conservation. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. Science Findings Issue 160: April. Audubon Society 2015. Christmas bird 

count. Website: http://birds.audubon.org/christmas-bird-count (accessed March 14, 2017).

Bachelet D., J. Lenihan, R. Neilson, R. Drapek, and T. Kittel. 2005. “Simulating the response of natural 

ecosystems and their fire regimes to climate variability in Alaska.” Canadian Journal of Forest 

Research 35: 2244–2257.

Banner, A., P. LePage, J. Moran, and A. de Groot. 2005. Pattern, Process, and Productivity in 

Hypermaritime Forests of Coastal British Columbia. British Columbia: Ministry of Forests, 

Forest Science Program.

Barrett, T.M. and R.R. Pattison. 2017. No evidence of recent (1995-2013) decrease of yellow-cedar in 

Alaska. Canadian Journal of Forestry Research 47: 97-105.

Beier, C.M., S.E. Sink, P.E. Hennon, D.V. D'Amore, G.P. Juday. 2008. “Twentieth-century warming and 

the dendroclimatology of declining yellow-cedar forests in southeastern Alaska.” Canadian

Journal of Forestry Research 38: 1319-1334.

Berman, M., G.P. Juday and R. Burnside. 1999. Climate Change and Alaska Forests: People, Problems 

and Policies. Proceedings from Assessing the Consequences of Climate Change for Alaska and 

the Bering Sea Region. 29-30 October 1998. Center for Global Change and Artic System 

Research, University of Alaska Fairbanks.

Beschta, R.L., M.R. Pyles, A.E. Skaugset, C.G. Surfleet. 2000. “Peakflow responses to forest practices in 

the western cascades of Oregon, USA.” Journal of Hydrology 233: 102-120. 

Blejwas, K. 2016. Personal communication with Karen Blejwas, Regional Wildlife Biologist, Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game, August 8.

Bloxton. T.D., Jr. 2002. Prey Abundance, Space Use, Demography, and Foraging Habitat of Northern 

Goshawks in Western Washington. Master’s Thesis. University of Washington. 80 p.
4Lists and References

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 268

Boreal Partners in Flight Working Group (BPIF). 1999. Landbird Conservation Plan for Alaska 

Biogeographic Regions, Version 1.0. Unpublished report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Anchorage. 45 p.

Bormann, B.T., H. Spaltenstein, M.H. McClellan, F.C. Ugolini, K. Cromack, Jr., and S.M. Nay. 1995. 

“Rapid soil development after windthrow disturbance in pristine forests.” Journal of Ecology 83:

747–757. 

Brady, J.G. 1897. “Report of the Governor of the District of Alaska to the Secretary of the Interior 1897.” 

Available online 

at: http://books.google.com/books?id=glQZAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA14&lpg=PA14&dq=what+did+g

lacier+packing+company+wrangell+alaska+do?&source=bl&ots=3GhhZKzDj7&sig=BJ_6ZfILJ

vzOOPMn25cUKI78l4&hl=en&ei=kVf1TKLMEsqr8AaRsZ2xBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=r

esult&resnum=3&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false (accessed March 14, 2017).

Brinkman, T.J., T. Chapin, G. Kofinas, and D.K. Person. 2009. “Linking hunter knowledge with forest 

change to understand changing deer harvest opportunities in intensively logged landscapes.”

Ecology and Society 14(1): 36. Available online 

at: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art36/ (accessed March 14, 2017).

British Columbia Ministry of Forests. 1996. Coastal black-tailed deer study. Brochures 38-41, 58. 

Integrated Wildlife-Intensive Forestry Research (IWIFR) Program. A co-operative program of: 

B.C. Ministry of Forests; B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks; University of British 

Columbia; Canadian Forest Products Ltd.; Timber West Forest Ltd.; MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. 

Available online at: http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/Bro/Bro-deer.htm (accessed March 

14, 2017).

Caouette, J.P., and E.J. DeGayner. 2008. “Broad-Scale Classification and Mapping of Tree Size and 

Density Attributes in Productive Old-Growth Forests in Southeast Alaska’s Tongass National 

Forest.” Western Journal of Applied Forestry 23(2): 106-112.

Carlson, M.L., I.V. Lapina, M.S. Shephard, J.S. Conn, R. Densmore, P. Spencer, J. Heys, J. Riley, and J. 

Nielsen. 2008. Invasiveness Ranking System for Non-native Plants of Alaska. Technical Paper 

R10-TP-143. Anchorage: USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region. 

Carlson, R.J. and J.F. Baichtal. 2015. “A Predictive Model for Locating Early Holocene Archaeological 

Sites Based on Raised Shell Bearing Strata in Southeast Alaska, USA.” Geoarchaeology 30(2): 

128-138.

Carstensen, R., J. Schoen, and D. Albert. 2007. “Chapter 4: Biogeographic Provinces of Southeast 

Alaska.” In: A Conservation Assessment and Resource Synthesis for the Coastal Forests and 

Mountains Ecoregion in the Tongass National Forest and Southeast Alaska. Available online

at: https://www.conservationgateway.org/ConservationByGeography/NorthAmerica/UnitedStates/

alaska/seak/era/cfm/Pages/BioGeoProv.aspx (accessed March 14, 2017).

Chapin, T.G., D.J. Harrison, and D.D. Katnik. 1998. “Influence of landscape pattern on habitat use by 

American marten in and industrial forest.” Conservation Biology 12(6):1327-1337.

Chen, J., J. Franklin, and T. Spies. 1993. “Contrasting Microclimates among Clearcut, Edge, and Interior 

of Old-Growth Douglas-fir Forest.” Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 63(1): 219-237. 

Chen, J., J. Franklin, and T. Spies. 1995. “Growing-Season Microclimate Gradients from Clearcut Edges 

into Old-Growth Douglas-Fir Forests.” Ecological Applications 5(1): 74-86. 
Lists and References 4

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 269

Cheveau, M., L. Imbeau, P. Drapeau and L. Belanger. 2013. “Marten space use and habitat selection in 

managed coniferous boreal forests of Eastern Canada.” The Journal of Wildlife Management 77: 

749-760.

City and Borough of Wrangell, Alaska (CBWA). 2014. Website. History of Wrangell. Available online 

at: http://www.wrangell.com/visitorservices/history-wrangell (accessed March 14, 2017).

Clausen, D.L., and R.F. Schroeder, compilers. 2004. Social acceptability of alternatives to clearcutting: 

discussion and literature review with emphasis on southeast Alaska. General Technical Report 

PNW-GTR-594. Portland, Oregon: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 37 

p.

Cook, J.A., N.G. Dawson, and S.O. MacDonald. 2006. “Conservation of highly fragmented systems: The 

north temperate Alexander Archipelago.” Biological Conservation 133: 1-15.

Concannon, J. 1995. Characterizing structure, microclimate and decomposition of peatland, beachfront, 

and newly-logged forest edges in southeastern Alaska. Dissertation. University of Washington. 

Conservation of Endangered Species and Other Fish or Wildlife: Rules and Regulations. Federal Register 

Vol. 35, June 2, 1970, pp. 8491-8498. (35 FR 8491)

Cotter, P., and M. Kirchhoff. 2007. “Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus).” In: A conservation 

assessment and resource synthesis for the Coastal Forests and Mountains Ecoregion in the 

Tongass National Forest and Southeast Alaska. The Nature Conservancy and Audubon Alaska.

Anchorage. Available online 

at: https://www.conservationgateway.org/ConservationByGeography/NorthAmerica/UnitedStates/

alaska/seak/era/cfm/Documents/7.3_MarbleMurrelet.pdf (accessed March 14, 2017).

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. “Environmental Justice Guidance under the National 

Environmental Policy Act,” Executive Office of the President of the United States. Washington, 

D.C. December 10.

Cushman, S.A., M.G. Raphael, L.F. Ruggiero, A.S. Shirk, T.N. Wasserman, and E.O. O’Doherty. 2011. 

“Limiting factors and landscape connectivity: the American marten in the Rocky Mountains.” 

Landscape Ecology 26: 1137-1149.

Dahlheim, M.E., P.A. White, and J.M. Waite. 2009. “Cetaceans of Southeast Alaska: distribution and 

seasonal occurrence.” Journal of Biogeography 36: 410-426.

Davis, H., A.N. Hamilton, A. S. Harestad, and R.D. Weir. 2012. “Longevity and reuse of black bear dens 

in managed forests of Coastal British Columbia.” Journal of Wildlife Management 76(3): 523-

527.

Davis, S.D. 1990. “Prehistory of Southeastern Alaska.” In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7, 

Northwest Coast. W. Suttles, editor. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. pp. 197-

202.

Day, R.H., A.K. Prichard, and D.A. Nigro. 2003. “Ecological Specialization and Overlap of 

Brachyramphus Murrelets in Prince William Sound, Alaska.” The Auk 120 (3): 680-699.

Deal, R.L. 1999. The effects of partial cutting on stand structure and growth, and forest plant 

communities of western hemlock-Sitka spruce stands in Southeast Alaska. Dissertation. Oregon 

State University.

Deal, R.L. 2001. “The effects of partial cutting on forest plant communities of western hemlock-Sitka 

spruce stands in southeast Alaska.” Canadian Journal of Forest Research 31: 2067-2079. 
4Lists and References

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 270

Deal, R.L., and J.C. Tappeiner. 2002. The effects of partial cutting on stand structure and growth of 

western hemlock-Sitka spruce stands in southeast Alaska. USDA Forest Service, PNW Research 

Station, Juneau, AK.

DeGange, A. 1996. A Conservation Assessment for the Marbled Murrelet in Southeast Alaska. PNWGTR-388. Juneau, Alaska: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

Dellasala, D.A., J.C. Hagar, K.A. Engel, W.C. McComb, R.L. Fairbanks, and E.G. Campbell. 1996. 

“Effects of silvicultural modifications of temperate rainforest on breeding and wintering bird 

communities, Prince of Wales Island, Southeast Alaska.” The Condor 98: 706-721.

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1990. Listing of Stellar 

Sea Lions as Threatened under Endangered Species Act with Protective Regulations. Federal 

Register. Vol 55, April 5, 1990, pp. 12645. (55 FR 12645)

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2010. National 

Weather Service, AK. Alaska climate Database. Available online 

at: http://pajk.arh.noaa.gov/cliMap.php (accessed April 20, 2017).

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2016. Endangered and 

Threatened Species; Identification of 14 Distinct Population Segments of the Humpback Whale 

(Megaptera novaeangliae) and Revision of Species-wide Listing; Final Rule. Federal Register 

Vol. 81, September 8, 2016, pp. 62259-62320. (81 FR 62259)

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 

Identification of 14 Distinct Population Segments of the Humpback Whale and Revision of 

Species-wide Listing; Final Rule. Federal Register Vol. 81, December 21, 2016, pp. 93639-93641. 

(81 FR 93639)

Depro, B., B. Murray, R. Alig, A. Shanks. 2007. “Public land, timber harvests, and climate mitigation:

Quantifying carbon sequestration potential on U.S. public timberlands.” Forest Ecology and 

Management 255: 1122-1134. Available online at: http://ac.els-cdn.com/S037811270700802X/1-

s2.0-S037811270700802X-main.pdf?_tid=ecc9e0b0-8683-11e3-a713-

00000aab0f02&acdnat=1390738872_dfba4d4d36a76c572a0b10769905ac40EPA (accessed 

March 14, 2017).

Designated Critical Habitat; Steller Sea Lion: Rules and Regulations. Federal Register Vol. No. 58, 

August 27, 1993, pp. 45269-45285. (58 FR 45269)

Dillman, K., J. Fulkerson, T. Nawrocki, B. Bernard, and M. Carlson. 2015. Platanthera orbiculata (Pursh.) 

Lindl.: Conservation assessment on the Tongass National Forest. USDA Forest Service and 

Alaska Natural Heritage Program, University of Alaska Anchorage. Anchorage, Alaska.

Dillman, K., and P. Krosse. 2009. Guidance for a botany resource report: Tongass National Forest.

Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region, Tongass National Forest, Ketchikan, 

Alaska. 

Douglas, G., G. Straley, D. Meidinger, and J. Pojar (eds.). 1998. Illustrated Flora of British Columbia, 

Vol. 1: Gymnosperms and Dicotyledons (Aceraceae through Asteraceae) and Vol. 2: Dicotyledons 

(Balsaminaceae through Cuscutaceae). British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and 

Parks and Ministry of Forests, Victoria, British Columbia.

EcoAdapt. 2014. A climate change vulnerability assessment for aquatic resources in the Tongass National 

Forest. Report to US Forest Service. 124 p. 

Available: http://ecoadapt.org/data/documents/EcoAdapt_Tongass_VulnerabilityAssessmentRepo

rt_FINAL_22Nov214_smallres.pdf (accessed April 25, 2017).
Lists and References 4

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 271

Ellison, W.T., B.L. Southall, C.W. Clark, and A.S. Frankel. 2011. “A New Context-Based Approach to 

Assess Marine Mammal Behavioral Responses to Anthropogenic Sounds.” Conservation Biology

26: 21-28. 

Emmons, G.T. 1991. The Tlingit Indians. Edited by Frederica de Laguna. University of Washington Press, 

Seattle. 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Alexander 

Archipelago Wolf as an Endangered or Threatened Species: Proposed Rules. Federal Register 

Vol. 81, January 6, 2016, pp. 435-458. (81 FR 435)

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Response to Court on Significant Portion of the Range, 

and Evaluation of Distinct Population Segments, for the Queen Charlotte Goshawk (Accipiter 

gentilis laingi): Rules and Regulations. Federal Register Vol. 72, November 8, 2007, pp. 63123-

63140. (72 FR 63123)

Environmental Protection Agency; Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability. EIS No. 

20160122, Draft, USFS, AK, Wrangell Island Project. Federal Register Vol. 81, June 3, 2016, p. 

35761-35762. (81 FR 35761)

Farmer, C.J., D.K. Person, and R.T. Bowyer. 2006. “Risk factors and mortality of black-tailed deer in a 

managed forest landscape.” Journal of Wildlife Management 70(5): 1403-1415.

Flanders, L.S. and Cariello, J. 2000. Tongass Road Condition Survey Report. Alaska Department of Fish 

and Game, Habitat and Restoration Division. Technical Report No. 00-7.

Flynn, R.W. 1991. Field Evaluation of the Interagency Habitat Capability Model for Martens in 

Southeast Alaska. Progress Report: 1990-91. Douglas, Alaska: ADF&G, Division of Wildlife 

Conservation.

Flynn, R.W. and T.V. Schumacher. 1997. Ecology of martens in Southeast Alaska. Federal Aid in Wildlife 

Restoration. Research Progress Report. 1 July 1996 – 30 June 1997. Alaska Department Fish and 

Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Juneau, Alaska.

Flynn, R.W., and T.V. Schumacher. 2001. Ecology of martens in Southeast Alaska, Res. Final 

Performance report 1990-2001. Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Grant W23-4 to 5, W24-1 to 

5, and W-27-1 to 4, Study 7.16. Alaska Department Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska.

Flynn, R.W., T.V. Schumacher, and M. Ben-David. 2004. Abundance, prey availability and diets of 

American martens: implications for the design of old-growth reserves in Southeast Alaska.

Wildlife Research Final Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Grant DCN 70181-1-G133. 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Douglas, Alaska.

Flynn, R.W., W. Smith, J. Doerr, M. Ben-David, N. Dawson, S. Fadden. 2006. Conservation Strategy 

Review: An assessment of New Information Since 1997, American Marten. Interagency Review of 

Tongass National Forest Conservation Strategy. PowerPoint.

Frame, P.F., D.S. Hik, H.D. Cluff, and P.C. Paquet. 2004. “Long foraging movement of a denning tundra 

wolf.” Arctic 57:196-203.Gebauer, M.B., and I.E. Moul. 2001. Status of the Great Blue Heron in 

British Columbia. Unpublished report. B.C. Ministry of the Environment, Lands and Parks, 

Wildlife Branch, Victoria, BC. 66 p.

Gende, S.M., M.F. Willson, B.H. Marston, M Jacobson and W.P. Smith. 1998. “Bald eagle nesting density 

and success in relation to distance from clearcut logging in Southeast Alaska.” Biological 

Conservation 83: 121-126.
4Lists and References

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 272

Glaser, P.H., 1999. The Impact of Forestry Roads on Peatlands within the Tongass National Forest, 

Southeast Alaska. Unpublished white paper.

Godbout, G., and J.P. Ouellet. 2008. “Habitat selection of American marten in a logged landscape at the 

southern fringe of the boreal forest.” Ecoscience 15(3): 332-342.

Goldschmidt, W.R. and T.H. Haas. 1998 [1946]. Haa Aani, Our Land: Tlingit and Haida Land Rights and 

Use. University of Washington Press, Seattle.

Grant, G.E., S.L. Lewis, F.J. Swanson, J.H. Cissel, and J.J. McDonnell. 2008. Effects of Forest Practices 

on Peak Flows and Consequent Channel Response: A State-of-Science Report for Western 

Oregon and Washington. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-760. USDA Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 76 p. 

Hanley, T.A., W.P. Smith, and S.M. Gende. 2005. “Maintaining wildlife habitat in southeastern Alaska: 

implications of new knowledge for forest management and research.” Landscape and Urban 

Planning 72: 113-133.

Hansen, A.J., T.A. Spies, F.J. Swanson, and J.L. Ohmann. 1991. “Conserving biodiversity in managed 

forests: lessons from natural forests.” BioScience 41(6): 382-392.

Harmon, M., W. Ferrell, and J. Franklin. 1990. “Effects on Carbon Storage of Old-Growth Forests to 

Young Forests.” Science. 47: 699-702. Available online 

at: https://www.sierraforestlegacy.org/Resources/Conservation/FireForestEcology/ThreatsForestH

ealth/Climate/CI-Harmon_Ferrell_Franklin_1990.pdf (accessed March 10, 2017).

Haufler, J., C. Mehl, and S. Yeats. 2010. Climate change: anticipated effects on ecosystem services and 

potential actions by the Alaska Region, U.S. Forest Service. Ecosystem Management Research 

Institute, Seeley Lake, Montana, USA. Available online 

at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsbdev2_038171.pdf (accessed March 

14, 2017).

Hawksworth, F.G. 1977. The 6-class dwarf mistletoe rating system. General Technical Report RM-48. 

Fort Collins, Colorado: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment 

Station. 7 p. 

Heaton, T. H. and F. Grady. 2003. “The Late Wisconsin vertebrate history of Prince of Wales Island, 

Southeast Alaska.” In: Ice Age Cave Faunas of North America, edited by B.W. Schubert, J.I. 

Mead, and R.W. Graham. Indiana University Press, p. 17-53.

Heinl, S.C. and A.W. Piston. 2009. “Birds of the Ketchikan area, Southeast Alaska.” Western Birds 40(2):

1-99.

Heithecker, T. and C. Halpern. 2007. “Edge-related gradients in microclimates in forest aggregates

following structural retention harvests in western Washington.” Forest and Ecology Management

24(8): 163-173. 

Hejl, S.J., K.R. Newlon, M.E. McFadzen, J.S. Young, and C.K. Ghalambor. 2002. “Brown Creeper 

(Certhia americana).” In: The Birds of North America Online, edited by A. Poole. Ithaca: Cornell 

Lab of Ornithology. 

Helms, J.A. 1998. The Dictionary of Forestry. Society of American Foresters. Bethesda, Maryland. 
Lists and References 4

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 273

Hennon, P.E., C.M. McKenzie, D.V. D’Amore, D.T. Wittwer, R.L. Mulvey, M.S. Lamb, F.E. Biles and 

R.C. Cronn. 2016. A climate adaptation strategy for conservation and management of yellowcedar in Alaska. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-917. Juneau, Alaska: USDA Forest 

Service, Alaska Region. Pacific Northwest Research Station. Available online 

at: http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr917.pdf (accessed March 14, 2017).

Hennon, P., and C. Shaw. 1997. “The enigma of yellow-cedar decline: What is killing these long-lived, 

defensive trees?” Journal of Forestry 95(12): 4-10. Available online 

at: http://www7.nau.edu/mpcer/direnet/publications/publications_h/files/hennon-1997-the.pdf

(accessed March 14, 2017).

Hicks, B.J., R.L. Beschta, and D.R. Harr. 1991. “Long-term Changes in Streamflow Following Logging 

in Western Oregon and Associated Fisheries Implication.” Water Resources Bulletin 27(2): 217-

226. 

Hitchcock, C. and A. Cronquist.1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press, 

Seattle. 

Hobson, K.A. 1990. “Stable isotope analysis of marbled murrelets: evidence for freshwater feeding and 

determination of trophic level.” The Condor 92(4): 897-903.

Hodges, J.I. 2011. “Bald eagle population surveys of the North Pacific Ocean, 1967-2010.” Northwestern 

Naturalist 92: 7-12.

Hodges, J.I., D.J. Groves, and B.P. Conant. 2008. “Distribution and abundance of waterbirds near shore in 

Southeast Alaska, 1997-2002.” Northwestern Naturalist 89(2): 85-96.

Holsten, E., P. Hennon, L. Trummer, J. Kruse, M. Schultz, and J. Lundquist. 2008. Insects and Diseases of 

Alaskan Forests. Technical Paper R10-TP-140. Juneau, Alaska: USDA Forest Service, Alaska 

Region, State and Private Forestry, Forest Health Projection. 248 p.

Howle, S.A., and P. Krosse. 2016. Saddle Lakes Timber Sale, Climate Change Resource Report (V.2).

Unpublished report. Ketchikan, Alaska: USDA Forest Service, Tongass National Forest.

Hultén, E. 1968. Flora of Alaska and Neighboring Territories. Stanford University Press, Stanford, 

California. 

Hupp, J.W., J.I. Hodges, B.P. Conant, B.W. Meixell, and D.J. Groves. 2010. “Winter distribution, 

movements, and annual survival of radiomarked Vancouver Canada geese in Southeast Alaska.”

Journal of Wildlife Management 74(2): 274–284.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science 

Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. 

Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 

United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 996 p.

Island Surveys to Learn about Endemic Species (ISLES). 2009. ISLES program website. Available online 

at: http://msb.unm.edu/isles/ (accessed March 7, 2017).

Iverson, C. 2006. Personal communication between Chris Iverson, wildlife ecologist and Mary Friberg, 

USFS wildlife biologist, March 17, 2006.

Jensen, A.S., J.L. Neilson, C.M. Gabriele and J.M. Straley. 2010. Summary of reported whale-vessel 

collisions in Alaskan Waters: 1978-2008. Poster presentation. 
4Lists and References

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 274

Jones, J.A. 2000. “Hydrologic Processes and Peak Discharge Response to Forest Removal, Regrowth, and 

Roads in 10 Small Experimental Basins, western Cascades, Oregon.” Water Resources Research

36(9): 2621-2642. 

Jones, J.A., and G.E. Grant. 1996. “Peak Flow Responses to Clear-cutting and Roads in Small and Large 

Basins, western Cascades, Oregon.” Water Resources Research 32(4): 595-974. 

Jones, S.H., and C.B. Fahl. 1994. Magnitude and Frequency of Floods in Alaska and Conterminous 

Basins of Canada. Water-Resources Investigations Report 93-4179. U.S. Geological Survey. 122 

p. 

Jonsson, R., W. Mbongo, A. Felton and M. Boman. 2012. “Leakage implications for European timber 

markets from reducing deforestation in developing countries.” Forests 3: 736-744.

Juday, G.P., R.A. Ott, D.W. Valentine and V.A. Barber. 1998. “Chapter 3: Forests, Climate Stress, Insects 

and Fire.” In: Implications of Global Change in Alaska and the Bering Sea Region.

Kahklen, K. and J. Moll. 1999. Measuring Effects of Roads on Groundwater: Five Case Studies. San 

Dimas, California: USDA Forest Service, San Dimas Technology and Development Center.

Kissling, M.L. 2006. “Conservation Strategy Review: A preliminary assessment of new information 

related to forest birds since 1997.” PowerPoint presentation. The Conservation Strategy Review 

Workshop. Ketchikan, Alaska.

Kissling M.L., and E.O. Garton. 2008. “Forested buffer strips and breeding bird communities in Southeast 

Alaska.” Journal of Wildlife Management 72 (3): 674–681.

Krosse, P., and P. O’Connor. 2009. Tongass N.F. size-density model: forest and project planning 

applications. Unpublished report. Ketchikan, Alaska: USDA Forest Service, Tongass National 

Forest.

Kruse, J. and R. Muth. 1990. Subsistence Use of Renewable Resource by Rural Residents of Southeast 

Alaska. Unpublished report. 160 p.

Kuletz, K.J. 2005. Foraging behavior and productivity of a non-colonial seabird, the marbled murrelet 

(Brachyramphus marmoratus), relative to prey and habitat. Master’s Thesis. University of 

Victoria, British Columbia.

Landwehr, D.J. 2011. Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring of Wetland Best Management 

Practices on the Tongass National Forest. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, Tongass 

National Forest.

Landwehr, D.J. 2014. Soil Quality Monitoring on the Tongass National Forest Use of ground-based 

Equipment on Slopes over 30 Percent Gradient. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, 

Tongass National Forest.

Landwehr, D.J., and K. Dillman. 2014. The Effects of Roads Constructed of Limestone Fill on Wetland 

Chemistry. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, Tongass National Forest.

Landwehr, D.J., J. Foss and D. Silkworth. 2012. Soil Quality Monitoring on the Tongass National Forest.

Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, Tongass National Forest.

Landwehr, D.J., and G. Nowacki. 1999. Statistical review of soil disturbance transect data collected on 

the Ketchikan Area, Tongass National Forest. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, Tongass 

National Forest.
Lists and References 4

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 275

Larsen, P., O. Goldsmith, O. Smith, M. Wilson, K. Strzepek, P. Chinowsky, and B. Saylor. 2007. 

Estimating the Future Cost of Alaska Public Infrastructure at Risk to Climate Change. Institute of 

Social and Economic Research. 

Lowell, R.E. 2011a. “Unit 3 black bear management report.” In: Black bear management report of survey 

and inventory activities 1 July 2007-30 June 2010. Juneau, Alaska: Alaska Department of Fish 

and Game. pp. 96-117. Available online 

at: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/home/library/pdfs/wildlife/mgt_rpts/11_blb.pdf (accessed 

March 14, 2017).

Lowell, R.E. 2011b. “Unit 3 brown bear management report.” In: Brown bear management report of 

survey- inventory activities, 1 July 2008-30 June 2010. Juneau, Alaska: Alaska Department of 

Fish and Game. pp. 19-27. Available online 

at: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/home/library/pdfs/wildlife/mgt_rpts/11_brbear.pdf (accessed 

March 14, 2017).

Lowell, R.E. 2011c. “Unit 3 moose management report.” In P. Harper, ed.: Moose management report of 

survey and inventory activities 1 July 2007-30 June 2009. Juneau, Alaska: Alaska Department of 

Fish and Game, pp. 64-76.

Lowell, R.E. 2013. “Unit 3: Deer management report.” In: Deer management report of survey-inventory 

activities, 1 July 2010-30 June 2012. Juneau, Alaska: Alaska Department of Fish and Game. pp. 

45-57. Available online 

at: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/home/library/pdfs/wildlife/mgt_rpts/deer_2013.pdf (accesse

d March 7, 2017).

Lowell, R.E. 2014. “Unit 3: Furbearer management report.” In: Furbearer management report of survey 

inventory activities, 1 July 2009–30 June 2012. Juneau, Alaska: Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game. pp. 58-74. Available online 

at: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/home/library/pdfs/wildlife/mgt_rpts/13_furbearers.pdf

(accessed March 7, 2017).

Lowell, R.E. 2015a. “Chapter 2: Brown bear management report.” In: Brown bear management report of 

survey and inventory activities 1 July 2012 – 30 June 2014. Juneau, Alaska: Alaska Department 

of Fish and Game. pp. 2-1 to 2-8. Available online 

at: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/home/library/pdfs/wildlife/mgt_rpts/brown_bear_smr_2015

_1_chapter_2_unit_3.pdf (accessed March 7, 2017).

Lowell, R.E. 2015b. “Chapter 5: Deer management report.” In Deer management report of survey 

inventory activities, 1 July 2012 – 30 June 2014. Juneau, Alaska: Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game. pp. 5-1 to 5-16. Available online 

at: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/research/wildlife/speciesmanagementreports/pdfs/deer_2015

_3_chapter_5_unit_3.pdf (accessed March 7, 2017).

Lowell, R.E. 2015. Personal communication with Rich Lowell, Wildlife Biologist, Alaska Department of 

Fish and Game.

MacDonald, S.O., and J.A. Cook. 1996. “The land mammal fauna of southeast Alaska.” Canadian FieldNaturalist 110: 571-598.

MacDonald, S.O., and J.A. Cook. 2007a. “Mammals and amphibians of Southeast Alaska”. The Museum 

of Southwestern Biology, Special Publication 8: 1-191.

MacDonald, S.O., and J.A. Cook. 2007b. Mammals and Amphibians of Southeast Alaska. University of 

New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
4Lists and References

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 276

Matsuoka, S.M, J.A. Johnson, and D.A. DellaSala. 2012. “Succession of Bird Communities in Young 

Temperate Rainforests Following Thinning.” The Journal of Wildlife Management 76: 919-931.

McClaren, E. 2004. “Queen Charlotte Goshawk. Accipiter gentilis laingi.” Accounts and Measures for 

Managing Identified Wildlife – Accounts V. British Columbia: Ministry of the Environment. 15 p.

McNay, R.S., and J.M. Vollner. 1995. “Mortality causes and survival estimates for adult female 

Columbian black-tailed deer.” Journal of Wildlife Management 59(1): 138-146.

McPherson, E.G and J.R. Simpson. 1999. Carbon dioxide reduction through urban forestry: Guidelines 

for professional and volunteer tree planters. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-171. Albany, 

CA. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 237 p.

Melquist, W.W., P.J. Polechla, and D. Toweill. 2003. “River otter (Lontra canadensis).” In G.A. 

Feldhamer, B.C. Thompson, and J.A. Chapman, eds.: Wild Mammals of North America: Biology, 

Management, and Economics. Baltimore, Maryland: The John Hopkins University Press. pp. 708-

734.

Millar. C., R. Neilson, D. Bachelet, R. Drapek, and J. Lenihan. 2006. “Climate Change at Multiple 

Scales,” Chapter 3. In: Forest, Carbon and Climate Change: A Synthesis of Science Findings. 

Oregon Forest Resources Institute. Oregon State University College of Forestry.

Moore, R. Dan and S.M. Wondzell. 2005. “Physical Hydrology and the Effects of Forest Harvesting in the

Pacific Northwest: A Review.” Journal of the American Water Resources Association 41(4): 763-

784. 

Moss, M.L. 1998. “Northern Northwest Coast Regional Overview.” Arctic Anthropology 35(1): 88-111. 

Moss, M.L. 2004. “The Status of Archaeology and Archaeological Practice in Southeast Alaska in 

Relation to the Larger Northwest Coast.” Arctic Anthropology 41(2): 177-196. 

Moss, M.L. 2011. Northwest Coast: Archaeology as Deep History. SAA Press, Washington, D.C.

Munoz-Fuentes, V., C.T. Darimont, R.K. Wayne, P.C. Paquet and J.A. Leonard. 2009. “Ecological factors 

drive differentiation in wolves from British Columbia.” Journal of Biogeography 36: 1516-1531.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2008. Recovery Plan for the Steller Sea Lion. Easter and 

Western Distinct Population Segments (Eumetopias jubatus). Revision. Silver Spring, Maryland: 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 325 p.

NMFS. 2013. NMFS species website. Available online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov (accessed May 16, 

2016).

NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. 

NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available online at: http://explorer.natureserve.org (accessed

March 9, 2017). 

Nelson, C. and C. Halpern. 2005. “Short-term effects of timber harvest and forest edges on ground-layer 

mosses and liverworts.” Canadian Journal of Botany 83: 610-620. 

Newton, R. and M. Moss. 1984. The Subsistence Lifeway of the Tlingit People, Excerpts of Oral 

Interviews. Management Bulletin R10-MB-109. USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region.

Niblack, A.P. 1970. The Coast Indians of Southern Alaska and Northern British Columbia. Johnson 

Reprint Corporation, New York. 

Nowacki, G.J. and M.G. Kramer. 1998. The Effects of Wind Disturbance on Temperate Rainforest 

Structure and Dynamics of Southeast Alaska. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-421. Juneau, 

Alaska: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.
Lists and References 4

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 277

Nowacki, G., M. Shephard, P. Krosse, W. Pawuk, G. Fischer, J. Baichtal, D. Brew, E. Kissinger, and T. 

Brock. 2001. Ecological subsections of Southeast Alaska and Neighboring Areas of Canada. 

Technical Paper R10-TP-75. Juneau, Alaska: USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region. 

Oakes, L.E., P.E. Hennon, K.L. O’Hara and R. Dirzo. 2014. “Long-term vegetation changes in a 

temperate forest impacted by climate change.” Ecosphere 5: 135.

Olson, R.L. 1967. Social Structure and Social Life of the Tlingit in Alaska. Anthropological Records 26. 

University of California, Berkeley. 

Oswood, N.W., A.M. Milner, and J.G. Irons III. 1992. “Climate Change and Alaskan Rivers and 

Streams.” In: Global Climate Change and Freshwater Ecosystems. Springer-Verlag. New York.

Paustian, S. 2004. “Development and Implementation of a Riparian Conservation Strategy for the 

Tongass National Forest.” Paper presented at the American Water Resources Association 

Conference: Riparian Ecosystems and Buffers: Multi-scale Structure, Function and Management. 

Olympic Valley, California. 6 p. 

Person, D.K. 2001. Alexander Archipelago wolf: ecology and population viability in as disturbed, insular 

landscape. Dissertation. University of Alaska, Fairbanks.

Person, D.K., M. Kirchhoff, V. Van Ballenberghe, and R.T. Boyer. 1997. Letter to Beth Pendleton 

[clarification of wolf conservation assessment Person et al. 1996]. Unpublished document. 33 p. 

Person, D.K., M. Kirchhoff, V. Van Ballenberghe, C. Iverson and E. Grossman. 1996. The Alexander 

Archipelago Wolf (Canus lupus ligoni): A conservation assessment. General Technical Report 

PNW-GTR-384. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

Person, D.K., and B. Logan. 2012. A spatial analysis of wolf harvest and harvest risk on Prince of Whales 

and associated islands, Southeast AK. Final wildlife research report, ADF&G/DWC/WRR-2012-

06. Juneau, Alaska: Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

Person, D.K., and A.L. Russell. 2008. “Correlates of mortality in an exploited wolf population.” Journal 

of Wildlife Management 72(7): 1540–1549.

Person, D.K., and A.L. Russell. 2009. “Reproduction and den-site selection by wolves in a disturbed 

landscape.” Northwest Science 83: 211–2246.

Piatt, J.F., K.J. Kuletz, A.E. Burger, S.A. Hatch, V.L. Friesen, T.P. Birt, M.L. Arimitsu, G.S. Drew, A.M.A. 

Harding, and K.S. Bixler. 2007. Status Review of the Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus 

marmoratus) in Alaska and British Columbia. Open-File Report 2006-1387. U.S. Geological 

Survey. Available online at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1387 (accessed March 14, 2017).

Piatt, J.F., and N.L. Naslund. 1995. “Abundance, distribution, and population status of marbled murrelets 

in Alaska.” In C.J. Ralph, G.L. Hunt Jr., M.G. Raphael, and J.F. Piatt, eds.: Ecology and 

Conservation of the Marbled Murrelet. Albany, California: USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Research Station. pp. 285-294.

Powell, J. 2013. Personal communication with Jason Powell, Transportation Planner, Ketchikan-Misty 

Ranger District.

Prussian, K. 2008. “Throughfall monitoring of old growth, second growth, and cleared vegetation plots on 

Prince of Wales Island, Alaska. In: Integrated Restoration of Forested Ecosystems to Achieve 

Multi Resource Benefits. Proceedings of the 2007 National Silviculture Workshop. General 

Technical Report PNW-GTR-733. Portland, Oregon: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 
4Lists and References

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 278

Rabich-Campbell, C. 1988. The Bitter Water People: A Cultural Resources Overview of Etolin Island, 

Southeast Alaska. Unpublished report. Submitted to USDA Forest Service, Tongass National 

Forest, Stikine Area under Contract No.00-0112-7-513. Petersburg, Alaska.

Robinson, S.K., F.R. Thompson, T.M. Bonovan, D.R. Whitehead, and J. Faaborg. 1995. “Regional forest 

fragmentation and the nesting success of migratory birds.” Science 267: 1987-1900.

Roffler, G.H., J.N. Waite, R.W. Flynn, K.R. Larson, and B.D. Logan. 2016. Wolf population estimation on 

Prince of Wales Island, Southeast Alaska: A comparison of methods. Final Wildlife Research 

Report ADF&G/DWC/WRR-2016-1, Juneau, Alaska.

Rogers, L. 1976. “Effects of mast and berry crop failures on survival, growth, and reproductive success of 

black bears.” In: Transactions of the 41st North American Wildlife and Natural Resources 

Conference. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, DC. pp. 431-438.

Root, H., B. McCune, and S. Jovan. 2014. “Lichen communities and species indicate climate thresholds 

in southeast and south-central Alaska, USA.” The Bryologist 117: 241-252.

Ross, J.A. 2013. Influences of timber management and natural landscape factors on anadromous streams 

of southeastern Alaska: Relating local and catchment factors to aquatic habitat. Master’s thesis.

Michigan State University.

Runck, A.M., and J.A. Cook. 2005. “Postglacial expansion of the southern red-backed vole 

(Clethrionomys gapperi) in North America.” Molecular Ecology 14: 1445-1456.

Russell, W., J. McBride, and K. Carnell. 2000. “Edge effects and the effective size of old-growth coast 

redwood preserves.” In S. McCool, D. Cole, W. Borrie, T. William, and J. O’Loughlin, (comps).: 

Wilderness science in a time of change conference, volume 3: Wilderness as a place for scientific 

inquiry. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-3. Ogden, Utah: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station.

Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, J.E. Fallon, K.L. Pardieck, D.J. Ziolkowski, Jr., and W.A. Link. 2017. “The North 

American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966-2013. Brown Creeper, Red-breasted 

Sapsucker and Hairy Woodpecker.” Version 01.30.2015. Laurel, Maryland: USGS Patuxent 

Wildlife Research Center. Available online at: http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs.html

(accessed April 19, 2017).

Schoen, J., R. Flynn, and B. Clark. 2007. “American Marten (Martes americana).” In J.W. Schoen and E. 

Dovichin, eds.: A Conservation Assessment and Resource Synthesis for the Coastal Forests and 

Mountains Ecoregion in Southeastern Alaska and the Tongass National Forest. Anchorage, 

Alaska: The Nature Conservancy and Audubon Alaska. Available online 

at: http://www.conservationgateway.org/ConservationByGeography/NorthAmerica/UnitedStates/

alaska/seak/era/cfm/Pages/RS-AKCFM.aspx (accessed March 14, 2017).

Schoen, J. and S. Gende. 2007. “Brown bear (Ursus arctos).” In J. Schoen and Dovichin, editors: A 

Conservation Assessment and Resource Synthesis for the Coastal Forests and Mountains 

Ecoregion in Southeastern Alaska and the Tongass National Forest. Anchorage, Alaska: The 

Nature Conservancy and Audubon Alaska. Available online 

at: https://www.conservationgateway.org/ConservationByGeography/NorthAmerica/UnitedStates/

alaska/seak/era/cfm/Pages/default.aspx (accessed March 7, 2017).
Lists and References 4

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 279

Schoen, J., and L. Peacock. 2007. “Black bear (Ursus americanus).” In J. Schoen and Dovichin, eds: A 

Conservation Assessment and Resource Synthesis for the Coastal Forests and Mountains 

Ecoregion in Southeastern Alaska and the Tongass National Forest. Anchorage, Alaska: The 

Nature Conservancy and Audubon Alaska. Available online 

at: http://conserveonline.org/workspaces/akcfm (accessed May 10, 2016).

Schoen, J.W. and M.D. Kirchhoff. 1984. Sitka Black-tailed Deer/Old-Growth Relationship in Southeast 

Alaska: Implications for Management. Game Division, Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

Schumacher, T.V. 1999. A multi-scale analysis of habitat selection at dens and resting sites of American 

martens in Southeast Alaska. Master’s Thesis. University of Wyoming, Laramie.

Shanley, C.S. and D.M. Albert. 2014. “Climate change sensitivity index for Pacific salmon habitat in 

Southeast Alaska.” PLOS One 9: e104799.

Shanley, C.S., S. Pyare, M.I. Goldstein, P.B. Alaback, D.M. Albert, C.M. Beier, T.J. Brinkman, R.T. 

Edwards, E. Hood, A. MacKinnon, M.V. McPhee, T.M. Patterson, L.H. Suring, D.A. Tallmon and 

M.S. Wipfli. 2015. “Climate change implications in the northern coastal temperate rainforest of 

North America.” Climatic Change 130: 155-170.

Shipley Group, The. 2009. Goshawk survey, Soule River Watershed Southeast Alaska 26-28 July 2009.

Unpublished report.

Small, M.P., K.D. Stone, and J.A. Cook. 2003. “American marten (Martes americana) in the Pacific 

Northwest: population differentiation across a landscape fragmented in time and space.”

Molecular Ecology 12: 89-103.

Smith, J. 2014. Cultural Resource Investigations in the Wrangell Island Project Area, Southeast Alaska. 

Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service.

Smith, W.P. 2005. Evolutionary diversity and ecology of endemic small mammals of Southeastern Alaska 

with implications for land management planning. Juneau, Alaska: USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory.

Smith, W.P., S.M. Gende, and J.B. Nichols. 2005. “Correlates of microhabitat use and density of 

Clethrionomys gapperi and Peromyscus keeni in temperate rain forests of Southeast Alaska.” Acta 

Zoologica Sinica 51(6): 973-988.

Smith, W.P., and J.V. Nichols. 2004. “Demography of two endemic forest-floor mammals of southeastern 

Alaskan temperate rain forest.” Journal of Mammalogy 85: 540–551.

Sonsthagen, S.A., E.L. McClaren, F.I. Doyle, K. Titus, G.K. Sage, R.E. Wilson, J.R. Gust and S.L. Talbot. 

2012. “Identification of metapopulation dynamics among northern goshawks of the Alexander 

Archipelago, Alaska, and coastal British Columbia.” Conservation Genetics 13: 1045-1057. 

Stathers, R.J., T.P. Rollerson, and S.J. Mitchell. 1994. Windthrow Handbook for British Columbia Forests.

Research Program Working Paper 9401. Penticton, British Columbia: Ministry of Forests, 

Research Program. Available online at: https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/docs/wp/wp01.pdf

(accessed March 14, 2017).

Stensvold, M. 2013. Alaska Region sensitive plants habitat matrix. Unpublished data. Juneau, Alaska: 

USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region.

Stronen, A.V., E.L. Navid, M.S. Quinn, P.C. Paquet, H.M. Bryan and C.T. Darimont. 2014. “Population 

genetic structure of gray wolves (Canis lupus) in a marine archipelago suggests island-mainland 

differentiation consistent with dietary niche.” BMC Ecology 14: 1-9.
4Lists and References

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 280

Suring, L.H., E.J. DeGayner, R.W. Flynn, M.D. Kirchhoff, J.W. Schoen, and L.C. Shea. 1992. “Habitat 

capability model for deer in Southeast Alaska: Winter habitat.” In L.H. Suring, 1993, Habitat 

capability models for wildlife in Southeast Alaska. USDA Forest Service, Juneau, Alaska.

Swanston, D.N. 1974. The Forest Ecosystem of Southeast Alaska, 5. Soil mass movement. Portland, 

Oregon: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. pp. 2-4.

Swanston, D.N. 2006. Assessment of landslide risk to the urban corridor along Mitkof Highway from 

planned logging of Mental Health Trust lands. Unpublished. 19 p. 

Szepanski, M.M., M. Ben-David, and V. Van Ballenberghe. 1999. “Assessment of anadromous salmon 

resources in the diet of the Alexander Archipelago wolf using stable isotope analysis.” Oecologia

120: 327-335.

Tande, G. and R. Lipkin. 2003. Wetland Sedges of Alaska. Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska Natural Heritage 

Program. 

Thomas, J.W., L.F. Ruggiero, R.W. Mannan, J.W. Schoen, and R.A. Lancia. 1988. “Management and 

Conservation of Old-Growth Forests in the United States.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 16(3): 252-

262.

Thompson, I.D., and A.S. Harestad. 1994. “Effects of logging on American martens and models for 

habitat management.” In .W. Buskirk, A.S. Harestad, M.G. Raphael, and R.A. Powell, eds.:

Martens, sables, and fishers biology and conservation. S Ithaca, New York: Cornell University 

Press.

United States Census Bureau. 2010. Wrangell, Alaska Population. Available online 

at: http://censusviewer.com/city/AK/Wrangell (accessed March 15, 2017).

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2013. “Secretary’s Memorandum 1044-009, 

Addressing Sustainable Forestry in Southeast Alaska.” July 2. Washington, DC. Available online 

at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5445760.pdf (accessed March 

15, 2017).

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA Forest Service). 1989. Preliminary 

Forest Plant Associations of the Stikine Area, Tongass National Forest. Technical Paper. R10-TP72. USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region.

USDA Forest Service. 1992. Channel Type User Guide. Technical Publication. R10-TP-26. USDA Forest 

Service, Alaska Region.

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management. Agriculture 

Handbook #701. USDA Forest Service.

USDA Forest Service. 1997a. Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan Final Environmental 

Impact Statement, Parts 1 and 2. Management Bulletin R10-MB-338b. USDA Forest Service.

USDA Forest Service. 1997b. Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan Final Environmental 

Impact Statement, Appendix, Volume 4. Management Bulletin R10-MB-338h. USDA Forest 

Service.

USDA Forest Service. 1998. Wrangell Island Analysis. Management Bulletin R10-MB-371. USDA Forest 

Service, Tongass National Forest. 
Lists and References 4

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 281

USDA Forest Service. 2001a. Aquatic Habitat Management Handbook. Forest Service Handbook 

2090.21. Juneau, Alaska: USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region. Available online 

at: http://www.fs.fed.us/cgi-bin/Directives/get_dirs/fsh?2090.21!r10_ALL (accessed March 15, 

2017).

USDA Forest Service. 2001b. Wrangell Island Bird Checklist. Unpublished document. P. Roberston, 

compiler.

USDA Forest Service. 2006. Soil and Water Conservation Handbook. Forest Service Handbook 2509.22.

USDA Forest Service. 2007a. Wrangell Ranger District, Access and Travel Management Plan, 

Environmental Assessment. Wrangell, Alaska.

USDA Forest Service. 2007b. Wrangell Ranger District Access and Travel Management Plan Decision 

Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact. Wrangell, Alaska.

USDA Forest Service. 2008a. Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan. Management Bulletin.

R10-MB-603b.

USDA Forest Service. 2008b. Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan, Final Environmental 

Impact Statement, Volume 1. Management Bulletin R10-MB-603c.

USDA Forest Service. 2008c. Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan, Final Environmental 

Impact Statement, Volume II - Appendices. Management Bulletin R10-MB-603d.

USDA Forest Service. 2009a. Alaska Region Sensitive Species List. Unpublished document. Juneau, 

Alaska: USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region.

USDA Forest Service. 2009b. U.S. Forest Service History. Available online 

at: http://www.fs.fed.us/learn/our-history/ (accessed March 15, 2017).

USDA Forest Service. 2010a. “Letter to the Tongass Futures Roundtable from Beth Pendleton, Alaska 

Regional Forester.” May 24. Juneau, Alaska: Alaska Region. Available online 

at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5445764.pdf (accessed March 

15, 2017).

USDA Forest Service. 2010b. “Third Programmatic Agreement among the USDA Forest Service, Alaska 

Region, the Advisory Council On Historic Preservation, and the Alaska State Historic 

Preservation Officer Regarding Heritage Program Management on National Forests in the State 

of Alaska.”

USDA Forest Service. 2012. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on 

National Forest System Lands Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical Guide. FS-990a.

USDA Forest Service. 2013a. Forest Health Conditions in Alaska 2012. Protection Report R10-PR-32. 

Anchorage, Alaska: USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region. 89 p.

USDA Forest Service. 2013b. Wrangell-Petersburg Integrated Weed Management Project. EA, DN, and 

FONSI. USDA Forest Service, Tongass National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 2015. Tongass National Forest Wrangell Ranger District; Alaska; Wrangell Island 

Project Environmental Impact Statement: Corrected Notice of Intent. Federal Register Vol. No. 

80, October 27, 2015, pp. 65691-65692. (80 FR 65691)
4Lists and References

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 282

USDA Forest Service. 2016a. Forest Health Conditions in Alaska 2015. A Forest Health Protection 

Report. Protection Report R10-PR-038. Anchorage, Alaska: USDA Forest Service, Alaska 

Region. 90 pp. Available online

at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd491888.pdf (accessed March 15, 

2017).

USDA Forest Service. 2016b. Land and Resource Management Plan. Management Bulletin R10-MB769j. December.

USDA Forest Service. 2016c. Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan, Final Environmental 

Impact Statement Plan Amendment, Volume I. Management Bulletin R10-MB-769e. June.

USDA Forest Service. 2016d. Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan, Final Environmental 

Impact Statement Plan Amendment, Volume II. Management Bulletin R10-MB-769f. June.

USDA Forest Service. 2016e. Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan, Record of Decision.

Management Bulletin R10-MB-769l. December.

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2013. “PLANTS database.” Available online 

at: http://www.plants.usda.gov (accessed March 15, 2017).

United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1986. 

Recovery plan for the Pacific bald eagle. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Queen Charlotte Goshawk Status Review. Juneau, Alaska: USFWS, 

Alaska Region, Juneau Fish and Wildlife Field Office. 173 p.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern. Arlington, Virginia: USDI Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Managements.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Scoping comments for the Wrangell Island project. USDI Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Juneau, AK.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Species status assessment for the Alexander Archipelago wolf 

(Canis lupus ligoni). Version 1.0, December 2015. Alaska Region, Anchorage, Alaska. 162 pp.

United States Geological Survey and USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2013. Federal 

Standards and Procedures for the National Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD). U.S. Geological 

Survey Techniques and Methods 11–A3, 4th edition. 63 p. Available online 

at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/tm11a3/ (accessed March 15, 2017).

University of Alaska Museum Herbarium (UAMH). 2015. ARCTOS specimen database. Retrieved 

January 13, 2012, from http://arctos.database.museum/ (accessed March 15, 2017).

University of Washington. 2015. Consortium of Pacific Northwest Herbaria specimen database. Retrieved 

January 13, 2012, from http://www.pnwherbaria.org/data/search.php (accessed March 15, 2017).

Vennesland, R.G., and R.W. Butler. 2004. “Factors influencing great blue heron nesting productivity on 

the Pacific coast of Canada from 1998-1999.” Waterbirds 27(3): 289-296.

Vennesland, R.G., and R.W. Butler. 2011. “Great blue heron (Ardea herodias).” The Birds of North 

America Online. A. Poole, ed. Ithaca, New York: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Available online 

at: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/025 (accessed March 15, 2017).

Vermillion, R. 2012. Estimating costs of the Tongass Timber Program. Unpublished report. December.
Lists and References 4

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 283

Vose, J.M., D.L. Peterson, and T. Patel-Weynand, editors. 2012. Effects of climatic variability and change 

on forest ecosystems: A comprehensive science synthesis for the U.S. forest sector. General 

Technical Report PNW-GTR-870. Portland, Oregon: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 265 p. 

Wemple, B.C., J.A. Jones, and G.E. Grant 1996. “Channel Network Extension by Logging Roads in Two 

Basins, Western Cascades, Oregon.” Journal of the American Water Resources Association 32: 

1195.

Widén, Per. 1997. “How, and why, is the goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) affected by modern forest 

management in Fennoscandia?” Journal of Raptor Research 31: 107-113.

Wilson, B., C. Woodall, and D. Griffith. 2013. “Imputing forest carbon stock estimates from inventory 

plots to a nationally continuous coverage.” Carbon Balance and Management 8: 1-15. Available 

online at: http://www.cbmjournal.com/content/pdf/1750-0680-8-1.pdf (accessed March 10, 2017).

Wolken, J., T. Hollingsworth, T. Rupp, F. Chapin, III, S. Trainor, T. Barrett, P. Sullivan, A. McGuire, E. 

Euskirchen, P. Hennon, E. Beever, J. Conn, L. Crone, D. D’Amore, N. Fresco, T. Hanley, K. 

Kielland, J. Kruse, T. Patterson, E. Schuur, D. Verbyla, J. Yarie. 2011. “Evidence and implications 

of recent and projected climate change in Alaska’s forest ecosystems.” Ecosphere 2: 124.

Wu, T.H., W.P. McKinnell III, D.N. Swanston. 1979. “Strength of tree roots and landslides on Prince of 

Wales Island, Alaska.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal 16: 19-33.

Ziemer, R.R. 1981. “The role of vegetation in the stability of forested slopes.” Proceedings of the 

International Union of Forest Research Organizations XVII IUFRO World Conference. pp. 297-

308.

Ziemer, R.R., and D.N. Swanston. 1977. Root Strength Changes after Logging in Southeast Alaska. PNW306. Portland, Oregon: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

Index

A

Alaska Mental Health Trust, 2, 14, 16, 57, 64, 65, 66, 68, 

74, 95, 99, 103, 107, 111, 114, 116, 119, 123, 124, 126, 

155, 167, 168, 188, 204, 212, 214, 220, 235, 248, 255, 

261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 268, 270, 276

Alaska rein orchid, 32, 208, 209, 211

Alaska yellow-cedar

decline, 170, 173, 174, 175, 239, 240, 245

regeneration, 173

Aleutian holly fern, 205

annualized jobs, 12, 69, 71, 72, 73

B

biogeographic province, 13, 79, 81, 103

black bear, 77

brown bear, 77, 86, 110

brown creeper, 77, 87, 112

C

Canada goose, 77, 91, 120

carbon sequestration, 30, 169, 171, 173, 174

clearcutting, ii, iv, v, vi, 7, 8, 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 32, 69, 

70, 74, 86, 91, 96, 105, 106, 123, 125, 131, 132, 133, 

154, 176, 182, 188, 212, 226, 233, 241, 243, 245, 251, 

273, 275

climate change, xv, 16, 67, 168, 169, 171

common hawkweed, 216, 217

conservation strategy, 24

corridors (old-growth connectivity), iii, iv, v, vi, 13, 18, 19, 

20, 21, 24, 81, 82, 98, 105, 116, 124, 188, 273, 276

D

decay fungi, 238, 245

deer, 77, 82, 87, 117, 172, 256, 258, 259, 264, 266, 268

deer model, x, xi, 28, 29, 91, 259

distance zones, xvii, 13, 56, 127, 128, 129, 130, 132

Dungeness crab, 196, 257

dwarf mistletoe, 238, 241, 243, 245
4Lists and References

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 284

E

Earl West, iv, v, vi, 9, 13, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 66, 73, 74, 

99, 107, 111, 115, 116, 119, 128, 132, 154, 157, 158, 

167, 168, 177, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 187, 188, 191, 

193, 195, 197, 213, 216, 217, 218, 220, 225, 233, 235, 

247, 262, 263, 265, 267, 268, 270

ecosystem services, 248

Edible thistle, 32, 208, 209, 211

elevational corridor (wildlife), vi, 20, 243, 246

employment, x, xvi, 28, 70, 71

endemic species, 76, 93

Environmental Justice, xv, 15, 67, 205

essential fish habitat (EFH), 2, 196, 197, 198, 199

F

fish passage, 9, 159, 163, 196

fish species, 175, 197

fish stream crossing, 159

fisheries, 2, xiii, 11, 15, 82, 197

floodplains, 15, 55, 184, 198

forest health, 170, 173, 235, 237, 239, 240, 243, 244, 245, 

246, 248

forest health and productivity, 248

G

game management unit (GMU), 57, 257

goshawk, 76, 78, 81, 83, 95, 101

great blue heron, 77, 92, 122

greenhouse gasses, 169, 170, 174

H

hairy woodpecker, 77, 87, 112

Highbush Lake, 11, 129, 132, 225, 233

humpback whale, 76, 77, 80, 82, 83, 94, 95

I

income, xvi, 31, 70, 71, 72, 205

incomplete and unavailable information, 67, 249

invasive plants, 23, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220

inventoried roadless area (IRA), 2, 25, 31, 57, 58, 85, 103, 

106, 108, 234, 262, 269

irreversible and/or irretrievable commitments, i, 1, 64, 

199, 252, 254

K

karst, 67, 80, 200

Kunk Creek, 177, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 

189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196

L

land ownership, x, xi, xvi, xvii, xviii, xix, 11, 13, 28, 29, 58, 

64, 68, 79, 80, 99, 100, 101, 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 

111, 112, 115, 119, 120, 122, 123, 154, 212, 259, 260, 

261, 262

land use designation (LUD), 2, 13, 56, 58, 117, 127, 129, 

130, 131, 132, 133, 153, 164, 213, 236

landings, i, xiv, 22, 33, 209, 210, 252, 271, 273, 274, 275

landslides, 250, 252, 253

log storage, 22, 158

log transfer facility (LTF), 23, 157

logging systems, iv, v, vi, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 74, 218, 

245, 276

Long Lake, iii, iv, vi, 9, 13, 18, 19, 21, 129, 132, 133, 177, 

181, 182, 184, 185, 187, 189, 191, 193, 225, 233, 234, 

253, 272, 273

Lung lichen, 31, 208, 209, 211

M

management indicator species (MIS), 2, xvi, 76, 78, 84, 85, 

86, 87, 91

marbled murrelet, 77, 92, 123

marine access facilities, xiv, 22, 94, 95, 157, 158, 197, 199, 

225

marine environment, 196

marten, xi, 29, 76, 81, 85, 87, 104

mass wasting, 248, 249, 250

McCormack Creek, xiv, 9, 25, 129, 177, 181, 182, 183, 184, 

185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 

273

meadow hawkweed, 216, 217

Midpoint, 221, 227

migratory birds, 15, 78, 94, 125

Mill basin, iii, iv, v, vi, xix, 9, 13, 18, 19, 20, 21, 132, 133, 

147, 227, 234

mitigation and monitoring, 204, 214

Mountain lady’s slipper, 32, 209, 211

N

Nemo Point, 128, 132

Nemo-Skip Loop, 128, 129, 132, 225, 233

North Wrangell, 58, 221, 227

O

Old Hermit, 9, 221, 227

old-growth reserves (OGR), 24, 85

orange hawkweed, 216, 217, 218

otter, 77, 87, 116

oxeye daisy, 216, 217, 218
Lists and References 4

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 285

P

Pat Creek, iv, v, vi, 9, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 66, 73, 157, 

158, 177, 181, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 

191, 192, 193, 195, 197, 216, 254

patch size, 105

present activities, 211

productive old-growth (POG), vi, 21, 102, 235

public involvement, 1, 8, 55

Q

Queen Charlotte goshawk, 76, 78, 81, 83, 95, 101

R

rare plants, 209, 211

recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS), 226

recreation places, 9, 58, 128, 129, 132, 221, 225, 227, 233

red squirrel, 77, 87, 115

red-breasted sapsucker, 77, 87, 112

reed canary grass, 217, 218

Regeneration and Species Composition, 244, 245

riparian management areas, 2, 22, 105, 126, 184, 185, 188, 

189, 190, 192, 194, 198, 199, 253

road

National Forest System, 64, 155, 264, 267

temporary, ii, iii, iv, v, vi, ix, xii, xviii, 7, 14, 18, 19, 20, 

21, 22, 27, 30, 31, 155, 156, 160, 161, 163, 165, 166, 

167, 168, 186, 187, 219, 248, 249, 252, 253, 254, 

262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270

road construction, ix, x, xiv, 25, 27, 28, 75, 251

road density, xi, 29

road maintenance, 64, 70, 131, 156, 160, 162, 210, 218, 

220, 276

road maintenance and reconditioning, 156

rock quarries, 22, 158, 209, 210, 213, 216, 217, 218, 219, 

254, 274

S

Salamander Creek, xiv, 25, 128, 177, 181, 183, 184, 185, 

186, 187, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 225

Salamander Ridge, xix, 9, 129, 151, 225, 233

salmon, 81, 84, 85, 86, 110, 172, 196, 202, 203, 256, 257, 

269, 270

scenic integrity objective (SIO), xvii, 13, 127, 128, 130, 132, 

133, 134, 153

sedimentation and turbidity, 9, 94, 175, 199, 204, 253, 254

short-term use, 156

Silver Bay Mill, 158

silvicultural systems, 236, 240, 242, 243, 245, 246

even-aged management, 32, 240, 241, 245

intermediate treatments, 241

uneven-aged management, 32, 118, 240, 242, 243, 245, 

246

silviculture

species composition, 58, 210, 235, 236, 237, 240, 241, 

243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 273

stand structure, 237, 243

size-density model, 79

small sales, iii, iv, v, vi, xiv, 18, 19, 20, 24, 69, 131

soil productivity, 64, 248, 249, 250, 251, 254, 272

soils

landslides, 155, 175, 198, 210, 248, 251, 253, 254, 255

mass wasting, 248, 249, 250

slopes greater than 67 percent gradient, 255, 256

slopes greater than 72 percent gradient, 248, 255

unstable slopes, 248, 255

stream buffers, 24, 25, 103, 108, 109, 116, 117, 121, 247, 

262, 263, 265, 266, 268, 269

stream class, 175, 198

stream crossing, xviii, 31, 163, 175, 187, 188, 189, 190, 

191, 192, 194, 195, 196, 198, 216, 217, 219

streamflow, 175, 181, 182

subsistence, 12, 69, 87, 155, 172, 204, 256, 259, 262, 263, 

264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271

deer, 77, 82, 87, 117, 172, 256, 258, 259, 264, 266, 268

suitable forest land, 130

T

Thoms Creek, 9, 66, 129, 202, 213, 218, 225, 233

Thoms Lake, 21, 66, 213, 225, 234, 272, 273

threatened, endangered, and sensitive species, xvi, 76, 77, 

82

plants, xv, 65, 67, 205, 206

rare plants, 209, 211, 213

sensitive plants, 31, 32, 208, 209, 211

threeleaf foamflower, 209, 211, 213

timber availability, 55

timber economics, ii, xiv, 55, 65, 66, 68

timber market, xv, 68

trail

temporary, 156

travel management, 2, ii, i, iii, iv, v, vi, xiii, xiv, 1, 8, 14, 18, 

19, 20, 21, 55, 64, 66, 102, 155, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 

164, 165, 166, 220, 227, 234

costs, 165, 166

Tribal consultation, 200

U

unavoidable adverse impacts, 199

V

value comparison unit (VCU), 2, xvi, xvii, xix, 6, 13, 15, 17, 

57, 58, 79, 81, 96, 97, 100, 113, 114, 115, 127, 130, 132, 

133, 153, 154, 235, 247

vegetation, 74, 113, 184, 235, 236, 237

visual priority route (VPR), 2, 127, 241

visual sensitivity, 155

vole, 77, 93, 124
4Lists and References

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 286

W

water quality, 9, 14, 21, 22, 56, 77, 94, 116, 117, 121, 155, 

175, 177, 178, 184, 197, 199, 252, 273

wetlands, 23, 33, 55, 82, 86, 121, 122, 184, 188, 196, 271, 

272, 273, 274, 275, 276

effects, 271, 272, 274, 275, 276

wildlife analysis area (WAA), 2, xi, xvi, xvii, xviii, xix, 13, 29, 

57, 79, 80, 81, 91, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 

104, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 

119, 120, 122, 123, 124, 258, 259, 260, 261, 263, 265, 

266, 267, 268

windthrow, 198, 207, 210, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 241, 

244, 245, 247, 249, 250

wolf, 76, 81, 84, 88, 101

Y

young growth, i, ii, x, xvii, 4, 5, 12, 28, 80, 81, 82, 93, 110, 

112, 121, 122, 131, 153, 154, 242, 245, 247

Yunshookuh, 225

Z

Zimovia Strait, xix, 4, 13, 87, 132, 149, 177, 181, 182, 183,

184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 

195, 196, 225, 233
Appendix A

Rationale for Scheduling 

the Wrangell Island 

Project

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 287

Appendix A - Rationale for Scheduling the Wrangell 

Island Project

Introduction

Coordinated timber harvest project planning is essential for meeting the goals of the Tongass Land and 

Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) and to provide an orderly and predictable flow of timber to the 

local forest products industry. To determine the volume of timber to offer each year, the Forest Service

can look to current market conditions and level of industry operations. However, the planning process for 

timber harvest projects also requires the Forest Service to rely on projections of future harvest levels to 

determine quantity and type of timber harvest projects to initiate each year. Appendix A explains how the 

Forest Service uses information about future markets, observations regarding the past, and current 

conditions to determine the volume of timber harvest that needs to be initiated through the planning 

process on an annual basis. Appendix A relies on the annual timber demand analysis and the most recent 

project schedule.

Appendix A meets two primary objectives: 1) explain why this project was selected for inclusion into the 

Tongass National Forest (Tongass) Timber Program; and 2) explain the basis and components of the 

Tongass Timber Program. To accomplish these objectives, Appendix A addresses the following questions: 

1. How does the Wrangell Island Project fit into the greater Tongass Timber Program? 

2. How does the Forest Service decide where timber harvest projects are located?

3. Why is timber from the Tongass National Forest being offered?

4. How does the Forest Service develop forecasts regarding future timber market demand?

5. What steps must be completed to prepare a contract for offer?

6. How does the Forest Service maintain an orderly and predictable timber program?

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

The Wrangell Island Project is designed to respond to the July 2, 2013 Secretary of Agriculture’s 

Memorandum 1044-009, Addressing Sustainable Forestry in Southeast Alaska, by proposing the 

commercial harvest of old-growth timber that will contribute to the supply of timber needed to maintain 

timber industry infrastructure and job skills during the transition to young-growth management.

Furthermore, the Secretary’s Memorandum 1044-009 reinforced Department intent to maintain Southeast 

Alaska’s natural resources while also supporting economic opportunity for communities located within 

and adjacent to the Tongass National Forest. The Wrangell Island Project, the first proposed timber 

project following the amendment of the Forest Plan (2016), is of particular relevance to maintaining 

timber industry infrastructure, job skills, and supporting local and regional economic opportunity during 

this time of transition. 

This project also contributes to the Tongass Timber Program planning objective of providing an orderly 

flow of timber from planning through harvest to meet timber supply requirements. A position statement 

regarding Wrangell Island Project’s timber sale harvest plan (see Gate 1 – Initial Planning of Timber Sale 

Project) was completed to document that this project warrants additional investment of funds and 

personnel and that it is reasonable to be conducting an environmental analysis at this point in time.

Anticipated budget allocations and resources were sufficient to prepare and offer this project.
Appendix A

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 288

The Wrangell Island Project is currently in Gate 2 – Project Analysis and Design (see Gate 2 – Project 

Analysis and Design (and Decision)) and involves environmental analysis and public disclosure as 

required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). A no-action alternative is also being 

analyzed. If an action alternative is selected in the decision for this project, this volume will be added to 

the volume available for offer. 

This project meets all laws and regulations governing the removal of timber from National Forest System 

lands, including Forest Service policies as described in Forest Service manuals and handbooks, the Forest 

Plan, and Record of Decision. 

Why is This Project Occurring in This Location?

The Wrangell Island Project proposed action is located on Wrangell Island, wholly-within the Wrangell 

Ranger District and encompasses 4,767 acres of National Forest System lands. Site-specific reasons the 

Wrangell Island Project is occurring in this location include accessibility, Forest Plan compliance, land 

suitability, and impacts to other forest uses:

• Access – The project area is on Wrangell Island which has an existing road system to access 

proposed timber harvest units, two existing log transfer facilities that facilitate moving the timber 

off the island if needed for access, and small sawmills. The remaining medium-sized mill in 

Southeast Alaska is on relatively nearby Prince of Wales Island which could process a larger 

timber sale.

• Lack of Available Timber Volume – Much of the volume available to offer (Table 92), it has gone 

through environmental analysis and has a decision (NEPA), is now expected to appraise negative 

since these projects were created during a better market and cannot be offered at this time. See 

Pool 2 – Timber Volume Available for Offer. To maintain the timber industry in the midst of a 

down market and the transition to young growth, this project is needed at this time because it is 

anticipated that positive contracts can be created from the alternatives analyzed even though the 

preliminary financial efficiency analysis results from FASTR is negative as a whole (see FEIS, 

Issue 1).

• Community benefits – The project location is connected to the greater Wrangell community using 

a public road system. Connection to a community, which is also connected by commercial air 

service, barge lines and the Alaska marine Highway system, encourages direct and indirect 

employment and revenue through the supply of personnel, goods, and services. 

• Forest Plan – Proposed harvest units are within lands identified as suitable as established by the 

Forest Plan, appendix A.

• Suitability – The project area contains sufficient acres of suitable forest land to make this timber 

harvest proposal reasonable. Areas with suitable timber need to be considered for harvest in order 

to provide a supply of timber from the Tongass National Forest which 1) meets the annual market 

demand for such forest, and 2) meets the market demand from such forest for each planning 

cycle, pursuant to Section 101 of the Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA). An explanation of 

these market demands is in the decision for the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2016d, pp. 26 

through 31).

• Transition to young-growth management – The 2016 Forest Plan Amendment was designed to 

expedite the Tongass National Forest to transition to young-growth management. Currently, most 

of the mills in Southeast Alaska are configured to handle and manufacture old-growth logs. In 

order for the timber industry to successfully survive this transition, a certain amount of oldgrowth ‘bridge’ timber needs to be offered until the young growth is commercially acceptable for 

the markets. At this time, most of the young-growth market involves export either out of Alaska 
Appendix A

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 289

to other states or overseas. Therefore, in order to supply the local mills, a stable amount of oldgrowth timber must be offered. Wrangell Island is a source for this timber.

• Multiple and differing size of offers – The Wrangell Island Project is designed to be offered over 

several years in multiple timber contract offers. The volume that needs to be logged by helicopter 

may be offered in one contract that may need to be purchased by a larger operator, although 

microsales may also be feasible. Smaller units that can be logged with ground-based equipment 

could be bid on by a small operator. 

• Subsistence – Timber harvest impacts on subsistence resources are projected to have few 

differences based on the sequence of harvest locations across the Tongass National Forest. 

Furthermore, timber harvests in other locations on the Tongass National Forest are expected to 

have similar potential effects on other resources, including subsistence resources, because of 

widespread distribution of subsistence use and other factors. Harvest within other areas is 

foreseeable under the Forest Plan.

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

National Legislation

At the national level, the legislative record is clear regarding the role of the timber program in the 

multiple-use mandate of the national forests. One of the original objectives for creation of national forests 

was to provide natural resources, including timber, for the American public. The Organic Administration 

Act of 1897 (partially repealed in 1976) directed the agency to manage the forests in order to "improve 

and protect the forest ... [and] for the purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to 

furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of the citizens of the United States" 

(emphasis added). The Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 directs the Forest Service to administer 

Federal lands for “outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes.”

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 states that “the Secretary of Agriculture...may 

sell, at not less than appraised value, trees, portions of trees, or forest products located on National Forest 

System lands.” Although the heart of NFMA is the land management planning process for national 

forests, the Act also sets policy direction for timber management and public participation in Forest 

Service decision making. Under NFMA, the Forest Service is directed to “limit the sale of timber from 

each national forest to a quantity equal to or less than a quantity which can be removed from such forest 

annually in perpetuity on a sustained-yield basis.”

NFMA directs the Forest Service to complete land management plans for all units of the National Forest 

System. Forest plans are developed by an interdisciplinary team to provide for the coordination of outdoor 

recreation, range, timber, watershed, wildlife and fish, and wilderness uses. Forest plans designate areas 

of national forest where different management activities and uses are considered appropriate, including 

those areas suitable for timber harvest.

Alaska-Specific Legislation 

Timber volume from the Tongass National Forest is being offered as part of the multiple-use mission of 

the Forest Service identified in the public laws guiding the agency. In addition, Alaska-specific legislation 

and the Tongass Forest Plan directs the Forest Service to seek to provide timber to meet market demand, 

subject to certain limitations.

The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) and the Tongass Timber Reform Act 

(TTRA) provide overall direction on the issue of Tongass National Forest timber supply. TTRA, Section 
Appendix A

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 290

101 deleted ANILCA, Section 705 (a), which mandated a fixed timber supply and fixed budget 

appropriations, and inserted the following:

Sec. 705. (a) Subject to appropriations, other applicable law, and the requirements of the National 

Forest Management Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-588); except as provided in subsection (d) of this 

section, the Secretary shall, to the extent consistent with providing for the multiple use and 

sustained yield of all renewable forest resources, seek to provide a supply of timber from the 

Tongass National Forest which (1) meets the annual market demand for timber from such forest 

and (2) meets the annual market demand from such forest for each planning cycle.

Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan 

The Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), as amended, guides all natural resource 

management activities and establishes management standards and guidelines for the Tongass National 

Forest. It describes resource management practices, levels of resource production and management, and 

the suitability of lands for different kinds of resource management. In short, the Forest Plan embodies the 

provisions of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), the implementing regulations, and other 

guiding documents. The multiple-use goals and objectives, and the land use prescriptions and standards 

and guidelines, constitute a comprehensive statement of the Forest Plan's management direction.

The Forest Plan was completed in 1979 and revised in 1997. The 1997 revision was amended in 2008 to 

respond to a Ninth Circuit Court ruling and the 2005 5-year review. A subsequent amendment was signed 

in December 2016 to transition the Tongass National Forest into young-growth timber management based 

on the Secretary of Agriculture’s issued Memorandum 1044-009 and the 2013 5-year review. The Forest 

Plan defines appropriate activities within each of 19 land use designations (LUDs) and other 

administrative boundaries.

The environmental effects analysis in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Forest 

Plan revision (1997) assumed the maximum timber harvest allowed under each alternative would occur 

annually over the next 100 years. In that way, the Forest Plan analysis could display the maximum 

environmental effects that could be reasonably foreseen using the management practices in place at that 

time. However, substantially less timber volume and acres have actually been harvested than the 

maximum level allowed under the decision for the 1997 Forest Plan. Thus, effects on other resources are 

expected to be less than projected.
Appendix A

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 291

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

USDA Investment Strategy for Creating Jobs and Healthy Communities in 

Southeast Alaska

After consecutive decades of population loss, Southeast Alaska and its 32 communities have experienced 

some population stabilization in recent years. However, socioeconomic community conditions remain 

tenuous with declining school enrollments, high energy costs, and limited job opportunities in many rural 

communities. 

USDA agencies (Farm Service Agency, Forest Service, and Rural Development) and the US Economic

Development Administration (USEDA) have partnered to support community revitalization through 

investment in economic development planning, restoration-based job creation, and community capacity 

building. Overall USDA investment strategy goals include: 

• creating quality jobs and sustainable economic growth; 

• promoting small business creation, expansion, and retention; 

• improving access to capital; and 

• promoting job training and educational opportunities. 

To support regional economic opportunity, USDA agencies collaborated with local business and 

community leaders to implement an industry cluster-based approach to economic development – the 

Southeast Alaska Cluster Initiative as facilitated by the Juneau Economic Development Council (JEDC).

During the past 5 years (2010 to 2015), the USDA invested $1,030,000 in the Southeast Alaska Cluster 

Initiative via primarily Forest Service and Rural Development agencies. June 2015 marked a significant 

milestone for the Southeast Alaska Cluster Initiative as it signified nearly 5 years of USDA investment in 

implementing a strategic approach to regional economic development including economic research, asset 

mapping, cluster work group facilitation, and consult regarding regional economic development 

opportunities. 
Appendix A

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 292

While the Forest Service discontinued funding for the Southeast Alaska Cluster Initiative in 2015, 

significant staff resources remain invested to ensure the long-term sustainability of the overall effort. 

USDA agencies continue to work together to align resources, focus investments, and collaborate to 

encourage economic diversification and community well-being across Southeast Alaska. 

Transition to Young-Growth Timber

On July 2, 2013, the Secretary of Agriculture issued Memorandum 1044-009, Addressing Sustainable 

Forestry in Southeast Alaska, to support the transition away from old-growth timber harvesting towards a 

forest industry based on the utilization of young-growth timber. The memorandum states “to conserve the 

Tongass National Forest under the principles of the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, Tongass 

Timber Reform Act and other relevant statutes, we must speed the transition away from old-growth 

timber harvesting and towards a forest industry that utilizes second-growth – or young-growth – forests.

Moreover, we must do this in a way that preserves a viable timber industry that provides jobs and 

opportunities for residents of Southeast Alaska.” Secretary’s Memorandum 1044-009 provided the 

impetus and guidance for the 2016 Forest Plan Amendment. 

Retaining the existing forest products industry is recognized as critical to the successful transition to a 

predominantly young-growth timber management program; therefore, the transition to young-growth

timber harvest will be managed at a pace that allows industry to adjust, adapt, and develop markets for 

new products. Furthermore, maintaining Southeast Alaska’s forest products industry’s expertise and 

infrastructure is important to supporting the regional economy while also pursuing ongoing development 

of other economic sectors including tourism, recreation, seafood and mariculture, and renewable energy.

The transition’s long-term goal is that the majority of active forest management on the Tongass National 

Forest will be comprised of ecological restoration, young-growth forest management, small and microsale 

old-growth timber sales and pre-commercial thinning. These projects would in turn supply local and 

regional wood products markets.

Old-growth “Bridge Timber”

Pursuant to Secretary’s Memorandum 1044-009, the Forest Service is asked to seek opportunities to 

supply sufficient old-growth “bridge timber” while the industry re-tools for processing young growth. To 

achieve this, a supply of old-growth will continue to be offered while commercial young-growth timber 

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

workforce and retain local knowledge and experience as businesses retool toward smaller diameter wood 

utilization. 

The amount of old-growth “bridge timber” harvested will decrease as more young-growth timber 

becomes economically feasible to harvest until it reaches a value of 5 million board feet (MMBF). The 

actual duration and scale at which old-growth “bridge timber” will be needed is unclear. The decision on 

the Forest Plan Amendment estimated the transition to 41 MMBF, in young-growth timber, will be 

reached at year 16 of implementation. However, this is dependent on many factors including: 1) the role 

of State and private land in contributing timber supply to maintain the timber industry; 2) the availability 

of young growth that is economic to harvest; 3) export and domestic processing policies; and 4) 

fluctuations in domestic and world markets for forest products must be considered, are unpredictable, and 

will influence the overall transition timeframe.
Appendix A

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 293

How Does the Forest Service Develop Forecasts about Future Timber 

Market Demand?

Consistent with the Tongass Timber Reform Act provisions, the Forest Service makes two types of market 

demand forecasts for Tongass National Forest timber. The first, “planning cycle market demand,” 

forecasts long-term demand for timber from the Tongass National Forest over the life of the Forest Plan, 

derived from trends in demand for manufactured end products. Based on these long-term projections, the 

Forest Service also estimates annual market demand in order to determine how much timber to plan to 

offer on an annual basis.

Market Demand for the Planning Cycle

Research economists with the Forest Service’s Pacific Northwest (PNW) Research Station have prepared 

several studies of “planning cycle market demand” for Tongass timber, including general technical reports 

by Brooks and Haynes (1990, 1994, and 1997) and Brackley et al. (2006 and 2008). For the 2016 Forest 

Plan Amendment, a timber demand analysis by Daniels et al. (2016) was used. 

Daniels et al. developed a baseline demand model, projecting from 2015 to 2030, to construct three 

scenarios representing alternative futures for timber harvest – all incorporating a transition from 

predominantly old-growth to young-growth timber harvest. Table 91 shows Daniels et al. (2016) 

projections for the scenarios in terms of total volume. This volume will be a mix of old-growth volume 

and young-growth volume over time. The baseline demand model assumes projected trends in imports, 

consumption, and market share will remain constant. Additional assumptions include softwood log 

exports from all owners will continue at current 5-year average, “other” production will remain constant, 

markets for utility logs and other low-grade material will remain elusive, and the large majority of 

residues are sold. Alternative future scenarios reflect conditions related to changing timber quality, 

growing wood energy markets, and rebounding housing market demand.

Scenario One incorporates the young-growth transition and resulting changing quality of timber from the 

Tongass National Forest over time. It includes a transition period of 10 years of tapering levels of oldgrowth harvest as the industry adjusts and more young growth becomes available. By 2025, old-growth

harvest will be limited to 5 MMBF annually for small and micro sales designed to provide raw material 

for small businesses and specialty products. Prior to 2025, Scenario One reflects the baseline model.

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

Year Baseline

Scenario 1 

Young Growth 

Transition

Scenario 2 

Wood Energy 

Growth

Scenario 3 

Housing Market 

Recovery

2015 40.9 40.9 40.9 40.8

2016 41.6 41.6 41.6 41.6

2017 42.3 42.3 43.4 42.5

2018 43.1 43.1 46.3 43.3

2019 43.8 43.8 49.2 44.1

2020 44.5 44.5 52.1 45.0

2021 45.3 45.3 55.1 45.8

2022 46.0 46.0 58.0 46.7

2023 46.7 46.7 60.9 47.5

2024 47.5 47.5 63.8 48.4

2025 48.2 44.0 63.0 45.0

2026 48.9 44.5 65.7 45.6
Appendix A

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 294

Year Baseline

Scenario 1 

Young Growth 

Transition

Scenario 2 

Wood Energy 

Growth

Scenario 3 

Housing Market 

Recovery

2027 49.7 45.0 68.4 46.2

2028 50.4 45.5 71.0 46.8

2029 51.1 45.9 73.7 47.4

2030 51.9 46.4 76.4 47.9

Annual Average 46.4 44.6 58.1 45.3

Source: Tongass National Forest Timber Demand: Projections for 2015 to 2030 (Daniels et al. 2016)

Note: Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 accommodate the transition to predominately young-growth timber harvest.

Scenario Two builds upon the first scenario by adding markets for wood energy products. It is Forest 

Service policy to support the conversion from distillate fuel to wood-based energy in Southeast Alaska’s 

residential, commercial, and industrial sectors. Expanding markets for biomass energy will impact 

Tongass National Forest timber harvest by generating demand for two biomass sources – sawmill residues 

and low- and utility-grade logs. Scenario Two includes derived demand estimates as the conversion is 

phased in over time.

Scenario Three is motivated by uncertainty in the US housing market – a traditional driver of global 

lumber demand. Notably, Scenario Three assumes a higher trajectory for the market by considering only 

pre-recession (prior to 2007) domestic consumption growth rates. During recent years, US sawnwood 

consumption levels have grown at levels nearly matching those of the pre-recession housing boom. The 

third scenario is based on the possibility that domestic sawnwood demand growth will continue at a prerecession rate throughout the projection period.

Demand for Tongass National Forest timber currently depends on markets for sawnwood and exports of 

softwood logs. Therefore, the model was most sensitive to changes in Pacific Rim log demand. Areas of 

uncertainty include the prospect of continuing changes in markets and competition, the impact of the 

transition to young-growth timber, and the rates of investment in manufacturing in Alaska. While 

transitioning to young-growth management is the purpose of the Forest Plan Amendment, a major step, 

following the example of successful sawmills in the Lower 48, would be for Southeast Alaska’s timber 

industry to retool its equipment to process smaller logs from younger trees. To do so, however, requires 

substantial investment over several years. More information regarding demand for Tongass National 

Forest timber is provided in the Forest Plan Amendment FEIS, appendix G (USDA Forest Service 2016c).

In short, the Wrangell Island Project will contribute to providing critical “bridge” timber to sustain the 

current industry and jobs in Southeast Alaska communities, while market opportunities are developed for 

Tongass young-growth forest products. Therefore, an underlying need exists for a reliable economic 

supply of sawtimber for Southeast Alaska sawmills to help support the timber industry and employment 

through the transition years until the industry can transition to a stable supply of young-growth timber.

Annual Market Demand 

The annual market demand forecast is based on a methodology used to set the short-term goals for the 

Tongass Timber Program – the volume the Tongass National Forest plans to offer in the current year, 

pending sufficient funding and sufficient NEPA-cleared volume.
Appendix A

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 295

The formulas and procedures used in forecasting annual market demand are described in a Forest Service 

report titled Responding to the Market Demand for Tongass Timber (Morse 2000). These procedures, 

which have become known as the “Morse Methodology,” are based on the premise that:

• Forest product markets are volatile, especially in the short run.

• Timber purchasers in Southeast Alaska have few alternative suppliers of timber if they cannot 

obtain it from the Tongass National Forest. Oversupplying this market has relatively few adverse 

economic effects; undersupplying it can have much greater negative economic consequences.

• It takes years to prepare National Forest System timber for sale, including completion of 

environmental impact statements.

• It is difficult to estimate demand for timber from the Tongass National Forest, even a year or two 

in advance.

• Industry must be able to respond to rapidly changing market conditions in order to remain 

competitive.

Accordingly, the Morse Methodology establishes a system that considers factors such as sawmill capacity 

and utilization of that capacity, and seeks to build and maintain sufficient volume of timber under contract 

(i.e., timber purchased but not yet harvested) to allow the industry to react promptly to market 

fluctuations. Industry actions such as annual harvest levels are monitored and timber program targets are 

developed by estimating the amount of timber needed to replace volume harvested from year to year. The 

methodology is adaptive, because if harvest levels drop below expectations and other factors remain 

constant, future timber offerings would also be reduced to levels needed to maintain the target level of 

volume under contract. Conversely, if harvest levels rise unexpectedly, future timber volume targets 

would also increase sufficiently to ensure the inventory of volume under contract is not exhausted. By 

dealing with uncertainty in a flexible, science-based fashion, the Morse Methodology is an example of 

adaptive management.

The Morse Methodology originally used the projected harvest from the final 1997 Brooks and Haynes 

report. These procedures were adjusted (Grewe 2017) to use the annual projected harvest figures and 

scenarios from Daniels et al. 2016 to calculate the annual timber offer. Of noteworthy importance, Daniels 

et al. timber harvest projections inform the implementation of Morse Methodology, but did not result in 

changes to the basic procedure and underlying method outlined by Morse.

For fiscal year 2017, the goal for volume of timber to be offered is 53 MMBF. This goal is not intended to 

represent actual timber purchases. Rather, it reflects the estimated volume of timber the Forest Service 

needs to offer to replace the volume expected to be harvested and help build a 3-year supply of timber 

under contract, which allows the industry to respond to market fluctuations. The actual volume of timber 

offered in any given year, however, reflects a combination of factors including final budget 

appropriations, completing the NEPA process, the practice of offering smaller sales for smaller operators 

rather than all the volume from a NEPA decision, the statutory requirement that timber sales offered in the 

Alaska Region appraise positive, and volume affected by litigation. Due to these factors, the actual 

amount of timber that is offered and sold may be substantially less than the expected timber purchases as 

predicted in the annual demand calculations. The document displaying the most recent annual demand 

calculation and the factors used in these calculations are in the project record. Notably, the planned annual 

timber volume offer could include a combination of new, previously offered, and reconfigured timber 

sales. Both old- and young-growth green timber and salvage sales will be components of this program. 

For planning and scheduling purposes, the Tongass uses a 5-year timber sale plan, which is consistent 

with Forest Service Manual 2430. This 5-year plan is based on completed and ongoing environmental 

analyses, and provides a plan that can be adjusted in response to changing market conditions and the 

NEPA public involvement process. Volume on outlying timber sales are estimates and may adjust 
Appendix A

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 296

considerably over time. The 5-year plan for 2017-2021 has been posted on the Tongass National Forest 

public website https://www.fs.usda.gov/main/tongass/home.

Both the “annual market demand” and the “planning cycle market demand” projections provide guidance 

to the Forest Service to request budgets, to make decisions about workforce and facilities, and to indicate 

the need to begin new environmental analysis for future program offerings. They also provide a basis for 

expectations regarding future harvest, and thus provide an important source of information for 

establishing the schedule of probable future offerings. The weight given to the projections will vary 

depending on a number of factors, such as how recently they were done and how well they appear to have 

accounted for recent, site-specific events in the timber market.

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

The Tongass Timber Program is complex. A number of projects are underway at any given point in time, 

each of which may be in a different stage of planning and preparation. A system of checkpoints, or 

“gates”, helps the Forest Service track the accomplishments of each stage of a project from inception to 

contract termination (See Forest Service Handbook 2409.18 – Timber Sale Preparation).

Gate 1 – Initial Planning of Timber Sale Project

A timber sale project plan, often referred to as a position statement, is a brief analysis of the project area 

with the intent of determining the feasibility of a potential timber sale. After the position statement is 

developed, the Forest Service decides whether the project area merits continued investment of time and 

funds for completion (see Forest Service Handbook 2409.18, chapter 20). 

Gate 2 – Project Analysis and Design (and Decision) 

This stage is commonly referred to as the “NEPA” phase and includes field work, public scoping, analysis 

including a financial efficiency analysis, draft disclosure of the effects of the project on the environment, 

public comment, final analysis and disclosure, decision, and potentially administrative appeals and 

litigation. Gate 2 activities must be completed before a contract is awarded. Legislation, policy changes, 

and appeals and litigation have recently extended completion of some projects, often doubling the desired 

time frame (see Forest Service Handbook 2409.18, chapter 30).

Gate 3 – Sale Plan Implementation and Appraisal (Preparation of a Timber Harvest 

Contract) 

During this stage, the sale plan information and direction included in the decision document from Gate 2 

is used to layout units and design roads on the ground. Additional site-specific information is collected at 

this time. Gate 3 activities need to be complete before a contract is offered for bid (see Forest Service 

Handbook 2409.18, chapter 40).

Gate 4 – Final Package Preparation, Review, Appraisal, and Offering (Advertise a 

Contract) 

The costs and value associated with the timber volume designed in Gate 3 are appraised and packaged in 

a contract. The contract is a legally binding document that tells a prospective contractor how the timber 

must be harvested to conform to the project decision document. This step occurs during the final year of 

the project development and culminates with the advertisement of the project for sale (see Forest Service 

Handbook 2409.18, chapter 50).
Appendix A

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 297

Gate 5 – Bid Opening 

Gate 5 is completed with the opening of bids for the project. If a bid is submitted, contractual provisions 

govern when the award of the contract takes place, the contract length and operation season, and how 

timber removal is to occur (see Forest Service Handbook 2409.18, chapter 60).

Gate 6 – Award a Contract 

Gate 6 is the formal and executed contract between a bidder and the Forest Service (see Forest Service 

Handbook 2409.18, chapter 70).

How Does the Forest Service Maintain an Orderly and Predictable 

Timber Program? 

Pools of Timber (Pipeline Volume) 

As discussed earlier, the Forest Service tracks the accomplishment of the different steps of development 

of each timber harvest contract with the Gate System. From a timber program standpoint, it is also 

necessary to track and manage multiple projects as they move through the Gate System. Because of the 

timeframes needed to accomplish a given timber harvest project and the complexities inherent in that 

project and program development, it is necessary to track various timber program volumes from Gate 1 

through Gate 6.

The goal of the Tongass National Forest is to provide an even flow of timber offerings on a sustainedyield basis to meet market demand. This has been difficult to accomplish due to a combination of 

uncertainties including: 1) delays related to appeals and litigation; 2) changing economic factors, such as 

rapid market fluctuations; and 3) industry-related factors, such as changes in timber industry processing 

capabilities. To achieve an even flow of timber volume offerings, ‘pools’ of volume in various stages of 

the Gate System are maintained so volume offered can be balanced against current year demand and 

market cycle projections.

Today, upward trends in demand are resolved by moving out-year timber projects forward, which may 

leave later years not capable of meeting the needs of the industry. In other instances, a number of new 

projects are started based on today’s market but will not be available for a number of years. By the time 

added projects are ready for offer, the market and demand for this volume may have changed. Three pools 

of timber volume are tracked to achieve an even flow of timber harvest offerings.

The objective of the timber pools concept is to maintain sufficient volume in preparation and under 

contract to be able to respond to yearly fluctuations in a timely manner. Table 92 displays the current 

estimated volume in each pool, as well as the goal which the Tongass has established for the volume to be 

maintained in each pool, based on historic patterns. Objections and litigation can cause timber harvest 

projects to be reevaluated, which can cause delays in making projects available to move through the 

pools, thereby not fully meeting the goals for volumes in each pool.

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

Volume in Gate 1, the initial planning step, represents a large amount of volume. This level offers the 

timber program manager a higher degree of flexibility and thus, does not greatly influence the flow of 

volume through the pipeline. A signed Project Plan (Forest Service Handbook 2409.18, chapter 20) is the 

completion of this gate. A Gate 1 has been completed for the Vallenar young-growth project on Gravina 

Island. Gate 1 reports are also planned to be completed for Prince of Wales Island, Zarembo Island and 

associated islands, Mitkof Island and part of Revillagigedo Island after timber inventory work has been 

completed. The total volume of timber available for each project is unknown until the inventory and 
Appendix A

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 298

analysis is completed. The amount of the volume identified at Gate 1 is subject to change during the Gate 

2 analysis due to mitigation of resource concerns, Responsible Official decisions or public involvement.

Gate 2, timber volume under environmental analysis, includes projects being analyzed and undergoing 

public comment through the NEPA process. This pool includes any project that has started the scoping 

process through those projects ready to have a decision issued. In addition, tracking how much volume is 

involved in appeals or litigation may be necessary to determine possible effects on the flow of potential 

timber projects. A signed NEPA decision (Forest Service Handbook 2409.18, chapter 30) is the 

completion of this gate. Volume affected by objections and litigation is tracked as a subset of this pool 

(table 92). The other area under Gate 2 analysis at this time, in addition to the Wrangell Island project, is 

Saddle Lakes on Revillagigedo Island. Some small projects that are covered under Categorical Exclusions 

are also being analyzed. 

Based on historic patterns, the Tongass National Forest has established a goal for the pipeline volume to 

be maintained in each of the timber pools. The goal for Pool 1 is to be maintained at approximately 4.5 

times the amount of the projected harvest to account for the amount of time to complete projects at 

various stages of analysis. That goal reflects a number of factors which can lead to a decrease in volume 

available, such as a decision in Gate 1 to drop from further analysis in a particular planning area (called 

the “no go” decision), a falldown in estimated volume between Gate 1 and Gate 2, and volume not 

available for harvest due to litigation.

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

Timber volume available for offer includes projects for which environmental analysis has been 

completed, and have had administrative appeals or objections and litigation resolved. Timber in this pool 

can include a combination of new offers, previously offered unsold contracts, and remaining volume from 

cancelled contracts. Enough volume in this pool is needed to maintain flexibility and stability in the 

timber program in order to schedule future offerings with the size and configuration that best meets 

market needs (USDA Forest Service 2016a, p. 2-5). At this time, this may include offering enough oldgrowth timber, such as the Wrangell Island Project, to assist industry to transition to young-growth 

management with a focus on maintaining current critical industry expertise and infrastructure. The goal is 

to maintain Pool 2 at approximately 1.3 times the amount of the projected harvest to allow flexibility and 

stability in offering contracts.

The size and species composition of timber sale contracts need to meet the configuration and markets of 

the Tongass-wide sawmills. The Forest Service plans sale offerings to encourage competitive bidding in a 

range of volumes to provide opportunities for businesses in Southeast Alaska. The goal is to match sale 

sizes to the needs of potential bidders in the area of interest while providing for cost-efficient operations 

(Forest Service Manual 2431.13). 

While there appears to be 153 MMBF volume available to offer that has a completed NEPA analysis and 

decision (Table 92), most of this volume could not or would not be offered at this time for various 

reasons. Although projects may have a NEPA decision, contracts may not be offered from those projects if 

the volume appraises deficit as is the case with several projects with poorer timber or a lower-value 

marketable species mix; no prospective market in that location for that amount of volume; projects were 

either designed for small sales, or otherwise slated for small sales as part of the decision or as part of an 

informal appeal resolution, or if changed circumstances or policy would affect the ability to offer them. 

An estimated 100 MMBF of the total Pool 2 volume would probably appraise negative and cannot be 

offered to be in accordance with the 2017 Appropriations Bill. Two of these larger projects are on the 

north end of the Tongass. A large offer would necessitate appraising it to a mill that can handle that 

amount of volume which would be on Prince of Wales Island increasing the transportation costs beyond 

the value of the timber. Other projects that are not proposed for offer do not have a currently marketable 
Appendix A

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 299

species mix and value, which may include young growth, enough volume to warrant mobilization, or an 

apparent lack of potential bidders based on prior experience. Whether an offer may appraise positive may 

change in the future depending on the market and other factors. If this appears to be the case, then an 

appraisal may be done and the volume offered. 

A steady supply of old-growth timber is needed to support the current mills which are currently designed 

primarily to manufacture and market old-growth timber. Young-growth timber has been mostly destined 

for export. Over time, the existing industry may need to retool or new industries develop that can use 

more smaller-diameter timber typical of young-growth stands in order for the transition to young-growth 

management be successful. Therefore, it is important to look at the mix of old-growth and young-growth 

timber in Table 92 in relationship to the annual FY 17 timber demand. This also aligns with the analysis 

done for the 2016 Forest Plan Amendment (pp. 3-506 through 3-515) and the 2016 Forest Plan 

Amendment decision (pp. 7, 28 through 30). Young-growth timber volume available for offer (49 MMBF

in Pool 2) may not meet the needs of some of the current Southeast Alaska industry participants. 

The amount of volume to be offered annually as small sales is based on a determination of the 

approximate need of sawmills within close proximity of the project area and a consideration of the 

amount of volume currently under contract. Small volume contracts are generally offered in situations 

where: 1) the project is designed to be specifically allocated to small operators; 2) an allocation for 

smaller offers has made during the decision or during informal appeal or objection resolution meetings; 

and 3) harvest is within Phase 2 or 3 lands as determined by the Forest Plan. There are currently about 59 

MMBF with completed environmental analysis (a NEPA-decision) slated for small sales, however, much 

of this volume (about 43 MMBF) is located in the north end of the Tongass National Forest where there 

are fewer small sawmills. 

Delays at Gate 2 have affected contract preparation at Gate 3 and have made scheduling of offers 

uncertain. At Gate 4, contracts have been fully prepared and appraised, and are advertised for bids. This 

allows potential purchasers an opportunity to do their own evaluations of these offerings to determine 

whether to bid, and if so, at what level.

Pool 3 - Timber Volume under Contract (Gate 6)

Timber volume under contract contains the volume that has been sold and a contract awarded to a 

purchaser, but which have not yet been fully harvested. Timber contracts typically give the purchaser 

initially at least three years to harvest and remove the timber purchased; however, they can be extended 

under certain circumstances, such as inoperable periods of weather, injunctions, and other contractual 

delays. Contract length is also based on the amount of timber in the contract and the accessibility of the 

area for mobilization. The longer the contract period, the more flexibility the operator has to remove the 

timber based on market fluctuations. This allows purchasers to have a continuous supply of timber 

volume available for harvest so they can plan their operations while maintaining flexibility for weather 

conditions, market fluctuations, and other unanticipated challenges. Therefore, one of the bases of the 

Morse methodology from which annual demand is determined is to build and maintain sufficient volume 

under contract (USDA Forest Service 2006d, p. 27) and one of the Forest Plan objectives is to maintain 3

years of volume under contract (USDA Forest Service 2006a, p. 2-5). 

In the recent past and currently, maintaining the 3 years of volume under contract for all purchasers has 

been problematic because of lack of NEPA-cleared volume available in locations relatively adjacent to 

processing facilities, competition for certain types of sales in some areas, and the dedication of only 

offering small sales from some projects (see Table 92). This volume of timber is the industry’s dependable 

timber supply, allowing adaptability for business decisions. This practice is not limited to the Alaska 

Region, but is particularly pertinent to Alaska because of the nature of the land base. The relative absence 

of roads, the island geography, the steep terrain, results in the consequent remoteness of much of the 
Appendix A

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 300

suitable timber land base from timber operations necessitates that timber purchasers may need longerthan-average lead times to plan operations, stage equipment, set up camps, and construct roads prior to 

beginning timber harvest activities.

A combination of projected harvest and projected demand is used to estimate the volume needed to 

maintain an even-flow timber program. As purchasers harvest timber, they deplete the volume under 

contract. Timber harvest is then planned and offered to provide the forest products industry the 

opportunity to replace this volume and build or maintain their working inventory. Although there will be 

variation for practical reasons from year to year, in the long-run over both the high points and low points 

of the market cycle, the volume harvested should equal the timber volume sold.

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

Pipeline Pool Volume FY 2017 

Goal

Total timber 

volume

Old-growth 

volume - larger 

operators

Old-growth 

volume - small 

sales only

Young-growth

volume

Pool 1

Volume Under Analysis 

(Gate 1 and 2)

238 1 63 to 115 N/A 4 N/A 4 3 to 4

Pool 2

Volume Available for 

Offer

(Gate 3, Gate 4, Gate 5)

69 2 153 49 59 5 45

Pool 3

Remaining Volume 

Under Contract 

(Gate 6)

159 3 67 6 47 16 4

1 – Volume under analysis includes all timber volume in projects with a completed project plan (Gate 1) up to the completion of the 

decision on the environmental analysis (Gate 2). A range is shown to display the range of volume for the alternatives for the ongoing Gate 2 projects. Volume under analysis goal should be approximately 4.5 times based on the 2017 annual timber demand of 

53 MMBF.

2 – Volume Available for Offer includes the volume that has a completed Gate 2 NEPA document decision. All volume is considered 

whether it appraises deficit, slated for small sales, or may have an interested purchaser. The goal for volume available for offer 

which has a completed Gate 2 NEPA document is to have at least 1.3 times based on the 2017 annual timber demand. However, it 

does not include volume from the four projects involved with the Greenpeace deer model on-going litigation (Case No. 3:08-CV0162-RRB). 

3 – Estimated volume under contract available for harvest as of June 2017 not including settlement contracts as described by 36 

CFR §223.12 and those contracts which are in the process of being terminated. Volume under contract goal is for purchasers to 

have three times the volume under contract – based on 53 MMBF annual timber demand. 

4 –To be determined - Volume for smaller operators is determined either at the Gate 2 decision stage, at Gate 3 or by whether the 

successful bidder of the contract is considered to be a small operator. 

5 – Most of this volume is on the north part of the Tongass National Forest, primarily the Hoonah and Juneau Ranger Districts. Most 

of this volume was restricted by a decision to offer only small sales. Other volume is within Phase 2 lands as identified through the 

Tongass Timber Program Adaptive Management Strategy (USDA Forest Service 2016d, p. 6).

How Objections and Litigation Affect the Tongass Timber Program

Timber harvest projects require site-specific environmental analysis that usually is documented in an 

environmental assessment (EA) or an environmental impact statement (EIS). The public is notified of the 

analysis and is provided the opportunity to comment on project proposals. 

This project will go through a pre-decisional administrative review process (36 CFR §218), which 

became effective March 27, 2013. This pre-decisional administrative review process is commonly 

referred to as an objection process. Under this process, individuals and entities may file objections after 

an environmental analysis document is completed but before a decision document is signed. This process 

builds on early participation and collaboration efforts, with the intent of resolving concerns before a 
Appendix A

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 301

decision is made. Often, to resolve points made during the objections process, the Objections Decision 

Officer requests that additional analysis is performed which may delay the scheduling of timber volume 

offers from the project.

After a project has advanced through the objection process, the project can still be litigated. Although 

litigation does not always preclude offering timber volume, the Forest Service and potential purchasers 

are often reluctant to enter into a contract where the outcome is uncertain. Since litigation can be a 

lengthy process, litigation can also affect the Tongass National Forest’s ability to provide a reliable timber 

supply. Often with an unfavorable decision, the court will vacate the project’s decision and no volume can 

be offered from that project. As of June 2017, the NEPA volume under litigation totals 33.4 MMBF and 

involves the Scott Peak, Overlook, Soda Nick, and Traitors Cove projects.

How Does The Forest Service Decide Where Timber Harvest Projects 

Should Be Located?

The first consideration for where timber harvest projects should be located is to determine where the 

Forest Plan allows timber harvest to occur. The Forest Plan used the two-step process from the 2012 

Planning Rule as outlined in FSH 1909.12, chapter 60. This results of this process are documented in 

Forest Plan, Appendix A, Identification of Lands Suitable for Timber Harvest Production and Limitations 

on Timber Harvest (USDA Forest Service 2016c). 

The first step of this process is to identify and eliminate from consideration those lands not suitable for 

timber production based on legal and technical factors. This includes those lands where timber harvest is 

prohibited by statue, executive order, regulation or where administratively withdrawn. Examples of these 

include wilderness, national monuments, land use designation (LUD) II areas, stream buffers identified 

under the TTRA, Section 103, and inventoried roadless areas. Also included in the first step of the process 

are those lands not physically capable, such as non-forested lands, low-productive forest, lands that may 

be irreversibly damaged such as high-vulnerability karst, very steep unstable slopes or land that may not 

be able to be restocked with trees. The second step of this process includes the limitation of lands where 

the Forest Plan land use designation does not allow timber production, such as those classed as nondevelopment LUDs or where prohibited by other standards and guidelines. In total, the Forest Plan ROD 

identified 338,973 acres of young growth and 229,606 acres of old growth where timber harvest is 

allowed (USDA Forest Service 2016d, p. 9). 

Forest-level and District-level Planning 

The Tongass National Forest’s Forest Fupervisor is responsible for the overall management of the Tongass 

Timber Program. Included within these responsibilities is making the determination on the amount of 

timber volume to be made available to industry. Whether or not sufficient funding is appropriated to attain 

the program is the responsibility of the U.S. Congress and the President.

Using the land base where timber harvest is allowed, District Rangers develop a 5-year plan of potential 

timber harvest projects. The goal of the plan is to attain a forest offer level for the current year, and to 

develop a timber program for several years of the planning cycle. The offer level for the current year is 

based, to the extent possible, on the forecasted annual market demand. Actual demand may fluctuate from 

year to year due to short-term market fluctuations. Actual offer levels vary year to year depending on 

several factors, including volume in Gates 2 through 3, and current market conditions.

The District Ranger’s role is to develop and recommend to the Forest Supervisor timber harvest projects 

that meet Forest Plan goals and objectives. Districts work on various timber harvest projects 

simultaneously, resulting in continual movement of projects through the stages of the timber program 

pipeline. This schedule allows the necessary time to complete preliminary analysis, resource inventories, 
Appendix A

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 302

environmental documentation, field layout preparations and permit acquisition, appraisal of timber 

resource values, advertisement of contract characteristics for potential bidders, bid opening, and physical 

award of the contract. Project delays through the completion of Gate 2 attributable to legal injunctions 

and litigation have affected the offer level in recent years. Once all of the rangers’ recommendations are 

made and compiled into a consolidated schedule, the Forest Supervisor is responsible for the review and 

approval of the final timber harvest plan and prioritization of projects as necessary. 

Considerations the District Ranger takes into account for each project include:

• If the project area contains a sufficient number of suitable timber acres and if the timber being 

considered for harvest can be achieved while meeting Forest Plan direction.

• Other resource uses and potential future uses of the area and of adjacent areas and of nonNational Forest System lands.

• Areas where the investment necessary for project infrastructure (i.e., roads, bridges) is achievable 

with the estimated value of timber volume in the project area. The contract would allow any 

maintenance and upgrade of the facilities necessary for removal of timber volume where 

infrastructure already exists. 

• Areas where investments for the project coincide with long-term management based on Forest 

Plan direction. 

The implementation of timber projects depends in part on the final budget appropriation to the agency. In 

the event insufficient budget is allocated, or resolution of pending litigation or other factors delay 

projects, timber harvest projects are selected and implemented on a priority basis. Generally, the higherpriority projects where investments such as road networks, camps or log transfer facilities have already 

been established or where land management status is not under dispute. The distribution of projects across 

the Tongass National Forest is also taken into account to distribute the effects and to provide timber 

volume in proximity to timber processing facilities. Timber harvest projects scheduled for the current year 

that are not implemented, or the remaining volume of projects that are only partially implemented, are 

shifted to future years in the plan. The multi-year plan becomes very dynamic in nature due to the number 

of influences on each district.

Conclusion

There is a long legislative history and recognition that timber harvest is one of the appropriate activities 

on national forests, starting with the founding legislation for national forests in 1897. The Organic 

Administration Act provides that national forests may be established “to improve and protect the forest 

within the boundaries, or for the purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to furnish a 

continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of the citizens of the United States.”

US Congress’ policy for national forests, as stated in the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, is 

“the national forests are established and shall be administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, 

watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes.” Accordingly, US Congress authorizes the US Department of 

Agriculture’s secretary to sell trees and forest products from the national forests “at no less than appraised 

value.” The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) further directs that forest plans shall “provide for 

multiple use and sustained yield, and in particular, include coordination of outdoor recreation, range, 

timber, watershed, wildlife, fish and wilderness.” The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act 

(ANILCA) further provided for timber harvest from the Tongass National Forest as well as other uses 

such as subsistence. Effects on subsistence resources from timber harvest Tongass-wide are projected to 

have few differences based on the sequence in which areas are harvested. Because of the multiple use 

mandate and other requirements of the laws, these effects to subsistence are necessary, consistent with 

sound management of public lands. 
Appendix A

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 303

In addition to nationwide statutes, Section 101 of the Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA) directs the 

Forest Service to seek to meet market demand for timber from the Tongass, subject to certain 

qualifications. It is the goal of the Tongass National Forest to provide an even-flow of timber on a 

sustained-yield basis and in an economically efficient manner. The amount of timber offered each year is 

based on the objective of offering enough volume to meet projected annual demand. That annual demand 

projection starts with installed mill capacity, and then looks to industry rate of capacity utilization under 

different market scenarios, the volume under contract, and a number of other factors, including 

anticipated harvest and the range of expected timber purchases.

As described by Morse (April 2000), in terms of short-term economic consequences, oversupplying the 

market is less damaging than undersupplying it. If more timber is offered than purchased in a given year, 

the unsold volume is still available for re-offer in future years. Conversely, a short fall in the supply of 

timber can be financially devastating to the forest products industry.

References

Brackley, A.M. and R.W. Haynes. 2008. Timber Products Output and Timber Harvests in Alaska: An 

Addendum. Res. Note PNW-RN-559. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

Brackley, A.M., T.D. Rojas, and R.W. Haynes. 2006. Timber products output and timber harvests in 

Alaska: projections for 2005-25. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-677. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 33 p.

Brooks, D.J. and R.W. Haynes. 1997. Timber products output and timber harvests in Alaska: projections 

for 1997-2010. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-409. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 17 p.

Daniels, J.M., M.D. Paruszkiewicz and S.J. Alexander. 2016. Tongass National Forest timber demand, 

projections for 2015 to 2030. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-934. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 53 p.

Grewe, N. 2017. Tongass National Forest: Updated Timber Sale Procedures. USDA Forest Service 

Region 10, Juneau, AK. 9 p. On file with: Regional Economist, Alaska Region, Juneau, AK 

99802.

Morse, K.S. 2000a. Responding to the Market Demand for Tongass Timber: Using Adaptive Management 

to Implement Sec. 101 of the 1990 Tongass Timber Reform Act. April 2000. Management 

Bulletin. R10-MB-413. Juneau, AK: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Alaska 

Region. 43 p.

Morse, K.S. 2000b. Tongass National Forest Timber Sale Procedures: Using Information About Market 

Demand to Schedule FY2001 Timber Sale Offerings. October 2000. On file with: Regional 

Economist, Ecosystem Planning. Juneau, AK: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Alaska Region. 17 p.

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Juneau, AK: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Alaska Region, Tongass National Forest. R10-MB481a.

USDA Forest Service. 2013. Secretary’s Memorandum 1044-009, Addressing Sustainable Forestry in 

Southeast Alaska. 

USDA Forest Service. 2016a. Land and Resource Management Plan, Tongass National Forest. R10-MB769j. December.
Appendix A

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 304

USDA Forest Service. 2016b. Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan, Final Environmental 

Impact Statement Plan Amendment, Volume I. R10-MB-769e. June.

USDA Forest Service. 2016c. Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan, Final Environmental 

Impact Statement Plan Amendment, Volume II. R10-MB-769f. June.

USDA Forest Service. 2016d. Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan, Final Environmental 

Impact Statement Plan Amendment, Record of Decision. R10-MB-769l. December.
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights 

regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in 

or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, 

religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital 

status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or 

reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA 

(not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or 

incident. 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., 

Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or 

USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay 

Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other 

than English. 

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, 

AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or 

write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To 

request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA 

by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: 

program.intake@usda.gov . 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.

Federal Recycling Program

Printed on Recycled Paper